The Gospel Method of Gods Saving Sinners, Discourse · Proposition 8
PROPOS. VIII. Of the Nature of the New Covenant.
THIS New Covenant, or Goſpel Conveyance, by which pardon of ſin and eternal life, the fruits of Chriſt's Purchaſe are diſpenſed to ſinners; 'tis not a meer Will and Teſtament, as ſome have imagined, but, in the true and proper ſenſe of the word, a formal Covenant.
By Covenant, I mean a mutual agreement and ſtipulation betwixt God and the Creature, whereby as he freely engageth himſelf to us, to be our God, i. e. to do us good, and bleſs us, and give us an everlaſting happineſs; ſo we alſo on the other hand oblige our ſelves to God to be his People, i. e. his Subjects, to pay him, as far as in us lyes, that homage and obſervance which he requires of us, that we may be partakers of the mercies promiſed. This is properly a Covenant, which will yet further appear, when we come to ſpeak of the terms of it.
But a Will or Teſtament is the act or inſtrument of ſome one ſingle perſon, whereby he gives, according to the pleaſure of his own will, certain Boons and Legacies to ſome particular perſons, to be enjoyed after his deceaſe, without any ſtipulation made or required on their part, in order to their having a right to, or their receiving of them.
By this you ſee there's a vaſt difference betwixt a Covenant and a Teſtament, both in regard of the ſubject, and terms, and formal notion of both: That's the joint act of two or more: This only of ſome one ſingle perſon. That ſtands upon certain terms and conditions to be performed; This is, at leaſt may be, abſolute, without any terms at all. That is by mutual conſent and ſtipulation; This requires neither, at leaſt they are not neceſſary and eſſential to its Being. No, Goods or Lands we know are given at will (and therefore called, a Will) without the conſent of the Legatee thereto required, nay many times without his knowledge. And the Donations of the Teſtator however makes them his, and gives him an undoubted right to them, nay though he ſhould deſpiſe them, and ever after hate and revile the name of him that gave them. But who will ſay, that the great bleſſings of the Goſpel, pardon of ſin, and the favour of God, and eternal happineſs, are thus diſpenſed to ſinners? That the Grant which God hath made of them is ſo wholly abſolute, as that it admits of no terms, but that they may become ours without our knowledge, or conſent, or profeſſed willingneſs to accept them; nay though we ſhould hate and blaſpheme that God that bequeathed them to us?
It's true, the Covenant it ſelf was firſt framed by Divine Wiſdom and Goodneſs, before we had any intimations of it. God did not ask the Creature whether he were willing that he ſhould make a Covenant with him, or how it ſhould be made, or what the terms ſhould be. No, but being thus made, and propounded to us, we are now bound to give our own perſonal conſents to the terms of it, or elſe the bleſſings of this Covenant can never actually become ours: I know no ſuch Grant in Scripture made to any, that whether they are willing or not to accept it, and to promiſe obedience to their Maker, he will yet remit their ſins, and ſave their Souls. Only he here declares, that upon his Son's account he will do this for us, provided we will take them upon his terms, and entirely yield our ſelves up in ſubjection to him, that hath purchaſed them for us.
But is it not frequently in Scripture called a Teſtament, and the New Teſtament; and doth not the Author to the Hebrews argue it to be ſo, from the death of Chriſt, whom he there expreſly terms a Teſtator? Heb. 9.16, 17. 'Tis true, 'tis here called a Teſtament, and Chriſt a Teſtator. But who knows not, that the ſame thing may have different denominations, according as it relates to different objects? Thus Jeſus Chriſt himſelf he is called a Prophet, a Prieſt, a King, a Surety, an Advocate, &c. But will it therefore follow, that he's no Advocate becauſe a Surety, or no King becauſe a Prieſt and Prophet?
And ſo again, the ſame Goſpel Diſpenſation 'tis expreſt by ſeveral names; 'tis called a Gift, a Promiſe, a Royal Law, a Teſtament, a Covenant: but we cannot thence infer, that 'tis no proper Covenant, becauſe term'd a Teſtament, any more than that 'tis no Law, becauſe a Gift and Promiſe. All therefore that can rationally be deduced from hence, is only this, That there is ſome analogy or reſemblance betwixt this Evangelical Conveyance, and thoſe Things the names of which it bears. Thus, as the Good Things therein diſpenced are freely given to us, ſo 'tis a Gift: As God therein becomes engaged to give them, ſo 'tis a Promiſe: As we thereby are commanded and directed to obedience, ſo 'tis a Royal Law: As 'tis founded in the blood of Chriſt, and became of force to our advantage upon his Death, ſo 'tis a Teſtament▪ But ſtill ſo, as that our actual conſent to the terms therein propounded are required, in order to enjoying the Bleſſings promiſed, and therefore ſtill a Covenant.
And if we caſt but our eye back upon the place before mentioned, Heb. 9. we ſhall there find, that the Moſaical Diſpenſation, under which the People of Iſrael were, is there alſo, as well as that of the Goſpel, called a Teſtament, which yet was, and muſt by any that reads Exod. 24. be acknowledged to be a Covenant in a proper ſenſe, i. e▪ as before expreſt, a mutual ſtipulation betwixt God and the Creature.
I, but 'tis not only called a Teſtament, but the original word, ſaith a Reverend Divine, in the Hebrew and Greek Language, which we tranſlate Covenant, ſignifies no more in the judgment of ſome learned Criticks, than a Will or Teſtament.
Who theſe Criticks are is not mentioned, nor ſhall I here ſtand to enquire. The original word, which we commonly tranſlate Covenant, in the Hebrew is foreign, in the Greek foreign; that 'tis well known comes from foreign which ſignifies either to chuſe, or to kill and eat, which is the more uſual ſignification of the word. In the former it denotes a thing, which two make choice of, and mutually agree about. In the latter it evidently relates to the uſual manner of making Covenant in thoſe days, which was by Sacrifice, the Parties paſſing through the midſt of it, being divided, and thereby declaring their conſent, and confirming the Agreement. Thus we read, Jer. 34.19. And long before this, the like obſervance we find in God's firſt covenanting with Abraham, Gen. 15.10. which was alſo (as appears from the Teſtimony of their own Prophets, and poſſibly by derivation from the Jews) in uſe amongſt the ancient Heathen. So that take the word in what ſenſe we pleaſe, either as it ſignifies to chuſe, or to kill and divide, it is ſo far from being appropriate to a Teſtament, as that 'tis moſt properly applicable to a Covenant. And therefore commonly rendred by thoſe beſt skilled in the Hebrew Language, by Foedus and Pactum.
And as for the Greek word, which we tranſlate Covenant, though according to its etymology, it may ſignifie to diſpoſe, or order any thing in general, whether it be by Free Gift, or Promiſe, or Teſtament, or Covenant, or any other way; yet it alſo ſignifies to bargain or agree, or Covenant with another, as is well known to ſuch as are skilled in that Language.
But ſuppoſe after all, that the original words ſhould import no more than a Will or Teſtament, yet 'twill not therefore follow, that they are not to be taken in any other ſenſe. Since words, we know, receive their principal ſtamp and authority from common uſe, which not rarely gives them a various, yea ſometimes a far different ſenſe from that which they received at their firſt birth and primitive inſtitution.
The great thing therefore to be conſidered, is not what theſe words may, or according to their original notations ought to ſignifie; but rather what is the true and moſt proper Scriptural uſe of them: for from thence eſpecially we muſt take the ſignification of all ſuch words as are expreſſive of revealed Truths. But, beſides what hath been already ſaid upon this Argument, take theſe following Conſiderations, which will more abundantly evidence, that the Goſpel Diſpenſation is properly Foederal, and not meerly Teſtamental; and that both the Hebrew and Greek words import as much.
1. This is the moſt frequent uſe of theſe words in Scripture. As for the Hebrew word foreign 'tis almoſt every where in the Old Teſtament made uſe of to ſignifie a Covenant, but rarely, if at all, to ſignifie a meer Will and Teſtament. For the proof of this it were eaſie to produce a cloud of Witneſſes, but theſe few following may be ſufficient to ſhew us the true uſe and meaning of it. Deut. 4.13. and 18. ver. Levit. 26.9.14, 15, and 16. verſes. Joſh. 24.25. And for the Greek word foreign, though it ſometimes be rendred a Teſtament, yet to any one that ſhall but peruſe theſe following Texts, inſtead of many more, which might be alledged, 'twill be ſufficiently evident, that 'tis alſo uſed to expreſs a formal Covenant, Acts 7.8. Rom. 9.4. 2 Corinth. 3.15. Gal. 3.15. and 17. ver. Eph. 2.12. Beſides, 'tis here to be noted, that this Greek word, which the Writers of the New Teſtament ſo frequently make uſe of, is borrowed from the Septuagint, who conſtantly render the Hebrew word foreign by foreign. So that if that, according both to its notation and uſe, ſignifies a Covenant, ſo muſt this alſo, being always put for it in the moſt authentick tranſlation of the Old Teſtament, whence 'tis taken.
2. The account which Scripture gives us of the way and method, in which God hath been pleaſed to treat with Man, concerning eternal life and happineſs, doth neceſſarily infer, that 'tis by Covenant in a proper ſenſe, that theſe Bleſſings are made over to us: Conſult but thoſe two famous places, before mentioned, Gen. 17. where God treats with Abraham, and Exod. 24. where God again treats with Iſrael, (both, for the main, upon the ſame account) and you will there find, that there's ſomewhat more than a meer granting or bequeathing of Bleſſings and Mercies only by way of Legacy, or abſolute Donation. Doth God firſt promiſe to Abraham, to give him a Numerous Iſſue, a Bleſſed Seed, a Land flowing with Milk and Honey; and under theſe Shaddows, bleſſings of an higher nature, Grace and Glory? Yea. But what muſt Abraham now do nothing in order to his fruition of them? Yes. He muſt walk before the Lord, and be upright, Gen. 17.1. He muſt keep the Covenant, v. 9, 10. and he muſt circumciſe every Male Child in his Family, v. 11, 12, &c. and he muſt command his Children, and his Houſhold after him, to keep the way of the Lord, to do juſtice and judgment, Gen. 18.19. and the reaſon is there alſo given, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham, that which he had ſpoken of him, which is again more expreſly declared, Gen. 26.3, 4, 5. Whence 'tis evidently manifeſt, firſt that there were Commandments, Statutes, and Laws annexed to this Covenant made with Abraham; and then in the next place, that he muſt keep and obſerve them, that the bleſſings promiſed might come upon him.
Again, Doth God engage to Iſrael to put them in poſſeſſion of the Promiſed Land? and to bleſs them there? Yea, but then they muſt come before the Lord, and publickly declare their conſent to the Covenant, and engage to be obedient to it, Exod. 24.3.7, 8. Deut. 28.1, 2.15.
3. The ſeveral acts that are expreſly either required of, or aſcribed to Man, with reference to this Covenant, ſpeak it to be ſomewhat more than a Teſtament. As for inſtance, we are ſaid to enter into Covenant with God, Deut. 29.12. And to make, or (as the original there ſignifies) to cut a Covenant with him. Pſal. 50.5. And to join our ſelves to the Lord by Covenant, Jer. 50.4, 5. And to be brought into the Bond of the Covenant, Ezek. 20.37. and to keep or obſerve his Covenant, Pſal. 25.10. and to obey the words of the Covenant, Jer. 11.2, 3, 4, 5. and to perform and ſtand to the Covenant, 2 Kings 23.2, 3. As alſo to tranſgreſs it, (Joſh. 7.11.) and to break, (Eſa. 24.5.) and not to continue in (Heb. 8, 9.) or be ſtedfaſt in the Covenant, Pſal. 78.37. But are theſe expreſſions any way applicable to a Will and Teſtament? or what tolerable ſenſe can we poſſibly make of them, if ſo applyed? To make or enter into Covenant with another, is proper language, which every one underſtands: But to join our ſelves to another by Teſtament, or to enter into, and make and cut a Will with him, or to be ſtedfaſt in it, is a mode of ſpeaking no where to be found. No, all this neceſſarily implies ſomewhat of engagement, and duty on our part to God, and not only his bequeathment of Mercy to us, by way of abſolute Grant and Donation.
4. But ſuppoſe we ſhould after all admit, that 'tis a Teſtament? Will it therefore follow, that its Donations are ſo abſolute, as to be without all Conditions? not ſo much as requiring our actual conſent to them, that they may be ours? May not a Father by Will give and bequeath his Lands or Moneys to his Children, or Friends, with theſe or the like Priviſo's, That they diſcharge the Debts he owes, and pay the ſeveral Legacies he hath given, and allow ſuch Penſions and Annuities for charitable uſes, as he hath therein appointed, and ſet apart for that purpoſe? And are not the parties hereupon obliged (in caſe they expect any benefit by his Will) to aſſent to, and perform the Conditions thereto annexed? And if not performed according to appointment, do they not thereby forfeit their claim to the whole? or rather they never had any legal plea, or title to it, ſince they accepted not of the terms, upon which it was given to them. Why, all for the main that I am arguing for, is no more but this, viz. That the great Bleſſings of the Goſpel are by the Father, through Chriſt, made over to ſinners, not by any meer abſolute Grant or Bequeathment, but upon certain Terms and Conſiderations, which on their part are to be conſented to, and accordingly to be performed, that they may be actually intereſſed in them. And that whoever refuſeth to accept of theſe Terms, and ſhall not ſincerely endeavour the performance of them, they can neither be inſtated in, or have any lawful claim to any part of that eternal Salvation, which is the fruit of Chriſt's Satisfaction and Purchaſe.
In this ſenſe if any one will call the Goſpel Grant a Teſtament, there's little to be ſaid againſt it, ſince though the name be different, yet in reality 'tis but the ſame: Which formally comprehendeth in it all the eſſentials of a Covenant. 'Tis therefore, if you will, a Teſtament in a Covenant form; or, a Teſtamental Covenant. It partakes of the nature of both, but principally of the former. But all this will yet be more amply made to appear by that which follows in the next Propoſition.