Divinity Knots Unloosed, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Of the Law of God, and of the two Covenants.
22. Doubt. IF the Covenant of workes be for ſubſtance comprehended in the ten Commandements, how can Chriſtians which are free from the Law be bound to obſerve them?
Reſol. The Law of the Ten Commandements containeth the matter of the Covenant of workes, but is not the Covenant formally, any more then the Copy of a Leaſe written by a private hand,Simile, having never been ſealed and delivered according to Law, is the Leaſe it ſelfe: The matter of the Covenant without the forme, cannot ſufficiently conſtitute it. Now the forme of the Covenant of workes is the condition whereupon the duty is undertaken: Viz. Doe this and live; Life is promiſed upon perfect obedience, damnation threatned upon the leaſt diſobedience. The Goſpell indeed requireth the ſame things, but not upon the ſame tearmes, for whereas the ſame Covenant of workes ſaith, Doe this and live, the Goſpell ſaith, Live and do this. Chriſt hath freed us from the Law, as it is a compeller and condemner, but not as it is a directory, or (to ſpeake properly) we are freed from the Covenant of workes as it is ſuch, but not from the things therein contained: even as a Servant which obeyed his Maſter out of ſlaviſh feare, or for wages, if his Maſter adopt him, and make him his heyre, though he ſtill be bound to doe the ſame things, yet foraſmuch as he acteth from different Principles, Viz. of love, thankfulneſſe, and … reverence, he is perfectly free from that Covenant which (as a Servant) he made with his Maſter. In like manner the adopted Sonnes of God, (though they are to act the ſame things that the Law of works required) yet in as much as they doe them not to be juſtified and live, but becauſe they are juſtified, and doe live; nor are bound to them under the penalty of revenging wrath, but fatherly chaſtiſement) are perfectly ſet at liberty from the Covenant of workes.
23. Doubt. If the Covenant on Mount Sinai was a Covenant of grace (as it muſt needs be, becauſe in it was forgiveneſſe of ſins) How can Chriſt be ſayd to be a Mediator of a better Covenant then Moſes? better and worſe ſeeme to intimate there be two Covenants of grace.
Reſol. They are not called better and worſe in reſpect of the matter or ſubſtance of them, but in the manner of diſpenſation. When we compare two Bookes of the ſame nature together (as ſuppoſe they treat of Grammar, Logick, or Phyloſophy) the one treating in a prolix, darke, and confuſed manner, the other in a briefe, methodicall, and plaine way, and ſay this is better then that, we doe not meane that the ſubject matter of the one is better then the other, but onelyonly the excellency is in the method and expreſſion. So when the Covenant of Grace, as it is handed to us by Chriſt, is preſerred before the ſame, as it is ſet forth by Moſes in types and ſhedowes, we muſt underſtand it of the perſpicuity and compendiouſneſſe of the adminiſtration, together with the freedome from burdenſome Ceremonies, not of the Covenant it ſelfe, for that is one and the ſame to them and usa1 Cor. 10 1, 2, 3, 4..
24. Doubt. How can the Jewes Covenant and ours, be all one, when as in theirs, forgiveneſſe was not for every ſin (namely, not for preſumptuouſneſſebNum. 15.30., nor uncircumciſioncGen. 17.14.) nor of all their ſin at once, but by degrees ſucceſſively, for when they had offered Sacrifice for one tranſgreſſion, they lay under the next till Sacrifice was againe offered: But Chriſt hath at once payd a full price, and acquitted us from all our ſins?
Reſol. With reverence to the learned Author from whom this doubt ariſeth, I beleeve it is a great miſtake to ſay, the Jewes Covenant had not remi2ſion of all ſins. That the preſumptuous ſinner and uncircumciſed perſon muſt be cut off, the places forequoted prove, but this cutting off was excommunication, or a loſſe of their part in the externall Covenant of God, till the one repented, the other became circumciſed, and cannot be underſtood of an unpardonable condition, for that either uncircumciſion, or preſumption (eſpecially this ſort of preſumption in the Text alleadged, being oppoſed onelyonly to ignorance) was unpardonable, and therefore all damned that were defiled with them (as it muſt needs follow) is not onelyonly unproved, but diſproved by ScripturedJoſ. 5.2, 3, 4, &c. Rom. 2.26. 2 Sam. 12.13. 2 Chro. 33.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.. Nor is there any more force in that which is alleadged concerning the graduality of forgiveneſſe, for the Sacrifices did not of themſelves make the attonement, but as Ordinances typifying Chriſt they did (as it were) Sacramentally apply and ſeale the pardon of ſin to the conſcience, as they ſhould from time to time offend and ſtand in need of pardon; but that Chriſt did at once beare the ſins of Beleevers, as well Jewes before his comming, as Gentiles ſince, is plaine by that clauſe ſo much ſtood upon by the reverend Author, The Lord hath layd on him the iniquity of us all eIſa. 53.6., and many other placesfRev. 13.8 Gal. 4.4, 5. Iſa. 53.5..
25. Doubt. How could the Covenant on Sinai be a Covenant of grace, ſeeing the Apoſtle calls it a killing Letter, and a miniſtration of death and condemnation g2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 9.?
Reſol. I conceive the Apoſtles meaning was not that the whole Covenant on Sinai beginning, Exod. 20. and ending with Levit. 26. was a killing letter, &c. For the Sacrifices and Ceremonies typifyed Chriſt, and ſealed forgiveneſſe of ſins, and reconciliation to God*If you obſerve this diſtinction, you may eaſily anſwer to all arguments built upon any other Scripture, which ſeems to aſſert that the Jewes lived under a Covenant of workes.. But Moſes is there to be conſidered, as he was the Miniſter of the Decalogue, or ten Commandements, without reſpect had to the Types and Ordinances whereby Chriſt was ſignified; and that this is not my private opinion, but the ſenſe of the place, may appeare by two reaſons.
1. We are told (Verſ. 7.) that this miniſtration of death was engraven on ſtones, but onelyonly the ten Commandements were ſo engravenhExo. 34.1.28. ; therefore he onelyonly meaneth them.
2. The Apoſtle here ſpeaks of a miniſtration about which Moſes was imployed when his face ſhonei2 Cor. 3.7.13. : But this glory was vouchſafed him when he received the ten Commandements alonekExo. 34.28, 29, 30., therefore them onelyonly he meaneth; and to ſpeak the truth, the Contents of the two Tables being received alone, as Moſes brought them down in his hands, not as in ſubordination to Chriſt the Mediator, but as a ſervant of God the Creator, proclaiming his exact and rigid Law, muſt needs be a Covenant of workes; though the ſame being received in ſubordination to Chriſt (which was truly (though more dimly) held forth in theſe Ceremoniall obſervances) hinders not, but that Iſrael lived under a Covenant of grace.
26. Doubt. When the Apoſtle blameth the Galatians for revolting from the Goſpell to the Law, what Law meaneth he, the morall or Ceremoniall?
Reſol. With ſubmiſſion to better judgements, I beleeve he meanes the whole Covenant on Sinai containing both the Morall and Ceremoniall Law, which was a Covenant of grace, when Morall duties were preſſed in ſubordination and obedience to Chriſt the King of the Church, and Ceremoniall, as typifying him to come: But when their imperfect obedience of the morall LawlGal. 3.10, 11, 12, 18. & 4.21., and rotten Ceremonies long before aboliſhedmGal. 4.9.10. & 5.6., were cryed up, and reſted in for juſtification and life eternall, they became an unſupportable yok of bondagenGal. 5.1, 3 Acts 15.10, binding men under a Covenant of worksoGal. 5.3., and making the death of Chriſt (as to them) of none effectpGal. 2.21. & 5.2..