TEXT.--"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, many as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."--Gal. 4:21-5:1. [86]

Y respected auditors, I ask your careful and prayerful attention to the consideration of the foregoing Scripture, from the pen of the great apostle to the Gentiles--one whose whole life and energies were spent in an effort to bind with Christian bonds, in one fraternal society, both Jew and Gentile.

      The topic, you perceive, before the mind of Paul is the covenants--the two covenants considered, illustrated and traced out under the beautiful, striking and impressive figure of an allegory, drawn from certain allegorical personages in the early family of Abraham. A correct and comprehensive knowledge of the two covenants here brought to view is of the utmost importance to the Bible student. No one can have an enlarged horizon of Bible information without it. As we explore the principles, promises, incidents and attributes of these covenants, we explore the Jewish and the Christian dispensations, the Old Testament and the New, the law and the gospel; and by their aid we are enabled to make the grand survey between the territories of Judaism and Christianity, and bound the authority of Moses and Jesus Christ. Ignorant of these covenants, and the Bible is in chaos--Judaism is Christianity, and Christianity is Judaism; a Jew is a Christian, and a Christian is a Jew. Darkness covers the Bible, and gross darkness hovers over the understanding. It knows no order. A stranger to all arrangement, [87] it bids defiance to all efforts at classification. We would as likely look into the Book of Chronicles for the way, the truth, the life, as into the Book of Acts of Apostles; but with this knowledge the sun rises in the heart, the veil is stripped from the understanding, and we behold, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, and, while with admiration and rapture we gaze upon His transcendent glory, are changed into the same image, from one degree of glory to another, by the Spirit of the Lord.

      It is of the utmost importance that we have a clear and accurate definition of the word "covenant," in this investigation. The liberal acceptation is "agreement." In its legal and technical sense it applies only to such agreements as are under seal, the making of which is accompanied with great solemnity. No circumstances of greater solemnity can be imagined than those that accompanied the making of the Sinaitic covenant. Jehovah descended upon the pinnacle of Sinai. The pealing thunder announced his awful presence. Darkness and blackness enshrouded the mountain. It smoked as a furnace. The tempest howled to the storm. And the voice of the trumpet, exceeding loud, struck terror to the heart of Israel. God called Moses to the top of the mount, and in the midst of this terrific scene delivered to him the words of the covenant. He sketched before him what he had done for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and for the present generation of their descendants. [88] He further informed him of all that He purposed to do for that nation, and also what He should require of them. Moses, having received these words, descended from the mount, and came and told the people of all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments, and all the people answered with one voice and said: "All the words which the Lord hath said, will we do." Here is the agreement--the mutuality of agreement--but no covenant. It must be reduced to writing, and sealed. Moses re-ascends to God, and writes in a book all the words of the Lord. And after its reduction to writing, he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the audience of the people. Both parties, the covenantor and the covenantees, hear this written agreement, with all its propositions, stipulations, conditions, etc. And after the careful reading by Moses the people signify a second time their acceptance. But still the covenant is not perfected. It must be sealed. Moses, killing the proper animal, caught the blood in a basin, and, dipping the hyssop in the blood, sprinkled both the book of the covenant and the people, accompanying it with the repetition of this solemn formula of words: "This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined upon you." The covenant is made. God and Israel stand in covenant relation to each other. He is no longer known as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob only, but as the God of the Hebrews also. [89]

      Solemn, impressive and melting were the circumstances attendant upon the making of the new and better covenant. The covenantor descended upon our earth in the person of Jesus, the Mediator, clothed in our nature, and made the pilgrimage of human life, from the womb to the grave, that he, experimentally, might know us, in all our infirmities, ignorance, trials, temptations, sufferings and death, that thus perfected, fully qualified, he is a faithful High Priest, and is able to have a right share of compassion on the ignorant, and them that are out of the way, seeing He Himself was encompassed with infirmity--enveloped in humanity--baptized beneath the mighty wave of human suffering, and in the presence of a blushing sun, and bursting rocks, He sealed with His own blood the new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

      The two covenants embody within them all preceding covenants and promises made with the Jewish people. The covenant conveying the land of Canaan to Abraham, as an estate of inheritance forever, was merged into the legal dispensation. Gal. 3, 18, 19: "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore, then, serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made." The law was added. Added to what? To the promise of the inheritance. The inheritance [90] of Canaan, till the seed should come. The covenant of circumcision passed from the hand of Abraham to that of Moses, and became part and parcel of the Mosaic institution. John 7:23: "If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken." Acts 15: "Except ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."

      The covenant concerning the Christ, made 430 years before the date of the law, maintained a separate and distinct existence, forming no part of the Sinaitic covenant. Hence, in all the legislation of Moses, there is not one word of reference to this spiritual promise. The new covenant is but a development of this promise. The oak from the acorn. The great tree, in the branches of which all the fowls of heaven may lodge, from the mustard seed. Thus there arise before us the two great institutions, covenants or testaments, in all their grandeur and glory. The old and the new the Sinaitic and Jerusalem--the temporal, and the spiritual and eternal, all these covenants are thus contrasted in the sacred Scriptures, but never identified. A distinct agent was employed by the covenantor in the making of these covenants, called mediators, or middle persons. Moses stood as a middle person between God and Israel. Ex. 20:21: "And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was." Gal. 3:19: The law "was ordained by [91] angels in the hand of a mediator." The man Christ Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant. Heb. 9:15: "He is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

      But, my auditors, while we have thus clearly before us these two covenants, and their respective mediators, I am about to propound that the Bible also reveals, describes and defines two churches, standing each upon one of these two covenants: a church upon the old covenant; another, not the same church, upon the new covenant. Here is the battlefield. Here I must break a lance with my pedobaptist brother. For pedobaptism, or infant baptism, as the word pedo indicates, stands upon four glass legs. They are as follows: First, the church before Christ and after Christ, one and the same, identical. Second, circumcision the door into the Jewish church. Third, circumcision done away under Christ. Fourth, baptism substituted for it. Upon these four pillars rests all the weight of the pedobaptist temple. Shall I break one of them? I will try first the identity of the churches. The identity of the Jewish common wealth with the church of Jesus Christ. It ought only to be necessary to state it, to disprove it. What can be the logic of this proposition of identity? Let us hear it. Well, here it is. Both [92] are called by the name "church." Both are called the people of God. Both had ordinances of divine service. Both had the gospel preached. Both were under obligations to live a holy life, etc.; therefore, they are identical. What a conclusion! Shall I expose the fallacy? Men are called animals; so are the beasts. Both are called the creatures of God. Both live by eating. Both are subject to pain. Both are mortal, etc., therefore they are identical!! They argue from resemblances to identity. There is the breadth of the heavens' difference between similarity and identity. But let us hear Paul on the question of identity. Eph. 2:14, 15: "For he is our peace who hath made both [Jew and Gentile] one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." The term "new man" is equivalent to "new body," "new society." or "new church." Mark, a new church; but the expression "new church" associates with old church. Here we have it, then, an old church and a new one. The old church was the church in the wilderness "This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel." The Jewish church stood upon the old covenant. The new church is the Christian church, standing upon the new covenant. [93]

      Let us hear Jesus upon the same topic. Matthew 16: "Who do you say that I am?" Peter replies: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replies: "Upon this rock I will build my church." Not, I have built, but, I will build it. There is a vast difference between building a house and remodeling it.

      Connected with all bodies, societies and churches is the idea of a constitution. Without a constitution they are in chaos--with, there are shape, proportion and strength. But may I inquire, What is a constitution? The constitution of a state is but the definition of the supreme authority of that state. If it be an absolute monarchy, the constitution is very short. The Czar is supreme--is the constitution of Russia. The constitution of the Jewish church is: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord." Jehovah was the center and source of all power. Just before the ascension of Jesus into heaven, He informed His apostles that the scepter had changed hands: "That all authority, in heaven and in earth," was given to Him. He ascends to heaven, above all principalities, powers, might and dominion, and every name which is named.

      The apostles, assembled in constitutional convention at Jerusalem, promulgated the constitution of the kingdom of heaven in the following words: "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus [94] whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ." Thus, while we have one God and Father, we have also one Lord Jesus Christ.

      It is a common saying--indeed, it is the outburst of common sense--that every church must have a law to govern it--a creed-book, church ritual, or whatever name you may see proper to give. No sooner, therefore, had Moses organized the Jewish church than a divine volume issued from the press, appropriately called the Old Testament. It is appropriately so called, because it was for the government of the old church, standing upon the old covenant. This was the creed-book of the church for fifteen hundred years--the only authoritative book. Upon the organization of the new church, in Jerusalem, a new volume made its appearance, appropriately called the New Testament--a creed-book--the only creed-book of the new church.

      But who can think or speak of the church without associating with it in his mind the proclamation of the gospel? The proclamation of the gospel is as essential to spiritual life as oxygen to animal. While, therefore, the church was in its pilgrim state, in the wilderness, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, and other elders, preached the gospel to them. Heb. 4:9: "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." Here, [95] you perceive, Paul affirms the gospel was preached to them as well as to us, but surely not the same gospel. McKnight says it was the gospel of the earthly inheritance--the earthly Canaan promised, four centuries before, to Abraham. And so says the context: whereas the gospel preached to us is the glad tidings of the heavenly inheritance which is incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.

      Into every church there is an initiatory process, or rite, mechanically called a door. Into both these churches there are doors of ingress and egress--a door in and a door out. What was the door into the Jewish church? Ah! this is a most important question. Here I must break the second glass leg of infant membership. Was circumcision the door into the Jewish church?--the only door into said church? Then, was the Jewish church composed of males only? "Every man child among you shall be circumcised." This is no pettifogging. It is a fair conclusion from the premises. It is inclusive and exclusive--including males and excluding females.

      That circumcision was not the door into the Jewish church is proven by another fact. It is impossible to pass from the outside of a building through the door of the building, and not enter the house. If we pass through the door, we must enter the building; but whole tribes entered through this so-called door of the Jewish church, [96] but never entered the church. There were the tribes of Ishmael (Esau), as well as the six nations descended from the six sons of Abraham by his second wife, Keturah; all were circumcised, and observed it in their generations for many years; but were they members of the church? The very law of circumcision shows most conclusively that that rite did not change the ecclesiastical relations of the recipient of it. "God said unto Abraham, Thou shaft keep my covenants, therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and thee and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generation, he that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Gen. 17:9-14).

      The uncircumcised man child, you perceive, was to be cut off from his people. The branch can not be cut off from the trunk unless it first be [97] united with the trunk. No one can be cut off from the church unless first a member of the same. The uncircumcised Jew was to be cut off from his church for his neglect. He was a member of the church before his circumcision; circumcision, therefore, did not make him a member. It was no door. It constituted no new relationship between the individual subject of it and the Jewish people. Let us, then, return to our former inquiry, What was the door into the Jewish church? I answer, Birth and purchase. "He that is born in thy house, and bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised." All born of Abraham's flesh, and bought with Abraham's purse, were, by virtue of said birth or purchase, members of the Jewish church, and were circumcised, not to make them members, but because they were already members.

      The ligament that bound the Jew to his church was a fleshy one. The Jewish church was the Jewish nation, and vice versa. A man entered the Jewish church as and when he entered the nation; yea, as he entered the world. Membership in the church was hereditary. All the sacred offices in the church descended from father to son, on hereditary principles. The crown floated down the channel of David's flesh and blood--the sacerdotal robes, that of Aaron. Into the church of Jesus Christ, as the kingdom of heaven, there is also a door. What is that door I How do the [98] sinner and the humble enter the church of God? I answer by birth. Ah! that is only part of the truth--by a second birth; not by being born, but by being born again; not a birth of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit of God. The Lord for the first time laid the great naturalization law of the kingdom of heaven before Nicodemus: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." The ligament of union to this church is not Abraham's flesh, but Abraham's faith. "They that are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." The preaching of John the Baptist was: "Say not among yourselves that we have Abraham to our father, but bring forth fruits meet for repentance."

      Thus, my respected auditors, we have before your minds two covenants--the old and the new; two mediators--Moses and Messiah; two churches--the church in the wilderness, and the church of Jesus Christ; two gospels--two inheritances; two books--the Old Testament and the New; and two births--the one of flesh, the other of Spirit--all and singular of which is beautifully, clearly and forcibly taught by Paul in the allegory before us. Let us hear him with care and candor. "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman; but he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh, but he of the freewoman was by promise [99] which things are an allegory." What is an allegory? It is not a metaphor or simile, but a number of metaphors. It sustains the same relation to a single metaphor that a cluster of grapes does to a single grape. This allegory is a cluster of four metaphors--the two women and their two sons. The two women represent the two covenants. "These are the two covenants: the one from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Hagar; the other from Jerusalem, which is Sarah." Sarah, the wife proper, represents the spiritual covenant made at Jerusalem; Hagar, the bondwoman, represents the covenant made at Sinai. The two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, represent the children or churches of the covenants. Ishmael represents the Jewish church; Isaac, the Christian church. Let us, therefore, examine the distinctive features of these two churches, as they were typified and adumbrated in the early family of Abraham, in confirmation of all that I have before said concerning them.

      These two sons, although both the sons of Abraham, are so upon very distinct principles. Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman, was born on principles perfectly natural. "He who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh;" but Isaac, the son of the freewoman, was born on supernatural principles: "He of the freewoman was by promise." Isaac was the offspring of faith: "Through faith, also, Sarah herself [100] received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised; therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and sands of the seashore innumerable." "And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body, now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb. He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in the faith, giving glory to God." Thus have we stereotyped, in this patriarchal family, the radical distinction between Jewish and Christian churches, in the very nature of the births of these two sons. The Jewish church is the church of the flesh. Its members, like Ishmael, are born of the flesh, and according to the flesh. The principle of growth and increase is natural generation. The Christian church is the church of the Spirit, because born of the Spirit, and filled with the Spirit. Its principle of increase is supernatural regeneration. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

      The second point of difference in these two sons, illustrative of the difference of the two churches, is in their condition, considered in reference to the institution under which they lived. The one was a slave; the other was free. In all slave countries the offspring takes the character [101] and condition of the mother. If she be slave, the descendant is slave; if free, the descendant is free. Ishmael, therefore, was a slave; Isaac a son, a free son. They appropriately shadowed forth the difference in the moral and spiritual condition of these two churches. The Sinaitic covenant "generates to bondage." The Jewish church wore a yoke, a slavish yoke, that "neither they nor their fathers were able to bear." "They were entangled in the yoke of bondage," "all their lifetime subject to bondage through fear of death." The Jerusalem covenant is free; she regenerates to freedom. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free." We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. "If the Son make us free, we shall be free indeed." The church of God is freed from condemnation by justification, strengthened against temptation by the Spirit of God, and has overcome death by faith in the resurrection. "Blessed be God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

      A third and most important difference between these two sons was in their relations to Abraham's property. Ishmael, because a slave, was not the heir; he was entitled only to a slave's portion--"a bottle of water and a loaf of bread." Food and raiment was a slave's right. Isaac was the heir apparent to all the estate of Abraham, which was by no means inconsiderable. Isaac was a [102] wealthy prince. How strikingly illustrative this of the comparative wealth and blessing of the two churches--the one limited to the earthly Canaan, its bread and water, its milk and honey; while the other, as a joint-heir with Jesus, anticipates a heavenly Canaan, an incorruptible, undefiled and unfading inheritance at God's right hand. Paul's schedule of their property is as follows: "Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all are yours." They wait "for a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory."

      But the fourth and last difference between these sons of Abraham, typical of a most important difference in these prospective churches, was in their spirit. There is a spirit homogeneous with the condition of man. The slave Ishmael possessed a slavish, low, mean and persecuting spirit, whereas the free Isaac was docile, humble, pious and a suffering man, elevated above the flesh--a spiritual man. This difference in their spirit is developed most strikingly at an early period of their lives, while both resident in their father's family, Isaac having reached the age of five years, a period at which patriarchal mothers removed their children from the breast. "Abraham made a great feast the day Isaac was weaned." Large numbers of happy guests surrounded the table laden with patriarchal simplicity; joy and hilarity covered the board. The young prince was the topic of [103] conversation. Mother Sarah received many au honest compliment on account of her son. Many a heart breathed silently a sincere prayer to God for blessings upon a son of faith and old age; joy and gratitude filled each heart, with one exception--a feeling of jealousy and hatred raged in the bosom of Ishmael. Ishmael mocked and persecuted Isaac. But what does this persecution mean? Would to God it had no meaning. Paul gives a solemn interpretation to this short piece of history (twenty-ninth verse of text): "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." These sons, in their spirit, and in the fruit of their spirit, represent the two churches--the one filled "with the spirit of bondage to fear," the other "with the spirit of adoption, whereby they cry Abba, Father." Ishmael stands for a persecuting church, Isaac for a persecuted one. No sooner were these two churches together in Jerusalem than the church of the flesh opened the fires of persecution against the church of the Spirit. The fire broke forth first in Jerusalem, spread to the cities around, and to all the Roman provinces wherever a synagogue was to be found. Here is the beginning of the cruel sufferings of the people of God, for conscience' sake; while Jerusalem has its tens of thousands of hallowed associations, it has at the same time many unpleasant reminiscences. From thence bloody and cruel edict after [104] edict was issued against the disciples. There the first martyrs sealed their testimony with their own blood: while the Jewish church had power, blood ran from every vein of the church of Jesus Christ; but "the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the church." The arm of this Ishmaelitish church was at length broken by the Roman power. Peace and gratitude ensued for a season. About this dine infant membership had its rise; a wicked hand was laid upon the only naturalization law of the kingdom of heaven. "The birth of the Spirit," "ye must be born again," and flesh was substituted for it. Flesh and blood, and not faith and a holy life, became the passport to citizenship in the kingdom of God. The effect was that tribes and nations moved right into the church of God, not by operation of the Spirit of God, but by operation of the touch of a moistened finger in the name of the Trinity to the babe of hereditary flesh and blood. The church swallowed the world, or the world the church, it is difficult to determine exactly which. The law of the Spirit being, if not stricken from the statute of the kingdom of heaven, at least a dead letter, corruption now poured into the church. Whole nations of unregenerate men and women now crowded the gates of the kingdom, filled with pride, ambition, and a love of power. Modern Italy, Spain and Portugal, and I might say Mexico, are lamentable illustrations of the corrupt workings of the flesh rather [105] than the spirit. In these countries all belong to the church, from the self-denying monk to the plundering guerrilla party. Give to such a church as that civil power--and civil power they will have--and you may confidently look for the desolating scenes that disgrace the pages of sacred history. I solemnly look upon this plea of flesh rather than the spirit as the cause of the persecutions in the past. What else could be looked for from a church composed of flesh and blood, superstition and ignorance--a church without spirituality and even sound morality? History confirms my position here; all the persecuting churches have been those who received far many more accessions on account of their flesh than on account of their faith. It is justly the boast of Baptists that they never persecuted--they never drew the sword from the scabbard. They chose to suffer with the Lord themselves, rather than cause suffering to others.

      But, my auditors, I must take you once more with me to Abraham's family, at the weaning of Isaac and feast of Abraham. We are there informed that the mocking of Ishmael was observed by Sarah. Displeased with the treatment of her son by her servant, she requested Abraham "to cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not inherit with my son even with Isaac." Abraham was grieved. He loved his son tenderly, and, whilst he stood [106] reflecting, God spoke and said: "Abraham, hearken to the voice of thy wife; cast out the bondwoman and her son." But this woman and her son are typical personages--typical of Jewish covenant and church. To cast out the bondwoman and her son is but a precept to cast out the Jewish covenant and, the Jewish church. But mark the reason of this repudiation of the bondwoman and her son. "The son of the bondwoman"--the son of the flesh--shall not inherit with the "son of the freewoman"--the son of the spirit. Here is a repudiation of the fleshy principle, and an indorsement of the spiritual--the children of the flesh are not heirs. It is, therefore, no matter of surprise that the Baptist said, "The ax is laid unto the root of the tree." The tree that brings the good fruit shall stand; the unfruitful tree shall be hewn down and east into the fire. Flesh was about to give way for spirit; blood, for piety and a holy life. Wonderful revolutions in divine things are clearly taught by this allegory: the old covenant has given way for the new; the mediator Moses for the mediator Messias; the Jewish church for the Christian church; the gospel of the earthly inheritance for the gospel of the heavenly; the earthly Canaan for the heavenly; the old testament for the new; the birth of the flesh for the birth of the spirit.

      That which now stands between the individual, whether Jew, Greek, barbarian, male or female, [107] bond or free, and the kingdom of heaven with all the fullness of its blessings, is the birth of the spirit. This is God's own naturalization law, made for the benefit of oppressed foreigners and strangers. Let no ruthless hand touch it, but let it stand from age to age as the door of the kingdom of heaven; and blessed is he that hastens to enter through this gate into the city. Amen. [108]

[NTC1 86-108]