had now crucified the Lord. They preferred Moses unto him. And while thirsting for his blood, they guarded against whatever ceremonial pollution might prevent them from eating the passover, John xviii. 28. compare Acts vi. 13, 14. And in all this, the same carnal spirit was working in them, as of old in their fathers against such as clave unto the promise. We therefore hold it for a certain truth, that the two women and their sons, typified two parties which were to be found among the Israelites. For all along from the giving of the law at Sinai, there were two partics in the church, the one looking for life in virtue of the Abrahamic covenant only, the other seeking it by their o bedience to the Sinaitic: The former justified by faitlí in the promised Seed, the other remaining under the curse of the fiery law. The former were the children of Abraham's faith, walking in his steps, Rom. iv. 12. the latter the children of his flesh only. And, as ar. gues our apostle elsewhere, they who were the children of the flesh only, were not the children of God; but the children of the promise were counted for the seed, Rom. ix. 8. The one were Israel after the flesh only, 1 Cor. x. 18. the other the Israel of God, Gal. vi. 16. The one were the spiritual posterity of Sara, as Peter with our apostle speaks, 1 Pet. iii. 6. the other the figurative offspring of Hagar. And therefore the one were heirs of the heavenly inheritance, the other, excluded from it. The former sweetly coalesced into one body with the believing Gentiles, the latter rejected Christ, and persecuted all who believed in him. All these things are included in effect in the address to the church, first represented as a woman who had long been barren, and then as a city which God would adorn and defend. It runs, All thy children shall be taught of the Lord: and great shall be the peace of thy children, Isa. liv. 13. Now, since Divine illumination and comfort are promised to the children of the woman, who had so long been desolate, we may infer, especially after what we have heard from the apostle;

that the children of her who is called the married wife, should be destitute of both.

Having thus seen what was signified by the two women and their sons, we may safely instance in some particulars, how these things are allegorized.

1st, Sara was married, and Isaac promised, to Abraham, long before Hagar was heard of. In like manner the patriarchal church existed, and had the promise of the personal, and the numerous believing seed, long before the Sinai covenant, and those who sought to be justified by it. As Hagar's being taken into Sara's place could not disannul her marriage with Abraham, no more could the Sinai covenant make void the Abrahamic. This important circumstance our apostle observes, Gal. iii. 17. This I say, the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. Abraham was 75 years of age when he got the promise, that in him all the nations of the earth should be blessed, Gen. xii. 3, 4. From thence to Isaac's birth was 25 years, Gen. xxi. 5.; from thence to Jacob's 60, Gen. xxv. 26.; and from thence to his descent into Egypt 130, chap. xlvii. 9.; all which make 215 years, and the other 215 the Israelites abode in Egypt, as we learn from Exod. xii. 40, 41. where we are expressly told that the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years. And at the end of the 430 years, even the self-same day it came to pass, that all the host of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. With this difference of time between the promise and the law, we may compare that which took place betwixt the promise and Abraham's turning aside to Hagar. It is observable that she was an Egyptian, Gen. xvi. 1. and probably one of the hand-maids, whom Pharaoh gave Abraham for Sara's sake, Gen. xii. 16. But though by office a servant, she soon was taken into her mistress's place. So the carnal Jews turned aside to the Sinai law, which was designed to be subservient to the Abrahamic promise. Losing sight of the one, they clave unto the

other for righteousness and life. As it was not so clearly revealed at first by whom the patriarch was to have issue; Sara, ten years after the promise, counselled him to go into Hagar, that by her she might have children, Gen. xvi. 3. In like manner, Israel which followed after righteousness, did not attain it, because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law, Rom. ix. 31, 32. They called Abraham their father, John viii. 39. and yet they trusted in Moses, chap. v. 45. After all the efforts of the legalist, it is only an Ishmael who is brought forth, not an Isaac. The covenant from Sinai gendereth to bondage.

2dly. Sara was free, Hagar not. In like manner the patriarchal church was free from the guilt and dominion of sin, not so the carnal Israelites. This important difference is observed by our apostle, both in the history, and the mystery. It is written, says he, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. Brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free. Such as sought righteousness in virtue of the promise only, were heirs of eternal life, while they who sought it by the law, were staked down under the curse. So then, says our apostle, they who are of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. But as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse, Gal. iii. 9, 10. As Abraham the father believed the promise, and righteousness was thereupon imputed unto him, Gen. xv. 6. so his believing seed trusting in the same promise, had the selfsame righteousness imputed unto them, Rom. iv. 24. The blessing of Abraham, i. e. the blessing wherewith he was blessed, comes on the Gentiles through faith, viz. imputed righteousness, and the sanctifying Spirit here, together with eternal glory hereafter, Gal. iii. 8, 9, 14, 18. Such were the privileges of the patriarchal church. But none of these did the carnal Israelites enjoy. By that law to which they clave, they were accursed, as its awful sentence expressly bore: Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them, Gal. iii. 10. Christ

the personal Seed has redeemed the collective seed of the free woman, while the children of the bond are left to perish under the curse, Gal. iii. 13.and iv.5. How glorious that liberty wherewith he hath made the former free! How galling that yoke in which the latter are entangled!

sdly, Sara was the true wife, Hagar not. In like manner the patriarchal church was truly married unto the Lord, not so the carnal Israelites. I need not labour the point in proving, that polygamy, however much in use under the Old Testament dispensation, was unlawful. In the first marriage, God set a precedent for all future ages. The innocent man had but one wife, and never were his guilty sons entitled to any more at one and the same time. They twain, said our Lord, shall be one flesh, Matt. xix. 5. Not they three, or more, as licentious nature shall dictate. It cannot be doubted but that as Sara's advice to Abraham originated in a mistake, so he was guilty in hearkening to it. Disagreeable consequences followed, respecting all the parties. Hagar despised Sara. Sara dealt hardly with her. And the erring patriarch was greatly grieved, Gen. xvi. 5, 6. and xxi. 11. Now, as Hagar was not the true wife, but Sara; so such as adhered to the Sinai covenant for life, were not the true church of God, but they only who Abraham-like believed in the promise. Of the unbelieving Israel, God could say, as of the openly idolatrous, She is not my wife, neither am I her husband, Hos. ii. 2. They were not truly espoused unto him, for they believed not his / word. They had not the honours of the Lamb's wife, but were in a servile state.

But here a difficulty occurs, arising from the bondwoman being called the married-wife, or she which hath an husband. The congratulation expressly runs, More are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord. To remove this, it is to be observed that she is not said to be married to the Lord; whereas the barren woman is congratulated that her Maker is her husband, the Lord of

Hosts is his name. And from this it is not unnatural to infer, that he was not the husband of her who is cal led the married wife. She was married to another indeed than to him, viz. to the Sinai law. As Abraham, forsaking Sara, turned aside to Hagar; so the carnal Jews embraced the law as their husband, instead of the Lord himself. They rested in it, and expected life by it, instead of resting and rejoicing in the promised Seed. To this solution we are led by what our apostle writes unto the Romans, among whom were many Jews. Compare Acts xviii. 2. with Rom. ii. 1729. Addressing himself particularly unto them, chap. vii. 1-4. he says, Know ye not, brethren, for I speak to them that know the law, how that the law has dominion over a man as long as it liveth I read it, not he, the life here belonging to the law, not to the man, as appears from the connexion. For, adds the apostle, the woman which hath an husband, is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Having mentioned this doctrine, so well known to the believing Jews, he next applies it. Wherefore, my brethren, says he, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

From this passage it is evident that they had been married to the law, as their husband. But now it was become dead to them, (verse 6th) they to it, and were married to another, even to the risen Redeemer. And as with them in their irregenerate state, so with all the other Jews, they were married indeed, not to the Lord, but to the law. Satisfactory as this solution is, I cannot but subjoin the words of an eminent Commentator. "It is equal to me, says he, whether you say with the apostle to the Romans, that the husband given to the church at Sinai, is the law and its dectes, or God himself bringing the church under the bondage of the law,