Hebrews 8 — Verse 6

But now he has obtained a more excellent Ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which was established on better Promises.

In this verse begins the second part of the chapter, concerning the difference between the two Covenants, the Old and the New, with the preeminence of the latter above the former; and of the Ministry of Christ above the High Priests on that account. The whole Church state of the Jews, with all the ordinances and worship of it, and the privileges annexed to it, depend wholly on the Covenant that God made with them at Sinai. But the introduction of this new Priesthood whereof the Apostle is discoursing, did necessarily abolish that Covenant, and put an end to all sacred ministrations that belonged to it. And this could not well be offered to them, without the supply of another Covenant which should excel the former in privileges and advantages. For it was granted among them, that it was the design of God to carry on the Church to a perfect state, as has been declared on Chap. 7. Therefore he would not lead it backward, nor deprive it of any thing it had enjoyed, without provision of what was better in its room. This therefore the Apostle here undertakes to declare. And he does it after his wonted manner from such principles and testimonies as were admitted among themselves.

Two things to this purpose he proves by express testimonies out of the Prophet Jeremiah.

1. That besides the Covenant made with their Fathers in Sinai, God had promised to make another Covenant with the Church, in his appointed time and season.

2. That this other promised Covenant should be of another nature than the former, and much more excellent as to spiritual advantages, to them who were taken into it.

From both these fully proved, the Apostle infers the necessity of the abrogation of that first Covenant, wherein they trusted, and to which they adhered, when the appointed time was come. And hereon he takes occasion to declare the nature of the two Covenants in sundry instances, and wherein the differences between them did consist. This is the substance of the remainder of this chapter.

This verse is a transition from one subject to another, namely, from the excellency of the Priesthood of Christ above that of the Law, to the excellency of the New Covenant above the Old. And herein also the Apostle artificially comprises and confirms his last argument, of the preeminence of Christ, his Priesthood and Ministry above those of the Law. And this he does from the nature and excellency of that Covenant whereof he was the Mediator in the discharge of his office.

There are two parts of the words.

1. An assertion of the excellency of the Ministry of Christ. And this he expresses by way of comparison. He has obtained a more excellent Ministry: and after declares the degree of that comparison; By how much also.

2. He annexes the proof of this assertion, in that he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, established on better or more excellent Promises.

In the first of these there occur these five things.

- 1. The note of its introduction; But now. - 2. What is ascribed in the assertion to the Lord Christ, and that is a Ministry. - 3. How he came by that Ministry; He has obtained it. - 4. The quality of this Ministry; it is better or more excellent than the other. - 5. The measure and degree of this excellency; By how much also: all which must be spoken to, for the opening of the words.

1. The introduction of the assertion is by the particles [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], But now; [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], now, is a note of time, of the present time. But there are instances where these adverbial particles thus conjoined, do not seem to denote any time or season, but are merely adversative (Romans 7:17; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Chap. 7:14). But even in those places there seems a respect to time also, and therefore I know not why it should be here excluded. As therefore there is an opposition intended to the Old Covenant, and the Levitical Priesthood; so the season is intimated of the introduction of that Covenant, and the better Ministry wherewith it was accompanied. Now, at this time, which is the season that God has appointed for the introduction of the New Covenant and Ministry. To the same purpose the Apostle expresses himself, treating of the same subject (Romans 3:26), to declare [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], at this instant season, now the Gospel is preached, his righteousness.

Ob. God in his infinite wisdom gives proper times and seasons to all his dispensations to and towards the Church. So the accomplishment of these things was in the fulness of times (Ephesians 1:10), that is, when all things rendered it seasonable and suitable to the condition of the Church, and for the manifestation of his own glory. He hastens all his works of grace in their own appointed time (Isaiah 60:22). And our duty it is, to leave the ordering of all the concerns of the Church in the accomplishment of promises, to God in his own time (Acts 1:7).

2. That which is ascribed to the Lord Christ is [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], a Ministry. The Priests of old had a Ministry, they ministered at the Altar, as in the foregoing verse. And the Lord Christ was a Minister also; so the Apostle had said before, he was [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], ver. 2, a Minister of the holy things. Therefore he had a liturgy, a Ministry, a service committed to him. And two things are included herein.

1. That it was an office of Ministry that the Lord Christ undertook. He is not called a Minister with respect to one particular act of ministration; so are we said to minister to the necessity of the Saints, which yet denotes no office in them that do so. But he had a standing office committed to him, as the word imports. In that sense also he is called [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], a Minister in office (Romans 15:8).

2. Subordination to God is included herein. With respect to the Church his office is supreme, accompanied with sovereign power and authority; He is Lord over his own house. But he holds his office in subordination to God, being faithful to him that appointed him. So the Angels are said to minister to God (Daniel 7:10), that is, to do all things according to his will, and at his command. So had the Lord Christ a Ministry. And we may observe,

That the whole office of Christ was designed to the accomplishment of the will and dispensation of the grace of God. For these ends was his ministry committed to him. We can never sufficiently admire the love and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in undertaking this office for us. The greatness and glory of the duties which he performed in the discharge thereof, with the benefits we receive thereby are unspeakable, being the immediate cause of all grace and glory. Yet we are not absolutely to rest in them, but to ascend by faith to the eternal spring of them. This is the grace, the love, the mercy of God, all acted in a way of sovereign power. These are everywhere in the Scripture represented as the original spring of all grace, and the ultimate object of our faith, with respect to the benefits which we receive by the mediation of Christ. His office was committed to him of God, even the Father, and his will did he do in the discharge of it. Yet also

The condescension of the Son of God to undertake the office of the ministry on our behalf, is unspeakable, and for ever to be admired. Especially will it appear so to be, when we consider who it was who undertook it, what it cost him, what he did and underwent in the pursuance and discharge of it, as it is all expressed (Philippians 2:6, 7, 8). Not only what he continues to do in Heaven at the right hand of God belongs to this ministry, but all that he suffered also upon the Earth. His ministry in the undertaking of it, was not a dignity, a promotion, a revenue (Matthew 20:28). It is true, it is issued in glory, but not until he had undergone all the evils that humane nature is capable of undergoing. And we ought to undergo any thing cheerfully for him, who underwent this ministry for us.

The Lord Christ by undertaking this office of the ministry, has consecrated and made honorable that office to all, that are rightly called to it, and do rightly discharge it. It is true, his ministry and ours, are not of the same kind and nature; but they agree in this, that they are both of them a ministry to God, in the holy things of his worship. And considering that Christ himself was God's minister, we have far greater reason to tremble in ourselves on an apprehension of our own insufficiency for such an office, than to be discouraged with all the hardships and contests we meet withal in the world upon the account of it.

The general way whereby our Lord Christ came to this ministry, is expressed, [in non-Latin alphabet], He obtained it. [in non-Latin alphabet] is either sorte contingo, to have a lot or portion, or to have any thing befall a man, as it were by accident; or assequor, obtineo, to attain, or obtain any thing which before we had not. But the Apostle designs not to express in this word the especial call of Christ, or the particular way whereby he came to his ministry, but only in general that he had it, and was possessed of it, in the appointed season, which before he had not. The way whereby he entered on the whole office and work of his mediation, he expresses by [in non-Latin alphabet] (Chap. 1:4): he had it by inheritance, that is, by free grant and perpetual donation, made to him as the Son. See the exposition on that place.

There were two things that concurred to his obtaining this ministry. (1) The eternal purpose and counsel of God, designing him thereunto; an act of the divine will accompanied with infinite wisdom, love and power. (2) The actual call of God, whereunto many things did concur, especially his unction with the Spirit above measure for the holy discharge of his whole office. Thus did he obtain this ministry, and not by any legal constitution, succession, or carnal rite, as did the priests of old. And we may see that

The exaltation of the humane nature of Christ into the office of this glorious ministry, depended solely on the sovereign wisdom, grace and love of God. When the humane nature of Christ was united to the divine, it became in the Person of the Son of God meet and capable to make satisfaction for the sins of the Church, and to procure righteousness and life eternal for all that do believe. But it did not merit that union, nor could do so. For as it was utterly impossible that any created nature, by any act of its own should merit the hypostatical union; so it was granted to the humane nature of Christ antecedently to any act of its own in way of obedience to God. For it was united to the Person of the Son, by virtue of that union. Therefore antecedently to it, it could merit nothing. Hence its whole exaltation and the ministry that was discharged therein, depended solely on the sovereign wisdom and pleasure of God. And in this election and designation of the humane nature of Christ to grace and glory, we may see the pattern and example of our own. For if it was not upon the consideration or foresight of the obedience of the humane nature of Christ, that he was predestinated and chosen to the grace of the hypostatical union, with the ministry and glory which depended thereon, but of the mere sovereign grace of God; how much less could a foresight of any thing in us, be the cause why God should choose us in him before the foundation of the world to grace and glory?

The quality of this ministry thus obtained as to a comparative excellency, is also expressed, [in non-Latin alphabet], more excellent. The word is used only in this Epistle in this sense, Chap. 1:4, and in this place. The original word denotes only a difference from other things; but in the comparative degree as here used, it signifies a difference with a preference, or a comparative excellency. The ministry of the Levitical priests was good and useful in its time and season. This of our Lord Jesus Christ so differed from it, as to be better than it, and more excellent, [in non-Latin alphabet]. And

There is added hereunto the degree of this preeminence so far as it is intended in this place, and the present argument, in the word [in non-Latin alphabet], by how much. So much more excellent by how much. The excellency of his ministry above that of the Levitical priests, bears proportion with the excellency of the Covenant whereof he was the Mediator, above the Old Covenant wherein they administered, whereof afterwards.

So have we explained the Apostle's assertion, concerning the excellency of the ministry of Christ. And herewith he closes his discourse which he had so long engaged in, about the preeminence of Christ in his office above the high priests of old. And indeed this being the very hinge whereon his whole controversy with the Jews did depend, he could not give it too much evidence, nor too full a confirmation. And as to what concerns ourselves at present, we are taught thereby, That

Ob. It is our duty and our safety to acquiesce universally and absolutely in the ministry of Jesus Christ. That which he was so designed to in the infinite wisdom and grace of God, that which he was so furnished for the discharge of, by the communication of the Spirit to him in all fulness, that which all other priesthoods were removed to make way for, must needs be sufficient and effectual for all the ends to which it is designed. It may be said, this is that which all men do; all that are called Christians do fully acquiesce in the ministry of Jesus Christ. But if it be so, why do we hear the bleating of another sort of cattle? What mean those other priests and reiterated sacrifices which make up the worship of the Church of Rome? If they rest in the ministry of Christ, why do they appoint one of their own to do the same things that he has done, namely, to offer sacrifice to God?

The proof of this assertion lies in the latter part of these words. By how much he was the Mediator of a better Covenant, established on better promises. The words are so disposed, that some think the Apostle intends not to prove the excellency of the Covenant, from the excellency of his ministry therein. But the other sense is more suited to the scope of the place, and the nature of the argument which the Apostle presses the Hebrews withal. For on supposition that there was indeed another and that a better Covenant to be introduced and established, than that which the Levitical priests served in, which they could not deny; it plainly follows, that he on whose ministry the dispensation of that Covenant did depend, must of necessity be more excellent in that ministry, than they who appertained to that Covenant which was to be abolished. However it may be granted that these things do mutually testify to and illustrate one another. Such as the priest is, such is the Covenant; such as the Covenant is in dignity, such is the priest also.

In the words there are three things observable.

1. What is in general ascribed to Christ, declaring the nature of his ministry, He was a Mediator.

2. The determination of his mediatory office, to the New Covenant, Of a better Covenant.

3. The proof or demonstration of the nature of his Covenant as to its excellency, It was established on better promises.

1. His office is that of a Mediator, [in non-Latin alphabet], one that interposed between God and man, for the doing of all those things whereby a Covenant might be established between them, and made effectual. Schlictingius on the place gives this description of a Mediator: Mediatorem faederis esse nihil aliud est, quam Dei esse interpretem, & internuntium in faedere cum hominibus pangendo; per quem scilicet & Deus voluntatem suam hominibus declaret, & illi vicissim divinae voluntatis notitia instructi ad Deum accedant, cumque eo reconciliati, pacem in posterum colant. And Grotius speaks much to the same purpose.

But this description of a Mediator is wholly applicable to Moses, and suited to his office in giving of the Law (see Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 15:27, 28). What is said by them does indeed immediately belong to the mediatory office of Christ, but it is not confined thereunto; yes, it is exclusive of the principal parts of his mediation. And whereas there is nothing in it, but what belongs to the prophetical office of Christ, which the Apostle here does not principally intend, it is most improperly applied as a description of such a Mediator as he does intend. And therefore when he comes afterwards to declare in particular what belonged to such a Mediator of the Covenant as he designed, he expressly places it in his death for the redemption of transgressions (Chapter 9:15), affirming that for that cause he was a Mediator. But hereof there is nothing at all in the description they give us of this office. But this the Apostle does in his elsewhere (1 Timothy 2:5, 6): There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all. The principal part of his mediation consisted in the giving himself a ransom, or a price of redemption for the whole Church. Therefore this description of a Mediator of the New Testament, is feigned only to exclude his satisfaction, or his offering himself to God in his death and blood-shedding with the atonement made thereby.

The Lord Christ then in his ministry is called [in non-Latin alphabet], the Mediator of the Covenant, in the same sense as he is called [in non-Latin alphabet], the Surety, whereof see the exposition on Chapter 7:22. He is in the New Covenant, the Mediator, the Surety, the Priest, the Sacrifice, all in his own Person. The ignorance and want of a due consideration hereof, is the great evidence of the degeneracy of Christian religion.

Whereas this is the first general notion of the office of Christ, that which comprises the whole ministry committed to him, and contains in itself the especial offices of King, Priest, and Prophet, whereby he discharges his mediation, some things must be mentioned that are declarative of its nature and use. And we may to this purpose observe,

1. That to the office of a Mediator, it is required that there be different persons concerned in the Covenant, and that by their own wills, as it must be in every compact of what sort soever. So says our Apostle, A Mediator is not of one, but God is one (Galatians 3:20); that is, if there were none but God concerned in this matter, as it is in an absolute promise or sovereign precept, there would be no need of, no place for a Mediator, such a Mediator as Christ is. Therefore our consent in and to the Covenant is required in the very notion of a Mediator.

That the persons entering into covenant be in such a state and condition, as that it is no way convenient or morally possible, that they should treat immediately with each other as to the ends of the covenant. For if they are so, a Mediator to go between, is altogether needless. So was it in the original covenant with Adam, which had no Mediator. But in the giving of the Law, which was to be a covenant between God and the people, they found themselves utterly insufficient for an immediate treaty with God, and therefore desired that they might have an Internuntius to go between God and them, to bring his proposals, and carry back their consent (Deuteronomy 5:23, 24, 25, 26, 27). And this is the voice of all men really convinced of the holiness of God, and their own condition; such is the state between God and sinners. The Law and the curse of it did so interpose between them, that they could not enter into any immediate treaty with God (Psalm 5:3, 4, 5). This made a Mediator necessary, that the New Covenant might be established, whereof we shall speak afterwards.

That he who is this Mediator, be accepted, trusted, and rested in on both sides or the parties mutually entering into covenant. An absolute trust must be reposed in him, so that each party be everlastingly obliged in what he undertakes on their behalf; and such as admit not of his terms, can have no benefit by no interest in the covenant. So was it with the Lord Christ in this matter. On the part of God, he reposed the whole trust of all the concernments of the covenant in him, and absolutely rested therein. Behold, says he of him, my servant whom I uphold, mine Elect in whom my Soul delights, or is well pleased, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] (Matthew 3:17). When he undertook this office, and said, Lo I come to do your Will, O God, the Soul of God rested in him (Exodus 23:21; John 5:20, 21, 22). And to him he gives an account at last of his discharge of this thing (John 17:4). And on our part, unless we resign ourselves absolutely to a universal trust in him, and reliance on him, and unless we accept of all the terms of the covenant as by him proposed, and engage to stand to all that he has undertaken on our behalf, we can have neither share nor interest in this matter.

A Mediator must be a middle person between both parties entering into covenant, and if they be of different natures, a perfect complete Mediator ought to partake of each of their natures in the same person. The necessity hereof, and the glorious wisdom of God herein, I have elsewhere at large demonstrated, and shall not therefore here again insist upon it.

A Mediator must be one who voluntarily and of his own accord undertakes the work of Mediation. This is required of every one who will effectually mediate between any persons at variance to bring them to an agreement on equal terms. So it was required that the will and consent of Christ should concur in his susception of this office; and that they did so, himself expressly testifies (Chapter 10:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). It is true, he was designed and appointed by the Father to this office, from where he is called his Servant, and constantly witnesses of himself, that he came to do the will and commandment of him that sent him. But he had that to do in the discharge of this office, which could not according to any rules of divine righteousness be imposed on him without his own voluntary consent. And this was the ground of the eternal compact that was between the Father and the Son, with respect to his Mediation, which I have elsewhere explained. And the testification of his own will, grace and love in the susception of this office, is a principal motive to that faith and trust which the Church places in him, as the Mediator between God and them. Upon this his voluntary undertaking does the Soul of God rest in him, and he reposes the whole trust in him of accomplishing his will and pleasure, or the design of his love and grace in this covenant (Isaiah 53:10, 11, 12). And the faith of the Church whereon salvation does depend, must have love to his person inseparably accompanying of it. Love to Christ is no less necessary to salvation, than faith in him. And as faith is resolved into the sovereign wisdom and grace of God in sending him, and his own ability to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him; so love arises from the consideration of his own love and grace in his voluntary undertaking of this office, and the discharge of it.

In this voluntary undertaking to be a Mediator, two things were required.

That he should remove and take out of the way whatever kept the covenanters at distance, or was a cause of enmity between them. For it is supposed that such an enmity there was, or there had been no need of a Mediator. Therefore in the covenant made with Adam, there having been no variance between God and man, nor any distance but what necessarily ensued from the distinct natures of the Creator and a creature, there was no Mediator. But the design of this covenant was to make reconciliation and peace. Hereon therefore depended the necessity of satisfaction, redemption, and the making of atonement by sacrifice. For man having sinned and apostatized from the rule of God, making himself thereby obnoxious to his wrath, according to the eternal rule of righteousness, and in particular to the curse of the Law, there could be no new peace and agreement made with God, unless due satisfaction were made for these things. For although God was willing in infinite love, grace and mercy, to enter into a new covenant with fallen man, yet would he not do it to the prejudice of his righteousness, the dishonour of his rule, and the contempt of his Law. Therefore none could undertake to be a Mediator of this covenant, but he that was able to satisfy the justice of God, glorify his government, and fulfill the Law. And this could be done by none but him, concerning whom it might be said that God purchased his Church with his own blood.

That he should procure and purchase in a way suited to the glory of God, the actual communication of all the good things prepared and proposed in this covenant, that is, grace and glory, with all that belong to them, for them and on their behalf whose Surety he was. And this is the foundation of the merit of Christ, and of the grant of all good things to us for his sake.

7. It is required of this Mediator as such, that he give assurance and undertake to the parties mutually concerned, of the accomplishment of the terms of the covenant, undertaking on each hand for them.

(1) On the part of God towards men, that they shall have peace and acceptance with him in the sure accomplishment of all the promises of the covenant. This he does only declaratively, in the doctrine of the gospel, and in the institution of the ordinances of evangelical worship. For he was not a surety for God, nor did God need any, having confirmed his promise with an oath, swearing by himself, because he had no greater to swear by.

(2) On our part, he undertakes to God, for our acceptance of the terms of the covenant, and our accomplishment of them, by his enabling us to that end.

These things, among others, were necessary to a full and complete mediator of the new covenant, such as Christ was.

The provision of this mediator between God and man was an effect of infinite wisdom and grace. Indeed, it was the greatest and most glorious external effect of them, that ever they did produce, or ever will do in this world. The creation of all things at first out of nothing was a glorious effect of infinite wisdom and power. But when the glory of that design was eclipsed by the entrance of sin, this provision of a mediator, one whereby all things were restored and retrieved into a condition of bringing more glory to God, and securing for ever the blessed estate of them whose mediator he is, is accompanied with more evidences of the divine excellencies than that was (Ephesians 1:10).

Two things are added in the description of this mediator.

- (1) That he was a mediator of a covenant. - (2) That this covenant was a better than another to which respect is had, whereof he was not the mediator.

1. He was the mediator of a covenant. And two things are supposed herein.

First, that there was a covenant made or prepared between God and man; that is, it was so far made, as that God who made it, had prepared the terms of it in a sovereign act of wisdom and grace. The preparation of the covenant consisting in the will and purpose of God graciously to bestow on all men the good things which are contained in it, all things belonging to grace and glory, as also to make way for the obedience which he required herein, are supposed to the constitution of this covenant.

Secondly, that there was need of a mediator that this covenant might be effectual to its proper ends of the glory of God, and the obedience of mankind with their reward. This was not necessary from the nature of a covenant in general; for a covenant may be made and entered into between different parties without any mediator, merely on the equity of the terms of it. Nor was it so from the nature of a covenant between God and man, as man was first created of God. For the first covenant between them was immediate without the interposition of a mediator. But it became necessary from the state and condition of them with whom this covenant was made, and the especial nature of this covenant. This the Apostle declares (Romans 8:3): For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. The law was the moral instrument or rule of the covenant that was made immediately between God and man; but it could not continue to be so after the entrance of sin, that is, so as that God might be glorified thereby, in the obedience and reward of men. Therefore he sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, provided a mediator for a new covenant. The persons with whom this covenant was to be made, being all of them sinners, and apostatized from God, it became not the holiness or righteousness of God to treat immediately with them any more. Nor would it have answered his holy ends so to have done. For if when they were in a condition of uprightness and integrity, they kept not the terms of that covenant which was made immediately with them, without a mediator, although they were holy, just, good, and equal; how much less could any such thing be expected from them in their depraved condition of apostasy from God, and enmity against him? It therefore became not the wisdom of God to enter anew into covenant with mankind, without security that the terms of the covenant should be accepted, and the grace of it made effectual. This we could not give; indeed, we gave all evidences possible to the contrary, in that God saw, that every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5). Therefore it was necessary there should be a mediator to be the surety of this covenant. Again, the covenant itself was so prepared in the counsel, wisdom, and grace of God, as that the principal, indeed all the benefits of it, were to depend on what was to be done by a mediator, and could not otherwise be effected. Such were satisfaction for sin, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, which are the foundation of this [reconstructed: covenant].

2. To proceed with the text, this covenant whereof the Lord Christ is the mediator, is said to be a better covenant. Therefore it is supposed that there was another covenant, whereof the Lord Christ was not the mediator. And in the following verses there are two covenants, a first and a latter, an old and a new compared together. We must therefore consider what was that other covenant, then which this is said to be better; for upon the determination thereof depends the right understanding of the whole ensuing discourse of the Apostle. And because this is a subject wrapped up in much obscurity, and attended with many difficulties, it will be necessary that we use the best of our diligence both in the investigation of the truth, and in the declaration of it, so as that it may be distinctly apprehended. And I shall first explain the text, and then speak to the difficulties which arise from it.

1. There was an original covenant made with Adam and all mankind in him. The rule of obedience and reward that was between God and him, was not expressly called a covenant, but it contained the express nature of a covenant. For it was the agreement of God and man concerning obedience, and disobedience, rewards, and punishments. Where there is a law concerning these things, and an agreement upon it, by all parties concerned, there is a formal covenant. Therefore it may be considered two ways.

As it was a Law only, so it proceeded from and was a consequent of the nature of God and man, with their mutual relation to one another. God being considered as the Creator, Governor and Benefactor of man; and man as an intellectual creature capable of moral obedience. This Law was necessary, and is eternally indispensible.

As it was a Covenant; and this depended on the will and pleasure of God. I will not dispute whether God might have given a Law to men, that should have had nothing in it of a Covenant properly so called, as is the Law of Creation to all other creatures which has no rewards nor punishments annexed to it. Yet this God calls a Covenant also, inasmuch as it is an effect of his purpose, his unalterable will and pleasure (Jeremiah 33:20, 21). But that this Law of our obedience should be a formal compleat Covenant, there was moreover some things required on the part of God, and some also on the part of man. Two things were required on the part of God to compleat this Covenant, or he did so compleat it by two things.

First, by annexing to it promises and threatnings of reward and punishment; the first of grace, the other of justice.

Secondly, the expression of these promises and threatnings in external signs; the first in the Tree of Life, the latter in that of the knowledge of good and evil. By these did God establish the original Law of Creation as a Covenant, gave it the nature of a Covenant. On the part of man, it was required that he accept of this Law as the rule of the Covenant which God made with him. And this he did two ways.

By the innate principles of light and obedience concreated with his nature. By these he absolutely and universally assented to the Law, as proposed with promises and threatnings, as good, holy, just, what was meet for God to require, what was equal and good to himself.

By his acceptance of the commands concerning the Tree of Life, and that of the knowledge of good and evil, as the signs and pledges of this Covenant. So was it established as a Covenant between God and man, without the interposition of any Mediator. This is the Covenant of Works, absolutely the old or first Covenant that God made with men. But this is not the Covenant here intended.

The Covenant called afterwards the first, was [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], a Testament. So it is here called. It was such a Covenant as was a Testament also. Now there can be no Testament, but there must be death for the confirmation of it, Chap. 9. 16. But in the making of the Covenant with Adam, there was not the death of any thing from where it might be called a Testament. But there was the death of beasts in sacrifice in the confirmation of the Covenant at Sinai, as we shall see afterwards. And it must be observed, that although I use the name of a Covenant, as we have rendred the word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], because the true signification of that word will more properly occur to us in another place, yet I do not understand thereby a Covenant properly and strictly so called, but such an one as has the nature of a Testament also, wherein the good things of him that makes it, are bequeathed to them for whom they are designed. Neither the word used constantly by the Apostle in this argument, nor the design of his discourse, will admit of any other Covenant to be understood in this place. Whereas therefore the first Covenant made with Adam was in no sense a Testament also, it cannot be here intended.

That first Covenant made with Adam, was, as to any benefit to be expected from it, with respect to acceptation with God, life and salvation, ceased long before, even at the entrance of sin. It was not abolished or abrogated by any act of God, as a Law, but only was made weak and insufficient to its first end, as a Covenant. God had provided a way for the salvation of sinners, declared in the first Promise. When this is actually embraced, that first Covenant ceaseth towards them, as to its curse, all its concerns as a Covenant, and obligation to sinless obedience, as the condition of life, because both of them are answered by the Mediator of the New Covenant. But as to all those who receive not the grace tendered in the Promise, it does remain in full force and efficacy not as a Covenant, but as a Law, and that because neither the obedience it requires, nor the curse which it threatens are answered. From there if any man believeth not, the wrath of God abideth on him. For its commands and curse depending on the necessary relation between God and man, with the righteousness of God as the Supreme Governor of Mankind, they must be answered and fulfilled. Therefore it was never abrogated formally: but as all unbelievers are still obliged by it, and to it must stand or fall, so it is perfectly fulfilled in all believers, not in their own persons, but in the person of their Surety. God sending forth his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and condemning sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us (Romans 8:3, 4). But as a Covenant obliging to personal, perfect, sinless obedience, as the condition of life, to be performed by themselves, so it ceased to be, long before that introduction of the New Covenant which the Apostle speaks of, that was promised in the latter days. But the other Covenant here spoken of was not removed or taken away, until this New Covenant was actually established.

3. The Church of Israel was never absolutely under the power of that Covenant as a Covenant of Life. For from the days of Abraham, the Promise was given to them and their Seed. And the Apostle proves that no Law could afterwards be given, or Covenant made, that should disannul that Promise (Galatians 3:17). But had they been brought under the Old Covenant of Works, it would have disannulled the Promise. For that Covenant and the Promise are diametrically opposite. And moreover, if they were under that Covenant, they were all under the Curse, and so perished eternally, which is openly false. For it is testified of them that they pleased God by Faith, and so were saved. But it is evident that the Covenant intended, was a Covenant wherein the Church of Israel walked with God, until such time as this better Covenant was solemnly introduced. This is plainly declared in the ensuing context, especially in the close of the Chapter, where speaking of this former Covenant, he says, it was become old, and so ready to disappear. Therefore it is not the Covenant of Works made with Adam that is intended, when this other is said to be a better Covenant.

Secondly, There were other faederal transactions between God and the Church before the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai. Two of them there were into which all the rest were resolved.

1. The first Promise given to our first Parents immediately after the Fall. This had in it the nature of a Covenant, grounded on a Promise of Grace, and requiring obedience in all that received the Promise.

2. The Promise given and sworn to Abraham, which is expressly called the Covenant of God, and had the whole nature of a Covenant in it, with a solemn outward seal appointed for its confirmation and establishment. Hereof we have treated at large on the Sixth Chapter.

Neither of these, nor any transaction between God and man that may be reduced to them, as explanations, renovations, or confirmations of them, are the first Covenant here intended. For they are not only consistent with the New Covenant, so as that there was no necessity to remove them out of the way for its introduction, but did indeed contain in them the essence and nature of it, and so were confirmed therein. Hence the Lord Christ himself is said to be a Minister of the Circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the Promises made to the Fathers (Romans 15:8). As he was the Mediator of the New Covenant, he was so far from taking off from, or abolishing those Promises, that it belonged to his office to confirm them. Therefore

3. The other Covenant or Testament here supposed, whereunto that whereof the Lord Christ was the Mediator is preferred, is none other but that which God made with the people of Israel on Mount Sinai. So it is expressly affirmed, ver. 9: The Covenant which I made with your Fathers in the day I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the Land of Egypt. This was that Covenant which had all the institutions of worship annexed to it (Chap. 9:1, 2, 3), whereof we must treat afterwards more at large. With respect hereunto it is, that the Lord Christ is said to be the Mediator of a better Covenant, that is, of another distinct from it, and more excellent.

It remains to the exposition of the words; that we enquire what was this Covenant, whereof our Lord Christ was the Mediator, and what is here affirmed of it.

This can be no other in general but that which we call the Covenant of Grace. And it is so called in opposition to that of Works, which was made with us in Adam. For these two, Grace and Works, do divide the ways of our relation to God, being diametrically opposite, and every way inconsistent (Romans 11:6). Of this Covenant the Lord Christ was the Mediator from the foundation of the world, namely, from the giving of the first Promise (Revelation 13:8). For it was given on his interposition, and all the benefits of it depended on his future actual mediation.

But here arises the first difficulty of the context, and that in two things. For

(1) If this Covenant of Grace was made from the beginning, and that the Lord Christ was the Mediator of it from the first, then where is the privilege of the Gospel state in opposition to the Law, by virtue of this Covenant? Seeing that under the Law also the Lord Christ was the Mediator of that Covenant which was from the beginning.

(2) If it be the Covenant of Grace which is intended, and that be opposed to the Covenant of Works made with Adam, then the other Covenant must be that Covenant of Works so made with Adam, which we have before disproved.

The answer hereunto is in the word here used by the Apostle concerning this New Covenant, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], whose meaning we must inquire into. I say therefore that the Apostle does not here consider the New Covenant absolutely, and as it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world, in the way of a Promise. For as such it was consistent with that Covenant made with the people in Sinai. And the Apostle proves expressly, that the renovation of it made to Abraham, was no way abrogated by the giving of the Law (Galatians 3:17). There was no interruption of its administration made by the introduction of the Law. But he treats of such an establishment of the New Covenant, as wherewith the old Covenant made at Sinai was absolutely inconsistent, and which was therefore to be removed out of the way. Therefore he considers it here as it was actually completed, so as to bring along with it all the ordinances of worship which are proper to it, the dispensation of the Spirit in them, and all the spiritual privileges wherewith they are accompanied. It is now so brought in as to become the entire rule of the Church's faith, obedience and worship in all things.

This is the meaning of the word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], established, say we. But it is reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance. All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law and ordinance to the Church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and that Covenant which had invisibly in the way of a promise put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified and confirmed in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had not the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible outward worship, proper and peculiar to it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship to the whole Church, nothing being to be admitted therein, but what belongs to it, and is appointed by it. This the Apostle intends by [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], the legal establishment of the New Covenant with all the ordinances of its worship. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed, and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first. Yes, all this was superinduced into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith. When the New Covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. Therefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not to it. And as these being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it, when it was completed as a covenant. For then all the worship of the Church was to proceed from it, and to be conformed to it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer to the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed to the Covenant of Works; as a covenant, it was opposed to that in Sinai. This legalizing, or authoritative establishment of the New Covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging did effect this alteration.

In the last place the Apostle tells us whereon this establishment was made, and that is [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], on better promises. For the better understanding hereof we must consider somewhat of the original and use of divine promises in our relation to God. And we may observe,

1. That every covenant between God and man, must be founded on, and resolved into promises. Hence essentially a promise and a covenant are all one, and God calls an absolute promise founded on an absolute decree, his covenant (Genesis 9:11). And his purpose for the continuation of the course of nature to the end of the world he calls his covenant with day and night (Jeremiah 33:20). The being and essence of a divine covenant lies in the promise. Hence are they called the Covenants of Promise (Ephesians 2:12), such as are founded on and consist in promises. And it is necessary that so it should be.

1. The nature of God who makes these covenants requires that so it should be. It becomes his greatness and goodness in all his voluntary transactions with his creatures, to propose that to them, wherein their advantage, their happiness and blessedness does consist. We enquire not how God may deal with his creatures as such; what he may absolutely require of them, on the account of his own being, his absolute essential excellencies, with their universal dependance upon him. Who can express or limit the sovereignty of God over his creatures? All the disputes about it are fond. We have no measures of what is infinite. May he not do with his own what he pleases? Are we not in his hands, as clay in the hands of the potter? And whether he make or mar a vessel, who shall say to him, What do you? He gives no account of his matters. But upon supposition that he will condescend to enter into covenant with his creatures, and to come to agreement with them according to the terms of it, it becomes his greatness and goodness to give them promises as the foundation of it, wherein he proposes to them the things wherein their blessedness and reward does consist. For (1) herein he proposes himself to them as the eternal spring and fountain of all power and goodness. Had he treated with us merely by a law, he had therein only revealed his sovereign authority and holiness; the one in giving of the law, the other in the nature of it. But in promises he reveals himself as the eternal spring of goodness and power. For the matter of all promises is somewhat that is good; and the communication of it depends on sovereign power. That God should so declare himself in his covenant, was absolutely necessary to direct and encourage the obedience of the covenanters. And he did so accordingly (Genesis 17:1; Genesis 15:1). Hereby he reserves the glory of the whole to himself. For although the terms of agreement which he proposes between himself and us, be in their own nature holy, just and good, which sets forth his praise and glory, yet if there were not something on his part, which has no antecedent respect to any goodness, obedience or desert in us, we should have wherein to glory in ourselves, which is inconsistent with the glory of God. But the matter of those promises wherein the covenant is founded, is free, undeserved, and without respect to any thing in us, whereby it may in any sense be procured. And so in the first covenant which was given in a form of law, attended with a penal sanction, yet the foundation of it was in a promise of a free and undeserved reward, even of the eternal enjoyment of God, which no goodness or obedience in the creature could possibly merit the attainment of. So that if a man should by virtue of any covenant be justified by works, though he might have whereof to glory before men, yet could he not glory before God, as the Apostle declares (Romans 4:2), and that because the reward proposed in the promise does infinitely exceed the obedience performed.

2. It was also necessary on our part, that every Divine Covenant should be founded and established on Promises. For there is no state wherein we may be taken into Covenant with God, but it is supposed we are yet not arrived at that perfection and blessedness whereof our nature is capable, and which we cannot but desire. And therefore when we come to Heaven, and the full enjoyment of God, there shall be no use of any Covenant any more, seeing we shall be in eternal rest in the enjoyment of all the blessedness whereof our nature is capable, and shall immutably adhere to God without any farther expectation. But while we are in the way, we have still somewhat, yes principal parts of our blessedness, to desire, expect, and believe. So in the state of Innocency, though it had all the perfection which a state of obedience according to a law was capable of, yet did not the blessedness of eternal rest, for which we were made, consist therein. Now while it is thus with us, we cannot but be desiring and looking out after that full and complete happiness, which our nature cannot come to rest without. This therefore renders it necessary that there should be a Promise of it given as the foundation of the Covenant, without which we should want our principal encouragement to obedience. And much more must it be so in the state of sin and apostasy from God. For we are now not only most remote from our utmost happiness, but involved in a condition of misery, without a deliverance from which, we cannot be any ways induced to give our selves up to Covenant obedience. Therefore unless we are prevented in the Covenant with Promises of deliverance from our present state, and the enjoyment of future blessedness, no Covenant could be of use or advantage to us.

3. It is necessary from the nature of a Covenant. For every Covenant that is proposed to men, and accepted by them, requires somewhat to be performed on their part, otherwise it is no Covenant. But where any thing is required of them that accept of the Covenant, or to whom it is proposed, it does suppose that somewhat be promised on the behalf of them by whom the Covenant is proposed, as the foundation of its acceptance, and the reason of the duties required in it.

All this appears most evidently in the Covenant of Grace, which is here said to be established on Promises; and that on two Accounts.

(1) At the same time that much is required of us in the way of duty and obedience, we are told in the Scripture, and find it by experience, that of our selves we can do nothing. Therefore unless the precept of the Covenant be founded in a Promise of giving grace and spiritual strength to us, whereby we may be enabled to perform those duties, the Covenant can be of no benefit or advantage to us. And the want of this one consideration that every Covenant is founded in Promises, and that the Promises give life to the Precepts of it, has perverted the minds of many to suppose an ability in our selves of yielding obedience to those Precepts, without grace antecedently received to enable us thereunto, which overthrows the nature of the New Covenant.

(2) As was observed, we are all actually guilty of sin before this Covenant was made with us. Therefore unless there be a Promise given of the pardon of sin, it is to no purpose to propose any new Covenant terms to us. For the wages of sin is death; and we having sinned must die, whatever we do afterwards, unless our sins be pardoned. This therefore must be proposed to us as the foundation of the Covenant, or it will be of none effect. And herein lies the great difference between the Promises of the Covenant of Works, and those of the Covenant of Grace. The first were only concerning things future; eternal life and blessedness upon the accomplishment of perfect obedience. Promises of present mercy and pardon it stood in need of none, it was not capable of. Nor had it any Promises of giving more grace, or supplies of it; but man was wholly left to what he had at first received. Hence the Covenant was broken. But in the Covenant of Grace, all things are founded in Promises of present mercy, and continual supplies of grace, as well as of future blessedness. Hence it becomes to be ordered in all things and sure. And this is the first thing that was to be declared, namely, that every Divine Covenant is established on Promises.

2. These Promises are said to be better Promises. The other Covenant had its Promises peculiar to it, with respect whereunto this is said to be established on better Promises. It was indeed principally represented under a system of Precepts, and those almost innumerable. But it had its Promises also, into the nature whereof we shall immediately enquire. With respect therefore to them is the New Covenant, whereof the Lord Christ was the Mediator, said to be established on better Promises. That it should be founded in Promises, was necessary from its general nature as a Covenant, and more necessary from its especial nature as a Covenant of Grace. That these Promises are said to be better Promises, respects those of the Old Covenant. But this is so said as to include all other degrees of comparison. They are not only better than they, but they are positively good in themselves, and absolutely the best that God ever gave, or will give to the Church. And what they are we must consider in our Progress. And sundry things may be observed from these words.

1. There is infinite grace in every Divine Covenant, inasmuch as it is established on Promises. Infinite condescension it is in God, that he will enter into Covenant with dust and ashes, with poor worms of the earth. And herein lies the spring of all grace, from where all the streams of it do flow. And the first expression of it is in laying the foundation of it in some undeserved Promises. And this was that which became the goodness and greatness of his nature, the means whereby we are wrought to adhere to him in faith, hope, trust and obedience, until we come to the enjoyment of him. For that is the use of Promises to keep us in adherence to God, as the first original and spring of all goodness, and the ultimate satisfactory reward of our souls (2 Corinthians 7:1).

2. The Promises of the Covenant of Grace are better than those of any other Covenant, as for many other Reasons, so especially because the grace of them prevents any condition or qualification on our part. I do not say, the Covenant of Grace is absolute without conditions, if by conditions we intend the duties of Obedience which God requireth of us in and by virtue of that Covenant: But this I say, the principal Promises thereof, are not in the first place remunerative of our Obedience in the Covenant, but efficaciously assumptive of us into Covenant, and establishing or confirming in the Covenant. The Covenant of Works had its Promises, but they were all remunerative, respecting an antecedent Obedience in us; (so were all those which were peculiar to the Covenant of Sinai.) They were indeed also of Grace, in that the Reward did infinitely exceed the merit of our Obedience. But yet they all supposed it, and the Subject of them was formally Reward only. In the Covenant of Grace it is not so: For sundry of the Promises thereof, are the means of our being taken into Covenant, of our entring into Covenant with God. The first Covenant absolutely was established on Promises, in that when men were actually taken into it, they were encouraged to Obedience by the Promises of a future Reward. But these Promises, namely, of the pardon of sin, and writing of the Law in our hearts, which the Apostle expresly insisteth upon as the peculiar Promises of this Covenant, do take place and are effectual, antecedently to our Covenant Obedience. For although Faith be required in order of nature antecedently to our actual receiving of the pardon of sin, yet is that Faith itself wrought in us by the Grace of the Promise, and so its precedency to pardon respects only the Order that God has appointed in the communication of the benefits of the Covenant, and intends not that the pardon of sin is the reward of our Faith.

This entrance has the Apostle made into his Discourse of the two Covenants, which he continues to the end of the Chapter. But the whole is not without its difficulties. Many things in particular will occur to us in our progress, which may be considered in their proper places. In the mean time there are some things in general which may be here discoursed, by whose determination much light will be communicated to what does ensue.

First therefore the Apostle does evidently in this place dispute concerning two Covenants or two Testaments, comparing the one with the other, and declaring the disannulling of the one by the introduction and establishment of the other. What are these two Covenants in general, we have declared, namely, that made with the Church of Israel at Mount Sinai, and that made with us in the Gospel; not as absolutely the Covenant of Grace, but as actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs to it.

Here then ariseth a difference of no small importance, namely, whether these are indeed two distinct Covenants, as to the essence and substance of them, or only different ways of the dispensation and administration of the same Covenant. And the reason of the difficulty lieth herein. We must grant one of these three things.

(1) That either the Covenant of Grace was in force under the Old Testament; or

(2) That the Church was saved without it, or any benefit by Jesus Christ who is the Mediator of it alone; or

(3) That they all perished everlastingly. And neither of the two latter can be admitted.

Some indeed in these latter days have revived the old Pelagian imagination, that before the Law men were saved by the conduct of natural light and reason, and under the Law by the directive doctrines, precepts and sacrifices thereof, without any respect to the Lord Christ or his Mediation in another Covenant. But I shall not here contend with them, as having elsewhere sufficiently refuted these imaginations. Therefore I shall take it here for granted, that no man was ever saved but by virtue of the New Covenant, and the Mediation of Christ therein.

Suppose then that this New Covenant of Grace was extant and effectual under the Old Testament, so as the Church was saved by virtue thereof, and the Mediation of Christ therein, how could it be that there should at the same time be another Covenant between God and them, of a different nature from this, accompanied with other Promises, and other Effects?

On this consideration it is said, that the two Covenants mentioned, the New and the Old, were not indeed two distinct Covenants, as to their essence and substance, but only different administrations of the same Covenant, called two Covenants from some different outward solemnities and duties of worship attending of them. To clear this it must be observed,

1. That by the Old Covenant, the original Covenant of Works made with Adam and all Mankind in him is not intended. For this is undoubtedly a Covenant different in the essence and substance of it from the New.

2. By the New Covenant, not the New Covenant absolutely and originally as given in the first Promise, is intended; but in its complete Gospel-administration, when it was actually established by the death of Christ, as administred in and by the Ordinances of the New Testament. This with the Covenant of Sinai were, as most say, but different administrations of the same Covenant.

But on the other hand there is such express mention made not only in this, but in sundry other places of the Scripture also, of two distinct Covenants or Testaments, and such different natures, properties and effects ascribed to them, as seem to constitute two distinct Covenants. This therefore we must inquire into; and shall first declare what is agreed to by those who are sober in this matter, though they differ in their judgments about this question, Whether two distinct Covenants, or only a twofold administration of the same Covenant be intended. And indeed there is so much agreed on, as that what remains seems rather to be a difference about the expression of the same Truth, than any real contradiction about the things themselves. For

1. It is agreed that the way of Reconciliation with God, of justification and salvation was always one and the same; and that from the giving of the first Promise none was ever justified or saved but by the New Covenant, and Jesus Christ the Mediator thereof. The foolish imagination before-mentioned, that men were saved before the giving of the Law, by following the guidance of the light of nature, and after giving of the Law by obedience to the directions thereof, is rejected by all that are sober, as destructive of the Old Testament and the New.

That the Writings of the Old Testament, namely, the Law, Psalms and Prophets, do contain and declare the doctrine of justification and salvation by Christ, this the Church of old believed, and walked with God in the faith thereof. This is undeniably proved, in that the doctrine mentioned is frequently confirmed in the New Testament, by testimonies taken out of the Old.

That by the Covenant of Sinai, as properly so called, separated from its figurative relation to the Covenant of Grace, none was ever eternally saved.

That the use of all the institutions whereby the Old Covenant was administred, was to represent and direct to Jesus Christ, and his mediation.

These things being granted, the only way of life and salvation by Jesus Christ under the Old Testament and the New is secured, which is the substance of the truth wherein we are now concerned. On these grounds we may proceed with our enquiry.

The judgment of most Reformed divines is, that the Church under the Old Testament, had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have them all under the New. And whereas the essence and the substance of the Covenant consists in these things, they are not to be said to be under another Covenant, but only a different administration of it. But this was so different from that which is established in the Gospel after the coming of Christ, that it has the appearance and name of another Covenant. And the differences between these two administrations may be reduced to the ensuing heads.

It consisted in the way and manner of the declaration of the mystery of the love and will of God in Christ; of the work of reconciliation and redemption with our justification by faith. For herein the Gospel, wherein life and immortality are brought to light, does in plainness, clearness and evidence, much excel the administration and declaration of the same truths under the Law. And the greatness of the priviledge of the Church herein is not easily expressed. For hereby with open face we behold the glory of God in a glass, and are changed into the same image (2 Corinthians 3:18). The man whose eyes the Lord Christ opened (Mark 8:23, 24) represents these two states. When he first touched him, his eyes were opened, and he saw, but he saw nothing clearly, from where when he looked, he said, I see men as trees walking, ver. 24. But upon his second touch he saw every man clearly, ver. 25. They had their sight under the Old Testament, and the object was proposed to them, but at a great distance, with such an interposition of mists, clouds and shadows, as that they saw men like trees walking, nothing clearly and perfectly. But now under the Gospel, the object, which is Christ, being brought near to us, and all clouds and shadows being departed, we do or may see all things clearly. When a traveller in his way on downs or hills is encompassed with a thick mist and fog, though he be in his way, yet he is uncertain, and nothing is presented to him in its proper shape and distance; things near seem to be afar off, and things afar off to be near, and every thing has, though not a false, yet an uncertain appearance. Let the sun break forth and scatter the mists and fogs that are about him, and immediately every thing appears quite in another shape to him, so as indeed he is ready to think he is not where he was. His way is plain, he is certain of it, and all the region about lies evident under his eye, yet is there no alteration made but in the removal of the mists and clouds that interrupted his sight. So was it with them under the Law. The types and shadows that they were enclosed in, and which were the only medium they had to view spiritual things in, represented them not to them clearly and in their proper shape. But they being now removed by the rising of the Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings in the dispensation of the Gospel, the whole mystery of God in Christ is clearly manifested to them that do believe. And the greatness of this priviledge of the Gospel above the Law is unexpressible, whereof as I suppose we must speak somewhat afterwards.

In the plentiful communication of grace to the community of the Church. For now it is that we receive grace for grace, or a plentiful effusion of it by Jesus Christ. There was grace given in an eminent manner to many holy persons under the Old Testament, and all true believers had true, real, saving grace communicated to them. But the measures of grace in the true Church under the New Testament, do exceed those of the community of the Church under the Old. And therefore as God winked at some things in them, as polygamy, and the like, which are expresly and severely interdicted under the New, nor are consistent with the present administrations of it; so are sundry duties, as those of self-denial, readiness to bear the cross, to forsake houses, lands and habitations, more expresly enjoined to us than to them. And the obedience which God requireth in any Covenant, or administration of it, is proportionable to the strength which the administration of that Covenant does exhibit. And if those who profess the Gospel do content themselves without any interest in this priviledge of it, if they endeavor not for a share in that plentiful effusion of grace which does accompany its present administration, the Gospel itself will be of no other use to them, but to increase and aggravate their condemnation.

In the manner of our access to God. Herein much of all that is called religion does consist. For hereon does all our outward worship of God depend. And in this the advantages of the Gospel-administration of the Covenant, above that of the Law is in all things very eminent. Our access now to God is immediate by Jesus Christ, with liberty and boldness, as we shall afterwards declare. Those under the Law were immediately conversant in their whole worship, about outward typical things, the tabernacle, the altar, the ark, the mercyseat, and the like obscure representations of the presence of God. Besides, the manner of the making the Covenant with them at Mount Sinai filled them with fear, and brought them into bondage, so as they had comparatively a servile frame of spirit in all their holy worship.

4. In the way of worship required under each administration. For under that which was legal, it seemed good to God to appoint a great number of outward rites, ceremonies, and observances; and these, as they were dark in their signification, as also in their use and ends, so were they by reason of their nature, number and severe penalties, under which they were enjoined, grievous and burdensome to be observed. But the way of worship under the Gospel is spiritual, rational, and plainly subservient to the ends of the Covenant itself, so as that the use, ends, benefits and advantages of it are evident to all.

5. In the extent of the dispensation of the grace of God. For this is greatly enlarged under the Gospel. For under the Old Testament it was upon the matter confined to the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh. But under the New Testament it extends itself to all nations under heaven.

Sundry other things are usually added by our divines to the same purpose. See Calvin. Institut. lib. 2. cap. 11. Martyr. loc. com. loc. 16. sect. 2. Bucan. loc. 22 &c.

The Lutherans on the other side insist on two arguments to prove, that not a twofold administration of the same Covenant, but that two covenants substantially distinct, are intended in this discourse of the Apostle.

1. Because in the Scripture they are often so called and compared with one another, and sometimes opposed to one another; the first and the last, the new and the old.

2. Because the Covenant of Grace in Christ is eternal, immutable, always the same, obnoxious to no alteration, no change or abrogation, neither can these things be spoken of it with respect to any administration of it, as they are spoken of the Old Covenant.

To state our thoughts aright in this matter, and to give what light we can to the truth, the things ensuing may be observed.

1. When we speak of the Old Covenant, we intend not the Covenant of Works made with Adam, and his whole posterity in him, concerning which there is no difference or difficulty, whether it be a distinct Covenant from the New or no.

2. When we speak of the New Covenant, we do not intend the Covenant of Grace absolutely, as though that were not before in being and efficacy before the introduction of that which is promised in this place. For it was always the same as to the substance of it from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the Law, and under the Law, of the same nature and efficacy, unalterable, everlasting, ordered in all things and sure. All who contend about these things, the Socinians only excepted, do grant that the Covenant of Grace considered absolutely, that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, was the only way and means of salvation to the Church, from the first entrance of sin. But for two reasons it is not expressly called a Covenant, without respect to any other things, nor was it so under the Old Testament. When God renewed the promise of it to Abraham, he is said to make a Covenant with him, and he did so, but it was with respect to other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely under the Old Testament, it consisted only in a promise, and as such only is proposed in the Scripture (Acts 2:39; Hebrews 6:14, 15, 16). The Apostle indeed says, that the Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, before the giving of the Law (Galatians 3:17). And so it was not absolutely in itself, but in the promise and benefits of it. The [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or full legal establishment of it, from where it became formally a Covenant to the whole Church, was future only, and a promise under the Old Testament. For it wanted two things thereunto.

(1) It wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged to it. Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal nature of a Covenant or a Testament, as our Apostle proves (Chap. 9:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). For neither, as he shows in that place, would the Law given at Sinai have been a Covenant, had it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. Therefore the promise was not before a formal and solemn Covenant.

(2) This was wanting, that it was not the spring, rule and measure of all the worship of the Church. This does belong to every Covenant, properly so called, that God makes with the Church, that it be the entire rule of all the worship that God requires of it, which is that which they are to restipulate in their entrance into Covenant with God. But so the Covenant of Grace was not under the Old Testament. For God did require of the Church many duties of worship that did not belong thereunto. But now under the New Testament, this Covenant with its own seals and appointments, is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship. Therefore the New Covenant promised in the Scripture, and here opposed to the Old, is not the promise of grace, mercy, life and salvation by Christ absolutely considered, but as it had the formal nature of a Covenant given to it, in its establishment by the death of Christ, the procuring cause of all its benefits, and the declaring of it to be the only rule of worship and obedience to the Church. So that although by the Covenant of Grace, we oftentimes understand no more, but the way of life, grace, mercy and salvation by Christ; yet by the New Covenant, we intend its actual establishment in the death of Christ, with that blessed way of worship which by it is settled in the Church.

3. While the Church enjoyed all the spiritual benefits of the promise, wherein the substance of the Covenant of Grace was contained, before it was confirmed and made the sole rule of worship to the Church, it was not inconsistent with the holiness and wisdom of God, to bring it under any other Covenant, or prescribe to it what forms of worship he pleased. It was not so I say upon these three suppositions.

(1) That this Covenant did not disannul or make ineffectual the promise that was given before, but that that does still continue the only means of life and salvation. And that this was so, our Apostle proves at large (Galatians 3:17, 18, 19).

(2) That this other Covenant, with all the worship contained in it, or required by it, did not divert from, but direct and lead to the future establishment of the promise, in the solemnity of a Covenant, by the ways mentioned. And that the Covenant made in Sinai with all its ordinances did so, the Apostle proves likewise in the place before-mentioned, as also in this whole Epistle.

(3) That it be of present use and advantage to the Church in its present condition. This the Apostle acknowledgeth to be a great objection against the use and efficacy of the promise under the Old Testament, as to life and salvation; namely, to what end then serves the giving of the Law; whereunto he answers, by shewing the necessity and use of the Law to the Church in its then present condition (Galatians 3:17).

4. These things being observed, we may consider that the Scripture does plainly and expresly make mention of two Testaments or Covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated to a twofold administration of the same Covenant. The one is mentioned and described, Exodus 24, ver. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; Deuteronomy 5:2, 3, 4, 5; namely, the Covenant that God made with the people of Israel in Sinai; and which is commonly called the Covenant where the people under the Old Testament are said to keep or break God's Covenant, which for the most part is spoken with respect to that worship which was peculiar thereunto. The other is promised (Jeremiah 31:31, 32, 33, 34; Chapter 32:40), which is the new gospel Covenant as before explained, mentioned (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24). And these two Covenants or Testaments are compared one with the other, and opposed one to another (2 Corinthians 3:6, 7, 8, 9; Galatians 4:24, 25, 26; Hebrews 7:22; Chapter 9:15, 16, 17, 18, 19).

These two we call the Old and the New Testament. Only it must be observed that in this argument, by the Old Testament, we do not understand the Books of the Old Testament, or the Writings of Moses, the Psalms and Prophets, or the Oracles of God committed then to the Church. I confess they are once so called (2 Corinthians 3:14): 'The vail remaineth untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament,' that is, the Books of it. Unless we shall say that the Apostle intendeth only the reading of the things which concern the Old Testament in the Scripture. For this Old Covenant or Testament whatever it be, is abrogated and taken away, as the Apostle expresly proves. But the Word of God in the Books of the Old Testament abideth for ever. And those Writings are called the Old Testament, or the Books of the Old Testament, not as though they contained in them, nothing but what belongeth to the Old Covenant, for they contain the doctrine of the New Testament also. But they are so termed, because they were committed to the Church, while the Old Covenant was in force, as the rule and law of its worship and obedience.

5. Therefore we must grant two distinct Covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same Covenant merely, to be intended. We must I say do so, provided always that the way of reconciliation and salvation was the same under both. But it will be said and with great pretence of reason, for it is that which is the sole foundation they all build upon, who allow only a twofold administration of the same Covenant, that this being the principal end of a divine Covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation be the same under both, then indeed are they for the substance of them but one. And I grant that this would inevitably follow, if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only under the Old Covenant, but by virtue thereof, then it must be the same for substance with the New. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God, nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the Old Covenant, or the administration of it, as our Apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified and saved by virtue of the promise, while they were under that Covenant. As therefore I have shewed in what sense the Covenant of Grace is called the New Covenant, in this distinction and opposition, so I shall propose sundry things which relate to the nature of the first Covenant, which manifest it to have been a distinct Covenant, and not a mere administration of the Covenant of Grace.

1. This Covenant called the Old Covenant, was never intended to be of itself the absolute rule and law of life and salvation to the Church, but was made with a particular design, and with respect to particular ends. This the Apostle proves undeniably in this Epistle, especially in the chapter foregoing, and those two that follow. Hence it follows that it could abrogate or disannul nothing which God at any time before had given as a general rule to the Church. For that which is particular cannot abrogate any thing that was general, and before it; as that which is general does abrogate all antecedent particulars, as the New Covenant does abrogate the Old. And this we must consider in both the instances belonging hereunto.

1. God had before given the Covenant of Works, or perfect obedience to all mankind in the Law of Creation. But this Covenant at Sinai did not abrogate or disannul that Covenant, nor any way fulfill it; and the reason is, because it was never intended to come in the place or room thereof, as a Covenant, containing an entire rule of all the faith and obedience of the whole Church. God did not intend in it to abrogate the Covenant of Works, and to substitute this in the place thereof. Yes, in sundry things it reinforced, established, and confirmed that Covenant.

1. It revived, declared and expressed all the commands of that Covenant in the Decalogue. For that is nothing but a divine summary of the Law written in the heart of man at his creation. And herein the dreadful manner of its delivery or promulgation, with its writings in tables of stone are also to be considered. For in them the nature of that first Covenant, with its inexorableness as to perfect obedience was represented. And because none could answer its demands, or comply with it therein, it was called the ministration of death causing fear and bondage (2 Corinthians 3:7).

2. It revived the sanction of the first Covenant in the curse or sentence of death which it denounced against all transgressors. Death was the penalty of the transgression of the first Covenant, 'In the day you eatest you shall die the death.' And this sentence was revived and represented anew in the curse wherewith this Covenant was ratified. 'Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them' (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10). For the design of God in it was to bind a sense of that curse on the consciences of men, until he came by whom it was taken away, as the Apostle declares (Galatians 3:14, 15, 16).

3. It revived the Promise of that Covenant, that of eternal life upon perfect obedience. So the Apostle tells us, that Moses thus describeth the righteousness of the law, that the man which does these things shall live by them (Romans 10:5), as he does (Leviticus 18:5). Now this is no other but the Covenant of Works revived. Nor had this Covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed to it, as such, but only the promise inseparable from the Covenant of Works which it revived, saying, Do this and live.

Hence it is that when our Apostle disputes against justification by the law, or by the works of the law, he does not intend the works peculiar to the Covenant of Sinai, such as were the rites and ceremonies of the worship then instituted; but he intends also the works of the first Covenant, which alone had the promise of life annexed to them.

And hence it follows also, that it was not a new Covenant of Works established in the place of the old, for the absolute rule of faith and obedience to the whole Church; for then would it have abrogated and taken away that Covenant, and all the force of it, which it did not.

2. The other instance is in the Promise. This also went before it; neither was it abrogated or disannulled by the introduction of this Covenant. This Promise was given to our first parents immediately after the entrance of sin, and was established as containing the only way and means of the salvation of sinners. Now this Promise could not be abrogated by the introduction of this Covenant, and a new way of justification and salvation be thereby established. For the Promise being given out in general for the whole Church, as containing the way appointed by God for righteousness, life and salvation, it could not be disannulled or changed, without a change and alteration in the counsels of him with whom is no variableness or shadow of turning. Much less could this be effected by a particular Covenant such as that was, when it was given as a general and eternal rule.

But whereas there was an especial Promise given to Abraham, in the faith whereof he became the Father of the Faithful, he being their progenitor, it should seem that this Covenant did wholly disannul or supersede that Promise, and take off the Church of his posterity from building on that foundation, and to fix them wholly on this new Covenant now made with them. So says Moses, The Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers, but with us even us, who are all of us alive here this day (Deuteronomy 5:3). God made not this Covenant on Mount Sinai, with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but with the people then present, and their posterity, as he declares (Deuteronomy 29:14, 15). This therefore should seem to take them off wholly from that Promise made to Abraham, and so to disannul it. But that this it did not, nor could do, the Apostle strictly proves (Galatians 3:17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22). Yes, it did in diverse ways establish that Promise, both as first given and as afterwards confirmed with the oath of God to Abraham, two especially.

1. It declared the impossibility of obtaining reconciliation and peace with God, any other way but by the Promise. For representing the commands of the Covenant of Works requiring perfect sinless obedience under the penalty of the curse, it convinced men that this was no way for sinners to seek for life and salvation by. And herewith it so urged the consciences of men, that they could have no rest nor peace in themselves, but what the Promise would afford them, whereunto they saw a necessity of betaking themselves.

2. By representing the ways and means of the accomplishment of the Promise, and of that whereon all the efficacy of it to the justification and salvation of sinners does depend. This was the death, bloodshedding, oblation or sacrifice of Christ the promised Seed. This all its offerings and ordinances of worship directed to, as his Incarnation with the inhabitation of God in his human nature was typed by the Tabernacle and Temple. Therefore it was so far from disannulling the Promise, or diverting the minds of the people of God from it, that by all means it established it, and led to it. But

3. It will be said, as was before observed, that if it did neither abrogate the first Covenant of Works, and come in the room thereof, nor disannul the Promise made to Abraham, then to what end did it serve, or what benefit did the Church receive thereby? I answer

1. There has been with respect to God's dealing with the Church, [in non-Latin alphabet], a certain dispensation and disposition of times and seasons, reserved to the sovereign will and pleasure of God. Hence from the beginning he revealed himself [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet], as seemed good to him (Chap. 1:1). And this dispensation of times had a [in non-Latin alphabet], a fulness assigned to it, wherein all things, namely, that belong to the revelation and communication of God to the Church, should come to their height, and have as it were the last hand given to them. This was in the sending of Christ, as the Apostle declares (Ephesians 1:10), that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might bring all to a head in Christ. Until this season came, God dealt variously with the Church, [in non-Latin alphabet], in manifold or various wisdom, according as he saw it needful and useful for it, in that season which it was to pass through, before the fulness of times came. Of this nature was his entrance into the Covenant with the Church at Sinai, the reasons whereof we shall immediately inquire into. In the mean time if we had no other answer to this enquiry, but only this, that in the order of the disposal or dispensation of the seasons of the Church before the fulness of times came, God in his manifold wisdom saw it necessary for the then present state of the Church in that season, we may well acquiesce therein. But

2. The Apostle acquaints us in general with the ends of this dispensation of God (Galatians 3:19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24). Therefore then serves the Law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the Promise was made, and it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator. Now a Mediator is not of one, but God is one. Is the Law then against the Promises of God? God forbid; for if there had been a Law given which could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law. But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before Faith came, we were kept under the Law, shut up to the Faith, which should afterwards be revealed. Therefore the Law was our Schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by Faith. Much light might be given to the mind of the Holy Ghost in these words, and that in things not commonly discerned by Expositors, if we should divert to the opening of them. I will at present only mark from them what is to our present purpose.

There is a double enquiry made by the Apostle with respect to the Law, or the Covenant of Sinai.

(1) To what end in general it served.

(2) Whether it were not contrary to the Promise of God. To both these the Apostle answers from the nature, office and work of that Covenant. For there were, as has been declared, two things in it.

First, a revival and representation of the first Covenant of Works, with its sanction and curse.

Secondly, a direction of the Church to the accomplishment of the Promise. From these two does the Apostle frame his answer to the double enquiry laid down. And to the first enquiry, To what end it served? he answers, it was added because of transgressions. The Promise being given, there seems to have been no need of it, why then was it added to it at that season? It was added because of transgressions. The fulness of time was not yet come wherein the Promise was to be fulfilled, accomplished and established as the only Covenant wherein the Church was to walk with God, or the Seed was not yet come, as the Apostle here speaks, to whom the Promise was made. In the mean time some order must be taken about sin and transgression, that all the order of things appointed of God were not overflowed by them. And this was done two ways by the Law.

(1) By reviving the commands of the Covenant of Works, with the sanction of death, it put an awe on the minds of men, and set bounds to their lusts, that they should not dare to run forth into that excess which they were naturally inclined to. It was therefore added because of transgressions, that in the declaration of God's severity against them, some bounds might be fixed to them; for the knowledge of sin is by the Law.

(2) To shut up unbelievers, and such as would not seek for righteousness, life and salvation by the Promise under the power of the Covenant of Works, and curse attending it. It concluded or shut up all under sin, says the Apostle (ver. 20). This was the end of the Law, for this end was it added, as it gave a revival to the Covenant of Works. To the second enquiry, which arises out of this supposition, namely, That the Law did convince of sin, and condemn for sin, which is, whether it be not then contrary to the grace of God? The Apostle in like manner returns a double answer, taken from the second use of the Law before insisted on, with respect to the Promise.

First, he says that although the Law does thus rebuke sin, convince of sin, and condemn for sin, so setting bounds to transgressions and transgressors, yet did God never intend it as a means to give life and righteousness, nor was it able so to do. The end of the Promise was to give righteousness, justification and salvation all by Christ to whom and concerning whom it was made. But this was not the end for which the Law was revived in the Covenant of Sinai. For although in itself it requires a perfect righteousness, and gives a promise of life thereon, He that does these things, he shall live in them; yet it could give neither righteousness nor life, to any in the state of sin (see Romans 8:3; chap. 10:4). Therefore the Promise and the Law having diverse ends, they are not contrary to one another.

Secondly, says he, The Law had a great respect to the Promise, and was given of God for this very end, that it might lead and direct men to Christ, which is sufficient to answer the question proposed at the beginning of this discourse, about the ends of this Covenant, and the advantage which the Church received thereby.

What has been spoken, may suffice to declare the nature of this Covenant in general; and two things do here evidently follow, wherein the substance of the whole truth contended for by the Apostle does consist.

1. That while the Covenant of Grace was contained and proposed only in the Promise, before it was solemnly confirmed in the blood and sacrifice of Christ, and so legalized or established as the only rule of the worship of the Church, the introduction of this other Covenant on Sinai, did not constitute a new way or means of righteousness, life and salvation; but Believers sought for them alone by the Covenant of Grace as declared in the Promise. This follows evidently upon what we have discoursed, and it secures absolutely that great fundamental truth, which the Apostle in this and all other his Epistles so earnestly contends for; namely, That there neither is, or ever was, either righteousness, justification, life or salvation, to be attained by any Law, or the works of it, (for this Covenant at Mount Sinai comprehended every Law that God ever gave to the Church) but by Christ alone, and Faith in him.

2. That whereas this Covenant being introduced in the pleasure of God, there was prescribed with it a form of outward worship suited to that dispensation of times, and present state of the Church, upon the introduction of the New Covenant in the fulness of times to be the rule of all intercourse between God and the Church, both that Covenant and all its worship must be disannulled. This is that which the Apostle proves with all sorts of arguments, manifesting the great advantage of the Church thereby. These things I say do evidently follow on the preceding discourses, and are the main truths contended for by the Apostle.

There remaineth one thing more only to be considered, before we enter on the comparison between the two covenants here directed to by the Apostle. And this is, how this first covenant became to be an especial covenant to that people: wherein we shall manifest the reason of its introduction at that season. And to this end sundry things are to be considered concerning that people and the church of God in them, with whom this covenant was made, which will farther evidence both the nature, use and necessity of it.

This people were the posterity of Abraham to whom the promise was made, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Therefore from among them was the promised seed to be raised up in the fulness of time, or its proper season. From among them was the Son of God to take on him the seed of Abraham. To this end sundry things were necessary.

That they should have a certain abiding place or country which they might freely inhabit, distinct from other nations, and under a rule or scepter of their own. So it is said of them, That the people should dwell alone, and not be reckoned among the nations (Numbers 23:9), and the scepter was not to depart from them until Shilo came (Genesis 49:10). For God had regard to his own glory in his faithfulness, as to his word and oath given to Abraham, not only that they should be accomplished, but that their accomplishment should be evident and conspicuous. But if this posterity of Abraham, from among whom the promised seed was to rise, had been, as it is at this day with them, scattered abroad on the face of the earth, mixed with all nations, and under their power, although God might have accomplished his promise really in raising up Christ from among some of his posterity, yet could it not be proved or evidenced that he had so done, by reason of the confusion and mixture of the people with others. Therefore God provided a land and country for them which they might inhabit by themselves, and as their own, even the land of Canaan. And this was so suited to all the ends of God towards that people, as might be declared in sundry instances, that God is said, to have espied this land out for them (Ezekiel 20:6). He chose it out as most meet for his purpose, towards that people of all lands under heaven.

That there should be always kept among them an open confession and visible representation of the end for which they were so separated from all the nations of the world. They were not to dwell in the land of Canaan merely for secular ends, and to make as it were a dumb show; but as they were there maintained and preserved to evidence the faithfulness of God in bringing forth the promised seed in the fulness of time; so there was to be a testimony kept up among them to that end of God whereunto they were preserved. This was the end of all their ordinances of worship, of the Tabernacle, Priesthood, sacrifices and ordinances, which were all appointed by Moses on the command of God, for a testimony of those things which should be spoken afterwards (Hebrews 3:5). These things were necessary in the first place with respect to the ends of God towards that people.

It becomes not the wisdom, holiness, and sovereignty of God, to call any people into an especial relation to himself, to do them good in an eminent and peculiar manner, and then to suffer them to live at their pleasure, without any regard to what he had done for them. Therefore having granted to this people those great privileges of the land of Canaan, and the ordinances of worship relating to the great end mentioned, he moreover prescribed to them laws, rules, and terms of obedience, whereon they should hold and enjoy that land, with all the privileges annexed to the possession thereof. And these are both expressed and frequently inculcated in the repetition and promises of the law. But yet in the prescription of these terms, God reserved the sovereignty of dealing with them to himself. For had he left them to stand or fall absolutely by the terms prescribed to them, they might and would have utterly forfeited both the land and all the privileges they enjoyed therein. And had it so fallen out, then the great end of God in preserving them a separate people until the seed should come, and a representation thereof among them had been frustrate. Therefore although he punished them for their transgressions, according to the threatenings of the law, yet would he not bring the [illegible] or curse of the law upon them, and utterly cast them off, until his great end was accomplished (Malachi 4:4, 5, 6).

God would not take this people off from the promise, because his church was among them, and they could neither please God, nor be accepted with him, but by faith therein. But yet they were to be dealt withal according as it was meet. For they were generally a people of an hard heart, and stiff-necked, lifted up with an opinion of their own righteousness and worth above others. This Moses endeavors by all manner of reasons and instances to the contrary to take them off from, in the book of Deuteronomy. Yet was it not effected among the generality of them, nor is to this day. For in the midst of all their wickedness and misery, they still trust to and boast of their own righteousness, and will have it that God has an especial obligation to them on that account. For this cause God saw it necessary, and it pleased him to put a grievous and heavy yoke upon them, to subdue the pride of their spirits, and to cause them to breathe after deliverance. This the Apostle Peter calls a yoke that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:20), that is, with peace, ease, and rest, which therefore the Lord Christ invited them to seek for in himself alone (Matthew 11:29, 30). And this yoke that God put on them, consisted in these three things.

In a multitude of precepts hard to be understood, and difficult to be observed. The present Jews reckon up 613 of them, about the sense of most of which they dispute endlessly among themselves. But the truth is, since the days of the Pharisees they have increased their own yoke, and made obedience to their law, in any tolerable manner, altogether unpracticable.

It were easy to manifest, for instance, that no man under Heaven ever did, or ever can keep the Sabbath according to the rules they give about it in their Talmuds. And they generally scarce observe one of them themselves. But in the Law, as given by God himself, it is certain, that there were a multitude of arbitrary precepts, and those in themselves not accompanied with any spiritual advantages, as our Apostle shows (Hebrews 9:5), only they were obliged to perform them, by a mere sovereign act of power and authority.

2. In the severity wherewith the observance of all those precepts were enjoined them. And this was the threatening of death. For he that despised Moses's Law died without mercy, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward. Hence was their complaint of old, Behold we die, we perish, we all perish; whoever comes near to the Tabernacle of the Lord shall die, shall we be consumed with dying? (Numbers 17:12, 13). And the curse solemnly denounced against every one, that confirmed not all things written in the Law, was continually before them.

3. In a spirit of bondage to fear. This was administered in the giving and dispensation of the Law, even as a spirit of liberty and power is administered in and by the Gospel. And as this respected their present obedience, and manner of its performance, so in particular it regarded death not yet conquered by Christ. Hence our Apostle affirms, that through fear of death, they were all their life-time subject to bondage. This state God brought them into, partly to subdue the pride of their hearts trusting in their own righteousness, and partly to cause them to look out earnestly after the promised Deliverer.

4. Into this estate and condition, God brought them by a solemn covenant, confirmed by mutual consent between him and them. The tenure, force, and solemn ratification of this covenant is expressed (Exodus 24:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). To the terms and conditions of this covenant was the whole Church obliged indispensably on pain of extermination, until all was accomplished (Malachi 4:4, 5, 6). To this covenant belonged the Decalogue, with all precepts of moral obedience from there educed. So also did the laws of political rule established among them, and the whole system of religious worship given to them. All these laws were brought within the verge of this covenant, and were the matter of it. And it had especial promises and threatenings annexed to it as such, whereof none did exceed the bounds of the Land of Canaan. For even many of the laws of it were such as obliged no where else. Such was the Law of the Sabbatical year, and all their sacrifices. There was sin and obedience in them, or about them in the Land of Canaan, none elsewhere. Hence

5. This covenant thus made with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it, did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did indeed revive the commanding power and sanction of the first Covenant of Works, and therein, as the Apostle speaks, was the ministry of condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:9). For by the deeds of the Law can no flesh be justified. And on the other hand, it directed also to the Promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation to all that did believe. But as to what it had of its own, it was confined to things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original Law of Works. And

6. Hereon occasionally fell out the ruin of that people; their table became a snare to them, and that which should have been for their welfare, became a trap, according to the prediction of our Savior (Psalm 69:22). It was this covenant that raised and ruined them, it raised them to glory and honor when given of God; it ruined them when abused by themselves, contrary to express declarations of his mind and will. For although the generality of them were wicked and rebellious always, breaking the terms of the covenant which God made with them, so far as it was possible they should, while God determined to reign over them to the appointed season, and repined under the burden of it, yet they would have this covenant to be the only rule and means of righteousness, life and salvation, as the Apostle declares (Romans 9:31, 32, 33; Romans 10:3). For, as we have often said, there were two things in it, both which they abused to other ends than what God designed them.

(1) There was the renovation of the rule of the Covenant of Works for righteousness and life. And this they would have to be given to them for those ends, and so sought for righteousness by the works of the Law.

(2) There was ordained in it a typical representation of the way and means whereby the Promise was to be made effectual, namely, in the mediation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which was the end of all their ordinances of worship. And the outward law thereof with the observance of its institution, they looked on as their only relief when they came short of exact and perfect righteousness. Against both these pernicious errors, the Apostle disputes expressly in his Epistle to the Romans and the Galatians, to save them, if it were possible, from that ruin they were casting themselves into. Hereon the elect obtained, but the rest were hardened. For hereby they made an absolute renunciation of the Promise, wherein alone God had enwrapped the way of life and salvation.

This is the nature and substance of that covenant which God made with that people; a particular temporary covenant it was, and not a mere dispensation of the Covenant of Grace.

That which remains for the declaration of the mind of the Holy Ghost in this whole matter, is to declare the differences that are between those two covenants, from where the one is said to be better than the other, and to be built upon better promises.

Those of the Church of Rome, do commonly place this difference in three things.

1. In the promises of them, which in the Old Covenant were temporal only; in the New, spiritual and heavenly.

2. In the precepts of them; which under the Old, required only external obedience, designing the righteousness of the outward man; under the New, they are internal, respecting principally the inner man of the heart.

3. In their sacraments: for these under the Old Testament, were only outwardly figurative, but those of the New, are operative of grace.

But these things do not express much, if any thing at all, of what the Scripture placeth this difference in. And besides, as by some of them explained, they are not true, especially the two latter of them. For I cannot but somewhat admire how it came into the heart or mind of any man to think or say, that God ever gave a Law or Laws, Precept or Precepts, that should respect the outward man only, and the regulation of external duties. A thought of it is contrary to all the essential properties of the nature of God, and meet only to ingenerate apprehensions of him unsuited to all his glorious excellencies. The life and foundation of all the Laws under the Old Testament was, You shall love the Lord your God with all your Soul, without which no outward obedience was ever accepted with him. And for the third of the supposed differences, neither were the Sacraments of the Law so barely figurative, but that they did exhibit Christ to Believers; for they all drank of the spiritual Rock, which Rock was Christ; nor are those of the Gospel so operative of grace, but that without Faith they are useless to them that do receive them.

The things wherein this difference does consist, as expressed in the Scripture, are partly circumstantial, and partly substantial, and may be reduced to the heads ensuing.

1. These two Covenants differ in the circumstance of time as to their promulgation, declaration and establishment. This difference the Apostle expresseth from the Prophet Jeremiah in the 9th verse of this Chapter, where it must be more fully spoken to. In brief, the first Covenant was made at the time that God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, and took its date from the third month after their coming up from there (Exodus 19, Chapter 24). From what is reported in the latter place, wherein the people give their actual consent to the terms of it, it began its formal obligation as a Covenant. And we must afterwards enquire when it was abrogated and ceased to oblige the Church. The New Covenant was declared and made known in the latter days (Hebrews 1:1), in the dispensation of the fulness of time (Ephesians 1:10). And it took date as a Covenant formally obliging the whole Church from the Death, Resurrection, Ascension of Christ, and sending of the Holy Ghost. I bring them all into the Epocha of this Covenant, because though principally it was established by the first, yet was it not absolutely obligatory as a Covenant until after the last of them.

2. They differ in the circumstance of place as to their promulgation, which the Scripture also taketh notice of. The first was declared in Mount Sinai, the manner whereof, and the station of the people in receiving the Law, I have in my Exercitations to the first Part of this Exposition, at large declared, and there the Reader is referred (Exodus 19:18). The other was declared on Mount Sinai, and the Law of it went forth from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:2). This difference, with many remarkable instances from it, our Apostle insists on (Galatians 4:24, 25, 26). These are the two Covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, which gendreth to bondage which is Agar. That is Agar the Bondwoman whom Abraham took before the Heir of Promise was born was a Type of the Old Covenant given on Sinai, before the introduction of the New, or the Covenant of Promise. For so he adds: For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage with her children. This Mount Sinai when the Old Covenant was given, and which was represented by Agar, is in Arabia, cast quite out of the Verge and Confines of the Church. And it answereth or is placed in the same Series, Rank and Order with Jerusalem, namely in the opposition of the two Covenants. For as the New Covenant, the Covenant of Promise giving freedom and liberty, was given at Jerusalem in the Death and Resurrection of Christ, with the Preaching of the Gospel which ensued thereon; so the Old Covenant that brought the People into Bondage, was given at Mount Sinai in Arabia.

3. They differ in the manner of their promulgation and establishment. There were two things remarkable that accompanied the Solemn Declaration of the first Covenant.

1. The dread and terror of the outward appearance on Mount Sinai which filled all the People, yes Moses himself, with fear and trembling (Hebrews 12:18, 19, 20, 21; Exodus 19:16, Chapter 20:18, 19). Together herewith, was a spirit of fear and bondage administered to all the People, so as that they chose to keep at a distance, and not draw nigh to God (Deuteronomy 5:23, 24, 25, 26, 27).

2. That it was given by the ministry and disposition of Angels (Acts 7:13; Galatians 3:19). Hence the People was in a sense put in subjection to Angels, and they had an authoritative ministry in that Covenant. The Church that then was, was put into some kind of subjection to Angels, as the Apostle plainly intimates (Hebrews 2:5). Hence the worshipping or adoration of Angels began among the People (Colossians 2:18), which some, with an addition to their folly and superstition, would introduce into the Christian Church, wherein they have no such authoritative ministry as they had under the Old Covenant.

Things are quite otherwise in the promulgation of the New Covenant. The Son of God in his own Person did declare it. This he spake from heaven, as the Apostle observes, in opposition to the giving of the Law on the earth (Hebrews 12:25), yet did he speak on the earth also; the mystery whereof himself declares (John 3:13). And he did all things that belong to the establishment of this Covenant, in a spirit of meekness and condescension, with the highest evidence of love, grace and compassion, encouraging and inviting the weary, the burdened, the heavy and laden to come to him. And by his Spirit he makes his Disciples to carry on the same work until the Covenant was fully declared (Hebrews 2:3; see John 1:17, 18).

And the whole ministry of Angels in the giving of this Covenant, was merely in a way of service and obedience to Christ, and they owned themselves the fellow-servants only of them that have the testimony of Jesus (Revelation 19:10). So that this world to come as it was called of old, was no way put in subjection to them.

4. They differ in their Mediators. The Mediator of the first Covenant was Moses. It was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator (Galatians 3:19). And this was no other but Moses who was a servant in the house of God (Hebrews 3:6). And he was a Mediator as designed of God, so chosen of the people in that dread and consternation which befell them, upon the terrible promulgation of the Law. For they saw that they could no way bear the immediate presence of God, nor treat with him in their own persons. Therefore they desired that there might be an Internuntius, a Mediator between God and them, and that Moses might be the person (Deuteronomy 5:25, 26, 27). But the Mediator of the New Covenant, is the Son of God himself. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:4, 5). He who is the Son, and the Lord over his own house, graciously undertook in his own person to be the Mediator of this Covenant; and herein it is unspeakably preferred before the Old Covenant.

5. They differ in their subject matter, both as to precepts and promises, the advantage being still on the part of the New Covenant. For

(1) The Old Covenant in the preceptive part of it, renewed the command of the Covenant of Works, and that on their original terms. Sin it forbad, that is all and every sin in matter and manner, on the pain of death, and gave the promise of life to perfect sinless obedience only. From where the Decalogue itself, which is a transcript of the Law of Works, is called the Covenant (Exodus 34:28). And besides this, as we observed before, it had other precepts innumerable, accommodated to the present condition of the people, and imposed on them with rigor. But in the New Covenant, the very first thing that is proposed, is the accomplishment and establishment of the Covenant of Works, both as to its commands and sanction, in the obedience and suffering of the Mediator. Hereon the commands of it as to the obedience of the covenanters are not grievous, the yoke of Christ being easie, and his burden light.

2. The Old Testament absolutely considered, had

(1) No promise of grace, to communicate spiritual strength, or to assist us in obedience; nor

(2) Any of eternal life, no otherwise but as it was contained in the promise of the Covenant of Works, The man that does these things, shall live in them; and

(3) Had promises of temporal things in the Land of Canaan inseparable from it. In the New Covenant all things are otherwise, as will be declared in the exposition of the ensuing verses.

6. They differ, and that principally, in the manner of their dedication and sanction. This is that which gives any thing the formal nature of a covenant or testament. There may be a promise, there may be an agreement in general, which has not the formal nature of a covenant or testament; and such was the Covenant of Grace before the death of Christ. But it is the solemnity and manner of the confirmation, dedication and sanction of any promise or agreement that gives it the formal nature of a covenant or testament. And this is by a sacrifice, wherein there is both bloodshedding and death ensuing thereon. Now this in the confirmation of the Old Covenant was only the sacrifice of beasts, whose blood was sprinkled on all the people (Exodus 24:5, 6, 7, 8, 9). But the New Testament was solemnly confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ himself (Zechariah 9:11; Hebrews 10:29; chapter 13:20). And the Lord Christ dying as the Mediator and Surety of the Covenant, he purchased all good things for the Church, and as a Testator bequeathed them to it. Hence he says of the sacramental cup, that it is the New Testament in his blood, or the pledge of his bequeathing to the Church all the promises and mercies of the Covenant, which is the New Testament, or the disposition of his goods to his children. But because the Apostle expresly handles this difference between these two Covenants (chapter 9, verse 18, 19), we must there refer the full consideration of it.

7. They differ in the priests that were to officiate before God in the behalf of the people. In the Old Covenant Aaron and his posterity alone were to discharge that office; in the New, the Son of God himself is the only Priest of the Church. This difference, with the advantage of the Gospel state thereon, we have handled at large in the exposition of the chapter foregoing.

8. They differ in the sacrifices whereon the peace and reconciliation with God which is tendred in them, does depend. And this also must be spoken to in the ensuing chapter, if God permit.

9. They differ in the way and manner of their solemn writing or enrollment. All covenants were of old solemnly written in tables of brass or stone, where they might be faithfully preserved for the use of the parties concerned. So the Old Covenant as to the principal fundamental part of it, was engraven in tables of stone, which were kept in the Ark (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10; 2 Corinthians 3:7). And God did so order it in his providence, that the first draught of them should be broken, to intimate that the Covenant contained in them was not everlasting nor unalterable. But the New Covenant is written in the fleshly tables of the hearts of them that do believe (2 Corinthians 3:3; Jeremiah 31:33).

10. They differ in their ends. The principal end of the first Covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it, and to set bounds to it. So says the Apostle, It was added because of transgressions. And this it did several ways.

(1) By conviction; for the knowledge of sin is by the Law; it convinced sinners, and caused every mouth to be stopped before God.

(2) By condemning the sinner in an application of the sanction of the Law to his conscience.

(3) By the judgments and punishments wherewith on all occasions it was accompanied. In all it manifested and represented the justice and severity of God. The end of the New Covenant is, to declare the love, grace and mercy of God, and therewith to give repentance, remission of sin, and life eternal.

11. They differed in their effects. For the first Covenant being the ministration of death and condemnation, it brought the minds and spirits of them that were under it, into servitude and bondage, whereas spiritual liberty is the immediate effect of the New Testament. And there is no one thing wherein the Spirit of God does more frequently give us an account of the difference between these two Covenants, than this of the liberty of the one, and the bondage of the other, see (Romans 8:15; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 4:1, 2, 3, 4, 24, 25, 30, 31; Hebrews 2:14, 15). This therefore we must a little explain. Therefore the bondage which was the effect of the Old Covenant, arose from several causes concurring to the effecting of it.

1. The renovation of the terms and sanction of the Covenant of Works contributed much thereunto. For the people saw not how the commands of that Covenant could be observed, nor how its curse could be avoided. They saw it not, I say, by any thing in the Covenant of Sinai, which therefore gendred to bondage. All the prospect they had of deliverance was from the Promise.

2. It arose from the manner of the delivery of the Law, and God's entring thereon into Covenant with them. This was ordered on purpose to fill them with dread and fear. And it could not but do so, when ever they called it to remembrance.

3. From the severity of the penalties annexed to the transgression of the Law. And God had taken upon himself, that where punishment was not exacted according to the Law, he himself would cut them off. This kept them always anxious and sollicitous, not knowing when they were safe or secure.

4. From the nature of the whole ministry of the Law, which was the ministration of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:16), which declared the desert of every sin to be death, and denounced death to every sinner, administring by its self no relief to the minds and consciences of men. So was it the letter that killed them that were under its power.

5. From the darkness of their own minds in the means, ways and causes of deliverance from all these things. It is true, they had a promise before of life and salvation, which was not abolished by this Covenant, even the Promise made to Abraham. But this belonged not to this Covenant. And the way of its accomplishment by the incarnation and mediation of the Son of God was much hidden from them, yes from the Prophets themselves who yet foretold them. This left them under much bondage. For the principal cause and means of the liberty of believers under the Gospel, ariseth from the clear light they have into the mystery of the love and grace of God in Christ. This faith and knowledge of his incarnation, humiliation, sufferings and sacrifice, whereby he made attonement for sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness, is that which gives them liberty and boldness in their obedience (2 Corinthians 3:17, 18). While they of old were in the dark as to these things, they must needs be kept under much bondage.

6. It was increased by the yoke of a multitude of laws, rites and ceremonies imposed on them, which made the whole of their worship a burden to them, and unsupportable (Acts 15:9).

In and by all these ways and means there was a spirit of bondage and fear administred to them. And this God did, thus he dealt with them, to the end that they might not rest in that state, but continually look out after deliverance.

On the other hand, the New Covenant gives liberty and boldness, the liberty and boldness of children to all believers. It is the Son in it that makes us free, or gives us universally all that liberty which is any way needful for us, or useful to us. For where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty, namely, to serve God not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the Spirit. And it is declared that this was the great end of bringing in the New Covenant, in the accomplishment of the Promise made to Abraham, namely, that we being delivered from the hands of all our enemies, might serve God without fear all the days of our lives (Luke 1:72, 73, 74, 75). And we may briefly consider wherein this deliverance and liberty by the New Covenant does consist, which it does in the things ensuing.

1. In our freedom from the commanding power of the Law, as to sinless perfect obedience in order to righteousness and justification before God. Its commands we are still subject to, but not in order to life and salvation. For to those ends it is fulfilled in and by the Mediator of the New Covenant, who is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4).

2. In our freedom from the condemning power of the Law, and the sanction of it in the curse. This being undergone and answered by him, who was made a curse for us, we are freed from it (Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:13, 14). And therein also are we delivered from the fear of death (Hebrews 2:15), as it was paenal, and an entrance into judgment or condemnation (John 5:24).

3. In our freedom from conscience for sin (Hebrews 10:2). That is, conscience disquieting, perplexing and condemning our persons, the hearts of all that believe being sprinkled from an evil conscience by the blood of Christ.

4. In our freedom from the whole system of Mosaical worship in all the rites and ceremonies, and ordinances of it, which what a burden it was, the Apostles do declare (Acts 15), and our Apostle at large in his Epistle to the Galatians.

5. From all the laws of men in things appertaining to the worship of God (1 Corinthians 7:23). And by all these, and the like instances of spiritual liberty, does the Gospel free believers from that spirit of bondage to fear, which was administred under the Old Covenant.

It remains only that we point at the heads of those ways whereby this liberty is communicated to us under the New Covenant. And it is done

Principally, by the grant and communication of the Spirit of the Son as a Spirit of Adoption, giving the freedom, boldness and liberty of children (John 1:12; Romans 8:15, 16, 17; Galatians 4:6, 7). From hence the Apostle lays it down as a certain rule, that where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17). Let men pretend what they will, let them boast of the freedom of their outward condition in this world, and of the inward liberty or freedom of their wills, there is indeed no true liberty where the Spirit of God is not. The ways whereby he gives freedom, power, a sound mind, spiritual boldness, courage and contempt of the Cross, holy confidence before God, a readiness for obedience and enlargedness of heart in duties, with all other things wherein true liberty does consist, or which any way belongs to it, I must not here divert to declare. The world judges that there is no bondage, but where the Spirit of God is; for that gives that conscientious fear of sin, that awe of God in all our thoughts, actions and ways, that careful and circumspect walking, that temperance in things lawful, that abstinence from all appearance of evil, wherein they judge the greatest bondage on the earth to consist. But those who have received him, do know that the whole world does lie in evil, and that all those to whom spiritual liberty is a bondage, are the servants and slaves of Satan.

It is obtained by the evidence of our justification before God, and the causes of it. This men were greatly in the dark to, under the first Covenant, although all stable peace with God does depend thereon. For it is in the Gospel, that the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith (Romans 1:17). Indeed the righteousness of God without the Law, is witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (Romans 3:21). That is, testimony is given to it in legal institutions, and the promises recorded in the Prophets; but these things were obscure to them, who were to seek for what was intended under the vails and shadows of Priests and Sacrifices, atonements and expiations. But our justification before God in all the causes of it, being now fully revealed and made manifest, it has a great influence into spiritual liberty and boldness.

By the spiritual light which is given to believers into the mystery of God in Christ. This the Apostle affirms to have been hid in God from the beginning of the world (Ephesians 3:9). It was contrived and prepared in the counsel and wisdom of God from all eternity. Some intimation was given of it in the first Promise, and was afterwards shadowed out by sundry legal institutions. But the depth, the glory, the beauty and fullness of it was hid in God, in his mind and will, until it was fully revealed in the Gospel. The Saints under the Old Testament believed that they should be delivered by the promised Seed, that they should be saved for the Lord's sake, that the Angel of the Covenant would save them, yea, that the Lord himself would come to his Temple; and they diligently inquired into what was foresignified concerning the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should ensue. But all this while their thoughts and conceptions were exceedingly in the dark as to those glorious things which are made so plain in the New Covenant, concerning the Incarnation, Mediation, Sufferings and Sacrifice of the Son of God, concerning the way of God's being in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Now as darkness gives fear, so light gives liberty.

We obtain this liberty by the opening of the way into the Holiest, and the entrance we have thereby with boldness to the Throne of Grace. This also the Apostle insists upon peculiarly in sundry places of his ensuing discourses, as chap. 9. 8. chap. 10. 19, 20, 21, 22. where it must be spoken to, if God permit, at large. For a great part of the liberty of the New Testament does consist herein.

By all the ordinances of Gospel-worship. How the ordinances of worship under the Old Testament did lead the people into bondage, has been declared. But all those of the New Testament, through their plainness in signification, their immediate respect to the Lord Christ, with their use and efficacy to guide believers in their communion with God, do all conduce to our evangelical liberty. And of such importance is our liberty in this instance of it, that when the Apostles saw it necessary for the avoiding of offence and scandal, to continue the observance of one or two legal institutions, in abstinence from some things in themselves indifferent, they did it only for a season, and declared that it was only in case of scandal, that they would allow this temporary abridgment of the liberty given us by the Gospel.

12. They differ greatly with respect to the dispensation and grant of the Holy Ghost. It is certain, that God did grant the gift of the Holy Spirit under the Old Testament, and his operations during that season as I have at large elsewhere declared. But it is no less certain, that there was always a promise of his more signal effusion upon the confirmation and establishment of the New Covenant. See in particular that great promise to this purpose (Joel 2:28, 29), as applied and expounded by the Apostle Peter (Acts 2:17, 18). Yes, so sparing was the communication of the Holy Ghost under the Old Testament, compared with his effusion under the New, as that the Evangelist affirms, that the Holy Ghost was not yet, because that Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39), that is, he was not yet given in that manner as he was to be given upon the confirmation of the New Covenant. And those of the Church of the Hebrews who had received the doctrine of John, yet affirmed that they had not so much as heard whether there were any Holy Ghost or no (Acts 19:2), that is, any such gift and communication of him, as was then proposed as the chief privilege of the Gospel. Neither does this concern only the plentiful effusion of him with respect to those miraculous gifts and operations wherewith the doctrine and establishment of the New Covenant was testified to and confirmed; however that also gave a signal difference between the two Covenants. For the first Covenant was confirmed by dreadful appearances and operations effected by the ministry of Angels, but the new by the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost himself. But this difference principally consists herein, that under the New Testament the Holy Ghost has graciously condescended to bear the office of the Comforter of the Church. That this unspeakable privilege is peculiar to the New Testament, is evident from all the promises of his being sent as a comforter made by our Savior (John 14:15, 16), especially that, wherein he assures his Disciples, that unless he went away, in which going away he confirmed the New Covenant, the comforter would not come, but if he so went away, he would send him from the Father (Chap. 16:7). And the difference between the two Covenants which ensued hereon is inexpressible.

13. They differ in the declaration made in them of the Kingdom of God. It is the observation of Austin, that the very name of the Kingdom of Heaven is peculiar to the New Testament. It is true, God reigned in and over the Church under the Old Testament; but his rule was such, and had such a relation to secular things, especially with respect to the Land of Canaan, and the flourishing condition of the people therein, as that it had an appearance of a kingdom of this world. And that it was so, and was so to be, consisting in empire, power, victory, wealth and peace was so deeply fixed on the minds of the generality of the people, that the Disciples of Christ themselves could not free themselves of that apprehension, until the New Testament was fully established. But now in the Gospel, the nature of the Kingdom of God, where it is, and wherein it consists, is plainly and evidently declared, to the unspeakable consolation of believers. For whereas it is now known and experienced to be internal, spiritual and heavenly, they have no less assured interest in it, and advantage by it, in all the troubles which they may undergo in this world, than they could have in the fullest possession of all earthly enjoyments.

14. They differ in their substance and end. The Old Covenant was typical, shadowy and removeable (Hebrews 10:1). The New Covenant is substantial and permanent, as containing the Body which is Christ. Now consider the Old Covenant comparatively with the New, and this part of its nature that it was typical and shadowy, is a great debasement of it. But consider it absolutely, and the things wherein it was so, were its greatest glory and excellency. For in these things alone, was it a token and pledge of the love and grace of God. For those things in the Old Covenant which had most of bondage in their use and practice, had most of light and grace in their signification. This was the design of God in all the ordinances of worship belonging to that Covenant, namely to typify, shadow and represent the heavenly substantial things of the New Covenant, or the Lord Christ, and the work of his mediation. This the Tabernacle, Ark, Altar, Priests, and Sacrifices did do, and it was their glory that so they did. However compared with the substance in the New Covenant, they have no glory.

15. They differ in the extent of their administration, according to the will of God. The first was confined to the posterity of Abraham, according to the flesh, and to them especially in the Land of Canaan, with some few proselytes that were joined to them (Deuteronomy 5:3), excluding all others from the participation of the benefits of it. And hence it was, that whereas the personal ministry of our Savior himself in preaching of the Gospel, was to precede the introduction of the New Covenant, it was confined to the people of Israel (Matthew 15:24). And he was the Minister of the Circumcision (Romans 15:8), such narrow bounds and limits had the administration of this Covenant affixed to it by the will and pleasure of God (Psalm 141:19, 20). But the administration of the New Covenant is extended to all nations under Heaven, none being excluded on the account of tongue, language, family, nation, or place of habitation. All have an equal interest in the rising Sun. The partition wall is broken down, and the gates of the new Jerusalem are set open to all comers upon the Gospel invitation. This is frequently taken notice of in the Scripture; see Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15; John 11:51, 52; John 12:32; Acts 11:18; Acts 17:30; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 2:11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; Chapter 3:8, 9, 10; Colossians 3:10, 11; 1 John 2:12; Revelation 5:9. This is the grand charter of the poor wandering Gentiles. Having wilfully fallen off from God, he was pleased in his holiness and severity to leave all our ancestors for many generations to serve and worship the Devil. And the mystery of our recovery was hid in God from the foundation of the world (Ephesians 3:8, 9, 10). And although it was so foretold, so prophesied of, so promised under the Old Testament; yet such was the pride, blindness and obstinacy of the greatest part of the Church of the Jews, that its accomplishment was one great part of that stumbling block whereat they fell; yes, the greatness and glory of this mystery was such, that the disciples of Christ themselves comprehended it not, until it was testified to them, by the pouring out of the Holy Ghost, the great Promise of the New Covenant, upon some of those poor Gentiles (Acts 11:18).

16. They differ in their efficacy. For the Old Covenant made nothing perfect, it could effect none of the things it did represent, nor introduce that perfect or compleat state which God had designed for the Church. But this we have at large insisted on in our exposition of the foregoing chapter.

Lastly, they differ in their duration; for the one was to be removed, and the other to abide for ever, which must be declared on the ensuing verses.

It may be other things of an alike nature may be added to these that we have mentioned, wherein the difference between the two Covenants does consist; but these instances are sufficient to our purpose. For some when they hear that the Covenant of Grace was always one and the same, of the same nature and efficacy under both Testaments, that the way of salvation by Christ was always one and the same, are ready to think that there was no such great difference between their state and ours as is pretended. But we see that on this supposition, that Covenant which God brought the people into at Sinai, and under the yoke whereof they were to abide until the New Covenant was established, had all the disadvantages attending it which we have insisted on. And those who understand not how excellent and glorious those privileges are, which are added to the Covenant of Grace, as to the administration of it by the introduction and establishment of the New Covenant, are utterly unacquainted with the nature of spiritual and heavenly things.

There remaineth yet one thing more which the Socinians give us occasion to speak to from these words of the Apostle, that the New Covenant is established on better promises. For from hence they do conclude, that there were no promises of life under the Old Testament, which in the latitude of it is a sensless and brutish opinion. And

1. The Apostle in this place intends only those promises whereon the New Testament was legally ratified and reduced into the form of a Covenant, which were, as he declares, the promises of especial pardoning mercy, and of the efficacy of grace in the renovation of our natures. But it is granted that the other Covenant was legally established on promises which respected the Land of Canaan. Therefore it is granted that as to the promises whereby the Covenants were actually established, those of the New Covenant were better than the other.

2. The Old Covenant had express promises of eternal life. He that does these things shall live in them. It was indeed with respect to perfect obedience that it gave that promise; however that promise it had, which is all that at present we enquire after.

3. The institution of worship which belonged to that Covenant, the whole ministry of the Tabernacle as representing heavenly things, had the nature of a promise in them; for they all directed the Church to seek for life and salvation in and by Jesus Christ alone.

4. The question is not what promises are given in the Law itself, or the Old Covenant formally considered as such; but what promise they had who lived under that Covenant, and which were not disannulled by it. For we have proved sufficiently, that the additions of this Covenant did not abolish or supersede the efficacy of any promise that God had before given to the Church. And to say, that the first promise, and that given to Abraham confirmed with the oath of God were not promises of eternal life, is to overthrow the whole Bible, both Old Testament and New. And we may observe from the foregoing discourses,

1. That although one state of the Church has had great advantages and privileges above another, yet no state had whereof to complain, while they observed the terms prescribed to them. We have seen in how many things, and those most of them of the highest importance, the state of the Church under the New Covenant, excelled that under the Old, yet was that in its self a state of unspeakable grace and privileges. For

1. It was a state of near relation to God by virtue of a covenant. And when all mankind had absolutely broken covenant with God by sin, to call any of them into a new covenant relation with himself, was an act of sovereign grace and mercy. Herein were they distinguished from the residue of mankind, whom God suffered to walk in their own ways, and winked at their ignorance, while they perished all in the pursuit of their foolish imaginations. This a great part of the Book of Deuteronomy is designed to impress a sense of upon the minds of the people; and it is summarily expressed by the Psalmist (Psalm 147:19, 20), and by the Prophet, We are your, you never bearest rule over them; your Name was not called upon by them (Isaiah 64:19).

2. This covenant of God was in itself holy, just and equal. For although there was in it an imposition of sundry things burdensome, they were such as God in his infinite wisdom saw necessary for that people, and such as they could not have been without. Hence on all occasions God refers it even to themselves to judge whether his ways towards them were not equal, and their own unequal; and it was not only just, but attended with promises of unspeakable advantages above all other people whatever.

3. God dealing with them in the way of a covenant, whereunto the mutual consent of all parties covenanting is required, it was proposed to them for their acceptance, and they did accordingly willingly receive it (Exodus 24; Deuteronomy 5), so as that they had not whereof to complain.

4. In that state of discipline wherein God was pleased to hold them, yet they enjoyed the way of life and salvation in the promise; for as we have showed at large, the promise was not disannulled by the introduction of this covenant. Therefore although God reserved a better and more complete state for the Church under the New Testament, having ordained better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect; yet was that other state in itself good and holy, and sufficient to bring all believers to the enjoyment of God.

2. The state of the Gospel, or of the Church under the New Testament being accompanied with the highest spiritual privileges and advantages that it is capable of in this world, two things do from there follow.

1. The great obligation that is on all believers to holiness and fruitfulness in obedience to the glory of God. We have here in the utmost condescension of divine grace, and the greatest effects of it that God will communicate on this side glory. That which all these things tend to, that which God requires and expects upon them, is the thankful and fruitful obedience of them that are made partakers of them. And they who are not sensible of this obligation, are strangers to the things themselves, and are not able to discern spiritual things, because they are to be spiritually discerned.

2. The heinousness of their sin by whom this covenant is neglected or despised, is hence abundantly manifest. This the Apostle particularly asserts and insists upon (Chapter 2:2, 3; Chapter 10:28, 29).