pass of wisdom; be it never so perfect in its own kind. Thus in the latter sense only the apostle affirms that the first covenant was not (aμɛμñloc) blameless.

In brief, what the apostle designeth to prove is— that the first covenant was of that constitution, that it could not accomplish the perfect administration of the grace of God to the church, nor was ever designed to that end, as the Jews then falsely, and their posterity still foolishly imagine.

§4. "Then should no place have been sought for the second." (Oux av devlepas eGylεlo TOTOS.) His argument is plainly this: The promise of a new covenant doth unavoidably prove the insufficiency of the former, at least as to the ends for which the new one is promised. For otherwise, to what end serves the promise, and the covenant promised? But there is some difficulty in the mode of expression. "The place of the second had not been sought;" so the words lie in the original. But, "the place of the second," is no more but "the second taking place," the introduction and establishment of it. And this is said to be "sought," improperly, after the manner of men. When men have entered into a covenant which proves insufficient for some end proposed, they take counsel and seek out other ways and means, and covenant on such other terms as may be effectual to their purpose.

$5. From what has been said we may observe;

1. That whatever God had done before for the church, yet he ceased not in his wisdom and grace until he had made it partaker of the best and most blessed condition whereof, in this world, it is capable. He found out a place for this better covenant.

2. Let those, to whom the terms of the new covenant are proposed in the gospel, take heed to themselves, that they sincerely embrace and improve them;

for there is neither promise, nor hopes of any farther or fuller administration of divine grace.

VERSE 8.

For finding fault with them, he saith, behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

$1, 2. (I.) The connexion and design of the passage, and the words explained. $3. The subject matter of the promise; a covenant. $4. Its author. $5. With whom the covenant made. §6. The manner of making it. §7—2. (II.) Observations.

N

the

$1. (I.) In this verse the apostle entereth upon proof of his argument laid down in that foregoing; viz. that the first covenant was not (apeμrlos) unblamable, or every way sufficient for God's general end, because there was room left for the introduction of another. "For finding fault with them, he saith," (yup) for; the reason it intimates doth not consist in the word wherewith it is joined, “finding fault with them;" but respects those following, he saith: "for he saith, the days come;" which directly proves what he had affirmed. The new covenant was not to be introduced absolutely without the consideration of any thing foregoing; but because the first was not unblamable. He did it "finding fault with them." Place the note of distinction at (avios) them, and then the sense of the words is rightly expressed in our English translation; "for finding fault with them (that is, the people) he saith;" and (aulois) them may be regulated either by (μεμDoμevos) finding fault, or (Eye) he saith. Although the first covenant was not every way perfect, with respect to God's general end towards his church, yet, it may be, it is not so safe to say, that God complained of it; whereas God in this testimony actually

complains of the people, that they "brake his covenant," and expresseth his indignation thereon, "he regarded them not." To which we may add, in favor of this interpretation, that there is an especial remedy expressed in the testimony against the evil which God complains of, or finds fault with, in the people; which was, that "they continued not in his covenant.' Wherefore, God gives this promise of a new covenant, together with a complaint against the people, that it might be known to be an effect of free and sovereign grace.

§2. "Behold the days come, saith the Lord." (man, 188) Behold. It is always found eminent either in itself, or in some of its circumstances, and calls for more than ordinary attention to what is proposed. It was needful to signalize this promise; for the people to whom it was given were with great difficulty drawn from their adherence to the old covenant, which was inconsistent with that now promised. And this new covenant is here proposed so evidently and plainly, in the entire nature and properties of it, that unless men wilfully turn away their eyes, they cannot but see it. (Hμepai epxovlai) the days come. Known to God are all things and ways from the foundation of the world, and he hath determined the time of their accomplishment. Under the Old Testament, the days of the Messiah were called "the world to come," chap. ii, 5; and it was a periphrasis of him, that he was ( EPxouEvos, Matt. xi, 3. "He that was to come." And this is the time here intended. The expression in the original is in the present tense, from the Hebrew (D) the days coming; denoting the near approach of the days intended and a certainty of the thing itself, Saith the Lord." He who complaineth

of the people for breaking the old covenant, promiseth to make the new.

§3. The subject matter of the promises given is a "covenant," or rather (5, Sept. Siannn) a testament. For if we take "covenant" in a strict and proper sense, it hath indeed no place between God and man. For a covenant, strictly taken, ought to proceed on equal terms, and a proportionable consideration of things on both sides. But the covenant of God is founded on grace, and consists essentially in a free undeserved promise. Such a covenant is here intended as is ratified and confirmed by the death of him that makes it, which is properly a testament: And this covenant was confirmed by the death of the testator, and the blood of a sacrifice; it is a covenant in which he that makes it, bequeatheth his goods to others by way of a legacy. Wherefore, our Savior calls it the "new testament in his blood." And even the covenant which God made with the church of Israel at Sinai was called a "testament" for three reasons:

1. Because it was confirmed by the death of the sacrifices that were slain and offered at the solemn establishment of it. So saith our apostle; "the first testament was not dedicated without blood," chap. ix, 15.

2. God therein granted to the church of Israel the good things of the land of Canaan, with the privileges of his worship.

3. The principal reason of this denomination, "the old testament,” is taken from its being typically significative of the death and legacy of the great Testator, There is in the new covenant a recapitulation of all promises of grace; it implies the actual exhibition of Christ in the flesh; it was ratified by his death and and bloodshedding, including all his mediatorial works, and all ordinances of Christian worship,

VOL. III,

62

$4. Next is observable, the author of this covenant; 'I will make, saith the Lord." Goa himself is the principal party covenanting; therefore what he doth is (exmera gratia et voluntate) "from mere grace and good will." There was no cause without himself for which he should make it; which we are here eminently taught, where he expresseth no other occasion of his making this covenant, by the sins of the people in breaking the former; expressed on purpose to declare the free and sovereign grace, the goodness, love, and mercy, which alone were the absolute springs of this

covenant.

§5. The promises with whom this covenant is made are, "the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. Long before the giving of this promise that people were divided into two parts. The one part consisted of the ten tribes which fell off from the house of David, under the conduct of Ephraim, whence they are also in the prophets called by that name. The other, consisting of the tribe properly so called, with that of Benjamin, and the greatest part of Levi, took the name of Judah; and with them, both the promise and the church remained in a peculiar manner. But whereas they all originally sprang from Abraham, who received the promise and sign of circumcision for them all, and because they were all equally in their forefathers brought into the bond of the old covenant, they are here mentioned distinctly, that none of the seed of Abraham might be excluded from the tender of this covenant. Wherefore this "house of Israel, and of Judah," may be considered two ways: as that people were the whole entire posterity of Abraham; and-as they were typical, and mystically significant of the whole church of God. The house of Judah was, at the time of giving the promise, in the sole pos