Hebrews 7 — Verse 18, 19

For there is verily a disanulling of the Commandement going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the Law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh to God.

(1) The Subject spoken of is the Command; (2) Described by the Time of its giving, it went before; (3) Hereof it is affirmed, that it is disannulled; and (4) The Reason thereof is adjoyned from a twofold property or adjunct of it in particular; For 1. It was Weak. 2. It was Unprofitable. (5) As to its deficiency from its general end; it made nothing perfect; (6) Illustrated by that which took its work upon it self, and effected it throughly; the hope brought in, by which we draw nigh to God.

1. The ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ or Command is of as large a signification ver. 18. as ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ the Law in ver. 19. For the same thing is intended in both the words. It is not therefore the peculiar command for the institution of the Legal Priesthood that is intended, but the whole System of Mosaical Institutions. For the Apostle having already proved, that the Priesthood was to be abolished, he proceeds on that ground and from there to prove, that the whole Law was also to be in like manner abolished and removed. And indeed it was of such a nature and constitution, that pull one pin out of the fabrick and the whole must fall to the ground. For the sanction of it being, that he was cursed who continued not in all things written in the Law to do them, the change of any one thing must needs overthrow the whole Law. How much more must it do so, if that be changed, removed, or taken away, which was not only a material part of it, but the very hinge, whereon the whole observance of it did depend and turn.

And the whole of this System of Laws, is called ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ a Command, because it consisted ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, in arbitrary commands and precepts, regulated by that maxim; The man that does these things shall live by them (Romans 10:5). And therefore the Law, as a Command, is opposed to the Gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:11, 12). Nor is it the whole Ceremonial Law only that is intended by the Command in this place; but the Moral Law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end. For with respect to the efficacy of the whole Law of Moses as to our drawing nigh to God, it is here considered.

2. This Commandement is described by the Time of its giving; it is ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩; it went before, that is, before the Gospel as now preached and dispensed. It did not do so absolutely. For our Apostle shews and proves, that as to the Promise, whereby the grace of the New Covenant was exhibited, and which contained the substance and essence of the Gospel, it was given 430 years before the giving of the Law (Galatians 3:17). Therefore the precedency of the Law here expressed may respect the testimony produced out of David, whereby the Apostle proves the cessation of the Priesthood and consequently of the Law it self. For the Command was given before that testimony, and so went before it. But it rather respects the actual introduction of a new Priest in the accomplishment of this Promise. For hereon the whole change and alteration in the Law and worship pleaded for by our Apostle, did ensue.

The Commandement going before, is the Law whereby the worship of God and obedience to him was regulated before the coming of Christ, and the introduction of the Gospel.

3. Of this Command or Law, it is affirmed that there is an ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, and that with some earnestness. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩; For truly, verily, certainly. This whatever it be, it came not to pass of its own accord, but it was made by him who had power and authority so to do, which must be the Lawgiver.

⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, may respect a Law, as was before intimated, either on the account of the Lawgiver, him that has power over it, or of those to whom it is given as a Law, and who are under the power of it. In the latter sense ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, is to transgress a Law, to make it void what lies in us, by contemning the authority of him by whom it is given; that use of the word was before observed in Mark 7:9, Hebrews 10:28. In the first sense it is directly opposed to ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩: That is, the giving, presenting, and promulgating of a Law, by a just and due authority, from where it has a power and force to oblige to obedience. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ is the dissolution hereof. The word, as was said even now, is once more used in the New Testament, and that by our Apostle in this Epistle, chap. 9. 26. Christ has appeared ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, to put away sin, say we, by the sacrifice of himself. That is to the abrogation or abolishing of that power, which sin has by its guilt to bind over sinners to punishment. So the ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ of the Law is its abrogation, in taking away all its power of obliging to obedience or punishment. The Apostle elsewhere expresseth the same act by ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ (Ephesians 2:15; 2 Timothy 1:10).

It is therefore plainly declared, that the Law is abrogated, abolished, disanulled; but we must yet farther enquire, (1) How this could be done; (2) By what means it was done; and (3), which himself adds expresly, for what reason it was done.

The first of these seemes not to be without its difficulties. For it was a Law originally given to the Church by God himself, and continued therein with his approbation for many generations. And there are multiplyed instances in the sacred records, of his blessing them, who were faithful and obedient in its observation. Yes, the whole prosperity of the Church did always depend thereon; as its neglect was always accompanied with severe tokens of God's displeasure. Besides our Savior affirmeth of himself that he came not ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ Matthew 5:17, to dissolve or destroy the Law, which upon the matter is the same with ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩. For if a Law be disanulled or abrogated, it is totally dissolved as to its obligatory power. And our Apostle removes the suspicion of any such thing from the doctrine of the Gospel (Romans 3:31): Do we then make void the Law through Faith? God forbid: yea we establish the Law.

Ans. There are two ways whereby any Law may be disanulled or abrogated. First, By taking away all Authority and use from it as to its proper end, while it is in its pretended force. For suppose it to be made for ever or for a time only, its Abrogation is its deprivation of all Authority and Use as a Law. And this cannot regularly be done, but on one of these accounts. (1) That the Authority giving the Law was not valued from the Beginning, but men have been obliged to it on a false presumption thereof. (2) That the matter of it was never Good, or useful, or meet to be made the matter of Law. On neither of these accounts could this Law be abolished, nor ever was so by the Lord Christ or the Gospel, nor is so to this day. For God himself was the immediate Author of it, whose Authority is Sovereign and over all; and from there also it follows, that the matter of it was Good. For the Commandment, as our Apostle speaks, was Holy, Just, and Good (Romans 7:12). And however there be a difference between that which is Morally Good in itself and its own Nature, and that which is so only by Divine Institution; yet the Revealed Will of God is the adequate Rule of Good and Evil to us, as to our Obedience. On these Accounts therefore, it never was, nor ever could be abolished.

Secondly, A Law may be abrogated, when on any consideration whatever, its Obligation to practice does cease or is taken away. Thus was it with this Law; for, as every other Law, it may be considered two ways.

1. With respect to its main End, and directive power to guide Men therein. This, in all Humane Laws, is the Public Good of the Community or Society to whom it is given. When this ceases, and the Law becomes not directive or useful to the Public Good any more, all Rational Obligations to its Observance do cease also. But yet this Law differed also from all others. All that any other Law aims at, is Obedience to itself, and the Public Good, which that Obedience will produce. So the Moral Law in the first Covenant had no other End but Obedience to it, and the Rewardableness thereon of them that did obey it. So was it an entire Instrument of our living to God, and of Eternal Rewards thereon. But as in its Renovation it was made a part of the Law here intended, it came with it to be of another Nature, or to have another Use and End. For the whole Scope and Design of this Law was to direct Men, not to look after that Good which was its End, in Obedience to itself, but in something else, that it directed to by that Obedience. The End it directed to was Righteousness before God: But this could never be attained by an Obedience to it, nor was it ever intended that so it should do. This the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the Flesh (Romans 8:3). And therefore those who pursued and followed after it with the most earnestness for this End, never attained thereunto (Romans 9:31, 32). This End therefore is principally to be considered in this Law, which when it is attained, the Law is established, although its Obligation to Obedience to itself, do necessarily cease. Now this End of the Law was Christ and his Righteousness, as the Apostle expressly declares; For Christ is the End of the Law for Righteousness to every one that Believes (Romans 10:4). And therefore this whole Law was our School-Master to Christ (Galatians 3:24, 25). This is called by our Savior, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to fulfil the Law, and is opposed to the destroying of it (Matthew 5:17). I came not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to destroy or dissolve the Law, but to fulfil it. That is, not to abrogate it or take it away, as that which either wanted a just Authority, or was not Good or Useful, the common Reasons of the Abrogation of any Law in force: But I came to bring in and accomplish the whole End which it aimed at, and directed to; whereon it would cease to oblige to a further Practice. And this the Apostle calls [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to establish the Law; do we then make void the Law through Faith? yes, we establish the Law (Romans 3:31). That is, we declare how it has its End and full Accomplishment, which is the greatest Establishment that any Law is capable of. And if the fulfilling of the Law, both as to what it requires in a way of Obedience, and what also in its Curse for Sin, be not imputed to us, we do not by Faith Establish the Law, but make it void.

2. The Law may be considered with respect to the particular Duties, that it required and prescribed. And because the whole Law had its End, these were appointed only until that End might be or was attained. So says our Apostle, They were imposed until the Time of Reformation, Chap. 9. 10. Therefore two things did accompany this Law in its first Institution. (1.) That an Obedience to its Commands would not produce the Good which it directed to, as formally respecting the Law itself. (2.) That the Duties it required had a limited time for their Performance and Acceptance allotted to them. Therefore without the least Disparagement to it, as to the Authority whereby it was given, or as to its own Holiness and Goodness, it might be disanulled as to its actual Obligation to practice and observance of its Commands. For the End of it being fully accomplished, it is no less Established, than if the observance of it had been continued to the end of the world. It was therefore Established by Christ and the Gospel as to its End, Use, and Scope; it was disanulled as to its Obligatory Power to the observance of its Commands. For these two are inconsistent, namely, that a Law, as to all its Ends, should be fulfilled, and yet stand in force in its Obligatory Power to Obedience.

Secondly, We must enquire how this was done, or how this Law was Abrogated, as to its Obligatory Power and Efficacy. And this was done two ways.

Really and virtually, this was done by Christ himself in his own Person. For the fulfilling and accomplishing of it was that which really and virtually took away all its obligatory power. For what should it oblige men to? An answer is ready to all its demands, namely, that they are fulfilled: and as to what was significative in its duties, it is all really exhibited; so that on no account it can any more oblige or command the consciences of men. This the Apostle sets out in a comparison with the relation that is between a man and his wife with the obligation to mutual duties that ensues thereon (Romans 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). While the husband is alive, the wife is obliged to all conjugal duties towards him and to him alone. But upon his death that obligation ceases of itself, and she is at liberty to marry to another. So were we obliged to the law, while it was alive, while it stood in its force and vigor: but when through the death of Christ the law was accomplished, it died as to the relation which was between it and us, whereon all its obligation to observance was disannulled. This was that whereby the law was really and virtually abrogated. Its preceptive part being fulfilled, and its significative being exhibited, it was of no more force or efficacy as a law. The reason why it was thus to have an end put to it is declared in the close of the verse.

2. It was so abrogated declaratively; or the will of God concerning its abrogation was made known four ways.

1. In general by the promulgation and preaching of the Gospel, where the accomplishment and cessation of it was declared. For the declaration made that the Messiah was come, that he had finished his work in the world, and thereby made an end of sin, bringing in everlasting righteousness, whereby the law was fulfilled, did sufficiently manifest its abrogation. The Apostles, I confess, in their first preaching to the Jews spoke not of it expressly, but left it to discover itself as an undeniable consequent of what they taught, concerning the Lord Christ and the righteousness of God in him. This for some while many of them that believed understood not, and therefore were zealous of the law, which God in his patience and forbearance did graciously tolerate so, as not to impute it to them. It was indeed great darkness and manifold prejudices that hindered the believing Jews from seeing the necessary consequence to the abolition of the law from the promulgation of the Gospel: yet this was God pleased to bear with them in, that we might not be too fierce, nor reflect with too much severity on such as are not able in all things to receive the whole truth as we desire they should.

2. It was so by the institution and introduction of new ordinances of worship. This was wholly inconsistent with the law, wherein it was expressly enacted that nothing should be added to the worship of God therein prescribed. And if any such addition was made by the authority of God himself, as was inconsistent with any thing before appointed, it is evident that the whole law was disannulled. But a new order, a new entire system of ordinances of worship was declared in the Gospel. Yes, and those, some of them especially, as that of the Lord's Supper, utterly inconsistent with any ordinances of the law, seeing it declares that to be done and past, which they direct us to as future and to come.

3. There was a determination made in the case by the Holy Ghost upon an occasion administered thereunto. Those of the Apostles who preached the Gospel to the Gentiles had made no mention to them of the law of Moses, as knowing that it was nailed to the cross of Christ, and taken out of the way. So were they brought to the faith and obedience of the Gospel without any respect to the law, as that wherein they were not concerned, now it had received its accomplishment. But some of the Jews who believed, being yet persuaded that the law was to be continued in force, and its observation imposed on all that were proselyted by the Gospel, occasion was given to that solemn determination which was made by the Apostles through the guidance of the Holy Ghost (Acts 15). And the substance of that determination was this: that the Gospel, as preached to the Gentiles, was not a way or means of proselyting them to Judaism, but the bringing them to a new church-state by an interest in the promise and covenant of Abraham, given and made 430 years before the giving of the law. While the law stood in its force, whoever was proselyted to the truth, he was so to the law, and every Gentile that was converted to the true God was bound to be circumcised, and became obliged to the whole law. But that being now disannulled, it is solemnly declared that the Gentiles converted by the Gospel were under no obligation to the law of Moses, but being received into the covenant of Abraham, were to be gathered into a new church-state erected in and by the Lord Christ in the Gospel.

4. As to those of the Hebrews who yet would not understand these express declarations of the ceasing of the obligatory power of the law, to put an end to all disputes about his will in this matter, God gave a dreadful [illegible] or abolition to it, in the total, final, irrevocable destruction of the city and temple, with all the instruments and vessels of its worship, especially of the priesthood, and all that belonged thereunto. Thus was the law disannulled, and thus was it declared so to be.

Obs. 1. It is a matter of the highest nature and importance to set up or take away, to remove any thing from, or change any thing in the worship of God. Unless the authority of God interpose, and be manifested so to do, there is nothing for conscience to rest in, in these things.

2. The revelation of the will of God, in things relating to his worship, is very difficultly received, where the minds of men are prepossessed with prejudices and traditions. Notwithstanding all those ways whereby God had revealed his mind concerning the abolition of the Mosaical institutions, yet these Hebrews could neither understand it nor receive it, until the whole seat of its worship was destroyed and consumed.

3. The only securing principle in all things of this nature is to preserve our souls in an entire subjection to the authority of Christ, and to his alone.

The close of the verse gives an especial reason of the disanulling or abrogation of the command, taken from its own nature and efficacy. For there is verily a disanulling of the commandment going before; [in non-Latin alphabet], that is, [in non-Latin alphabet]. The adjective in the neuter gender put for a substantive, which is emphatical; as on the contrary it is so, when the substantive is put for the adjective; as 1 John 2:27. [in non-Latin alphabet], is true, and is not a lye; that is, mendax, false or lying. And [in non-Latin alphabet], its own, is added to show that the principal cause of disanulling the law was taken from the law itself.

I have proved before that the commandment in this verse is of equal extent and signification with the law in the next. And the law there does evidently intend the whole law, in both the parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses to the Church of Israel. And this whole law is here charged by our Apostle with weakness and unprofitableness, both which make a law fit to be disanulled. But it must be acknowledged that there is a difficulty of no small importance in the assignation of these imperfections to the law: for this law was given by God himself. And how can it be supposed that the good and holy God should prescribe such a law to his people, as was always weak and unprofitable. From this and the like considerations the blasphemous Manichees denied that the good God was the author of the Old Testament, and the Jews continue still upon it to reject the Gospel, as not allowing the least imperfection in the law, but equalling it almost with God himself. We must therefore consider in what sense the Apostle ascribes these properties to the law.

1. Some seek for a solution of this difficulty from Ezekiel 20, ver. 11, compared with ver. 25. Ver. 11, God says, That I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them. But ver. 25, I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. The first sort of laws, they say, were the Decalogue, with those other judgments that accompanied it, which were given to the people as God's covenant before they broke it by making the Golden Calf. These were good in themselves, and good to the people, so as if they did them they should live therein. But after the people had broken the covenant in making of a Golden Calf, God gave them that whole system of ordinances, institutions, and laws which ensued. These, they say, in that place of Ezekiel God calls ordinances that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live, as being imposed on the people in the way of punishment. And with respect to these they say it is, that the Apostle affirms the commandment was weak and unprofitable.

But as the application of this exposition to this passage in the Apostle's discourse is not consistent with the design of it, as will afterwards appear, so indeed the exposition itself is not defensible. For it is plain, that by the laws and statutes mentioned, ver. 11, not any part of them, but the whole system of ordinances and commandments, which God gave by Moses, is intended. And the two words in the text [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet] do express the whole law ceremonial and judicial. And it was not from this or that part, but from the whole law that the people, as far as they were carnal, looked for righteousness and salvation (Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12). And as these laws and statutes mentioned ver. 11 contained the whole law given by Moses, so those intended, ver. 25, whereof it is said, that they were not good, nor could they live in the keeping of them, cannot be the laws and statutes of God considered in themselves. For it is inconsistent with the holiness, goodness, and wisdom of God, to give laws, which in themselves and their own nature, should not be good, but evil. Nor on supposition that he had given them statutes that were not good, and judgments wherein they should not live, could he plead as he does, that his ways were equal, and that their ways were unequal. For in these laws he evidently promised that those who did them should live therein. Where is the equality, equity, and righteousness if it were otherwise? Therefore if the statutes of God be intended in the place, it must be with respect to the people, their unbelief and obstinacy, that it is said of them, that they were not good; being made useless to them by reason of sin. In that sense the Apostle says, that the commandment which was ordained to life, he found to be to death (Romans 7:10). But I rather judge, that having charged the people with neglect and contempt of the laws and judgments of God which were good, God's giving them up judicially to ways of idolatry and false worship, which they made as laws and judgments to themselves, and willingly walked after the commandment, as Hosea 5:11, is here so expressed. But there is no ground for such a distinction between the laws and judgments of God in themselves, that some of them should be good, and some of them should be not good; that in some of them men might live, but not in others.

Secondly, I answer, that the whole law may be considered two ways. (1.) Absolutely in itself. (2.) With respect: (1.) to the end for which it was given; (2.) to the persons to whom it was given.

In itself, no reflection can be made upon it, because it was an effect of the wisdom, holiness, and truth of God. But in the respects mentioned it manifests its own weakness and unprofitableness. For they were sinners to whom it was given, and both defiled and guilty antecedently to the giving of this law, being so by nature, and thereon children of wrath: two things they stood in need of in this condition.

1. Sanctification by an inherent purity and holiness, with a compleat righteousness from there. This the Moral Law was at first the rule and measure of; and would have always effected it by its observance. It could never indeed take away any defilement of sin from the soul, but it could have prevented any such defilement. But now with respect to the persons to whom it was given, it became weak and unprofitable to any such end. It became so, says the Apostle, by reason of the flesh (Romans 8:3). For although in itself it was a perfect rule of righteousness (Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12, 21), yet it could not be a cause or means of righteousness to them who were disenabled by the entrance of sin to comply with it, and fulfill it. Therefore the Moral Law, which was in itself efficacious and useful, was now become to sinners, as to the ends of holiness and righteousness, weak and unprofitable: for by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

(2.) Sinners do stand in need of the expiation of sin: for being actually guilty already, it is to no purpose to think of a righteousness for the future, unless their present guilt be first expiated. Hereof there is not the least intimation in the Moral Law. It has nothing in it, nor accompanying of it, that respects the guilt of sin, but the curse only. This therefore was to be expected from the Ceremonial Law, and the various ways of atonement therein provided, or no way at all. But this of themselves they could not effect. They did indeed represent and prefigure what would so do, but of themselves they were insufficient to any such end. For it is not possible, as our Apostle speaks, that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin (chap. 10:5). And this Law may be considered three ways. (1) In opposition to Christ, without respect to its typical signification, under which notion it was now adhered to by the unbelieving Hebrews. This being no state of it by divine appointment, it became thereby not only of no use to them, but the occasion of their ruin. (2) In competition and conjunction with Christ; and so it was adhered to by many of these Hebrews who believed the Gospel. And this also was a state not designed for it, seeing it was appointed only to the time of Reformation, and therefore was not only useless but noxious and hurtful. (3) In subordination to Christ to typify and represent what was to be obtained in him alone; so during its own season it was of use to that end; but yet could never effect the things which it did represent. And in this state does the Apostle pronounce it weak and unprofitable, namely, on a supposition that atonement and expiation of sin was actually to be made, which it could not reach to.

But it may be yet farther enquired, why God did give this Law to the people, which although it were good in itself, yet because of the condition of the people it could not attain the end which was intended. The Apostle gives so full an answer to this enquiry, as that we need not farther to insist upon it. For he gives two reasons why God gave this Law. First he says it was added because of transgression till the seed should come to whom the promise was made (Galatians 3:19). It had a manifold necessary respect to transgression: as (1) to discover the nature of sin, that the consciences of men might be made sensible thereof; (2) to coerce and restrain it by its prohibition and threatenings that it might not run out into such an excess as to deluge the whole Church; (3) to represent the way and means, though obscurely, whereby sin might be expiated. And these things were of so great use, that the very being of the Church depended on them. Secondly, there was another reason for it, which he declares in the same place (ver. 23, 24): it was to shut up men under a sense of the guilt of sin, and so with some severity drive them out of themselves and from all expectation of a righteousness by their own works, that so they might be brought to Christ, first in the promise, and then as he was actually exhibited.

This brief account of the weakness and unprofitableness of the Law, whereon it was disannulled and taken away, may at present suffice. The consideration of some other things in particular will afterwards occur to us. Only in our passage we may a little examine, or reflect on the senses that some others have given to these words.

Schlictingius in his comment on the next verse gives this account of the state of the Law: Lex expiationem concedebat leviorum delictorum, idque ratione poenae alicujus arbitrariae tantum: gravioribus autem peccatis quibus mortis poenam fixerat, nullam reliquerat veniam, maledictionis fulmen vibrans in omnes qui graviùs peccássent. But these things are neither accommodate to the purpose of the Apostle, nor true in themselves. For (1) the Law denounced the curse equally to every transgression, be it small or great; cursed is he who continues not in all things. (2) It expiated absolutely no sin small nor great, by its own power and efficacy; neither did it properly take away any punishment temporal or eternal. That some sins were punished with death, and some were not, belonged to the polity of the government erected among that people. But (3) as to the expiation of sin, the Law had an equal respect to all the sins of believers, great and small; it typically represented the expiation of them all in the sacrifice of Christ, and so confirmed their faith as to the forgiveness of sin, but farther it could not proceed.

And Grotius on the place. Non perduxit homines ad justitiam illam veram & internam, sed intra ritus & facta externa constitit: Promissa terrestria non operantur mortis contemptum, sed eum operatur melior spes vitae aeternae & caelestis. Which is thus enlarged by another; The Mosaical Law got no man freedom from sin, was able to give no man strength to fulfill the will of God, and could not purchase pardon for any that had broken it. This therefore was to be done now afterwards by the Gospel, which gives more sublime and plain promises of pardon of sin, which the Law could not promise, of an eternal and heavenly life to all true penitent believers; which gracious tenders now made by Christ, give us a freedom of access to God, and confidence to come and expect such mercy from him. Ans. (1) What is here spoken, if it intend the Law in itself and its carnal ordinances without any respect to the Lord Christ and his mediation, may in some sense be true. For in itself it could neither justify nor sanctify the worshippers, nor spiritually or eternally expiate sin. But (2) under the Law and by it, there was a dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, which was accompanied with promises of eternal life. For it did not only repeat and re-inforce the promise inseparably annexed to the Law of Creation, do this and live, but it had also other promises of spiritual and eternal things annexed to it, as it contained a legal dispensation of the first promise or the Covenant of Grace. But (3) the opposition here made by the Apostle is not between the precepts of the Law and the precepts of the Gospel, the promises of the Law and the promises of the Gospel, outward righteousness and inward obedience; but between the efficacy of the Law to righteousness and salvation, by the priesthood and sacrifices ordained therein, on the one hand, and the priesthood of Christ with his sacrifice which was promised before and now manifested in the Gospel, on the other. And herein he does not only show the preference and dignity of the latter above the former, but also that the former of itself could do nothing to these ends; but whereas they had represented the accomplishment of them for a season, and so directed the faith of the Church to what was future, that now being come and exhibited, it was of no more use nor advantage, nor meet to be retained.

Thus then was the Law disannulled; and it was so actually by the means before mentioned. But that the Church might not be surprised, there were many warnings given of it before it came to pass. As (1) a mark was put upon it from the very beginning, that it had not a perpetuity in its nature, nor inseparably annexed to it. For it had no small presignification in it, that immediately upon the giving of it as a covenant with that people, they broke the covenant in making the Golden Calf in Horeb, and thereon Moses broke the Tables of Stone wherein the Law was written. Had God intended that this Law should have been perpetual, he would not have suffered its first constitution to have been accompanied with an express emblem of its disannulling. (2) Moses expressly foretells that after the giving of the Law, God would provoke them to jealousy by a foolish people (Deuteronomy 32:21; Romans 10:19), that is, by the calling of the Gentiles, whereon the wall of partition that was between them, even the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, was of necessity to be taken out of the way. (3) The Prophets frequently declared that it was of itself utterly insufficient for the expiation of sin, or the sanctification of sinners, and thereon preferred moral obedience above all its institutions; from where it necessarily follows that seeing God did intend a [illegible] or state of perfection for his Church, that this Law was at last to be disannulled. (4) All the promises concerning the coming of Christ as the end of the Law, did declare its station in the Church not to be perpetual; especially that insisted on by our Apostle, of his being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec. (5) The promises and predictions are express, that a New Covenant should be established with the Church, to the removal of the Old, whereof we must treat in the next chapter. By all these ways was the Church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come, when the whole Mosaical Law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled to the unspeakable advantage of the Church. And we may hence observe.

1. The introduction into the Church of what is better and more full of grace in the same kind with what went before, does disannul what so preceded; but the bringing in of that which is not better, which does not communicate more grace, does not do so. Thus our Apostle expressly disputes that the bringing in of the Law 400 years after the giving of the promise, did not evacuate or any way enervate the promise.

And the sole reason hereof was, because the promise had more grace and privilege in it, than the Law had. But here the bringing in of another priesthood, because it was filled with more effectual grace and mercy, utterly disannulled that which was instituted before. And as we may hence learn the care and kindness of God to the Church; so also our own duty in adhering with constant obedience to the institutions of Christ. For this must be so, until something else more full of grace and wisdom than they are, be appointed of God in the Church. And indeed this is that which is pretended by those by whom they are rejected. For they tell us that the ordinances of the Gospel are weak and unprofitable, and are disannulled by that dispensation of the Spirit which has ensued after them. But the truth is, to fancy a dispensation of the Spirit without, against, or above the ordinances of Christ, who alone does dispense him, and that in the ways of his own appointment, is to renounce the whole Gospel.

2. If God would disannul every thing that was weak and unprofitable in his service, though originally of his own appointment, because it was not exhibitive of the grace he intended, he will much more condemn any thing of the same kind that is invented by men. I could never yet understand why God should abolish those ordinances of worship which himself had appointed because they were weak, and approve of such as men should find out of themselves, which cannot have the least efficacy or signification towards spiritual ends; such as are multiplied in the Papacy.

3. It is in vain for any men to look for that from the Law now it is abolished, which it could not effect in its best estate; and what that is the Apostle declares in the next verse.