Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

!

$10. Eighthly, the death of the Mediator of the new testament, was "for the redemption of transgressions;" which is the deliverance of the transgressors from all the evils they were subjected to on their account, by the payment of a satisfactory price. The words used to express it, (λυτρον, αντιλυρον, λυτρωσις, απολυίρωσις, λυίρεσθαι,) will admit of no other signification. Here it must answer the purging of conscience by the blood of Christ; and he calls his life a ransom, or price of redemption, which utterly destroys the foundation of the Socinian redemption and expiation for sin; for they make it only a freedom from punishment by an act of power; which is to reject the whole mystery of the gospel,

§11. We observe from the words thus explained,

1. It is an act of mere sovereign grace in God to provide such a blessed inheritance for any who had sinfully cast away what they were before entrusted with; and into this are all God's dealings with the church progressively to be resolved. If there were nothing in us, to move God to provide this inheritance for us, no more is there for the communication of any part to us.

2. All our interest in the gospel inheritance depends on our “receiving the promise by faith;" though it be prepared in the counsel of God, though it be proposed to us in the dispensation of the gospel, yet, unless we receive the promise of it by faith, we have no saving, possessive right to it.

3. The conveyance and actual communication of the eternal inheritance by promise to be received by faith alone, tends exceedingly to the exaltation of God's glory, and the security of salvation to believers; for it depends absolutely on the veracity of God, confirmed by his oath. And faith, on the other hand, is

the only way of ascribing to God the glory of all the holy properties of his nature.

4. Effectual vocation is the only way of entrance into the eternal inheritance; for it is accompanied with adoption, which gives us right and title to it, John i, 12: in vain do they expect it who are not so called.

5. Though God will give grace and glory to his elect, yet he will do it in such a way, as by which he may be glorified. Satisfaction must be made for transgression, to the honor of his righteousness, holiness, and law.

6. Such is the malignant nature of sin, of all transgressions of the law, that unless it be removed, no person can enjoy the promise of the eternal inheritance.

7. It was the work of God alone, the effect of infinite wisdom and grace, to provide a way for the removal of sin, that it might not be an everlasting obstacle against the communication of an eternal inheritance to them that are called.

§12. To these observations we may add the following;

1. A new testament providing an eternal inheritance in sovereign grace; the constituting of a mediator such a mediator, for that testament, in infinite wisdom and love; the death of that testator for the redemption of transgressions, to fulfil the law and satisfy divine justice, with the communication of that inheritance by promise to be received by faith-are the substance of the gospel mystery, and are with wonderful wisdom comprised by the apostle in these words.

2. That the efficacy of the mediation and death of Christ extended itself to all the called under the old testament, is an evident demonstration of his pre-existent divine nature, and the eternal covenant between the Father and him about them.

3. This first covenant did only forbid and condemn transgressions; redemption from them is by the new testament alone.

4. The glory and efficacy of the new covenant, and the assurance of the communication of an eternal inheritance by virtue of it, depend on its being made a testament by the death of the Mediator.

VERSES 16, 17.

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; for a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all, whilst the testator liveth.

$1. The force of the apostle's argument. $2, 3. The difference between a testamen tand a covenant $4, 5. The necessity of Chrisc's death as a testator. $6. Wherein agree the Christian testament and those of men. $7. Wherein they differ. $8. Observations.

$1. THERE is not much more to 'be considered in these verses than how the observation contained in them proves the necessity and use of the death of Christ, from the nature, ends, and use of the covenant of which he was the mediator; for being a "testament," it was to be confirmed with the death of the testator, from the very notion of a testament, and the only use of it amongst men. A testament is a just determination of a man's will concerning what he will have done with his goods after his decease, or it is the will of him who is dead. Take this power from men, and you root up the whole foundation of all industry and diligence in the world; for what man will labor to increase his substance, if when he dies he may not dispose of it to those for whom by nature, affinity, or other obligations, he hath most respect?

Of the like nature is his observation, that "a testament is of no force whilst the testator liveth;" for by

what way soever a man disposeth of his goods (by sale, by gift, &c.) so as that it shall take effect whilst he is alive, it is not a "testament," for that is only the will of a man concerning his goods when he is dead.

$2. To the confirmation or ratification of a "testament," that it may be (ẞebaia) sure, stable, and of force, there must be death, the death of the testator; but there is no need that this should be by blood, the blood of the testator or any other. To the consideration of a "covenant" blood was required, the blood of the sacrifice, and death only consequentially; but there was no need that it should be the blood or death of him that made the covenant: wherefore the apostledeclaring the necessity of the death of Christ, both as to the nature of it, that it was really death, and as to the manner of it, that it was by the effusion of his blood-evinceth that necessity from the consideration of the two covenants, the old and the new testaments, and especially from what was essential to a covenant as such, and in a testament precisely so called. What

is essential to a testament is, that it be confirmed and made irrevocable by the death of the testator; and the excellency of a solemn religious covenant, whereby it is made firm and stable, is, that it be confirmed by the blood of sacrifices; as ver. 18-22: wherefore, whatever is excellent in either of these, was to be found in the Mediator of the new testament. Take it as a testament, in which he has bequeathed to the heirs of promise, grace and glory, and he died as the testator, whereby the grant of the inheritance was made irrevocable. Take it as a covenant, as containing promises and prescribed obedience, and it was to be confirmed with the blood of the sacrifice of himself, which is the eminent solemn confirmation of this covenant. And as his death had an eminency above the death required

to a testament, in that it was by blood, and the sacrifice of himself; so had it an eminency above all the ways of confirming either the old covenant or any other solemn covenant whatever; in that it was confirmed with the blood of him that made it.

§3. This consideration solves all the seeming difficulties in the apostle's argument. The word (995) here referred to is, as we have shewed, of a large signification and various use; and is frequently taken for a free grant of things by promise, which hath the nature of a testament. And in the old covenant, there was a free grant and donation of the inheritance of the land of Canaan to the people, which belongs to the nature of a testament also; moreover, both of them, a covenant and a testament, agree in the general nature of their confirmation, the one by blood, the other by death. Hence the apostle in the use of the Greek word (dialnun) diversely argues to the nature, necessity, and use of the death of the Mediator of the new testament; he was to die in the confirmation of it as a testament, he being the testator; and he was to offer himself as a sacrifice in his blood, for the establishment of it, as it had the nature of a covenant. Wherefore the apostle doth not argue, as some imagine, merely from the signification of the word which they say is not exactly rendered. And those who have from hence troubled themselves, and others about the authority of this epistle, may thank their own ignorance of the apostle's design and the nature of his argument; and it were well if we all were sensible of our own ignorance, and more apt to acknowledge it when we meet with difficulties in the scripture, than for the most part we are. Alas! how short are our lines when we came to fathom the depth of it! what inextricable difficulties appear

« ZurückWeiter »