that the pure doctrine of the gospel be embraced. 2. That through the truth, the heart do enjoy peace with God, which alone will establish it, giving it firmitude and rest in every condition. It is to be kept in perfect peace, with the mind stayed on God. This is that which we ought to aim at, in and by religion. Hereby the mind comes to assured peace, which nothing can give but grace, as we shall see. And hereby the heart is rendered unmoveable, 1 Cor. xv. 58. 2. The heart is thus established xapiri, by grace.' Grace is a word of various significations. There is one who hath reckoned up a great number of places to prove that by grace the gospel is signified, whereof scarce any one doth prove it. The gospel is indeed sometimes called the word of God's grace,' and sometimes it may be metonymically grace, as being the means of the revelation of the grace of God, and the instrument of the communication of it to believers, the power of God to salvation. Wherefore, grace here, is the free grace of God in Christ Jesus, for the justification and sanctification of the church, as it is revealed in the gospel. The revelation of it in the gospel is included, but it is the grace of God himself that is principally intended. In brief, grace,' here, is to be taken comprehensively, for the grace, good-will, and love of God towards men; as it came by Jesus Christ, as it is revealed in the gospel as the cause of our justification, and acceptance with God, in opposition to the works of the law, and the observance of Mosaic rites to that end. This is the most eminent signification of grace, with respect to the expiation of our sins in the blood of Christ, and the pardon of them thereon revealed and tendered to us in the gospel. This is that alone, which doth, which can, which will establish the heart of a sinner in peace with God, Rom. v. 1; which will keep it from being moved, or tossed up and down with a sense of the guilt of sin, or divine displeasure. 3. That which is opposed hereunto with respect to the same end, is meats, ov ẞpopaot, not with meats.' Not that the heart may be established by meats also, for this the apostle denies in the next words. The meaning is not, that there are indeed two ways whereby the heart may be established, the one by grace, the other by meats; but that grace is the only way thereof, though some foolishly pretended that it might be done by meats. That by meats,' in this case, the apostle doth constantly intend the religious distinction of meats among the Jews, is openly evident. See Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Cor. viii. 8; Col. ii. 16; Heb. ix. 10. There is no reason, therefore, to question, but that is the sense of it in this place. And as in other places, so here by a synecdoche, the whole system of Mosaic institutions is intended, but expressed by meats,' because of their immediate relation to the altar whereof the apostle designs to speak. All distinction of meats among the Jews, as was before observed, arose from the altar. And those meats were of two sorts; such as were enjoined or prohibited by way of duty, and such as were obtained by way of privilege. Of the first sort was the distinction of meats, clean and unclean. For when the apostle speaks of meats, he doth not intend only the eating of meats in a particular way and manner, though, as we shall see, he intends that also, but an abstinence also from eating of meats by virtue of divine prohibition. Concerning which were those legal institutions which the apostle expresseth by touch not, taste not, handle not,' Col. ii. 21. And in these abstinences from meats, the Jews placed so much of their religion, that they would rather die by the most cruel tortures, than eat flesh prohibited by the law, and that justly and according to their duty, whilst the divine prohibition was yet in force. And this distinction of meats arose from the altar. The beasts that might be offered at the altar in sacrifice were clean for therein the first-fruits, or principal part being dedicated to God, the whole of the kind became clean to the people. And what had not the privilege of the altar, was prohibited to the people. ; Again, there were meats that were obtained by privilege, and such were the portions taken from the sacrifice, that the priests, and in some cases (as of the thank-offering, Lev. vii. 13, 14,) other clean persons might and did eat by divine institution. And these kinds of meats depended solely on the altar. And this instance is selected to show the ground of the apostle's rejecting all these kinds of meats, on this consideration,—that we have an altar of another sort, whereon no such institutions do depend, nor can any such differences in meats arise. And hence we may see the reason why the Jews laid so much weight on these meats; namely, because the taking away of the distinction about them, and the privilege of them, did declare that their altar, which was the life and centre of their religion, was of no more use. And hence we may also see the reason of the apostle's different treating with them in this matter. For, speaking of meats in themselves, and in their own nature, he declares that the use or forbearing of them is a thing indifferent, wherein every one is to be left to his own liberty, to be regulated only by offence or scandal; see Rom. xiv. throughout. But when he treats of them as to a necessary observance as deriving from the altar, he utterly condemns them, and shows that their observance did evacuate the gospel, Gal. iv; Col. ii. 16-23. From this apprehension of their derivation from the altar, the Judaizing Christians had a conceit that they were of use to establish the heart; that is, had an influence into our justification and peace with God. This the apostle here rejects, as he vehemently disputes against it in his whole epistle to the Galatians. Thirdly. The next thing in the words is the way whereby the apostle assigns this whole effect of establishing the heart to grace, and wholly takes it away from meats, is in the manner of the expression used by him, kaλov, it is good,' &c. The meaning is, the heart is to be established,' and that not only as to the essence of that duty or grace, but as to such degrees of it as may guard and preserve it, from being carried about with various and strange doctrines, or otherwise shaken as to its peace. This is good,'-this is 'excellent,' saith the apostle, when it is done by grace; this is approved of God, this it is our duty to labour after. And in this positive, the comparative is included, (the Vulgar renders it by the superlative optimus) it is so good and excellent as to be far better than a false pretended settlement by meats; and this the apostle proves in the last place, from the insufficiency of meats to that end, taken from experience. • Which have not profited, εν οἷς οἱ περιπατήσαντες, them who have walked in them.' To walk' in meats, is to assent to, and observe the doctrines concerning them, Touch not, taste not, handle not.' And he speaketh of the time past, both whilst the distinction of meats was in force, and since it was taken away. For of themselves they profited not those who observed them, even while the institutions concerning them were in force. For they were a part of the yoke that was imposed on them to the time of reformation, ch. ix. 10. And so far as they were trusted to as a means of acceptance with God, they were pernicious to them; which the apostle by a common figure intimates, in that our woελnonoav, 'they did not profit them; that is, they tended to their hurt. And it was much more so with them who continued to walk in them after the obligation thereunto did cease. They were so far from having their hearts established, as that they received no benefit or advantage, but much hurt and prejudice by them. And we see, Obs. VIII. That those who decline in any thing from grace, as the only means to establish their hearts in peace with God, shall labour and exercise themselves in other things and ways to the same end, whereby they shall receive no advantage. And this is the state of all false worshippers in the world, especially in the Papal church, and those that follow its example, VER. 10.—Εχομεν θυσιαστήριον, εξ ού φάγειν ουκ έχουσιν εξουσιαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες. to us in tnt-We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat who will establish the macle. which will keep it from b sense of the guilt of sin, or divined coherence of the words, have in 3. That which is opposed hereunto introduction of them at first meats, ov Spoμari, 'not with meats.' Noad spoken in the foregoing blished by meats also, for this the apostle dut a right to eat or not, it The meaning is not, that there are indeed two werefore, having asserted may be established, the one by grace, the other peace with God, and grace is the only way thereof, though some foolishly purpose, he here might be done by meats. That by meats,' in this cased the other. doth constantly intend the religious distinction of meats, and other Jews, is openly evident. See Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Cor. viii. 8; e, with its Heb. ix. 10. There is no reason, therefore, to question, but being now sense of it in this place. And as in other places, so here by a, which doche, the whole system of Mosaic institutions is intended, but exp those by 'meats,' because of their immediate relation to the altar w-15. the apostle designs to speak. *oper All distinction of meats among the Jews, as was before obserWe arose from the altar. And those meats were of two sorts; such ho were enjoined or prohibited by way of duty, and such as were obtainno by way of privilege. Of the first sort was the distinction of meat clean and unclean. For when the apostle speaks of meats, he doth net intend only the eating of meats in a particular way and manner, though as we shall see, he intends tnat also, but an abstinence also from eatingf Secondly. What this Ovolaσrnotov, 'altar' is, which the Christian church hath and useth, there have been some disputes, occasioned by the superstition of latter ages. For some would have it a material altar made of stone, whereon an unbloody sacrifice of the flesh and blood of Christ is offered by priests every day, plainly of the same kind, nature, and use, with that in the tabernacle. And thence, this altar, also, hath been made the spring of many ceremonious observances, distinction of meats, with such an eating of flesh from it, as is indeed destructive of all religion. And some think that the table which the church useth in the celebration of the supper of the Lord, is here metaphorically called an altar, because of the communication of the sacrifice of Christ which is made at it. But these things are wholly foreign to the design of the apostle. The altar which we now have, is Christ alone, and his sacrifice. For he was both priest, altar, and sacrifice, all in himself, and continueth still so to be unto the church, as unto all the use and efficacy of them. And this is evident in the context. For, 1. This altar here is, in its nature, use, and efficacy, opposed unto the altar in the tabernacle, as it is expressed in the words of this verse. But that which, throughout this whole discourse, the apostle opposeth unto all the utensils, services, and sacrifices of the tabernacle, is Christ alone, and the sacrifice of himself, as is manifest and undeniable. Besides, the opposition he makes, is between signs and things signified, shadows and the substance, types and the reality of the things themselves. But it is fond to imagine that the altar of old was a type, a sign, a shadow of a table in the church, or that any thing but Christ was the altar here intended. 2. The apostle doth declare who, and what it is that he intends by the altar which we have; namely, that it is Jesus, who, to sanctify the people with his blood, which was to be done at, or on the altar, suffered without the gate, ver. 12. And by him, as our altar, we are to offer our sacrifices unto God, ver. 15. This is Christ, and his sacrifice alone. 3. The sacrifices which we are obliged unto by virtue of this altar, are such as have no respect unto any material altar, but are such as are to be offered unto God through Christ alone, as all the Scripture testifieth, ver. 15, namely, the sacrifice of praise, which is the fruit of our lips, confessing unto his name; which leads us off from all thoughts and conceptions of any material altar. 4. In those days, and in some ages after, Christians had no material altars; and they denied on all occasions that they had any. Estius, one of the soberest expositors of the Roman church, concludes that it is Christ and his sacrifice alone that is intended in this place. But he adds withal, that because the fathers, (that is, some of them, for all do not) do expound it of the altar for the sacrament in the church, the heretics are to be urged with their authority for a material altar and sacrifice in the church; wherein he extremely departs from his wonted modesty. For can any man in his wits suppose, that the authority of men asserting a confessed untruth, can be of any weight in way of testimony? If a man should produce witnesses in any cause, and after he hath declared of what credit they are, and how they deserve to be believed, should add, that what they bear witness unto is undoubtedly false, would not his plea of testimonies be weak and contemptible? Yea, is not this sufficient to warrant any man to question their bare authority in other things, when, as it seems, they agree so well in that which is untrue? But thus it falls out frequently with this Estius in his commentaries. When he hath (which he doth frequently in things of great importance) come nearer the truth than the current expositions of the Roman church will bear, he is forced to countenance himself by some impertinent reflections on Calvin, or Beza, or the sectaries in general, which he hath neither occasion nor countenance for from the context; so vile a thing is ecclesiastical bondage. The truth is, this place is so far from giving countenance to the altar and sacrifice on it, in the church of Rome, that it sufficiently testifieth that the apostle knew not of any such thing; but proposeth a scheme of Christian profession and worship, utterly inconsistent with these, as we shall see in the ensuing exposition. Their altar, with its sacrifice, is the life and soul of their religion, without which they profess they have none, and contend that there can be none; and all the mystery and solemnity of their sacred worship, consist in the observances and veneration of, and at this altar; whereon they have slain, or burned to ashes, innumerable Christians, for their non-compliance with them in the faith and worship of this altar, and its sacrifice. But the apostle here (where, if any where, he had occasion to make mention of it, yea, to declare its whole nature and use in the church, and at least to give some intimation of its way of observance, wherein all the glory of their worship doth consist,) doth not only pass it by in silence, but also, avowing Christ himself to be our altar, and asserting a worship, or service thereon of no alliance, as we shall see, unto their altar service, he leaves their altar, its sacrifices, and services, quite out of the compass of our Christian profession. But I return,—and we may observe, Obs. I. That the Lord Christ, in the one sacrifice of himself, is the only altar of the church of the New Testament. Ŏbs. II. That this altar is every way sufficient in itself for the ends of an altar; namely, the sanctification of the people, as ver. 12. Obs. III. The erection of any other altar in the church, or the introduction of any other sacrifice requiring a material altar, is derogatory to the sacrifice of Christ, and exclusive of him from being our altar. Obs. IV. Whereas the design of the apostle in the whole of his discourse, is to declare the glory of the gospel, and its worship, above that of the law, of our priest above theirs, of our sacrifice above theirs, of our altar above theirs, it is fond to think, that by our altar,' he intends such a material fabric, as is every way inferior unto that of old. Obs. V. When God appointed a material altar for his service, he himself enjoined the making of it, prescribed its form and use, with all its utensils, services, and ceremonies, allowing of nothing in it, or about it, but what was by himself appointed. It is not, therefore, probable, that under the New Testament there should be a material altar of equal |