3. Whilst the church enjoyed all the spiritual benefits of the promise, wherein the substance of the covenant of grace was con- tained, before it was confirmed and made the sole rule of worship unto the church, it was not inconsistent with the holiness and wis- dom of God to bring it under any other covenant, or prescribe unto 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 doth still continue the only means of life and salvation. And that this was so, our apostle proves at large, Gal. ii. 17-19.
(2.) That this other covenant, with all the worship contained in it or required by it, did not divert from, but direct and lead unto, the future establishment of the promise in the solemnity of a cove- nant, 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 unto 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 unto life and salvation; namely, ‘To what end then serveth the giving of the law?’ whereunto he answers, by showing
76 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [ CHAP. VIII.
the necessity and use of the law unto the church in its then present condition, Gal. iii. 17-19.
4, These things being observed, we may consider that the Scrip- ture doth plainly and expressly make mention of éwo testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold administration of the same covenant. The one is mentioned and described, Exod. xxiv. 8-8, Deut. v. 2-5,—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 unto that worship which was peculiar thereunto. The other is promised, Jer. xxxi. 31-34, xxxil. 40; which is the new or gospel covenant, as before explained, mentioned Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24, And these two covenants, or testaments, are com- pared one with the other, and opposed one unto another, 2 Cor. iii. 6-9; Gal. iv. 24-26; Heb. vii. 22, ix. 15-20.
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 writ- ings of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, or the oracles of God committed then unto the church, (I confess they are once so called, 2 Cor. ii. 14, “ The veil 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 expressly 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 unto the old covenant, for they contain the doctrine of the New Testament also; but they are so termed because they were committed unto the church whilst the old covenant was in force, as the rule and law of its worship and obedience.
5. Wherefore 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 reconcilia- tion 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 adminis- tration 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
VER. 6.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 77
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 salva- tion could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or the admi- nistration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, whilst they were under the covenant.
As therefore I have showed 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 unto 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 :—