been before at large declared. The apostle takes notice of it here only as it was given out in prophecy by David; which was but a solemn declaration of the eternal compact between the Father and the Son.

2. The difference of the time wherein these priesthoods were ordained is included on the one hand and expressed on the other. For the former, it was when the law was given whereby they were made priests: the latter was erà ròv vóμov, “after the Μετὰ τὸν νόμον. law," or the giving of it. This, I confess, doth not appear at first view to be to the advantage of the apostle's design, namely, that this oath was after the law; for in another place he expressly argues on the other hand, that what is first in such cases hath the pre-eminence, and cannot be disannulled by what doth ensue: Gal. iii. 17, "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." May it not be as well said, that this oath, which was declared about four hundred years after the giving of the law, could not disannul it, or make it of none effect? The objection being not without its difficulty, I shall spend a little time in the full solution of it. I answer, therefore, that what followeth after cannot disannul what went before,

(1.) If that which is afterwards introduced be consistent with what was before established. For in that case there is no intimation of the pleasure of God that it should be disannulled. He may add what he will unto what is already ordained, so it be consistent with it, without prejudicing the first institution.

(2.) Especially it cannot do so if it be inferior unto that which went before, either in dignity or use and benefit, and so be made subservient unto it.

(3.) And it must be invalid unto any such purpose if it had no other antecedent foundation, that did indeed precede the former grant for if it have so, it may rationally be supposed to be further declared on purpose to supersede it.

Now thus it was with the law in respect unto the promise, which, as the apostle proves, going before it, could not be disannulled by it. For,

(1.) The law, as it was then ordained of God, was consistent with the promise, yea, and given in the pursuit of it; so as that there was no need that any should forsake the promise to comply with the will of God in giving the law.

(2.) The law, as it was inferior in dignity and use unto the promise, so it was made subordinate and subservient unto it; for the main end of giving the law, was to guide and direct the church unto the right use and benefit of the promise.

VOL. XXII.

37

(3.) The promise had an absolute priority above the law. There was no ground or foundation laid for the law, no intimation of its future introduction, before the giving of the promise: and therefore the promise could not be disannulled by it.

But in the present case all things are otherwise; for,

(1.) The priesthood confirmed by an oath, and introduced after the law, was utterly inconsistent with the law and the priesthood thereof. This the apostle hath fully proved before. Wherefore of necessity either the law and the priesthood of it must be disannulled, or the oath of God must be of none effect; for what he had sworn unto was inconsistent with the continuance of what was before appointed for a time.

(2.) This new priesthood could no way be made subordinate or subservient unto the other, so as to leave it a place in the church; but as it was eminently above it in dignity and benefit, so the use of the other was only to be an introduction unto it, and therefore must cease thereon.

(3.) This priesthood had its reasons, grounds, foundation, and representation, long before the giving of the law. For besides that it had a virtual constitution in the first promise, two thousand years before the giving of the law, it had also a typical representation before it, in the priesthood of Melchisedec; and it received only a declaration and confirmation in the account given of the oath of God after the law.

Wherefore the direct contrary is here the matter in hand unto what is spoken unto in that other argument of the apostle. And therein the first thing, namely, the promise, was confirmed by an oath; the latter was not. But here the latter, which was after the law, was confirmed by the oath of God; which the law was not. And hereon its being after the law is a sufficient evidence of its preeminence above the law, and all the institutions of it; for hereby was that introduced which was to supply all the defects and weaknesses of the law and its priesthood, and so to disannul them and take them out of the way.

3. The third difference is, that the law made ȧvepúous, "men," to be high priests; that is, those who were mere * Ανθρώπους. men, and no more. And therefore, notwithstanding the office and dignity which they were called and exalted unto, they were all but servants in the house of God; nor could they be any other, as the apostle proves, Heb. iii. 5. In opposition hereunto, "the word of the oath maketh Tió," "the Son,"

Υίόν. an high priest; that Son who is Lord over the whole house, and whose the house is, as he declares in the same place, verses 5, 6. And in this word the apostle openeth the necessity and dignity of the priesthood of the new testament; for it consists

in the dignity of the person designed unto that office. This was no other, nor could be other, but the Son, the eternal Son of God. "Filium, nempe Dei, non hominem, cæteris parem, nascendi sorte," saith Grotius; as though Christ were here called "the Son," that is, the Son of God, because he was differenced from other men in the way and manner of his birth, being born of a virgin. But this is not the true and formal reason of this denomination. Christ is the Son of God by eternal generation; and thereon alone doth his sonship depend. But many ways there were whereby he was manifested so to be, especially by his miraculous conception and nativity, and by his resurrection from the dead. Hence with respect unto them he is sometimes called the Son of God; not that he became so thereby, but was only "declared" so to be. This, therefore, the apostle resolves the force of his argument into, namely, the dignity of the person of our high priest, he was the Son of God; for hereon the whole excellency and efficacy of his priesthood doth depend.

4. It is added, in the last place, that the law made men priests exortas ȧodévelαv, —" that had infirmity," subject to ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν,

infirmities. And these were of two sorts, moral and "Exovras dobinatural; neither could they be freed from either of them during the whole time of their priesthood. The first were their sins: hence they were obliged continually to offer sacrifice for their own sins, and that to the very last day of their lives. The sum and issue of their natural weakness was death itself. This seized on every one of them, so as to put an everlasting end unto their sacerdotal administrations.

But wherefore did the law make such priests, men, mere men, that had infirmity, subject to sin and death, so as to put an end unto their office? The reason is, because it could neither find any better, nor make them any better whom it found in that condition. The law must be content with such as were to be had, and in itself it had no power to make them better.

Τετελειωμένου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

In opposition hereunto it is said, "the word of the oath made the Son, τετελειωμένον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,”“ consecrated for ever." What was the consecration of the Lord Christ unto his office, and wherein it did consist, I have before at large declared. That which the apostle intends here, in an especial manner, is his absolute freedom from the infirmities which those other priests were obnoxious unto,-namely, such infirmities in the first place as with respect whereunto sacrifice was to be offered unto God; that is, their own sins. And the apostle here, opposing the consecration of Christ unto their having infirmities, showeth sufficiently that he intended not to insinuate that he offered for any infirmities of his own, seeing he is wholly different from them

and opposed unto them who had such infirmities. And if he had offered for his own infirmities, the apostle could not have objected it as the weakness of the law, that it made priests which had infirmity; for, in that sense, the word of the oath should have done so also. But whereas his exaltation into heaven for the discharge of the remaining duties of his priesthood, in his intercession for the church, belonged unto the perfection of his consecration, he was therein also freed from all those natural infirmities which were necessary unto him that he might be a sacrifice. The ensuing observations offer themselves unto us:

Obs. V. There never was, nor ever can be, any more than two sorts of priests in the church; the one made by the law, the other by the oath of God. Wherefore,

Obs. VI. As the bringing in of the priesthood of Christ after the law and the priesthood constituted thereby, did abrogate and disannul it; so the bringing in of another priesthood after his will abrogate and disannul that also. And therefore,

Obs. VII. Plurality of priests under the gospel overthrows the whole argument of the apostle in this place; and if we have yet priests that have infirmities, they are made by the law, and not by the gospel.

Obs. VIII. The sum of the difference between the law and the gospel is issued in the difference between the high priest of the one and the other state; which is inconceivable.

Obs. IX. The great foundation of our faith, and the hinge whereon all our consolation depends, is this, that our high priest is the Son of God.

Obs. X. The everlasting continuance of the Lord Christ in his office is secured by the oath of God.

Μόνῳ τῷ Θεῷ δόξα.

END OF VOL. XXII.

EDINBURGH PRINTED BY JOHNSTONE AND HUNTER.