Commentary on Hebrews, Commentary · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
1 Now of the things which we hauehave ſpoken, this is the ſumme, that we hauehave ſuch an high Prieſt, that ſitteth 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 eueryevery high Priest is ordained to offer both gifts and ſacrifices: wherefore it was of neceſſitie that this man ſhould hauehave 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 ſerue vntounto 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 thou make all things according to the patterne ſhewed thee in the Mount.
6 But now our high Prieſt hath obtained a more excellent office, in as much as he is the Mediator of a better Teſtament which is eſtabliſhed vponupon better promiſes.
NOw the ſumme of that we hauehave ſpoken, &c] To the ende the readers might know what the matter is, which he now handleth, he ſhewes it is his intent to proue 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 diuers arguments, he interlaced this admonition, that hee might alwaies keepe the readers attentiue to the ende and ſcope of his ſpeech. He hath heretofore prooued Chriſt to be the high Prieſt: now he ſtriues to prooue further that his Prieſthood is heauenly, wherby it follows, that by his comming, that which Moſes inſtituted vnderunder the law is aboliſhed, in regard it was earthly. Now becauſe Chriſt ſuffered in the baſeneſſe of the fleſh, and by taking vponupon himſelfe the forme of a ſeruant, made himſelfe of no reputation in the world, Philip. 2.7. The Apoſtle ſends vsus 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 vertue 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 whereof he ſpeaks, is not oppoſite to a lie; but to the figures onelyonly: as alſo when it is ſaid, Ioh. 1.17. The law was giuen by Moſes, but grace and truth came by Ieſus Chriſt. Anſwer. This auncient Tabernacle then was no vaine inuention of man, but the image of the heauenly Tabernacle. Notwithſtanding becauſe there is difference betweene the ſhadow and the bodie; alſo between the ſignification, and the thing page missing ſpeakes of the death of Chriſt, he reſpects not the outward act ſo much, as the ſpiritual fruite that came thereof. He ſuffered death after the common manner of men; Two things to be conſidered in Chriſts death.but in that he blotted out ſins as a Prieſt, this was by a diuine power. The ſhedding of his blood was a thing outward: but the purgation it wrought and yet worketh 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 followeth, ſome turne it thus; Of the number of thoſe which offer gifts according to the law, &c. But the words of the Apoſtle hauehave another ſignification: therefore I had rather reſolue it thus; Whilſt there are, or ſeeing there are Prieſts. For his meaning is to prooue 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 ſhewes 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 ſerue vntounto the paterne, &c.] I take this word to ſerue, in this place, Ver. 5 for the performance of the diuine ſeruice: and therefore this word vntounto, muſt be vnderſtood in the Greeke text, or els ſome other word like vntounto it which alſo we hauehave put, to wit, in the. Truly this ſenſe agrees better; than as others turne it, Which ſerue to the paterne, and ſhadow of heauenly things: and the conſtruction of the Greeke text doth eaſily beare this ſenſe. To be ſhort, he teacheth that the true ſeruice of God conſiſts not in the legall ceremonies: and therefore when as the Leuiticall Prieſts executed their office, they had onelyonly a ſhadow, and an inferiour pourtraiture, which is farre beneath the true and naturall paterne. For indeede 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 ſhewes yt the ſeruice of God after the cuſtom of ye 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 proue that the ſeruice 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 ſhewed vntounto 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 whence it followes, that there was no ſtabilitie in any of all theſe things, but that we muſt ſtill come vntounto 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 therein as in ſports fit for little children: the Tabernacle alſo was not built in vaine, as if it ſerued to no other purpoſe but only to draw the eyes of the beholders to gaze vponupon 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 onelyonly commanded to ſerue as a bridle for ſtaying the inconſtancie of the people, leaſt they ſhould hauehave gone to ſeeke out ſtrange ceremonies among the Gentiles. This indeede 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 notwithſtanding it is not needfull that we ſhould be ouer curious, ſo as to ſeeke out ſome high or profound myſterie in eueryevery pinne, and in eueryevery ſmall piece of the Tabernacle, as Heſichius, and the greater part of the ancient authors, who hauehave trauailed too curiouſly in this behalfe: for whileſt they goe about ſubtilly to diuine in things to them vnknowne, they hauehave failed very blockiſhly, and ſhewed themſelues ridiculous bablers. So then we muſt keepe a meane herein: which wee ſhall doe when wee deſire to know no more than that which is reuealed to vsus in Chriſt.
Secondly, we are here taught, that all ſeruices which men hauehave 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 vntounto it. For theſe two manners of ſpeech (See that thou make all things according to the paterne: and, Take heede thou make nothing more than the paterne) are in weight one, VVe muſt not goe an haires bredth from Gods commandement, in things pertaining to his worſhip.as much as the other. Wherefore, in requiring ſtreightly that we keepe the rule which he hath giuen vsus, he therewithall forbids vsus 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 notwithſtanding 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 hauehave no authoritie to inuent what wee thinke to be good, but it only belongs to God to ſhew what we ought to doe. For it is ſaid, according to the paterne which he ſhewed thee.
But now our high Priest, Ver. 6 &c.] Euen as heretofore he gathered the excellencie of the couenant 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 couenant. Both the one and the other were neceſſarie, becauſe it was needfull that the Iewes ſhould be turned from the ſuperſtitious obſeruation 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 ſaith that it was reaſon that both Moſes and Aaron ſhould giuegive place to Chriſt, as to the more excellent: becauſe the Goſpel is a more excellent couenant 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 couenant of the Goſpel was eſtabliſhed vponupon better promiſes. For it is certaine, that euen the very ſame hope of eternall life which we now hauehave, was ſet before the auncient Fathers which liued vnderunder the law. The grace of adoption beeing as common to them as to vsus. Their faith then muſt needs be built vponupon 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 ſaluation, which he promiſeth vsus now at this day, yet notwithſtanding the meaſure, or manner of reuelation was neither equall, nor alike. But if any wil ſee more of this, let him hauehave recourſe to our Inſtitution, and to that which is written vponupon the fourth and fith chapter of the Epiſtle to the Galathians.
7 For if that firſt Teſtament had been vnblameable, no place ſhould hauehave beene ſought for the ſecond.
8 For in rebuking them he ſaith, Behold the daies will come, Ier. 32.31, 32, 33, 34. Rom. 11.27. Chap. 10.16.ſaith 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, ſaith the Lord.
10 For this is the Teſtament that I will make with the houſe of Iſrael, After thoſe daies ſaith 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 eueryevery man his neighbour, and eueryevery 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 vntounto their vnrighteouſneſſe, and I will remember their ſinnes and their iniquities no more.The 12. verſe is expounded after verſe 10.
13 In that he ſaith a new Teſtament, he hath 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 couenant which god hath made with vsus by the hand of Chriſt. Now his confirmation ſtands vponupon this, that the couenant 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 thereof? Obiection. But we ſee that there is another. It appeares then, that this auncient couenant was not perfect in all points. Now to prooue this he alleadgeth the teſtimonie of Ieremiah, 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 couenant, 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 giuen by the new couenant. And is it not a wicked thing to affirme, that for the ſinne of the people, the fault ſhould therefore be caſt vponupon the couenant 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 couenant ſhould therefore be faultie. Anſwere. But this obiection is eaſily anſwered. For although the fault of breaking the couenant be iuſtly imputed to the people, who by their diſloyaltie turned away from the Lord: yet notwithſtanding the weaknes of this couenant 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 hath iuſt cauſe to affirme, that a new couenant 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 receiued the law, they did not perſeuere in the faith. The law then is this couenant which God complaines the people brake. And to remedie this euill, he promiſeth a newe couenant; not like the firſt: the fulfilling of which prophecie imports the aboliſhing of the old Teſtament. But it ſeemes the Apoſtle doth miſalleage this prophecie to make it ſerue 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 doth write the rule of holines of life in the hearts, which yet is giuen 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 ſaith, I hauehave made a couenant with you, which couenant you brake. The law indeed was clothed as it were, with ceremonies: but now the bodie being deſtroyed and dead, what vſe is there of the garments? for it is a common prouer be well enough knowne, 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 vſuall cuſtome of the Apoſtles, when they contend about ceremonies, to diſpute generally of the whole law. So then, although this propheſie of Ieremiah ſtretcheth it ſelfe further than to the ceremonies, yet notwithſtanding becauſe they are included vnderunder the name of the old Teſtament, the Apoſtle fitly applies this propheſie to his preſent purpoſe. Moreouer, all doe confeſſe, that by the daies whereof 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: howſoeuer in times paſt they were ſeuered.
Not according to the couenant which I made, &c.] Verſ. 9 Hereby he ſhewes that there ſhould be a difference betweene that couenant which then was in force, and the newe couenant the which he gaue them hope of. Otherwiſe the prophet would hauehave ſaid, I will renue and eſtabliſh againe with you, the couenant which was broken by your default: but he now ſaith expreſly, that it ſhall not be like vntounto it. Whereas he ſaith, that the Couenant 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 onelyonly: but, as thoſe which were deliuered, reuolted by and by, and their ſucceſſours likewiſe fell often into the ſame fault after thē: ſo he doth in this ſpeech challenge the whole nation of diſloyaltie, and of breaking the couenant. When he ſaith he deſpiſed them, or regarded them not, he giues them to vnderſtand, that although they were once adopted to be his people, yet that ſhould profit them nothing, vnleſſe hee ſuccour them by a new remedie. The prophet hath 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 couenant, Verſ. 10 &c.] There are two principall articles in this couenant. 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 vponupon the ſecond: & that is the illumination of the minde with the knoweledge of God. Now there are here many things worthy our obſeruation. The firſt is, that God calles vsus to him in vaine, whileſt he onelyonly ſpeaketh vntounto vsus by the voice of man. We muſt not denie, but that which he teacheth is right and iuſt: but yet he ſpeakes but to deafe eares; yea and albeit it may ſeeme that we vnderſtand ſomewhat, yet is it onelyonly 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 onelyonly that, but the caſe is yet farre otherwiſe, for we hauehave a contrarie law, ingrauen within them, Gods word neuer takes place in our hearts, till he hath ſoftened them by his ſpirit.in ſuch wiſe that multitudes of froward and wicked affections doe raigne therein, which doe daiely prouoke vsus to rebellion. In vaine it is then that God doth publiſh his law vntounto vsus by the voice of man, if withall he doe not write it in our hearts by his holy Spirit: that is, vnleſſe he frame vsus and turne vsus to his obedience. Now by this it appeares what free will is, and what vprightneſſe there is in our nature, before God hauehave regenerated vsus. I graunt that we both will, and chooſe, and that freely, without conſtraint: Freevvill.but our will is carried away euen 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 teacheth, 2. Cor. 3.3. To be ſhort; then doe we receiue 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 vsus nothing but corrupt affections, and a heart wholy inclined to euill. For this ſentence of God is cleare and euident, that a new couenant muſt be made, by which God ingraues his lawes in our hearts, becauſe otherwiſe it ſhall be altogether fruitleſſe and vnprofitable vntounto vsus.
The ſecond article is as touching the free remiſſion of ſins. Although they hauehave ſinned, ſaith the Lord, The 12. verſe is expounded here. There remaine vvicked and corrupt affect ons euen in the best after regeneration: and therefore the Prophet had good cauſe to adde this ſecond article.yet will I notwithſtanding pardon their ſinnes. This alſo is a very neceſſarie article. For God neuer ſo frames and faſhions vsus in obedience to his righteouſneſſe, but there ſtill remaines in vsus many wicked and corrupt affections of the fleſh: yea and the corruption of our nature is regenerate but onelyonly in part: for eueryevery hand-while we feele wicked luſts, and naughtie affections to boyle in vsus. And from thence 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 hauehave done, but failed therein many waies. What good or holy deſire then ſoeuer it be which wee hauehave to liue religiouſly, yet we ſhall be alwaies guiltie before God of eternal death, becauſe our conuerſation is alwaies farre off from the perfection of the law. There is no ſtabilitie in the couenant then in regard of vsus, vnleſſe God doe freely forgiue vsus our ſinnes. But this is a ſpeciall priuiledge belonging onelyonly to the faithfull, who hauehave imbraced the couenant 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 hauehave a promiſe of pardon. Neither is this promiſed them for a day only, but euen to the end of their life: ſo that their reconciliation with God worketh and hath his efficacie continually. For this grace extends it ſelf throughout ye whole kingdom of Chriſt: which S. Paul alſo doth ſufficiently ſhew 2. Our citie of refuge is the remiſſion of ſins in Chriſts blood.Cor. 5. And indeed this is the citie of our refuge, vntounto which if wee flee not by faith, it is vnpoſſible but wee ſhall be plunged into continuall deſperation. For all of vsus are faſt locked vnderunder condemnation, and can no otherwiſe be looſed, but by running to the merciemercy of God, whereby we are abſolued.
And they ſhall be my people.] This is the fruite of the couenant, to wit, that God takes vsus for his people, and teſtifies that he will be the protector of our ſaluation. For this manner of ſpeech, and I will be their God, imports ſo much. For he is not the God of the dead, neither receiues he vsus vnderunder his ſafegard, but to make vsus partakers of his righteouſnes, and of life: Pſal. 33.12. Pſal. 144.15.for Dauid crieth excellently in the Pſalmes; Bleſſed are the people who hauehave the Lord for their God. Now wee neede not doubt but this doctrine belongs euen to vsus alſo. For although the Iſraelites occupied the firſt place, and were the right and lawfull heires of the couenant: yet their prerogatiue hinders not vsus to hauehave our portion in it. So that the wider and larger the kingdome of Chriſt ſpreads, ſo far hath this couenant of ſaluation his efficacie. But ſome may aske whether there were no certaintie nor efficacie of the promiſe vnderunder 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 ſerued God in ſinceritie of heart, and in purity of conſcience, and that they walked in his commandements: which ſurely they could not hauehave done, vnleſſe the Spirit of God had taught them inwardly. It alſo appeares that as oft as they thought vponupon 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 ouer 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, euen vnderunder 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 hath more abundantly manifeſted his power vnderunder the kingdome of Chriſt, and hath ſhed abroad his merciemercy and grace vponupon men: this his ſo exceeding liberalitie is the cauſe that the little portion of grace (in compariſon) which was ſhewed to the Fathers vnderunder the law, comes not into account. Wee ſee alſo how darke and intricate the promiſes then were: ſo as they onelyonly 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 ſhewes 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. Moreouer, that whatſoeuer 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 couenant. This is the true ſolution.
page 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 ſaith there was the candleſtick and the table, whereupon the ſhew 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 euen farre off from the Prieſts alſo, who were in the firſt Tabernacle to performe the ſeruices thereof. 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 ſaith that therein 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 couenant ouerlaid with gold: the two Cherubims, the golden pot filled with Manna, Aarons Rod, and the two Tables. Hitherto the Apoſtle followeth the deſcription of the Tabernacle. Now where he ſaith, 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; wherefore it is probable that they were encloſed in the Arke with the two Tables: but when the Temple was builded, eueryevery one of theſe things was placed by order. And indeede 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 herein curiouſly ſtay himſelfe; ſuch a one ſhall doe it without ground. I confeſſe indeede that it may ſo fall out, for ſome reſpect, that this long repetition may hauehave place: but for the preſent, it is better to bethinke vsus of the matter which hee handleth. Now to deſcant beyond meaſure, as ſome doe, is not onelyonly 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 vſe diſcretion in our choiſe therein, and to keepe a modeſt and ſober courſe, to the end we deſire not to know more than that which it hath pleaſed the Lord to reueale vntounto vsus.
6 Now when theſe things were thus ordained, the Prieſts went alwaies into the firſt Tabernacle, and accompliſhed the ſeruice.
7 But into the ſecond went the high Prieſt alone once eueryevery yeere, not without blood, which he offered for himſelfe, and for the ignorances of the people.
8 Whereby 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, wherein were offered gifts and ſacrifices that could not make holy, concerning the conſcience, him that did the ſeruice.
10 Which only ſtood in meates and drinks, and diuers waſhings, and carnall rites, which were inioyned, vntill 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 vntounto the holy place, and obtained eternall redemption for vsus.
NOw theſe things thus ordained, &c.] Verſe 6 Omitting all other matters, he vndertakes to deale with that wherein was moſt difficultie. He ſaith 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 eueryevery yeere with a ſolemne ſacrifice into the holieſt place of all. And of this he gathereth, 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 euen the figure of the olde tabernacle did admoniſh the Iewes 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 heretofore. 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, whereof hee will ſpeake by and by. He ſaith that the taking downe thereof was to our great profit, becauſe that by the ruine of it, acceſſe is giuen vsus to come the more familiarly to God.
For himſelfe.] Verſ. 7 Although the word SAGAG among the Hebrues ſignifies to erre, and that from thence they deriue this this word Sagaga, which properly ſignifies error: yet notwithſtanding it is taken generally for all kinde of ſinne. For indeede, 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 vnderunder this word he alſo comprehends voluntarie ſinnes. But, as I hauehave ſaid, there is neuer any ſinne committed without error or ignorance. For although a man doe ſinne wittingly and willingly, yet notwithſtanding he muſt be blinded by his luſt, ſo as he is vnable to iudge rightly, euen forgetting himſelfe, and God likewiſe. For men neuer runne vponupon their owne ruine willingly, vnles being firſt inwrapped by the fallacies and bewithchings of Satan, they erre from a right iudgement.
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 thereby. Moreouer he ſaith, that it was a ſigne for the preſent time: to wit, whileſt the outward obſeruation ſtood in force: to the end hee might reſtraine the continuance and vſe thereof 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 hereunto, when he ſaith, in the which ſacrifices are offered. For in that he hath to doe with the Iewes, 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 vntounto the ſoule, to giuegive true ſanctification vntounto it. In ſtead of the word to ſanctifie, others tranſlate to conſummate or finiſh: which I reiect not: notwithſtanding me thinkes to ſanctifie, ſeemes more fitting to the ſcope of the text. Now to the end the readers may the better vnderſtand what the Apoſtles meaning is, we muſt note the Antitheſis that is betweene the fleſh and the conſcience. He ſaith that thoſe who offered ſacrifices vnderunder 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 vntounto them? Verſ. 10 Some indeed doe commonly vnderſtand this, as if the Apoſtle ſhould ſay, that this waſhing was a profitable ſchoolmaſter among men, ſeruing them for honeſtie: but thoſe which are of this opinion, do not weigh the promiſes, which are added hereunto as they deſerue. And therefore it is a fancie which ought vtterly to be reiected. Alſo they doe ill expound the Iuſtifications of the fleſh, ſaying, that they are ſo called, becauſe they onelyonly purge, or ſanctifie the bodie, ſeeing the Apoſtle thereby meanes, that theſe earthly figures reach not vntounto the ſoule. For although ſuch figures were true teſtimonies of perfect holineſſe, yet had they not this holineſſe in them, neither could they giuegive it vntounto 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 wherefore the Apoſtle ſpeakes ſo meanly, and as it were in contempt of the Sacraments ordained of God, in thus leſſening of their vertue? Anſwere. I anſwere, he doth 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 ſaith, vntill the time of reformation, he alludes to the prophecie of Ierem. 31.37. for the new couenant ſucceeded the old, as a reformation of it. He doth purpoſely name, meates and drinkes, and ſuch other things which were of no great importance: becauſe men might the more certainly iudge by theſe ſmall and light obſeruations, how farre 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 vnderunder the law, to the end that turning away their eyes from the figures, they might looke vntounto 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 wherein he compares Chriſt, with the high Prieſt who was in old time vnderunder the Law. He ſaid that the high Prieſt onelyonly, entred eueryevery yeere once into the Sanctuarie with blood for the purgation of ſinnes. Chriſt hath this in common with him, that he onelyonly is put into the dignitie and office of the high Prieſt. But yet there is a difference, that Chriſt is come vponupon this, and hath 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 onelyonly is entred into heauen, by the temple of his bodie. Whereas the moſt holy place was open to the high Prieſt onelyonly once a yeere, to make the purgation of ſinnes, this did alreadie ſomewhat darkly repreſent the onelyonly 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 ye 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 eueryevery yeere, becauſe it was without efficacie: contrariwiſe, the ſatisfaction made by Chriſt, hath his efficacie alwaies, and is the cauſe of eternall ſaluation. Thus there is ſcarcely a word which hath not his weight. Whereas others hauehave 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 vntounto the time appointed for them, Chriſt was put into their place, as wee hauehave ſeene chap. 7.
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 vsus to deſire any better things. Chriſt therfore hath wherewithall for to hold vsus and ſatisfie vsus 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 ſaluation of the ſoule onelyonly depending on him) ſo the ſacrifices were true teſtimonies of this ſaluation. 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, The blood of beasts purified ſacramentally: but Chriſts blood doth it really.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 indeede giuegive it to the conſciences? And therefore it is an argument from the ſignes to the thing ſignified: becauſe the effect of the thing farre excelleth the truth of the ſignes.
Who by the eternall Spirit, Ver. 14 &c.] Now he ſhewes very plainly, from whence the death of Chriſt takes his dignitie, to wit, from the vertue of the Spirit, and not from the outward act. For Chriſt indeed ſuffered as hee was man: but this his death is healthfull for vsus, 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 calleth the eternall Spirit, to the end wee might know, that the reconciliation which he made was eternall. When hee ſaith 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 notwithſtanding his meaning is that Chriſt onelyonly 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 couenant of the law was not ſo perfect, but ſome fault was to be found therewith. Chriſts ſacrifice abſolutely perfect in al pointsBut this perfection which is in Chriſt, hath 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 euen as the life of the ſoule conſiſts in the coniunction that wee hauehave 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 ſerue the liuing God. For although we be waſhed by Chriſt, Nothing vve doe is acceptable in Gods ſight, till we be purged by the blood of Chriſt.yet it is not that wee ſhould by and by goe wallow our ſelues afreſh in our dung: but that our puritie might ſerue to the glorie of God. Moreouer, the Apoſtle hereby teacheth vsus, that nothing proceedeth from vsus which can be acceptable vntounto God, till we be purged by the blood of Chriſt. For ſeeing wee are all of vsus enemies of God, before wee be reconciled, he muſt in his iuſtice hate all our workes. The beginning therefore of the true and lawfull ſeruice 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 vntounto 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 vnderunder the new Teſtament. For he attributes not this honour 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 giuen 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 onelyonly Mediatour. He alſo toucheth the vertue & efficacie of his death, when he ſaith yt the price was paid for ſinnes, which could not be purged by the blood of beaſts vnderunder the former Testament. By which words hee would hauehave the Iewes to paſſe from the law to Ieſus Chriſt. For if the weaknes of the law is ſo great, that all the remedies which it giueth 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 onelyonly point, I ſay, ought to be a ſufficient ſpurre vntounto 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. They must needs be in perpetuall anguiſh of conſcience, that rest only in the do…trine of the lavv.Contrariwiſe, when we are once come to Chriſt, nothing remaines that may torment vsus, becauſe in him we finde and obtaine ful and perfect redemption. Thus then by theſe words hee ſhewes the weaknes of the law, to the end the Iewes ſhould no longer reſt in it: and withall teacheth them to keepe themſelues cloſe to Chriſt, becauſe in him is to bee found whatſoeuer can bee deſired to quiet their conſciences. Queſtion. Now if any aske whether the ſinnes of the Fathers were pardoned or no vnderunder 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 vnderunder the bondage of condemnation, notwithſtanding all the outward purgations the law could affoord them. For this cauſe S. Paul ſaith, that the law was an ordinance that was againſt vsus. 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, vnleſſe 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 vntounto Chriſt. Now if the only beholding of Chriſt did waſh away their ſinnes, they could neuer be deliuered from them, if they ſhould ſtill hauehave reſted in the law. True it is that Dauid ſaith, 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 vponupon Chriſt. For he ſhall neuer be deliuered from condemnation, that abideth in the law.
They which were called receiued the promiſe, &c.] The couenant which God hath made with vsus tends to this end, that wee being adopted of him for his children, are at the laſt made inheritors of eternall life. The Apoſtle ſhewes that we obtaine ſo great a benefit by the meanes of Chriſt: from whence it appeares that the accompliſhment of this his couenant is in him. As touching the promiſe of the eternall inheritance, he takes it for the heritage promiſed: as if he ſhould hauehave ſaid, The promiſe of eternall life hath no otherwiſe had his effect towards vsus 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, vnleſſe the blood of Chriſt doe goe before. He makes expreſſe mention of thoſe which are called: to the end hee might moue the Iewes with the greater care, who were partakers of this vocation. For it is a ſpeciall fauour of God when the knowledge of Chriſt is giuen vsus: 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 teacheth here the very ſame thing that S. Paul doth Rom. 3.25. to wit, that righteouſnes and ſaluation was obtained for vsus by the blood of Chriſt, but we receiue it by faith.
For where a Testament is, &c.] Ver. 16 Were there but this one place, yet were it ſufficient to ſhew that this Epiſtle was not written in Hebrue: for Berith, in the Hebrue tongue, ſignifies Couenant, and not Teſtament. But becauſe the Greeke word Diathece, hath theſe two ſignifications, to wit, of the Couenant, and of the Teſtament: for this cauſe the Apoſtle alluding to the ſecond ſignification, affirmeth that the promiſes could not otherwiſe bee of any weight or ſtabilitie, vnleſſe 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 vponupon too weake a reaſon: ſo as that which he ſaith may eaſily be refuted. For God made no Teſtament vnderunder the law, but made a Couenant 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 Couenant made betweene the liuing: ſo as wee cannot thinke otherwiſe of the matter. As touching the name, hee ſimply alludes, as I hauehave ſaid, to the ſignification of the Greeke word Diathece, which hath two ſignifications: and therefore hee chiefly inſiſts vponupon the thing. Neither is this repugnant to that which ſome might ſay, that it was a couenant which God made with his people. For this couenant was like a Teſtament, becauſe it was eſtabliſhed, and confirmed by blood. This principle then muſt be retained, that God neuer vſed ſignes at randon, nor without cauſe. Now ſo it is that God in confirming of the Couenant 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 hath this condition proper vntounto it, that it begins to take effect after death. If we then conſider that the Apoſtle contēds rather about the ſubſtance, than the name: moreouer if we come to weigh with our ſelues that he takes that (which I hauehave ſaid) for a thing without controuerſie, to wit, that God hath ordained nothing idly or in vaine; there will be no great difficultie. Obiection. If it be obiected, that the Gentiles in making their couenants hauehave vſed ſacrifices to another end: Anſwere. I anſwere, it is true: but God did not borrow the vſe of ſacrifices from their cuſtomes, but the Gentiles rather tooke the beginning of all their corrupt and baſtardly ſacrifices from the ordinances of God. Wherefore wee muſt alwaies returne to this point, that the couenant of God which was confirmed with blood, is fitly compared to a Teſtament, becauſe it was of the ſame nature and condition.
18 Wherefore neither was the firſt ordained without blood.
19 For when Moſes had ſpoken eueryevery 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, Exod. 24.8.which God hath appointed vntounto you.
21 Moreouer, 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.
WHerefore alſo &c.] Verſ. 18 By this it appeares that hee inſiſts chiefly vponupon the ſubſtance, rather than ſimply grounding his ſpeech vponupon the name: although the Apoſtle hath turned the word which the language affoorded him wherein he wrote, to his profit. As if ſome ſpeaking alſo of the couenant of God (which the Greekes often call Martyria, that is to ſay, witneſſe) to praiſe and extoll the ſame; amongſt other commendations ſhould vſe theſe words; Surely this Couenant 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 euen the Sonne of God was giuen as a witnes thereof in his owne perſon: if one ſhould ſpeake on this manner, no man would ſay there were any abſurditie in it. And yet notwithſtanding the proprietie of the Hebrue word Theuda, doth not expreſſely conclude this: but becauſe nothing is ſaid herein 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 whence he gathers that men were thereby admoniſhed, it could not be otherwiſe ſtable and effectuall vnleſſe death came in betweene. For he denies that the blood of beaſts which was then ſhed, was able to ratifie an eternall couenant. And that this may be the better vnderſtood, the manner of ſprinkling which Moſes here recites is to be noted. Firſt he teacheth that this Couenant 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 onelyonly ſtand in neede of it.
He afterwards addes, Verſ. 19 that the Tabernacle, with all the veſſels, VVe can neither ſeeke, nor ſerue the true God, till faith apprehend the blood of Chriſt.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 vntounto ſaluation, or to ſerue him duly, vnleſſe 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 thither is nothing els but a deadly labyrinth, till ſuch time as wee know that hee is pacified towards vsus by the blood of Chriſt: and that by the ſame blood we may hauehave our acceſſe thereunto. On the other ſide alſo all ſeruices are ſaultie and vncleane, vnleſſe 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 ſerue God withall, ſo were they alſo reſemblances of the true ſeruice. Now if nothing of al this were auailable to the people as touching ſaluation, vnleſſe blood came betweene, from thence we may eaſily gather that we hauehave nothing to doe with God, vnleſſe Chriſt by his blood preſent himſelfe betweene him and vsus. And in this regard, the very doctrine it ſelfe, although it be the will and inuiolable truth of God, yet it ſhall hauehave no efficacie in vsus to our profit, vnleſſe 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 hauehave ſaid agrees much better. For as ſoone as they were to call vponupon 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: wherefore it is neceſſarily required that both of them be ioyned together. And wee ſee alſo that the figure and outward ſigne was not giuen, till the law was expounded. For what Sacrament were it, The word and the Sacrament muſt goe together.if the word did not go before? therfore the ſigne is but as a thing hanging and depending vponupon the word. And we muſt note withall that this word is not a mumbling of it like a charme vſed 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 couenant which was appointed vntounto you, doe ſhew. Therefore they abuſe the Sacraments, nay they wickedly corrupt them, Expoſition of the vvord, the life and ſoule of the Sacrament.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 onelyonly without any efficacie. This place admoniſheth vsus, that all the promiſes of God are then profitable vntounto vsus, 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, The promiſes profit vsus nothing, vnleſſe faith ſee them written in our hearts with the blood of 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 vsus: 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 receiue the word with much greater reuerence, than euer wee did before.
The ſprinkling, whereof Moſes makes mention, was once a figure of this. Although there bee more to be vnderſtood in theſe words, than Moſes expreſſeth. For ye 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 prooued that it was ſprinkled, yet there is ſome probable coniecture of it, whereby 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: Exod. 24.5.6.7to the end the people might enter into an obligation vntounto God, anſwering to the ſolemne couenant pronounced by the mouth of Moſes. As touching the reſt, it ſeemes to me the Apoſtle hath intermingled diuers purgations, of which wee may giuegive 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. The vertue of Hyſope.We know that Hyſope hath a ſingular vertue to purge and to digeſt ſuperfluous humours: ſo Chriſt vſeth his ſpirit as a water-ſprinkle to ſprinkle vsus with his blood, when as hee giueth a liuely feeling of repentance, when he conſumes the peruerſe affections of our fleſh, and when he dieth vsus with the rich and noble colour 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 ſaith; 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 hauehave touched vponupon this place, and will ſpare their labour to goe ſearch out higher ſpeculations.
And almost all things vnderunder the law, Verſ. 22 &c.] When he ſaith almost, it ſeemes his meaning is to ſhew that there are ſome other things which are purged after another manner. And indeed they often vſed waſhings with water both to clenſe themſelues withall, as alſo other impure things. Notwithſtanding euen this water had no vertue to clenſe but as they had it from the ſacrifices: ſo as the Apoſtle ſaith true, when for a concluſion he ſets downe, that without ſhedding of blood there was no remiſſion. Wherefore impuritie was imputed vntill 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 notwithſtanding it depended vponupon the blood, ſeeing all the ceremonies did as you would ſay borrow their vertue from this generall purgation. Neither are we to imagine that eueryevery particular man among the people was ſprinkled: (for if it had bin ſo, how could ſo little a portion of blood hauehave ſatisfied ſo great a multitude?) notwithſtanding the purgation came to all. So then this word almoſt, is as much as if it had been ſaid, The vſe 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 onelyonly, it is nothing neere 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 fauour with him, till he were appeaſed. There is but one meanes to procure reconciliation: which is the blood of Chriſt.Now there was but one meane whereby to appeaſe him: to wit, by the ſatisfaction which was made by blood. Wherefore we muſt looke for no pardon of ſins, if we bring not blood. Which wee then doe, when by faith we hauehave 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 ſaith, that wee are not to marueile if this Tabernacle page 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 onelyonly 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 eueryevery 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 hath alwaies his ſtrength and vertue, yea and is perpetuall as touching the efficacie thereof, wee muſt not wonder if his eternall Prieſthood be eſtabliſhed in the vertue of this ſacrifice, which neuer periſheth, or hath an end. And here againe he ſhewes what difference there is, and in what things, betweene Chriſt and the Leuiticall Prieſthood. As touching the Sanctuarie, he hath ſpoken heretofore: 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 vnderunder the law, where they often, yea and almoſt continually reiterated their ſacrifices.
For then he must hauehave often ſuffered, Verſ. 26 &c.] He ſheweth how abſurd and vnreaſonable a thing it ſhould be, if wee content not our ſelues with the onelyonly ſacrifice of Chriſt. For from thence he concludes, that he muſt then hauehave 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 vertue of this onelyonly ſacrifice is eternall, and ſtretcheth it ſelfe vntounto all times. He ſaith, ſince the foundation of the world, becauſe that in all times ſince the beginning there hauehave bin ſinnes which hauehave had neede of purgation. If then the ſacrifice of Chriſt had not been effectuall from the beginning, Chriſts ſacrifice effectuall from the beginning.none of the Fathers had obtained ſaluation. 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 iudgement ſeate of God, vnles Chriſt by enduring of death once, had ſuffered from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, for the obtaining of Gods fauour for men. And therefore let vsus ſatisfie our ſelues with this onelyonly ſacrifice, vnleſſe peraduenture wee expect many deaths of Chriſt. By this it alſo euidently appeares how friuolous that diſtinction of the Papiſts is, The friuolous diſtinction of the Papiſts, touching the bloodie and vnbloodie ſacrifice.in which ſubtilty they ſo much pleaſe themſelues, when they ſay that the offring vp of Chriſt vponupon the croſſe was bloodie; but the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, which they forge to be offered vp eueryevery day, is without blood. For if this ſuttle ſhift may hauehave 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 paſſe not, that the ancient Doctors hauehave 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, vnleſſe there be effuſion of blood. Therefore it is an inuention of the diuell, 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 giuegive a reaſon of it, although it be not manifeſted to vsus. To bee ſhort, the Apoſtle ſignifies that the death of Chriſt fell out iuſt at that time wherein his Father ſent him into the world for that purpoſe: who as he hath in his owne power the lawfull gouernment of all things, ſo hath he the times alſo, ſeeing hee ordreth them by an admirable wiſedome, howſoeuer it bee often hidden from vsus. Moreouer, 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 iudge it was not yet come to a firme and ſetled eſtate. For this cauſe S. Paul teacheth in the 1. Cor. 10.11. that the ends of the world are come vponupon vsus, ſignifying therby that the kingdom of Chriſt hath 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 ſerue after the deſtruction of ſinnes? Now this destruction conſiſts in this, that ſinnes are no more imputed to thoſe who hauehave their refuge to the ſacrifice of Chriſt: Hovv ſinne is ſaid to be deſtroyed.for although neceſſitie be laid vponupon vsus to aske pardon eueryevery day, becauſe we do eueryevery day prouoke the wrath of God afreſh againſt vsus, notwithſtanding for as much as wee are alwaies reconciled to God by the pledge of Chriſt his onelyonly death, and not otherwiſe: therefore it is rightly ſaid that ſinne is destroyed by it.
And as it is appointed vntounto men to die once, Verſ. 27 &c.] The meaning is this, ſeeing that wee waite with patience for the day of iudgement 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 amongſt men, what abſurditie were it to giuegive leſſe honour to Chriſt? Now we giuegive him leſſe, if we call him to a ſecond death, Obiection. ſeeing he is dead once for all. If it be obiected that ſome hauehave died twice, as Lazarus, and ſuch other, the ſolution is eaſie, to wit, Anſwere. the Apoſtle ſpeakes here of the ordinarie condition of men: 1. Cor. 15.51. 1. Theſſ. 4.17.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 hauehave 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 vsus. And therefore he ſaith, that he once appeared with ſacrifice to purge away ſinnes, and that by his ſecond appearing he ſhall openly manifeſt what efficacie his death hath had, ſo as ſinne ſhall no more hauehave power to hurt. To aboliſh ſinnes, that is, by his ſatisfaction to deliuer thoſe from the fault, and from condemnation which hauehave ſinned. He ſaith many, for all: as in Rom. 5.15. True it is that Chriſts death profits not all: but this comes to paſſe, 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. Wherefore he oppoſeth many, to one onelyonly.
But what meanes he by theſe words, that Chriſt ſhall appeare without ſinne? By the word ſinne, ſome vnderſtand 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 iudgement, he meant ſomething more ſpeciall, to wit, that when Chriſt ſhall come hee ſhall manifeſt how true it is that hee hath 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 iudgement 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 ſaluation to thoſe which looke for him: Others doe conſtrue it otherwiſe on this manner; To thoſe that looke for him for ſaluation. But I thinke the other ſenſe is more proper. For his meaning is, that thoſe ſhall feele a full ſaluation from Chriſt, who with quiet minds doe reſt vponupon 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly ſacrifice of Chriſt, he calles it the looking for of Christ, when being contented with this onelyonly redemption, we luſt not after new remedies or helps.