name signified so as it also signified King of righteousnesse But if this had beene onely an appellation of him the Author would not have said king of Salem but Melechsalem as he said not King of Sedec but Melchisedec For who in relating of a mans name will deliver it partly in a strange language and partly in the proper language Wherefore when Melchisedec is in Scripture called king of Salem it is apparent that the name of King doth note his royall office and dignity and Salem notes the place wherein he did reigne And many beeleeve that this City Salem was the same with Jerusalem which at the first was called onely Salem and afterward by the adjection of the word Jeru Jerusalem as a man would say the sight of peace Priest of the most high God For so the Scripture calls him Gen. 14.18 And though the word Cohen signifie also a Prince as the Sons of David are said to have beene Cohenim 2 Sam. 8.18 which our Translation there renders chiefe rulers yet being attributed to Melchisedec it notes him a Priest 1. Because of that addition here made of the most high God for this addition takes away all ambiguity of the word and declares him to be a Priest of God and not a Prince of God 2. Because this is brought as a reason why he blessed Abraham in an especiall manner as shall be shewed afterward 3. Because Abraham payed him tithes which were usually paid to Priests Whence it appeares that the same word Cohen which is given to Christ as he is compared with Melchisedec Psal 110.4 doth not simply signifie a Prince onely as the Jews contend but properly a Priest For it is manifest that those words of the Psalme have respect to the place in Genesis where Melchisedec is called Cohen And it is no strange thing that anciently Melchisedec was both a King and a Priest for anciently Kings were wont to performe Sacred rites which custome grew from hence that in every family the principall person or ruler of it did officate in holy functions Whence it came to passe that they who afterward became Princes or Rulers of a whole Citie became also the publike Priests of that Citie and executed the sacred Ceremonies for the safety of the people For it made most for the honour of God that the most honourable person should minister unto him Who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings The Author mentions not this meeting as if in that there were any Mysterie but because he would shew how Melchisedec blessed Abraham and reciprocally how Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec In which two points as he shews afterward the chiefe dignitie of Melchisedec appeared And hee mentions this meeting onely to designe the occasion the time and circumstances of the action whereof the History is particularly related Gen. 14. And blessed him Him i. Abraham for so saith the Scripture He blessed him and said Blessed be Abraham of the most high God possessour of heaven and earth Gen. 14.19 that is Let the most high God blesse Abraham and heap his gifts upon him in great abundance And lest any man should think that this was but an ordinary blessing such as commonly is among friends when they mutually pray and wish all happinesse one to another therefore he prefixed these words before it that Melchisedec was a Priest of the most high God thereby to make us know that this was a singular blessing as proceeding from a person that was a peculiar Minister of God Whence it appears that when Melchisedec is said to be a Priest of the most high God thereby is not shewed the reason why he brought forth bread and wine as they would have it who say that Melchisedec offered bread and wine to God and was therefore called a Priest but in those words is shewed the reason why he blessed Abraham and why as it presently follows Abraham gave him tithes But the error of these men who thereby would strengthen their owne opinions may manifestly be convinced from hence that the Author who most diligently prosecutes the likenesse betweene the Priesthood of Melchisedec and Christ makes not any the least mention of offering bread and wine wherein notwithstanding they thinke the greatest likenesse betweene Christ and Melchisedec doth consist and certainly must consist if both offered bread and wine Either therefore the Author omitted that which was the maine point in so accurate a comparison of Christ with Melchisedec or else that Melchisedec or Christ or both of them offered bread and wine to God is but those mens dream Melchisedec brought forth bread and wine that hee might refresh Abraham and his company that were weary after their victory and journey but hee offered none to God for this is refuted by the very word of bringing forth which is never used of offerings and besides the place and time when this is said to have been done refutes it also For wee use not to meet men upon the way there to celebrate divine services or performe holy Ceremonies Also Christ is never read to have offered bread and wine to God but onely to have instituted a holy Ceremonie wherein bread is broken and eaten and wine is drunke out of a cup yet not to perform any offering but to celebrate the memory of Christ whose body was broken for us and his blood shed for us As for the expiatory offering of Christ for our sinnes that was not performed on earth but in heaven Hebrewes 8.4 Neither doth it consist in offering of bread and wine but in Christs offering of himselfe as this Authour testifies in sundry places neither was it to bee iterated often but once onely to bee performed as the Authour clearely delivers it afterwards in this Chapter verse 27. and Chap. 10 14. For that single oblation perfects all the Saints 2. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all The fifth particular that the Author observes in Melchisedec was that Abraham gave him the tenth part as is related in his history whence a little after the Author collects how far Melchisedec exceeded the Leviticall Priests The gift that Abraham gave him was a part of the spoiles for so it is expressed at the 4. v. following and the portion hee gave was a tenth part of them and there were none of the spoils excepted and reserved for he gave him a tenth part of all By these words hee partly explicates some things related in Scripture of Melchisedec and partly observes other things whereby to make it appeare how great a person Melchisedec was and how properly he was a type of Christ First being by interpretation king of righteousnesse First he ponders the name of Melchisedec and teacheth that there was an omen in his name For the Hebrew name Melchisedec being interpreted or translated into another language doth signifie a king of righteousnesso There are some who tell us that this name signifies my righteous king but it is very usuall with the
at the same time seeing hee to his former words of confirming the Testament by bloud doth simply subjoyne that Moses did also sprinkle the Tabernacle and the ministerial vessels with bloud which may as well be taken of another time as of the same Although Moses saith not openly that the Tabernacle and ministeriall vessels after they were all finished were sprinkled with bloud but only anointed with the holy oyle Yet because we read that the Altar was not onely anointed with oyle but also sprinkled and consecrated with bloud therefore hence we may gather that in the consecration of the Tabernacle it selfe and of the ministeriall vessells sprinkling of blood was joyned with their anointing For Josephus delivers this in plain words in his Antiquitie lib. 3. cap. 9. Where describing the Ceremonie and forme of that Consecration hee saith Then hee sprinkled the garments of Aaron and his sonnes with the bloud of the Sacrifices-purifying them with running water and with the ointment c. He sprinkled also the Tabernacle and his vessels with the ointment and with the bloud of bullocks and rams slaine every other day after their kind From this verse therefore it may appeare that anciently there were many things among the Jewes especially concerning external rites of manifest truth which notwithstanding are not written in the bookes of Moses and therefore wee need not marvell that this Author doth affirme some things which we finde not delivered in the books of Moses as we have noted already in this chapter verse 4. and verse 19. 22. And almost all things by the law are purged with bloud He amplifies his former instances drawing them from particulars almost to an universall to conclude his assertion by way of Induction Not only the Tabernacle and Ministeriall vessels which were the principall utensils about the worship of God but almost all things else were purged with bloud He saith almost all things because some things were purged without bloud for some were purged or cleansed onely by the washing of water as hee that carried out the Scape-goat must cleanse himselfe by washing his clothes and bathing his flesh in water Levit. 16.26 And the Priest who became uncleane by the touch of a person or thing unclean must cleanse himself by washing his flesh with water Levit. 22.6 And some other things were first purged by melting in the fire and afterward repurged over with the water of separation as silver and gold and all other mettals that could abide to passe through the fire Numb 31.22,23 According to the Law i. According as the Law prescribed things should be purged And without shedding of blood is no remission How ever other things were purged yet this is certaine that under the Law sinnes were not remitted without shedding of bloud Whence wee may rationally gather that the shedding of bloud must also intervene for the purging of our consciences or to expiate those sinnes that pollute our consciences That which the Author here affirmes is most certaine universally and suffers no exception unlesse in case of extreme poverty when the persons to bee purged were so poore that for the purging of their sinne they were not able to bring for their offering a paire of Turtles or a paire of yong Pigeons whereof see Levit. 5.12 Otherwise the rule holds vniversally not onely for a sinne of the whole people but also for the sin of any single person whatsoever bloud must be shed and a sacrifice must be offered See Levit. chap. 4. chap. 5. and chap. 6. 23. It was therefore necessary that the paterns of things 〈◊〉 the heavens should be purified with these Hitherto the Author hath taught that bloud was required for the purging both of the Tabernacle and of sins Now some man might say Although blood were required for this purifying yet it was not necessary that the blood of Christ should be shed for it but the bloud of beasts might have served the turne as it did under the Law To this tacite objection the Author answeres in these words and sheweth that heavenly things were to be purged with farre better Sacrifices then the Sacrifices of beasts For the purging of earthly holy things the sacrifices of beasts did suffice but for the purging of heavenly holy things which of all other are most excellent there needed a most excellent Sacrifice And none could be more excellent then Christ And besides for the purging of any Sanctuarie there must needs be a Sacrifice or at least some thing of the Sacrifice must be brought into it But neither beasts themselves nor their bloud or bodies neither must nor can be brought into that heavenly Sanctuary But Christ himselfe and his body made immortall was brought in thither Therefore for heavenly holy things the bloud of Christ must be shed and not the bloud of beasts Againe the holy things under the Law were not onely purged when they were first made and dedicated but also were yearly to be purged by the annuall Sacrifice For they were accounted pollutted by the yearely sinnes and uncleannesses of the people Whereof see Levit. 16.15 How the earthly holy things were paternes of those things which are in heaven and for what cause we have already shewed chap. 8. ver 5. The things in the heavens are put for the holy heavenly things from which the heaven it self that invisible heaven which is the most holy Sanctuary must not be excluded But the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices then these The heavenly things are the heavenly holy things as the verse following shewes But it may be demanded how those heavenly holy things can be said to be purged seeing they never were polluted Wee answer That this is said of the heavenly Sanctuary onely by way of Comparison as a thing very usuall And the nature of Comparisons is to breed many abusions For if we respect the scope of the Author it is enough for us to understand that the Sacrifice to be offered in the heavenly Sanctuary must be much more excellent then those which of old were wont to be offered in the earthly Sanctuarie For this both the nature of the heavenly Sanctuary wholly requires and also the effect of the oblation sutable to heaven But if any man yet demand a more neere resemblance it may be said That heavenly Sanctuary was indeed purged by the Sacrifice and offering of Christ First in as much as it was so consecrated thereby that an accesse is made open for us unto it and as I may say it is dedicated for our use hereafter As the old Tabernacle and many things else were not open and free for mens use before they were consecrated and they for their uncleannesse as it was accounted but this for our uncleannesse which must bee purged away before a right and an use of that heavenly Sanctuary can be granted us So that in this sence by a contrary way of speech and yet not unusuall the Author said that heaven must be purged for our
respect the plenary expiation of our sinnes or the full reconciliation of Gods favour and grace towards us that for that effect there is no further need of any Sacrifices of beasts or other things corporeall Neither is there reason why any man should say that in the Christian Religion there are other Sacrifices and oblations which Christians must offer and therefore by that sacrifice other Sacrifices and oblations are not excluded For the Author doth not oppose that Sacrifice to those that are wholly incorporeall and spirituall and whereof no meat can be made as are the Sacrifices to be offered by Christians such as a contrite and humbled heart as David speakes the Sacrifices of praise the fruits of our lippes confessing unto the name of God communicating or doing good as the Authour hath it afterwards and other workes of pietie But hee opposeth it to those Sacrifices wherein are offered things corporeall and fit for food so that he leaves no further place for all these Therefore herewith the Sacrifice of the Masse must needs fall wherein a thing corporeall that may be eaten is said to be daily offered But some man may demand how it can be true that in the Christian Religion there remaines that Sacrifice whereby the bloud of slaine beasts was by the Priests brought into the Sanctuary for sinne and their bodies burnt without the campe We answer because that under Christianity there remaines the Sacrifice of Christ our high Priest which is the antitype and solid body whereof that Sacrifice was but a type and shadow Which sacrifice of Christ by the comming of it hath abolished all other carnall sacrifices and the eating of them Whereof this is an open and manifest argument that in the type and shadow of it there was no place allowed for eating but the bodies of the beasts slaine for it were wholly burnt and that without the campe Yet it is not necessary we should say that here is a reference to that yearly Sacrifice onely whereby the high Priest entered the Oracle or the holiest of all seeing the reference may be to all those Sacrifices which were made as well for the high Priest himself as for the whole people For the bloud of those beasts that were slaine for a sin-offering was by the high Priest brought into the Sanctuary although not into the Oracle or holiest place of all yet into the first Tabernacle which is properly called the Sanctuary chap. 9. vers 2. which in other Sacrifices for private men was not done wherein the bloud of the beasts slain after the high Priest had sprinkled the hornes of the Altar that stood in the court at the doore of the Tabernacle was all poured downe at the bottome of the Altar Levit. 4.25 and the bodies of the beasts so slaine for sinne-offerings were no lesse burned without the campe then was done in that solemne anniversary Sacrifice as it appears in the same fourth chapter of Leviticus 12. Wherefore Iesus also that he might sanctifie the people with his own bloud suffered without the gate Because hee had said that in those Sacrifices that caryed a type and shadow of the Sacrifice of Christ the bodies of the beasts slaine were wholly burnt without the campe therefore he affirmes it came to passe that Jesus also whom those beasts slaine for the Expiation and Salvation of the whole people fully represented and shadowed suffered without the gate And this hee doth for this end that the conformitie and resemblance betweene the tipe and antitipe betweene the shadow and the bodie might appeare the better which at the first sight would sufficiently argue that one was referred to the other The Citie of Jerusalem wherein the people after their conquest of Canaan seated themselves is answerable to the campe wherewith they journeyed in the wildernesse and succeeded in the roome of that campe And therefore in this respect it was all one for a man to bee drawne without the gate or walles of Jerusalem when the people dwelt in that Citie as without the campe when they had a campe for their Citie Iesus also the particle also hath in this place the force of a comparison as if hee had said not onely the bodies of those beasts were burnt without the campe but Jesus also himselfe suffered without the gate Suffered namely the death of the Crosse the genus being put for the species And the death of Christ is answerable not onely to the slaughter of the beasts that were made within the campe and Citie or compasse of the Temple but also to the burning of their bodies which was performed without the campe and City for this death answered their slaughter as his bloud was shed and their burning as his body was buried And the things that in the tipe and shadow were as it were severed were in the antitipe and body united so that onely death in Christ answered both the slaughter and burning of the beasts That hee might sanctifie the people In these words Christ is tacitely compared with the legall high Priest whose proper office it was to sanctifie or expiate not this or that single person but the whole people and the bloud of Christ is compared to the bloud of those beasts which was shed for the whole people And Jesus did sanctifie and wholly expiate the people with his bloud in that by the intervention of his cruell death hee entered into the heavenly Sanctuary and appeares for us for ever in the sight of God to make intercession for us i. to free us by his care from all the guilt and penalties of our sinnes For the same saying is expressed by Saint Paul in other words Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us For that which is sanctified or made holy is rightly opposed to that which is execrated or made a curse Wee have already observed heretofore that the Author thought he had occasion to speak of Christs bloud brought into the heavenly Tabernacle whereto his comparison and resemblance of Christ to the legall high Priest might invite him yet doth purposely avoide it and useth onely words from which it might appeare that our sinnes were expiated by the bloud of Christ yet not as brought into the Tabernacle of heaven and offered unto God but onely as it was shed and prepared entrance for Christ into heaven and there to help himselfe unto God The same caution is used also by the Author in this place who in the former verse having made expresse mention of the bloud of beasts brought by the high Priest into the Sanctuarie for sin-offerings yet when hee comes to the bloud of Christ saith nothing else of it but that hee Sanctified his people with it or as it is in the Greeke by it that is by shedding it By his owne bloud Not as the high Priest under the Law who sanctified the people by bloud yet not by his owne bloud but by the bloud of beasts but because
Priest not onely in respect of the faithfull who are but a kinde of lesse Priests compared to Christ as of old under the Law among the Priests one was great and head over the rest but in respect of the high and great Priests under the Law who as we have heard compared with Christ were not onely little but in a manner very small and dimme shadowes Over the house of God By this house of God we may understand both that heavenly Sanctuary wherein our high Priest performes his holy offices answerable to the Legall Tabernacle and also the Church or people of God who are the spirituall house of God For Christ is president over both these houses both that heavenly and this spirituall on earth 22. Let us draw neere Here begins the other part of the Chapter containing an admonition drawne from the former doctrines They were said to come or draw neere as we heard at the first verse who while the Priest was officiating were intentive to the divine service for which they approached to the Tabernacle whereby they also came neere or drew neere to God The Author doth call upon us That seeing we have a high Priest truly great resident in the Sanctuary of heaven who there performes holy offices offerings for us therefore we also should approach and draw neere in soule and spirit unto that heavenly Sanctuary intentively minding the worship of God Which is nothing else but to apply our selves to the worship of God and never make doubt to draw neere unto him in confidence of Christ our high Priest With a true heart He shews what manner of persons they must be who will exercise this spirituall worship of God and apply themselves unto it They must have a true heart And a true heart is opposed to a seined deceitfull and dissembling heart which makes onely an outward shew of holinesse and thereby endeavours to deceive In full assurance of faith A full assurance of faith is opposed to a wavering and doubting faith for looke how much doubt is mingled with faith so much is wanting to the perfection and fulnesse of it Therefore then we have a full faith when wee doubt nothing of the truth of the Christian Religion and discipline Having our hearts sprinkled from an evill conscience He alludes to a Ceremony ordained under the Law whereby they who had touched any uncleane thing must be sprinkled with the holy water of seperation before they might enter into the assembly of Gods people at the Sanctuary to performe the worship of God for if they did otherwise they must dye for it This purging or cleansing of the flesh by sprinkling the Author transferres spiritually to the spirit and soule whereby the soule is cleansed from the guilt and staine of conscience and the body from the filth of sinne Now the sprinkling or purging of the heart from an evill conscience may be taken two wayes either to signifie that cleansing whereby we get a full remission of our sinnes by the bloud and sacrifice of Christ and are freed from an evill conscience and from feare of Gods punishment in which manner he said before that our conscience is purged from dead works or to signifie the cleansing of our soule from inward and secret sinnes For by an evill conscience in this place by a metony my of the effect he seemes to understand the hidden and secret vices of the soule as opposed to the filth of the body which as in the words immediatly subsequent he teacheth must be washed away For what else can the filth of the body signifie then those outward sinnes which are committed by the body it self not as if these did not also defile the conscience but because open sinnes are exposed to the eyes and censures of other men but the secret and inward sinnes of the soule though they make no man else conscious to them yet they agitate and burden the conscience Therefore by the former sence of these words is signified the great benefit of God which we attaine by the bloud and sacrifice of Christ and by the latter is intimated our duty whereto wee are excited and oblieged by so great a benefit And our bodies washed We have already said that this washing of the body must be referred to the washing away of that filth whereby our body stands defiled before God therefore if we receive the last sence of the former words then the Author here puts us in minde of the same thing whereof Paul remembers us 2 Cor. 7.1 Having therefore these promises dearely beloved let us cleanse our selves from all filthinesse of the flesh and spirit perfecting holinesse in the feare of God And the Author shewes that it is a most fit and convenient thing to wash the body in this sence because anciently under the Law they who approached to the Sanctuary for the performance of Gods worship must wash their bodies all the difference is that there men understood the carnall staines of sinne but here the spirituall With pure water There is no necessity we should by this allegory thinke any thing answering by name to this water seeing the Author seemes to speake in allusion to the custome used under the Law of washing the body with pure water For comparisons as we have often intimated are subject to many abusions Yet if any man desire a full resemblance we may say that hereby is meant the spirit and doctrine of Christ or that spirituall water wherewith Christ sprinkleth his people not excluding his bloud For this is the pure water for the soule and by it only the filth of sin is washed away They that here understand the water of Baptisme are mistaken For the water of Baptisme is but onely an outward signe and shadow of this washing which here the Author understands wherewith neither can our hearts be sprinkled nor the filth of our vices really washed away Therefore that spirituall Baptisme which doth truly save us must be here understood even that Baptisme which as Peter saith is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh or the outward washing of the body but the answer of a good conscience toward God 1. Pet. 3.21 Which is not effected by any elementary water but only the heavenly and spiritual which washeth the conscience 23. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith He exhorts them to constancy in the profession of the Christian religion because it is not sufficient for us to serve God in heart and other workes unlesse wee also confesse him with the mouth In the Greeke it is the profession of our hope and by the word hope the Author seemes to comprise the whole Christian religion for the Christian religion consisteth chiefly in hope and in a hope most excellent even the hope of immortall life and eternall happines and all the parts and heads are directed and concurre to breed in mens mindes this hope and a holinesse of life sutable to it Hence Peter under the same
more bitter then the paine of it and therefore the Author addes Despising the shame It was a great shame and disgrace to the Sonne of God who well knew the high dignity of his person after he had delivered so many gracious doctrines and wrought so many admirable miracles after so great hope and expectation raised of him to be seized upon by hangmen dragged to execution nailed to a crosse lifted up on high to endure the faces and eyes of all men upon him and be set as a marke for the spears and darts of bitter tongues Yet Christ despised all this despite all this shame and this disgrace that for a momentany shame be might attaine everlasting glory and for a temporall paine on earth eternall joy in heaven And is set downe at the right hand of the throne of God This is added to shew that Christ was not frustrated of his hope but that hee received a large reward of his faith and patience To teach us that if we also follow him in this race we shall have the like issue of our faith and patience But the great dignity and glory to Christ that is signified by his sitting at the right hand of Gods throne is before explicated Chap. 1. ver 3. From this place and the other Chap. 8.1 it appears that when Christ is said to sit at the right hand of God by Gods right hand is not understood his power and strength as elsewhere it is but in this phrase by a simily drawne from men is signified that the place at Gods right hand is more honourable then that at his left For otherwise it were not rightly said the right hand of the throne of God because a throne hath no hand nor is supposed to have any but only a right side of it And many times in the same sense Christ is said to sit in the plurall number at the right hands of God or his power For when the power of God is understood or a right hand is attributed unto him by way of analogie it is not called the right hands of God in the plurall number but his right hand in the singular But when the right or left place is signified it is commonly expressed plurally by right or left hands though it be uttered in respect of one person only See Mat. 20.21 and Mat. 25.33,34 41. 3. For consider him that endured such contradictions of sinners against himselfe lest ye be wearied and faint in your mindes Hee expresseth the end and use of the example of Christ why wee should diligently consider it because we are to make this use of it that our mindes may not bee tired with adversities and afflictions and so wee become wearied and faint in the course of our faith and patience which here by profession of Christ we have begun to runne 4. For ye have not resisted unto blood striving against sinne He exhorts them with a new argument to an invincible courage in bearing the afflictions which they suffered For it seemes he would make them somwhat ashamed that seeing the miseries wherewith they were pressed were not so grievous as that hitherto they had drawne bloud from them yet they begun to fail in courage and strength contrary to Gods expresse monition Here also he alludes to strifes yet such as were by fencing or fighting and not by running For sinne would beat us from our constancy of faith and pietie toward God but among the afflictions which come to be suffered of us for the love of Christ is the abnegation or deniall of sinne against which we must fight In this fight therefore while the combat is but upon our goods our credit and reputation the matter is not yet come to bloud but when cruelty torture and death chargeth upon our bodies then the businesse is in good earnest and the fight is in the heat These Hebrewes as it seems were not yet in danger of their lives for Christ but their sufferings were only mockings reproaches and spoiling of their goods as appeareth chap. 10. ver 33.34 The Authour therefore shewes what a shamefull thing it is to turne the backe and flie at the first skirmish as it were and entrance of the fight But when he brings in sinne for their enemy with whom they are to deale he doth therein by a most effectuall argument encourage them to an holy valour lest they should fail in their combat with an enemy so base and dangerous 5. And ye have forgotten the exhortation And for and yet by way of a particle adversative As if he had said Though ye have not yet spent your life and bloud for the love of Christ yet the divine admonition or exhortation is slipt out of your minde wherein yee are commanded to receive the chastning of the Lord with a ready minde and to beare it patiently And consequently yee have forgotten your dutie contained in that exhortation For the Authour doth not reprehend them meerly for their memory that they had forgotten the words of that exhortation but for their negligence in not performing the duty therein commanded We have said elswhere that hee is said to remember a person or a matter who hath a care of it and therefore hee that hath not such care though otherwise hee remember him in mind doth forget him This hath place chiefly in commands councells and exhortations which are not given therefore only to remaine in our memories but they must so remain in our memories as that they be put in execution and actually performed And when the authoritie of the commander or admonisher is so great that it is not likely but that hee who doth but onely remember the command or monition would obey it with great reason they may be said to forget it who though they retaine it in a lively memory yet obey it not Which speaketh unto you as unto children The Author commends this exhortation from the qualitie of it that it is very gentle and fatherly in regard it termes them children to whom it is directed For who but a froward and obstinate person would not give way to such an exhortation The exhortation is said to speak by way of Metonymie because he that exhorteth speaketh by it or rather because it is the very speech of him that exhorteth Now the person who exhorteth is openly Solomon but secretly God by whose instinct Solomon uttered this Pro. 3.11 Therefore in this exhortation God himselfe calleth us his children from whence it follows that we should receive it readily and observe it diligently My sonne despise not thou the chastning of the Lord. When we make God himselfe to speak and not Solomon then the name or Nowne of the Lord must bee supposed to be put for the Pronowne my after the Hebrew phrase To despise or as it is in the Hebrew to reject the chastning of the Lord is nothing else but an unwillingnesse to bear it patiently but to kick against it as against a prick By the chastning of the
that have been occupied therein Here he brings the reason why in a manner he denied that the heart is established with meats or that such establishing is not so good a thing namely because they that have exercised therein have found no profit thereby To be occupied in meats or as the Greek hath it to walke in meats seeing here as we have shewed meats signifie the meats of the sacrifices or of the holy things is nothing else but to partake of those carnall sacrifices and to accustome the eating of things offered and consecrated and placing therein a part of Gods worship and serice By those who are said to be occupied in those meats are meant the Jewes before they were illuminated in the doctrine of Christ Which have not profited them The Jews found no true profit by eating those meats For as Christ saith of Manna John 6.49 Your fathers did eat Manna in the wildernesse and are dead So may it well be said of the meats of the sacrifices and things consecrated to God Your fathers did eat the meats of sacrifices and are dead But he that recreates and fills his soule with that grace of God which is revealed and exhibited to men in the Gospell hee shall live for ever Therefore the words not profited doe not simply exclude all profit and advantage wholly for the meats of the sacrifices did profit something in respect of that time to repaire the strength of the body for a short time but they had not a true profit belonging to the Spirit but only a carnall profit that was transitory and fugitive not durable and eternall In which sense also Christ saith of his flesh eaten in a carnall way as his Disciples understood it Joh. 6 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing that is it furthereth nothing unto life to produce in men a spirituall and eternall life It is the Spirit that vivifies men which as from the spirituall eating of the flesh of Christ slaine for the life of the world and from the spirituall drinking of his bloud so from that sweet taste of that divine grace which was confirmed by the death and bloud of Christ doth distill into our soules and so revives and quickens us From these words of the Author it is manifest that to Christian Religion it is nothing pertinent or profiting to eat any true meat properly and consequently not the flesh and bloud of Christ For if the body of Christ were properly eaten and therein consisted a part of Religion would not the Author have opposed the meat of Christs flesh and bloud to the meats of those sacrifices would he have said we have an altar whereof it is not lawfull for them to eat no not for the Priests if it be lawfull for the Priests to eat the body and drinke the bloud of Christ offered every day upon the altar and unlawfull not to eat and drinke it Would he have left us only the sacrifice of praise and good workes for the sacrifices and offerings of all animals and other creatures which might be turned into meats 10. We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the Tabernacle Hitherto the Author hath shewed that there is very little or no cause why Christians should desire those sacrifices of the Law and the meats of those offerings or should place some part of Gods worship or service in them or should take it grievously that for the profession of Christian Religion they are drawne from commerce and communion with the Jewes and their state Now he shews further that it is not lawfull for Christians to eat the meats of sacrifices as was anciently done under the Law He therefore saith We have an altar Any man may easily perceive that these words are figurative and improper taken from the ordinances in the discipline of Moses which for the most part cannot be applied to the discipline of Christ but by way of abusion and impropriety whereof we had no few examples formerly especially in the comparison of Christ with the Leviticall Priests For for comparisons sake we many times use such words of a thing which without respect to the comparison wee would never use The same impropriety falls out againe here In the Christian Religion to speake properly there is no Altar no Tabernacle to serve no Sacrifices which can be eaten neither if we respect the eating of sacrifices or the abstinence from them is there any such difference betweene Christians as if some were Priests and Ministers of the Tabernacle and others were not Therefore in such sayings we must not weigh every word singly by it selfe as what is signified by the Altar what by the Tabernacle and whereto it answers but we must enquire for the sense of the whole sentence Wherefore these words import nothing else but that Christians have no other sacrifices but such whereof they have no power to eat By those which serve the Tabernacle which under the Law were only Priests and Levites are signified all Christians in generall Christians therefore are said to be in that condition as if under the Law there had been such an Altar whereof and of the sacrifices laid upon it and offered unto God it was not lawfull for any man to eat no not for the Priests themselves and other Ministers of the house of God much lesse for the rest of the people For if there had been such an Altar under the Law then it is apparent unto all men that the eating of sacrifices and things offered unto God should have had no place under the Law But thus it is under the Gospell and therefore the eating of sacrifices must be to Christians unlawfull 11. For the bodies of those beasts whose bloud is brought into the Sanctuarie by the high Priest for sinne are burnt without the campe Here the Author proves by his assertion in the former verse why in Christianitie the matter is so ordered that under the Gospel there is such an Altar whereof the Sacrifices are not permitted to be eaten of any man Yet he proposeth his argument so concisely and briefly that he seemes rather to point at it then explicate it And it manifestly appeares that the Authour takes it as graunted for a ground That Christians have no other Sacrifice but what is resembled by the entrance of the high Priest into the Sanctuary or by those beasts onely whose bloud was brought into the Sanctuary by the high Priest and their bodies were burnt without the campe For unlesse the Author took this for graunted he could not from this that in those sacrifices it was not lawful to eat the flesh of the offering simply conclude that it is not lawfull for us Christians to eat sacrifices or that we have an altar whereof we may not lawfully eat And this he might well take for granted because by that Sacrifice whereby our high Priest entred into his Sanctuary under the new Covenant all things were perfomed whether we