Verse 16, 17

[⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Syr. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] the death of him is declared, shewed, argued, or proved. Mors intercedat necesse est. Necesse est mortem intercedere. Ar. Necesse est mortem ferri; which is not proper in the Latine Tongue: however there is an emphasis in [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], more than is expressed by intercedo. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Syr. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], of him that made it; of the Testator. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Syr. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] in him that is dead, in mortuis; among them that are dead. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], vulg. confirmatum est; and so the Syriac: ratum est, more proper. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Syr. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] There is no use, profit or benefit in it. Ar. nunquam valet; quandoquidem nunquam valet; nondum valet; it is not yet of force.

For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be brought in the death of the Testator. For a Testament is firm (or ratified) after men are dead; otherwise it is of no force while the Testator liveth.

There is not much more to be considered in these verses, but only how the observation contained in them, does promote and confirm the argument which the Apostle insists upon. Now this is to prove the necessity and use of the death of Christ, from the nature, ends and use of the Covenant, whereof he was the Mediator. For it being a Testament, it was to be confirmed with the death of the Testator. This is proved in these verses from the notion of a Testament, and the only use of it among men. For the Apostle in this Epistle does argue several times, from such usages among men, as proceeding from the principles of reason and equity, were generally prevalent among them. So he does in his discourse concerning the assurance given by the oath of God, Chap. 6. And here he does the same from what was commonly agreed upon; and suitable to the reason of things, about the nature and use of a Testament. The things here mentioned were known to all, approved by all, and were the principal means of the preservation of peace and property in humane societies. For although Testaments as to their especial regulation owe their original to the Roman Civil Law; yet as to the substance of them, they were in use among all mankind from the foundation of the world. For a Testament is the just determination of a man's will concerning what he will have done with his goods after his decease. Or, it is the will of him that is dead. Take this power from men, and you root up the whole foundation of all industry and diligence in the world. For what man will labor to increase his substance, if when he dies, he may not dispose of it to those which by nature, affinity, or other obligations, he has most respect to? Therefore the foundation of the Apostle's arguing from this usage among men, is firm and stable.

Of the like nature is his observation, that a Testament is of no force while 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 while he is alive, as by sale, or gift, it is not a Testament, nor has 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, from where 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 [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], which yet is of consideration also, as has 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 has respect to. For he speaks not of the death of Christ merely as it was death, which is all that is required to 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 to a Covenant, and is no way required to a Testament. Whereas therefore the word may signify either a Covenant or a Testament precisely so called, the Apostle has respect to both the significations of it. And having in these verses mentioned his death, as the death of a Testator, which is proper to a Testament, in the 14th verse and those that follow, he insists on his blood as a sacrifice which is proper to a Covenant. But these things must be more fully explained, whereby the difficulty which appears in the whole context will be removed.

To the confirmation or ratification of a Testament, that it may be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], sure, stable, and of force, there must be death, the death of the Testator. But there is no need that this should be by blood, the blood of the Testator, or any other. To the consideration of a Covenant, blood was required, 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. Therefore 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 Testament, and what was required to them, he evinceth it by that which was essential to them both, in a Covenant as such, and in a Testament precisely so called. That which is most eminent and essential to a Testament, is, that it is confirmed and made irrevocable by the death of the Testator. And that which is the excellency 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, v. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Therefore 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 to the heirs of Promise, of grace and glory, it has the nature of, and he dyed as the Testator, whereby the grant of the inheritance was made irrevocable to 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 has 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 to 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 dyed; 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.

The consideration hereof solves all the appearing difficulties in the nature and manner of the Apostle's argument. The word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] whereunto respect is here had, is, as we have shewed, of a large signification, and various use. And frequently it is taken for a free grant and disposition of things by promise, which has the nature of a Testament. And in the Old Covenant, there was a free grant and donation of the inheritance of the Land of Canaan to the people, which belongs to the nature of a Testament also. Moreover both of them, a Covenant and a Testament, do agree in the general nature of their confirmation, the one by blood, the other by death. Hereon the Apostle in the use of the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], does diversly argue both to the nature, necessity and use of the death of the Mediator of the New Testament. He was to dye in the confirmation of it as it was a Testament, he being the Testator of it; and he was to offer himself as a Sacrifice in his blood, for the establishment of it, as it had the nature of a Covenant. Therefore the Apostle does not argue as some imagine, meerly from the signification of the word, whereby, as they say, that in the original is not exactly rendred. And those who have from hence troubled themselves and others about the authority of this Epistle, have nothing to thank for it, but their own ignorance of the design of the Apostle, and the nature of his argument. And it were well if we all were more sensible of our own ignorance, and more apt to acknowledge it, when we meet with difficulties in the Scripture, than for the most part we are. Alas! how short are our lines, when we come to fathom the depths of it! How inextricable difficulties do appear sometimes in passages of it, which when God is pleased to teach us, are all pleasant and easie!

These things being premised, to clear the scope and nature of the Apostle's argument, we proceed to a brief exposition of the words.