A commentary on the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. By M. John Calvin. Translated…A commentarie on the vvhole Epistle to the Hebrevves. By M. Iohn Caluin. Translated…

13 In that he saith a new Testament, he hath abrogated the old: now that which is disannulled and waxed old, is ready to vanish away.

13 In that he saith a new Testament, he hath abrogated the old: now that which is disanulled and waxed old, is readie to vanish away.

For if the first Testament, Vers. 7 &c.] He confirms that which he said touching the excellency of the covenant which god hath made with us by the hand of Christ. Now his confirmation stands upon this, that the covenant or testament of the law was not stable. For if it had been perfect, what need had there been that another should be put in the place thereof? Objection. But we see that there is another. It appears then, that this ancient covenant was not perfect in all points. Now to prove this he allegeth the testimony of Jeremiah, the which we will entreat of by and by. But it may seem that this agrees not very well, that he should affirm that there had bin no necessity to seek a place for a second covenant, if so be the first had been unblameable: and that he adds withal, that the people are reproved, so as for their default a remedy was given by the new covenant. And is it not a wicked thing to affirm, that for the sin of the people, the fault should therefore be cast upon the covenant of God? It seems then that the argument is unsound. For although God should condemn the people an hundred times, yet are we not to conclude that the covenant should therefore be faulty. Answer. But this objection is easily answered. For although the fault of breaking the covenant be justly imputed to the people, who by their disloyalty turned away from the Lord: yet notwithstanding the weakness of this covenant by this means is therewithal touched: to wit, because it was not written in their hearts. Wherefore god protesteth that the heart must be corrected, before it can be holy, and confirmed. The Apostle therefore hath just cause to affirm, that a new covenant was to be established.

FOr if the first Testament, Vers. 7 &c.] He confirmes that which he said touching the excellencie of the couenant which god hath made with vs by the hand of Christ. Now his confirmation stands vpon this, that the couenant or testament of the law was not stable. For if it had beene perfect, what neede had there beene that another should be put in the place thereof? Obiection. But we see that there is another. It appeares then, that this auncient couenant was not perfect in all points. Now to prooue this he alleadgeth the testimonie of Ieremiah, the which we will intreat of by and by. But it may seeme that this agrees not very well, that he should affirme that there had bin no necessitie to seek a place for a second couenant, if so be the first had beene vnblameable: and that he addes withall, that the people are reprooued, so as for their default a remedie was giuen by the new couenant. And is it not a wicked thing to affirme, that for the sinne of the people, the fault should therefore be cast vpon the couenant of God? It seemes then that the argument is vnfound. For although God should condemne the people an hundred times, yet are we not to conclude that the couenant should therefore be faultie. Answere. But this obiection is easily answered. For although the fault of breaking the couenant be iustly imputed to the people, who by their disloyaltie turned away from the Lord: yet notwithstanding the weaknes of this couenant by this meanes is therewithall touched: to wit, because it was not written in their hearts. Wherfore god protesteth that the heart must be corrected, before it can be holy, and confirmed. The Apostle therefore hath iust cause to affirme, that a new couenant was to be established.