Hebrews 9 — Verse 15

And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Testament, they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

The things which are to be considered in this verse are, (1) The note of connexion in the conjunction; And. (2) The ground of the ensuing assertion. For this cause. (3) The assertion itself. He is the Mediator of the new Testament. (4) The especial reason why he should be so. For the redemption of transgressions under the first Testament. (5) The way whereby that was to be effected. By the means of death. (6) The end of the whole; That those who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

But before we proceed to the exposition of the whole or any part of it, a difficulty must be removed from the words as they lie in our translation: for an enquiry may be justly moved, why we render the word [in non-Latin alphabet] by a Testament in this place, whereas before we have constantly rendered it by a Covenant. And the plain reason of it is, because from this verse to the end of the chapter, the Apostle argues from the nature and use of a Testament among men, as he directly affirms in the next verse. Hereby he confirms our faith in the expectation of the benefits of this [in non-Latin alphabet], that is Covenant or Testament. We may answer he does it because it is the true and proper signification of the word. [in non-Latin alphabet] is properly a testamentary disposition of things; as [in non-Latin alphabet] is a Covenant. For in the composition of the word there is nothing to intimate a mutual compact or agreement, which is necessary to a Covenant; and is expressed in [in non-Latin alphabet]. However there is a great affinity in the things themselves: for there are Covenants which have in them free grants and donations, which is of the nature of a Testament. And there are Testaments whose force is resolved into some conventions, conditions and agreements which they borrow from the nature of Covenants. So there is such an affinity between them as one name may be expressive of them both.

But against this it will be replied that what the Apostle speaks to is in the Hebrew called [in non-Latin alphabet], that is a Covenant and no where signifies a Testament; so that from there the Apostle could not argue from the nature of a Testament what is required thereunto, and what does depend thereon. Hereunto it is answered that the LXX constantly rendering [in non-Latin alphabet] Berith by [in non-Latin alphabet], and not by [in non-Latin alphabet], the Apostle made use of that translation and that signification of the word. But this will not solve the difficulty; for it would resolve all the Apostle's arguings in this great and important mystery, into the authority of that translation which is fallible throughout, and (at least as it is come to us) filled with actual mistakes. We must therefore give another answer to this objection. Therefore I say,

(1) The word [in non-Latin alphabet] could not be more properly rendered by any one word than by [in non-Latin alphabet]. For it being mostly used to express the Covenant between God and Man, it is of that nature as cannot properly be termed [in non-Latin alphabet], which is a Covenant or compact upon equal terms of distributive justice between distinct parties. But God's Covenant with man, is only the way and the declaration of the terms whereby God will dispose and communicate good things to us, which has more of the nature of a Testament than of a Covenant in it.

(2) The word [in non-Latin alphabet] is often used to express a free promise with an effectual donation and communication of the thing promised, as has been declared in the foregoing chapter; but this has more of the nature of a Testament than of a Covenant.

(3) There is no word in the Hebrew language whereby to express a Testament but [in non-Latin alphabet] only. Nor is there so in the Syriac: their [in non-Latin alphabet] is nothing but [in non-Latin alphabet]. The Hebrews express the thing by [in non-Latin alphabet] to order, dispose, give command concerning the house or household of a dying man (Isaiah 38:2; 2 Samuel 17:23). But they have no other word but Berith to signify it; and therefore where the nature of the thing spoken of requires it, it is properly rendered a Testament and ought so to be.

Therefore there is no force used to the signification of the word in this place by the Apostle. But that which makes the proper use of it by him evident in this place, is that he had respect to its signification in the making of the Covenant with the people at Sinai: for this he compares the New Testament to in all its causes and effects. And in that Covenant there were three things;

1. The prescription of obedience to the people on the part of God, which was received by their consent in an express compliance with the law and terms of it (Deuteronomy 5:14). Herein the nature of it, so far as it was a Covenant, did consist.

2. There was a promise and conveyance of an inheritance to them, namely of the land of Canaan, with all the privileges of it. God declared that the land was his, and that he gave it to them for an inheritance. And this promise or grant was made to them without any consideration of their previous obedience, out of mere love and grace. The principal design of the book of Deuteronomy is to inlay this principle in the foundation of their obedience. Now the free grant and donation of an inheritance of the goods of him that makes the grant is properly a Testament. A free disposition it was of the goods of the Testator.

3. There was in the confirmation of this grant, the intervention of death. The grant of the inheritance of the land that God made was confirmed by death, and the blood of the beasts offered in sacrifice, whereof we must treat on verses 18, 19, 20. And although Covenants were confirmed by Sacrifices, as this was, so far as it was a Covenant, namely, with the blood of them; yet as in those Sacrifices death was comprised, it was to confirm the testamentary grant of the inheritance. For death is necessary to the confirmation of a Testament, which then could only be in type and representation; the Testator himself was not to die, for the establishment of a typical inheritance.

Therefore the Apostle having discoursed before concerning the Covenant as it prescribed and required obedience, with promises and penalties annexed to it: He now treats of it, as to the donation and communication of good things by it, with the confirmation of the grant of them by death; in which sense it was a Testament and not a Covenant properly so called. And the arguing of the Apostle from this word, is not only just and reasonable; but without it we could never have rightly understood the typical representation that was made of the death, blood and sacrifice of Christ in the confirmation of the New Testament as we shall see immediately.

This difficulty being removed, we may proceed in the exposition of the words.

That which first occurs is the note of connexion in the conjunction, And. But it does not here, as sometimes, infer a reason of what was spoken before, but is emphatically expletive, and denotes a progress in the present argument; as much as, Also, Moreover.

2. There is the ground of the ensuing assertion, or the manner of its introduction; For this cause. Some say that it looks backward, and intimates a reason of what was spoken before, or why it was necessary that our consciences should be purged from dead works by the blood of Christ, namely, because he was the Mediator of the new Covenant; others say it looks forward and gives a reason why he was to be the Mediator of the new Testament; namely, that by the means of death for the transgressions, &c.

It is evident that there is a reason rendered in these words of the necessity of the death and sacrifice of Christ, by which alone our consciences may be purged from dead works. And this reason is intended in these words, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. For this cause. And this necessity of the death of Christ, the Apostle proves both from the nature of his office, namely, that he was to be the Mediator of the new Covenant, which, being a Testament, required the death of the Testator; and from what was to be effected thereby, namely, the redemption of transgressions and the purchase of an eternal inheritance. Therefore these are the things which he has respect to in these words For this cause.

But withal the Apostle in this verse enlarges his discourse, as designing to comprehend in it the whole dispensation of the will and grace of God to the Church in Christ, with the ground and reason of it. This reason he lays down in this verse, giving an account of the effects of it in those that follow: Hereunto respect is had in this expression.

For the exposition of the words themselves, that is the declaration of the mind of the Holy Ghost, and nature of the things contained in them, we must leave the order of the words and take that of the things themselves. And the things ensuing are declared in them.

(1) That God designed an eternal inheritance to some persons. (2) The way and manner of conveying a right and title thereunto was by promise. (3) That the persons to whom this inheritance is designed, are those that are called. (4) That there was an obstacle to the enjoyment of this inheritance, which was transgression against the first Covenant. (5) That this obstacle might be removed, and the inheritance enjoyed, God made a New Covenant; because none of the rites, ordinances, or sacrifices of the first Covenant could remove that obstacle, or expiate those sins. (6) The ground of the efficacy of the New Covenant to this end, was, that it had a Mediator, an High Priest, such as had been already described. (7) The way and means whereby the Mediator of the New Covenant did expiate sins under the Old, was by death; nor could it otherwise be done, seeing this New Covenant, being a Testament also, required the death of the Testator. (8) This death of the Mediator of the new Testament did take away sins by the redemption of them. For the redemption of transgressions. All which must be opened for the due exposition of these words.

1. God designed to some an eternal inheritance. And both the reason of this grant, with the nature of it must be enquired into. (1) As to the reason of it; God in our first creation gave to man, whom he made his Son and Heir as to things here below, a great inheritance of mere grace and bounty. This inheritance consisted in the use of all the creatures here below, in a just title to them, and dominion over them. Neither did it consist absolutely in these things, but as they were a pledge of the present favor of God, and of man's future blessedness upon his obedience. This whole inheritance man forfeited by sin. God also took the forfeiture, and ejected him out of the possession of it, and utterly despoiled him of his title to it. Nevertheless he designed to some another inheritance; even that should not be lost, that should be eternal. It is altogether vain and foolish to seek for any other cause or reason of the preparation of this inheritance, and the designation of it to any person, but only his own grace, bounty, his sovereign will and pleasure. What merit of it, what means of attaining it could be found in them, who were considered under no other qualifications but such as had wofully rejected that inheritance which before they were instated in? And therefore is it called an inheritance, to mind us that the way whereby we come to it, is gratuitous adoption, and not purchase or merit.

(2) As to the nature of it; it is declared in the adjunct mentioned, it is eternal. And it is so called in opposition to the inheritance which by virtue of the first Testament God granted to the Israelites in the Land of Canaan. That was an inheritance and was conveyed by a promise. And when God threatened to deprive them of that Land, he said he would disinherit them (Numbers 14:12). And this inheritance consisted not only in the Land itself, but principally in the privileges of holy worship and relation to God which they enjoyed therein (Romans 9:5). But yet all things that belonged to it, were in themselves carnal and temporary, and only types of good things to come. In opposition hereunto God provided an eternal inheritance. And as the state of those who are to receive it, is twofold, namely, that in this life, and that in the life to come; so there are two parts of their inheritance; namely, grace and glory: for although grace be bestowed and continued only in this life, yet the things we enjoy by virtue of it are eternal. The other part of their inheritance is, glory, which is the way of the full, unchangeable possession and enjoyment of it. This therefore is not to be excluded from this inheritance, at least as the end and necessary consequent of it. But that which is principally and in the first place intended by it, is that state of things whereinto believers are admitted in this life. The whole inheritance of grace and glory was in the first place given and committed to Jesus Christ. He was appointed Heir of all things (chapter 1:3). By him is it communicated to all believers, who thereby become heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ (Romans 8:15, 16, 17). For the Lord Christ as the great Testator did in and by his death bequeath to them all his goods, as an eternal legacy. All that grace, mercy and glory, all the riches of them which are prepared in the Covenant are comprised herein. And a goodly inheritance it is, the lines are fallen to believers in pleasant places. And the way whereby we become interested in this inheritance, is by gratuitous adoption. If sons, then heirs.

This is that which is the end of all, and regulates all that precedes in this verse. It declares the way whereby God would communicate to some persons the inheritance which in free grace and bounty he had provided. And,

It is an act of mere sovereign grace in God to provide such a blessed inheritance for any of them, who had sinfully cast away what they were before entrusted withal. And into this are all God's following dealings with the Church to be resolved. If there were nothing in us to move God to provide this inheritance for us, no more is there of the communication of any part of it to us, as we shall see further on the next words.

2. The way whereby God did convey or would communicate this inheritance to any, was by promise [Might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance.] The Syriac Translation refers the inheritance to the called: Those that are called to an eternal inheritance. But in the original it respects the promise; the promise of an eternal inheritance: for by the promise is assurance given of it, and it is the means of the actual conveyance of it to us. And the Apostle has respect to what he had discoursed about the promise of God, and the confirmation of it by his oath (chapter 6:15, 16, 17, 18). So he declares it also (Galatians 3:18). The promise made to Abraham and confirmed by the oath of God, was concerning the eternal inheritance by Christ. The inheritance of Canaan was by the Law, or the first Covenant; but this was by promise. And we may consider three things: (1) What is the promise intended. (2) How and why it was by promise. (3) How we do receive the promise of it.

1. The promise principally intended, is that which was given to Abraham and confirmed by the oath of God: for the inheritance, that is, the eternal inheritance was of the promise (Galatians 3:18), namely, that in the seed of Abraham all nations should be blessed. It includes indeed the first promise made to our first parents, which was the spring and foundation of it, and respects all the following promises concerning the Lord Christ and the benefits of his mediation, with all the grace which is administered by them, which were further declarations and confirmations of it; but that great solemn promise is principally intended: for the Apostle designs to convince the Hebrews that neither by the Law, nor the sacrifices, nor ordinances of it, they could come to the inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed. This was the promise of eternal inheritance, whereof that of the Land of Canaan was a type only.

2. We must enquire how and why this inheritance is conveyed by promise. And God made this settlement by promise for these ends;

(1) To evince the absolute freedom of the preparation and grant of it. The promise is everywhere opposed to every thing of works or desert in ourselves. It has no respect to what we were or did deserve. The Land of Canaan was given to the posterity of Abraham by promise. And therefore does God so often mind them of the freedom of it, that it was an act of mere love and sovereign grace, which in themselves they were so far from deserving as that they were altogether unworthy of it (Deuteronomy 9:4, 5; chapter 7:7, 8). Much less has the promise of the eternal inheritance respect to any thing of works in ourselves.

(2) To give security to all the heirs of it to whom it was designed. Hence in this promise and the confirmation of it, there was the highest engagement of the faithfulness and veracity of God. There was so to the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed (Romans 4:16). Therefore God does not only declare the relation of it to his essential truth; God who cannot lie has given this promise of eternal life (Titus 1:1), but confirmed it with his oath, that by two immutable things wherein it was impossible that God should lie, it might be established. The reasons of the use and necessity hereof, have been declared on chapter 6:17, 18.

(3) It was thus conveyed and is communicated by Promise to all the heirs of it in their successive generations, that the way of obtaining this inheritance on our part, might be by faith and no otherwise: for what God had only promised does necessarily require faith to its reception and faith only. There is nothing can contribute ought to an interest in the Promise, but the mixing of it with faith (chap. 4:2). And it is of faith that it may be of grace (Romans 4:16), namely, that it may be evidenced to be of the mere grace of God in opposition to all worth, works and endeavours of our own. And if all grace and glory, all benefits of the mediation of Christ, our sanctification, justification and glorification, be an inheritance prepared in grace, conveyed by Promise, and received by faith, there is no place left for our own works with reference to the procurement of an interest in them. Freely it was provided, freely it is proposed, and freely it is received.

3. We may enquire what it is to receive the promise. And it has a double sense. (1) As the Promise may be considered formally or materially. To receive the Promise formally as a Promise, is to have it declared to us, and to mix it with faith, or to believe it. This it is to receive the Promise in opposition to them by whom it is rejected through unbelief. So Abraham is said to receive the Promises (Hebrews 11:17), in that when they were given to him, he staggered not through unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God (Romans 4:21, 22). As the Promise is materially considered, so to receive it, is to receive the thing promised. So it is said of the saints under the old Testament that they obtained a good report through faith, but received not the Promise (Hebrews 11:39). They received the Promises by faith in them as proposed; but the principal thing promised, that was the coming of Christ in the flesh, they received not. The receiving of the Promise here mentioned is of both kinds according to the distinct parts of this inheritance. As to the future state of glory, we receive the promise in the first way; that is, we believe it, rest upon it, trust to the truth of God in it, and live in the expectation of it. And the benefit we receive hereby, as to our spiritual life and consolation, is inexpressible. As to the foundation of the whole inheritance in the oblation and sacrifice of Christ, and all the grace, mercy and love, with the fruits of them, whereof in this life we are made partakers, and all the privileges of the Gospel, believers under the new Testament receive the Promise in the second sense; namely, the things promised. And so did they also under the old Testament, according to the measure of the divine dispensation towards them. And we may observe,

1. All our interest in the Gospel inheritance depends on our receiving the Promise by faith. Though it be prepared in the counsel of God, though it be proposed to us in the dispensation of the Gospel, yet, unless we receive the Promise of it by faith, we have no right or title to it.

2. The conveyance and actual communication of the eternal inheritance by Promise to be received by faith alone, tends exceedingly to the exaltation of the glory of God, and the security of the salvation of them that do believe. For, as to the latter, it depends absolutely on the veracity of God, confirmed by his oath. And faith on the other hand is the only way and means of ascribing to God the glory of all the holy properties of his nature which he designs to exalt in this dispensation of himself.

Thirdly, the persons to whom this inheritance is designed, and who do receive the promise of it, are those that are called. It is to no purpose to discourse here about outward and inward calling, effectual and ineffectual, complied with or not: no other are intended but those that actually receive the Promise. It was the design of God in this whole dispensation that all the called should receive the Promise, and if they do not so, his counsel, and that in the greatest work of his wisdom, power and grace, is frustrate. They are the called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28), those who obtain the inheritance being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will (Ephesians 1:11). God here puts forth his almighty power, that his purpose or the counsel of his will may be established in giving the inheritance to all that are called. Whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified, or gave them the whole eternal inheritance (Romans 8:10). Hence Estius an expositor of the Roman Church charges the contrary opinion in Catharinus as unorthodox. It is not a general call wherein those who are so called, may or may not receive the inheritance: but what God designs to them that are intended, they are so called as that they shall assuredly be made partakers of it. This is the end that God designed in the dispensation of himself by Jesus Christ here declared, and therefore respect is had thereunto, in the whole of it.

Some think that by the called here, those only are intended, who were so under the old Testament. For mention is made only of the redemption of transgressions under that covenant; in what sense, shall be immediately declared. But this is contrary both to the design of the Apostle, and the use of the word. For on that supposition he says no more, but that Christ was the Mediator of the new Testament, that those might be saved who lived and died under the old. But his principal design is to prove the advantage that we now have, even above the elect themselves under the old Testament; yet so, as not to exclude them from the same benefit with us by the mediation of Christ as to the substance of it. And the called in the language of this Apostle, does principally signify the called in Christ Jesus.

Effectual vocation is the only way of entrance into the eternal inheritance. For it is accompanied with adoption, which gives us right and title thereunto (John 1:12). In vain do they expect it who are not so called.

Fourthly, things being thus prepared in the counsel and grace of God, yet there was an obstacle in the way of actual receiving the promise; namely, the transgressions that were under the first Testament. God designed to the elect an eternal inheritance; yet can they not be made partakers of it, but in such a way as was suited to his glory. It was unjust and unreasonable that it should be otherwise. Whereas therefore they were all of them guilty of sin, their sins must be expiated, and taken out of the way, or they cannot receive the promise of the inheritance.

[in non-Latin alphabet] Our word transgressions does properly express the original word. And in the distribution of sins by their names into [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet] (Leviticus 16:21), we render [in non-Latin alphabet] by it. But it comprises all sorts of sins whereby the law is transgressed, be they great or small. Every thing that has the nature of sin must be expiated, or the inheritance cannot be enjoyed.

Though God will give grace and glory to his elect, yet he will do it in such a way, as wherein and whereby he may be glorified also himself. Satisfaction must be made for transgression, to the honor of his righteousness, holiness and law.

There are yet sundry difficulties in this expression, which must be enquired into.

1. The redemption or expiation of sins, is confined to those under the Old Testament; from where it should seem that there is none made for those under the New.

Ans. The emphasis of the expression, sins under the Old Testament, respect either the time when the sins intended were committed, or the Testament against which they were committed. And the preposition [in non-Latin alphabet] will admit of either sense. Take it in the first way, and the argument follows à fortiori, as to the sins committed under the New Testament, though there be no expiation of sins against it, which properly are only final unbelief and impenitency. For the expiation intended is made by the Mediator of the New Testament. And if he expiated the sins that were under the first Testament, that is of those who lived and died while that Covenant was in force, much more does he do so, for them who live under the administration of that Testament, whereof he is the Mediator. For sins are taken away by virtue of that Testament whereunto they do belong. And it is with peculiar respect to them, that the blood of Christ is called the blood of the New Testament, for the redemption of sins.

But yet more probably the meaning may be, the sins that were and are committed against that first Covenant, or the law and rule of it. For whereas that Covenant did in its administration comprise the Moral Law, which was the substance and foundation of it, all sins whatever have their form and nature with respect thereunto. So sins under the first Covenant, are all sins whatever: for there is no sin committed under the Gospel, but it is a sin against that law which requires us to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and all our strength. Either way the sins of them who are called under the New Testament, are included.

2. It is enquired whether it is the nature of the sins intended, that is respected, or the persons guilty of them also under that Testament. The Syriac Translation avoids this difficulty, by rendering the words of the abstract, the redemption of transgressions, in the concrete, a redeemer to them who had transgressed. That it is a certain sort of sins that is intended, Socinus was the first that invented. And his invention is the foundation of the exposition not only of Schlictingius, but of Grotius also on this place. Such sins they say they are, as for which no expiation was to be made by the sacrifices of the law; sins of a greater nature than could be expiated by them. For they only made expiation of some smaller sins, as sins of ignorance, or the like. But there is no respect to the persons of them who lived under that Testament, whom they will not grant to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. Therefore according to them, the difference between the expiation of sin by the sacrifices of the law, and that by the sacrifice of Christ, does not consist in their nature, that the one did it only typically, and in an external representation by the purifying of the flesh, the other really and effectually; but in this, that the one expiated lesser sins only, the other greater also.

But there is nothing sound or consonant to the truth in this interpretation of the words.

(1) It proceeds on a false supposition, that there were sins of the people, (not only presumptuous sins, and which had impenitency in them) for which no atonement was made, nor expiation of them allowed, which is expressly contrary to (Leviticus 16:16, 21). And whereas some offences were capital among them, for which no atonement was allowed to free the sinner from death, yet that belonged to the political rule of the people, and hindered not but that typically all sorts of sins were to be expiated.

(2) It is contrary to the express design of the Apostle. For he had proved before by all sorts of arguments, that the sacrifices of the law could not expiate any sin, could not purge the conscience from dead works; that they made nothing perfect. And this he speaks not of this or that sin, but of every sin wherein the conscience of a sinner is concerned (Chap. 10:2). Hence two things follow.

First, that they did not, in and of themselves, really expiate any one sin, small or great. It was impossible, says the Apostle, that they should do so (Hebrews 10:4), only they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh; which overthrows the foundation of this exposition.

Secondly, that they did typify and represent the expiation of all sorts of sins whatever, and made application of it to their souls. For if it was so, that there was no atonement for their sins, that their consciences were not purged from dead works, nor themselves consummate, but only had some outward purification of the flesh, it cannot be but they must all eternally perish. But that this was not their condition the Apostle proves from hence, because they were called of God to an eternal inheritance, as he had proved at large concerning Abraham (Chap. 6). Hence he infers the necessity of the mediation and death of Christ, as without the virtue whereof, all the called under the first Covenant must perish eternally, there being no other way to come to the inheritance.

3. Whereas the Apostle mentions only the sins under the first Covenant as to the time passed before the Exhibition of Christ in the flesh, or the death of the Mediator of the New Testament, what is to be thought of them who lived during that season, who belonged not to the Covenant, but were strangers from it, such as are described (Ephesians 4:12)? I answer: The Apostle takes no notice of them, and that because, taking them generally, Christ died not for them. Yes, that he did not so, is sufficiently proved from this place. Those who live and die strangers from God's Covenant, have no interest in the Mediation of Christ.

Wherein the Redemption of these Transgressions did consist, shall be declared in its proper place. And we may observe,

1. Such is the malignant nature of sin, of all transgression of the law, that unless it be removed, unless it be taken out of the way, no person can enjoy the promise of the eternal inheritance.

2. It was the work of God alone to contrive, and it was the effect of infinite wisdom and grace to provide a way for the removal of sin, that it might not be an everlasting obstacle against the communication of an eternal inheritance to them that are called.

Fifthly, we have declared the design of God here represented to us, who are the persons towards whom it was to be accomplished, and what lay in the way as a hindrance of it. That which remains in the words, is the way that God took, and the means that he used, for the removal of that hindrance, and the effectual accomplishment of his design.

This in general was first, the making of a New Testament. He had fully proved before, that this could not be done by that Covenant against which the sins were committed, neither by the Priests, nor Sacrifices, nor any other duties of it. Therefore had he promised the abolition of it, because of its weakness and insufficiency to this end, as also the introduction of a new to supply its defects, as we have seen at large in the Exposition of the foregoing Chapter. For it became the wisdom, goodness and grace of God, upon the removal of the other for its insufficiency, to establish another that should be every way effectual to his purpose, namely, the communication of an eternal inheritance to them that are called. But then the enquiry will be, How this Covenant or Testament shall effect this end; what is in it, what belongs to it that should be so effectual, and by what means it might attain this end. All these are declared in the words. And

Sixthly, in general all this arose from hence, that it had a Mediator; and that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, was this Mediator. The dignity of his Person, and thereon both the excellency and efficacy of his Priestly Office, whereunto alone respect is had in his being called here a Mediator, he had abundantly before demonstrated. Although the word in general be of a larger signification, as we have declared on Chapter 8:6, yet here it is restrained to his Priestly Office, and his acting therein. For whereas he had treated of that alone in the foregoing Chapter, here declaring the grounds and reasons of the necessity of it, he says, for this cause is he the Mediator. And proceeding to show in what sense he considers him as a Mediator, does it by his being a Testator and dying, which belongs to his Priestly Office alone. And the sole end which in this place he assigns to his Mediatory Office, is his death. That by means of death. Whereas therefore there were sins committed under the first Covenant, and against it, and would have been so for ever, had it continued, which it was no way able so to take away as that the called might receive the Inheritance, the Lord Christ undertook to be the Mediator of that Covenant, which was provided as a remedy against these evils. For herein he undertook to answer for and expiate all those sins. Whereas therefore expiation of sin, is to be made by an act towards God with whom alone Atonement is to be made, so as that they may be pardoned, the Mediation of Christ here intended, is that whereby suffering death in our stead, in the behalf of all that are called, he made Atonement for sin.

But moreover God had a further design herein. He would not only free them that are called from that death which they deserved by their sins against the first Covenant, but give them also a right and title to an eternal inheritance, that is, of grace and glory. Therefore the procurement hereof also depends on the Mediation of Christ. For by his obedience to God in the discharge thereof, he purchased for them this inheritance, and bequeathed it to them as the Mediator of the New Testament.

The provision of this Mediator of the New Testament is the greatest effect of the infinite wisdom, love and grace of God. This is the center of his eternal counsels. In the womb of this one mercy, all others are contained. Herein will he be glorified to eternity.

(1) The first Covenant of Works was broken and disannulled, because it had no Mediator.

(2) The Covenant at Sinai had no such Mediator as could expiate sin. Hence,

(3) Both of them became means of death and condemnation.

(4) God saw that in the making the New Covenant, it was necessary to put all things into the hand of a Mediator, that it 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.

Seventhly, 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 Mediator procured the effect mentioned. That which in the foregoing verse is ascribed to the Blood of Christ, which he offered as a Priest, is here ascribed to his death, as a Mediator. For both these really are the same; only in the one, the thing itself is expressed, it was death; in the other, the manner of it, it was by blood; in the one, what he did and suffered, with respect to 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 to the end mentioned, that the Mediator 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 to transgressions 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 begotten 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 to 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 confirmation of his doctrine to his death, but to his resurrection from the dead. Neither indeed do they allow any gracious effect to his death, either towards God or men, but only make it something necessarily antecedent to 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 has any influence into them: therefore (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 not a surety for us to God. Neither do they assign this to his death, but to his resurrection from the dead. But suppose all this, and that the death of Christ were in some sense useful and profitable to these ends, which is all they plead; yet what use and advantage was it of, with respect to 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 to 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, considering the kind of death that he died. But what they cannot do, the Apostle does in the next words.

Eighthly, the death of the Mediator of the New Testament, was for the redemption of transgressions, and for this end it was necessary. Sin lay in the way of the enjoyment of the inheritance which grace had prepared. It did so in the righteousness and faithfulness of God. Unless it were removed, 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 to on their account, by the payment of a satisfactory price. The words used to express it, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 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 redemption. 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 to 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 does expiate sins; they, that he does it by an act of power in Heaven, where there is no use of his blood. He says that his death was necessary to, and was the means or cause of the redemption of transgressions, that is, to be a price of redemption or just compensation for them; they contend that no such thing is required thereunto. And whereas the Scriptures do plainly assign the expiation of sin, redemption, reconciliation and peace with God, sanctification and salvation to 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.

Besides the particular observations which we have made on the several passages of this verse, something may yet in general be observed from it. As,

1. A New Testament providing an eternal inheritance in sovereign grace, the constitution of a Mediator, such a Mediator for that Testament in infinite wisdom and love, the death of that Testator for the redemption of transgressions, to fulfil the Law, and satisfy the justice of God, with the communication of that inheritance by promise to be received by faith in all them that are called, are the substance of the mystery of the Gospel. And all these are with wonderful wisdom comprised by the Apostle in these words.

2. That the efficacy of the mediation and death of Christ extended itself to all the called under the Old Testament, is an evident demonstration of his divine nature, his pre-existence to all these things, and the eternal Covenant, between the Father and him about them.

3. The first Covenant did only forbid and condemn transgressions, redemption from them is by the New Testament alone.

4. The glory and efficacy of the New Covenant, and the assurance of the communication of an eternal inheritance by virtue of it, depend hereon, that it was made a Testament by the death of the Mediator; which is farther proved in the following verses.