3. The difference of their persons; those of the first sort were men, and no more; the other was the Son.

4. The difference in their state and condition; the former had infirmities, the latter is consecrated for ever.

$2. (I.) (0 voμos) the law, that is, the ceremonial law, as we call it; the law given in Horeb, concerning religious rites, the way and manner of the solemn worship of God in the tabernacle. And what doth the law do? (Kabino) it appointeth. He speaks in the present time. So long as the law continueth in force and efficacy it appointeth such priests. Hereunto is opposed (λoros Tиs ориwμwσias) the word of the oath, as the constituting cause of this new priest. It was the "cord," the promise of God declared by his oath. And herein hath it many advantages above the law; for it implies particularly both an high federal solemnity, and the immutability of that counsel whence the matter sworn to proceeds.

$3. (II.) The difference of the time wherein these priesthoods were ordained, is included, on the one hand, and expressed on the other. For the former, it was when the law was given, whereby they were made priests; the latter was (μela Tov voμos) after the law, or the giving of it.

1. The priesthoood confirmed by an oath, and introduced after the law, was utterly inconsistent with the law and priesthood thereof. Wherefore, of necessity, either the law and the priesthood of it must be disannulled, or the oath of God must be of none effect; for what he had sworn to was inconsistent with the continuance of what was before appointed for a time.

2. This new priesthood could no way be made subordinate or subservient to the other, so as to leave it a place in the church. But as it was eminently above

it in dignity and benefit, so the use of the other was only to be an introduction to it, and therefore must cease thereon.

3. This new priesthood had its reasons, grounds, and representations long before the giving of the law; for besides a virtual constitution in the first promise, two thousand years before the giving of the law, it had also a typical representation in the priesthood of Melchisedec; and it received only a declaration and confirmation in the account given of the oath of God after the law.

§4. (III.) The third difference is, that the law made (avbgwrous) men, to be high priests; that is, those who were mere men, and no more. In opposition hereunto, the word of the oath makes (viov) "the Son," an High Priest; that Son who is Lord over the whole house, and whose the house is. Many ways there were, whereby he was manifested to be so; especially by his miraculous conception and nativtiy, and by his resurrection from the dead. Hence with respect to them he is sometimes called "the Son of God;" not that he became so thereby, but was only declared to be such. Into this therefore the apostle resolves the force of his argument the dignity of the person of our High Priest, the Son of God; for hereon the whole excellency and efficacy of his priesthood depends.

$5. (IV.) It is added in the last place, that the law made men priests, (exovias acbeviav) that had infirmity; subject to infirmities; and those were of two sorts, moral and natural; neither could they be freed from either of them during the whole time of their priesthood. Hence they were obliged continually, to the last day of their lives, to offer sacrifices for their own sins; and the issue of their natural weakness was death itself; this seized every one of them, so as to put an

everlasting end to their sacerdotal administrations. But wherefore did the law make such priests, men, mere men, that had infirmity, subject to sin and death, so as to put an end to their office? The reason is plain, because it could not find any better. The law must be content, with such as were to be had, and in itself it had no power to make them better. In opposition hereunto it is said, "the word of the oath made the Son (teleheiwμlevov εis tov diva) consecrated for ever." What the apostle intends here, in a special manner, is his absolute freedom from the sinful infirmities of other priests; and for which primarily sacrifice was to be offered. And the apostle here opposing the consecration of Christ to their having infirmities, sheweth sufficiently he intended not to insinuate that he offered for any infimities of his oren. If he had any, why opposed to them who had? And if he had offered for his own infirmities, the apostle could not have charged the law with weakness, that it made priests which had infirmity; for, on that supposition, "the word of the oath" should have done so also. But whereas his exaltation into heaven for the discharge of the remaining duties of his priesthood, in his intercession for the church, belonged to the perfection of his consecration, he was therein also freed from all those natural infirmities which were necessary to him as a sacrifice. §6. The ensuing observations offer themselves;

1. There never was, nor can be any more than two sorts of priests in the church, the one made by the law, the other by the oath of God. Wherefore,

2. As the bringing in of the priesthood of Christ after the law, and the priesthood constituted thereby, did abrogate and disannul it; so the bringing in of another priesthood after his, will abrogate and disannul that also. And therefore,

3. Plurality of priests under the gospel overthrows the whole argument of the apostle in this place, and if we have yet priests that have infirmities, they are made by the law and not by the gospel.

4. The sum of the difference between the law and the gospel, terminates in the difference between the priests of the one and the other state.

5. The great foundation of our faith, and the hinge whereon all our consolation depends, is this, that our high priest is the Son of God.

6. The everlasting continuance of the Lord Christ in his office is secured by the oath of God.

CHAPTER VIII.

VERSE 1.

Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: we have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.

$1. The general contents of this chapter. 2. The exposition of these words. $3. Continued. $4. Observation. The principal glory of the priestly office of Christ depends on the glorious exaltation of his person.

$1. THE

HERE are two general parts of this chapter: First, A farther explication of the excellency of the priesthood of Christ, or of Christ himself as vested with that office.

Secondly, A farther confirmation thereof; wherein is introduced the consideration of two covenants the Old and the New. For to the former was the administration of the Levitical priests confined; of the latter Christ as our priest, is the mediator and surety. And therefore the apostle fully proves the excellency of this

new covenant above the old, which redounds to the glory of its mediator.

§2. "Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum," (λov, capitulum, caput) properly the head of any living creature. But the most frequent use of it is in a metaphorical sense, as here. The following words (ETI TOIS REYOUμLEVOIs) "of the things which we have spoken," are capable of a double interpretation. The preposition may be put for (ev) in or among; or it may be in a manner redundant, and no more then is intended but (Twv heyouevwv) of the things spoken. Both these senses are consistent; for the apostle in this and the ensuing verses both briefly recapitulates what he had evinced by his preceding arguments, and also declares what is the principal thing he had contended for. I incline to the latter signification, which is respected in our translation; yet so as that the former also is true, and safely applicable to the text.

"We have such an high priest." (Exoμev) We have. Whatever you think of us, whatever you boast of yourselves, we have an exalted high priest in the Christian church.

He would moreover teach us, by this word, that whatever is the glory and dignity of our high priest, all will not suffice without an interest in him, and an especial relation to him. And we may know whether "we have" an high priest or no, really and substantially, by the use we make of him, as such, in all our approaches unto God. (To18lov) such; he doth not now say, merely, that we have an high priest, nor another high priest, but moreover "such" an one as hath that dignity, and those excellencies, which he ascribes to

VOL. III.

55