sense, the less blessing being absorbed, as it were, in the greater, till "the Deliverer shall come to Zion, and turn away ungodliness from Jacob." Not, however, that the temporal promise is, to the people of God, done away Godliness has "the promise of the life that now is," as well as of "that which is to come," and those who "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness," have the assurance that "all these things"-namely, the needful blessings of this life," shall be made unto them."

These observations, respecting the seed, to whom the temporal inheritance was promised as well as the eternal, are in full harmony with the ground on which, according to the statements of scripture, the earthly Canaan was obtained, and held, and lost. It was obtained by faith; by faith it was held; and it was lost by unbelief.

1. What was the reason why the race that came out of Egypt by Moses did not enter Canaan ?—what was the cause of their exclusion ?-It was unbelief;-unbelief of the promises of God to their fathers; which promises, as we have already seen, contained the gospel, in the state of its revelation at the time. This is plainly declared, Heb. iii. 18, 19. "To whom sware he that they should *not enter into his rest, but to them who believed not? So we see, that they could not enter in because of unbelief:" and chap. iv. 2. "For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."The unbelief, thus imputed to this proscribed generation, was not unbelief of the statements of those who had been sent to search the land. For if, in the representation given by these, there was any material difference between Caleb and Joshua on the one hand, and the remaining ten on the other, certainly, as far as respected human testimony, Israelites could not have been greatly to blame, for receiving the declaration of ten in preference to that of two. But it was unbelief of the declarations and promises of God, made by Him to their fathers, respecting that land; and, consequently, distrust of his veracity, and his power, accompanied with rebellious complaints and murmurings. It amounted to a rejection of the word of God and the promises of his covenant,—a rejection of God him,

self as the God of their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was a denial of his faithfulness, not in the promise of Canaan only, but in all the promises respecting the seed of Abraham, connected with it, and dependent upon its fulfilment. These "sinners against their own souls" were, doubtless, unbelieving and proud despisers of all that the God of their fathers had engaged by covenant to do,―of the accomplishment of which their own deliverance, by signs and wonders, from Egyptian bondage, was a prelude and a pledge. They were unbelievers of the Gospel, as then revealed in the promises of the covenant made with Abraham.

2. It is true, that the Israelites are spoken of as continuing to hold the land of Canaan in possession through obedience. But by this obedience we must understand the obedience of faith. I say, we must so understand it, not because it is necessary to the making out of our present argument, but because the principles laid down by the Apostle, respecting the possession of the inheritance, indispensably require it. "If the inheritance, be of the law," he says, "it is no more of promise:""if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of no effect."-These expressions stand in perfect opposition to the idea of the land of Canaan ever being held on the ground of law, or as the merited reward of legal obedience. And there are, accordingly, many passages, in which the obedience required of Israel is described as being much more than mere outward subjection; as being nothing less than inward spiritual principle, manifested in external conduct; that is, in other words, the obedience of faith. Let the reader, who is desirous to ascertain the truth of this or the contrary, consult Deut. x. 12—22. and vi. 1—19: and, as illustra tive of the reasons of Divine judgments and of restoration from them, the whole of the thirtieth chapter of the same book. If any choose to say, that their obedience was the condition of their continuing to enjoy the prom. ised blessings, my approving or disapproving of the expression, (which is ambiguous, and therefore improper) depends on the meaning which it is intended to bear. If by condition be meant meritorious ground or procuring

cause, I decidedly object to the statement, as contradictory of the Apostle's. But if by obedience being the condition of enjoying the blessing, nothing more is intended, than its being essentially requisite, a sine qua non; then the expression conveys an important truth,-a truth as applicable to us as to them for there is no enjoying the blessings, of any kind, which God has promised but in the way of obedience to his commandments, under the influence of "faith working by love." It is equally a

truth that" by grace we are saved," and that "without holiness no man shall see the Lord;"—that "eternal life is the gift of God," and yet that we must "seek for glory, honor, and immortality, by a patient continuance in well doing.'

3. The reason why the Jews were at length, with such awful judgments, cast out from the land of promise, corresponds with these views. It was unbelief-rejection of the person and Gospel of the Son of God." Because of unbelief they were broken off," says Paul," and thou standest by faith"-Rom xi. 20. Moses, many hundred years before, had denounced curses upon them if they should be disobedient. These curses were fulfilled on account of their unbelief. And this shows us what kind of disobedience was the ground of his denunciations, delivered in the name of the God of truth.-See the following passages Luke xix. 41–44. Matt. xxiii. 34-39. Ĭ Thess. ii. 15, 16. Acts iii. 23, &c.

Thus it appears, that the promise of the inheritance was originally through faith; that it was as professors of Abraham's faith that the Israelites entered on the possession of Canaan; that the possession was continued through the obedience of faith; and that on account of their disobedience-disobedience springing from unbelief and including it-judgments were threatened and inflicted; that by faith the inheritance was obtained; that by faith it was held, and that by unbelief it was lost.

I have said, that, whilst the promises of the covenant with Abraham were made to the patriarch and his spiritual seed, there was in them at the same time a primary respect to his natural offspring, among whose successive generations that seed was to be raised up. This obser

vation is of essential consequence to our present subject; and I have yet seen no reason to shrink from the position. The following is the argument of my former publication, referred to in the preface, in support of it.

It has been said, that if spiritual blessings were prom ised, in that covenant, to the fleshly seed as such, then it behoved all the fleshly seed to possess them, and to be saved; which is contrary to fact, and therefore inconsistent with the faithfulness of God.' Those who make this objection, conceive the temporal promise to have been made to the fleshly seed, and the spiritual promise to the spiritual seed. It ought to be remembered, however, that, the reasoning which holds good as to the spiritual promise, is, in point of fact, equally conclusive as to the temporal. 'If the land of Canaan, and its temporal blessings, were promised by God to the fleshly seed of Abraham as such, then it behoved all the fleshly seed to inherit and enjoy them, which is contrary to fact, and therefore inconsistent with the faithfulnes of God.' The truth is, as I have attempted to show, that neither the one promise nor the other was made to the fleshly seed, merely as such; and that the principle, they are not all Israel who are of Israel,' is the only principle, on which the Divine faithfulness can be, in either case, vindicated and maintained. What if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faithfulness of God of no effect? God forbid.'

This view is by no means at variance with the idea of that primary respect, of which I now speak, as being had, in the promise, to the natural offspring; a respect, not merely primary according to the order of time, but according to a peculiarity of regard, and according to what may be termed the natural course of things.-That any peculiar regard or favor is shown to children on account of their parents, is by many strongly denied; as being inconsistent with the freedom of Divine grace. But that God does show such regard to children, for the sake of their parents, we find both intimated and exemplified, in many parts of the scripture history. God represents himself as visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the * Exod. xx. 5, 6.

6

third and fourth generation of them that hate him, and showing mercy unto thousands (of generations) of them that love him and keep his commandments.' Now, without entering into any discussion of the precise or full meaning of these expressions, I would merely remark, that the latter surely cannot be considered, as less consistent with the freedom of mercy, than the former with the strictness of justice.-There is an expression also used by Paul, respecting the Jews in their present state of unbelief, which appears to me inexplicable, except on some such principle-As touching the election,' says he, they are beloved for the father's sakes.’* If a peculiarity of regard is not, in these words, expressed towards the natural 'seed of Abraham, God's friend,' for the sake of him, and of their other godly fathers, with whom Jehovah established his covenant, I am at a loss to imagine what meaning the expression can have.

Besides in the idea suggested there is nothing inconsistent with the free operation of Divine grace; because this grace, in its various blessings, being conveyed to sinners by means, it is quite according to the natural order of things, that it should accompany those means, and flow with them, as it were, in the same channel. If, therefore, the knowledge of God, the means by which the blessings of salvation come to be enjoyed, was appointed to be conveyed from generation to generation, we must suppose the blessings to be conveyed along with it, and the conveyance of the blessings to be the grand design of the conveyance of the knowledge. There is no other design, which we can imagine God to have had. And, therefore, although the grace of God is not imparted by fleshly birth, all being 'conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity;' yet, that when God's people are attentive to the means appointed, this grace should appear descending through their generations, cannot at all be matter of wonder. If God has been pleased to make the promises of his covenant, with a primary reference to the generations of his people, as the line in which, by the communication of the knowledge of his name, the blessings of his grace should flow,

* Rom. xi. 28.