For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second.

“Whence does appear? In that this the one was cast out, and the other introduced in its place: for it is therefore of force because it is better. For as he says, "If perfection were by" it, "what further need was there, that another priest should rise, after the order of Melchisedec?" (Heb. vii. 11); so also here he used the same syllogism, saying "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second"; that is, if it made men "faultless." For it is because he is speaking of this that he did not say, "But finding fault with" it, but "But finding fault with them." And "faultless"; that is, useful; not as though it the old Covenant was obnoxious to any charges, but as not being sufficient. He used a familiar form of speech. As if one should say, the house is not faultless, that is, it has some defect, it is decayed: the garment is not faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not therefore here speak of it as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency.”

“Above, the Apostle proved that Christ is a high priest, and consequently a minister of the sacraments, though not according to the old law; here he shows that he is the minister of greater and better things than those were. And concerning this he does three things. For first he sets forth what he intends; second he assigns the cause of it; third he proves it. The second, at by how much also of a better. The third, at for if that. He says therefore: I say that he has nothing earthly to offer, but now, that is, in the time of grace, he has obtained by lot, that is, has received by lot, a better ministry, that is, a more worthy priesthood. The priesthood of Christ is called a ministry, because it belongs to him only insofar as, as man, he was a minister. Rom. XV, 8: for I say that Christ Jesus was a minister, etc. He says obtained by lot, that is, received by lot, because that which is had by lot is awaited from the Lord. Ps. XXX, 15: in thy hands are my lots. And therefore all things that come about according to the distribution of the divine will are said to be given by lot, and such are the effects of grace. Eph. I, 11: we are called by lot, that is, by divine election, because when it happens that human judgment fails, men are accustomed to betake themselves to divine election and disposition, casting lots, as is clear from Acts I, 26, concerning the election of Matthias. Hence Prov. XVI, 33: lots are cast into the lap, but they are tempered by the Lord. Christ indeed obtained this ministry by lot, that is, by divine disposition. Then when he says by how much also of a better, etc., he assigns the cause why this ministry is greater. For every priest is a mediator. But this one is the mediator of a better covenant, namely of man to God. For it belongs to a mediator to reconcile the extremes. But he brought divine things to us, because through him we have been made partakers of the divine nature, as is said in II Pet. I, 4. He also offers our things to God. And therefore the Apostle says, I Tim. II, 5: the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. There temporal things were promised. Is. I, 19: if you be willing and will hear me, you shall eat the good things of the land. But here, heavenly things, as was said above. Thus therefore this is better as to that which the Lord promises to men. Likewise, in that covenant certain things are set down which pertain to the worship of God, and these are the ceremonial precepts; and certain others which pertain to the rightness of life, and these are the moral precepts, which remain — but the others do not. But in the new covenant, counsels are added to those precepts, which are given to the perfect, who are capable of spiritual things. And thus the precepts remain the same, but the promises are different. Likewise the sacraments are different, because there the figure alone was present, but here the truth of the figure is expressed. In every respect, therefore, that covenant is better. Then when he says whether if that, etc., he proves that the covenant of which Christ is the mediator is better. And he makes such an argument: if the first covenant had not had fault, another would not be sought to correct its defect; but one is sought, therefore, etc. The antecedent is set down, and is clear in the text. But against this, Rom. VII, 7: is the law then sin? God forbid. Therefore he speaks wrongly in saying that it was not free from fault. I answer. It must be said that something can belong to the law in two ways: either according to itself, and thus it was good; or by reason of those to whom it was given, and thus it is said to have fault, on account of two things. First, because it did not give the power to cleanse away sins committed. Below, X, 4: it is impossible that sins should be taken away by the blood of bulls or of goats. Second, because it did not give a helping grace to avoid sins, but only to know them; and thus it was an occasion of sin. Rom. VII, 7: I had not known concupiscence, unless the law said: thou shalt not covet. And thus it is said not to have been free from fault, because men were left in fault by it. But he says a place would not be sought. For just as a body never perfectly comes to rest, but is always in motion, until it reaches its own place, so as long as something is possessed imperfectly, desire does not rest, but always tends further, until it comes to the perfect. The place of this, therefore, was sought by man, who desired it; but more by God, who is said to seek it on account of his desire for our salvation. Then when he says for finding fault, etc., he proves the truth of the consequent, namely that a place for the covenant is sought, and this by the authority of Jer. XXXI, 31: behold the days shall come, etc. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down the authority; second he argues from it, at but in saying a new. The first is divided into two. For first he sets forth the prophecy concerning the giving of the new covenant; second he describes it, at not according to the covenant, etc. Again the first is divided into three. For first he shows the fitness of the time of the giving; second, the perfection of the new covenant, at I will perfect a new covenant; third, to whom it was given, at upon the house of Judah. He says therefore, for finding fault, not indeed with the law, but with those who, namely, were under the law, the Lord says: behold the days come, etc. This is the authority, which is Jer. XXXI, v. 31; and it is not held entirely under these words, but a few are changed. For there it is said thus: behold the days come, says the Lord, and I will make with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers in the day when I stretched out my hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them. Thus therefore it is clear that the covenants are changed. He says, therefore, as to the fitness of the time, behold the days come, that is, the time of grace, which is compared to the day, because it is illumined by the sun of justice. Rom. XIII, 12: the night is passed, and the day is at hand. As to the perfection of the new covenant he says, I will perfect a new covenant. And he says I will perfect, which sounds toward perfection. Apoc. XXI, 5: behold, I make all things new. But this word I will perfect is not found there, but the Apostle uses it to designate the perfection of the new covenant. Is. c. X, 23: the Lord shall make a consummation and an abridgment upon the earth. For the new covenant was perfect as to the instruction of life, which is extended not only to a general instruction of justice, but to a perfect one. Matth. V, 20: unless your justice abound, etc. Likewise in the old covenant there were only figurative things; but in the new, the truth of the figures; and thus the new consummates and perfects the old. As to the third he says, upon the house of Israel, and of Judah. But is it given only to the Jews? No. Rom. IX, 6: not all who are of Israel, these are Israelites; and it follows: not they who are the children of the flesh are the children of God, but they who are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed. Those, therefore, who have obtained the grace of God, are Israel through faith, and Judah through confession. Rom. X, 10: with the heart, belief is unto justice, etc. Now it is said upon the house, etc., for a threefold reason. One, because Christ in his own person preached to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Matth. XV, 24: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel. The second, because the Gentiles were made participants of the new covenant, just as a wild olive grafted into a good olive tree partakes of its richness, Rom. XI, 24. Another, because in the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam the kingdom of Judah was divided from the kingdom of the ten tribes, which indeed remained in idolatry, but the kingdom of Judah adhered more to God, although not entirely. And therefore he touched on both. Then when he says not according to the covenant, he describes the new covenant, and first by its difference from the old; second by its own conditions, at for this is the covenant. Again the first is divided into two. First he shows the distinction of the new and the old covenant; second, the weakness of the old, at in the day in which. For someone could say: is this new one like that one? Therefore, as if answering, he says: no. Because not according to that which I did with their fathers — in which he shows that the old is not to be kept together with the new. Gal. V, 1: stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of servitude. Matth. IX, 17: neither do they put new wine into old bottles, etc. And Rom. VII, 6: let us serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. For if anything is found in the old which is indicated to the Gentiles for keeping, it must be referred to a spiritual understanding, as is said in Is. XIX, 21: they shall worship him with sacrifices and offerings — which is wholly to be understood spiritually. Then when he says in the day when I took, etc., he shows the defect of the old covenant, first from its handing down; second from the outcome, at because they themselves. For the old covenant was handed down to slaves and to the weak. To slaves indeed, because they had at one time come out of the servitude of Egypt. And as to this he says, that I might lead them out, etc. Gal. IV, 24: the one indeed begetting unto servitude, etc. Likewise, because it was a law of servile fear. Rom. VIII, 15: you have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear, etc. Augustine: the brief difference of the old and new covenant is fear and love. Likewise to the weak, because by themselves they were not able to help themselves. And as to this he says, I took them by the hand, which belongs to the weak. Ps. LXXII, 23: thou hast held my right hand. Rom. VIII, 3: what was impossible to the law, in that it was weak. Now he says their fathers, namely Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with whom he entered into a special covenant. Ps. CIV, 8f.: he hath been mindful for ever of his covenant, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which he appointed to Abraham, etc. But to these, at the exodus from Egypt, he promised carnal things. Then when he says because they themselves did not, etc., he shows the defect of the old covenant from the outcome; and first as to the fault, and therefore he says, because they did not continue in my covenant, namely because it was not written in their hearts. Hence immediately after the law was given they made a molten calf. Ex. XXXII, 8 and Ps. CV, 20: they made a calf in Horeb, and adored a graven thing. And as to the punishment. Therefore he says, and I disregarded them. For a thing is said to be disregarded by someone when he permits it to perish. And thus he disregarded them, because he permitted them to perish by the destroyer, as is said in I Cor. X, 10; and Ps. CXVIII, v. 118: thou hast despised all them that fall off from thy judgments. Another reading: and I had dominion over them, that is, by punishing I showed myself to be their lord. Then when he says for this is the covenant, etc., he describes the conditions of the new covenant. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down the manner of its promulgation; second, its effect, at and I will be to them a God. He says therefore, for this is, that is, such is, the covenant that I will dispose for the house of Israel, etc.; disposition implies a fittingness of order. And therefore he says after those days, that is, after the law was given. For the new law had to be given after the old law, just as first a pedagogue is given, and afterward a master, so that man might first recognize his own weakness. In this, therefore, the fittingness of the time for giving the new covenant is clear. Now the manner of handing it down is twofold. One is through exterior things, as by setting forth words for someone's knowledge. And this a man can do, and thus the old covenant was handed down. In another way, by working inwardly. And this is proper to God. Job XXXII, 8: the inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding. And in this manner the new covenant was given, because it consists in the infusion of the Holy Spirit, who instructs inwardly. But it is not enough only to know, for acting is also required. And therefore first he illumines the intellect to know. And therefore he says, I will give my laws, etc. And he says it in the plural, on account of the diverse precepts and counsels. And this the Holy Spirit does. I Jo. II, 27: his unction teacheth you. Jo. XIV, 26: he shall teach you all things, etc. Likewise he inclines the affection to act well, whence it is imprinted on the heart. And as to this he says, I will write them upon their heart, that is, upon knowledge I will write charity. But above all things have charity, etc., Col. III, 14, and Rom. V, 5: the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, etc. And this is the epistle, concerning which he adds, II Cor. III, 3: not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart.”

“For if that first covenant had been faultless,.... Not the covenant of works; that was made in paradise, this on Mount Sinai; that was made with Adam and his posterity, this with the Jews only; that had no mediator, this had one, Moses; that was not dedicated with blood, this was; that had no forgiveness of sin in it, this had; under that saints are not, but they were under this; to be under that was no privilege, but to be under this it was, as to the Israelites, who on this account were preferable to all other nations: nor is the pure covenant of grace as administered under the Gospel, meant; for though that was first made, yet is the second in administration; that includes the elect of God among the Gentiles, this only the Jews; that is made only with them, and is made known to them whom God calls by his grace in time, this was made with good and bad; that was of pure grace, this required works in order to life and the enjoyment of its blessings; that is an everlasting covenant, this is done away; and the one is manifestly distinguished from the other in this chapter: but the covenant here designed is the covenant of grace, as administered under the legal dispensation, and which was a typical one; the people with whom it was made were typical of the true Israel of God; the blessings promised in it were shadows of good things to come; the works it required were typical of Christ's obedience to the law, in the room and stead of his people, by which he fulfilled it; the sacrifices on which it was established were types of the sacrifice and death of Christ; the mediator of it. Moses, was a type of Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant; and it was confirmed by the blood of beasts, which was typical of the blood of Christ: this covenant was not "faultless", but was faulty or blameworthy; not that there was anything sinful and criminal in it, but it was deficient; there was a weakness in it; its sacrifices could not make men perfect, nor take away sin; there wanted a larger supply of the grace of the Spirit to write the law of God upon the heart, and to enable men to keep it; there was not in it so full a revelation of the mind and will of God, and of his love and grace, as has since been made; nor did it exhibit a free and full pardon for all sins, unclogged of every condition; the persons that were under it were faulty; hence it follows, that God found fault with them, they could not answer the requirements and end of it: had it been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second; the covenant of grace unveiled in the Gospel dispensation, called the better testament, the better covenant, and the new covenant; in order to, introduce which, the first was removed, that this might succeed it; just as because there was no perfection by the Levitical priesthood, it became necessary that another priest should arise, of another order.”

“If that first had been faultless - This is nearly the same argument with that in Heb 7:11. The simple meaning is: If the first covenant had made a provision for and actually conferred pardon and purity, and given a title to eternal life, then there could have been no need for a second; but the first covenant did not give these things, therefore a second was necessary; and the covenant that gives these things is the Christian covenant.”

“Same reasoning as in Heb 7:11. faultless--perfect in all its parts, so as not to be found fault with as wanting anything which ought to be there: answering all the purposes of a law. The law in its morality was blameless (Greek, "amomos"); but in saving us it was defective, and so not faultless (Greek, "amemptos"). should no place have been sought--as it has to be now; and as it is sought in the prophecy (Heb 8:8-11). The old covenant would have anticipated all man's wants, so as to give no occasion for seeking something more perfectly adequate. Compare on the phrase "place . . . sought," Heb 12:17.”