is in the epistle to the Galatians, upon which I must make a prefatory remark.

St. Peter's two epistles were written to the same churches, of which we find, that the Galatian was one. From this I conceive, that the epistle of Paul, to which St. Peter refers, is that to the Galatians in which epistle, therefore, he spake of the new heaven and new earth. I shall now proceed to examine a passage relating to "the blessing of Abraham."

:

"Brethren, I speak according to the manner of man; no one annulleth, or farther encumbereth, a ratified covenant even of a man."

The argument is from the less to the greater: if, even among men, no one would be so unjust as farther to encumber a covenant once ratified, far less can we suppose it of God. Whatever, then, was the original contract with Abraham, of that the church now has the full benefit.

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not,

and to

seeds,' as of many; but as of one,
thy seed,' which is Christ."

and to

The promises here mentioned are not concerning the seed, but to the seed conjointly with Abraham, and were promises concerning the inheritance. I think we Gal. iii. 18. may decide, to which promises the apostle refers, by the following considerations: (1.) They were ratified by a covenant; it must, therefore, refer either to Gen. xv. 18, or to xvii. 9, 10. (2.) I think it is not Gen. xvii., because there the seed is spoken of not in the singular, but in the plural: "I will be their God." (3.) It appears to me, that the transaction recorded (Gen. xv.) was four hundred and thirty years before the exodus. (4.) The covenant mentioned (Gen. xv.) was ratified by God unto, or upon, Christ; but into the covenant of circumcision Christ entered after his birth in the flesh. The apostle could not have referred to the covenant of circumcision, for he was arguing directly against the necessity and propriety of circumcision: for had he referred to the covenant of Gen. xvii., to which circumcision was necessary, his argument would have gone to shew, that circumcision was still

(5.)

Ver. 17.

the condition. Hence the promises to Abraham and his seed, I conceive, are those repeated in Gen. xv. 7 and 18, respecting the inheritance of the land; and they were now confirmed by the covenant, which also, of course, ratified the promises to the same effect previously given; and there is apparently especial reference in Gen. xv. 7 to the promises recorded in Gen. xii.

"And this I say, a covenant previously ratified by God unto (or upon) Christ, a law delivered four hundred and thirty years after, cannot nullify, so as to invalidate the promise."

The first remark is, that the observation of the law was apparently to be rewarded by the inheritance. And this is in agreement Deut. iv. 1. with the language of Moses: "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you for to do, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah, God of your fathers, giveth you." The land of Canaan, then, is still the subject in hand.

Again; we learn, that the promises to

18.

Abraham were established and ratified by the covenant of God with, or upon, Christ. I have already observed, that I conceive St. Paul alludes to the mysterious transaction recorded in Gen. xv. We learn from Jere- Jer. xxxiv. miah, that it was the principals, who covenanted, that passed between the moieties of the calf so, apparently, in the symbolical representation of the covenant mentioned in Gen. xv., the smoking furnace and burning lamp denote the principals: hence I suppose it to represent God's covenant with Christ. And so, in ver. 19, he is called "the seed, to whom the promise was made." If, however, the animals used in sacrifice represented the great Berith, then, perhaps, we should understand it of God's covenant upon Christ.

"For if the inheritance be out of a law, Gal. iii. 18. it is no more out of a promise; but to Abraham God conferred it through a promise." Law and promise are as directly opposed as grace and works; and, as God gave the inheritance to Abraham by promise, it is clear, that its attainments could not

K

Ver. 19.

afterwards be encumbered by a law of any
kind. Here we again see, that the inhe-
ritance, of which the apostle is speaking, is
that promised to Abraham-the land of his
sojournings-the land, which he was com-
manded to lift up his eyes to behold.
It was

"Wherefore, then, the law? added because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made." The apostle having shewn, that all law, of every kind, was diametrically opposed to promise, passes now, I conceive, from the general to the particular, proposing an objection which would naturally present itself: 'If law and promise were such opposites, what was the object of the law?' The view, which I am inclined to take, of the apostle's reply, is, I believe, rather different from the common interpretation. There is an opinion respecting the law very general, but which, I believe, Scripture attaches not to the law as a whole, but to the "ten words," 2 Cor. iii. 7. or "the ministration of death, in the letter, engraven in stones." The law, taken as a whole, although imperfect, was yet a means