and would. Thus, thus they put their neck under the yoke of the covenant of works.

Object. 4th. Fourthly. It may be objected, that the law is not contrary to the promise, since the apostle rejects such a thought, with a God forbid, Gal. 3. 21.

To this we answer, That the law in its own nature, and as perverted by sinners, is contrary to the pro mise: but in the intention of God the lawgiver it is not. In its own nature it bore a method of obtaining the inheritance, so far different from that of the promise, that it was inconsistent with it. Gal. iii. 18. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. None can be saved partly by the one, and partly by the other; whosoever cleaves to the one, thereby gives up, in the judgment of God, all pretensions to be sav ed by the other. Rom. iv. 14. For if they who are of the law be heirs, the promise is made of none effect..

They are so contrary in their nature that the ones promiseth nothing but upon conditions now insuperable to us; the other promiseth all things, grace and glory, the means and the end; the one is inexorable in its demands, the other absolutely free in its gifts. The law is also contrary to the promise, as it is perverted by sinners. They look to it for life; while, sensible of their inability to come up to its high demands, they ought to cleave to the promise. They think that by their lame obedience to the law, they may obtain the promised life. In all this they act contrary to God's design in giving the law from Sinai. There he gave not in contradiction to the promise made to Abraham, but in subserviency to it, to shew unto sinners their transgressions and their guilt; and of consequence to drive them unto Christ. Had it been given as another way of obtaining the inheritance, truly the promise had been dis annulled, God would not have been one, one in pur poses and actions, and the law would have been against the promises.

Object. 5th. Fifthly. It may be said that the apostle intimates there was no law which could give life, and ⚫ therefore no covenant of works promising life to perfect

obedience, and of consequence the doctrine of the two covenants must fall to the ground. Gal. iii. 21. If there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Does not this imply that no such law was ever given? To this we answer, If the law cannot now give life, from the beginning it was not so, for it was ordained to life, Rom. vii. 10. That it cannot give life, is not the fault of the law, but of the violators.. If it could not give life upon condition of perfect obedience, then the young man in the gospel could not have entered into life by keeping the commandments, Matt. xix. 17. Then it would not be true that the law was weak through the flesh, Rom. viii. 3. but weak in and of itself. To understand our apostle, therefore, let us compare Gal. iii. 21. with the preceding context. There are two givings of the law mentioned in scripture; one to Adam in innocence, another to Moses on mount Sinai. The one was more than 2000 years before the promise to Abraham, the other 430 years after it. When given the first time, it was able to give life, but not when given the second time; inasmuch as it was then a broken law. It is evident that the apostle speaks of the law not as given to Adam, but to Moses; given hundreds of years posterior to the promise. He speaks of a law that was added not to give life, but because of transgressions which entered, that the offence might abound, Rom. v. 20. which was added by way of subserviency to the promise, as Hagar was a handmaid to Sara; a law ordained by angels in the hand of Moses, a typical mediator. Hence the giving of the law, verse 21st, must be the same, with the adding, with the ordaining of it, verse 19th. He does not therefore speak of the law as it was from the beginning, but as it was 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant. Compare with this, Rom. v. 13. Until the law, sin was in the world, i. e. until the law was given by Moses. For otherwise the law behoved to be before sin, because where no law is, there is no transgression, Rom. iv. 15.

So much for answer to objections. Having thus

shown that the two covenents mentioned in the text, are not the two Testaments, but the covenants of works and of grace, let us now attempt to improve this part of the subject. And what can more naturally occur, than to observe in the

1st Place, That the covenants and the testaments› must not be confounded, being things so. vastly distinct. The one covenant only is Christ's: both the Testaments are his. The one covenant was made with him: the Testaments were made by him. The Old immediately after the fall: the New in the fulness of time, when he was made flesh. There is an essential difference between the two covenants: but a modal only between the two Testaments. The former differ as did Sara and Hagar: the latter as did Isaac a child from Isaac a man. The covenant of works had nothing testamentary in its nature, all its promises turning purely on the obedience of the party with whom it was made. The covenant of grace necessarily includes a testament; all its blessings being freely bequeathed by Jesus Christ the testator. As made between the Father and the Son, it has the nature of a federal transaction: as made over unto us, it has that of a testamentary deed. In the former case it was made between equals, and that on the most onerous terms: in the latter it is made by the God-man in favours of sinful dust and ashes. The testament presupposes the covenant, as the superstructure the foundation; or as the manner of a thing does the thing itself. The covenant of grace is one: the Testaments are two. The manner in which the covenant was administered before the coming of the Son was the Old Testament: that in which it is administered since he came, is the New. The former was confirmed by the blood of the typical sacrifices: the latter by his own blood. Some ordinances and promises were pecu, liar to the Old Testament: some common to it with the New. The passover and the promise respecting Messiah's first coming belonged to the former class: prayer and the promise of the Spirit to the latter.

To confound the two Testaments with the two covenants, as it is an egregious error, so productive of most pernicious consequences. Hence it is that the state of Old Testament believers has been so much misrepresented by some. The truth is, these two dispensations differ only as the dawning from the day; and those who were under them, as children from the adult. To know when the covenants are opposed, and when the Testaments, serves as a key to unlock the cabinet of precious truth. Inattention to this, has, in several instances, led the chosen and faithful into mistakes, as to the meaning of particular passages. The leading view of our apostle in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, is to state the difference between the two covenants; and in that to the Hebrews, the difference between the two Testaments. In Rom. v. 14-21. he runs the contrast between the two Adams, the offence of the one, and the obedience of the other, together with the consequences of both. But in the epistle to the Hebrews, the opposition is between servant and son, chap. iii. 5-6; priest and priest, chap. v. 1-5; priesthood and priesthood, chap. vii. 11, 12, 24.; surety and surety, chap. vii. 20.-22; sacrifice and sacrifice, chap. ix. 25, 26.; blood and blood, chap. ix. 12.; sanctuary and sanctuary, chap. viii. 2. and ix. 1, 8.; vail and vail, chap. vi. 19. ix. 3 -7 and x. 19, 20.; ministry and ministry, chap. viii. 4-6. and x. 11-14; mountain and mountain, chap. xii. 18-22. The opposition between the two Testaments is the same as in all these instances. It is to be observed, however, that the two Testaments are according to our version, called two covenants in the 8th of the Hebrews. This appears with the most convincing evidence from the 9th chapter, which is nothing but a continuation of what the apostle had begun in the 8th. The first covenant, says he, had a worldly sanctuary, chap. ix. 1. True, the word covenant is a supplement here. But that it is justly supplied, appears from the close of the 8th chapter. In that he saith a new, he hath made the first old, where it is evident as the

light, the word covenant must be understood. The apostle having been so expressly contrasting the two covenants or Testaments, chap. viii. 6-9. the word Tabernacle cannot be the proper supplement. For then the reading would be, the first tabernacle had a worldly sanctuary, which is a palpable tautology, that tabernacle being itself the worldly sanctuary. The va rious particulars specified by the apostle, the candlestick, the table, the shew-bread, &c. are so many demonstrations, that the sanctuary here, is not the garden of Eden, where our first parents paid divine honours to their Maker, but the Mosaic tabernacle, the centre of worship under the Old Testament dispensation, chap. viii. 5. It also merits our observation, that in chap. ix. 15. the apostle distinguishes the new Testament from the first Testament, and as he himself argues, chap. viii. ult. a new Testament implies that the first was the old. He further tells us that the first Testament was not dedicated without blood, chap. ix, 18-20. implying that the second behoved to be de dicated by blood also. These passages clearly evince that the two covenants in the 8th of the Hebrews, are the same with the two Testaments mentioned in the 9th, the one taking place under the one priesthood, chap. vii. 11. the other under the other, verse 12, 24.; The one made by the instrumentality of Moses, the typical mediator; the other by Christ the true: The one respecting the Israelites, when they came out of Egypt, Hag. ii. 5.; the other relating to all nations to whom the word of salvation is sent, Mat. xxviii. 19.: The former confirmed by the blood of calves and of goats, called therefore the blood of the Testament, Heb. ix. 20.; the latter by Christ's own blood, called therefore the blood of the new Testament, Mark xiv. 24. The first took place under the first tabernacle, Heb. ix. 8.; the second takes place under the true, chap. viii. 2. and ix. 24. All this coincides with what we read, chap. x. 9. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. When Christ is called the surety of a better testament, chap. vii. 22. the