Chapter 8

1 Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the summe, that we have such an high Priest, that sits at the right hand of the throne of maiestie in heauens,

2 And is a minister of the Sanctuarie, and of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitcht, and not man.

3 For every high Priest is ordained to offer both gifts and sacrifices: therefore it was of necessitie that this man should have somewhat also to offer.

4 For he were not a Priest, if he were on the earth, seeing there are Priests that according to the law offer gifts:

5 Who serve to the patterne and shadow of heauenly things, as Moses was warned by God when he was about to finish the Tabernacle. See said he, that you make all things according to the patterne showed you in the Mount.

6 But now our high Priest has obtained a more excellent office, in as much as he is the Mediator of a better Testament which is established upon better promises.

NOw the summe of that we have spoken, &c] To the ende the readers might know what the matter is, which he now handleth, he shows it is his intent to prove that the Priesthood of Christ is spirituall, by which the Priesthood of the law was abolished. True it is, that he alwaies holds on his purpose: but because he contends with diverse arguments, he interlaced this admonition, that hee might alwaies keepe the readers attentiue to the ende and scope of his speech. He has previously proved Christ to be the high Priest: now he striues to prove further that his Priesthood is heauenly, wherby it follows, that by his comming, that which Moses instituted vnder the law is abolished, in regard it was earthly. Now because Christ suffered in the basenesse of the flesh, and by taking upon himselfe the forme of a servant, made himselfe of no reputation in the world, Philip. 2.7. The Apostle sends us to his ascension, by which not only the shame of the crosse was swallowed vp, but also that base and abiect condition which he had by cloathing himselfe with our flesh. For we must esteeme of the dignitie of Christ his Priesthood, by the virtue of the holy Spirit, which was manifested in his resurrection, and ascension. Thus then stands his argument, Seeing Christ is ascended to the right hand of God, to raigne triumphantly in heauen, he is not a minister of the earthly sanctuarie, but of the heauenly.

As touching this word of holy things, or of the sanctuary, the Apostle expounds himselfe when he addes, of the true Tabernacle. But some may aske here, Obiection. whether it was a false Tabernacle which Moses built, or made at randon? For in these wordes there is a close opposition. I answer, that this trueth of which he speaks, is not opposite to a lie; but to the figures onely: as also when it is said, Ioh. 1.17. The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Answer. This auncient Tabernacle then was no vaine inuention of man, but the image of the heauenly Tabernacle. Nevertheless because there is difference betweene the shadow and the bodie; also between the signification, and the thing [〈2 pages missing〉]speakes of the death of Christ, he respects not the outward act so much, as the spiritual fruite that came of it. He suffered death after the common manner of men; but in that he blotted out sins as a Priest, this was by a divine power. The shedding of his blood was a thing outward: but the purgation it wrought and yet works is a thing inward and spirituall. In a word, hee died on earth, but the power and efficacie of his death reached to heauen. As touching that which follows, some turne it thus; Of the number of those which offer gifts according to the law, &c. But the words of the Apostle have another signification: therefore I had rather resolue it thus; While there are, or seeing there are Priests. For his meaning is to prove one of the two, either that Christ is not a Priest, if so be the Priesthood of the law remaine, because it is without sacrifice: or rather that the sacrifices of the law doe take an end as soone as Christ shows himselfe. But the first member is absurd, because it is not lawfull to spoyle Christ of his Priesthood. It remaines then that we confesse the order of the Leuiticall Priesthood to be now abolished.

Who serve to the paterne, &c.] I take this word to serve, in this place, Ver. 5 for the performance of the divine service: and therefore this word to, must be understood in the Greeke text, or els some other word like to it which also we have put, to wit, in the. Truly this sense agrees better; than as others turne it, Which serve to the paterne, and shadow of heauenly things: and the construction of the Greeke text does easily beare this sense. To be short, he teaches that the true service of God consists not in the legall ceremonies: and therefore when as the Leuiticall Priests executed their office, they had onely a shadow, and an inferiour pourtraiture, which is far beneath the true and naturall paterne. For indeed the Greeke word which we translate paterne, or samplar, signifies so much. So that he preuents an obiection which might be made to the contrarie. For he shows yt the service of God after the custom of you fathers, was not vnprofitable; because it had an higher significatiō, to wit, heauenly.

As it was answered to Moses when he was to finish the Tabernacle.] This place is in Exod. 20.40. And the Apostle alleageth it to prove that the service of the law was but as a picture, to shadow forth that which was spirituall in Christ. God commands that all the parts of the Tabernacle should be answerable to the chiefe paterne, which was showed to Moses in the mountaine. But if so be the forme of the Tabernacle had a further end than that which was seene with the eye; as much then is to be said of the ceremonies, and of all the Priesthood. From where it followes, that there was no stabilitie in any of all these things, but that we must still come to that which was shadowed out by them. Behold an excellent place, because it containes in it three sentences worthie to be noted. For first wee learne by this that the ceremonies of old were not forged by mans braine, neither did God meane to exercise his people in it as in sports fit for little children: the Tabernacle also was not built in vaine, as if it served to no other purpose but only to draw the eyes of the beholders to gaze upon the outward magnificence of it, as if they were to stay in that. For the signification of all these things were true and spiritual, because Moses was commanded to frame them all according to the first paterne, which was heauenly. Therefore their opinion is too prophane which say, that the ceremonies were onely commanded to serve as a bridle for staying the inconstancie of the people, least they should have gone to seeke out strange ceremonies among the Gentiles. This indeed is something which they say, but not all. For they leaue out that which is of much more importance: to wit, that they were exercises to hold the people in the faith of the Mediatour. Yet nevertheless it is not needfull that we should be over curious, so as to seeke out some high or profound mysterie in every pinne, and in every small piece of the Tabernacle, as Hesichius, and the greater part of the ancient authors, who have trauailed too curiously in this behalfe: for whilest they goe about subtilly to divine in things to them vnknowne, they have failed very blockishly, and showed themselues ridiculous bablers. So then we must keepe a meane in this: which wee shall doe when wee desire to know no more than that which is reuealed to us in Christ.

Secondly, we are here taught, that all seruices which men have forged after their owne minde, and without the commandement of God are false and corrupt. For seeing God commands that all things should be framed according to the rule and paterne: it is not lawfull to make any thing els, or contrarie to it. For these two manners of speech (See that you make all things according to the paterne: and, Take heede you make nothing more than the paterne) are in weight one, as much as the other. Therefore, in requiring streightly that we keepe the rule which he has given us, he therewithall forbids us to turne aside an haires bredth from it. By this meanes all seruices deuised by men fall flat to the ground, and those which some call Sacraments, which nevertheless were neuer ordained of God.

Thirdly, we may learne from hence that there are no true signes and Sacraments in religion, but those which are referred to Christ. But we are withall to take great heede that whilest we endeuour to appropriate and to make our inuentions to agree to Christ, that we doe not transfigure him as the Papists doe, that hee should bee no more like himselfe. For we have no authoritie to inuent what wee thinke to be good, but it only belongs to God to show what we ought to doe. For it is said, according to the paterne which he showed you.

But now our high Priest,Ver. 6 &c.] Even as previously he gathered the excellencie of the covenant by the dignitie of the Priesthood, so now also he maintaines, that the Priesthood of Christ is more excellent; because he is the Mediatour and Ambassadour of a better covenant. Both the one and the other were necessarie, because it was needfull that the Jews should be turned from the superstitious observation of ceremonies, which were so many impediments to hinder them from going directly to the pure and simple truth of the Gospell. Now the Apostle says that it was reason that both Moses and Aaron should give place to Christ, as to the more excellent: because the Gospel is a more excellent covenant than the law, and the death of Christ much more noble than the sacrifices of the law. But that which he addes is not without some difficultie; to wit, Obiection. that the covenant of the Gospel was established upon better promises. For it is certaine, that even the very same hope of eternall life which we now have, was set before the auncient Fathers which liued vnder the law. The grace of adoption beeing as common to them as to us. Their faith then must needs be built upon the same promises. Answere. But this comparison of the Apostle must be rather referred to the forme than to the matter. For although God did promise them the same salvation, which he promiseth us now at this day, yet nevertheless the measure, or manner of reuelation was neither equall, nor alike. But if any wil see more of this, let him have recourse to our Institution, and to that which is written upon the fourth and fith chapter of the Epistle to the Galathians.

7 For if that first Testament had been vnblameable, no place should have beene sought for the second.

8 For in rebuking them he says, Behold the daies will come,says the Lord, when I shall make with the house of Israel, and with the house of Iudah a new Testament.

9 Not like the Testament that I made with their fathers, in the day that I tooke them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt: for they continued not in my Testament, and I regarded them not, says the Lord.

10 For this is the Testament that I will make with the house of Israel, After those daies says the Lord, I will put my lawes in their minde, and in their heart I will write them, and I will bee their God and they shall be my people.

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.

12 And I will be mercifull to their vnrighteousnesse, and I will remember their sinnes and their iniquities no more.

13 In that he says a new Testament, he has abrogated the old: now that which is disanulled and waxed old, is readie to vanish away.

FOr if the first Testament,Vers. 7 &c.] He confirmes that which he said touching the excellencie of the covenant which god has made with us by the hand of Christ. Now his confirmation stands upon this, that the covenant or testament of the law was not stable. For if it had beene perfect, what neede had there beene that another should be put in the place of it? Obiection. But we see that there is another. It appeares then, that this auncient covenant was not perfect in all points. Now to prove this he alleadgeth the testimonie of Jeremiah, the which we will intreat of by and by. But it may seeme that this agrees not very well, that he should affirme that there had bin no necessitie to seek a place for a second covenant, if so be the first had beene vnblameable: and that he addes withall, that the people are reprooued, so as for their default a remedie was given by the new covenant. And is it not a wicked thing to affirme, that for the sinne of the people, the fault should therefore be cast upon the covenant of God? It seemes then that the argument is vnfound. For although God should condemne the people an hundred times, yet are we not to conclude that the covenant should therefore be faultie. Answere. But this obiection is easily answered. For although the fault of breaking the covenant be iustly imputed to the people, who by their disloyaltie turned away from the Lord: yet nevertheless the weaknes of this covenant by this meanes is therewithall touched: to wit, because it was not written in their hearts. Wherfore god protesteth that the heart must be corrected, before it can be holy, and confirmed. The Apostle therefore has just cause to affirme, that a new covenant was to be established.

Behold the daies come,Vers. 8 &c.] The Prophet speakes of the time to come. He reprooues the people for their disloyalty, that hauing received the law, they did not perseuere in the faith. The law then is this covenant which God complaines the people brake. And to remedie this evil, he promiseth a newe covenant; not like the first: the fulfilling of which prophecie imports the abolishing of the old Testament. But it seemes the Apostle does misalleage this prophecie to make it serve his purpose. Obiection. For here the question is about the abrogation of ceremonies; and the Prophet speaks of the whole lawe. For let it be granted that God does write the rule of holines of life in the hearts, which yet is given by the voice of men, and by them put into writing, what is all this to the purpose in regard of ceremonies? I answer, Answere. it is an argument from the whole to a part. For we are not to doubt but the Prophet comprehends the whole ministrie of Moses, when he says, I have made a covenant with you, which covenant you brake. The law indeed was clothed as it were, with ceremonies: but now the bodie being destroyed and dead, what use is there of the garments? for it is a common prouer be well enough known, that the appurtenance or accessarie is of the nature of his principall. It is no maruell then, if the ceremonies which are but hangbies (as you would say) of the old testament, with the whole ministrie of Moses be abolished. And it is alwaies the usual custome of the Apostles, when they contend about ceremonies, to dispute generally of the whole law. So then, although this prophesie of Jeremiah stretcheth it selfe further than to the ceremonies, yet nevertheless because they are included vnder the name of the old Testament, the Apostle fitly applies this prophesie to his present purpose. Moreover, all doe confesse, that by the daies of which the Prophet makes mention, is signified the kingdome of Christ. He names the house of Israel, and the house of Iudah, because the posteritie of Abraham was deuided into two kingdomes: therefore it is a promise that the whole bodie of all the elect shall be gathered againe together in one: however in times past they were seuered.

Not according to the covenant which I made, &c.]Vers. 9 By this he shows that there should be a difference betweene that covenant which then was in force, and the newe covenant the which he gaue them hope of. Otherwise the prophet would have said, I will renue and establish againe with you, the covenant which was broken by your default: but he now says expresly, that it shall not be like to it. Whereas he says, that the Covenant was made in that day when he tooke them by the hand to bring them out of bondage: he aggrauates the crime of their reuolt, by the repetition of so great a benefit: although hee condemnes not the ingratitude of one generation onely: but, as those which were delivered, reuolted by and by, and their successours likewise fell often into the same fault after thē: so he does in this speech challenge the whole nation of disloyaltie, and of breaking the covenant. When he says he despised them, or regarded them not, he gives them to understand, that although they were once adopted to be his people, yet that should profit them nothing, unless hee succour them by a new remedie. The prophet has other tearmes, according as the matter is couched together in the Hebrewe text: but that is of no great importance as touching the point now in question.

For this is the covenant,Vers. 10 &c.] There are two principall articles in this covenant. The first is touching the free remission of sinnes: the second of the inward reformation of the hearts: there is a third, but that depends upon the second: & that is the illumination of the minde with the knoweledge of God. Now there are here many things worthy our observation. The first is, that God calles us to him in vaine, whilest he onely speaks to us by the voice of man. We must not denie, but that which he teaches is right and just: but yet he speakes but to deafe eares; yea and albeit it may seeme that we understand somewhat, yet is it onely an outward sound that beates the aire: for the heart still remaines full of rebellion and frowardnesse, casting off the yoke of wholesome doctrine. In a word, Gods word neuer entreth into the secret of the hearts, beeing of themselues more hard than iron or stones, till he by his his Spirit doe soften them: not onely that, but the case is yet far otherwise, for we have a contrarie law, ingrauen within them, in such wise that multitudes of froward and wicked affections doe raigne in it, which doe daiely prouoke us to rebellion. In vaine it is then that God does publish his law to us by the voice of man, if withall he doe not write it in our hearts by his holy Spirit: that is, unless he frame us and turne us to his obedience. Now by this it appeares what free will is, and what vprightnesse there is in our nature, before God have regenerated us. I graunt that we both will, and choose, and that freely, without constraint: but our will is carried away even with a furious violence to resist God, and is not able in any thing to subiect it selfe to his righteousnesse. This is the cause why the law brings nothing but destruction and death with it, whilest it remaines written in tables of stone: as S. Paul teaches, 2. Cor. 3.3. To be short; then doe we receive that which God commands with obedient hearts, when he changeth and corrects the naturall peruersitie of them by the worke of his Spirit: otherwise he shall finde in us nothing but corrupt affections, and a heart wholy inclined to evil. For this sentence of God is clear and evident, that a new covenant must be made, by which God ingraues his lawes in our hearts, because otherwise it shall be altogether fruitlesse and vnprofitable to us.

The second article is as touching the free remission of sins. Although they have sinned, says the Lord, yet will I nevertheless pardon their sinnes. This also is a very necessarie article. For God neuer so frames and fashions us in obedience to his righteousnesse, but there still remaines in us many wicked and corrupt affections of the flesh: yea and the corruption of our nature is regenerate but onely in part: for every hand-while we feele wicked lusts, and naughtie affections to boyle in us. And from there issueth that combate where of S. Paul complaines, Rom. 7.23. where he testifies of himselfe, in the person of all the faithfull, that he saw another law in his members, rebelling against the law of his minde, so that he obeyed not God as he ought to have done, but failed in it many waies. What good or holy desire then soeuer it be which wee have to liue religiously, yet we shall be alwaies guiltie before God of eternal death, because our conuersation is alwaies far off from the perfection of the law. There is no stabilitie in the covenant then in regard of us, unless God doe freely forgiue us our sinnes. But this is a speciall privilege belonging onely to the faithfull, who have imbraced the covenant offered them in Christ: that is to say, to bee assured that God fauoureth them, and that the sinnes to which they are subiect hurts them not, Note. because they have a promise of pardon. Neither is this promised them for a day only, but even to the end of their life: so that their reconciliation with God works and has his efficacie continually. For this grace extends it self throughout you whole kingdom of Christ: which S. Paul also does sufficiently show 2. Cor. And indeed this is the citie of our refuge, to which if wee flee not by faith, it is vnpossible but wee shall be plunged into continuall desperation. For all of us are fast locked vnder condemnation, and can no otherwise be loosed, but by running to the mercie of God, by which we are absolued.

And they shall be my people.] This is the fruite of the covenant, to wit, that God takes us for his people, and testifies that he will be the protector of our salvation. For this manner of speech, and I will be their God, imports so much. For he is not the God of the dead, neither receives he us vnder his safegard, but to make us partakers of his righteousnes, and of life: for Dauid crieth excellently in the Psalmes; Blessed are the people who have the Lord for their God. Now wee neede not doubt but this doctrine belongs even to us also. For although the Israelites occupied the first place, and were the right and lawfull heires of the covenant: yet their prerogatiue hinders not us to have our portion in it. So that the wider and larger the kingdome of Christ spreads, so far has this covenant of salvation his efficacie. But some may aske whether there were no certaintie nor efficacie of the promise vnder the law: Question. that is, whether the ancient Fathers were depriued of the grace of the holy Ghost, and whether they tasted not of Gods fatherly kindnes in the remission of their sinnes? For it well appeares that they served God in sinceritie of heart, and in purity of conscience, and that they walked in his commandements: which surely they could not have done, unless the Spirit of God had taught them inwardly. It also appeares that as oft as they thought upon their sinnes, they were comforted, and sustained by the hope and confidence which they had in the free remission of them. Obiection. But (may some say) it seemes that the Apostle excludes them from hauing part in any of these benefits: in putting over the prophecie of Ieremy to the comming of Christ. I answere, Answere. he simply denies not that God wrote his law in the hearts of those which were his, even vnder the law, or that hee did not pardon them their sinnes: but hee speakes by a comparison from the greater to the lesse. Therfore for as much as the heauenly Father has more abundantly manifested his power vnder the kingdome of Christ, and has shed abroad his mercie and grace upon men: this his so exceeding liberalitie is the cause that the little portion of grace (in comparison) which was showed to the Fathers vnder the law, comes not into account. Wee see also how darke and intricate the promises then were: so as they onely gaue them some darke glimpse of light, much like the light of the Moone and starres, in comparison of that light of the Gospell, which now shows it selfe with a surpassing cleerenes. Obiection. If it bee obiected that the faith and obedience of Abraham was so excellent that the like is not to be found at this day in all the world: I answer, Answere. that the question is not here of mens persons, but of the order and dispensation of gouerning the Church. Moreover, that whatever spirituall gifts the Fathers had, was as a thing accidentall to their time. It is not from the purpose then that the Apostle comparing the Law and the Gospell together, takes that from the Law which is proper to the Gospell: and yet this hinders not that God should not make the old fathers partakers of the new covenant. This is the true solution.

[〈4 pages missing〉]Sanctuarie. The third, the inmost Sanctuarie, which was called by way of excellencie the most holy place, or the holie of holies. For the first Sanctuarie, which ioyned to the court of the people, he says there was the candlestick and the table, upon which the show bread was set. But he calles this place in the plurall number, the holy places. There was then that secret place which was called the holiest of all,Vers. 3 which was further oft the people, and even far off from the Priests also, who were in the first Tabernacle to performe the seruices of it. For although the first Sanctuary was close and separate from the court of the people, by reason of the vaile which was put betweene them: yet was there a second vaile betweene the Priests and that which was called the most holie place. The Apostle says that in it was the Golden censor, or rather, Ver. 4 the altar of incense, or perfume: for I had rather take the Greeke word so. Then, the Arke of the covenant ouerlaid with gold: the two Cherubims, the golden pot filled with Manna, Aarons Rod, and the two Tables. Hitherto the Apostle follows the description of the Tabernacle. Now where he says, that the pot into which Moses had put the Manna, and that Aarons rodde which budded, was in the Arke, with the two Tables: this may seeme to contradict the holy historie, Obiection. which recites no more to be in the Arke but the two Tables, 1. King. 8.9. But it is easie to reconcile these two places together. Answere. God had commaunded that the pot, and Aarons rod should be put before the Testimonie; therefore it is probable that they were enclosed in the Arke with the two Tables: but when the Temple was builded, every one of these things was placed by order. And indeed the holy historie recites this as a new thing, to wit, that there was nothing in the Arke but the two Tables.

Of which things wee will not now speake particularly.]Vers 5 Because nothing can satisfie curious heads, the Apostle cuts off occasion of falling into those subtilties, which fitted not with the matter in hand, least by too large a recitall of these things, he should breake off the chiefe matter in question. Therefore if there be any who laying aside this admonition of the Apostle, shall in this curiously stay himselfe; such a one shall doe it without ground. I confesse indeed that it may so fall out, for some respect, that this long repetition may have place: but for the present, it is better to bethinke us of the matter which hee handleth. Now to descant beyond measure, as some doe, is not onely vnprofitable, but also dangerous. Some things there are here which are not obscure, which also are fit for the edification of our faith: but we had need to use discretion in our choise in it, and to keepe a modest and sober course, to the end we desire not to know more than that which it has pleased the Lord to reueale to us.

6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the Priests went alwaies into the first Tabernacle, and accomplished the service.

7 But into the second went the high Priest alone once every yeere, not without blood, which he offered for himselfe, and for the ignorances of the people.

8 By which the holy Ghost this signified, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet opened, while as yet the first Tabernacle was standing.

9 Which was a figure for that present time, in which were offered gifts and sacrifices that could not make holy, concerning the conscience, him that did the service.

10 Which only stood in meates and drinks, and diverse washings, and carnall rites, which were inioyned, until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ being come an high Priest of good things to come, by a greater, and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this building,

12 Neither by the blood of goates and calues: but by his owne blood entred he in once to the holy place, and obtained eternall redemption for us.

NOw these things thus ordained, &c.]Verse 6 Omitting all other matters, he vndertakes to deale with that in which was most difficultie. He says that the Priests which performed the seruices about the sacrifices, were alwaies accustomed to enter into the first Tabernacle: but the high Priest entred only once every yeere with a solemne sacrifice into the holiest place of all. And of this he gathers, that whilest this Tabernacle of the law was standing, the Sanctuarie was yet closed vp, and the way was no otherwise opened into the kingdome of God, but by the ouerthrowing of this first Tabernacle. We see then how that even the figure of the olde tabernacle did admonish the Jews that they were to aspire further. Those then who wittingly doe shut vp the passage, by retaining the shadowes of the law still, doe very foolishly. Therefore to this purpose, in the 8. verse, he takes the first Tabernacle in another sense than previously. For in the sixt verse, it signified the common Sanctuarie; but here it signifies the whole bodie of the Tabernacle. For it is set as opposite to the Sanctuarie of Christ, of which hee will speake by and by. He says that the taking downe of it was to our great profit, because that by the ruine of it, accesse is given us to come the more familiarly to God.

For himselfe.]Vers. 7 Although the word SAGAG among the Hebrues signifies to erre, and that from there they deriue this this word Sagaga, which properly signifies error: yet nevertheless it is taken generally for all kinde of sinne. For indeed, we neuer sinne but wee are deceiued by the intisements of Sathan. True it is that the Apostle meanes not a simple ignorance (as they call it) but vnder this word he also comprehends voluntarie sinnes. But, as I have said, there is neuer any sinne committed without error or ignorance. For although a man doe sinne wittingly and willingly, yet nevertheless he must be blinded by his lust, so as he is vnable to judge rightly, even forgetting himselfe, and God likewise. For men neuer runne upon their owne ruine willingly, vnles being first inwrapped by the fallacies and bewithchings of Satan, they erre from a right judgment.

Which was a similitude.]Verse 9 The Greeke word in mine opinion signifies as much as if hee had said, A second paterne made according to the first. For his meaning is that this Tabernacle was a second portraiture answerable to the former. For the picture of a man ought so to be compared with the man himselfe, that when wee see the picture, our mindes may by and by conceiue the personage of him that is represented by it. Moreover he says, that it was a signe for the present time: to wit, whilest the outward observation stood in force: to the end hee might restraine the continuance and use of it to the time of the Law. For it agreeth with that which he addes immediatly, to wit, that all the ceremonies were ordained till the time of reformation. Neither is the verbe of the present tence which he vseth repugnant to this, when he says, in the which sacrifices are offered. For in that he has to doe with the Jews, he speakes by way of yeelding, or granting; as if he were of the number of them that offered sacrifices. As concerning these words, gifts and sacrifices, there is the same difference that is betweene the generall, and the speciall.

Sanctifie as touching the conscience.] That is to say, which doe not pearce to the soule, to give true sanctification to it. In stead of the word to sanctifie, others translate to consummate or finish: which I reiect not: nevertheless me thinkes to sanctifie, seemes more fitting to the scope of the text. Now to the end the readers may the better understand what the Apostles meaning is, we must note the Antithesis that is betweene the flesh and the conscience. He says that those who offered sacrifices vnder the Law, could not be washed by them spiritually, or inwardly within the conscience. His reason is added, because al the ceremonies were carnall. What leaues he now more to them? Vers. 10 Some indeed doe commonly understand this, as if the Apostle should say, that this washing was a profitable schoolmaster among men, serving them for honestie: but those which are of this opinion, do not weigh the promises, which are added to this as they deserue. And therefore it is a fancie which ought utterly to be reiected. Also they doe ill expound the Iustifications of the flesh, saying, that they are so called, because they onely purge, or sanctifie the bodie, seeing the Apostle by it meanes, that these earthly figures reach not to the soule. For although such figures were true testimonies of perfect holinesse, yet had they not this holinesse in them, neither could they give it to men. For it was needfull that the faithfull should bee brought to Christ by such helpes, to the end they might seeke that in him which was wanting in the figures. Question. If it bee demaunded therefore the Apostle speakes so meanly, and as it were in contempt of the Sacraments ordained of God, in thus lessening of their virtue? Answere. I answere, he does it because he separates them from Christ: for we know that when we esteeme them by themselues, they are but weake elements of the world, as S. Paul calles them, Gal. 4.9. Whereas he says, until the time of reformation, he alludes to the prophecie of Ierem. 31.37. for the new covenant succeeded the old, as a reformation of it. He does purposely name, meates and drinkes, and such other things which were of no great importance: because men might the more certainly judge by these small and light obseruations, how far off the Law was from the perfection of the Gospell.

But Christ being come an high Priest,Vers. 11 &c.] Now he brings foorth the truth of the things which were vnder the law, to the end that turning away their eyes from the figures, they might looke to Christ in whom the substance was to bee found. For he which beleeues that all that which was then shadowed out, was truly manifested in Christ; will no longer entangle his minde about shadowes, but will embrace the truth and the very bodie it selfe. Now we must diligently note the parts in which he compares Christ, with the high Priest who was in old time vnder the Law. He said that the high Priest onely, entred every yeere once into the Sanctuarie with blood for the purgation of sinnes. Christ has this in common with him, that he onely is put into the dignitie and office of the high Priest. But yet there is a difference, that Christ is come upon this, and has brought with him eternall benefits, which causeth that his Priesthood is perpetuall. Secondly, the ancient Priest, & ours who is Christ, had this in common, that both of them entred into the Holiest of all by the Sanctuarie: but in this they differ, that Christ onely is entred into heauen, by the temple of his bodie. Whereas the most holy place was open to the high Priest onely once a yeere, to make the purgation of sinnes, this did alreadie somewhat darkly represent the onely oblation of Christ. This once then is common to them both: but to the earthly Priest it was yeerely: and to the heauenly Priest eternally vntil the consummation of you world. The offring of blood is cōmon to thē both: but there is great difference in the blood: because Christ offred not vp the blood of beasts, but his owne blood. Satisfaction was common to them both, but the satisfaction of the law was reiterated every yeere, because it was without efficacie: contrariwise, the satisfaction made by Christ, has his efficacie alwaies, and is the cause of eternall salvation. Thus there is scarcely a word which has not his weight. Whereas others have turned it, Christ an high Priest present, &c. do not rightly expresse the Apostles meaning. For he signifies that the Leuiticall Priests hauing performed their office to the time appointed for them, Christ was put into their place, as wee have seene chap.

By this clause, of good things to come, are signified eternall good things. For as in this place the time to come is opposed to the time present, so also are the good things to come, to those present. The summe is, that wee are brought into the kingdome of heauen by the Priesthood of Christ, and are in such wise made partakers of spirituall righteousnesse, and of eternall life, that it is vnlawfull for us to desire any better things. Christ therfore has wherewithall for to hold us and satisfie us in himselfe. By a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, &c. Although some expound this place d[••]ers waies, yet I doubt not but the Apostle vnderstands it of the bodie of Christ. For as the Leuiticall Priests in former time entred into the most holy place by the commō Sanctuarie, so Christ is entred into the heauenly glorie by his bodie: because ordained to bring men to Christ: (the eternall salvation of the soule onely depending on him) so the sacrifices were true testimonies of this salvation. What meanes the Apostle then, when hee mentioneth the purification of the flesh? Surely he speakes of the figuratiue or sacramentall purgation, in this sense; If the blood of beasts were a true witnes of purgation, so as it sanctified, and did purifie sacramentally: how much more shall Christ himselfe who is the truth, I say not beare witnes of purgation by outward ceremonie, but shall indeed give it to the consciences? And therefore it is an argument from the signes to the thing signified: because the effect of the thing far excelleth the truth of the signes.

Who by the eternall Spirit,Ver. 14 &c.] Now he shows very plainly, from where the death of Christ takes his dignitie, to wit, from the virtue of the Spirit, and not from the outward act. For Christ indeed suffered as hee was man: but this his death is healthfull for us, by reason of the efficacie which came from the Spirit. For the sacrifice of our eternall purgation was more than a humane worke. And for this cause he calls the eternall Spirit, to the end wee might know, that the reconciliation which he made was eternall. When hee says without spot, although he alludes to the sacrifices of the law, where the beasts that were sacrificed ought to bee free from imperfection or fault: yet nevertheless his meaning is that Christ onely is the proper and lawfull sacrifice to appease God. For some fault might alwaies be found in the others. And for that cause he said before that the covenant of the law was not so perfect, but some fault was to be found with it. But this perfection which is in Christ, has nothing in it which is not full in all points.

By dead workes, he vnderstands those works which beget death, or which are fruites of death. For even as the life of the soule consists in the coniunction that wee have with God; so those who are estranged from him by sinne, are very rightly esteemed dead. Now wee are to note the end of this purgation: to wit, that we should serve the liuing God.For although we be washed by Christ, yet it is not that wee should by and by goe wallow our selues afresh in our dung: but that our puritie might serve to the glorie of God. Moreover, the Apostle by this teaches us, that nothing proceeds from us which can be acceptable to God, till we be purged by the blood of Christ. For seeing wee are all of us enemies of God, before wee be reconciled, he must in his justice hate all our workes. The beginning therefore of the true and lawfull service of God, is reconciliation. Furthermore, seeing there is no work of ours so pure and cleane without spot, that of it selfe can bee acceptable and well pleasing to God: therefore it is necessarie that the blood of Christ should come betweene to wash away all the spots that are in them. Thus wee must note the seemly antithesis which he makes betweene the liuing God; and dead workes.

And therefore he is the Mediatour of the new Testament,Ver. 15 &c.] He concludes that we are not now to looke for any other Priest, because Christ fully and absolutely performes this office vnder the new Testament. For he attributes not this honor of the Mediatourship to Christ, to the end that others should ioyne with him in that office: but hee contends, and with forcible arguments maintaines, that all others were deposed, when the office was once given to Christ. But to confirme this more fully, he also recites how Christ obtained this office of a Mediatour: to wit, through death, which was for the transgression. If this be found in Christ alone, and is not to be found in any other, it followes that he is the true and onely Mediatour. He also touches the virtue & efficacie of his death, when he says yt the price was paid for sinnes, which could not be purged by the blood of beasts vnder the former Testament. By which words hee would have the Jews to pass from the law to Jesus Christ. For if the weaknes of the law is so great, that all the remedies which it gives to wash away sinnes, doe not accomplish that which they signifie: what is hee that would rest himselfe in them, as in a sure hauen? This onely point, I say, ought to be a sufficient spurre to them to desire a reformation of the law: because whilest they rest still in that, it cannot be auoided but they must fal into a perpetual anxietie of conscience. Contrariwise, when we are once come to Christ, nothing remaines that may torment us, because in him we finde and obtaine ful and perfect redemption. Thus then by these words hee shows the weaknes of the law, to the end the Jews should no longer rest in it: and withall teaches them to keepe themselues close to Christ, because in him is to bee found whatever can bee desired to quiet their consciences. Question. Now if any aske whether the sinnes of the Fathers were pardoned or no vnder the law? that solution which I gaue erewhile must be held: to wit, that they were pardoned, Answere. but alwaies by the meanes of Christ: It followes then that they were stil held vnder the bondage of condemnation, nevertheless all the outward purgations the law could affoord them. For this cause S. Paul says, that the law was an ordinance that was against us. For when the sinner presented himselfe, and did publikely confesse that hee was indebted to God, and in offring of an innocent beast did acknowledge himselfe worthie of eternall death: what gained he by his sacrifice, unless wee might peraduenture say that he sealed to his owne death by this obligation? In a word, they had no better meanes to assure them of the remission of their sinnes, than in looking to Christ. Now if the only beholding of Christ did wash away their sinnes, they could neuer be delivered from them, if they should still have rested in the law. True it is that Dauid says, Psal. 32.1. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne: but to attaine the ioyfull tidings of this blessednes, it was necessarie for him to turne his eyes from the law, and to fasten them upon Christ. For he shall neuer be delivered from condemnation, that abideth in the law.

They which were called received the promise, &c.] The covenant which God has made with us tends to this end, that wee being adopted of him for his children, are at the last made inheritors of eternall life. The Apostle shows that we obtaine so great a benefit by the meanes of Christ: from where it appeares that the accomplishment of this his covenant is in him. As touching the promise of the eternall inheritance, he takes it for the heritage promised: as if he should have said, The promise of eternall life has no otherwise had his effect towards us for our enioying of it, but by the death of Christ. It is very sure that life was promised in old time to the Fathers, and the same which is now at this day, was from the beginning the heritage of the children of God: but wee enter not into the possession of it, unless the blood of Christ doe goe before. He makes expresse mention of those which are called: to the end hee might move the Jews with the greater care, who were partakers of this vocation. For it is a speciall favor of God when the knowledge of Christ is given us: and therefore so much the more ought wee to take heede, that in despising so inestimable a treasure, our spirits doe not wander elsewhere. Some take this word called here, for elected: but vnfitly, as I thinke. For the Apostle teaches here the very same thing that S. Paul does Rom. 3.25. to wit, that righteousnes and salvation was obtained for us by the blood of Christ, but we receive it by faith.

For where a Testament is, &c.]Ver. 16 Were there but this one place, yet were it sufficient to show that this Epistle was not written in Hebrue: for Berith, in the Hebrue tongue, signifies Covenant, and not Testament. But because the Greeke word Diathece, has these two significations, to wit, of the Covenant, and of the Testament: for this cause the Apostle alluding to the second signification, affirms that the promises could not otherwise bee of any weight or stabilitie, unless they had been sealed by the death of Christ. Which he proues by the common right of Testaments: the effect of which is deferred till the death of the Testator. Although it may yet seeme that the Apostle grounds his speech upon too weake a reason: so as that which he says may easily be refuted. For God made no Testament vnder the law, but made a Covenant with the ancient people. And thus the Apostle could not gather from the thing it selfe, neither yet from the name, that the death of Christ was necessarie. For if he would inferre by the matter it selfe, that it was needful Christ should die, because the Testament is not ratified, till the death of the Testator come betweene: some might presently reply, that Berith (which word Moses vseth here and there to this purpose) is a Covenant made betweene the liuing: so as wee cannot thinke otherwise of the matter. As touching the name, hee simply alludes, as I have said, to the signification of the Greeke word Diathece, which has two significations: and therefore hee chiefly insists upon the thing. Neither is this repugnant to that which some might say, that it was a covenant which God made with his people. For this covenant was like a Testament, because it was established, and confirmed by blood. This principle then must be retained, that God neuer used signes at randon, nor without cause. Now so it is that God in confirming of the Covenant intermingled blood therewithall. It follows then that it was not a contract betweene the liuing (as they say) but such a contract as required death to come betweene. For a Testament has this condition proper to it, that it begins to take effect after death. If we then consider that the Apostle contēds rather about the substance, than the name: moreover if we come to weigh with our selues that he takes that (which I have said) for a thing without controuersie, to wit, that God has ordained nothing idly or in vaine; there will be no great difficultie. Obiection. If it be obiected, that the Gentiles in making their covenants have used sacrifices to another end: Answere. I answere, it is true: but God did not borrow the use of sacrifices from their customes, but the Gentiles rather tooke the beginning of all their corrupt and bastardly sacrifices from the ordinances of God. Therefore wee must alwaies returne to this point, that the covenant of God which was confirmed with blood, is fitly compared to a Testament, because it was of the same nature and condition.

18 Therefore neither was the first ordained without blood.

19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according to the law, he tooke the blood of calues, and of goates, with water and purple wooll and hysope, and sprinkled both the booke and all the people,

20 Saying, This is the blood of the Testament,which God has appointed to you.

21 Moreover, he sprinkled likewise the Tabernacle with blood also, and all the ministring vessels.

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

23 It was then necessarie, that the similitudes of heauenly things should be purified with such things: but the heauenly things themselues are purified with better sacrifices than those.

Therefore also &c.] Vers. 18 By this it appeares that hee insists chiefly upon the substance, rather than simply grounding his speech upon the name: although the Apostle has turned the word which the language affoorded him in which he wrote, to his profit. As if some speaking also of the covenant of God (which the Greekes often call Martyria, that is to say, witnesse) to praise and extoll the same; among other commendations should use these words; Surely this Covenant must needes rightly be called Testimonie, to which the heauenly Angels gaue testimonie from aboue; to the which there were also so many credible witnesses here on earth, to wit, all the holy Prophets, Apostles, and so infinite a companie of Martyrs: yea to the sealing wherof even the Sonne of God was given as a witnes of it in his owne person: if one should speake on this manner, no man would say there were any absurditie in it. And yet nevertheless the proprietie of the Hebrue word Theuda, does not expressely conclude this: but because nothing is said in this which agrees not very well to the matter, no wise man will stand to descant too curiously about the word. Thus then the Apostle affirmes that the old Testament was dedicated with blood. From where he gathers that men were by it admonished, it could not be otherwise stable and effectuall unless death came in betweene. For he denies that the blood of beasts which was then shed, was able to ratifie an eternall covenant. And that this may be the better understood, the manner of sprinkling which Moses here recites is to be noted. First he teaches that this Covenant was dedicated, not as though it had any prophanes in it selfe, but because there is nothing so holy which men prophane not by their vncleannes, if God himselfe should not preuent and remedie the same by renuing all things. This consecration then was made in respect of men, who onely stand in neede of it.

He afterwards addes, Vers. 19 that the Tabernacle, with all the vessels, yea and the booke it selfe also was sprinkled with blood: by which ceremonie the people were aduertised that it was impossible either to seeke God, or to behold him to salvation, or to serve him duly, unless faith had alwaies an eye to the blood that came betweene. For first of al we must needs graunt that the maiestie of God is feareful, and the way there is nothing els but a deadly labyrinth, till such time as wee know that hee is pacified towards us by the blood of Christ: and that by the same blood we may have our accesse to it. On the other side also all seruices are saultie and vncleane, unless Christ wash and clense them by the sprinkling of his blood. For the Tabernacle was as it were a visible image of God: and the ministring vessels, as they were ordained to serve God withall, so were they also resemblances of the true service. Now if nothing of al this were auailable to the people as touching salvation, unless blood came betweene, from there we may easily gather that we have nothing to doe with God, unless Christ by his blood present himselfe betweene him and us. And in this regard, the very doctrine it selfe, although it be the will and inuiolable truth of God, yet it shall have no efficacie in us to our profit, unless it be consecrated by blood: as by this verse is well expressed. I know that others expound it otherwise: for after their sense, The Tabernacle is the bodie of the Church: the vessels are all the faithfull, by whose ministerie God serues himselfe. But that which I have said agrees much better. For as soone as they were to call upon God, they turned towards the Sanctuarie: and it is a manner of speech common in the Scripture, to say they presented themselues before the face of the Lord, when they appeared in the Temple.

This is the blood of the Testament.]Vers. 20 If it be the blood of the Testament, the Testament then is not established and ratified without blood: neither is blood sufficient for purgation without the Testament: therefore it is necessarily required that both of them be ioyned together. And wee see also that the figure and outward signe was not given, till the law was expounded. For what Sacrament were it, if the word did not go before? therfore the signe is but as a thing hanging and depending upon the word. And we must note withall that this word is not a mumbling of it like a charme used in some magicall arre, but that which is distinctly pronounced with a lowd voyce; and it must also be spoken to the people: all which the words of the covenant which was appointed to you, doe show. Therefore they abuse the Sacraments, nay they wickedly corrupt them, when as there is no exposition of the commandement added; which exposition is, as you would say, the life and soule of the Sacrament. The Papists then who separate the vnderstanding of the things signified from the signes, doe retaine the dead elements onely without any efficacie. This place admonishes us, that all the promises of God are then profitable to us, when they are established, and confirmed by the blood of Christ. For when S. Paul witnesseth, 2. Cor. 1.2. that all the promises of God are Yea and Amen in Christ, it is then performed when his blood is ingrauen in our hearts as a seale: or rather when we not only heare God speake: but doe also therewithall see Christ presenting himselfe for a pledge of those things which the worde vttereth. If so bee this thought possesse us: to wit, that all that which wee reade is not only written with inck, but with the blood of the Sonne of God: and that when the Gospell is preached this blood distilleth with the voyce; surely wee shall be so much the more attentiue, and shall receive the word with much greater reuerence, than ever wee did before.

The sprinkling, of which Moses makes mention, was once a figure of this. Although there bee more to be understood in these words, than Moses expresseth. For you heare him not say that the booke was sprinkled, but the people: neither makes he any mention at all of goates, or of wooll died in purple, nor of hysope. Now as touching the booke, although it cannot bee plainly proved that it was sprinkled, yet there is some probable coniecture of it, by which wee may gather that it is so, because it is said, that Moses tooke the booke before all the people and read it in their hearing, after the sacrifice was ended: to the end the people might enter into an obligation to God, answering to the solemne covenant pronounced by the mouth of Moses. As touching the rest, it seemes to me the Apostle has intermingled diverse purgations, of which wee may give the same reason. And surely no inconuenience is in it; seeing he handles a generall point touching the purgation of the olde Testament, which was made by blood. Now whereas they made a sprinkle of hysope, and of purple wooll, we neede not doubt but they represented the mysticall sprinkling which is made by the holy Spirit. We know that Hysope has a singular virtue to purge and to digest superfluous humours: so Christ vseth his spirit as a water-sprinkle to sprinkle us with his blood, when as hee gives a liuely feeling of repentance, when he consumes the peruerse affections of our flesh, and when he dieth us with the rich and noble color of his righteousnes. For we must not imagine that God ordained these things for nothing. Dauid also in the 51. Psalme alludes to this when hee says; Purge me O Lord with hysope, and I shall be cleane. Those who will be sober in searching out the meaning of these things, will content themselues with that which we have touched upon this place, and will spare their labor to goe search out higher speculations.

And almost all things vnder the law,Vers. 22 &c.] When he says almost, it seemes his meaning is to show that there are some other things which are purged after another manner. And indeed they often used washings with water both to clense themselues withall, as also other impure things. Nevertheless even this water had no virtue to clense but as they had it from the sacrifices: so as the Apostle says true, when for a conclusion he sets downe, that without shedding of blood there was no remission. Therefore impuritie was imputed until such time as it was clensed by sacrifice. And as out of Christ there is neither puritie nor saluatiō, so without blood nothing could be pure nor healthfull: for Christ must neuer be separated from the sacrifice of his death. But the Apostles meaning was simply to say, that this signe was added alwaies in a manner. And if it fell out that the purgation were not sometimes so made, yet nevertheless it depended upon the blood, seeing all the ceremonies did as you would say borrow their virtue from this generall purgation. Neither are we to imagine that every particular man among the people was sprinkled: (for if it had bin so, how could so little a portion of blood have satisfied so great a multitude?) nevertheless the purgation came to all. So then this word almost, is as much as if it had been said, The use of this ceremonie was very frequent, so as it was very seldome left out in ordinarie purgations. For whereas Chrysostome thinkes that by this word is signified an improprietie, because all was there in figures onely, it is nothing near the Apostles meaning. There is no remission. By this meanes men were shut out from before the face of God: for in as much as hee is iustly angrie with them all, they could not promise themselues to finde any favor with him, till he were appeased. Now there was but one meane by which to appease him: to wit, by the satisfaction which was made by blood. Therefore we must looke for no pardon of sins, if we bring not blood. Which wee then doe, when by faith we have our recourse to the death of Christ.

It was then necessarie, &c.] To the end none should obiect, Vers. 23 that the blood by which the old Testament was cōsecrated, was not the blood of the Testator; the Apostle preuents it, and says, that wee are not to marueile if this Tabernacle [〈2 pages missing〉]then which some doe aske, and quite from the purpose, to wit, whether Christ was not alwaies present there. For the Apostle disputes here onely of the intercession, by which he entred into the celestiall Sanctuarie.

Not that he should offer himselfe often,Vers. 25 &c.] How is he then a Priest, Obiection. may some man say, if he make no sacrifices? I answere, Answere. it is not required in the person or office of a Priest to be alwaies in the continuall act of offring sacrifice. For in the law it selfe there was every yeere certaine daies ordained for the chiefest sacrifices: and the sacrifices which were ordinarily performed, had their limits to the morning, and the euening. Now seeing this only sacrifice that Christ once offered has alwaies his strength and virtue, yea and is perpetuall as touching the efficacie of it, wee must not wonder if his eternall Priesthood be established in the virtue of this sacrifice, which neuer perisheth, or has an end. And here againe he shows what difference there is, and in what things, betweene Christ and the Leuiticall Priesthood. As touching the Sanctuarie, he has spoken previously: but he notes a difference in the kinde of sacrifice, because Christ offered himselfe, and not a beast. And then hee notes another difference, to wit, that he did not often offer this sacrifice, as vnder the law, where they often, yea and almost continually reiterated their sacrifices.

For then he must have often suffered,Vers. 26 &c.] He shows how absurd and vnreasonable a thing it should be, if wee content not our selues with the onely sacrifice of Christ. For from there he concludes, that he must then have often suffered, because death is alwaies ioyned with the sacrifice. Now there is no reason at all to grant this latter: it followes then that the virtue of this onely sacrifice is eternall, and stretcheth it selfe to all times. He says, since the foundation of the world, because that in all times since the beginning there have bin sinnes which have had neede of purgation. If then the sacrifice of Christ had not been effectuall from the beginning, none of the Fathers had obtained salvation. For seeing that of themselues they were culpable before God, and deserued his wrath, they had bin destitute of the remedie of redemption, and had had no meanes to escape the judgment seate of God, vnles Christ by enduring of death once, had suffered from the beginning of the world to the end of it, for the obtaining of Gods favor for men. And therefore let us satisfie our selues with this onely sacrifice, unless peraduenture wee expect many deaths of Christ. By this it also evidently appeares how friuolous that distinction of the Papists is, in which subtilty they so much please themselues, when they say that the offring vp of Christ upon the crosse was bloodie; but the sacrifice of the Masse, which they forge to be offered vp every day, is without blood. For if this suttle shift may have place, the Spirit of God shall be blamed of vnadursednes, because he remembred not himselfe concerning this. For the Apostle takes it for a thing out of question, that there is no sacrifice without death. I pass not, that the ancient Doctors have spoken thus: for it is not in the power of men to forge what sacrifices they list. This principle of the holy Ghost remaines sure, that sins are not purged by sacrifices, unless there be effusion of blood. Therefore it is an inuention of the devil, to hold that Christ should be often offered. But now in the end of the world he appeared once, &c. He calles the end of the world, that which S. Paul calles the fulnes of time, Gal. 4: for the time was then expired, which the Lord had ordained by his eternall decree. And by this meanes the curiosities of men are answered, to the end they should not presume to enquire; some, why it came not sooner; others, why rather then, than at another time: for we ought to rest and stay our selues in the secret counsell of God, who best knowes to give a reason of it, although it be not manifested to us. To bee short, the Apostle signifies that the death of Christ fell out just at that time in which his Father sent him into the world for that purpose: who as he has in his owne power the lawfull gouernment of all things, so has he the times also, seeing hee ordreth them by an admirable wisedome, however it bee often hidden from us. Moreover, this consummation or end, is opposed to the imperfection of the time past: for God did so keepe the people of the old Testament in suspence, that one might easily judge it was not yet come to a firme and setled estate. For this cause S. Paul teaches in the 1. Cor. 10.11. that the ends of the world are come upon us, signifying therby that the kingdom of Christ has brought the fulfilling of all things. But if the fulnes of time were then when Christ appeared to purge our sinnes, they doe him great iniurie and outrage who would that his sacrifice should be renued; as if all things were not fulfilled at his death. He then appeared once: for if the thing should bee done the second, or the third time, there should be imperfection in the first oblation: which were a thing repugnant to perfection. For the destruction of sinne, by the sacrifice of himselfe. This agreeth with the prophecie of Daniel, by which the end of the sacrifices was foretolde, after the promise made of the sealing vp, and abolishing of sins. For to what end should purgations serve after the destruction of sinnes? Now this destruction consists in this, that sinnes are no more imputed to those who have their refuge to the sacrifice of Christ: for although necessitie be laid upon us to aske pardon every day, because we do every day prouoke the wrath of God afresh against us, nevertheless for as much as wee are alwaies reconciled to God by the pledge of Christ his onely death, and not otherwise: therefore it is rightly said that sinne is destroyed by it.

And as it is appointed to men to die once,Vers. 27 &c.] The meaning is this, seeing that wee waite with patience for the day of judgment after the death of man, because it is a common law of nature the which it is not lawful to resist: wherfore should there be lesse patience in waiting for the second comming of Christ? For if so be the long space of time doe derogate nothing from the hope of the blessed resurrection among men, what absurditie were it to give lesse honor to Christ? Now we give him lesse, if we call him to a second death, Obiection. seeing he is dead once for all. If it be obiected that some have died twice, as Lazarus, and such other, the solution is easie, to wit, Answere. the Apostle speakes here of the ordinarie condition of men: so that those which in a moment shalbe dispoyled of corruption by a sudden change, are excepted out of this number. For in this manner of speech he comprehends none but those which of long time have waited in the dust for the redemption of their bodies. Vers. 28 He shall appeare the second time without sinne. The Apostle still aimes at this marke, to wit, that we should not vexe our selues with vaine and froward desires after new purgations, because the death of Christ alone, is sufficient for us. And therefore he says, that he once appeared with sacrifice to purge away sinnes, and that by his second appearing he shall openly manifest what efficacie his death has had, so as sinne shall no more have power to hurt. To abolish sinnes, that is, by his satisfaction to deliver those from the fault, and from condemnation which have sinned. He says many, for all: as in Rom. 5.15. True it is that Christs death profits not all: but this comes to pass, because their incredulitie hindreth them. But it were in vaine to contend hereabouts in this place, because the Apostle disputes not whether the death of Christ profits a few or many: but his plaine meaning is, that hee died for others, and not for himselfe. Therefore he opposeth many, to one onely.

But what meanes he by these words, that Christ shall appeare without sinne? By the word sinne, some understand the purgation or sacrifice purging sin: as Rom. 8.3. and 2. Cor. 5.21. and in many other places of Moses: but in my judgment, he meant something more speciall, to wit, that when Christ shall come hee shall manifest how true it is that hee has abolished sinnes: so as there shall be no more need of any other sacrifice to appease God. As if hee should say, when wee shall come before the judgment seate of Christ, then wee shall feele that nothing was wanting in his death. To which that also is to be referred which he addes by and by after, To salvation to those which looke for him: Others doe construe it otherwise on this manner; To those that looke for him for salvation. But I thinke the other sense is more proper. For his meaning is, that those shall feele a full salvation from Christ, who with quiet minds doe rest upon it. For this looking for, is to be referred to the circumstance of the present matter. True it is that the Scripture in other places attributes this in common to all the faithfull; that they waite for the comming of the Lord, to the end that by it they may be discerned from the vnbeleeuers; to whom also the onely mention of this his comming is fearefull as soone as they heare tell of it: but because the Apostle contends now that we ought to rest our selues satisfied in the onely sacrifice of Christ, he calles it the looking for of Christ, when being contented with this onely redemption, we lust not after new remedies or helps.