A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 24
LECTVRE XXIIII.
DEUT. 4. 13.
And he declared unto you his Covenant, which he commanded you to performe, even ten Commandements, &c.
I Have already handled the Law as it is a Rule, and now come to conſider of it as a Covenant, that ſo the whole Law may be fully underſtood. I ſhall not be long upon this, though the matter be large and difficult, though the ſubject be like the Land of Canaan, yet there are many Gyants, and great Objections in the way. I will rather handle it poſitively, then controverſally; for I do not finde in any point of Divinity, learned men ſo confuſed and perplexed (being like Abrahams Ram, hung in a buſh of briars and brambles by the head) as here. That I may methodically proceed, obſerve the context of this verſe, and the ſcope, Moſes being to perſwade the people of Iſrael to obedience Arguments uſed by Moſes to perſwade obedience to the Law.of the Law, uſeth ſeverall forcible arguments.
As, ver. 1. The good and profitable iſſue thereof, which is to live and poſſeſſe the land, not as if this mercy were only temporall, but by this was repreſented eternall life in heaven.
A ſecond argument is, from the perfection of it, that nothing may be added to it, or detracted from it.
The third argument is, from the great wiſdome and underſtanding they ſhall hold forth hereby to all other Nations, there being no people under the ſun, that had ſuch holy and perfect lawes as they had, and if that be true of Bernard, Sapiens eſt cui res ſapiunt pro ut ſunt, he is a wiſe man to whom things do taſte and reliſh as they are divine and holy things, as holy; earthly things, as earthly and fading; then certainly, by this Law of God, there was true wiſdome preſcribed. Other arguments Moſes doth bring, as, The great authority God put upon the Law, The great mercy in giving it to them rather then another Nation. And the verſe I have read belongs to that argument which proveth the dignity and glorious authority of the Law, from the manner of delivering it: Which Law he declareth to us by the name and title of a Covenant. Now this take notice of, that the word Covenant (to omit other ſignifications) is taken ſometimes ſyecdochially, for part of the Covenant, as it is here in theſe words.
The Doctrine I will inſiſt upon, is, That the Law was delivered That the Law God delivered to Iſrael was a Covenant, appears.by God on Mount Sinai in a Covenant way: Or, The Law was a Covenant that God made with the people of Iſrael. This will appeare in that it hath the name of a Covenant, and the reall properties of a Covenant.
1. The name of a Covenant. 2 King. 18. 12. Becauſe they 1. In that it ha…h the name of a Covenant.obeyed not the voyce of the Lord their God, but tranſgreſſed his Covenant, and all that Moſes, the ſervant of God, commanded.
Deut, 17. 2. If there be found any—that hath wrought wickedneſſe—in tranſgreſſing the Covenant, which was the ten Commandements, as appeareth ver. 3. And more expreſly, 2 Chro. 6. 11. In it have I put the Arke wherein is the Covenant of the Lord, that he made with the children of Iſrael. Yea, if we would ſpeake exactly and ſtrictly, the books of Moſes and the Prophets cannot be ſo well called the Old Covenant, or Teſtament; as this doctrine that was then delivered on Mount Sinai, with all the adminiſtrations thereof; as appeareth. Heb 7. & chap. 8. Even as when the Apoſtle ſaith, 2 Cor. 3. 6. God hath made us able miniſters of the New Teſtament, he doth not meane the writings, or books, but the Goſpel, or Covenant of grace. Take but one place more, where the Law is called a Covenant, and that is Jer. 11. 2, 3, 4.
2. In the next place you may ſee the reall properties of a Covenant, 2 In that it hath the reall properties of a Covenant.which are a mutuall conſent and ſtipulation on both ſides: See a full relation of this. Exod, 3: 24. from the 3. v. to the 9th. The Apoſtle relateth this hiſtory, Heb. 9. wherein learned Interpreters obſerve many difficulties: but I ſhall not meddle with them.
In the words quoted out of Exodus, you ſee theſe things which belong to a Covenant: Firſt, there is God himſelfe expreſſing his conſent and willingneſſe to be their God, if they will keep ſuch Commandements there and then delivered to them ver. 3. Secondly, you have the peoples full conſent, and ready willingneſſe to obey them, ver. 3. & ver. 7. Thirdly, becauſe Covenants uſed to be written down for a memoriall unto poſterity, therefore we ſee Moſes writing the precepts down in a book. Fourthly, becauſe Covenants uſed to be confirmed by ſome outward viſible ſignes, eſpecially by killing of beaſts, and offering them in ſacrifice, therefore we have this alſo done, and halfe of the blood was ſprinkled on the Altar, to denote Gods entring into Covenant, and the people alſo were ſprinckled with blood, to ſhew their voluntary covenanting. Thus we have reall covenanting when the Law is given.
So alſo you may ſee this in effect, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, 13. where it's expreſly ſaid, that they ſtood to enter into Covenant with God; that he may eſtabliſh them to be a people unto himſelf, and that he may be a God unto them. Again, you have this clearly in Deut. 26. 17, 18. where it is ſaid, Thou haſt avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walke in his wayes—And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people. So, that it's very plain, the Law was given as a Covenant; yea, the Apoſtle cals it a Teſtament: for howſoever ſome have diſliked that diſtinction of the Old and New Teſtament, eſpecially as applied to the books & writings of the holy Pen-men of Scripture (thinking as Auſtin, they may be better called the Old and New Inſtruments, becauſe they are authenticall, and confirmed by ſufficient witneſſes: As Tertullian cals the Bible, Noſtra digeſta, from the Lawyers; and others called it, Our Pandects, from them alſo) yet 1 Cor. 3. doth warrant ſuch a diſtinction. Only the queſtion is, how this Covenant can be called properly a Teſtament, becauſe Chriſt died not twice, and there cannot be a Teſtament, without the death of a Teſtator. But the anſwer is, that there was a typicall death of Chriſt in the ſacrifices, and that was ground enough to make the Covenant to be The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant.called a Teſtament.
Having proved it is a Covenant, all the difficulty remaineth in declaring what Covenant it is; for here is much difference of judgements, even with the Learned and Orthodox: and this doth ariſe from the different places of the Scripture, which, although they be not contrary one to another, yet the weakneſſe of our underſtandings is many times overmaſtered by ſome places: Some (as you have heard) make it a Covenant of workes, others a mixt Covenant, ſome a ſubſervient Covenant; but I am perſwaded to goe with thoſe who hold it to be a Covenant of grace: and indeed, it is very eaſie to bring ſtrong arguments for the affirmative; but then there will be ſome difficulty to anſwer ſuch places as are brought for the negative; and if the affirmative prove true, the dignity and excellency of the Law will appeare the more. Now, before I come to the arguments, which induce me hereunto, conſider in what ſenſe it In what ſenſe it may be a Covenant of grace explained.may be explained, that it is a Covenant of grace.
Some explaine it thus, that it was indeed a Covenant of grace, but the Jewes, by their corrupt underſtanding, made it a Covenant of workes, and ſo oppoſed it unto Chriſt: and therefore, ſay they, the Apoſtle argueth againſt the Law, as making it to oppoſe the promiſes and grace: not that it did ſo, but only in regard of the Jewes corrupt minds, who made an oppoſition where there was none. This hath ſome truth in it, but it is not full.
Some make the Law to be a Covenant of grace, but very obſcurely; and therefore they hold the Goſpel and the Law to be the ſame, differing only as the acorne while it is in the huske, and the oke when it's branched out into a tall tree. Now if this ſhould be underſtood in a Popiſh ſenſe, as if the righteouſneſſe of the Law and the Goſpel were all one, in which ſenſe the Papiſts ſpeake of the old Law and the new, it would be very dangerous and directly thwarting the Scripture.
Some explain it thus: God (ſay they,) had a primary or antecedent will in giving of the Law, or a ſecondary and conſequent: His primary will was to hold out perfect and exact righteouſneſſe, againſt which the Apoſtle argueth, and proveth no man can be juſtified thereby: but then God knowing mans impotency and inability, did ſecondarily command repentance, and promiſeth a gracious acceptance through Chriſt; and this may be very well received, if it be not vexed with ill interpretations.
But, laſtly, this way I ſhall go: The Law (as to this purpoſe) may be conſidered more largely, as that whole doctrine delivered on Mount Sinai, with the preface and promiſes adjoyned, and all things that may be reduced to it; or more ſtrictly, as it is an abſtracted rule of righteouſneſſe, holding forth life upon no termes, but perfect obedience. Now take it in the former ſenſe, it was a Covenant of grace; take it in the later ſenſe, as abſtracted from Moſes his adminiſtration of it, and ſo it was not of grace, but workes.
This diſtinction will overthrow all the Objections againſt the negative. Nor may it be any wonder that the Apoſtle ſhould conſider the Law ſo differently, ſeeing there is nothing more ordinary with Paul in his Epiſtle, and that in theſe very controverſies, then to doe ſo: as for example, take this inſtance, Rom. 10. ver. 5, 6. where Paul deſcribeth the righteouſneſſe of the Law from thoſe words, Doe this and live, which is ſaid to have reference to Levit. 18. 5. but we find this in effect, Deut 30. v. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apoſtle deſcribeth the righteouſneſſe which is by faith: And Beza doth acknowledg, that that which Moſes ſpeakes of the Law, Paul doth apply to the Goſpel: Now how can this be reconciled, unleſſe wee diſtinguiſh between the generall doctrine of Moſes which was delivered unto the people in the circumſtantiall adminiſtrations of it, and the particular doctrine about the Law, taken in a limited and abſtracted conſideration? OnelyOnly this take notice of, that although the Law were a Covenant of grace, yet the righteouſneſſe of works and faith differ as much as heaven and earth. But the Papiſts, they make this difference: The righteouſneſſe of the Law (ſaith Stapleton, Antid. in hunc locum) is that which we of our owne power have and doe by the knowledge and underſtanding of the Law: but the righteouſneſſe of faith, they make the righteouſneſſe of the Law, to which wee are enabled by grace through Chriſt: So that they compare not theſe two together, as two contraries, (in which ſenſe Paul doth) but as an imperfect righteouſneſſe with a perfect. But we know, that the Apoſtle excludeth the workes of David & Abraham, that they did in obedience to the Law, to which they were enabled by grace; ſo neceſſary is it in matter of juſtification and pardon to exclude all workes, any thing that is ours; Tolle te à te, impedis te, ſaid Auſtine well. Nor doth it availe us, that this grace in us is from God, becauſe the Apoſtle makes the oppoſition wholy between any thing that is ours, howſoever we come by it, and that of faith in Chriſt. Having thus explained the ſtate of the Queſtion, I come to the arguments to prove the affirmative: And thus I ſhall order them;
The firſt ſhall be taken from the relation of the Covenanters; Arguments proving the Law a Covenant of grace. Argum. 1.God on one part, and the Iſraelites on the other: God did not deale at this time, as abſolutely conſidered, but as their God and Father. Hence God ſaith hee is their God; and when Chriſt quoteth the commanders, hee brings the preface, Heare O Iſrael, the Lord thy God is one. And, Rom. 9. 4. To the Iſraelites belong adoption, and the glory, and the covenants and the giving of the Law, and the promiſes. Now, unleſſe this were a covenant of grace, how could God be their God, who were ſinners? Thus alſo if you conſider the people of Iſrael into what relation they are taken, this will much confirme the point. Ezod. 19. 5, 6. If yee will obey my voice, you ſhall be a peculiar treaſure unto me, and yee ſhall be unto me a kingdom of Prieſts, and an holy Nation: which is applied by Peter to the people of God under the Goſpel. If therefore the Law had been a Covenant of works, how could ſuch an agreement come betweene them?
2. If we conſider the good things annexed unto this Covenant, it Argum. 2.muſt needs be a Covenant of grace: for there we have remiſſion and pardon of ſinne, whereas in the Covenant of workes, there is no way for repentance or pardon. In the ſecond Commandment, God is deſcribed to be one ſhewing mercy unto thouſands: and by ſhewing mercy is meant pardon, as appeareth by the contrary, viſiting iniquity. Now doth the Law, ſtrictly taken, receive any humbling & debaſing of themſelves? no, but curſeth every one that doth not continue in all the things commanded, and that with a full and perfect obedience. Hence, Exod. 34. ver. 6, 7. God proclaimeth himſelfe in manifold attributes of being gracious, and long-ſuffering, keeping merciemercy for thouſands, and forgiving iniquity; and this he doth upon the renewing of the two Tables: whereas, if the people of Iſrael had been ſtrictly held up to the Law, as it required univerſall perfect obedience, without any failing, they muſt alſo neceſſarily have deſpaired, and periſhed without any hope at all.
3. If we conſider the duties commanded in the Law ſo generally taken, it muſt needs be a Covenant of grace: for what is the meaning Argum. 3.of the firſt Commandment, but to have one God in Chriſt our God by faith? For if faith had not been on ſuch tearmes commanded, it had been impoſible for them to love God, or to pray unto God. Muſt not the meaning then be, to love, and delight in God, and to truſt in him? But how can this be without faith through Chriſt? Hence ſome urge, that the end of the commandment is love from faith unfeigned; but becauſe Scultetus doth very probably, by commandment, underſtand there, The Apoſtles preaching and exhortation, (it being in the Greek foreign, and not foreign, or foreign, and the Apoſtle uſing the word in that Epiſtle in the ſame ſenſe) I leave it. It's true there is no mention made of Chriſt, or faith in the firſt Commandment, but that is nothing, for love alſo is not mentioned: yet our Saviour diſcovers it there, and ſo muſt faith and Chriſt be ſuppoſed there by neceſſary conſequence. And can we think, that the people of Iſrael, though indeed they were too confident in themſelves, yet when they took upon themſelves to keep and obſerve the Law, that the meaning was, they would do it without any ſpot or blemiſh by ſinne, or without the grace of God for pardon, if they ſhould at any time break the Law.
4. From the Ceremoniall Law. All Divines ſay, that this is reduced Argum. 4.to the Morall Law, ſo that Sacrifices were commanded by vertue of the ſecond Commandment. Now we all know, that the Sacrifices were evangelicall, and did hold forth remiſſion of ſinns through the blood of Chriſt: If therefore theſe were commanded by the Morall Law, there muſt neceſſarily be grace included, although indeed it was very obſcure and dark. And it is to be obſerved, that the Apoſtle doth as much argue againſt circumciſion, and even all the Ceremoniall Law, as the Morall; yea the firſt riſe of the cōtroverſie was from that: Now all muſt confeſſe, that circumciſion and the ſacrifices did not oppoſe Chriſt, or grace, but rather included them. And this hath been alwaies a very ſtrong argument to perſwade me for the affirmative. It is true, the Jewes they reſted upon theſe, and did not look to Chriſt; but ſo do our Chriſtians in theſe times upon the Sacraments, and other duties.
5. This will appear from the viſible ſeale to ratifie this Covenant which you heard, was by ſacrifices, and ſprinkling the people Argum. 5.with blood: And this did ſignifie Chriſt, for Chriſt he alſo was the Mediatour of this Covenant, ſeeing that reconciliation cannot poſſibly be made with a ſinner, through the Mediation of any mortall man. When therefore Moſes is called the Mediatour, it is to be underſtood typically, even as the ſacrifices did waſh away ſin typically. And, indeed, if it had been a Covenant of works, there needed no Mediatour, either typicall, or real; ſome think Chriſt likewiſe was the Angell ſpoke of Act. 7. with whom Moſes was in the wilderneſſe; and it is probable. Now if Chriſt was the Mediatour of the Law as a Covenant, the Antinomian diſtinction muſt fall to the ground, that makes the Law as in the hand of Moſes, and not in the hand of Chriſt; whereas on Mount Sinai, the Law was in the hand of Chriſt.
6. If the Law were the ſame Covenant with that oath, which Argum. 6.God made to Iſaac, then it muſt needs be a Covenant of grace: But we ſhall finde that God, when he gave this Law to them; makes it an argument of his love and grace to them; and therefore remembers what he had promiſed to Abraham, Deut. 7. 12. Wherefore it ſhall come to paſſe, if ye hearken to theſe judgements, and do them, that the Lord thy God ſhall keep unto thee the Covenant, & the mercy which he ſware unto thy fathers. And, certainly, if the Law had been a Covenant of works, God had fully abrogated and broken his Covenant and Promiſe of grace which he made with Abraham and his ſeed. Therefore, when the Apoſtle, Gal. 3. 18. oppoſeth the Law and the promiſe together, making the inheritance by one, & not the other; it is to be underſtood according to the diſtinction before mentioned of the Law taken in a moſt ſtrict and limited ſenſe: for it is plain, that Moſes in the adminiſtration of this Law, had regard to the Covenant and Promiſe, yea made it the ſame with it.Obiections impugning the former Arguments anſwered.
Now to all this, there are ſtrong objections made from thoſe places of Scripture, where the Law and faith, or the promiſe, are ſo directly oppoſed, as Rom. 10. before quoted, ſo Gal. 3. 18. Rom 4. 14. ſo likewiſe from thoſe places, where the Law is ſaid to be the miniſtery of death, and to work wrath. Now to theſe places, I anſwer theſe things:
Firſt, that if they ſhould be rigidly, and univerſally true, then that doctrine of the Socinians would plainly prevaile, who from theſe places of Scripture do urge, that there was no grace, or faith, nor nothing of Chriſt, vouchſafed unto the Jewes; whereas they reade they had the Adoption, though the ſtate was a ſtate of bondage.
In the ſecond place conſider that as it is ſaid of the Law, it worketh death, ſo the Goſpel is ſaid to be the ſavour of death, and men are ſaid to have no ſin, if Chriſt had not come; yea they are ſaid to partake of more grievous judgements, who deſpiſed Chriſt, then thoſe that deſpiſed the Law of Moſes: ſo that this effect of the Law was meerly accidentall through our corruption: only here is the difference, God doth not vouchſafe any ſuch grace, as whereby we can have juſtification in a ſtrict legall way: but he doth whereby we may obtain it in an Evangelicall way.
Thirdly, conſider that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh theſe derogatory paſſages (as they may ſeem to be) as well of the Ceremoniall Law; yet all do acknowledge here was Chriſt and grace held forth.
Fourthly, much of theſe places is true in a reſpective ſenſe, according to the interpretation of the Jew, who taking theſe without Chriſt, make it a killing letter, even as if we ſhould the doctrine of the Goſpel, without the grace of Chriſt. And, certainly, if any Jew, had ſtood up and ſaid to Moſes, Why do you ſay, you give us the doctrine of life; it's nothing but a killing letter, and the miniſtery of death, would he not have been judged a blaſphemer againſt the Law of Moſes? The Apoſtle therefore muſt underſtand it, as ſeperated, yea and oppoſed to Chriſt and his grace.
And laſtly, we are ſtill to retain that diſtinction of the Law in a more large ſenſe, as delivered by Moſes; and a more ſtrict ſenſe, as it conſiſteth in precepts, threatnings and promiſes upon a condition impoſſible to us, which is, the fulfilling of the Law in a perfect manner.