# How is the "Old Covenant" different than the "Covenant of Works"?



## Pergamum (Jul 11, 2017)

Talk to me like I am 10 years old here:

-How are these two terms different?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 11, 2017)

Old Covenant is synonymous with all the manifestations of the Covenant of Grace BEFORE the New Covenant. So it includes Gen.3:15, Noah, Abraham, Sinai, and David. Sometimes primarily the Mosaic Covenant is thought of as the old covenant, and there are parts of the Mosaic Covenant that seem to make it especially distinctive in some respects, but overall old covenant encompasses all the OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace.

The Covenant of Works was the once for all administration with Adam in the garden, established in Genesis 2:16-17. It is unrepeatable. After Adam broke the Covenant of Works and all mankind fell with him as being those represented by Adam in that Covenant, God drew near and established the first promise of the Covenant of Grace, Genesis 3:15, to which Covenant of Grace belong all the successive OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace (called Old Covenant). 

In the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son, at which time the old covenant (administration of the Covenant of Grace) took on flesh and ushered in the New Covenant, the fulfillment of which everything God had been promising.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 11, 2017)

Thank you. That was a helpful summary. 

Why is it called an old covenant and new covenant if it is all part of the one covenant of grace? It is not called a dispensation of a covenant or a particular administration of the Covenant of Grace, but is simply called a covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 11, 2017)

Just names, I guess. The Westminster Confession makes it clear it's just one Covenant of Grace with two distinct administrations. The names old and new simply help to distinguish their roles as two unified but distinct administrations of the Covenant of Grace (Why call them Old and New Testaments if it's all just the Bible?) The old looked forward to the new; the new is the fulfillment of the old. They both are about salvation, but the OBJECT of our salvation didn't come until the fulness of time. At that time, the shadows gave way to the reality, the promises to their fulfillment.

PS, are you guys overseas? Where are you based?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 11, 2017)

Pergamum, they can be called either dispensations (though carefully, not in a Dispensational sense) or covenants. Usually one or the other term is chosen depending on whether the unity of the one covenant of grace is being emphasized (dispensations of the one covenant of grace), or whether the diversity of time and place is at the forefront (covenants that nevertheless build one on top of each other). Jon's answer is spot on with regard to your original question.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Talk to me like I am 10 years old here:
> 
> -How are these two terms different?


The Covenant of Works was what God had instituted between himself and Adam/Eve, so if they kept his commands, kept eternal life and right standing with Him.
The OC was the One administered under the law of God, as it was primarily between Him and His people, the Jewish nation and people. the Covenant of Grace was still there, but it was not fully and finally/completely manifested until the new Covenant ushered in by God based upon the Death of Christ on our behalf.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2017)

I will offer a modest dissent, and say that I am of those who think that the _primary _use (i.e. the Mosaic terms of covenant) should be the _understood reference_ for "Old Covenant," unless some broader notion is intentionally attached to the words.

The covenant of works has one, and only one, proper referent namely the pre-fall relationship between God and Man. An acceptable, but improper reference may be made to the idea of a _restated _(republished) covenant of works in connection to Sinai, given that the language "do and live" is present; albeit in an attenuated sense. In no sense is it correct to infer that the covenant of works was re*in*stated at any time after the fall.

The language of "old" covenant originates from the well-known passage Jeremiah 31:31-32, which is the promise of a "new" covenant, contrasted with what is come before, _specifically _the Sinatic. Ergo, the Siniatic is _formally _the old-covenant; and this conclusion is borne out by 2Cor3:14 which reads, "Their minds were hardened, for to this day, when they read the *old* *covenant*, that same veil remains unlifted." The reading of the Law of Moses was a regular religious exercise of covenant-remembrance/renewal.

By an imprecise extension, we could extend "old covenant" to include the full range of pre-Christ covenanting--with the exclusion of the *covenant of works*. And in fact, this is how much conversation goes. It is a way of referring I was for a long time accustomed to using. But, now I see the need for greater precision. "Old Testament" is a better way to refer to omnibus _covenants before the coming of Jesus. _This is the *heritage* which Jesus Christ obtains, and it takes up the whole of redemptive history up to the hour of his coming.

The connection of the Christ-covenant (new) with Abraham's covenant (per Galatians, Romans, 2Corinthians, etc.) is fundamental, and we must have a way to keep the contrasts in view that arise from the intermediate administration of Moses, and not obscure them by our casual and undefined use of terms.

This view, therefore, makes "Covenant of Grace" a title proper to the whole of Scripture conceived as covenant-documentation, and that at any time of its collection. It is proper now to think of it as contained in the Old and New Testaments; just as before the coming of Christ, it was proper to think of it as contained in the Tanakh.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I will offer a modest dissent, and say that I am of those who think that the _primary _use (i.e. the Mosaic terms of covenant) should be the _understood reference_ for "Old Covenant," unless some broader notion is intentionally attached to the words.
> 
> The covenant of works has one, and only one, proper referent namely the pre-fall relationship between God and Man. An acceptable, but improper reference may be made to the idea of a _restated _(republished) covenant of works in connection to Sinai, given that the language "do and live" is present; albeit in an attenuated sense. In no sense is it correct to infer that the covenant of works was re*in*stated at any time after the fall.
> 
> ...


The fullness and completeness of the Covenant of Grace was at the time of Jesus though, as in the New Covenant, correct?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The fullness and completeness of the Covenant of Grace was at the time of Jesus though, as in the New Covenant, correct?


Have you heard of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, by JRR Tolkien?

Assuming you have, imagine if someone makes a statement like this:
"...But the fullness and completeness of _The Lord of the Rings _comes in the text of "The Return of the King."​Sure, that's the book where all the threads of the previous two volumes come together; and let's throw in _The Hobbit_ along with them. There is definitely a climax and resolution there.

Nevertheless, by no reasonable assessment may it be said that the previous volumes are not _the very essence _of the overall title of the compendium. No one should assert: the real story begins only as Aragorn at last rises up against all opposition and his own fears to do or die as the True King.

The Covenant of Grace is the story of God's striving to make and redeem a forever-people for his glory and their good. Yes, that story reaches its moment of triumph in the Person of Jesus Christ. But *getting to* Jesus makes having him in Person that much more real. He isn't just an "insertion" into history; he's the Meaning of ALL history; and the scarlet thread of the revealed purposes of God in bringing him forth--at just the time and place--is the OT narrative.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 12, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Have you heard of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, by JRR Tolkien?
> 
> Assuming you have, imagine if someone makes a statement like this:
> "...But the fullness and completeness of _The Lord of the Rings _comes in the text of "The Return of the King."​Sure, that's the book where all the threads of the previous two volumes come together; and let's throw in _The Hobbit_ along with them. There is definitely a climax and resolution there.
> ...


All of biblical history comes to one climax at the birth and life of Jesus, as that was when the Covenant of Grace become fully realized under the New Covenant, and the summation of that salvation history will be at the Second Coming event, and the New heavens/New Earth then in place.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 12, 2017)

Not sure if you are attempting words of agreement or disagreement. But anyway, "fully realizing" the Covenant of Grace only in the New Covenant sounds to my ears like language that leaves Abraham out of it, as if he had a _less-than-fully-realized _experience of the Covenant of Grace. Which I deny, as a WCF guy.

"Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was* exhibited*,... in them [Word & sacraments] it [the Covenant of Grace] is *held forth* in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy.... There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations." WCF 7.6.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 13, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Not sure if you are attempting words of agreement or disagreement. But anyway, "fully realizing" the Covenant of Grace only in the New Covenant sounds to my ears like language that leaves Abraham out of it, as if he had a _less-than-fully-realized _experience of the Covenant of Grace. Which I deny, as a WCF guy.
> 
> "Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was* exhibited*,... in them [Word & sacraments] it [the Covenant of Grace] is *held forth* in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy.... There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations." WCF 7.6.


Those saved By God under the old Covenant experience salvation as we under the new Covenant do, as in both cases, due to the Cross of Christ, but the fullness as in all believers having the Holy spirit residing in them, and we now have all spiritual blessings in Christ, as those under the old One were rooted more into physical/temporal blessings from God.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 13, 2017)

An OT saint had all the Holy Spirit that was needful for him, i.e. he was a full as he could be under the circumstances; this gift being beside any special indwelling. There was certainly more to be had in due time (NT). Also, the OT saint had all spiritual blessings in Christ, Jn.8:56; Gal.3:9; there's never been any other way to have them. The notion that spiritual blessings in OT times were "rooted" in physical things is really to treat the ancients like "primitives."

Barely above animals, they snuffle about and latch onto trinkets and baubles scattered on the ground that sparkle with caught-light. But for a select few who, curious, raise their heads to connect the sparkle with that great sun above; the majority merely root and rut and contend for the biggest pile of shiny-things. The few who have gained insight are no more primitives, but _advanced, _and _spiritual. _*It is a ladder built from earth to heaven. *This can result in nothing but pride.​
If spiritual blessings aren't _rooted _in earthly things at all, but coming out of heaven are themselves _promised_ and then attached to temporal signs which _purpose_ is to raise the eyes to heaven: that notion is ennobling, and considers man as he was created to be. *We need God in heaven to reach down to us on earth and raise us to himself.*

Man has fallen, but he is still the image of God. He will either work to cast off that image in order to descend further into depravity; or he will accept the signs and the God of them. One direction is death, the other life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 13, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> An OT saint had all the Holy Spirit that was needful for him, i.e. he was a full as he could be under the circumstances; this gift being beside any special indwelling. There was certainly more to be had in due time (NT). Also, the OT saint had all spiritual blessings in Christ, Jn.8:56; Gal.3:9; there's never been any other way to have them. The notion that spiritual blessings in OT times were "rooted" in physical things is really to treat the ancients like "primitives."
> Barely above animals, they snuffle about and latch onto trinkets and baubles scattered on the ground that sparkle with caught-light. But for a select few who, curious, raise their heads to connect the sparkle with that great sun above; the majority merely root and rut and contend for the biggest pile of shiny-things. The few who have gained insight are no more primitives, but _advanced, _and _spiritual. _*It is a ladder built from earth to heaven. *This can result in nothing but pride.​
> If spiritual blessings aren't _rooted _in earthly things at all, but coming out of heaven are themselves _promised_ and then attached to temporal signs which _purpose_ is to raise the eyes to heaven: that notion is ennobling, and considers man as he was created to be. *We need God in heaven to reach down to us on earth and raise us to himself.*
> 
> Man has fallen, but he is still the image of God. He will either work to cast off that image in order to descend further into depravity; or he will accept the signs and the God of them. One direction is death, the other life.



I am just saying that the Scriptures do seem , at least to me, to have much of the Old Covenant promised rooted in the promised land, physical blessings, health and wealth, while we now seem to have much more of a focus on spiritual blessings, as they could not approach God directly to His thrown apart from the priests, but we all have direct access to Him now.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 13, 2017)

Abraham is the original recipient of the "land-promise," Gen. 12:1; 13:14-15. But Hebrews tells us explicitly that Abraham saw quite beyond the sign--an earthly territory--to what was truly desirable, the better heavenly country, Heb.11:15.

The author of Hebrews even goes so far as to remind us that Abraham didn't get what God promised--if the promise was substantively (and not simply significantly) a place on earth, v13. The whole passage of "the hall of faith" (Heb.11) emphasizes again and again that those who hoped (they were not disobedient! nor unrighteous!): "they did not receive the promise," v39. That is, they did not invest in the sign, and so they were content to do without, and even be deprived of what they did have (v38). Why? So they might inherit the reality, the perfection, and that along with us, v40.

So, to say that only NOW the focus has come around to spiritual blessings, sounds like the author of Hebrews has it wrong. Since these "didn't get what was promised," either God failed; or else these very people--despite how well they performed, at least compared to the majority, as the Bible records it--failed, so God didn't feel obligated to fulfill his Word toward them. Those conclusions fly in the face of our confidence in God, who never fails; nor does he renege on his Word. But, he supplies everything, and depends on us for no part of our own salvation. He gives the faith that in return holds on to him.

It is true that the chosen people of old had emphasized to them the unapproachable holiness of God. Many temporal barriers were imposed to make that fact plain. But this does not mean a reasonable conclusion follows: that God wanted to play up temporal concerns. The challenge of how to approach him safely was not there to discourage people from spiritual seeking; but just to show them that he alone could make the way. And that the way was deadly, unless God dealt with the death.

OT religion was _spiritual,_ because _God is spirit_ (Jn.4:24); it did not become spiritual only by Christ's coming.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 19, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Why is it called an old covenant and new covenant if it is all part of the one covenant of grace? It is not called a dispensation of a covenant or a particular administration of the Covenant of Grace, but is simply called a covenant.



That is a good question that led Owen to reject Calvin and Westminster's formulation. He saw them as two different covenants.



> The judgment of most reformed divines is, that the church under the old testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new… The Lutherans, on the other side, insist on two arguments to prove that there is not a twofold administration of the same covenant, but that there are substantially distinct covenants and that this is intended in this discourse of the apostle…
> 
> Having noted these things, we may consider that the Scripture does plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way as can hardly be accommodated by a twofold administration of the same covenant…Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than merely a twofold administration of the same covenant, to be intended.
> 
> (Hebrews 8:6 commentary)


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 20, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> That is a good question that led Owen to reject Calvin and Westminster's formulation. He saw them as two different covenants.


Do you see the OC believers as having exactly same spiritual blessings as we do now under the NC?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 21, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> That is a good question that led Owen to reject Calvin and Westminster's formulation. He saw them as two different covenants.



This Owen quote is taken out of context. It should be noted that reading the entire section of Owen (here at Hebrews 8:6) shows that Owen saw the covenant at Sinai having the same substance of the CoG as the other administrations of the CoG.

Here is the entire context (707 and following down):

https://archive.org/stream/expositionofepis184003owen#page/707/mode/1up


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 21, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Owen saw the covenant at Sinai having the same substance of the CoG



This is entirely incorrect. Please do read Andrew's link. Read his entire 8:6-13 commentary. Not sure how anyone could read that and come away saying Owen thought the Old and the New were both the CoG.
http://www.1689federalism.com/owen/demo/owen.html

I'm bowing out of the discussions now. Hope this has been helpful to others.


----------



## GRJ (Jul 21, 2017)

The last paragraph of page 714 and top of page 715 Owen says although the way of salvation is the same between the two covenants they are still two distinct covenants and with differing substance. 

Brandon, thank you for all of your posts on these threads - they have been edifying and helpful for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 21, 2017)

I certainly second all the commendation to read Owen for oneself.

According to Owen, the difference is in *HOW* the new covenant is considered _vis a vis_ the old, in the course of the apostle's argument. Considered absolutely, or considered in relation to its legal establishment? Only in respect to the latter does Owen (after the apostle) set the covenants old and new at odds. Only in this respect does he describe these two as having distinct "natures."

I say therefore, that the apostle doth not here consider the new covenant absolutely, and as it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world, in the way of promise. For as such it was consistent with that covenant made with the people in Sinai. And the apostle proves expressly, that the renovation of it made to Abraham, was no way abrogated by the giving of the law, Gal.3:17. There was no interruption of its administration by the introduction of the law. But he treats of such an establishment of the new covenant, as wherewith the old covenant made at Sinai was absolutely inconsistent, so that it was therefore to be removed out of the way. Wherefore he considers it here as it was actually completed, so as to bring along with it all the ordinances of worship which are proper to it, the dispensation of the Spirit in them, and all the spiritual privileges wherewith they are accompanied. It is now so brought in as to become the entire rule of the church's faith, obedience, and worship in all things....

This the apostle intends by nenomothetatai, the 'legal establishment' of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed, and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered.... [W]hen all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and be conformed to it [t]hen it [new covenant] was established. Hence it follows, in answer to the second difficulty, that as a promise it was opposed to the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed to that in Sinai.

**********
The apostle doth evidently in this place dispute concerning two covenants, or two testaments, comparing the one with the other, and declaring the disannuling of the one by the introduction and establishment of the other. What these two covenants, in general are, we have declared, namely that made with the church of Israel at Mount Sinai, and that made with us in the gospel; not as absolutely the covenant of grace, but as actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs to it.

Here then ariseth a difference of no small importance, namely, whether these are indeed two distinct covenants, as to the essence and substance of them, or only different ways of the dispensation and administration of the same covenant. And the reason of the difficulty lies herein. We must grant one of these three things.
1. That either the covenant of grace was in force under the Old Testament; or
2. That the church was saved without it, or without any benefit by Jesus Christ, who is the mediator of it alone; or
3. That all perished everlastingly. And neither of the two latter can be admitted....
Wherefore, I shall take it here for granted, that no man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant and the mediation of Christ therein.

Suppose then that this new covenant of grace was extant and effectual under the Old Testament, so as the church was saved by virtue thereof and the mediation of Christ therein, how could it be that there should at the same time be another covenant between God and them, of a different nature from this, accompanied with other promises and other effects?

On this consideration it is said, that the two covenants mentioned, the new and the old, were not indeed two distinct covenants, as to their essence and substance, but only different administrations of the same covenant, called two covenants from some different outward solemnities and duties of worship attending of them. To clear this, it must be observed,
1. That by the old covenant, the original covenant of works... is not intended....
2. By the new covenant, ...the new covenant absolutely [considered]... is [not] intended; but in its complete gospel administration. *This, with the covenant of Sinai, were, as most say, but different administrations of the same covenant.*

But on the other hand...​And here Owen commences to discourse on the differences. But he most certainly avers (in 2. just above) that in the absolute sense, these (new and old) are different administrations of the same covenant. He further states (p.715 in the link provided): "As, therefore, I have shown 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 to 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." That term, "mere," or "simply," relates to the complexity of the inquiry. It certainly does neither dispose of the "administration," nor shade the differences.

By all means, let Owen largely instruct us on the differences, new vs. old. But, someone might say, Owen discourses so long and thoroughly on the distinctions to be made between the latter and the former covenants; surely this means that he's pretty much forgotten (and would have us forget) that he once admitted that absolutely these were but two phases of one design.

But is this anything other than painstaking exegesis? There is much to be gained from this detailed treatment. That some appreciating his labors would make something of them that he did not, and would not, does not affect those who appreciate his labors and maintain his conclusions without going beyond them or denying his express affirmations.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 21, 2017)

GRJ said:


> The last paragraph of page 714 and top of page 715 Owen says although the way of salvation is the same between the two covenants they are still two distinct covenants and with differing substance.


Yet, this has particularly to do with the apostolic _intent _for pursing the distinction. It is not, in Owen's view, an absolute way of viewing the two covenants, under which evaluation they _were _but administratively distinct.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 21, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Why is it called an old covenant and new covenant if it is all part of the one covenant of grace? It is not called a dispensation of a covenant or a particular administration of the Covenant of Grace, but is simply called a covenant.


You might look into testamentary language. In such a case, the thing that is different is the testament.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 21, 2017)

Read this Pergy...

THE FAITHFUL COVENANTER

Richard Sibbes
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/covenant-testament-works-grace-love-and-communion/

Also look for Reverend Winzer's discussions on what testament is on the PB.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 21, 2017)

We have had this argument before concerning Owen. As A Reformed Baptist I was confused about his position. I hope one of the other Reformed Baptist will respond and show us that it was not as absolute with Owen as some want to paint him. We have had past threads concerning this. I have lost my notes on the topic. Victor Bottomly, was a help on this years ago. So was Py3ak, Ruben. They knew his works. 

This is an old discussion concerning Erksine we had. 
https://puritanboard.com/threads/john-erskines-the-nature-of-the-sinai-covenant.84939/#post-1061251


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 21, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I certainly second all the commendation to read Owen for oneself.
> 
> According to Owen, the difference is in *HOW* the new covenant is considered _vis a vis_ the old, in the course of the apostle's argument. Considered absolutely, or considered in relation to its legal establishment? Only in respect to the latter does Owen (after the apostle) set the covenants old and new at odds. Only in this respect does he describe these two as having distinct "natures."


Having re-read that part of Owen for the 50th (exaggeration) time in my life, I think I finally understand him, and I came to the same conclusion that you have stated in your post. Indeed, I'm tempted to say Owen is basically Westminsterian in his understanding. His Exercitations show he believed in an external administration of the covenant of grace that was administered all the way throughout history after the Fall; they also show he believed the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace with some things annexed to it (like temporal promises); and he goes over various definitions of the word "covenant," showing that it can sometimes be used to refer to an absolute promise. Furthermore, in other places of his Hebrews commentary and in the Exercitations, Owen refers to the covenant of grace being a promise; that types have the gospel (and so administer grace); that the sacraments of the OT administer the same grace as that of the NT (p. 723-724, where Owen also denies that the OT was interested in externals only). As the Westminster Confession says, the CoG was administered in the OT by promises, types, and sacraments, etc. It seems like his idea of "legal establishment" is what Westminster means by "administration." The law and other externals (which of themselves adminster no grace) used in a subserviant or subordinate way to the "promise" (i.e., what we call the covenant of grace) is in line with Westminster, so long as the types, etc., are viewed as adminstering the covenant of grace.

The only things that make me hesitate to fully say he is Wesminsterian are some of the things he says that differs between the administrations, which seem to go beyond what we might say are different about the administrations (not sure though; I need to think about it/study more); and that it seems odd that he would explicitly argue against the one covenant in two administrations view on the level of "legal establishment:" Were there any commentators arguing such unity for the testamental arrangements of the covenants?


User Prufrock's analysis also seems to support Owen's basic Westminsterianism:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...t-of-grace-are-there.78854/page-4#post-999757


This many threads about 1689 Federalism these past few weeks makes me think that they are basically taking an exegetical theology and making it a dogmatic one. If they could tie up their exegetical insights into systematic form, they might end up with the one covenant in two administrations view. I'm not sure that's quite the right way to put it, but it seems like something of that nature is occurring, and it would explain their agreement with parts of Owen's exegetical commentary.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 21, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Read this Pergy...
> 
> THE FAITHFUL COVENANTER
> 
> ...


Thanks.


----------

