Verse 22

By so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Testament.

[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], By so much answers directly to [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], ver. 20. in as much. There is therefore an immediate connexion of these words to that verse. Hence ver. 21. wherein a confirmation is interserted of the principal assertion, is justly placed in a Parenthesis in our Translation.

So the sense of the words is to this purpose: And in as much as he was not made a Priest without an Oath, he is by so much made the Surety of a better Testament.

And there may be a twofold design in the words. (1.) That his being made a Priest by an Oath made him meet to be the Surety of a better Testament; or (2.) That the Testament whereof he was the Surety must needs be better than the other; because he who was the Surety of it was made a Priest by an Oath. In the one way, he proves the dignity of the Priesthood of Christ from the New Testament; and in the other the dignity of the New Testament from the Priesthood of Christ. And we may reconcile both these senses by affirming, that really and efficiently the Priesthood gives dignity to the New Testament, and declaratively the New Testament sets forth the dignity of the Priesthood of Christ.

It is owned tacitely, that the Priesthood of Levi, and the Old Testament were good, or these could not be said to be better in way of comparison. And good they were because appointed of God, and of singular use to the Church during their continuance. But this Priesthood and Testament are better, by so much as that which is confirmed with an Oath, is better than that which is not so, which alone gives the proportion of comparison in this place. Many other advantages there were of the Priesthood of Christ, and of the New Testament in comparison to those of old, all which encrease the proportion of difference; but at present the Apostle considers only what depends on the Oath of God. Therefore the design of the comparison contained in those words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], is, that whereas this Priest after the Order of Melchisedec, was designed to be the Surety of another Testament, he was confirmed in his office by the Oath of God, which gives a preeminence both to his office and the Testament whereof he was to be a Surety.

In the assertion it self that Jesus was made a Surety of a better Testament, we may consider, (1.) what is included or supposed in it, and (2.) what is literally expressed.

Three things are included and supposed in this assertion. (1.) That there was another Testament that God had made with his people. (2.) That this was a good Testament. (3) That this Testament had in some sense a Surety.

As to what is expressed in these words, there are four things in them. (1.) The name of him who was the subject discoursed of, it is Jesus. (2.) What is affirmed of him, he was a Surety. (3.) How he became so, he was made so. (4.) Whereof he was a Surety, and that is of a Testament of God. Which, (5.) is described by its respect to the other before mentioned, and its preference above it, it is a better Testament.

1. It is supposed that there was another Testament which God had made with his people. This the Apostle supposes in this whole context, and at length brings his discourse to its head and issue in the eighth Chapter, where he expressly compares the two Testaments the one with the other. Now this was the Covenant or Testament that God made with the Hebrews on Mount Sinai when he brought them out of Egypt, as is expressly declared in the ensuing Chapters, whereof we must treat in its proper place.

2. It is supposed, that this was a good Testament. It was so in it self, as an effect of the wisdom and righteousness of God. For all that he does is good in it self, both naturally and morally, nor can it otherwise be. And it was of good use to the Church, namely, to them who looked to the end of it, and used it in its proper design. To the body of the people indeed, as far as they were carnal, and looked only on the one hand for temporal benefits by it, or on the other for life and salvation, it was an heavy yoke, yes the ministration of death. With respect to such persons and ends it contained statutes that were not good, commandments that could not give life; and was every way unprofitable. But yet in it self it was on many accounts good, just and holy. (1.) As it had an impression upon it of the wisdom and goodness of God. (2) As it was instructive in the nature and demerit of sin. (3.) As it directed to and represented the only means of deliverance by righteousness and salvation in Christ. (4.) As it established a worship which was very glorious and acceptable to God during its season. But as we shall show afterwards, it came short in all excellencies and worth of this whereof Christ is the Surety.

3. It is supposed that this Testament had a Mediator. For this New Testament having a Surety, the other must have so also. But who this was must be inquired.

1. Some would have our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Surety of that Testament also. For so our Apostle affirms in general, There is one God, and one Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransome for all to be Testified in due time (1 Timothy 2:5, 6). Be the Covenant or Testament what or which it will, there is but one Mediator between God and Man. Hence our Apostle says of him, that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to day, and for ever (Chap. 13:8). If therefore he be the only Mediator to day under the New Testament, he was so also yesterday under the Old.

Answ. 1. There is some difference between a Mediator at large, and such a Mediator as is withal a Surety. And however on any account Christ may be said to be the Mediator of that Covenant, he cannot be said to be the Surety of it.

2. The place in Timothy cannot intend the Old Covenant but is exclusive of it. For the Lord Christ is there called a Mediator with respect to the ransome that he paid in his death and bloodshedding. This respected not the confirmation of the Old Covenant, but was the abolition of it; and the Old was confirmed with the blood of beasts, as the Apostle expressly declares (Chap. 9:18, 19).

The Lord Christ was indeed in his Divine Person the immediate Administrator of that Covenant, the Angel and Messenger of it on the behalf of God the Father; but this does not constitute him a Mediator properly: For a Mediator is not of one, but God is one.

The Lord Christ was a Mediator under that Covenant, as to the original Promise of Grace, and the efficacy of it, which were administred therein; but he was not the Mediator and Surety of it as it was a Covenant: For had he been so, he being the same yesterday, to day, and for ever, that Covenant could have never been disanulled.

Some assert Moses to have been the Surety of the Old Testament. For so it is said, that the Law was given by the Disposition of Angels in the hand of a Mediator (Galatians 3:19). That is, of Moses; whom the People desired to be the internuncius between God and them (Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:24; Chap. 18. 16).

Answ. (1.) Moses may be said to be the Mediator of the Old Covenant in a general sense, inasmuch as he went between God and the People, to declare the Will of God to them, and to return the profession of obedience from them to God; But he was in no sense the Surety thereof. For on the one side God did not appoint him in his stead to give assurance of his fidelity to the People. This he took absolutly to himself in those words wherewith all his Laws were prefaced; I am the Lord your God. Nor did he, nor could he on the other side undertake to God for the People; and so could not be esteemed in any sense the Surety of the Covenant. (2.) The Apostle has no such argument in hand, as to compare Christ with Moses, nor is he treating of that Office wherein he compares him with him, and prefers him above him, which was his Prophetical Office whereof he had before discoursed (Chap. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Therefore

It was the High Priest alone who was the Surety of that Covenant. It was made and confirmed by sacrifices (Psalm 50:5), as we shall see more at large afterwards (Chap. 9. 19, 20). And if Moses were concerned herein, it was as he executed the office of the Priest in an extraordinary manner. Therefore the High-Priest offering solemn sacrifices in the name and on the behalf of the People, making attonement for them according to the terms of that Covenant, supplyed the place of the Surety thereof. And we may observe, That

How good and glorious soever any thing may appcar to be, or really be in the worship of God, or as a way of our coming to him, or walking before him; if it be not ratified in and by the immediate Suretiship of Christ, it must give way to that which is better; it could be neither durable in it self, nor make any thing perfect in them that made use of it.

In what is positively asserted in the words we may observe,

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

It was sufficient for the Church of the Jews to believe in the Messiah, and to own the work of Redemption which he was to accomplish. Nor did the meer actual coming of Christ make it absolutely necessary that they should all immediately be obliged to believe him to be the Person. Many, I doubt not, died after his Incartion and went to Heaven without an actual belief that it was He who was their Redeemer. But their obligation to Faith towards that individual person arose from the Declaration that was made of him, and the Evidences given to prove him to be the Son of God, the Savior of the world. So he tells those to whom he preached and who saw his miracles, if you believe not that I am he, you shall dye in your sins (John 8:24). It would not now suffice them to believe in the Messiah in general, but they were also to believe, that Jesus was He, or they must perish for their unbelief. Howbeit they only were intended who hearing his words and seeing his Miracles, had sufficient Evidence of his being the Son God. Of others in the same Church, this was not as yet required. Nor, it may be, does our Savior oblige them immediately to Faith in this matter; only he declares what would be the event with them, who upon his Accomplishment of his work in the Earth, and the sending of the Holy Ghost after his Ascension, whereby he gave the principal Declaration and Evidence of his being the Messiah, should continue in their unbelief. Hereon and not before, the belief in his individual Person, in Jesus the Son of God, became the Foundation of the Church; so that whoever beleived not in him did die in their sins. Therefore the Apostles immediately upon the coming of the Holy Ghost, made this the first and principal subject of their Preaching, namely, that Jesus was the Christ. See Acts 2, 3, 4, 5. So our Apostle in this place, having asserted the nature of the Office of the promised Messiah, makes an application of it to his Person, as he also had done (Chap. 2. 9). And we may observe that,

All the priviledges, benefits and advantages of the Offices and Mediation of Christ, will not avail us, unless we reduce them all to Faith in his Person. Indeed it is not so much what is done, though that be unconceivably great, as by whom it is done, namely, Jesus the Son of God, God and Man in One Person.

It is a matter of somewhat a surprising nature, that divers in these days do endeavor to divert the minds and faith of men from a respect to the Person of Christ. But that the crafts of Satan have made nothing, be it never so foolish or impious in religion, to seem strange, a man could not but admire how such an attempt should be either owned or countenanced. For my part I must acknowledge that I know no more of Christian religion but what makes me judge, that the principal trouble of believers in this world, lies herein, that they can no more fervently love, nor more firmly believe in the Person of Christ, than what they have as yet attained to. But this notion has been vented and carried on among us, by persons who out of an aim after things novel and contrary to the received faith, have suffered themselves to be imposed on by those who have other principles than what they seem to own. For the Socinians denying the divine nature of Christ, do, (in the pursuit of that infidelity) their utmost to take the minds of men from a regard to his Person, and would reduce all religion to a mere obedience to his commands. And indeed there can be no place for that divine faith in him, trust on him, and love to him which the Church always professed, if it be supposed that he is not God and Man in one Person. And their reasonings, they are to this purpose, which some represent to us, who yet will not avow that principle from where alone they are taken and do rise. But so long as we can hold the Head, or this great foundation of religion, that the Lord Christ is the Eternal Son of God, which alone gives life and efficacy to his whole work of Mediation, our faith in all its actings will be reduced to his Person; there it begins, there it ends. It is Jesus who is this Mediator and Surety of the Covenant, in whose Person God redeemed the Church with his own Blood.

2. That which is affirmed of this Person is, that he was made a Surety.

1. The way whereby he became so, is expressed by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. He was made so. So is this word used with respect to him, Chap. 1. 4. of the same importance with another translated appointed, Chap. 3. 2. and it signifies what is expressed, Chap. 5. 5. The places may be consulted with our exposition of them. Respect is had herein to the acts of God the Father in this matter. What are those acts of God, whether eternal or temporal that did concur to or any way belong to the investiture of Christ in his offices, I have at large declared on Chap. 1. 1, 2, 3. And more particularly for what concerns his Priesthood, it has been handled apart in our Exercitations on that subject. But we may here also observe, that

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

3. It is affirmed that he was thus made, appointed or constituted, that is, by God himself a Surety, which is further declared by the addition of that whereunto his Suretyship had a respect, namely, a better Covenant; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉].

Of the proper signification of the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and its use, we must treat expressly afterwards. Here we shall only observe that in this word the Apostle takes many things as granted among the Hebrews.

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

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

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

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

The words of Schlictingius are: Sponsor foederis appellatur Jesus, quod nomine Dci nobis spoponderit, id est, fidem fecerit Deum foederis promissiones servaturum esse. Non verò quasi pro nobis spoponderit Deo, nostrorumve debitorum solutionem in se receperit. Nec enim nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Christus ad nos venit, foedus nobiscum panxit, ejusque promissiones ratas fore spopondit & in se recepit, ideoque nec sponsor simpliciter sed foederis sponsor nominatur. Spopondit autem Christus pro foederis divini veritate, non tantùm quatenùs id firmum ratumque fore verbis perpetuo testatus est, sed etiam quatenus muneris sui fidem maximis rerum ipsarum comprobavit Documentis, tum perfectâ vitae innocentia & sanctitate, tum divinis planè quae patravit operibus, tum mortis adeò truculentae, quam pro doctrinae suae veritate subiit, perpessione. After which he subjoins a long discourse about the evidences which we have of the veracity of Christ. And herein we have a brief account of their whole opinion concerning the Mediation of Christ. The words of Grotius are: Spopondit Christus. i. e. nos certos Promissi fecit, non solis verbis sed perpetuâ vitae sanctitate, morte ob id toleratâ, et miraculis plurimis, which are an abridgment of the discourse of Schlictingius. To the same purpose Doctor Hammond expounds it, that he was a sponsor or Surety for God to the confirmation of the promises of the Covenant.

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

And first, we may consider the argument that is produced to prove, that Christ was only a surety for God to us. Now this is taken neither from the name nor nature of the office or work of a surety, nor from the nature of the Covenant whereof he was a surety, nor of the office wherein he was so. But the sole argument insisted on, is, that we do not give Christ as a surety of the Covenant to God, but he gives him to us, and therefore he is a surety for God and the accomplishment of his promises, and not for us to pay our debts, or to answer what is required of us.

But there is no force in this argument. For it belongs not to the nature of a surety, by whom he is or may be designed to his office and work therein. His own voluntary susception of the office and work, is all that is required thereunto, however he may be designed or induced to undertake it. He who of his own accord does voluntarily undertake for another, on what grounds, reasons or considerations soever he does so, is his surety. And this the Lord Christ did in the behalf of the Church. For when it was said, sacrifice and burnt offerings and whole burnt-offerings for sin God would not have, or accept as sufficient to make the atonement that he required, so as that the Covenant might be established and made effectual to us, then said he, Lo I come to do your will O God (Hebrews 10:5, 6). He willingly, and voluntarily, out of his own abundant goodness and love took upon him to make atonement for us, wherein he was our surety. And accordingly this undertaking is ascribed to that love which he exercised herein (Galatians 2:12; 1 John 3:16; Revelation 1:5). And there was this in it moreover that he took upon him our nature or the Seed of Abraham, wherein he was our surety. So that although we neither did nor could appoint him so to be, yet he took from us that wherein and whereby he was so: which was as much as if we had designed him to his work, as to the true reason of his being our surety. Therefore notwithstanding those antecedent transactions that were between the Father and him in this matter, it was the voluntary engagement of himself to be our surety, and his taking our nature upon him for that end, which was the formal reason of his being instituted in that office.

2. We may consider the arguments, from where it is evident that he neither was nor could be a surety to us for God, but was so for us to God. For,

1. [in non-Latin alphabet] or [in non-Latin alphabet], a surety, is one that undertakes for another wherein he is defective really or in reputation. Whatever that undertaking be, whether in words of promise, or in depositing of real security in the hands of an arbitrator, or by any other personal engagement of life and body, it respects the defect of the person for whom any one becomes a surety. Such an one is sponsor or fidejussor in all good authors and common use of speech. And if any one be of absolute credit himself, and of a reputation every way unquestionable, there is no need of a surety, unless in case of mortality. The words of a surety in the behalf of another whose ability or reputation is dubious, are, ad me recipio, faciet aut faciam. And when [in non-Latin alphabet] is taken adjectively as sometimes it is, it signifies him who is satisdationibus obnoxius; liable to payments for others that are non-solvent.

2. God can therefore have no surety properly, because there can be no imagination of any defect on his part. There may be indeed a question whether any word or promise be a word or promise of God. To assure us hereof, it is not the work of a surety, but only any one or any means that may give evidence that so it is. But upon a supposition that what is proposed, is his word or promise, there can be no imagination or fear of any defect on his part, so as that there should be any need of a surety for the performance of it. He does indeed make use of witnesses to confirm his word, that is, to testify that such promises he has made and so he will do. So the Lord Christ was his witness, Isa. 43:10. You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and my Servant whom I have chosen. But they were not all his sureties. So he affirms that he came into the world to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37), that is, the truth of the promises of God; for he was the Minister of the Circumcision for the truth of the promises of God to the Fathers (Romans 15:8). But a surety for God properly so called he was not, nor could be. The distance and difference is wide enough between a witness and a surety; for a surety must be of more ability, or more credit and reputation than he for whom he is a surety, or there is no need of his suretyship. This none can be for God, no not the Lord Christ himself, who in his whole work was the Servant of the Father. And the Apostle does not use this word in a general improper sense for any one that by any means gives assurance of any other thing; for so he had asserted nothing peculiar to Christ. For in such a sense all the Prophets and Apostles were sureties for God, and many of them confirmed the truth of his word and promises with the laying down of their lives. But such a surety he intends as undertakes to do that for others, which they cannot do for themselves, or at least are not reputed to be able to do what is required of them.

3. The Apostle had before at large declared who and what was God's Surety in this matter of the Covenant, and how impossible it was that he should have any other: And this was himself alone interposing himself by his Oath. For in this cause, because he had none greater to swear by, he sware by himself (Hebrews 6:13, 14). Therefore if God would give any other Surety besides himself, it must be one greater than He. This being every way impossible, he swears by himself only. Many ways he may and does use for the declaring and testifying of his Truth to us, that we may know and believe it to be his word; and so the Lord Christ in his Ministry was the principal witness of the Truth of God. But other Surety than himself he can have none. And therefore,

4. When he would have us in this matter, not only come to the full assurance of faith concerning his Promises, but also to have strong consolation, he resolves it wholly into the immutability of his counsel, as declared by his Promise and Oath (Hebrews 6:18, 19). So that neither is God capable of having any Surety properly so called, neither do we stand in need of any on his part for the confirmation of our faith in the highest degree.

5. We on all accounts stand in need of a Surety for us, or on our behalf. Neither without the interposition of such a Surety could any Covenant between God and us be firm and stable, or an everlasting Covenant ordered in all things and sure. In the first Covenant made with Adam there was no Surety, but God and Man were the immediate Covenanters. And although we were then in a state and condition able to perform and answer all the terms of the Covenant, yet was it broken and disannulled. If this came to pass by the failure of the Promise of God, it was necessary that on the making of a new Covenant, he should have a surety to undertake for him, that the Covenant might be stable and everlasting. But this is false and blasphemous to imagine. It was man alone who failed and broke that Covenant. Therefore it was necessary that upon the making of the New Covenant, and that with a design and purpose that it should never be disannulled, as the former was, that we should have a Surety and undertaker for us. For if that first Covenant was not firm and stable because there was no Surety to undertake for us, notwithstanding all that ability which we had to answer the terms of it, how much less can any other be so, now our natures are become depraved and sinful? Therefore we alone are capable of a Surety properly so called for us, we alone stood in need of him, and without him the Covenant could not be firm and inviolable on our parts: The Surety therefore of this Covenant is so with God for us.

6. It is the Priesthood of Christ that the Apostle treats of in this place, and that alone. Therefore he is a Surety as he is a Priest and in the discharge of that office, and is therefore so with God on our behalf. This Schlictingius observes and is aware what will ensue thereon against his pretensions, which he endeavours to obviate. Mirum (says he) porrò alicui videri posset, cur D. Auctor de Christi sacerdotio in superioribus & in sequentibus agens, derepente eum sponsorem foederis, non verò sacerdotem vocet. Cur non dixerit, tantò praestantioris foederis factus est sacerdos Jesus? hoc enim planè requirere videtur totus orationis contextus. Credibile est in voce sponsoris sacerdotium quoque Christi intelligi. Sponsoris enim non est solùm alieno nomine quippiam promittere, & fidem suam pro alio interponere; sed etiam, si ita res ferat, alterius nomine id quod spopondit, praestare. In rebus quidem humanis, si id non praestet is pro quo sponsor fide jussit; hic verò propter contrariam causam (nam prior hic locum habere non potest) nempe quatenus ille, pro quo spopondit Christus, per ipsum Christum promissa sua nobis exhibet, quâ in re praecipuè Christi sacerdotium continetur.

Answ. (1.) It may indeed seem strange to any one who imagines Christ to be such a Surety as he does, why the Apostle should so call him and so introduce him in the description of his Priestly Office, as that which belongs thereunto. But grant what is the proper work and duty of a Surety, and who the Lord Jesus was a Surety for, and it is evident that nothing more proper or pertinent could be mentioned by him, when he was in the declaration of that office. (2.) He confesses that by his exposition of this Suretyship of Christ, as making a Surety for God, he contradicts the nature and only notion of a Surety among men. For such a one he acknowledges does nothing but in the defect and inability of them for whom he is engaged and does undertake. He is to pay that which they owe, and to do what is to be done by them, which they cannot perform. And if this be not the notion of a Surety in this place, the Apostle makes use of a word nowhere else used in the whole Scripture, to teach us that which it does never signify among men, which is improbable and absurd. For the sole reason why he did make use of it was, that from the nature and notion of it among men in other cases, we may understand the signification of it, what he intends by it, and what under that name he ascribes to the Lord Jesus. (3.) He has no way to solve the Apostle's mention of Christ's being a Surety in the description of his Priestly Office, but by overthrowing the nature of that office also. For to confirm this absurd notion that Christ as a Priest was a Surety for God, he would have us believe that the Priesthood of Christ consists in his making effectual to us the Promises of God, or his effectual communicating of the good things promised to us; the falsehood of which notion really destructive of the Priesthood of Christ, I have elsewhere at large detected and confuted. Therefore seeing the Lord Christ is the Surety of the Covenant as a Priest, and all the sacerdotal actings of Christ have God for their immediate object, and are performed with him on our behalf, he was a Surety for us also.

It remaineth that we enquire positively, how the Lord Christ was the Surety of the New Covenant, and what is the benefit we receive thereby. And to this purpose we must first consider that opinion of some, that the whole end of the Mediation of Christ, was only to procure the New Covenant; although at first view it be irreconcileable to the nature and notion of a Surety. For a Surety is not the Procurer of that whereof he is the Surety, but only the undertaker for its accomplishment. But we must more distinctly consider this Assertion, and in what sense Christ may be said to procure the New Covenant by his Death and Mediation. And to this end we must observe that the New Covenant may be considered divers ways in various respects.

1. In the Designation and Preparation of its Terms and Benefits in the Counsel of God. And this although it have the nature of an Eternal Decree, yet is it distinguished from the Decree of Election, which first and properly respects the Subjects or Persons for whom grace and glory are prepared. For this respects the Preparation only of that grace and glory, as to the way and manner of their Communication. It is true, this Purpose or Counsel of God's Will, is not called the Covenant of Grace, which is the express declared exemplification of it. The Covenant of Grace, I say, is only the Declaration of this Counsel of God's Will, accompanied with the Means and Powers of its Accomplishment, and the Prescription of the ways whereby we are to be interested in it, and made partakers of the Benefits of it. But in the enquiry after the procuring Cause of the New Covenant, it is the first thing that ought to come under consideration. For nothing can be the procuring Cause of the Covenant which is not so of this Spring and Fountain of it, of this Idea of it in the mind of God. But this is no where in the Scripture affirmed to be the effect of the Death or Mediation of Christ, and so to ascribe it, is to overthrow the whole freedom of Eternal Grace and Love. Neither can any thing that is absolutely Eternal as is this Decree and Counsel of God, be the effect of, or be procured by any thing that is External and Temporal. And besides, it is expresly assigned to absolute Love and Grace: see (Ephesians 1:4, 5, 6) with all those places where the Love of God is assigned as the sole cause of the Designation of Christ to his Office, and the sending of him.

2. It may be considered with respect to the Federal Transactions between the Father and Son, concerning the Accomplishment of this counsel of his Will. What these were, wherein they did consist, I have declared at large in my Exercitations. Neither do I call this the Covenant of Grace absolutely, nor is it so called in the Scripture. But it is that wherein it had its establishment, as to all the ways, means and ends of its Accomplishment; and all things so disposed, as that it might be effectual to the Glory of the Wisdom, Grace, Righteousness and Power of God. Therefore the Covenant of Grace could not be procured by any means or cause, but that which was the cause of this Covenant of the Mediator, or of God the Father with the Son as undertaking the work of Mediation. And as this is no where ascribed to the Death of Christ in the Scripture, so to assert it, is contrary to all spiritual Reason and understandings. Who can conceive that Christ by his Death, should procure the Agreement between God and him, that he should die?

3. With respect to the Declaration of it: this you may call God's making or establishing of it with us, if you please, though making of the Covenant in the Scripture is applyed only to its Execution or actual Application to Persons. But this Declaration of the Grace of God, and the Provision in the Covenant of the Mediator for the making of it effectual to his Glory, is most usually called the Covenant of Grace. And this is twofold.

1. In the way of a singular and absolute Promise, as it was first declared to, and thereby established with Adam and afterwards with Abraham. This is the Declaration of the Purpose of God, or the free Determination of his Will as to his dealing with sinners, on the supposition of the fall and the forfeiture of their first Covenant state. Hereof the Grace and Will of God was the only Cause (Hebrews 8:8). And the Death of Christ could not be the means of its procurement; for he himself and all that he was to do for us, was the substance of that Promise wherein this Declaration of God's Grace and Purpose was made, or of this Covenant of Grace which was introduced and established in the room of that which was broken and disanulled as to the ends and benefits of a Covenant. The substance of the first Promise, wherein the whole Covenant of Grace was virtually comprized, directly respected and expressed the giving of him, for the Recovery of mankind from sin and misery by his Death (Genesis 3:15). Therefore if he, and all the benefits of his Mediation, his Death and all the effects of it, be contained in the Promise of the Covenant, that is, in the Covenant it self; then was not his Death the procuring Cause of that Covenant, nor do we owe it thereunto.

2. In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a Covenant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprized in the absolute Promise, is expressed in other places by the way of the conditions required on our part. This is not the Covenant but the constitution of the terms on our part, whereon we are made partakers of it. Nor is the constitution of these terms an effect of the Death of Christ, or procured thereby. It is a mere effect of the sovereign wisdom and grace of God. The things themselves as bestowed on us, communicated to us, wrought in us by grace, are all of them effects of the Death of Christ; but the constitution of them to be the terms and conditions of the Covenant, is an act of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. God so loved the world as to send his only Begotten Son to die, not that faith and repentance might be the means of salvation, but that all his elect might believe, and all that believe might not perish, but have life everlasting. But yet it is granted that the constitution of these terms of the Covenant does respect the federal transactions between the Father and the Son, wherein they were ordered to the praise of the glory of God's grace; and so although their constitution was not the procurement of his Death, yet without respect to it, it had not been. Therefore the sole cause of making the New Covenant in any sense, was the same with that of giving Christ himself to be our Mediator, namely, the purpose, counsel, goodness, grace and love of God, as it is everywhere expressed in the Scripture.

It may be therefore enquired what respect the Covenant of Grace has to the Death of Christ or what influence it has thereunto.

I Answer, it has a threefold respect thereunto.

1. In that it was confirmed, ratified, and made irrevocable thereby. This our Apostle insists upon at large (Hebrews 9:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20). And he compares his Blood in his Death and sacrifice of himself, to the sacrifices and their blood whereby the old Covenant was confirmed, purified, dedicated or established (Hebrews 9:18, 19). Now these sacrifices did not procure that Covenant, or prevail with God to enter into it, but only ratified and confirmed it; and this was done in the New Covenant by the Blood of Christ, in the way that shall be afterwards declared.

2. He thereby underwent, and performed all that which in the righteousness and wisdom of God required that the effects, fruits, benefits and grace intended, designed and prepared in the New Covenant, might be effectually accomplished and communicated to sinners. Hence although he procured not the Covenant for us by his Death, yet he was in his Person, Mediation, Life, and Death, the only cause and means whereby the whole grace of the Covenant is made effectual to us.

3. All the benefits of it were procured by him; that is, all the grace, mercy, privileges and glory that God had prepared in the counsel of his will, and proposed in the Covenant or promises of it, are purchased, merited, and procured by his Death, and effectually communicated or applied to all the covenanters, by virtue thereof, with other of his Mediatory acts. And this is much more an eminent procuring of the New Covenant, than what is pretended about the procurement of its terms and conditions. For if he should have procured no more but this, if we owe this only to his Mediation, that God would thereon, and did grant and establish this rule, law, and promise, that whoever believed should be saved, it was possible that no one should be saved thereby; yes if he did no more, considering our state and condition, it was impossible that any one should so be.

These things being premised we shall now briefly declare how or wherein he was the Surety of the Covenant, as he is here called.

A Surety, Sponsor, Vas, Praes, Fidejussor, for us the Lord Christ was, by his voluntary undertaking out of his rich grace and love, to do, answer, and perform all that is required on our parts, that we may enjoy the benefits of the Covenant, the grace and glory prepared, proposed and promised in it, in the way and manner determined on by divine wisdom. And this may be reduced to two heads.

1. He undertook as the Surety of the Covenant to answer for all the sins of those who are to be, and are made partakers of the benefits of it. That is, to undergo the punishment due to their sins; to make atonement for them, by offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice for their expiation, redeeming them by the price of his Blood from their state of misery and bondage under the Law and the curse of it (Isaiah 53:4, 5, 6, 10; Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Corinthians 6:20; Romans 3:25, 26; Hebrews 10:5, 6, 7, 8; Romans 8:2, 3; 2 Corinthians 5:19, 20, 21; Galatians 3:13). And this was absolutely necessary, that the grace and glory prepared in the Covenant might be communicated to us. Without this undertaking of his, and performance of it, the righteousness and faithfulness of God would not permit, that sinners, such as had apostatized from him, despised his authority, and rebelled against him, falling thereby under the sentence and curse of the Law, should again be received into his favor, and be made partakers of grace and glory. This therefore the Lord Christ took upon himself, as the Surety of the Covenant.

2. That those who were to be taken into this Covenant should receive grace enabling them to comply with the terms of it, fulfil its conditions, and yield the obedience which God required therein. For by the ordination of God, he was to procure, and did merit and procure for them the Holy Spirit, and all the needful supplies of grace to make them new creatures, and enable them to yield obedience to God from a new principle of spiritual life, and that faithful to the end. So was he the Surety of this better Covenant.

Obs. The stability of the New Covenant depends on the suretyship of Christ and is secured to believers thereby. The introduction of a surety in any case is to give stability and security. For it is never done but on a supposition of some weakness, or defect on one account or other. If in any contract, bargain, or agreement, a man be esteemed every way responsible both for ability and fidelity, there is no need of a surety, nor is it required. But yet whereas there is a defect or weakness among all men, mentioned by our Apostle in the next verses, namely, that they are all mortal and subject to death, in which case neither ability nor fidelity will avail any thing; men in all cases of importance need sureties. These give the utmost confirmation that affairs among men are capable of. So does the suretyship of Christ on our behalf in this Covenant. For the evidencing whereof, we may consider,

1. The first Covenant as made with Adam, had no surety. As to that which in the New Covenant the suretyship of Christ does principally respect, it had no need of any. For there was no sin, transgression or rebellion against God to be satisfied for, so that it was absolutely incapable of a surety to that end. But as to the second part of it, or his undertaking for us, that through supplies of strength from him, we shall abide faithful in the Covenant, according to the terms and tenure of it; this had no inconsistency with that first state. As the Lord Christ upon his undertaking the work of mediation, became an immediate head to the angels that sinned not, whereby they received their establishment and security from any future defection; so might he have been such a head to, and such an undertaker for man in innocency. No created nature was or could have been unchangeable in its condition and state, merely on its root of creation. As some of the angels fell at first, forsaking their habitation, falling from the principle of obedience which had no other root but in themselves; so the rest of them, all of them, might afterwards have in like manner apostatized and fallen from their own innate stability, had they not been gathered up into the new head of the creation, the Son of God as Mediator; receiving a new relation from there, and establishment thereby. So it might have been with man in innocency: But God in his infinite sovereign wisdom saw it not meet that so it should be. Man shall be left to the exercise of that ability of living to God, which he had received in his creation, and which was sufficient for that end: A surety God gave him not. And therefore although he had all the advantage which a sinless nature filled with holy principles, dispositions, and inclinations, free from all vitious habits, rebellious affections, inordinate imaginations, could afford to him; yet he broke the Covenant, and forfeited all the benefits thereof. Whatever there was besides in that Covenant, of grace, power, ability, and the highest obligations to duty; yet all was lost for want of a surety. And this abundantly testifies to the preeminence of Christ in all things. For whereas Adam with all the innumerable advantages he had, that is, all helps necessary in himself, and no opposition or difficulty from himself to conflict withal, yet utterly broke the Covenant wherein he was created and placed; believers who have little strength in themselves, and a powerful inbred opposition to their stability, are yet secured in their station by the interposition of the Lord Christ as their surety.

2. When God made a Covenant with the people in the wilderness, to manifest that there could be no stability in it without respect to a surety, that it could not continue, no not for a day, he caused it to be dedicated or confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. This the Apostle declares, and withal its typicalness with respect to the New Covenant and the confirmation of it with the blood of Christ (Chap. 9:18, 19, 20, 21). And afterwards, as we have declared, the high priest in the sacrifices that he offered, was the typical mediator and surety of that Covenant. And the end of this appointment of God, was to manifest, that it was from the blood of the true sacrifice, namely, that of Jesus Christ, that the New Covenant was to receive its stability. And we need a surety to this purpose,

1. Because in the state and condition of sin, we are not capable of immediate dealing or covenanting with God. There can be no covenanting between God and sinners, unless there be some one to stand forth in our name, to receive the terms of God, and to undertake for us. So when God began to treat immediately from Heaven with the people of old, they all jointly professed, that such was the greatness and glory of God, such the terror of his Majesty, that it was impossible for them so to treat with him; and if he spake to them any more, they should all dye and be consumed. Therefore with one consent they desired that there might be one appointed between God and them, to transact all things and to undertake for them as to their obedience, which God well approved in them (Deuteronomy 5:23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31). Adam indeed in the state of innocency could treat immediately with God, as to that covenant wherein he was placed. For notwithstanding his infinite distance from God, yet God had made him for converse with himself, and did not despise the work of his own hands. But immediately upon the entrance of sin he was sensible of the loss of that privilege, whereon he both fled and hid himself from the presence of God. And hence those who of old thought they had seen God, concluded that they should dye, as being sensible of their incapacity to treat immediately with him. So when the Prophet cried out that he was undone or cut off, because of the immediate presence of God, his eyes having seen the King the Lord of Hosts (Isaiah 6:5), he was not relieved from his apprehensions, until his mouth was touched with a coal from the Altar, a type of the mediation and sacrifice of Christ. While we have any thing of sin remaining in us, we can have nothing to do with God immediately. Therefore that there may be any covenant between God and us, much more such an one as shall be ordered in all things and sure, there must be one to stand before God in our stead, to receive the terms of God, and declare them to us, and to undertake for us that we shall stand to them and make them good to the glory of God. And in this sense was the New Covenant firstly made with Christ; not only as he undertook the work of mediation, which he did upon the especial eternal compact which was between the Father and him; but also as he undertook for all the Elect to receive the terms of the covenant from God for them, in which sense the promise in the first place was made to the seed that is one, which is Christ (Galatians 3:16), and to answer for them, that they should receive and stand to those terms. For he said, surely they are my people, children that will not lie, so he was their Savior (Isaiah 63:8). Therefore it could not be upon the account of God's holiness and glorious greatness, that there should be any New Covenant at all between God and sinners, without the interposition of a surety. Nor did it become the infinite wisdom of God, after man had broken and disannulled the covenant made with him in innocency, to enter into a New Covenant with him in his fallen condition, without an immediate undertaker, that it should be assuredly kept and the ends of it attained. If you have lent a man a thousand pounds upon his own security, when he owed nothing else, nor was indebted to any other; and he has not only failed in his payment, but contracted other debts innumerable, will you now lend him ten thousand pounds on the same security expecting to receive it again? Had God entered into never so many covenants with men, without such a surety and undertaker, they would have been all broken and disannulled, as he well knew. He knew that we would deal very treacherously, and were rightly called transgressors from the womb (Isaiah 48:8). But so to covenant with us, would no way have become the infinite wisdom of God. Therefore he laid help upon one that is mighty, he exalted one chosen out of the people (Psalm 89:19). He committed this work to Jesus Christ, and then said concerning us, now deliver them, for I have found a Ransom.

2. The changeableness of our condition in this world, requires a surety for us, to render the covenant firm, stable and unalterable. So the Psalmist complaining of our frail and mutable condition shows, that it is in Christ alone that we have all our establishment (Psalm 102:25, 26, 27, 28): Of old you have laid the foundations of the earth, &c. That it is the Lord Christ the Son of God that in an especial manner is intended, I have showed and proved at large on Chapter 1:10, where this passage in the Psalm is applied to him. And the conclusion that the Psalmist makes from the consideration of his immutability, is this, the children of your servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before you (ver. 28). Without an interest in him and his stability we are subject to change, alter, decline, so as it is impossible the covenant should be sure to us. The very nature of the principle whereby we live, and walk before God in this world, renders our condition alterable in itself. For we walk by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). It is vision alone, or the immediate enjoyment of God which will enstate us in an unalterable condition. While we walk by faith, it is otherwise with us, and we depend wholly on our surety for our security in the covenant.

3. Who is it among the whole society of believers, that is not sensible of such actual dispositions to change, yes such actual changes, as that it is not evident to him, that his final stability depends on the undertaking of a surety? No man can give an account from himself from where it is, that he has not already utterly broken covenant with God. There is no one corruption, no one temptation, but does evidence a sufficiency in themselves to defeat us of our covenant interest, if we stood upon our own bottoms. It is faith alone with respect to the suretyship of Christ, which discovers how we have been kept hitherto, and which gives us any comfortable prospect of our future preservation. And the same is evident from the consideration of all the adversaries of our covenant interest.

Here we might stay a while to contemplate the glory of divine wisdom and grace, in providing this surety of the covenant, and to adore the infinite love and condescension of him, who undertook the discharge of this office for us. But we must proceed, only observing

2. That the Lord Christ's undertaking to be our Surety gives the highest obligation to all duties of obedience according to the Covenant. For he has undertaken for us, that we shall yield to God this covenant obedience, and said, surely they are children that will not lie. He is no believer who understands not somewhat of the force and power of this obligation.