ous in its superstruction: it is built up of living stones, 1 Pet. ii. 4. which also are precious and elect; cemented among themselves, and wrought into beauty and order by the Spirit of God: it is also glorious in respect of its end, it is built unto the glory of God. This house is the foundation of eternal glory, as being that upon the account whereof God will for ever be glorified. It comes into the place of the whole creation at first, and doubles the revenue of glory unto God. But as unto these things, more must be spoken afterwards.

Our duty is to bear in mind this honour and glory of Christ; as that whereunto he is exalted, that whereof he is every way worthy. And herein our concernment and honour doth lie. For if any one member of the mystical body being honoured, all the members rejoice with it, 1 Cor. xii. 26. how much more have all the members cause to rejoice in this unspeakable honour and glory of their Head, whence all their honour in particular doth flow.

III. The honour and glory of all that ever were, or ever shall be employed, in the work and service of the house of God, jointly and severally considered, is inferior, subordinate, and subservient to the glory and honour of Jesus Christ, the chief Builder of the house. He is worthy of more honour than they all. He is the Son, they are servants. He is over the house, they are in it, and parts of it. They are shepherds, but the sheep, the lambs, are his. He is the agxony, the Chief or Prince of shepherds; all their honour is from him, and if it be not returned unto him, it is utterly lost.

VER. 4.-For every house is built by some, but he that built all things is God.

In this verse the apostle confirms and illustrates what he had before asserted and proved. Hereunto two things were necessary. For first, whereas his whole discourse had reference to the analogy that is between a house and its builder on the one hand, and Christ with his church on the other; seeing it lies in this, that as the builder is worthy of more honour than the house built by him, so is Christ of more than the whole church or house of God which was built by him; it was therefore necessary to shew, that his argument had a real foundation in the things, from which the parity of reason insisted on by him did arise. This he doth in the first words, "Every house is builded by some." Every house whatever hath its builder, between whom and the house, there is that respect, that he is more honourable than it. This therefore holds equally in an artificial house, and in an analogical. The respect mentioned is alike in both. Secondly, If that building of the house, which alone would VOL. III.

Pp

make good the apostle's inference and intention (namely, that Christ was more honourable than Moses, because he built the house, Moses was only a part of it,) were such as we have described, the building of the church in all ages, who could perform it? to whom must this work belong? Why, saith he, "He who built all things is God."

Two things are here to be inquired into, First, What is intended by the all things" here mentioned. Secondly, Who is intended by God, who is said to build them all.

For the first, Ta arra, all things,' is put for THUTA KRITE, 'all these things,' all the things treated about, which kind of expression is frequent in the Scripture. And therefore Beza well renders the words, hæc omnia, all these things,' The whole house, and all the persons that belong to it, or the parts of it in all ages. And thus is TE TAYTE

constantly restrained to the subject matter treated of. Besides, the word xaraσxivaras, here used by the apostle, whereby he expressed before the building of the house, plainly declares that it is the same kind of building, that he yet treats of, and not the absolute creation of all things, which is no where expressed by that word. And this is sufficient to evince what we plead for. This word is no where used in the Scripture to express the creation of all things, neither doth it signify to create, but to prepare, and to build. And it is often used in this business of preparing the church or the ways of the worship of God. See Mat. xi. 10. Luke i. 17. vii. 27. Heb. ix. 2.6. So that there can be no pretence of applying it to the creation of the world in this place. Again, the making of all things, or the first creation, doth not belong to his purpose; but the mention of it would disturb the series of his discourse, and render it equivocal. There is neither reason for it in his design, nor place for it in his discourse, nor any thing in it to his purpose.

Secondly, Who is here intended by the name, GOD. The words may be so understood, as to signify either, that God made or built all these things, or, that he who made and built all these things, is God. The first sense making God the supject, the latter the predicate of the proposition. But as to our purpose they amount to the same. For if he who made them is God, his making of them declares him so to be. And it is the Lord Christ who is intended in this expression. For, First, If God absolutely or God the Father be intended, then by the building of all things," the creation of the world is designed, so they all grant who are of that opinion; but that this is not so, we have already demonstrated from the words themselves.

"

Secondly, The introduction of God absolutely, and his building of all things in this place, is no way subservient to the purpose of the apostle. For what light or evidence doth

this contribute to his principal assertion, namely, that the Lord Christ was more honourable than Moses, and that upon the account of his building the house of God, the confirmation whereof he doth in these words expressly design.

Thirdly, It is contrary to his purpose. For whereas he doth not prove the Lord Christ to be deservedly preferred above Moses, unless he manifest that by his own power he built the house of God in such a manner as Moses was not ernployed in, according to this interpretation of the words he here assigns the principal building of the house to another, even the Father, and so overthrows what he had before asserted.

This then is that which by these words the apostle intends to declare, namely, the ground and reason whence it is that the house was or could be in that glorious manner built by Christ, even because he is God and so able to effect it; and by this ef fect of his power he is manifested so to be.

VER. 5.-And Moses verily (was) faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were after to be spoken. But Christ (was faithful) as a Son over his own house, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence, and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

The apostle in these words proceedeth to another argument to the same purpose with the former, consisting in a comparison between Christ and Moses, in reference to their relation to the house of God when built. In the building they were both faithful, Christ as the chief builder, Moses as a principal part of the house, ministerially also employed in the building of it. The house being built, they are both faithful towards it in their several relations to it; Moses as a servant in the house of God, Christ as a Son over his own house; his own because he built it. The Vulgar Latin reads also in the latter place, in the house;' TW OIXW, for 17 Tov oixov, over the house,' but corruptly as was observed. The agreement of the original copies, and series of the apostle's discourse, require over the house.'" A Son over the house."

Some by aut, would have God the over his house,' the house of God.

Father to be intended,
But the other sense,
Having built the house,

his own house," is evidently intended. and being the Son or Lord of it, it becomes " his own house." As to Moses, there are in the words, 1. His relation to the house of God, which was that of a servant. 2. The end of his ministry, "for a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterwards.”

In reference to the Lord Christ, 1. His relation to the house is asserted to be that of a Son, or Lord over the house. 2. An mplication of his faithfulness in that relation; but Christ as a

Son, that is, was faithful as a Son. 3. A declaration of the state and condition of that house over which as a Son he presides, with an application of the things spoken, to the faith and obedience of the Hebrews, "whose house are we, if we hold fast."

The argument of the apostle in these words is obvious. The Son faithful over his own house, is more glorious and honourable than servant that is faithful in the house of his lord and master. But Christ was thus a Son over the house, Moses only a servant in it.

There is one difficulty in the terms of this argument, which must be removed before we enter on the explication of the words in particular. And this lies in the opposition that is here made between a son, and a servant, on which the stress of it doth lie. For Moses was not so a servant, but that he was also a child, a son of God. And the Lord Christ was not so a Son, but that he was also the Servant of the Father in his work, and is in the Scripture often so called: and accordingly he constantly professed that as he was sent by the Father, so he came to do his will and not his own.

Answ. First, The comparison here made is not between the persons of Christ and Moses absolutely, but with respect to their relation to the church or house of God in their offices. Moses was indeed a son of God by adoption, (for adoption belonged to believers under the Old Testament, Rom. ix. 4.) He was so in his own person, but he was not a son in reference to the house, but a servant by his office and no more. And the Lord Christ, who was the Son of God on a more glorious account, even that of his eternal generation, is not here thence said to be a Son, he is not as such here spoken of, but as one that had the rule as a Son over the house.

Secondly, It is true Christ was the Servant of the Father in his work, but he was also more than a servant. Moses was in the house a servant and no more. The Lord Christ was so & Servant, as that he was also the Son, Lord and Heir of alk And this as to the equity of it, is founded originally in the dignity of his person, for he is "God over all, blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5. He was God and Lord by nature, a Servant by condescension, and therefore made a Son or Lord, by the Father's constitution, as our apostle declares at large, Phil. ii. 6—9. This then is the economy of this matter. Being in himself God over all, he became, by voluntary condescension in the susception of human nature, the Servant of the Father, and on the doing of his will he had the honour given him of being the Son, Head and Lord over the whole house. So that no scruple can hence arise against the force of the apostle's argument. Two things are in general contained in the words, as they report the relation of Moses to the house of God. 1. His mi

1.

nistry. 2. The end of that ministry, as was observed. Moses verily was faithful as a servant in his whole house. The office ascribed to him, is that of a servant. A servant of God and of the people. Organa, a servant,' minister or officer in sacris, in things belonging to religious worship.' This was his place, office, dignity and honour. And this is accompanied with a threefold amplification, 1. In that he was faithful in his service, which, wherein it consisted, hath been declared. 2. In that he was a servant in the house of God; not in the world only, and in compliance with the works of his providence, as all things serve the will of God, and wicked men as Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar, are called his servants; but in his house, in that service which is of nearest relation and of greatest concernment to him. It is an honour to serve the will of God in any duty, but in those especially which concern his house, and his worship therein. 3. In that he was not thus employed, and thus faithful, only in this or that part of the house of God, in this or that service of it, but in his whole house and all the concernments of it. Herein was he differenced from all others, whom God used in the service of his house under the Old Testament. One was employed in one part of it, another in another; one to teach or instruct it, another to reform or restore it; one to renew a neglected ordinance, another to give a new instruction, none but he was used in the service of the whole house. All things for the use of all ages, until the time of reformation should come, were ordered and appointed by him. And these things greatly speak his honour and glory, although, as we shall see, they leave him incomparably inferior to the Lord Christ.

"For a testimony of those things which should be spoken after." The end of the service and ministry of Moses is expressed in these words. It was to be is agrugia, ⚫ for a testimony.' The word and ordinances of God are often called his testimony. That whereby he testifieth and witnesseth his will and pleasure to the sons of men. · ny, that which God testifieth. Some therefore think the meaning of the words to be, that Moses in his ministry revealed the testimony of God, and those words," of the things that should be spoken," are as much as in and by the things that he spake, that God would have spoken by him, wherein his testimony did consist. But this exposition of the words is perplexed, and makes a direct coincidence between the testimony and the things spoken, whereas they are distinct in the text, the one being subservient to the other, the testimony to the things spoken. Others take testimony to be put for a witness, he that was to bear testimony; which it was the duty of Moses to be and to do. He was to be a witness to the word of God which was given and revealed by him. And both these expositions suppose the things spoken,