death and blood-shedding. This respected not the confirmation of the old covenant, but was the abolition of it; and the old was confirmed with the blood of beasts, as the apostle expressly declares, ch. ix. 18, 19.

3. The Lord Christ was indeed in his divine person, the immediate administrator of that covenant, the angel and messenger of it on the behalf of God the Father; but this doth not constitute him a mediator properly; for a mediator is not of one, but God is one.

4. The Lord Christ was a Mediator under that covenant, as to the original promise of grace, and the efficacy of it, which were administered therein; but he was not the Mediator and Surety of it as it was a covenant; for had he been so, he being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, that covenant could have never been disannulled.

Secondly, Some assert Moses to have been the surety of the Old Testament. For so it is said, that the law was given by the disposition of angels in the hand of a mediator, Gal. iii. 19. that is, of Moses, whom the people desired to be the internuncius between God and them, Exod. xx. 19. Deut. v. 24. ch. xviii. 16.

Answ. 1. Moses may be said to be the Mediator of the old covenant, in a general sense, in as much as he went between God and the people, to declare the will of God unto them, and to return the profession of obedience from them unto God. But he was in no sense the surety thereof. For on the one side God did not appoint him in his stead, to give assurance of his fidelity unto the people. This he took absolutely unto himself, in those words wherewith all his laws were prefaced, "I am the Lord thy God." Nor did he, nor could he, on the other side, undertake unto God for the people; and so could not be esteemed in any sense the surety of the covenant. 2. The apos tle hath no such argument in hand, as to compare Christ with Moses, nor is he treating of that office wherein he compares him with him, and prefers him above him, which was his prophetical office, whereof he had before discoursed, ch. iii. 4—7. Wherefore,

Thirdly, It was the high priest alone who was the surety of that covenant. It was made and confirmed by sacrifices, Psal. 1. 5. as we shall see more at large afterwards, chap. ix. 19, 20. And if Moses were concerned herein, it was as he executed the of fice of the priest in an extraordinary manner. Therefore the high priest offering solemn sacrifices, in the name and on the behalf of the people, making atonement for them according to the terms of that covenant, supplied the place of the surety thereof. And we may observe, that,

Obs. VIII. How good and glorious soever any thing may appear to be, or really be in the worship of God, or as a way

of our coming to him, or walking before him; if it be not ratified in and by the immediate suretiship of Christ, it must give way unto that which is better; it could be neither durable in itself, nor make any thing perfect in them that made use of it. Secondly, In what is positively asserted in the words, we may observe,

1. The person who is the subject spoken of, and that is Inves, Jesus.' He had in general declared the nature of the priesthood of him who was to have that office, according to the or der of Melchisedec. But he had not yet in this whole chapter, that is, from the beginning of this discourse, mentioned who that person was, or named him. But here he makes application of the whole unto him: it is Jesus who in all these things was intended. And this he doth suitably unto his design and occasion. For two things were in question among the Hebrews. 1. What was the nature of the office of the Messiah. 2. Who was the person. For the first of these, he proves unto them from their own acknowledged principles, that he was to be a priest, as also what was the nature of that priesthood, and what would be the necessary consequents of the setting up that office in the church, and the exercise of it: this his whole precedent discourse is designed unto. Now he asserts the second part of the difference, namely, that it was Jesus who is this priest, because in him alone do all things concur that were to be in that priest, and he had now discharged the principal part and duty of that office.

It was sufficient for the church of the Jews to believe in the Messiah, and to own the work of redemption which he was to accomplish. Nor did the mere actual coming of Christ make it absolutely necessary that they should all immediately be obliged to believe him to be the person. Many, I doubt not, died after his incarnation, and went to heaven, without an actual belief that it was he who was their Redeemer. But their obligation to faith towards that individual person, arose from the declaration that was made of him, and the evidences given to prove him to be the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. So he tells those to whom he preached, and who saw his miracles, "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins," John viii. 24. It would not now suffice them to believe in the Mes siah in general, but they were also to believe that Jesus was he, or they must perish for their unbelief. Howbeit they only were intended, who, hearing his words and seeing his miracles, had sufficient evidence of his being the Son of God. Of others in the same church, this was not as yet required. Nor, it may be, doth our Saviour oblige them immediately unto faith in this matter, only he declares what would be the event with them, who upon his accomplishment of his work in the earth, and the sending of the Holy Ghost after his ascension, whereby he gave the prin

cipal declaration and evidence of his being the Messiah, should continue in their unbelief. Hereon, and not before, the belief in his individual person, in Jesus the Son of God, became the foundation of the church; so that whoever believed not in him, did die in their sins. Wherefore, the apostles, immediately upon the coming of the Holy Ghost, made this the first and principal subject of their preaching, namely, that "Jesus was the Christ." See Acts ii. iii. iv. v. So our apostle in this place, having asserted the nature of the office of the promised Messiah, makes an application of it unto his person, as he also had done, chap. ii. 9. And we may observe that,

Obs. IX. All the privileges, benefits and advantages of the offices and mediation of Christ, will not avail us, unless we reduce them all unto faith in his person. Indeed it is not so much what is done, though that be inconceivably great, as by whom it is done, namely, Jesus the Son of God, God and man in one person.

It is a matter of somewhat a surprising nature, that divers in these days, do endeavour to divert the minds and faith of men, from a respect unto the person of Christ. Were it not that the crafts of Satan have made nothing, be it ever so foolish or impious in religion, to seem strange, a man could not but admire, how such an attempt should be either owned or countenanced. For my part, I must acknowledge, that I know no more of Christian religion, but what makes me judge, that the principal trouble of believers in this world, lies herein, that they can no more fervently love, nor more firmly believe in the person of Christ, than what they have as yet attained unto. But this notion hath been vented and carried on among us, by persons who, out of an aim after things novel and contrary to the received faith, have suffered themselves to be imposed on by those, who have other principles than what they seem to own. For the Socinians, denying the divine nature of Christ, do (in the pursuit of that infidelity) their utmost to take the minds of men from a regard unto his person, and would reduce all religion unto a mere obedience to his commands. And indeed, there can be no place for that divine faith in him, trust on him, and love unto him, which the church always professed, if it be supposed that he is not God and man in one person. And their reasonings, they are to this purpose, which some represent unto us, who yet will not avow that principle from whence alone they are taken and do rise. But so long as we can hold the Head, or this great foundation of religion, that the Lord Christ is the eternal Son of God, which alone gives life and efficacy unto his whole work of mediation, our faith in all its actings will be reduced unto his person: there it beginneth, there it endeth. It is Jesus who is this Mediator and surety of the covenant, in whose person God redeemed the church with his own blood.

2. That which is affirmed of this person is, that he was made a surety.

6

1. The way whereby he became so, is expressed by ysyon, he was made so.' So is this word used with respect unto him, chap. i. 4. of the same importance with another, translated appointed,' chap. iii. 2. and it signifies what is expressed, chap. v. 5. The places may be consulted, with our exposition of them. Respect is had herein, unto the acts of God the Father in this matter. What those acts of God are, whether eternal or temporal, that did concur unto, or any way belong unto the investiture of Christ in his offices, I have at large declared on chap. i. 1-3. And more particularly for what concerns his priesthood, it hath been handled apart in our exercitations on that subject. But we may here also observe, that

Obs. X. The whole undertaking of Christ, and the whole efficacy of the discharge of his office, depends on the appointment of God, even the Father.

3. It is affirmed that he was thus made, appointed or constituted, that is, by God himself, a surety, which is farther declared by the addition of that whereunto his suretiship had a respect, namely, a better covenant; xglovos dias. Of the proper signification of the word dia, and its use, we must treat expressly afterwards. Here we shall only observe, that in this word the apostle takes many things as granted among the Hebrews. As,

1. That there was to be another covenant or testament of God, with and towards the church, besides that which he made with Israel, when he brought them out of Egypt. The promises hereof are so frequently repeated in the prophets, especially those who prophesied towards the latter end of their church-state, that there could be no question about it, nor could they be ignorant of it.

2. That this new covenant or testament, should be better than the former, which was to be disannulled thereby. This carried along with it, its own evidence. For after God in his wisdom and goodness had made one covenant with his people, he would not remove it, abolish it, and take it away by another, unless that other were better than it; especially declaring so often as he doth, that he granted them this new covenant, as the highest effect of his grace and kindness towards them. And that indeed it was expressly promised to be a better covenant than the former, we shall see in the next chapter, if we live and God will.

3. It is supposed that this better covenant must have a surety. The original covenant that God made with Adam, had none, and therefore was it quickly broken and disannulled. The especial covenant made with Israel, had no surety, properly so called. Only therein the high-priest did represent what was to be done by any one that should undertake to be such a surety

Of the word yes and its signification, we have spoken before. And in our inquiry into the nature of this suretiship of Christ, the whole will be resolved into this one question, namely, whether the Lord Christ was made a surety only on the part of God unto us, to assure us that the promise of the covenant on his part should be accomplished, or also an undertaker on our part, for the performance of what is required, if not of us, yet with respect unto us, that the promise may be accomplished. The first of these is vehemently asserted by the Socinians, who are followed by Grotius and Hammond, in their annotations on this place.

The words of Schlictingius are:-Sponsor fœderis appellatur Jesus, quod nomine Dei nobis spoponderit, id est, fidem fecerit, Deum fœderis promissiones servaturum esse. Non verò quasi pra nobis spoponderit Deo, nostrorumve debitorum solutionem in se receperit. Nec enim nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Christus ad nos venit, fœdus nobiscum panxil, ejusque promissiones ratas fore spopondit et in se recepit, ideoque nec sponsor simpliciter sed feederis sponsor nominatur Spopondit autem Christus pro fæderis divini veritate, non tantùm quatenus id firmum ratumque fore verbis perpetuò testatus est, sed etiam quatenus muneris sui fidem maximis rerum ipsarum comprobavit documentis, tum perfectá vitæ innocentia et sanctitate, lum divinis planè qua patravit operibus, tum mortis adeò truculentæ, quam pro doctrinæ suæ veritate subiit, perpessione. After which, he subjoins a long discourse, about the evidences which we have of the veracity of Christ. And herein we have a brief account of their whole opinion concerning the mediation of Christ. The words of Grotius are: Spopondit Christus, i. e. nos certos promissi fecit, non solis verbis sed perpetuâ vitæ sanctitate, morte ob id toleratá, et miraculis plurimis, which are an abridgment of the discourse of Schlictingius. To the same purpose Dr Hammond expounds it, that he was a sponsor or surety for God unto the confirmation of the promises of the covenant.

On the other hand, the generality of expositors, ancient and modern, of the Roman and Protestant churches, affirm that the Lord Christ as the surety of the covenant, was properly a surety or undertaker unto God for us, and not a surety or undertaker unto us for God. And because this is a matter of great importance, wherein the faith and consolation of the church is highly concerned, I shall insist distinetly upon it.

And first, we may consider the argument that is produced to prove, that Christ was only a surety for God unto us. Now this is taken neither from the name nor nature of the office or work of a surety, nor from the nature of the covenant whereof he was a surety, nor of the office wherein he was so. But the sole argument insisted on, is, that we do not give Christ as a surety of the covenant unto God, but he gives him unto us,