Hence it appears, that the old and new covenant are compared, or contrasted with each other, in the New Testament, on very different accounts. Sometimes a comparison is stated between them, on purpose to shew the difference between the covenant of grace and the covenant of works, or the way of falvation by grace and the way of falvation by works*. Thus when the apostle opposes the promise, the law of faith, or covenant of grace, to the law, or old covenant; it is plain, that this is to be understood no otherwise than as a covenant of works. So that the law of works which he speaks of, is the very fame with the covenant of works made with Adam before the fall, which, for fome special and weighty reasons, was repeated, and published with awful folemnity on Mount Sinai.

The two covenants are, by the fame apostle, elfewheret, compared for a very different reason; namely, to shew how far the dispensation of grace under the New Testament excels that legal and imperfect administration of the covenant of grace which the church was under before the coming of the Meffiah. And when the old covenant is thus contrafted with the new, by it we are to understand that whole typical dispensation which Ifrael and the Jervish church were under during the Mofaic economy; and by the new covenant, not the covenant of grace, but that more excellent and glorious administration thereof which has taken place fince the coming of Christ, and the erection of the gospel-church.

And here it may be obferved, that, without attending carefully to those different views that are

*

Rom. iii. Gal. iii. 4. 24. + Heb. viii. ix. x. See alfo 2 Cor. iii.

given

:

given of the two covenants in the apoftolic writings, it is impoffible to understand the scope and tendency, or perceive the force and propriety of the apostle's reasoning in those passages, where he states a comparison between the law and the gof. pel, the old and new covenant, and sets the one in oppofition to the other. Let the impartial reader then judge, whether the author of the letters had any reason to afssert, with so much confidence as he does, that the commonly received distinction betwixt the covenant of works and the covenant of grace serves to set aside, obfcure and confound the capital distinction set before us in the apoftolic writings, betwixt the old and new covenant. He might with equal reason have affirmed, that the distinction between the law of works and the gospel, or the covenant of grace upon which the apoftle Paul builds much of his reasoning in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, served to set aside, obscure and confound the distinction which the fame apostle sets before us, in the 8th and 9th chapters of his epistle to the Hebrews, betwixt the first and second covenant, and thus taxed the infpired apostle with inconsistency and felf-contradiction. For it must be evident to every one who attentively considers the scope of the apostle's reasoning in those places where he opposes the promise, or covenant of grace, to the law, that the distinction which he makes betwixt them tallies exactly, or rather is the very fame with that distinction betwixt the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, which this Gentleman would make us believe owes its rife only to the fond conceit of some syftematic divines, and has a manifest tendency to confound the fcriptural distinction betwixt the old and new covenant.

This author also attempts to fix a charge of contradicting the apostle Paul upon those who teach, that these covenants are sometimes compared and opposed to each other in the New Teftament, not as two covenants differing in substance from each other, but as two difpenfations of one and the fame covenant *: yet nothing can be more plain, than that the apostle, in the 8th and 9th chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews, does not speak of them as two covenants for life and falvation specifically distinct from each other, but only as containing two different administrations of one and the fame covenant. This must be granted, unless we shall suppose that the Levitical priesthood, facrifices, and ceremonies belonging to the Old Testament economy, had no relation at all to Jesus Christ, or the covenant of grace, or no way belonged to the adminiftration of that covenant.

But there is no room for any supposition of this kind, while the apostle plainly intimates, that the great design of all these was to typify and prefigure Chrift, his priesthood and facrifice, with those spiritual blessings and privileges which were thereby purchased and fecured to all his people; and therefore he calls them patterns and figures of heavenly or spiritual things, and tells us, that the law had a shadow of good things to come t. Hence it is abundantly evident, that Chrift, his righteousness and grace, were exhibited, though darkly, to the faith of believers under the Old Testament dispensation.

As Palemon, with a degree of confidence peculiar to himself, has thought proper to reject what

* Letters on Theron, &c. p. 355. † Heb. ix. 23, 24

X. I.

is

is contained in the confeffions of all the Reformed churches, and has hitherto been tanght by all found Proteftant divines, concerning the covenant of works, and the two different administrations of the covenant of grace, it might have been expected, that he would at least have clearly delivered his own opinion concerning them; but all we have from him is comprised in a few dark hints, which it is difficult to make any thing of. Hence it would appear, that his design was rather to overthrow, than to build; for he cavils at almost every thing, without establishing any thing, or even so much as attempting to do so, by any fair method of reasoning. He indeed, somewhere, is pleased to tell us, "that he would not chuse to " rank with those who unsettle two points where "they fix one * : but we do not find that he has been so'good as his word; for we cannot help thinking, that he has endeavoured to unfettle many points of great importance where he has fixed

none.

Had this writer acted as ingenuous and fair a part as most of those systematic divines whom he treats with so much contempt, have done, we might much more easily have formed a judgment concerning his scheme of principles, and known what is his real opinion with regard to the several points in controversy between him and his antatagonists. They ordinarily deliver their sentiments in such a plain and regular method, as gives the reader an easy view of what they maintain; of the connection of the several purposes they treat of, and the dependance which one part of their scheme has upon another: but it is evident, that fuch a method would not at all have fuited the

* Letters on Theron, &c. p. 214.

de

design of this author, which, fo far as I can perceive, is rather to defame, and pour contempt upon the memory of his opponents, than with a becoming zeal to affert and vindicate the truths of the gospel, in opposition to the several errors and false opinions by which proud self-feeking men have endeavoured to obfcure and pervert them.

One thing, relating to the distinction betwixt the old and new covenant, is confidently asserted by our author, which deferves particular notice, as being evidently false in itself, and having a native tendency to give a false view of, and beget very erroneous notions concerning some important truths taught, and inculcated, in several passages of the apoftolic writings. He affirms, that the distinction betwixt the old and new covenant is the fame with the distinction betwixt flesh and spirit, so often mentioned in the New Testamentt. Hence an unwary reader may be apt to conclude, that wherever the words fiesh and Spirit occur in the New Testament, they signify the old and new covenant; and that wherever the inspired writers diftinguish, or put a difference, betwixt flesh and fpirit, and oppose the one to the other, they intend only to set before us the distinction betwixt the old and new covenant; or that typical difpensation the Old Testament church was under, and the more spiritual dispensation of grace which the church has been under since the coming of the Meffiah, and the erection of the gospel-kingdom. But this is such an extravagant imagination, and so contrary to the plain scope of the several pafsages in the New Testament, in which the flesh and spirit are diftinguished from, and opposed to, each other; that I can hardly perfuade myself,

+ Letters, &c. p. 354.

!