Aaron saying O Lord heare the prayer of thy servants according to the blessing of Aaron over thy people Ecclus. 36.17 8. And here men that die receive tithes Now followeth the third reason whereby he proves that Melchisedec is greater then the Leviticall Priests namely Because the Leviticall Priests receive tithes yet one of them dies after another and they succeed one another in the Priest-hood but Melchisedec hath a testimony of Scripture for him that he liveth Here i. here under the law and among us But there he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth There where wee read that Abraham gave him tithes he then received them whom the Scripture witnesseth that he lives But wee must note that the Author opposeth not Melchisedec to mortall men but to dying men onely neither doth he say that he is immortall but only that he liveth For life is not opposed to mortality but properly to death And there the Scripture saith That Melchisedec doth live where shee affirmes him to bee a Priest for ever And shee affirmes it in her comparison of him with Christ when she saith Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec Psal 110.4 as we explicated it before in this Chapter vers 3. Where we shewed that Melchisedec was called a Priest for ever because he exercised his Priest-hood a long time even for the full terme of his naturall life and that he lived so long a Priest as there was any knowledge of the true God among the men of his time and any place for the Priest-hood so that Melchisedec in his Priest-hood resembled for his continuance all the Leviticall Priests who succeeded one after another which eternity of his was but umbratilous and figurative as we said of Christs eternitie And therefore the life of Melchisedec was nothing but a shadow of that life which is in Christ And if we respect the scope of the Authour it makes not to the matter that Melchisedec did at last yeeld to the law of nature and die for he speaks not of Melchisedec for himselfe but for Christ who truely lives for ever It sufficeth in Melchisedec that the eternall life of Christ was in some manner shadowed and signified in the Scripture And this is the reason why the Authour opposed Melchisedec to dying men and said he liveth for ever For when wee speake of the type as of the antitype we many times so speak of it as of the anti-type it selfe although the words must be applyed figuratively to the type and properly to the antitype 9. And as I may so say Levi also who receiveth tithes payed tithes or was decimated in Abraham Here at last comes in the other of the first reason which we said was bipartite and wherewith the Author now confirmes the dignity of Melchisedec namely that when Melchisedec tooke tithes of Abraham he tithed also Levi and all the Priests sprung from his loynes who were themselves to receive tithes To shew the great dignity of Melchisedec it was not enough for the Author to say that he tithed Abraham himselfe but Levi also who tooke tithes was by him tithed in Abraham For it is as much as if hee had taken tithes of Levi when he tooke them of him in whose loynes Levi was yet latent Therefore in a figurative way of speech the Author saith that Levi was tithed through Abraham For because he could not say properly that Levi gave tithes to Melchisedec through Abraham therefore lest his words should seem harsh he mollifies them thus as I may so say whereby hee plainely declares that what hee spake here of Levi must not bee taken literally and properly but in a certaine sence and forme of speech Levi also who receiveth tithes not in his owne person but in his posteritie so that it is not strange that hee is said to have given tithes in his father who is also said to have taken them in his children But now let us see how the Author proves this 10. For hee was yet in the loynes of his father when Melchisedec met him Here he proves that Levi gave tithes to Melchisedec through Abraham thus If at that time Levi had been a person severed from Abraham and had enjoyed his estate apart to himselfe this fact of Abraham in giving tithes to Melchisedec had nothing concerned him But because Levi was then so united and joyned with Abraham that he yet lay couched in Abrahams loyns therefore he also is justly accounted to have given tithes to Melchisedec in or through Abraham Which sentence notwithstanding must not be transferred to all the actions of a father but only to those which properly consist either in the increase or decrease of his estate which useth to descend to his children by right of inheritance and the payment of tithes is such an action for it so much decreaseth the fathers estate For they are paid out of the fathers goods which thus farre are already the childrens in that the right of inheritance thereto belongs to them especially if it be certaine that the father hath or may have children to succeed him in his estate as Abraham had to whom God had for certaine promised a posterity For as the heire after his fathers death doth in a manner represent the person of his father by his succeeding to him and possessing his estate so likewise the father before his children be severed from him and have a right to dispose of his goods as their own doth in a manner also represent the person of his heire and of all the rest of his children and what he then ordereth or doth in his goods the same in a manner his heires are accounted to doe I say in a manner because properly this cannot be said neither doth the Author himselfe say properly that it was done but acknowledgeth an impropriety in his words as we noted before Hence may easily be understood that which together with the Author we affirme that such acts of the parents must be extended only to those of their successors or posterity to whom the inheritance or some notable portion of their goods shall descend either for certainty as here to Abrahams posterity or at least in all probability For otherwise that force of inheritance whereof we speake will expire and what any man orders concerning his estate cannot be attributed to his children and posterity 11. If therefore perfection After that by comparing Melchisedec with the Leviticall Priests hee had shewed that Melchisedec was a Priest and a Priest much differing from the Leviticall as a person farre greater and worthier then they Now he proceeds to the third part of the Chapter And in regard that after those Leviticall Priests there must be another Priest ordained according to the order of Melchisedec and not according to the order of Aaron therefore he thence argues and proves the imperfection of the Leviticall Priesthood and also of the Law it selfe upon which that Priesthood was ordained and upon the
whence it runnes and the marke of it whereto it runnes Consider Iesus Christ Ye six your mindes and hearts upon Moses to consider him in all particulars consider also Jesus Christ The Apostle and high Priest of our profession Our profession is our Religion whereby we professe to serve God and to be saved Of this our Religion Christ is the great Prophet the grand Apostle Emissary or Legate or the first Messenger of it because he was the first that was sent from God to bring it into the world and to publish or preach it unto men For every Prophet sent with a message immediatly from God is therefore an Apostle And of this our Religion Christ is the high Priest or chiefe President to order it because he perpetually administers and officiates all things pertaining to it and because by him all the professors of it have their accesse to God because hee expiates and purgeth away their sins and because hee takes care that all things pertaining to divine worship be rightly performed in the Temple of God dedicate to this Religion For in this place the Author remarkably calls Christ by the name of high Priest because anciently the high Priests were Presidents over the Temple and holy things of God From both these offices thus united in Christ appears his transcendent dignity For anciently there was an Apostle or Prophet of the Jewish Religion who was Moses for he first taught and published it but then among them there was another high Priest who was Aaron and his Successors But Christ alone in one person was both the Apostle and high Priest of our profession But in this place we must ampliate extend the word high Priest so largely that it may also comprehend the Regall dignity or office of Christ For it is not likely that the Author in this breviate of Christs offices would wholly omit the chiefest especially in this place where hee would move them to consider Christ especially when he had before tearmed him such a high Priest as was able to succour them that are tempted which thing belongs also to his Regall power and had in the first chapter so lively expressed his Regall dignity by severall testimonies of Scripture 2. Who was faithfull to him that appointed him It had been enough to move the Hebrewes to consider Christ by what the Author had delivered before in preferring him above the Angels by severall arguments of reason and testimonies of Scripture but the Author not content with this doth here single out Moses and equall Christ with him because the Hebrewes had Moses in high esteeme opposing him to Christ and preferring him before Christ The particular wherein he equals Christ with Moses is the faithfulnesse of Christ and he instanceth the rather in this particular because that when God gave a singular commendation of Moses the Lord instanced in the particular of his faithfulnesse to God He therefore declares that Christ was as faithfull to God as ever Moses was Now the faithfulnesse of Christ relates to both his offices of high Legate or Apostle and high Priest The faithfulnesse of a Legate consists in these two things 1. That he deliver his Message wholly and truly according to his Commission 2. That he use all meanes to perswade and gaine faith to his Message especially if he be thereto enjoyned by him that sent him And the faithfulnesse of a high Priest is To provide all things pertinent to the worship of God and then to propitiate God toward those that worship him The person to whom Christ was thus faithfull was the supreme God who made him his Legate and high Priest by appointing him to the execution of these offices wherein he might exercise his singular faithfulnesse for Christ assumed not these offices of himselfe but was thereto appointed of God the Father as afterward more fully As also Moses was faithfull in all his house Moses was a great Prophet and Legate sent from God in so much that when Aaron and Miriam had spoken against him the Lord to publish his great esteeme of him would vindicate him by his owne mouth and thereupon preferres him before all other Prophets in that he would deale more familiarly with him then with any other for he would speake to others by visions and dreames and dark speeches but he would speake to Moses mouth to mouth even apparently and he should behold the similitude of the Lord of which dealing with Moses the Lord gives this reason because Moses was faithfull in all the Lords house Numb 12.6,7,8 In which words who sees not how highly God esteemed Moses above all other Prophets Now whether we take house for Gods Tabernacle or for his family yet Moses was most faithfull in both respects in that he neglected nothing that pertained to the care and good of either The summe is Lest by this singular testimony given by God to Moses for his faithfulnesse any man should hereby thinke that herein Moses was greater then Christ therefore the Author adornes Christ with the very same commendation of faithfulnesse that God had given to Moses that thereby hee might take from Moses all prerogative of his being above Christ in any thing and consequently inferres Christ equall to Moses 3. For this man was counted worthy of more glory then Moses Having shewed that Christ was no way inferiour to Moses here he advanceth a degree higher and affirmes that Christ was much superiour to Moses and counted worthy of more honour that he might further move them to the consideration of Christ And yet more determinately that the honour of Christ is a great distance above that of Moses And the following words shew how much As much as he who hath builded the house hath more honour then the house He properly builds the house that either frameth it himselfe or causeth it to be framed for himselfe for whosoever is the owner is properly the builder and not the mercenary who is hired to build it for another Now the builder is more honourable then the building for the Builder by his building becomes the Lord or Owner of it which is the first originall or naturall ground of honour And looke how much the builder is more honourable then the building though the degree be never so indefinite so much is Christ more honourable then Moses For Moses was but a part of the building in Gods family but Christ under God is the builder of his whole Church 4. For every house is builded by some man No house doth raise or build it selfe but is built or raised by some person or other who builds it himselfe for himselfe or causeth it to be builded for himselfe But he that hath built all things is God Here he expresseth what person he understands for the architect or builder of the house whereof he speakes namely that he meanes God himselfe Hence it appeares that the Authors minde was to say That Christ is so much more honourable then Moses as God is
was it any way convenient that therefore the old Covenant should be abrogated and a new one made For a declaration of an old Covenant is not a new Covenant diverse from the old neither doth such a declaration abrogate the old but rather illustrate and establish it And a new Covenant doth require not a declaration of the old but new conditions and new promises made of Gods Name Neither had Christ beene the Mediatour of the new Covenant but onely an Interpreter and explainer of it But if they say the latter that they were not so cleer we willingly grant that of eternall life but not of a full remission of all sinnes given to such as amended their wayes for this was no way contained in the old Covenant either openly or covertly but was altogether repugnant to that Covenant And as we have already said such a covert promise must not be truly accounted for the promise of a Covenant but onely such a promise as every man may understand and be assured of it from the Covenant if he performe the conditions Was established In the Originall it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. was enacted or ordained as a Law because every Covenant is a Law upon the parties betweene whom it is made and the new Covenant is most justly so because it containes diverse precepts which every man is bound to observe if he meane to obtaine the promises therein made to him 7. For if that first Covenant had beene faultlesse then could no place have beene sought for the second Here he proves what he formerly affirmed that the new Covenant was established upon better promises because the old Covenant was faulty not that it was absolutely evill but onely respectively because it had some imperfections and defects which might be bettered Whence it plainly appeares that so good promises cannot be therein contained for if it did containe them it could not be justly blamed nor truly said to be faulty For how can that Covenant be justly blamed which both containes the best promises and also prescribes the best conditions whereby those promises may be attained But that it was indeed blameable and was not faultlesse he proves from hence because there was place sought for a second God promised to make a second and a new Covenant with his people But why should God abrogate the old Covenant and make a new if the old were without all fault and contained both promises and conditions equall in goodnesse to the new For old Covenants use not to be abolished but for their defects and faults as above he said of the Law that it was disanulled for the weakenesse and unprofitablenesse thereof chap. 7.18 8. For finding fault with them he saith Hee proves by the words of the Prophet why the old Covenant was faulty and therefore place sought for the second because God found fault with it With them must not be referred to the persons of the Jews in this place though otherwise God did finde fault enough with them but to the promises of the old Covenant for God findes fault with them for the Author seems to reflect upon the last words of the sixt verse before where hee saith that the new Covenant was established upon better promises now because the promises of the old were not so good therefore God finds fault with them Behold the dayes come saith the Lord He relates the words of the Prophet Jer. 31.31 wherein God promiseth to make a new Covenant with his people different from the former Covenant which God mentions in such a manner that he apparently reprehends and blames it as afterward shall be declared When I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Iudah The house of Israel is the posterity of Jacob and the house of Judah the posterity of Judah one of Jacobs sons He distinguisheth these two people not that the posterity of Judah was not also the posterity of Israel or Jacob but because at that time the posterity of Jacob was divided into two Kingdomes in one whereof were ten Tribes who therefore were called by the common name of the Israelites in the other Kingdome were onely two Tribes Judah and Benjamin which two were denominate from Judah onely because he was the more illustrious Tribe wherein the race of the Kings descended as the other Tribes were sometime called Ephraim because among them that was the Tribe Royall 9. Not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers He proves here that the second Covenant should be a new Covenant because it should not be like the former or not according to it but different from it In the day when I tooke them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt Day is put for time an especiall word for a generall in the time that I brought them out of Egypt This plainely designes the Covenant made by Moses at Mount Sinai Because they continued not in my Covenant Here he opens the cause why God would make a new Covenant with his people different and unlike the former Because that old Covenant was not of force to containe the people in their duty For hence it came to passe that the people continued not in it but transgressed it For he layes downe this consequent to make us understand the antecedent of it which is the faultinesse and weaknesse of that Covenant For if there had been no fault nor flaw in the Covenant but only in the people the Covenant it self must not have been abolished for the fault of the people only And therefore it appeares that not only the people but also the Covenant it selfe was in fault why it was not observed And I regarded them not saith the Lord. This is necessarily consequent from the former For hee that continues not in Gods Covenant he is neglected of God i. deserted and forsaken and not only deserted but punished for God layes those judgements upon him that are specified in the Covenant in case it bee not observed Hence it is manifest that that former Covenant was infirme and unprofitable seeing it could not effect that the people who were parties to it might worship God duly and constantly and obey his Lawes that reciprocally they might be loved of God and graced with his blessings 10. For this is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel saith the Lord He brings a reason why he said that this new Covenant is not according to the former but unlike and different from it Because it was to be such a one as must have sufficient power to continue the people in their duty And this he signifies unto us by the words following The house of Israel is taken here a little more largely then before not now opposed to Judah but including it and signifying the whole people of God For it is usuall in the holy Scripture for the same words to be taken sometime more largely and amply sometime more strictly and
hurt the bodies of men but their soules also so likewise wee beleeve it the office of the angels to protect not the bodies onely of the Saints but their soules also Satan hath power to inject evill thoughts into the mindes of men and to incite them to divers sinnes whom therefore the Scripture makes the Author and Parent of all sinne who workes effectually in the children of disobedience whom shee calls the Prince and god of this world who put it into the heart of Judas to betray Christ and into the heart of Ananias to lie unto the holy Ghost Now if Satan can doe this why cannot good angels inject good thoughts and by divers objects draw the minde to that which is acceptable unto God And when an angel is sent to deliver a man from danger he commonly delivers him no otherwise then by casting into his thoughts some advice or counsell whereby he may decline the danger or by putting some thought upon his adversary whereby to divert him from his entended enterprise Neither are wee to understand that the angels are sent forth only and soly for this end to minister to the Saints but that is the principall and chiefe end for many times the emissions redound to the benefit and profit of others both persons and kingdomes but especially concerning the affaires of the Church whereof Christ is Lord and Protector The Contents of this first Chapter 1. Doctrine Christ is greater then any of the Prophets Reason 1. Because God hath spoken by Christ in these last dayes verse 2. 2. Because Christ is appointed heire of all things eod 3. Because by him God made the new world eod 2. Doctrine Christ is greater then any of the high Priests verse 3. Reason 1. Because Christ is the brightnes of Gods glory and the expresse image of his person eod 2. Because Christ hath expiated our sinnes by himselfe even by his owne blood eod 3. Because Christ is now set downe at the right hand of Gods Majesty on high eod 3. Doctrine Christ is much greater then the Angels verse 4. Reason 1. Because Christ hath a greater name then they for he is called and is the true Son of God verse 4. 5. 2. Because the Angels are his subjects and servants for they must worship him and minister unto him verse 6. 7. 3. Because Christ hath a kingdome of righteousnes with a Throne and Scepter of righteousnes verse 8. 9. 4. Because Christ hath power finally to destroy and abolish this visible world and at the last day shall actually destroy it verse 11. 12. 5. Because Christ sitteth on Gods right hand on the Throne of God whereas the Angels minister and wait verse 13. 14. CHAPTER II. 1. THerefore Because wee have formerly proved that Christ is far more excellent then the Angels We ought to give the more earnest heed greater attention diligence and care To the things which we have heard to the doctrines precepts and promises of the Gospel the Author whereof who first published it upon earth was a person far more excellent then the Angels who published the Law upon Mount Sinai as the Author subjoynes it afterward at the third verse Least at any time we should let them slip He here expresseth the scope and end of their earnest attention and heed not to decline or revolt from the Gospel of Christ and he alludes to a leaking vessell that lets the liquor run out Now then we let the Gospel slip and run from us when either we forget it or give no further credit to it or neglect the precepts of it to conforme our lives to the holy rules therein delivered For when the Gospel hath not the force upon our soules to make us obedient to the rules of it then it may be said to leake or slip away from us 2. For if the word spoken by Angels He begins to bring a reason why we should take earnest heed that the Gospel slip not from us by an argument à mineri for if God punished the transgression of the Law which was lesse much more them of the Gospel which is greater The Law was the word or speech of God for God spake it to the people partly by himselfe and partly by Moses see Exod. 20.1 and in the same Chapter ver 22. Yet God spake not the Law either to Moses or the people immediately by himselfe but by the mediation and meanes of Angels who published and proclaimed it upon Mount Sinai see for confirmation hereof Acts 7.53 and Gal. 3.19 The Law therefore being published but by Angels is farre inferiour to the Gospel which was published by Christ a person greater then the Angels Hence we may collect two verities 1. That God truly and properly did not descend downe upon Mount Sinai and there publish the Law but an Angel susteining the Name and person of God published it in the Name of God For if God himselfe besides the Angels and accompanied with them had descended from heaven into the Mount to publish the Law then not onely the Authors argument had beene void but also the contrary must needs be concluded That the Law in this respect was more excellent then the Gospel because God himselfe who exalted Christ and made him head over the Angels came from heaven to earth and did publish the Law but the Gospel was published but by him who was exalted by God from earth to heaven 2. The second verity is That the Lord who published the Law upon the Mount was not the Sonne of God in the person of his deity For if the Law were given by the Son of God how can this Author affirme it was delivered by Angels and in that respect make it inferiour to the Gospel Or how is it at all inferiour to the Gospel in respect of the publishing if both it and the Gospel were published by one and the same person Was stedfast The Law was ratified and established made stedfast and firme when it was strengthened with power and force for obedience and supported with judgements and punishments against the transgressors of it For when a Law is but a bare precept and hath no penalty annexed to it then it is infirme and weake but when it is fortified with penalties then it is made stedfast and becomes a sanction for thereupon men dare not so easily violate and breake it And every transgression and disobedience The Law was made stedfast for this end that it might be fortified and supported against every transgression and disobedience whereby men would presume to breake it A transgression is a sin against an expresse and knowne Law for every transgression is a sin but every sin is not a transgression yet every sin may become a transgression namely if it be forbidden by an expresse and knowne Law Otherwise where there is no Law to be transgressed there can be no transgression A disobedience is a transgression done with malice and contumacy for as a transgression is one kinde of sin so
up in the Psalme But in the mysticall sence the particle all must be left wholly to his absolute universality and full amplitude for all things both in heaven and earth namely all creatures whatsoever are put in subjection under Christ because from the universality of Christs dominion God onely is excepted who did put all things besides in subjection under Christ 1 Cor. 15.27 For in that he put all be left nothing not put under him In these and the words immediately following the Author discovers and teacheth us that this place of the Psalme must be understood of some other man then an earthly man For the words being absolutely uttered are a cleere argument that the holy Ghost would have them taken in some other sence altogether universally in which latitude S. Paul also takes them 1 Cor. 15.27 In so much that in them the world to come is also comprehended And taking the words universally who sees not that during this mortall life they cannot be verified and fulfilled of a mortall man And therefore the Author immediatly addes But now we see not yet all things put under him Now while man lives this present and mortall life not yet not from the beginning of the world to this present time we see not all things universally made subject to any mortall man when notwithstanding man was made lesse or lower then the Angels but for a little time as wee shewed before And therefore the fulfilling of these words that all things universally even the world to come should be subject to man cannot be meant of any mortall man but of some man translated to immortality Yet who that immortall man should be the Author hath not hitherto declared But in the following verse he shews that it is Jesus Christ translated to immortality Whence it appeares that if we respect the mysticall sence of the words in this Psalme they must be taken principally and properly of Christ but of Christians onely respectively and as it were proportionably For no one of the faithfull shall solely and singly possesse all things but all joyntly as coheires shall possesse all things yet not all the faithfull joyntly shall possesse all things universally though ye sever them from Christ their head for they shall not have dominion over the Angels but Christ onely shall possesse all things universally for he only shall rule over the Angels that hath dominion over the faithfull And yet againe there is one person excepted from the dominion of Christ and that is God the Father who hath given to Christ his universall dominion 9. But we see Iesus who was made a little lower then the Angels Here he declares who that man was in whom the words of the Psalme were to be fulfilled namely that Jesus Christ was the man to whom all things universally and therefore the world to come was to be subject and therewithall makes way to handle the Priesthood of Christ And hence now it appeares that in this there is no absurdity or repugnancy to truth that he who in respect of his mortall nature was a little lower for a little time then the Angels should be exalted to become much higher then they for ever after Yea seeing the Scripture testifies that the man who was lesse then the Angels must become Lord of all who sees not that the exaltation of the man Christ far above all the orders of Angels doth excellently agree with Scripture And hereby the Author removes the absurdity that seemes in this That Christ a man should become far greater then the Angels and be said to be their Lord. For the suffering of death The Reason or cause why Christ for a little time was made a little lower then the Angels was this that he might suffer death And this was not the formall cause of his lownesse for he was not made lower then Angels in this respect by his suffering death an evill which they suffer not though it be true that he was also lower therein But the formall cause of his lownesse was his mortall nature in respect whereof he was made for a little while a little lower then the Angels And the finall cause of his lownesse in that mortall nature was actuall death for he was made in a mortall nature to this end that he might suffer death under it for unlesse his nature had beene dyable he could not have dyed Christ was made a mortall man whereby for a little while he was a little lower then the Angels but why to what end was he not at first made immortall but mortall It was to this end that he might be passive to suffer death for had he beene at first made immortall he could not have dyed We see him crowned with glory and honour Christ hath now an universall dominion over all not onely over this visible and present world and all the creatures here but also over the invisible and future world and all the creatures there which is a crowne or highest degree of glory and honour to him whereto he was exalted after his suffering of death And though it be most true that his suffering of death was the cause or occasion of his exaltation to glory for Paul expresly so affirmes it Phil. 2.8,9 Yet in this place the Author here intends not to speake of Christs death as the cause of his glory as appeares by the words here following For in what sence can it be said that Christ because he suffered death he was crowned with glory and honour that he should taste death for every man as if after his crowning with glory he suffered or were to suffer death But here his intent is to shew Christs death for the order of it that for time it was antecedent to his glory and his glory for time was consequent after his death We see him crowned We see him so by faith with the eyes of our soule and not by sence or the eyes of our body for we beleeve it from the pregnant testimonies of the holy Ghost in the Scriptures That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man To taste death is to dye for a little time as for a day or two as Christ did for when we take but a little of a thing then we are said to taste of it The final cause why Christ in nature was for a little while a little lower then the Angels was this That he might suffer death And the super-finall cause why he suffered death was this That his death might be propitious and salutiferous to men For the glory of God and the salvation of men required it that the Prince of salvation should taste of death to bring men to salvation yea God had so decreed Now that he might bring men to salvation by this meanes i. By suffering of death he must by nature be a mortall man and not an Angel because by nature Angels are immortall and naturally cannot dye And the efficient cause of both these subordinate finals
more honourable then his house which he hath built that is then his people who are the house of God For as Moses must be joyned with the house of God whereof he was a principall part so Christ must be joyned with God who joyntly with God hath built his house and exerciseth dominion or Lordship over it So that Christ this way considered is not a part of the building but a part of the builder and therefore above the building Furthermore if the difference in dignity betweene Christ and Moses be the same that is betweene God and his house then consequently there will be also the same proportion in dignity betweene God and Christ that there is betweene Moses and Gods house For in proportions consisting of foure termes the proportion is alternable Wherefore as Moses is in dignity inferiour to the house for he is but Gods Minister or Legate there who though he be superiour to any one person there singly taken yet he is inferiour to the whole taken collectiyely or joyntly So Christ is a secondary unto God from whom he hath received all divine power and authority to build and governe Gods house in Gods Name But we must take notice that in all this comparison of Christ with Moses there is no consideration had of this that the ancient house wherein Moses was faithfull to God was one and this new house is another wherein God hath adjoyned Christ for the building and governing of it For to the purpose in hand it is enough that both of them are the houses of God and the latter wherein Christ governes is as it were succeeded in the roome of that wherein Moses was faithfull so that in this respect they may seem in a manner all one But if any man shall urge them to be diverse be shall thereby not only not diminish the dignity of Christ for the advance whereof all these things are said but greatly increase it for this new house in dignity far exceeds the old 5. And Moses verily was faithfull in all his house as a servant Before he delivered the Prerogative or Dignity of Christ above Moses but generally and indefinitly now he explicates it more particularly and clearly Which being done it will plainly appeare That Christ is more honourable then Moses so much as God is more honourable then his house which is his people that is Moses must bee reckoned with the house and Christ with God The particle and here signifies not copulatively but illatively as much as for For Moses verily was faithfull as a servant All the dignity that Moses had in Gods house was but a servile dignity for he ordered and governed the whole house of God not as Lord over it but as a Minister and servant unto God He was the steward of Gods house that is the principall servant of the family to whose charge the Master of the family committed the charge of it Wherefore hee was alwayes forced to depend upon the becke and pleasure of God as of his Lord expecting in all things his command For hence it was that he could neither move the camp nor pitch it till first he had received notice of it from God And this very argument he takes from the testimony of Scripture before cited for the faithfulnes of Moses in which verse God cals Moses his servant For a testimony of those things that were to be spoken after Herein is specified the chief office wherein the service of Moses consisted God spake to his servant Moses mouth to mouth and Moses was to testifie and relate unto the people afterward those things which he had heard spoken of God either concerning their present affairs in the wildernesse or concerning the Lawes and Ordinances to be observed for the future in the land of Canaan for in this place the word Testimony is figuratively taken for a relating or rehearsing of things that have beene heard spoken by another Hence the Gospel as it was first spoken by God is called the word of God but as it was reported and delivered by Christ or the Apostles it is not seldome called their testimony See 1 Cor. 1.6 and 1 Cor. 2.1 and 2 Thess 1.10 and 2 Tim. 1.8 and Rev. 1.2 and Rev. 6.9 and Rev. 12.11 And the two Preachers in the Revelation are called the witnesses of God to whom God will give power to preach 1260. dayes Rev. 11.3 For it seems they were therefore called the witnesses of God because they were to prophesie or preach 6. But Christ as a Sonne over his owne house Now hee opposeth and prefers the dignity of Christ before that of Moses because Moses was but as a servant in his Masters house but Christ as a Sonne in his Fathers house that is as the Lord and heire of Gods house And therefore Christ must not be reckoned among the goods of the house as Moses was but must be joyned with the Master of the house as Lord of the family And consequently Christ is so much worthier then Moses as God is worthier then his own house For these words Over his owne house may bee referred 2 wayes 1 They may bee referred to Christ as his owne house And then the comparison between Christ and Moses will carry an opposition in three things 1 That Moses was but the servant of God but Christ was the Son of God 2 Consequently to the first that Moses was only in the house as parcell of the house and so with the rest of the house subject to the Master of the house but Christ is over the house as Lord and heire of it 3 Consequently to both the former that Moses ordered anothers house but Christ governed his owne house that God had given him by right of inheritance 2. The words Over his owne house may bee referred to God as Gods owne house for the comparison seems to require that in each terme thereof mention should be made of Gods house For the Author either takes it for granted that this house of God whereof he spake was the house of Christ or he takes it not for granted If hee take it for granted to what purpose did he say that Christ is over his owne house for if he be Lord and Owner of it he must needs bee over it He might have said more briefly That Moses was a servant in Gods house as in anothers house but Gods house was Christs own house But if he take it not for granted then the reason of this comparison and the argument thence drawne will not appeare For meerly from hence That Christ is over his owne house but Moses was a servant in Gods house it will not follow that Christ is far more honourable then Moses for many times it is a greater honour to bee a servant in anothers house especially in Gods house then a Master over his owne Besides the argument here is about that house wherein both Christ and Moses were faithfull to God but faithfulnesse is seen more in anothers house
are after the order of Aaron For Melchisedec was both a King and a Priest the Levites were onely Priests he had no Priestly pedigree these must have so he had neither predecessor nor successor these succeed one another he is an eternall Priest these dye lastly he is greater and worthier then Abraham himselfe and therefore much more so then the Leviticall Priests After the order of Melchisedec The order of Melchisedec is a little otherwise taken then the order of Aaron for by that is signified a likenesse onely with the Priest Melchisedec as the Author speakes afterward ver 15. but in this is contained not onely a likenesse with Aaron but also a naturall succession into his place and Priesthood 12. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law He brings a reason which notwithstanding was before tacitely shewed in the parenthesis which we explicated why a Priest must be ordained according to Aaron and no other rise according to the order of Melchisedec if by the Aaronicall Priesthood mens sins could have beene expiated perfectly The reason is because the Priesthood could not be abrogated or changed unlesse the Law whereby it was established were abrogated and changed also Wherefore either to preserve the authority of the Law it selfe if not for the dignity of the Leviticall Priesthood a Priest must have beene ordained after the order of Aaron if perfection came by that Priesthood But because this was not done therefore it is manifest that perfection could not be given by that Priesthood and consequently for the imperfection of it there was good cause it should expire He saith the Priesthood was changed not onely for that it was translated to another Tribe diverse from that of Levi wherein a Priest was ordained after the order of Melchisedec but also in that the Priesthood it selfe was altered and changed into another kinde different from the former Although to the end the Author might use this word in this latter sense for altered therefore from the former sense of changing the Tribe he might take occasion consequently to use it of the Law thereby to signifie the abrogation of the Law For hence afterward at the eighteenth verse when he speakes of the Law alone instead of the word changed he puts disanulling or abrogating And the abrogation of the Law though in this place it properly be referred to that part of the Law whereby the Aaronicall Priesthood was established yet we must know that upon the abrogation of that Sacerdotall Law all the force and authority of the Law of Moses was disanulled also especially concerning externall rites and ceremonies For together with the Priesthood not some one Law fell alone but many Lawes and divers rites fell with it neither is there any cause to thinke but that upon the expiring of so many Lawes all the rest of the same kinde and nature died also And besides upon the abrogation of one Commandement of Moses Law is not that bond of the Law dissolved which layes a curse upon him that continues not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law but upon the dissolution of this bond the whole frame of the Law must needs fall asunder For from that bond it appeares that it was the minde of the Law-maker that all the precepts or commandements of that Law should either stand together or by the fall of one the authority of the whole Law should faile 13. For he of whom these things are spoken Here the Author proves that the Priesthood being changed or another Priest after the order of Melchisedec being ordained the Law thereupon must needs bee changed or abrogated The reason is because the person designed by these words Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec descended not from Levi but from another Tribe out of which no person descending might lawfully approach to the Altar to offer sacrifice as a Priest But the Law which ordained the Priesthood of Aaron did expresly provide that no man not of the Tribe of Levi and no man of that Tribe not of the family of Aaron should exercise the Priesthood Whence it is manifest that a Priest after the order of Melchisedec could not be ordained unlesse the Law were violated Pertaining to another Tribe of which no man gave attendance at the Altar Attendance at the Altar is the performance of the Ceremonies by officiating at the Sacrifices and ordering those things that appertained to the Altar to such other services And attendance here must not be taken for the act of doing it but for the right to do it for it is wel knowne that some Kings did dare de facto to approach unto the Altar burn Incense there but by usurpation and without any right to do it 14. For it is evident our Lord sprang out of Iudah of which Tribe Moses spake nothing concerning Priesthood Here he confirmes his former reason that Christ our Lord of whom these words were spoken that he was a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec pertained to a Tribe of which no man gave attendance at the Altar or performed the office of Priesthood The reason is because it is evident that he sprang out of Judah of which Tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the Priesthood and therefore by the Law had no right to the Priesthood for this followes upon the former And the Author takes it for granted that he of whom the words of the Psalme are spoken is our Lord Christ the annointed of God That Christ sprang out of the Tribe of Judah he saith it is evident i. generally knowne to all men for no man was ignorant that Christ came from the line of David And he had good reason to take this for granted because these words of the Psalme Thou art a Priest for ever are spoken of him whom David in the beginning of that Psalme calleth his Lord speaking of him in the spirit but he that is the Lord of David must needs be our Lord also who seeing he is mentioned of the Lord Jehovah or the most high and onely God as a distinct person to whom the words were spoken from him that spake them Sit thou at my right hand and Thou art a Priest for ever certainely he can be no other then Christ our Lord the anointed of God For that this was acknowledged of the Masters and Doctors among the Jewes it is manifest from hence that Christ disputing with the Pharisees supposeth it as a thing no way doubtfull but confessed of all when he demanded of them How David could call Christ his Lord seeing as they had answered him he was his son For unlesse they had all acknowledged it the answer had beene easie to say that Christ was neither that Lord nor so called of David The Author also supposeth it for granted that our Lord Christ sprang from the Tribe of Judah because he wrote to them who were already perswaded that
or censer whereon he was first to burne incense must needs bee without the oracle or else he could not first come at it And the arke of the Covenant overlaid round about with gold The Arke was a strong chest or coffer the matter forme and measures whereof see Exod. 25.10 This was called the Arke of the Covenant for the use of it which was to inclose the tables wherein the first Covenant was written Wherein was the golden pot that had Manna Wherein must be referred to the Arke as appears by the beginning of the next verse for in this verse the Author would shew what was in the Arke and in the next what was over it This pot of Manna was gathered before the building of the Tabernacle and commanded to be laid up before the Testimony there to be kept when the Tabernacle should be built See Ex. 16.33.34 And Aarons rod that budded Concerning Aarons rod how it budded and upon what occasion and for what purpose it did so See Num. 17. And the tables of the Covenant There were severall parcels of the old Covenant for there were the tables of the Covenant which the Lord wrote with his owne finger in stone containing the Decalog and there was the booke of the Covenant which Moses wrote and read in the audience of the people and sprinkled it with bloud when the Covenant was confirmed with a solemne sacrifice See Exod. 24.4 and afterward in this Chapter vers 19. Now wee finde none but the tables of the Covenant to bee laid up in the Arke yet not those tables that were first written for they were broken upon the indignation which Moses had at the worshipping of the golden Calfe but the tables written afterward were there reserved But how could the pot of Manna and Aarons rod bee in the Arke when wee read expresly that nothing was in the Arke save the two tables of stone 1 King 8.9 and 2 Chron. 5.10 The Answer is Either wee must say that in successe of time the pot of Manna and Aarons rod came to bee put into the Arke which before were not so Or wee must say that the particle In here must be a little extended in sense to include those things that were adjacent to the Arke being neare or about it So John is said to baptise in Bethabara because he baptised neare or about it John 1.28 So Joshua is said to be in Jericho when he was by or neare it Josh 5.13 And in this sense the Author first expresseth those things which were by or neare the Arke as the pot of Manna and Aarons tod then the things in the Arke as the tables of the Covenant And lastly in the following verse the things over the Arke as the Cherubims And this might happily bee the cause why under the particle in hee would first comprise the things by the. Arke before those in it that he might make use of this gradation 5. And over it the Cherubims of glory shadowing the Mercy-seate The Cherubims were two Images of solid gold fashioned like winged men whose wings did over shadow the Mercy-seate being one at the one end of it and the other at the other having their faces looking one towards another Of them see Exod. 25.17 And they were called the Cherubims of glory by an Hebraisme for glorious Cherubims because of their lustre and brightnesse which in Scripture is often called glory The Mercy-seate had two uses one to bee a Cover for the Arke to shut up the Tables of the Covenant the other to represent the seat or throne of God where God would speake with Moses to give answers for the people and to shew himselfe mercifull And the originall word in the Hebrew carries a twofold sence to answer and fit this two-fold use for Capporeth derived from the verbe Caphor which signifies to cover a vessell and to cover sinne which last is the proper act of mercy Therefore though the Hebrew word might have beene simply and fully enough rendred the Cover yet the Septuagint following the other signification of the word have translated Hilasterion i. a Propitiatory or Mercy-seate which distinguisheth this cover from all others as a peculiar use and property of it And it is very consonant to reason that by the ambiguity of the word the Spirit of God would signifie so much Of which we cannot now speake particularly Though each of these particulars concerning the first Covenant might require particular explication and serve highly for advancing the dignity of Christs Priesthood and of the new Covenant yet the time will not now permit it because our purpose calls us on to other matters 6. Now when these things were thus ordained Having briefly described the Tabernacle and the severall furniture of it now he comes to describe the way of divine service therein which according to the two partitions or roomes of the Tabernacle was twofold whereof he toucheth the first in this verse and handleth the other in those following The Priests went alwayes into the first Tabernacle accomplishing the service of God The ordinary Priests went onely into the first Tabernacle for none but the high Priest went into the second And into the first they went alwayes that is every day daily for herein they are opposed to the high Priest who went into the second Tabernacle once every yeare The daily services of God accomplished by the Priests in the first Tabernacle were to burne Incense on the golden Censer and to light up or mend the Lamps of the Candlestick c. 7. But into the second went the high Priest alone once every yeare The high Priest went in alone and therefore he onely yet he went not in daily but yearely once every yeare at the solemne fast of Expiation whereof see Levit. 16. Not without bloud which he offered Not without bloud is with bloud and with bloud onely for the high Priest offered in the second Tabernacle nothing else but bloud For he must enter thither with the bloud of a Bullock and of a Goate and offer it by sprinkling it with his finger upon and before the Mercy-seate seven times Whence it appeares that this offering of the high Priest did not consist in the slaughter of those beasts whose bloud he offered and therefore neither did the offering of Christ answerable thereto whereof the Author treates consist in the death of Christ but by his entrance into heaven after his death Indeed the death of Christ is called an offering and sacrifice yet it is so called for the resemblance of it with the free-will and peace-offerings and therefore especially because it was most gratefull and acceptable to God in which respect also other notable works of piety may be and are called in Scripture offerings and sactifices unto God For himselfe and for the errours of the people Here is a little trajection of the words for the right sence is thus for the errours of himselfe and of the people For in this sacrifice the Priest
heaven and earth And againe the Lord shall judge his people Againe is in the same place which was cited before And in the word Lord lies the Emphasis and force of the argument For if the Lord himself who is the most high God shall judge his people who sees not but that the judgement must needs be most heavy and fearfull To judge here signifies to condemne and punish In Deuteronomie as we said is signified by these words that the Lord would avenge his people upon their enemies from the oppressions and wrongs done to his people But the Author following the more frequent use and sense of those words in other passages of the Scriptures hath applyed them to the punishment of Gods people falling from their faith and obedience For it is no lesse true that the Lord will punish his owne people if they bee refractory and rebellious against him then that he would judge and avenge their cause and vindicate them from injuries if they were wrongfully oppressed And the words his people doe also argue the fearfulnesse of the judgement For it is great reason that the people of God if they shall presume to be rebellious and obstinate against God should suffer a heavier punishment then other men And they are here called the people of God who are disobedient and obstinate because they have received the knowledge of God and of his truth and in that respect stand obliged to God in a peculiar manner Besides the appellations or names of things do often remaine when the true ground or cause of the name is altered and gone 31. It is a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of the living God This is as it were the major Proposition of the Authors Argument whereby he would make it appeare that the punishment of the persons forementioned will be very grievous and fearfull For he reasoneth thus To fall into the hands of the living God is a fearfull thing but these men fall into the hands of the living God seeing as we have heard already God himselfe will doe judgement and execution upon them And therefore their punishment must needs be fearfull But hee puts the conclusion in the first place then the assumption and now he addes the major proposition which is of a knowne verity For what man is he that will not acknowledge how fearfull a thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God because the living God can punish far more fearfully then mortall men can doe Why God is called living wee have shewed before Chap. 9.14 But we must note that the Author speaks here of that punishment whereby God puts men to everlasting destruction and doth it in his wrath and not of that chastisement which God sometime inflicts for the good of his people For it is farre better to be chastised and corrected from God himselfe and from his owne hand then to be left to the pleasure of wicked men as David testifies 2 Sam. 24.14 32. But call to remembrance the former dayes Hee brings here a new argument whereby he perswades the Hebrewes to constancie and perseverance in the Christian Religion and he drawes it from their former constancie and vertue which they shewed at the beginning when first they received the Christian Faith In which after ye were illuminated Christ is severall times called the light and the true light because he brought into the world by the publishing of the Gospel that knowledge of God which doth truly illuminate and enlighten us not only in respect of that naturall ignorance that growes up with men concerning God but in respect of that revealed knowledge which under the first Covenant was but darke and shady for the Gospell doth reveale unto us those mysteries which did before lye hid for since the vaile of the old Sanctuary was rent we now have liberty to looke into the heavenly Sanctuary where by faith wee see and know many mysteries especially touching the expiation of our sinnes and salvation of our soules Of which truth when we receive the knowledge we are said to be illuminated And this illumination is the first act of our entrance into Covenant with God for thereby it is that we are made acquainted with the sacred contents of the Covenant So that Illuminated here is all one with receiving the knowledge of the truth before ver 26. Yee endured a great fight of afflictions To endure afflictions for Christ and not decline them but patiently and stoutly to goe through the triall of them is a great conflict or fight 33. Partly while ye were made a gazing stocke both by reproaches and afflections Reproaches and afflictions are put for all sorts of persecutions whereof these two are the chiefe kindes for reproaches are those persecutions whereby a mans reputation credit or good name is vexed and afflictions are those whereby men suffer in their bodies and goods as by sines imprisonments and punishments And reproaches and afflictions are the means whereby Gods people are made a gazing stocke or a spectacle for men to looke at Yet it is not necessary wee should take this word properly as if the Hebrews had been condemned by publicke decree of the Magistrate and in the sight of all men brought upon a Scaffold there to suffer punishment or to be branded with reproaches which notwithstanding did many times befall the Christians But it may be taken metaphorically for those reproaches and afflictions in generall which were publickly known to all or were in a manner in all mens mouths as for example when a Christian was openly reviled or beaten or dragged through the streets or had his house by publicke authority and open force plundered and rifled And partly when ye became companions of them that were so used This is done when we take care and make provision for them who are reproached and afflicted when wee harbour them helpe and cherish them make their case our owne and professe our selves their brethren and companions Men are used to reproaches and afflictions when they many times and often suffer them and by reason of them are agitated vexed and tossed too and fro from place to place for so much is here signified by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 34. For ye had compassion of me in my bonds and tooke joyfully the spoyling of your goods Here he declares both those particulars which in the verse going before he had expressed and attributed to them saving that he puts the latter in the first place and the former in the latter For the compassion they had belong to their accompanying of those who were reproached and afflicted because true compassion as in this place is meant signifies not a bare griefe of minde proceeding from anothers misery but therewithall includes the effects and deeds of a minde truly compassionate And the spoiling of their goods is referred to the reproches and afflictions which they suffered Knowing in your selves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring
Lord the Author understands the afflictions which the Hebrewes suffered for Christs sake because many times God is wont to use such afflictions not onely to make triall of men but to make men good and to amend them by a fatherly correction And wee must conceive that this had then befallen those Hebrewes Nor faint when thou art rebuked of him Another abuse of Gods chastening quite contrary to the former and that is to faint and sinke downe under it For some when they are chastned of God are of a stubborne and impatient spirit others are soft natured or have no spirit at all whence it comes to passe that being overcome with afflictions they faint and forsaking their trust and hope in God turne aside from the pathes of righteousnesse 6. For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth The reason expressed in the exhortation it selfe why we should be obedient unto it is because chastening is an effect and an argument of Gods love toward us And what proceeds from Gods love must not be despised or rejected but be held in high esteem neither must it deject our minds from faith and hope in God but rather raise and encourage us to receive it But we must note that chastisement that is that correction or punishment which God inflicts upon us for our amendment is a token and effect of Gods love and not every punishment which oftentimes is laid on men for their destruction for this is the effect of Gods wrath and indignation against which David supplicates in the sixth Psalme Besides this reason must be taken with a limitation for God doth not chastise every one whom he loves if we take chastising not simply for affliction but for a punishment but then onely when they deserve chastising as for the most part they doe But it appears by the scope and intent of the Author that these words must be taken as if it had been said Whom the Lord loveth he at last chastiseth or sometime chastiseth Which sentence is more fully expressed in the Hebrew text if wee looke upon the following words as wee shall see presently For otherwise we could not hence gather that chastising is alwayes an effect and token of Gods love For saving the truth of the words in the text a man may imagine that whom God loveth hee chastiseth but not conversly that whom he chastiseth he loveth so that it may be doubted whether chastising proceed from Gods love or hatred Neither are these sayings repugnant Whom the Lord loveth he chastiseth and whom he loveth not he chastiseth seeing God may chastise both these unlesse as we said we understand the particle at last in the latter part of the former saying which in such sayings falles out very frequently And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth This is but a repetition of the same saying In the Hebrew it is even as a father the son in whom he delighteth which is nothing else but the converse of the former saying as if Solomon had said whom God loveth he chastiseth and whom he chastiseth he loveth So that chastising is a most certain and undoubted effect and token of Gods love Whom he receiveth i. whom God adopteth acknowledgeth and accounteth for his Sonne For God doth not acknowledge all for sonnes who call themselves the Sonnes of God 7. If ye endure chastning God dealeth with you as with sons From the former divine exhortation the Author frames in a manner a new argument to excite them unto patience in suffering of afflictions because then God dealeth with them as with sonnes Ye have this commodity by your patience that God offers himselfe unto you as unto children and he on his part performes the office of a Father so thereby ye have God for your Father And God delighteth in him whom he chastiseth as a father in his sonne For what sonne is he whom the father chastiseth not It is the office of the father to chastise the sonne that deserveth it and he alwayes doth it unlesse many and great injuries have overcome his patience and there be something that hee fears more then he blames 8. But if ye be without chastisement To be without chastisement in this verse is opposed to endure chastening in the former verse whence it appears that the word endure in the former verse doth not signifie the vertue of patience which is a duty belonging to the godly but only the suffering or sense of paine which concernes their state and condition Hee shews on the other part illustrating the thing from the contrary what an inconvenience it is for a man to be without chastisement and to receive no trouble nor evill from God And the inconvenience is this that such goe not for sonnes but are reputed of God as bastards and children of adultery and changelings which of all inconveniences is to man the greatest We must therefore needs chuse one of these two either to be acknowledged for the sons of God and so undergoe chastisement or if we will not be chastised we must bee accounted bastards Whereof all are partakers To be the Son of God and to be chastised at least as often as need requires are conditions so connexed and coupled between themselves that all the Sons of God must needs undergoe this Law all must needs feele their Fathers hand and be partakers of chastisement All must needs be partakers hereof yet not universally but generally because there are few sons or rather but one only who deserved not chastisement neither had any need of it And yet even he was exercised with hard conditions not that hee was partaker of chastisement properly that is of punishment for what place could punishment have in him that was most innocent but that by his stripes and wounds we might be perfectly healed Hence the chastisement of our peace or that brought us true peace and happines is said to have been upon him Esay 53.5 in which place the word chastisement must by way of synecdoche be taken for affliction Then are ye bastards and not sonnes Ye are not truly borne of God not such whom God acknowledgeth for his sonnes and children but yee are bastards and changelings For they are bastards who goe for the sonnes of such a man yet indeed were not begotten of him and such are not alwayes acknowledged of their carnall fathers but our spirituall Father cannot be deceived for he knowes all that are not borne of him and acknowledgeth them for none of his and thereupon vouchsafeth not to bestow any fatherly care and chastisement for the framing of their manners and behaviour 9. Further more we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us He shews by another argument which is yet of affinity with the former that we must endure Gods chastisements and so endure them that thereby we become corrected and amended for such as do this they only receive chastisement as they ought The fathers of our flesh are our carnall fathers that begat us according to the flesh
earth but now hee hath promised saying yet once more I shake not the earth onely but also heaven For here it is manifest that the whole verse is meant of God But who shall wee say is understood by him who spake on earth By him may be understood both God himselfe and that single Angel who bare the name and person of God in Mount Sinai If by him wee understand God himselfe then here will be no opposition betweene divers persons but onely betweene divers places from whence God delivered the Law and from whence the Gospel Namely that the Law was published on earth from Mount Sinai but the Gospel was published by God from heaven You will say that God then no lesse published the Law from heaven then afterward he did the Gospell seeing God himselfe descends not from heaven but as he sent Christ from heaven to preach the Gospel so he sent an Angell from heaven in his name to deliver the Law To this I answer There is a great difference between the mission or sending of Christ from God and of that Angel For Christ being sent from God carried himselfe alwayes as a person diverse from God which the thing it selfe declares for he was the sonne of man and called himself Gods messenger sent from God did manifestly professe and testifie that his doctrine was not his owne but his who sent him that he spake nothing of himselfe but what he had received and heard from the Father But that Angell so descended from heaven that hee bare the person and name of God and therefore he alwayes speaks as if he had been God himselfe And this was the cause why Christ had not such Majesty and visible glory about him as had that Angel For Christ had but that Majesty and glory which became Gods legate or messenger and he a man and a mortall man But that Angell had that Majesty and glory which was sutable to God himselfe if God himselfe had descended from Heaven It may therefore be well said that God himselfe descended in that Angell and must be considered as if he himselfe had spoken upon earth Contrarily because God sent Christ to preach the Gospell as his Apostle or messenger and sent him from heaven as a person distinct from him not as of old he sent Moses from the earth that is but from Mount Sinai therefore now with good reason he is said to deliver his oracles and to publish his pleasure to us from heaven But it is a far greater matter to deliver oracles from heaven it selfe then from earth or from some earthly mountaine seeing heaven is far higher and worthier then any mountaine Therefore although the manner which God used in publishing and revealing his Gospel was not if we respect the outward shew and splendour of it so illustrious as that wherewith he published the Law yet indeed it was far more divine and perfect and in all respects most beseeming the perfect discipline of Evangelicall truth For what else did it signifie that God descended on earth to publish the Law but that the precepts of the Law were earthly and not heavenly For they that speake from a low place seem to speake but low matter and they earthly that speake from the earth as we read in the Gospell of John chap. 3.31 But contrarily that God remaining in heaven and not descending himselfe on earth either in his own person or in the person of another hath spoken to us by Christ sent from heaven as his Interpreter and messenger what else can this signifie but that he hath spoken heavenly things and that Christ is far greater then Moses For as it is written in the fore-cited place of John He that commeth from above is above all and he that commeth from heaven is above all In this sense therefore that Angell representing God must stand for God and Christ must not be compared with that Angell who represented the person and name of God but with Moses and the difference between Christ and Moses must stand in this that God spake to Moses on earth but to Christ in heaven and that God sent Moses from the mount to the Israelites but Christ from heaven to Christians If this be displeasing to any man which yet we beleeve to be most agreeable both to the truth and to the Scripture and to the Text we may say which is our other answer to the question proposed and another sense of the words that by him who spake on earth must be understood that Angell who in Gods name published the Law on Mount Sinai and by him who spake from Heaven must be understood the most high God himselfe For he that by himselfe delivers Laws on earth doth thereby shew that he is not the most high God For the Majesty of the most high God permits not that the King of Kings and Lord of Lords should depart from his inaccessible light and from his heavenly throne to descend downe upon earth But hee that offers himselfe as God to be heard from heaven he by far greater reason must be reckoned for God himselfe But you will say when did God himselfe publish the Gospell from heaven I answer This was done then when by his voice uttered from heaven he testified that Christ was his beloved Sonne and therefore his Ambassadour and withall commanded us to heare him For shall not God himselfe be thought to speak to us from heaven when we heare that doctrine which God himselfe authorised by his voice uttered from heaven For although by the wise determination of God the promiscuous multitude heard not this voice with their ears yet it was heard and published by them whose testimony is irrefragable But in the publishing of the Law was no such thing Whence it is manifest that even in this sense the Authors argument wants no force For it is a greater crime to turne away from God who spake from heaven then from an Angell who spake on earth though he sustained the name of God Hee turnes away from God and as it were turnes his backe upon him who refuseth either to beleeve or obey the voice of God 26. Whose voice then shooke the earth From these words it seems to be gathered that the Author by him who spake on earth understands God himselfe For here he mainifestly attributeth to God himself the shaking of the earth i. of Mount Sinai which happened at the publishing of the Law from thence But nothing hinders why this action may not be ascribed both to God and to the Angell who in publishing the Law sustained the person of God as likewise that speaking or uttering the oracles a little before mentioned For the Angell properly and immediatly did both shake the earth or mountaine and also spake and God did it mediatly by that very Angell But in these words there is a tacit answer to an objection and withall a strong reason why Christians must obey the voice of God published by Christ For some man