Page images
PDF
EPUB

its administrations. It had them,' that is, they belonged to it, as those wherein its administration did consist.

Obs. I. Every covenant of God had its proper privileges and advantages.-Even the first covenant had so, and those such as were excellent in themselves, though not comparable with them of the new. For to make any covenant with men, is an eminent fruit of goodness, grace and condescension in God, whereon he will annex such privileges thereunto, as may evince it so to be.

2dly, This first covenant had two things in general. 1. èixciwueta detetices. Both translations and interpreters, have cast some difficulty on the meaning of these words, in themselves plain and evident. Aixcww.ata, are Dupin. And the word is generally rendered by dixawux in the Greek versions, and next to that by youixov, that which is legal and right. The Vulgar Latin renders it by justificationes, from the inclusion of jus, justum in the signification of it. In the New Testament it is used, Luke i. 6. Rom. i. 32. ii. 26. v. 16. viii. 4. Heb. ix. 1. 10. Rev. xv. 4. xis. 8. And in no one place doth it signify institution; but it may be better rendered righteousness when alone, we so translate it, Rom. v. 16. In the context and construction wherein it is here placed, it can have no signification but that of ordinances, rites, institutions, statutes, the constant sense of Dypin, determined both by its derivation, and invariable use. Wherefore all inquiries on these words, in what sense the rites of the law may be called justifications, or whether because the observance of them did justify before men, or were signs of our justification before God, are all useless and needless. What there is of just and right in the signification of the word, respects the right of God in the constitution and imposition of these ordinances. They were appointments of God which he had right to prescribe, whence their observance on the part of the church was just and equal.

3. These ordinances or statutes were ordinances releeces, of service,' that is, as we render it, divine service.' Aargite, is originally of as large a signification as denez, and denotes any service whatever. But it is here, and constantly in the New Testament, as is also the verb aargeva, restrained to divine service, John xvi. 2. Rom. ix. 4. xii. 1. Cultus, of worship, and so were it better rendered, than by divine service.' In one place, Rom. ix. 4. it signifies by itself, as inuch as dizas wpata Materias doth here ; to whom belonged the giving of the law,' xdi v haresia,' and the worship,' that is, dixdimuate sa prias, the ordinances of worship ;' the ordinances of the ceremonial law, For although God was served in, and according to, the commands of the moral law, or the unchangeable prescriptions,

the ten words, and also in the duties required in the due observance of the Judicial law, yet this nxtere or 77771, was the

immediate worship of the tabernacle, and the services of the priests that belonged thereunto. Hence the Jews call all ido- ' Jatry and superstition, 1771 1772w, strange worship.'

And this was that part of divine worship, about which God had so many controversies with the people of Israel under the Old Testament. For they were always apt to run into noxious extremos about it. For the most part they were prone to neglect it, and to run into all' manner of superstition and idolatry. For the law of this worship was a hedge that God had set about them, to keep them from those abominations. And if at any time they brake over it, or neglected it, and let it fall, they failed not to rush into the most abominable idolatry. On the other hand, oft-times they placed all their trust and confidence for their acceptance with God, and blessing from him, on the external observance of the ordinances and institutions of it. And hereby they countenanced themselves, not only in a neglect of moral duties and spiritual obedience, but in a course of flagitious sins and wickednesses. To repress these exorbitances with respect unto both these extremes, the ministry of the prophets was in an especial manner directed. And we may observe some things here in our passage, as included in the apostle's assertion, though not any part of his present design.

Obs. II. There was never any covenant between God and man, but it had some ordinances, or arbitrary institutions of external divine worship annexed unto it.— The original covenant of works had the ordinances of the tree of life, and of the knowledge of good and evil, the laws whereof belonged not unto that of natural light and reason. The covenant of Sinai, whereof the apostle speaks, had a multiplication of them. Nor is the new covenant destitute of them or of their necessary observance. All public worship, and the sacraments of the church, are of this nature. For whereas it is ingrafted in natural light, that some external worship is to be given to God, he would have it of his own prescription, and will not leave the modes of it to the inventions of nien. And because God hath always in every covenant, prescribed the external worship, and all the duties of it, which he will accept, it cannot be but dangerous for us to make any additions thereunto. Had he prescribed none at any time, seeing some are necessary in the light of nature, it would follow by just consequence, that they were left to the finding out and appointment of men. But he having done this himself, • let not us add unto his words, lest he reprove us, and we be found liars.' And in his institution of these ordinances of external worship, there is both a demonstration of his sovereignty, and an especial trial of our obedience, in things whereof we bave no reason, but his mere will and pleasure.

Obs. III. It is a hard and rare thing, to have the minds of men kept uprighit with God, in the observance of the institu

tions of divine worship. --Adam lost himself and us all by his failure therein. The old church seldom attained to it, but continuaily wandered into one of the extremes, mentioned before. And at this day there are very few in the world, who judge a diligent observance of divine institutions to be a thing of any great importance. By some they are neglected, by some corrupted with additions of their own, and by some they are exalted above their proper place and use, and are turning into an occasion of neglecting more important duties. And the reason of this difficulty is, because faith bath not that assistance and encouragement from innate principles of reason, and sensible experience ef this kind of obedience, as it hath in that which is moral, internal and spiritual.

4. That these ordinances of divine worship might be duly observed and rightly performed under the first covenant, there was a place appointed of God, for their solemnization. It had το τι αγιον κοσμικού, , ' also a worldly sanctuary.' He renders U7pm, by yo, properly a holy place,' a 'sanctuary.' And why he calls it xoopixov, or worldly,' we must inquire. And some things must be premised to the exposition of ibese words,

First, The apostle, treating of the services, sacrifices and place of worship under the old testament, doth not instance in, nor insist on the temple, with its fabric, and the order of its services, but in the tabernacle set up by Moses in the wilderness. And this he doth for the ensuing reasons.

First, Because his principal design is to confirm the pre-eminence of the new covenant above the old. To this end he compares them together in their first introduction and establishment, with what did belong to them therein. And as this in the new covenant was the priesthood, mediation and sacrifice of Christ; so in the old, it was the tabernacle, with the services and sacrifices that belonged to it. These the first covenant was accompanied with and established by, and therefore were they peculiarly to be compared with the tabernacle of Christ, and the sacrifice that he offered therein. This is the principal reason, why in this disputation he hath all along respect to the tabernacle, and not to the temple.

Secondly, Although the temple, with its glorious fabric and excellent order, added much to the outward beauty and splendour of the sacred worship, yet was it no more but a large exemplification of what was virtually contained in the tabernacle, and the institutions of it, from whence it derived all its glory. And therefore these Hebrews principally rested in, and boasted of the revelation made to Moses, and his institutions. And the excellency of the worship of the new covenant being manifested above that of the tabernacle, there is no plea left for the additional outward glory of the temple.

Secondly, Designing to treat of this holy tent or tabernacle, he confines himself to the first general distribution of it, Exod. xxvi. 33. “And thou shall hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail, the ark of the testimony, and the vail shall divide unto you,' between the holy and the most holy; the holy utensils of which two parts, he afterwards distinctly describes. The whole was called wip, which he renders by to dysov, the holy place,' or sanctuary. The tabernacle of witness erected in the wilderness in two parts, the holy and the most holy, with the utensils of them, is that whose description he undertakes.

It is observed by the apostle, that the first covenant had this sanctuary. 1. Because, so soon as God had made that covenant with the people, he prescribed to them the erection and making of this sanctuary, containing all the solemn means of the administration of the covenant itself. 2. Because it was the principal mercy, privilege and advantage that the people were made partakers of, by virtue of that covenant. And it belongs to the exposition of the text, as to the design of the apostle in it, that we consider what that privilege was, or wherein it did consist. And,

1. This tabernacle, with what belonged thereunto, was a visible pledge of the presence of God among the people, owning, blessing and protecting them. And it was a pledge of God's own institution, in imitation whereof, the superstitious heathens invented ways of obliging their idol-gods, to be present among them for the same ends. Hence was that prayer at the removal of the tabernacle and the ark therein, Num. x. 35. 36. • Rise up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered, and let them that hate thee, flee before thee.' Aud when it rested he said, “Return, O Lord, to the many thousands of Israel. And thence the ark was called the ark of God's strength ; see Psal. Ixviii. 1, 2. cxxxii. 8. 2 Chron. vi. 41. because it was a pledge of God's putting forth his strength and power in the behalf of the . people. And according to this institution it was a most effectual means to strengthen their faith and confidence in God. For what could they desire more in reference thereunto, than to enjoy such a gracious earnest of his powerful presence among them?' But when they ceased to trust in God, and put their confidence in the things themselves, which were no otherwise useful but as they were pledges of his presence, they proved their ruin. Hereof we have a fatal instance in their bringing the ark into the field, in their battle against the Philistines, 1 Sam. iv. 5, 6. And it will fare no better with others, who shall rest satisfied with outward institutions of divine worship, neglecting the end of them all, which is faith and trust in God, Jer. vii. 4. But men of corrupt minds would rather place their trust in any thing than in God. For they find that they can do so, and yet continue in their sins, as those did in the pro

phet, ver. 8-10. But none can trust in God, unless he relinquish all sin whatever. All other pretended trust in him, is but the prefixing his name to our own wickedness.

2. It was the pledge and means of God's residence or dwelling among them, which expresseth the peculiar manner of his presence mentioned in general before. The tabernacle was God's house, nor did he promise at any time to dwell among them, but with respect thereunto, Exod. xv. 17. xxv. 5. xxix. 45-46. Num. v. 3. And the consideration hereof was a powerful motive unto holiness, fear and reverence, unto which ends it is every where pressed in the Scripture.

3. It was a fixed seat of all divine worship, wherein the truth and purity of it was to be preserved. Had the observance of the ordinances of divine service been left to the memories of private persons, it would quickly have issued in all manner of foolish practices, or have been utterly neglected. But God appointed this sanctuary, for the preservation of the purity of his worship, as well as for the solemnity thereof: see Deut. xii. 8~11. Here was the book of the law laid up, according unto the prescript whereof, the priests were obliged in all generations to take care of the public worship of God.

4. It was principally the privilege and glory of the church of Israel, in that it was a continual representation of the incarnation of the Son of God; a type of his coming in the flesh to dwell among us, and by the one sacrifice of himself to make reconciliation with God, and atonement for sins. It was such an expression of the idea of the mind of God, concerning the person and mediation of Christ, as in his wisdom and grace he thought meet to intrust the church withal. Hence was that severe injunction, that all things concerning it should be made according unto the pattern shewed in the mount. For what could the wisdom of men do in the prefiguration of that mystery, of which they had no comprehension ?

But yet the sanctuary the apostle calls xoruixov, (worldly.' Expositors, both ancient and modern, do even weary themselves in their inquiries why the apostle calls this sanctuary worldly.' But I think they do so without cause, the reason of the appelJation being evident in his design and the context. And there is a difficulty added unto it by the Latin translation, which renders the word seculare, which denotes continuance or duration.' This expresseth the Hebrew Sw; but that the apostle renders by alw, not by xoopos; and therefore here he hath no respect unto it. The sense that many fix upon is, that he intends the outward court of the temple, whereunto the Gentiles or men of the world were admitted, whence it was called • worldly,' and not sacred.' But this exposition, though countenanced by many of the ancients, is contrary unto the whole design of the apostle. For, 1. He speaks of the tabernacle, wherein was no

« EelmineJätka »