prophecies, till the Chriftian difpenfation should remove that veil, and bring it into open light.

§ 6. Agreeably to all this, we are told Heb. ii. 3. that the great falvation first began to be "preached by the Lord;" 2 Tim. i. 9, 10. that' the gracious purpose of God for the falvation of finners is only "now made manifeft by the ap86 pearing of our Saviour Jefus Chrift, who hath "brought life and immortality to light thro' the "gofpel;" and Heb. ix. 8. that "the way into "the holiest of all was not yet made manifeft, "while as the firft tabernacle was yet ftanding." If Jefus was the first who plainly published the doctrine of falvation; if, until he appeared, the purposes of redeeming love were not opened and unfolded, and immortal life was not brought to light; if the Jewish difpenfation did not declaré the means of obtaining the heavenly happiness : we must conclude, that there were not in the Sinai covenant, promises of fpiritual and eternal bleffings.

But why need I multiply arguments, when the authority of two divinely inspired writers has been interpofed, to decide the controversy. We are not only told Jer. xxxi. 31,-34. and Heb. viii. 8,-12. that the Sinai and gospel covenants were effentially different: but are alfo informed, in what that difference chiefly confifted, even that the latter conferred pardon of fin and the enlightning and fanctifying influences of the fpirit. Now this could be neither inftance nor proof of fuch a difference, if the Sinai covenant had done the fame things. But the words of the author to the Hebrews will bid fairer to strike conviction into the candid reader, than any thing I can fay in illuftration of them. "Behold, the days come, C 6

faith

"faith the Lord, when I will make a new co

venant with the house of Ifrael, and with the "house of Judah: not according to the cove"nant that I made with their fathers in the day "when I took them by the hand to lead them "out of the land of Egypt. For this is the co"venant that I will make with the house of If"rael after those days faith the Lord; I will put 66 my laws into their mind, and write them in "their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and "they shall be to me a people. And they fhalk "not teach every man his neighbour, and every "man his brother, faying, know the Lord; for "they fhall know me from the leaft to the greateft. For I will be merciful to their un"righteousness, and their fins and their iniqui"ties will I remember no more.'

§ 7. Let it not however be thought, I would conclude from this and fuch like Scriptures, that none under the Sinai covenant had an interest in fpiritual bleffings. I only mean to affert, that the claim of the inwardly pious Jew to pardoning mercy, to fanctifying grace, and to the heavenly glory, was no more founded on his obedience to Mofes's law, than Job's claim to these bleffings was founded on his being born in the land of Uz, and having feven fons and three daughters. The special favour of God was vouchfafed both to Jew and Arabian, only in virtue of that promife, which being before the law, could not be annulled by it (d). The law, or Sinai covenant, made nothing perfect, that honour being referved to the bringing in of a better hope (e). It could not give life (ƒ). It could (d) Gal. iii. 17. (e) Heb. vii. 19. (ƒ) Gal.

iii. 21.

not

not give righteoufnefs (g). Sins committed under it, as to their moral guilt, and spiritual and eternal punishment, were forgiven only in confequence of the New Teftament, confirmed by the death of Christ (b), without whofe death the righteousness of God in forgiving thefe fins could not have been manifefted (i). So that without us, the Old Teslament faints were not made perfect (j).

SECTION III.

§1. IT is now time to inveftigate the condition, the performance of which entitled to the bleffings of the Sinai covenant.

This was no other, than an abftinence from fervile work on the Sabbath; freedom from legal impurities and grofs vices; an offering the facrifices prescribed in the law; in time of war, the depending on God alone for fuccefs, and not having recourse to horfes, chariots, or alliance with idolatrous ftates (k); and, in general, obedience to the letter of the law, even when it did not flow from a principle of faith and love.

A temporal monarch claims from his fubjects, only outward honour and obedience. God therefore, acting in the Sinai covenant, as King of the Jews, demanded from them no more.

Indeed, no other, and more fpiritual obedience could be expected from them. God had not promised in that covenant, to render them inwardly

(g) 2 Cor. iii. 9. (b) Heb. ix. 15. (2) Rom. iii. 25. (j) Heb. xi. 40. (k) See Differtation 4. at the end of Bishop Sherlock on Prophecy.

holy,

holy. And if we attend either to the general depravity of human nature, or the particular perverfeness of their temper, we shall eafily be convinced, they could not render themselves holy. If then inward holinefs was the condition of the Sinai covenant, the condition of it was fomething impoffible to be fulfilled. And will not this reflect on the wisdom and goodnefs, nay, even on the juftice of God. I acknowledge, God, as Creator, may juftly require obedience, though the creature has rendered itself morally incapable to obey. But to fuppofe him formally entring into a covenant, the condition of which he knew, could not poffibly be performed, is a shocking abfurdity. If it was one of God's defigns in the Sinai covenant, to advance the temporal welfare of the pofterity of Abraham his friend; tell me, was that welfare fecured, by fufpending it upon that obedience to the moral law, which God well knew they neither could nor would yield? was that covenant any real privilege or advantage, the bleffings of which were offered on impoffible terms, and confequently could never be enjoyed? would it have been confiftent with fincerity, to ufher in fuch a Covenant, with that kind declaration, I am the Lord thy God? To what wife purpose, fuch pomp and show, and fo ftrong and numerous profeffions of favour and good-will, if men are prefcribed a way to happiness, in which none of them can walk, and confequently by which none of them can ever arrive at it?

The temporal nature of the promises, in the Sinai covenant, proves the fame thing. Would

I that God, who, with a pleasant countenance, beholds the upright, require inward holiness, and

only promise outward bleffings; require the foul, and reward only the body; require the creature's love, and yet give it no undoubted token of his love; require defires of communion and fellowship with himself, and yet not gratify them; require inward devotion, and promise that, which will be the lefs valued by us, in proportion as our inward devotion is more elevated and refined? The hire being fervile, the work must be fo too. God will never give any less than he claims from them.

It is abfurd, to suppose any thing the condition of a covenant, which is not afferted to be a condition, in the covenant itself. And it is equally abfurd, to underftand the terms of a covenant otherwife, than in the clear, proper, direct fenfe of the words, wherein they are expreffed. Now the Mofaical law, obedience to which all acknowledge was the condition of the Sinai covenant, is employed in directing the outward conduct, not the affections of the heart. It prefcribes and forbids a variety of actions, while it seldom enjoins the virtues that adorn the inner man, or cautions againft the vices that defile it.

If holinefs refults from conformity to a law, the Mofaic law, as a condition of the Sinai covenant, can only require outward purity. For it terms all holy, who yielded an outward and ceremonial obedience, how bad foever their hearts might be.

Paul's reafoning, Gal. iii. 11, 12. is another proof of this. "But that no man is juftified by "the law in the fight of God, it is evident; for "the juft fhall live by faith. And the law is "not of faith: but, the man that doeth them, fhall live in them." The force of the Apo

ftle's