falvation for any who were under it. As, according to the letter, it promised temporal meṛcies, it figuratively exhibited those which are eternal; and was thus given in fubferviency to the covenant of grace. With refpect to the temporal mercies themfelves, the reward was promifed only on condition of obedience. In this sense it was the language of that covenant, "The man "that doth these things, fhall live in them." But in as far as this declaration may be viewed in relation to fpiritual and eternal bleffings, it could only refer to Him who was meritoriously to fulfil the precept, as well as to fuftain the curfe. Our Lord, as the true Ifrael, that fervant whom God had chofen, took up in behalf of his fpiritual feed, that engagement into which Ifrael in general entered with a legal and prefumptuous fpirit, faying, "All that the LORD our God hath

66

fpoken we will do." When they were brought to make this promife, the intention of God was very different from theirs. It was, however, obfcurely revealed in that very covenant to which they confented. In confonancy to the gracious defign of God, as we know that the head and the members conftitute one Chrifte, in many paffages of the Old Teftament, the language is caft into fuch a mould, as apparently to respect both the literal Ifrael, and the promised feed that was to fpring from them. Hence it feems difficult to interpret it of the one, to the exclufion of the other f.

The

e 1 Cor. xii. 12.

f See Ifa. xlii. 19.-21.; Hof. xi. 1.

• The covenant at Mount Sinai, indeed, appears to have been made with the Ifraelites, efpecially in relation to the furetiship of Chrift. It was neceffary that it fhould be made with Ifrael, that the Meffiah, who was to defcend from Abraham, might be under the law, in its whole extent, as a covenant. For as he could not redeem, without being our kinfman, as partaking of the fame nature; how could he redeem those that were under the law, without being fo near of kin to them as to be himself made under it with the fame latitude? It is evident, from the Apostle's reafoning, that the law under which Chrift was made, was not merely the moral law in the form of a covenant, but the whole of the Mofaic law. He was not only to redeem his elect in general from the curfe of the covenant which had been broken in Adam, but his elect among the Ifraelites from all the bondage under which they were by virtue of the covenant made at Mount Sinai, and for ever to free his Church from this yoke §.

This covenant was not "dedicated without "blood. For when Mofes had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he "took the blood of calves and of goats, with "water and fcarlet wool, and hyffop, and fprink"led both the book and all the people, faying, "This is the blood of the teftament which God

"hath enjoined unto you h." But "the blood of "calves and goats could not take away fin." It "fanctified

Z3

g Gal, iii. 24.; v. 1.-5. comp. See this fubject largely and judi ciously handled in Petto's Difference between the Old and New Covenant, p. 84.-188.

h Heb. ix. 18.―30.

1

"fanctified only to the purifying of the flesh.” It could only remove that legal uncleannefs which debarred an Ifraelite from the ordinances of the church under that difpenfation. It had, in itself, no virtue for real purification. All its worth, in this refpect, confifted in its typifying the blood of Jefus the true facrifice. Thus, how mean foever the legal oblations were in themselves, they were highly eftimable, in as far as they fhadowed forth that infinitely precious blood by which the new covenant is confirmed.

The Ifraelites cheerfully affented to the covenant which God made with them. They "en"tered into covenant with the LORD their God." They "avouched the LORD to be their God, and "to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes !." Some think, that, because of the peculiarities of that dispensation, they could not prefigure Chriftians in this tranfaction. But whether the Sinaitic transaction be viewed as a peculiar covenant, or only as a peculiar difpenfation of the covenant of grace; as the Ifraelites were ftill under the covenant made with their fathers, and as that very transaction at Sinai ultimately refpected the bleffings purchased by Ghrift; they, in their confent to this covenant, as far as they acted according to the proper defign of it, prefigured the church of Chrift under the New Teftament, in her cordial acceptance of the covenant of grace, and her engagement to be the LORD's. For even the covenant of grace requires, on the part of believers, a

reftipulation

Heb. ix. 13.

Deut. xxix. 12.

1 Deut. xxvi. 17.

66

a

reftipulation as to the performance of duty. Such language, to fome, has a legal found. But there is nothing legal, in our engaging, with all poffible folemnity, to walk in God's ways, and to keep his commandments. Our acceptance of the New Covenant neceffarily implies fuch an engagement. When God promises to be to us "God," he requires of us, that we be to him "a "people." Then only can we be chargeable with legality, when we enter into fuch an engage ment in our own ftrength, or view our obedience as a condition of our enjoyment of the bleffings of this gracious covenant. We cannot " cleave " to the LORD," without "full purpose of heart m.” But this purpofe muft reft folely on promifed grace.

There were, indeed, fome things peculiar in the manner in which the Ifraelites entered into covenant. Particularly, as this engagement refpected all the laws given them, not merely moral and ceremonial, but judicial: it undoubtedly re fpected the Ifraelites themselves, not merely as a religious, but as a political body. While they entered into covenant as a church, they did fo also as a ftate. They acknowledged JEHOVAH, both as their God, and as their King. They promifed obedience to him, not only in fpiritual, but in all political concerns. This covenant, then, viewed in one light, was their national oath of allegiance.

m Acts xi. 23,

24

From

From this peculiarity of their circumftances, fome have inferred that fuch engagements are entirely inconfiftent with the state of Chriftians. Others, going nearly to an oppofite extreme, have urged, from the example of Ifrael, that it is the duty of Christians, even in their various civil ftations, and as conjoined in civil and political focieties, to "fwear to the LORD of hofts." But it has been seen, that the Israelites, in their mixed character, as "an holy nation," were not typical of any particular nation or political body, under the New Teftament; but that this character is exclufively transferred to the Church of Chrift. Hence it follows, that it is only in a religious character, or as members of the spiritual "commonwealth of Ifrael," that this duty is obligatory in our times. When the churches of Macedonia" gave their ownselves to the Lord,” they did fo entirely in an ecclefiaftical capacity", Did literal Ifrael prefigure the church, in their relation to God as their King? What is this duty, but the church's folemn recognisance of her fubjection to the King of Zion, and of her cheerful fubmiffion to all the laws of his kingdom? And furely, if earthly fovereigns have a right to demand an oath of allegiance from their fubjects, the "King of faints" hath infinitely greater right to make this demand upon his.

IX. God admitted his ancient people to the dif tinguishing privilege of fonfhip. He expreffes the peculiar

n 2 Cor. viii. 5.