Verse 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩; unde; hence, Therefore, Syr. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, propter hoc, quia, propter. For this cause. And hence it is: Arab. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, Syr. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, was confirmed, dedicatum fuit; was dedicated, consecrated, separated to sacred use.

⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, Syr. When the whole command was enjoined. Vul. Lat. lecto omni mandato legis: The command of the Law being read; taking ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ and ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ for the same. Arias exposito secundum legem. Most cum recitasset; having repeated, recited, namely out of the Book.

⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩. The Syriac reads only ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, of a heifer; as the Arabic omits ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ also, of goats, it may be in compliance with the story in Moses, without cause, as we shall see. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ is omitted in the Syriac.

Whereupon neither the first (Testament) was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of calves and of goats with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the Book and all the people; saying, This is the blood of the Testament which God has enjoined to you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood, both the Tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

What we have before observed is fully confirmed in this discourse; namely, that the Apostle intended not to argue absolutely and precisely from the name and nature of a testament properly so called, and the use of it among men. For he makes use of these things no further, but as to what such a testament has in common with a solemn covenant; which is, that they are both confirmed and ratified by death. Therefore it was necessary that the new Testament, as it was a testament, should be confirmed by death; and as it had the nature of a covenant, it was to be so by such a death as was accompanied by blood-shedding. The former was proved before from the general nature and notion of a testament; the latter is here proved at large from the way and manner, whereby the first Covenant was confirmed or dedicated.

But the Apostle in this discourse does not intend merely to prove that the first Covenant was dedicated with blood, which might have been dispatched in a very few words. But he declares moreover in general what was the use of blood in sacrifices on all occasions under the Law; whereby he demonstrates the use and efficacy of the blood of Christ, as to all the ends of the new Covenant. And the ends of the use of blood under the old Testament he declares to have been two; namely purification and pardon, both which are comprised in that one of the expiation of sin. And these things are all of them applied to the blood and sacrifice of Christ in the following verses.

In the exposition of this context we must do three things: (1) Consider the difficulties that are in it. (2) Declare the scope, design, and force of the argument contained in it. (3) Explain the particular passages of the whole.

1. Sundry difficulties there are in this context which arise from hence, that the account which the Apostle gives of the dedication of the first Covenant, and of the Tabernacle, seems to differ in sundry things from that given by Moses, when all things were actually done by him, as it is recorded (Exodus 24). And they are these that follow.

1. That the blood which Moses took, was the blood of calves and goats, whereas there is no mention of any goats or their blood, in the story of Moses.

2. That he took water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, to sprinkle it withal; whereas none of them are reported in that story.

3. That he sprinkled the Book in particular; which Moses does not affirm.

4. That he sprinkled all the people; that is, the people indefinitely, for all the individuals of them could not be sprinkled.

5. There are some differences in the words, which Moses spake in the dedication of the Covenant, as laid down ver. 20.

6. That he sprinkled the Tabernacle with blood, and all the vessels of it; when at the time of the making, and solemn confirmation of the Covenant, the Tabernacle was not erected, nor the vessels of its ministry yet made.

For the removal of these difficulties some things must be premised in general; and then they shall all of them be considered distinctly.

1. This is taken as fixed, that the Apostle wrote this Epistle by divine inspiration. Having evidence here of abundantly satisfactory, it is the vainest thing imaginable, and that which discovers a frame of mind disposed to cavil at things divine, if from the difficulties of any one passage, we should reflect on the authority of the whole, as some have done on this occasion. But I shall say with some confidence, he never understood any one chapter of the Epistle, no, nor any one verse of it aright, who did or does question its divine original. There is nothing human in it, that savours, I mean, of human infirmity, but the whole and every part of it, are animated by the wisdom and authority of its Author. And those who have pretended to be otherwise minded on such slight occasions as that before us, have but proclaimed their own want of experience in things divine.

2. There is nothing in all that is here affirmed by the Apostle, which has the least appearance of contradiction to any thing that is recorded by Moses in the story of these things. Yes, as I shall show, without the consideration and addition of the things here mentioned by the Apostle, we cannot aright apprehend nor understand the account that is given by him. This will be made evident in the consideration of the particulars, wherein the difference between them is supposed to consist.

3. The Apostle does not take his account of the things here put together by him from any one place in Moses, but gathers up what is declared in the Law, in several places to various ends. For as has been declared, he does not design only to prove the dedication of the Covenant by Blood, but to show also the whole use of blood under the Law, as to purification and remission of sin. And this he does to declare the virtue and efficacy of the blood of Christ under the new Testament, whereunto he makes an application of all these things in the verses ensuing. Therefore he gathers into one head, sundry things wherein the sprinkling of blood was of use under the Law, as they are occasionally expressed in sundry places. And this one observation removes all the difficulties of the context; which all arise from this one supposition, that the Apostle gives here an account only of what was done at the dedication of the first Covenant. So in particular by the addition of those particles [in non-Latin alphabet], ver. 21. which we well render, moreover, he plainly intimates that what he affirms of the Tabernacle and the vessels of its ministry, was that which was done afterwards, at another time, and not when the Covenant was first confirmed.

On these grounds we shall see that the account given of these things by the Apostle is a necessary exposition of the record made of them by Moses, and no more.

1. He affirms, that Moses took the blood, [in non-Latin alphabet], of calves and goats. And there is a double difficulty herein; for, (1) the blood that Moses so used was the blood of oxen (Exodus 24:5, 6), which seems not to be well rendered by [in non-Latin alphabet], of calves. But this has no weight in it. For [in non-Latin alphabet], the word there used, signifies all cattle of the herd, great and small; every thing that is generis bovini: and there is no necessity from the words, that we should render [in non-Latin alphabet] there by oxen, nor [in non-Latin alphabet] here by calves; we might have rendered both words by bullocks. But (2) there is no mention at all of goats in the story of Moses, and as we observed it is here omitted by the Syriac translator, but without cause. Ans.

1. There were two sorts of offerings that were made on this occasion; (1) burnt-offerings; (2) peace-offerings (Exodus 24:5). They offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings. The distinct expression of them, proves the offerings to have been distinct [in non-Latin alphabet], they offered burnt offerings, and they sacrificed, or slew peace-offerings; and as for the peace-offerings, it is said that they were of bullocks or oxen; but it is not said of what sort the burnt-offerings were. Yes, and it may be that although bullocks only are mentioned, yet that goats also were sacrificed in this peace-offering. For it is so far from being true, what Ribera observes on the place, that a goat was never offered for a peace-offering, that the contrary to it, is directly expressed in the institution of the peace-offering (Deuteronomy 3:12). Therefore the blood of goats might be used in the peace-offering, though it be not mentioned by Moses. But,

2. The Apostle observes that one end of the sacrifice at the dedication of the first Covenant was purging and making atonement, ver. 22, 23. For in all solemn sacrifices blood was sprinkled on the holy things, to purify them, and make atonement for them (Deuteronomy 16:14, 19, 20). Now this was not to be done, but by the blood of an expiatory sacrifice, it was not to be done by the blood of peace-offerings. Therefore the burnt-offerings mentioned by Moses were expiatory sacrifices, to purge and make atonement. And this sacrifice was principally of goats (Deuteronomy 16:7), therefore the text of Moses cannot be well understood without this exposition of the Apostle. And we may add hereunto also, that although the blood of the peace-offering was sprinkled on the altar (Deuteronomy 3:13), yet was it not sprinkled on the people, as this blood was; therefore there was the use of the blood of goats also as a sin-offering in this great sacrifice.

3. In the dedication of the priests, these two sorts of offerings were conjoined; namely, peace-offerings and sin-offerings, or burnt offerings for sin, as here they were. And therein expressly the blood of goats was used, namely, in the sin-offerings, as the blood of bullocks was in the peace-offering (Leviticus 9:3, 4). Neither is there mention any where of burnt-offerings or sin-offerings and peace-offerings to be offered together, but that one of them was of goats; and therefore was so infallibly at this time; as the Apostle declares.

2. It is affirmed in the text, that he took the blood with water, scarlet-wool, and hyssop and sprinkled it; but there is mention of none of these things in the story of Moses, but only that he sprinkled the blood. But the answer hereunto is plain and easy. Blood under the Law was sprinkled either in less or greater quantities. Hereon there were two ways of sprinkling; the one was with the finger, when a small quantity of blood, it may be, some few drops of it were to be sprinkled, it was done with the finger (Leviticus 8:15, chapter 16:13). The quantity being small, though the blood were unmixed, and almost congealed, it might be so sprinkled. But there was a sprinkling whereunto a greater proportion of blood was required; as namely, when a house was to be sprinkled and thereby purified; this was done by mixing running water with the blood, and then sprinkling it with scarlet-wool and hyssop (Leviticus 14:50, 51, 52). For these things were needful thereunto. The water prevented the blood from being so congealed, as that it would not be sprinkled in any quantity. The scarlet-wool took up a quantity of it, out of the vessel wherein it was; and the bunch of hyssop was the sprinkler. Whereupon when Moses sprinkled the altar, book and people, he did it by one of these two ways; for other there was none. The first way he could not do it, namely, with his finger, because it was to be done in a great quantity. For Moses took that half of it that was to be sprinkled on the people and put it into basins (Exodus 24:6, 8). It was therefore infallibly done this latter way according as our Apostle declares.

3. It is added by the Apostle that he sprinkled the Book which is not expressed in the Story. But the Design of the Apostle is to express at large the whole Solemnity of the confirmation of the first Covenant, especially not to omit any thing that blood was applyed to; because in the application he referrs the Purification and Dedication of all things belonging to the new Covenant, to the blood of Christ. And this was the order of the things which concerned the Book. Moses coming down from the Mount, told the People by word of Mouth, all things which God had spoken to him, or the Sum and Substance of the Covenant which he would make with them, ver. 5. And Moses came and told the People all the words of the Lord; that is, the words spoken on Mount Sinai, the ten Commandments, and all the Judgments of the Lord, that is, all the Laws contained in Chap. 21, 22, 23. with this Title, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], these are the judgments, Chap. 21. 1. Upon the Oral Rehearsal of these words and Judgments the People gave their consent to the Terms of the Covenant. The People answered with one voice, all the words which the Lord has said, we will do, ver. 3. Hereon Moses made a Record, or wrote all the words of the Lord in a Book; ver. 4. This being done, the Altar and Pillars were prepared, ver. 4. And it is evident that the Book which he had written was laid on the Altar, though it be not expressed. When this was done, he sprinkled the Blood on the Altar, ver. 6. After which, when the Book had been sprinkled with Blood as it lay on the Altar, it is said, he took the Book, that is, off from the Altar, and read in the audience of the People, ver. 7. The Book being now sprinkled with blood, as the Instrument and Record of the Covenant between God and the People, the very same words which were before spoken to the People are now recited or read out of the Book. And this could be done for no other Reason, but that the Book it self being now sprinkled with the blood of the Covenant, it was dedicated to be the Sacred Record thereof.

4. In the Text of Moses it is said that he sprinkled the People; in Explanation whereof the Apostle affirms that he sprinkled all the People. And it was necessary that so it should be, and that none of them should be excluded from this Sprinkling. For they were all taken into Covenant with God; Men, Women and Children. But it must be granted, that for the blood to be actually Sprinkled on all individuals in such a Numberless Multitude, is next to what is naturally impossible; therefore it was done in their Representatives; and what is done towards Representatives as such, is done equally towards all whom they do Represent. And the whole People, had two Representatives that day. (1) The twelve Pillars of Stone that were set up to represent their twelve Tribes, and, it may be, to signifie their hard and stony heart under that Covenant, ver. 4. Whereas those Pillars were placed close by the Altar, some suppose that they were Sprinkled as representing the twelve tribes. (2) There was the Heads of their Tribes, the Chief of the house of their Fathers, and the Elders, who drew nigh to Moses and were Sprinkled with blood, in the Name and Place of all the People, who were that day taken into Covenant.

5. The words which Moses spake to the People upon the Sprinkling of the Blood, are not absolutely the same in the story, and in the Repetition of it by the Apostle. But this is usual with him in all his Quotations out of the old Testament in this Epistle. He expresseth the true sense of them, but does not curiously and precisely render the sense of every word and syllable in them.

6. The last Difficulty in this context, and that which has an appearance of the greatest, is in what the Apostle affirmes concerning the Tabernacle and all the Vessels of it; namely, that Moses sprinkled them all with Blood. And the Time which he seems to speak of, is that of the Dedication of the first Covenant. Hence a twofold Difficulty does arise; First, as to the Time; and Secondly, as to the Thing it self. For at the Time of the Dedication of the first Covenant, the Tabernacle was not yet made or erected, and so could not then be sprinkled with Blood. And afterwards when the Tabernacle was erected, and all the Vessels brought into it, there is no mention that either it or any of them were sprinkled with Blood, but only anointed with the Holy Oyl (Exodus 40:9, 10, 11). Therefore, as to the first, I say, the Apostle does plainly distinguish what he affirms of the Tabernacle, from the Time of the Dedication of the first Covenant.

The manner of his Introduction of it [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], and moreover the Tabernacle, does plainly intimate a Progress to another time and occasion. Therefore the words of ver. 21. concerning the sprinkling of the Tabernacle and its vessels, do relate to what follows, ver. 22. and almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and not to those that precede about the dedication of the first Covenant. For the argument he has in hand is not confined to the use of blood only in that dedication, but respects the whole use of the blood of sacrifices under the law; which in these words he proceeds to, and closeth in the next verse. And this wholly removes the first difficulty. And as to the second, Expositors generally answer, that aspersion or sprinkling with blood, did commonly precede unction with the Holy Oil. And as to the garments of the Priests, which were the vessels or utensils of the Tabernacle, it was appointed that they should be sprinkled with blood (Exodus 29:21); and so it may be supposed that the residue of them were also. But to me this is not satisfactory. And be it spoken without offence, Expositors have generally mistaken the nature of the argument of the Apostle in these words. For he argues not from the first dedication of the Tabernacle and its vessels, which, for ought appears, was by unction only; but making, as we observed before, a progress to the farther use of the blood of sacrifices in purging according to the law, he gives an instance in what was done with respect to the Tabernacle and all its vessels, and that constantly and solemnly every year; and this he does to prove his general assertion in the next verse, that under the law almost all things were purged with blood. And Moses is here said to do what he appointed should be done. By his institution, that is, the institution of the law, the Tabernacle and all the vessels of it were sprinkled with blood. And this was done solemnly once every year; an account whereof is given (Leviticus 16:14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20). On the solemn day of Atonement, the High Priest was to sprinkle the Mercy-seat, the Altar, and the whole Tabernacle with blood, to make an atonement for them, because of the uncleannesses of the Children of Israel, the Tabernacle remaining among them in the midst of their uncleannesses (ver. 16). This he takes notice of, not to prove the dedication of the first Covenant with what belonged thereunto with blood, but the use of blood in general to make atonement, and the impossibility of expiation and pardon without it. This is the design and sense of the Apostle and no other. Therefore we may conclude, that the account here given, concerning the dedication of the first Covenant, and the use of blood for purification under the law, is so far from containing any thing opposite to or discrepant from the records of Moses concerning the same things; that it gives us a full and clear exposition of them.

The second thing to be considered, is the nature of the argument in this context; and there are three things in it, neither of which must be omitted in the exposition of the words.

He designs, 1. to prove yet farther the necessity of the death of Christ, as he was the Mediator of the New Testament, both as it had the nature of a Testament, and that also of a solemn Covenant.

2. To declare the necessity of the kind of his death, in the way of a sacrifice by the effusion of blood; because the Testament as it had the nature of a solemn Covenant was confirmed and ratified thereby.

3. To manifest the necessity of shedding of blood in the confirmation of the Covenant, because of the expiation, purging, and pardon of sin thereby. How these things are proved, we shall see in the exposition of the words.

There are in the words themselves,

1. A proposition of the principal truth asserted (ver. 18).

2. The confirmation of that proposition; which is twofold, (1) From what Moses did (ver. 19). (2) From what he said (ver. 20).

3. A farther illustration of the same truth, by other instances (ver. 21).

4. A general inference or conclusion from the whole, comprising the substance of what he intended to demonstrate.

In the proposition there are five things considerable. (1) A note of introduction: Whereupon. (2) The quality of the proposition, it is negative: neither was. (3) The subject spoken of: The first. (4) What is affirmed of it: it was dedicated. (5) The way and manner thereof: it was not without blood.

1. The note of introduction is in the particle [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], which the Apostle frequently makes use of in this Epistle, as a note of inference in those discourses which are argumentative. We render it by Therefore, and Therefore; here, Whereupon. For it intimates a confirmation of a general rule by especially instances. He had before laid it down as a general maxim, that a Testament was to be confirmed by death. For thereupon the first Testament was confirmed with the blood of sacrifices shed in their death. Therefore let not any think strange that the New Testament was confirmed by the death of the Testator; for this is so necessary, that even in the confirmation of the first there was that which was analogous to it. And moreover, it was death in such a way, as was required to the confirmation of a solemn Covenant.

2. The proposition has a double negative in it, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], neither was it without blood; that is, it was with blood, and could not otherwise be.

3. The subject spoken of is [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], the first, that is, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; Testament, or Covenant. And herein the Apostle declares what he precisely intended by the first or old Covenant, whereof he discoursed at large, chap. 8. It was the Covenant made with the people at Horeb. For that and no other was dedicated in the way here described. And to take a brief prospect into this Covenant, the things ensuing may be observed.

1. The matter of it, or the terms of it materially considered, before it had the formal nature of a Covenant. And these were all the things that were written in the book, before it was laid on the Altar. Namely, it was that epitome of the whole law which is contained in chap. 20, 21, 22, 23, of Exodus. And other commands and institutions that were given afterwards, belonged to this Covenant reductively. The substance of it was contained in the book then written.

2. The manner of the revelation of these terms of the covenant. Being proposed on the part of God, and the terms of it being entirely of his choosing and proposal, he was to reveal, declare, and make them known. And this he did two ways. (1) As to the foundation, and substance of the whole in the Decalogue. He spoke it himself on the Mount, in the way and manner declared (Exodus 19:20). (2) As to the following judgments, statutes, and rites, directive of their walking before God, according to the former fundamental rule of the covenant. These he declared by revelation to Moses; and they are contained in the 21, 22, and 23 Chapters.

3. The manner of its proposal; and this also was twofold. (1) Preparatory. For before the solemn covenanting between God and the people, Moses declared all the matter of it to the people, that they might consider well of it, and whether they would consent to enter into covenant with God on those terms, whereon they gave their approbation of them. (2) Solemn, in their actual and absolute acceptance of it, whereby they became obliged throughout their generations. This was on the reading of it out of the book, after it was sprinkled with the blood of the covenant on the altar, ver. 7.

4. The author of this covenant was God himself. The covenant which the Lord has made with you (ver. 8). And immediately after, he is thereon called the God of Israel (ver. 20), which is the first time he was called so; and it was by virtue of this covenant. And the pledge or token of his presence, as covenanting, was the altar, the altar of Jehovah; as there was a representative pledge of the presence of the people in the twelve pillars or statues.

5. Those with whom this covenant was made were the people; that is, all the people, as the Apostle speaks, none exempted or excluded. It was made with the men, women, and children (Deuteronomy 31:22), even all on whom was the blood of the covenant, as it was on the women; or the token of the covenant, as it was on the male children in circumcision; or both, as in all the men of Israel.

6. The manner on the part of the people of entering into covenant with God, was in two acts before mentioned. (1) In a previous approbation of the matter of it; (2) In a solemn engagement into it; and this was the foundation of the Church of Israel.

This is that covenant whereof there is afterwards in the Scripture such frequent mention between God and that people, the sole foundation of all especial relation between him and them. For they took the observation of its terms on themselves for their posterity in all generations until the end should be. On their obedience hereunto, or neglect hereof, depended their life and death in the land of Canaan. No farther did the precepts and promises of it, in itself, extend. But whereas it did not disannul the promise that was made to Abraham, and confirmed with the oath of God, four hundred years before, and had annexed to it many institutions and ordinances, prefigurative and significant of heavenly things; the people under it had a right to, and directions for, the attaining of an eternal inheritance. And something we may hence observe.

1. The foundation of a church-state among any people, wherein God is to be honoured in ordinances of instituted worship, is laid in a solemn covenant between him and them. So it was with this Church of Israel. Before this they served God in their families, by virtue of the promise made to Abraham; but now the whole people were gathered into a church-state, to worship him according to the terms, institutions and ordinances of the covenant. Nor does God oblige any to instituted worship, but by virtue of a covenant. To natural worship and obedience we are all obliged by virtue of the law of creation and what belongs thereunto. And God may by a mere act of sovereignty prescribe to us the observation of what rites and ordinances in divine service he pleases. But he will have all our obedience to be voluntary, and all our service to be reasonable. Therefore, although the prescription of such rites be an act of sovereign pleasure, yet God will not oblige us to the observance of them, but by virtue of a covenant between him and us, wherein we voluntarily consent to and accept of the terms of it, whereby those ordinances of worship are prescribed to us. And it will hence follow,

(1.) That men mistake themselves, when they suppose that they are interested in a church-state by tradition, custom, or as it were by chance, they know not how. There is nothing but covenanting with God that will enstate us in this privilege. And therein we do take upon ourselves the observance of all the terms of the New Covenant. And they are of two sorts; (1) internal and moral, in faith, repentance and obedience; (2) such as concern the external worship of the Gospel, in the ordinances and institutions of it. Without such a covenant formally or virtually made, there can be no church-state. I speak not at all of any such covenants as men may make or have made among themselves, and with God, upon a mixture of things sacred, civil and political, with such sanctions as they find out, and agree upon among themselves. For whatever may be the nature, use or end of such covenants, they no way belong to that concerning which we treat. For no terms are to be brought hereinto, but such as belong directly to the obedience and ordinances of the New Testament. Nor was there any thing to be added to or taken from the express terms of the Old Covenant, whereby the church-state of Israel was constituted. And this was the entire rule of God's dealing with them. The only question concerning them was, whether they had kept the terms of the covenant or no. And when things fell into disorder among them, as they did frequently, as the sum of God's charge against them was that they had broken his covenant; so the reformation of things attempted by their godly kings before, and others after the captivity, was by reducing the people to renew this covenant without any addition, alteration or mixture of things of another nature.

(2.) That so much disorder in the worship of God under the Gospel has entered into many churches, and that there is so much negligence in all sorts of persons about the observance of evangelical institutions, so little conscientious care about them, or reverence in the use of them, or benefit received by them; it is all much from hence, that men understand not aright the foundation of that obedience to God, which is required in them and by them. This indeed is no other but that solemn covenant between God and the whole Church, wherein the Church takes upon itself their due observance. This renders our obedience in them and by them no less necessary than any duties of moral obedience whatever. But this being not considered as it ought, men have used their supposed liberty, or rather fallen into great licentiousness in the use of them, and few have that conscientious regard to them, which it is their duty to have.

2. Approbation of the terms of the covenant, consent to them, and solemn acceptance of them, are required on our part to the establishment of any covenant between God and us, and our participation of the benefits of it. Thus solemnly did the people here enter into covenant with God, whereby a peculiar relation was established between him and them. The mere proposal of the covenant and the terms of it to us, which is done in the preaching of the Gospel, will not make us partakers of any of the grace or benefits of it. Yet this is that which most content themselves withal. It may be they proceed to the performance of some of the duties which are required therein; but this answers not the design and way of God in dealing with men. When he has proposed the terms of his covenant to them, he does neither compel them to accept of them, nor will be satisfied with such an obedience. He requires that upon a due consideration of them, we do approve of them, as those which answer his infinite wisdom and goodness, and such as are of eternal advantage to us; that they are all equal, holy, righteous and good. Hereon he requires that we voluntarily choose and consent to them, engaging ourselves solemnly to the performance of them all and every one. This is required of us, if we intend any interest in the grace or glory prepared in the New Covenant.

3. It was the way of God from the beginning, to take children of covenanters into the same covenant with their parents; so he dealt with this people in the establishment of the first covenant, and he has made no alteration herein in the establishment of the second. But we must proceed with the exposition of the words.

4. Of this covenant it is affirmed, that it was consecrated with blood; or was not dedicated without blood. [in non-Latin alphabet], is solemnly to separate any thing to a sacred use. [in non-Latin alphabet], is the same in Hebrew. And it is not the sanction of the covenant absolutely, that the Apostle intends in this expression, but the use of it. The covenant had its sanction, and was confirmed on the part of God, in offering of the sacrifices. In the killing of the beasts, and offering of their blood, did the ratification of the covenant consist. This is included and supposed in what is signified by the dedication of it. But this is not an effect of the shedding and offering of blood, but only of the sprinkling of it on the book and the people. Thereby had it its [in non-Latin alphabet], its consecration or dedication to sacred use, as the instrument of the peculiar church-relation between God and that people, whereof the book was the record. So was every thing consecrated to its proper use under the Law, as the Apostle declares. This therefore is the meaning of the words; that first covenant which God made with the people at Mount Sinai, wherein he became their God, the God of Israel, and they became his people, was dedicated to sacred use by blood, in that it was sprinkled on the book and the people, after part of the same blood had been offered in sacrifice at the altar. Hence it follows that this which belongs so essentially to the solemn confirmation of a covenant between God and the Church, was necessary also to the dedication and confirmation of the New Covenant, which is that that is to be proved.

It is by the authority of God alone that any thing can be effectually and unchangeably dedicated to sacred use, so as to have force and efficacy given to it thereby. But this dedication may be made by virtue of a general rule, as well as by an especial command.

5. The assertion of the Apostle concerning the dedication of the first covenant with blood, is confirmed by an account of the matter of fact, or what Moses did therein (ver. 19).