Secondly. That he should procure and purchase, in a way suited unto the glory of God, the actual communication of all the good things prepared and proposed in this covenant; that is, grace and glory, with all that belong unto these, for them, and on their behalf, whose surety he was. And this is the foundation of the merit of Christ, and of the grant of all good things unto us for his sake.
7. It is required of this mediator, as such, that to the parties mutually concerned, he give assurance of, and undertake for, the accomplishment of the terms of the covenant, undertaking on each hand for
First. On the part of God towards men, that they shall have peace and acceptance with him, in the sure accomplishment of all the promises of the covenant. This he doth only declaratively, in the doctrine of the gospel, and in the institution of the ordinances of evangelical worship. For he was not a surety for God, nor did God need any, having confirmed his promise with an oath, swearing by himself, because he had no greater to swear by.;
Second/y. On our part, he undertakes unto God for our acceptance
of the terms of the covenant, and our accomplishment of them, by his enabling us thereunto.
These things, among others, were necessary unto a full and complete mediator of the new covenant, such as Christ was. And,
Obs. VII. The provision of this mediator between God and man, was an effect of infinite wisdom and grace; yea, it was the greatest and most glorious external effect that they ever did, or ever will, produce in thisworld. The creation of all things at first out of nothing, was a glorious effect of infinite wisdom and power. But when the glory of that design was eclipsed by the entrance of sin, this provision of a mediator, one whereby all things were restored and retrieved into a condition of bringing more glory to God, and securing for ever the blessed estate of them whose mediator he is, is accompanied with more evidences of the divine excellencies than that was; see Eph. i. 10.
2. That this was a better covenant than another, which respect is had unto, whereof he was not the mediator. ’
First. That there was a covenant made or prepared between God and man; that is, it was so far made, as that God who made it, had prepared the terms of it, in a sovereign act of wisdom and grace. The preparation of the covenant, consisting in the will and purpose of God graciously to bestow on all men the good things which are contained in it, all things belonging unto grace and glory, as also to make way for the obedience which he required herein, are supposed unto the constitution of this covenant.
Secondly. That there was need of a mediator, that this covenant might be effectual unto its proper ends, of the glory of God, and the obedience of mankind, with their reward. This was not necessary from the nature of a covenant in general; for a covenant may be made and entered into between different parties, without any mediator, merely on the equity of the terms of it. Nor was it necessary from the nature of a covenant between God and man, as man was first created of God. For the first covenant between them was immediate, without the interposition of a mediator. But it became necessary, from the state and condition of them with whom this covenant was made, and the especial nature of thiscovenant. ‘This the apostle declares, Rom. vii. 3, “ For what the law could not do, in thatit was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.? The law was the moral instrument, or rule of the covenant, that was made immediately between God and man: but it could not continue to be so after the entrance of sin, that is, so as that God might be glorified thereby, in the obedience and reward of men. Wherefore, hesent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, provided a mediator for a new covenant. The persons with whom this covenant was to be made, being all of them sinners, and apostatized from God, it became not the holiness or righteousness of God, to treat immediately with them any more. Nor would it have answered his holy ends so to have done. For if, when they were in a condition of uprightness and integrity, they kept not the terms of that covenant which was made immediately with them, without a mediator, although these terms were holy, just, good, and equal, how much less could any such thing be expected from them in their depraved condition of apostasy from God, and enmity against him? It therefore became not the wisdom of God to enter anew into covenant with mankind, without security that the terms of the covenant should be accepted, and the grace of it made effectual. This we could not give; yea, we gave all evidences possible unto the contrary, in that God saw that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually, Gen. vi. 5. Wherefore it was necessary there should be a mediator, to be the surety of this covenant. Again, the covenant itself was so prepared in the counsel, wisdom, and grace of God, as that the principal, yea indeed, all the benefits of it were to depend on what was to be done by a mediator and could not otherwise be effected. Such were satisfaction for sin, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, which are the foundation of this covenant.
2. To proceed with the text, this covenant whereof the Lord Christ is the mediator, is said to be κρείττονος διαϑηκης, ‘a better covenant.” _ Wherefore, it is supposed that there was another covenant, whereof the Lord Christ was not the mediator. And in the following verses there are two covenants, a first and a latter, an old and a new, compared together. We must therefore consider what was that other covenant, than which this is said to be better: for upon the determination thereof depends the right understanding of the whole ensuing discourse of the apostle. And because this is a subject wrapt up in much obscurity, and attended with many difficulties, it will be necessary that we use the best of our diligence, both in the investigation of the truth, and in the declaration of it, so as that it may be distinctly apprehended. And I shall first explain the text, and then speak to the difficulties which arise from it.
First. There was an original covenant made with Adam, and all mankind in him. The rule of obedience and reward that was between God and him, was not expressly called a covenant, but it contained the express nature of a covenant. For it was the agreement of God and man concerning obedience and disobedience, rewards and punishments. Where there is a law concerning these things, and an agreement upon it, by all parties concerned, there is a formal covenant. Wherefore it may be considered two ways.
1. Asit was a law only; so it proceeded from, and was a consequent of, the nature of God and man, with their mutual relation unto one another. God being considered as the Creator, Governor, and Benefactor of man: and man as an intellectual creature, capable of moral obedience; this law was necessary, and is eternally indispensable.
2. Asit was a covenant; and this depended on the will and pleasure of God. I will not dispute whether God might have given a law unto men, that should have had nothing in it of a covenant properly so called as is the law of creation unto all other creatures, which hath no rewards nor punishments annexed unto it. Yet this God calls a covenant also, inasmuch asit is an effect of his purpose, his unalterable will and pleasure, Jer. xxxiii. 20, 21. But that this law of our obedience should be a formal complete covenant, there was moreover some things required on the part of God, and some also on the part of man. Two things were required on the part of God to complete this covenant, or he did so complete it by two things.
First. By annexing unto it promises and threatenings of reward and punishment; the first of grace, the other of justice.
Secondly. The expression of these promises and threatenings in external signs: the first, in the tree of life; the latter, in that of the knowledge of good and evil. By these did God establish the original law of creation asa covenant, gave it the nature of acovenant. On the part of man, it was required that he should accept of this law, as the rule of the covenant which God made with him. And this he did two ways.
1. By the innate principles of light and obedience concreated with his nature. By these he absolutely and universally assented unto the law, as proposed with promises and threatenings, as good, holy, just, what was meet for God to require, what was equal and good unto himself.
2. By his acceptance of the commands concerning the tree of life, ᾿ and that of the knowledge of good and evil, as the signs and pledges of this covenant. So was it established as a covenant between God and man, without the interposition of any mediator. This is the covenant of works, absolutely the old, or first covenant that God made with men. But this is not the covenant here intended. For, lst. The covenant called afterwards the first, was dvaSnkn, a ‘ testament.’ Soitisherecalled. Itwas such acovenant as was a testament also. Now, there can be no testament, but there must be death for the confirmation of it, ch. ix.16. Butin the making of the covenant with Adam, there was not the death of any thing, whence it might be called a testament. But there was the death of beasts in sacrifice in the confirmation of the covenant at Sinai, as we shall see afterwards. And it must be observed, that although I use the name of a covenant, as we have rendered the word d:aSnxn, because the true signification of that word, will more properly occur unto us in another place; yet I do not understand thereby a covenant properly and strictly so called, but such a one as hath the nature of a testament also, wherein the good things of him that makes it, are bequeathed unto them for whom they are designed. Neither the word used constantly by the apostle in this argument, nor the design of his discourse, will admit of any other covenant to be understood in this place. Whereas, therefore, the first covenant made with Adam was in no sense a testament also, it cannot be here intended.
Qdly. That first covenant made with Adam, had, as unto any benefit to be expected from it, with respect unto acceptance with God, life, and salvation, ceased long before, even at the entrance of sin. It was not abolished or abrogated by any act of God, as a law, but only was made weak and insufficient to its first end, as a covenant. God had provided a way for the salvation of sinners, declared in the first promise. When this is actually embraced, that first covenant ceaseth towards them, as unto its curse, all its concerns as a covenant, and obligation unto sinless obedience, as the condition of life, because both of them are answered by the mediator of the new covenant. But as unto all those who receive not the grace tendered in the promise, it doth remain in full force and efficacy, not as a covenant, but asa law, and that because neither the obedience it requires, nor the curse which it threatens, are answered. Thence, if any man believeth not, the wrath of God abideth on him. For its commands and curse, depending on the necessary relation between God and man, with the righteousness of God as the Supreme Governor of mankind, they must be answered and fulfilled. Wherefore, it was never abrogated formally: but as all unbelievers are still obliged by it, and unto it must stand or fall, so it is perfectly fulfilled in ali believers, not in their own persons, but in the person of their surety. ‘God sending forth his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and condemning sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,’ Rom, vii. 3, 4. But as a covenant obliging unto personal, perfect, sinless obedience, as the condition of life, to be performed by themselves, so it ceased to be, long before that introduction of the new covenant which the apostle speaks of, that was promised in the latter days. But the other covenant here spoken of, was not removed or taken away, until this new covenant was actually established.
3dly. The church of Israel was never absolutely under the power of that covenant, as a covenant of life. For from the days of Abraham, the promise was given unto them and to their seed. And the apostle proves that no law could afterwards be given, or covenant made, that should disannul that promise, Gal.ii.17. But had they been brought under the old covenant of works, it would have disannulled the promise. For that covenant and the promise, are diametrically opposite. And moreover, if they were under that covenant, they were all under the curse, and so perished eternally, which is openly false. For it is testified of them, that they pleased God by faith, and so were saved. But it is evident that the covenant intended, was a covenant wherein the church of Israel walked with God, until such a time as this better covenant was solemnly introduced. ‘This is plainly declared in the ensuing context, especially in the close of the chapter, where, speaking of this former covenant, he says, it was become old, and so ready tu disappear. Wherefore, it is not the covenant of works made with Adam, that is intended, when this other is said to be a better covenant.
Secondly. There were other federal transactions between God and the church, before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. Two of them there were into which ail the rest were resolved.
1. The first promise given to our first parents immediately after the fall. This had in it the nature of a covenant, grounded on a promise of grace, and requiring obedience in all that received the promise.
2. The promise given and sworn to Abraham, which is expressly called the covenant of God, and had the whole nature of a covenant in it, with a solemn outward seal appointed for its confirmation and establishment. Hereof we have treated at large on the sixth chapter.
Neither of these, nor any transaction between God and man that may be reduced to them, as explanations, renovations, or confirmations of them, are the first covenant here intended. For they are not only consistent with the new covenant, so as that there was no necessity to remove them out of the way for its introduction, but did indeed contain in them the essence and nature of it, and so were confirmed therein. Hence the Lord Christ himself is said to be a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, Rom. xv. ὃ. As he was the mediator of the new covenant, he was so far from taking off from, or abolishing those promises, that it belonged to his office to confirm them. Wherefore,
Thirdly. The other covenant or testament here supposed, whereunto that whereof the Lord Christ was the: mediator, is preferred, is none other but that which God made with the people of Israel on Mount Sinai. So it is expressly affirmed, ver. 9, ‘The covenant which I made with your fathers in the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.’ This was that covenant which had all the institutions of worship annexed to it, ch. ix. 1—3, whereof we must treat afterwards more at large. With respect hereunto it is, that the Lord Christ is said to be the mediator of a better covenant, that is, of another distinct from it, and more excellent.
It remains to the exposition of the words, that we inquire what was this covenant, whereof our Lord Christ was the mediator, and what is here affirmed of it. This can be no other in general but that which we call the covenant of grace. And it is so called in opposition to that of works, which was made with us in Adam. For these two, grace, and works, do divide the ways of our relation to God, being diametrically opposite, and every way inconsistent, Rom. xi. 6. Of this covenant the Lord Christ was the mediator from the*foundation of the world, namely, from the giving of the first promise, Rev. xii. ὃ. For it was given on his interposition, and all the benefits of it depended on his future actual mediation. But here ariseth the first difficulty of the context, and that in two things. For,
1. If this covenant of grace was made from the beginning, and if the Lord Christ was the mediator of it from the first, then where is the privilege of the gospel state in opposition to the law, by virtue of this covenant? seeing that under the law also, the Lord Christ was the mediator of that covenant, which was from the beginning.
2. If it be the covenant of grace which is intended, and that be opposed to the covenant of works made with Adam, then the other covenant must be that covenant of works so made with Adam, which we have before disproved.
The answer hereunto, is in the word here used by the apostle concerning this new covenant, vevouolernra, whose meaning we must inquire into. 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 a 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. in. 17,
There was no interruption of its administration made 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 is the meaning of the word νενομοϑέτηται, “ established,’ say we. Bat it is reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance. All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance to the church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and that covenant, which had invisibly in the way ofa promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had not the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible outward worship, proper and peculiar to it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship to the whole church, nothing being to be admitted therein, but what belongs to it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by vevouoSeryra, 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. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first. Yea all this was superinduced into the covenant, as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith. When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. Wherefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites, and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not to it. And as these being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it, when it was completed as a covenant. For then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to be conformed to it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer to the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed to the covenant of works; asa covenant, it was opposed to that in Sinai. This legalizing, or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging, did effect this alteration. | original and use of divine promises, in our relation to God. And we may observe,
First. That every covenant between God and man, must be founded on and resolved into promises. Hence essentially a promise and a covenant are all one, and God calls an absolute promise founded on an absolute decree, his covenant, Gen. ix. 11. And his purpose for. the continuation of the course of nature to the end of the world he calls his covenant with day and night, Jey. xxxill. 20, The being and essence of a divine covenant lies in the promise. Hence are they called the covenants of promise, Eph. ii. 12. Such as are founded on “iy consist in promises. And it is necessary that so it should be,
1. The nature of God who maketh these covenants requireth that so itshould be. It becometh his greatness and goodness in all his voluntary transactions with his creatures, to propose that to them, wherein their advantage, their happiness and blessedness doth consist. We inquire not how God may deal with his creatures as such; what he may absolutely require of them on the account of his own being, his absolute essential excellencies, with their universal dependence on him. Who can express or limit the sovereignty of God over his creatures? All the disputes about it are fond. We have no measures of what is infinite. May he not do with his own what he pleaseth? Are we not in his hands as clay in the hands of the potter? And whether he make or mar a vessel, who shall say to him, What doest thou? He giveth no account of his matters. But on supposition that he will condescend to enter into covenant with his creatures, and to come to agreement with them according to the terms of it, it becometh his greatness and goodness to give them promises as the foundation of it, wherein he proposeth to them the things wherein their blessedness and reward doth consist. For, Ist. Herein he proposeth himself to them as the eternal spring and fountain of all power and goodness. Had he treated with us merely by a law, he had therein only revealed his sovereign authority and holiness; the one in giving of the law, the other in the nature of it. But in promises he revealeth himself as the eternal spring of goodness and power. For the matter of all promises is somewhat that is good; and the communication of it depends on sovereign power. That God should so declare himself in his covenant, was absolutely necessary to direct and encourage the obedience of the covenanters. And he did so accordingly, Gen. xvii. 1, xv. 1. 2dly. Hereby he reserves the glory of the whole to himself. For although the terms of agreement which he proposeth between himself and us, be in their own nature holy, just, and good, which sets forth his praise and glory, yet if there were not something on his part, which hath no antecedent respect to any goodness, obedience, or desert in us, we should have wherein to glory in ourselves, which is inconsistent with the glory of God. But the matter of those promises wherein the covenant is founded, is free, undeserved, and without respect to any thing in us, whereby it may, in any sense, be procured. And so in the first covenant, which was given in a form of law, attended with a penal sanction, yet the foundation of it was in a promise of a free and undeserved reward, even of the eternal enjoyment of God, which no goodness or obedience in the creature could possibly merit the attaine ment of. So that if a man should by virtue of any covenant be justified by works, though he might have whereof to glory before men, yet could he not glory before God, as the apostle declares, Rom. iv. 2, and that because the reward proposed in the promise, doth infinitely exceed the obedience performed. |
2. It was also necessary on our part, that every divine covenant should be founded and established on promises. For there is no state wherein we may be taken into covenant with God, but it is supposed we are yet not arrived at that perfection and blessedness whereof our nature 1s capable, and which we cannot but desire. And therefore, when we come to heaven, and the full enjoyment of God, there shall be no use of any covenant any more, seeing we shall be in eternal rest in the enjoyment of all the blessedness whereof our nature is capable, and shall immutably adhere to God without any farther expectation. But whilst we are in the way, we have still some parts, yea some principal parts of our blessedness to desire, expect, and believe. So inthe state of innocency, though it had all the perfection which a state of obedience according to law was capable of, yet did not the blessedness of eternal rest, for which we were made, consist therein. Now, whilst it is thus with us, we cannot but be desiring and looking after that full and complete happiness, which our nature cannot come to rest without. This, therefore, renders it necessary, that there should be a promise of it given as the foundation of the covenant, without which we should want our principal encouragement to obedience. And much. more must it be so in the state of sin and apostasy from God. For we are now not only most remote from our utmost happiness, but involved in a condition of misery, without a deliverance from which, we cannot be any ways induced to give ourselves up unto covenant obedience. Wherefore, unless in the covenant we are prevented with promises of deliverance from our present state, and the enjoyment of future blessedness, no covenant could be of use or advantage unto us.
3. Itisnecessary from the nature of a covenant. For every covenant that is proposed unto men, and accepted by them, requires somewhat to be performed on their part, otherwise it is no covenant. But where any thing is required of them that accept of the covenant, or to whom itis proposed, it doth suppose that somewhat be promised on the behalf of them by whom the covenant is proposed, as the foundation of its acceptance, and the reason of the duties required in it. All this appears most evidently in the covenant of grace, which is here said te be established on promises; and that on two accounts. For,,
First. At the same time that much is required of us in the way of duty and obedience, we are told in the Scripture, and find it by experience, that of ourselves we can do nothing. Wherefore, unless the precept of the covenant be founded in a promise of giving grace and spiritual strength unto us, whereby we may be enabled to perform those duties, the covenant can be of no benefit or advantage to us. And the want of this one consideration, that every covenant is founded in promises, and that the promises give life unto the precepts of it, hath perverted the minds of many to suppose an ability in ourselves of yielding obedience unto those precepts, without grace antecedently received to enable us thereunto, which overthrows the nature of the new covenant.
Secondly. As was observed, we are all actually guilty of sin before this covenant was made with us. Wherefore, unless there be a promise given of the pardon of sin, it is to no purpose to propose any new covenant terms unto us. For ‘the wages of sin is death;’ and we having sinned must die, whatever we do afterwards, unless our sins be pardoned. This, therefore, must be proposed unto us as the foundation of the covenant, or it will be of none effect. And herein lies the great difference between the promises of the covenant of works, and those of the covenant of grace. The first were only concerning things future, eternal life and blessedness upon the accomplishment of perfect obedience. Promises of present mercy and pardon it stood in néed of none, it was not capable of. Nor had it any promises of giving more grace, or supplies of it; but man was wholly left unto what he had at first received. Hence the covenant was broken. But in the covenant of grace, all things are founded in promises of present mercy, and continual supplies of grace, as well as of future blessedness. Hence it becomes to be “ ordered in ail things, and sure.’ And this is the first thing that was to be declared, namely, that every divine covenant is established on promises.
Secondly. These promises are said to be better promises. The other covenant had its promises peculiar to it, with respect whereunto this is said to be established on better promises. It was indeed principally represented under a system of precepts, and those almost innumerable. But it had its promises also, into the nature whereof we shall immediately inquire. With respect, therefore, to them is the new covenant, whereof the Lord Christ was the mediator, said to be established on better promises. That it should be founded in promises, was necessary from its general nature as a covenant, and more necessary from its especial nature as a covenant of grace. These promises are said to be ‘better promises’ with respect to those of the old covenant. But this is so said as to include all other degrees of comparison. They are not only better than they, but they are positively good in themselves, and absolutely the best that God ever gave, or will give to the church. And what they are we must consider in our progress. And sundry things may be observed from these words. '
Obs. VIII. There is infinite grace in every divine covenant, inasmuch as it is established on promises.—Infinite condescension it is in God, that he will enter into covenant with dust and ashes, with poor worms of the earth. And herein lies the spring of all grace, from whence all the streams of it do flow. And the first expression of it is in laying the foundation of it in some undeserved promises. And this was that which became the goodness and greatness of his nature, the means whereby we are brought to adhere to him in faith, hope, trust, and obedience, till we come to the enjoyment of him. For that is the use of promises, to keep us in adherence to God, as the first original and spring of all goodness, and the ultimate satisfactory reward of our souls, 2 Cor. vii. 1.
Obs. IX. The promises of the covenant of grace are better than those of any other covenant; as for many other reasons, so especially because the grace of them prevents any condition or qualification on our part.—I do not say the covenant of grace 18 mM conditions, if by conditions we intend the duties of obedience which God requireth of us in and by virtue of that covenant: but this I say, the principal promises thereof, are not in the first place remunerative of our obedience in the covenant, but efficaciously assumptive of us into covenant, and establishing or confirming in the covenant. The covenant of works had its promises, but they were all remunerative, respecting an antecedent obedience in us; (so were all those which were peculiar to the covenant of Sinai.) They were indeed also of grace, in that the reward did infinitely exceed the merit of our obedience. But yet they all supposed it, and the subject of them was -ormally reward only. In the covenant of grace it is not so. For sundry of the promises thereof, are the means of our being’ taken into covenant, of our entering into covenant with God. The first covenant absolutely was established cn promises, in that when men were actually taken into it, they were encouraged to obedience by the promises of a future reward. But these promises, namely of the pardon of sin, and writing of the law im our hearts, which the apostle expressly insisteth on as the peculiar promises of this covenant, do take place and are effectual, antecedently to our covenant obedience. For although faith be required in order of nature, antecedently to our actual receiving of the pardon of sin, yet is that faith itself wrought in us by the grace of the promise; and so its precedency to pardon respects only the order that God hath appointed in the communication of the benefits of the covenant, and intends not that the pardon of sin is the reward of our faith.
This entrance hath the apostle made into his discourse of the two covenants, which he continues to the end of the chapter. But the whole is not without its difficulties. Many things in particular will occur to us in our progress, which may be considered in their proper places. In the meantime, there are some things in general which may be here discoursed, by the determination of which much light will be communicated to what doth ensue.
First, therefore, the apostle doth evidently in this place dispute concerning two covenants, or two testaments, comparing the one with the other, and declaring the disannulling 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 Jsrael 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 lieth herein. We must grant one of these three things.
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 they all perished everlastingly. And neither of the two latter can be admitted.
Some indeed in these latter days have revived the old Pelagian imagination, that before the law men were saved by the conduct of natural light and reason, and under the law by the directive doctrines, precepts, and sacrifices thereof, without any respect to the Lord Christ, or his mediation in another covenant. But I shall not here contend with them, as having elsewhere sufficiently refuted these imaginations. 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 made with Adam and all mankind in him, is not intended. For this is undoubtedly a covenant different in the essence and substance of it from the new.
2. By the new covenant, not the new covenant absolutely and originally as given in the first promise, is intended; but in its complete gospel administration, when it was actually established by the death of Christ, as administered in and by the ordinances of the New Testament. This, with the covenant of Sinai, were, as most say, but different administrations of the same covenant.
But on the other hand, there is such express mention made, not only in this, but in sundry other places of the Scripture also, of two distinct covenants or testaments, and such different natures, properties, and effects ascribed to them, as seem to constitute two distinct covenants. This therefore we must inquire into; and shall first declare what is agreed to by those who are sober in this matter, though they differ in their judgments about this question, Whether two distinct covenants, or only a twofold administration of the same covenant, be intended. And indeed there is so much agreed on, as that what remains seems rather to be a difference about the expression of the same truth, than any real contradiction about the things themselves. For,
1. It is agreed that the way of reconciliation with God, of justification and salvation, was always one and the same, and that from the giving of the first promise, none was ever justified or saved but by the new covenant, and Jesus Christ the mediator thereof. The foolish imagination before mentioned, that men were saved before the giving of the law by following the guidance of the hght of nature, and after giving of the law, by obedience to the directions thereof, is rejected by all that are sober, as destructive of the Old Testament and of the
2. That the writings of the Old Testament, namely, the law, psalms, and prophets, do contain and declare the doctrine of justification and salvation by Christ; this the church of old believed, and walked with God in the faith thereof. This is undeniably proved, in that the doctrine mentioned is frequently confirmed in the New Testament, by testimonies taken out of the Old.
_ 9. That by the covenant of Sinai, as properly so called, separated from its figurative relation to the covenant of grace, none was ever eternally saved.
4, That the use of all the institutions whereby the old covenant was administered, was to represent and direct to Jesus Christ and his mediation.
These things being granted, the only way of life and salvation by Jesus Christ under the Old Testament and the New is secured, which. is the substance of the truth wherein we are now concerned. On these grounds we may proceed with our inquiry.
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. And whereas the essence and the substance of the covenant consists in these things, they are not to be said to be under another covenant, but only a different administration of it. But this was so different from that which is established in the gospel after the coming of Christ, that it hath the appearance and name of another covenant. And the differences between these two administrations may be reduced to the ensuing heads.
First. It consisted in the way and manner of the declaration of the mystery of the love-and will of God in Christ; of the work of reconciliation and redemption, with our justification by faith. For herein the gospel, wherein life and immortality are brought to light, doth in plainness, clearness, and evidence, much excel the administration and declaration of the same truths under the law. And the greatness of the privilege of the church herein is not easily expressed. For hereby ‘with open face we behold the glory of God in a glass, and are changed into the same image,’ 2 Cor. iii, 18. The man whose eyes the Lord Christ opened, Mark viii. 23, 24, represents these two states. When he first touched him, his eyes were opened, and he saw, but he saw nothing clearly, whence, when he looked, he said, ‘I see men as trees walking,’ ver. 24. But on his second touch, ke saw every man clearly, ver. 25. They had their sight under the Old Testament, and the object was proposed to them, but at a great distance, with such an interposition of mists, clouds, and shadows, as that they saw men like trees walking, nothing clearly and perfectly. But now, under the gospel, the object, which is Christ, being brought near to us, and all clouds and shadows being departed, we do or may see all things clearly. When a traveller, in his way on downs or hills, is encompassed with a thick mist and fog, though he be in his way, yet he is uncertain, and nothing is presented to him in its proper shape and distance; things near seem to be afar off, and things afar off to be near, and every thing hath, though not a false, yet an uncertain appearance. Let the sun break forth and scatter the mists and fogs that are about him, and immediately every thing appears quite in another shape to him, so as indeed he is ready to think he is not where he was. His way is plain, he is certain of it, and all the region about lies evident under his eye, yet is there no alteration made but in the removal of the mists and clouds that interrupted his sight. So was it with them under the law. The types and shadows in which they were inclosed, and which were the only medium they had to -view spiritual things in, represented them not to them clearly and in their proper shape. But they being now removed by the rising of the Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings, in the dispensation of the gospel, the whole mystery of God in Christ is clearly manifested to them that do believe. And the greatness of this privilege of the gospel above the law, is inexpressible; whereof, as 1 suppose, we must speak somewhat afterwards..
Secondly. In the plentiful communication of grace unto the community of the church. For now it is that we receive grace for grace, or a plentiful effusion of it by Jesus Christ. There was grace given in an eminent manner unto many holy persons under the Old Testament, and all true believers had true, real, saving grace, communicated unto them. But the measures of grace in the true church under the New Testament, do exceed those of the community of the church under the Old. And therefore, as God winked at some things in them, as polygamy and the like, which are expressly and severely interdicted under the New, nor are consistent with the present administrations of it, so are sundry duties, as those of self-denial, readiness to bear the cross, to forsake houses, lands, and habitations, more expressly enjoined unto us than unto them. And the obedience which God requireth in any covenant, or administration of it, is proportionable to the strength which the administration of that covenant doth exhibit. And if those who profess the gospel do content themselves without any interest in this privilege of it, if they endeavour not for a share in that plentiful effusion of grace, which doth accompany its present administration, the gospel itself will be of no other use unto them, but to increase and aggravate their condemnation.
Thirdly. In the manner of our access unto God. Herein much of all that is called religion doth consist. For hereon doth all our out- ‘ward worship of God depend. And in this the advantages of the gospel administration of the covenant, above that of the law, is in all things very eminent. Our access now to God is immediate by Jesus Christ, with liberty and boldness, as we shall afterwards declare. Those under the law were immediately conversant in their whole worship, about outward typical things, the tabernacle, the altar, the ark, the mercy-seat, and the like obscure representations of the presence of God. Besides, the manner of the making the covenant with them at Mount Sinai, filled them with fear, and brought them into bondage, so as they had comparatively a servile frame of spirit, in all their holy worship. P
Fourthly. In the way of worship required under each administration. For under that which was legal, it seemed good unto God to appoint a great number of outward rites, ceremonies, and observances; and these, as they were dark in their signification, as also in their use and ends, so were they, by reason of their nature, number, and severe penalties, under which they were enjoined, grievous and burdensome to be observed. But the way of worship under the gospel is spiritual, rational, and plainly subservient unto the ends of the covenant itself, so as that the use, ends, benefits, and advantages of it, are evident. unto all.
Fifthly. Τὰ the extent of the dispensation of the grace of God. For this is greatly enlarged under the gospel. For under the Old Testament it was, upon the matter, confined unto the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh. But under the New Testament it extends itself unto all nations under heaven.
The Lutherans, on the other side, insist on two arguments to prove, that not a twofold administration of the same covenant, but that two covenants substantially distinct, are intended in this discourse of the apostle.:
First. Because in the Scripture they are often so called, and compared with one another, and sometimes opposed unto one another; the first and the last, the new and the old. |
Secondly. Because the covenant of grace in Christ is eternal, immutable, always the same, obnoxious unto no alteration, no change or abrogation; neither can these things be spoken of it with respect unto. any administration of it, as they are spoken of the old covenant.
To state our thoughts aright in this matter, and to give what light we can unto the truth, the things ensuing may be observed.
First. When we speak of the old covenant, we intend not the covenant of works made with Adam, and his whole posterity in him, concerning which there is no difference or difficulty, whether it bea distinct covenant from the new or not.
Secondly. When we speak of the new covenant, we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though that were not in being and efficacy, before the introduction of that which is promised in this place. For it was always the same as to the substance of it from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and efficacy, unalterable, everlasting, ordered in all things and sure. All who contend about these things, the Socinians only excepted, do grant that the covenant of grace considered absolutely, that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, was the only way and means of salvation unto the church, from the first entrance of sin. But for two reasons it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect unto any other things, nor was it so under the Old Testament. When God renewed the promise of it unto Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him, and he did so, but 10 was with respect unto other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely, under the Old Testament, it consisted only in a promise, and as such oaly is proposed in the Scripture, Acts 11.39; Heb. vi. 14—16. The apostle indeed says, that the covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, before the giving of the law, Gal. iii. 17. And so it was not absolutely in itself, but in the promise and benefits of it. The νομοϑεσια, or full legal establishment of it, whence it became formally a covenant unto the whole church, was future only, and a promise under the Old Testament. For it wanted two things thereunto.
1. It wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged unto it. Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal nature of a covenant or a * testament, as our apostle proves, ch. ix. 15—23. For neither, as he shows in that place, would the law given at Sinai have been “ἃ covenant, had it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. Wherefore, the promise was not before a formal and solemn covenant.
2. This was wanting, that it was not the spring, rule, and measure of all the worship of the church. This doth belong unto every covenant, properly so called, that God makes with the church, that it be the entire rule of all the worship that God requires of it, which is that which they are to restipulate in their entrance into covenant with God. But so the covenant of grace was not under the Old Testament. For God did require of the church many duties of worship that did not belong thereunto. But now, under the New Testament, this covenant, with its own seals and appointments, is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship. Wherefore, the new covenant promised in the Scripture, and here opposed unto the old, is not the promise of grace, mercy, life, and salvation, by Christ absolutely considered, but as it had the formal nature of a covenant given unto it, in its establishment by the death of Christ, the procuring cause of all its benefits, and the declaring of it to be the only rule of worship and obedience unto the church. So that although by the covenant of grace, we ofttimes understand no more but the way of life, grace, mercy, and salvation by Christ; yet, by the new covenant, we intend its actual establishment in the death of Christ, with that blessed way of worship which by it is settled in the church.
Thirdly. Whilst the ehurch enjoyed all the spiritual benefits of the promise, wherein the substance of the covenant of grace was contained, before it was confirmed and made the sole rule of worship unto the church, it was not inconsistent with the holiness and wisdom of God, to bring it under any other covenant, or prescribe unto it what forms of worship he pleased. It was not so, I say, upon these three suppositions.
1. That this covenant did not disannul or make ineffectual the promise that was given before, but that that doth still continue the only means of life and salvation. And that this was so, our apostle proves at large, Gal, 1. 17—19.
2. That this other covenant, with all the worship contained in it, or required by it, did not divert from, but direct and lead unto the future establishment of the promise, in the solemnity of a covenant by the ways mentioned. And that the covenant made in Sinai, with all its ordinances, did so, the apostle proves likewise in the place before mentioned, as also in this whole Epistle.
3. That it be of present use and advantage unto the church in its present condition. This the apostle acknowledgeth to be a great objection against the use and efticacy of the promise under the Old Testament, as unto life and salvation; namely, to what end, then, serves the giving of the law? whereunto he answers, by showing the necessity and use of the law unto the church in its then present condition, Gal. iu. 17.
Fourthly. These things being observed, we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold administration of the same covenant. The one is mentioned and described, Exod. xxiv. 3—8; Deut. v. 2—5; namely, the covenant that God made with the people of Israel in Sinai; and which is commonly called the covenant, where the people under the Old Testament are said to keep or break God’s covenant, which for the most part is spoken with respect unto that worship which was peculiar thereunto. The other is promised, Jer. xxxi. 31—34, xxxi. 40, which is the new gospel covenant as before explained, mentioned Matt, xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24. And these two covenants or testaments are compared one with the other, and opposed one unto another, 2 Cor. 11. 6—9; Gal. iv. 24—26; Heb. vii. 22, ix. 15—19.
These two we call the old and the new testament. Only it must be observed, that in this argument, by the old testament, we do not understand the books of the Old Testament, or the writings of Moses, the psalms and the prophets, or the oracles of God committed then to the church. I confess they are once so called, 2 Cor. i. 14, ‘The vail remaineth untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament,’ that is, the books of it. Unless we shall say that the apostle intendeth only the reading of the things which concern the old testament in the Scripture. For this old covenant or testament whatever it be, is abrogated and taken away, as the apostle expressly proves. But the word of God in the books of the Old Testament abideth for ever. And those writings are called the Old Testament, or the books of the Old Testament, not as though they contained in them, nothing but what belong- - eth to the old covenant, for they contain the doctrine of the New Testamentalso. But they are so termed, because they were committed to the church whilst the old covenant was in force, as the rule and law of its worship and obedience.
Fifthly. Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended. We must, I say, do so, provided always that the way of reconciliation and saivation was the same under both. But it will be said, and with great pretence of reason, for it is that which is the sole foundation they all build on, who allow only a twofold administration of the same covenant, that this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation be the same under both, then indeed are they for the substance of them but one. And I grant that this would inevitably follow, if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained, not only under the old covenant, but by virtue thereof, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God, nor salvation, could be obtained, by virtue of the old covenant, or the administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved b virtue of the promise, whilst they were under that covenant. 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.
First. This covenant, called the old covenant, was never intended to be of itself the absolute rule and law of life and salvation unto the church, but was made with a particular design, and with respect unto particular ends. This the apostle proves undeniably in this Epistle, especially in the chapter foregoing, and those two that follow. Hence it follows, that it could abrogate or disannul nothing, which God at any time before had given, as a general rule unto the church. For that which is particular, cannot abrogate any thing that was general, and before it; as that which is general doth abrogate all antecedent particulars, as the new covenant doth abrogate the old. And this we must consider in both the instances belonging hereunto.
- First. God had before given the covenant of works, or of perfect obedience, unto all mankind, in the law of creation. But this covenant at Sinai did not abrogate or disannul that covenant, nor any way fulfil it; and the reason is, because it was never intended to come in the place or room thereof, as a covenant, containing an entire rule of all the faith and obedience of the whole church. God did not intend in it to abrogate the covenant of works, and to substitute this in the place thereof; yea, in sundry things it reinforced, established, and confirmed that covenant. For,
1. It revived, declared, and expressed, all the commands of that covenant in the decalogue. For that is nothing but a divine summary of the law, written in the heart of man at his creation. And herein the dreadful manner of its delivery or promulgation, with its writings in tables of stone, are also to be considered. For in them the nature of that first covenant, with its inexorableness, as unto perfect obedience, was represented. And because none could answer its demands, or comply with it therein, it was called the ministration of death causing fear and bondage, 2 Cor. 1]. 7.
2. It revived the sanction of the first covenant, in the curse or sentence of death, which it denounced against all transgressors. Death was the penalty of the transgression of the first covenant, ‘In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die the death.’ And this sentence was revived and represented anew in the curse wherewith this covenant was ratified: ‘Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law ᾿ς to do them,’ Deut. xxvii. 26; Gal. ili. 10. For the design of God in it was to bind asense of that curse on the consciences of men, until He came by whom it was taken away, as the apostle declares, Gal. ut. 14—16.
3. It revived the promise of that covenant, that of eternal life upon perfect obedience. So the apostle tells us, that Moses thus describeth the righteousness of the law, that ‘the man which doth these things shall live by them,’ Rom. x. 5, as he doth, Lev. xvii. 5. Now this is no other, but the covenant of works revived. Nor had this covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed unto it, as such, but only the promise inseparable from the covenant of works which it revived, saying, Do this and live. Hence it is, that when our apostle disputeth against justification by the law, or by the works of the law, he doth not intend the works peculiar unto the covenant of Sinai, such as were the rites and ceremonies of the worship then instituted; but he intends also the works of the first covenant, which alone had the promise of life annexed unto them.
And hence it follows also, that it was not a new covenant of works established in the place of the old, for the absoltite rule of faith and | obedience unto the whole church; for then would it have abrogated and taken away that covenant, and all the force of it, which it did not. |
Secondly. The other instance is in the promise. This also went before it, neither was it abrogated or disannulled by the introduction οἵ this covenant. This promise was given unto our first parents immediately after the entrance of sin, and was established as containing the only way and means of the salvation of sinners. Now, this promise could not be abrogated by the introduction of this covenant, and anew way of justification and salvation be thereby established. For the promise being given out in general for the whole church, as containing the way appointed by God for righteousness, life, and salvation, it could not be disannulled or changed, without a change and alteration in the counsels of Him, with whom is no variableness or shadow of turning. Much less could this be effected by a particular covenant, such as that was, when it was given as a general and eternal rule.
Secondly. But whereas there was an especial promise given unto Abraham, in the faith whereof he became the father of the faithful, he being their progenitor, it should seem that this covenant did wholly disannul or supersede that promise, and take off the church of his posterity from building on that foundation, and to fix them wholly on this new covenant now made with them. So saith Moses, ‘The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us alive here this day,’ Deut. v. 3. God made not this covenant on Mount Sinai. with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but with the people then present, and their posterity, as he declares, Deut. xxix. 14, 15. This therefore should seem to take them off wholly from that’ promise made to Abraham, and so to disannul it. But that this it did not, nor could do, the apostle strictly proves, Gal. ii. 17—22. Yea, it did divers ways establish that promise, both as first given, and as afterwards confirmed with the oath of God unto Abraham, two especially.
1. It declared the impossibility of obtaining reconciliation and peace with God, any other way but by the promise. For representing the commands of the covenant of works, requiring perfect sinless obedience, under the penalty of the curse, it convinced men that this was no way for sinners to seek for life and salvation by. And herewith it so urged the consciences of men, that they could have no rest nor peace in themselves, but what the promise would afford them, whereunto they saw a necessity of betaking themselves.
2. By representing the ways and means of the accomplishment of the promise, and of that whereon all the efficacy of it, unto the justification and salvation of sinners, doth depend. This was the death, blood-shedding, oblation, or sacrifice of Christ the promised seed. This all its offerings and ordinances of worship directed unto; as his incarnation, with the inhabitation of God in his human nature, was typified by the tabernacle and temple. Wherefore it was so far from disannulling the promise, or diverting the minds of the people of God from it, that by all means it established it, and led unto it. But,
Thirdly. It will be said, as was before observed, that if it did neither abrogate the first covenant of works, and come in the room thereof, nor disannul the promise made unto Abraham, then unto what end did it serve, or what benefit did the church receive thereby? I answer,
1. There hath been, with respect unto God’s dealing with the church, οἰκονόμια των Kalowy, a Certain dispensation and disposition of times and seasons, reserved unto the sovereign will and pleasure of God. Hence, from the beginning he revealed himself, πολυτρόπως and πολυμερως, ‘as seemed good unto him,’ ch. i. 1. And this dispensation of times hada πληρωμα, ‘a fulness,’ assigned unto it, wherein all things, namely, that belong unto the revelation and communication of God unto the church, should come to their height, and have as it were the last hand given unto them. This was the sending of Christ as the apostle declares, Eph. i. 10, ‘that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might bring all unto an head in Christ.’ Until this season came, God dealt variously with the church, ev ποικίλῃ σοφίᾳ, ‘in manifold or various wisdom,’ according as he saw it needful and useful for it, in that season which it was to pass through, before the fulness of times came. Of this nature was his entrance into the covenant with the church at Sinai, the reasons whereof we shall imme-. diately inquire into. Inthe meantime, if we had no other answer to this inquiry, but only this, that in the order of the disposal or dispen- ‘sation of the seasons of the church, before the fulness of times came, God in his manifold wisdom saw it necessary for the then present state of the church in that season, we may well acquiesce therein. But,
_ 2. The apostle acquaints us in general with the ends of this dispensation of God, Gal. 1. 19—24, ‘ Wherefore then serveth tke law? it was added, because of the transgressions, till the Seed should come to whem the promise was made, and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith, which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster, to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.’ Much light might be given unto the mind of the Holy Ghost in these words, and that in things not commonly discerned by expositors, if we should divert unto the opening of them. I will at present only mark from them what is unto our present purpose.
There is a double inquiry made by the apostle with respect unto the law, or the covenant of Sinai..
1. Unto what end in general it served. 2. Whether it were not contrary to the promise of God. Unto both these, the apostle answereth from the nature, office, and work of that covenant. For there were, as hath been declared, two things in it.
1st. A revival and representation of the first covenant of works, with its sanction and curse.
Qdly. A direction of the church unto the accomplishment of the promise. From these two doth the apostle frame his answer unto the double inquiry, laid down.
First. Unto the first inquiry, unto what end it served? he answers, it was added because of transgressions. The promise being given, there seems to have been no need of it; why then was it added to it at that season? ‘it was added because of transgressions.’ The fulness of time was not yet come wherein the promise was to be fulfilled, accomplished, and established,as the only covenant wherein the chureh was to walk with God; or the seed was not yet come, as the apostle here speaks, to whom the promise was made. Inthe meantime, some order must be taken about sin and transgression, that all the order of things appointed of God, might not be overflowed by them. And. this was done two ways by the law.
1. By reviving the commands of the covenant of works, with the sanction of death, it put an awe on the minds of men, and set bounds unto their lusts, that they should not dare to run forth into that excess to which they were naturally inclined. It was therefore ‘added because of transgressions,’ that in the declaration of God’s severity against them, some bounds might be fixed unto them; for the knowledge of sin is by the law.
2. To shut up unbelievers, and such as would not seek for righteousness, life, and salvation by the promise, under the power of the covenant of works, and curse atending it. [0 concluded, or shut up all under sin, saith the apostle, Gal. im. 22. ‘This was the end of the law, for this end was it added, as it gave a revival unto the covenant of works.
Secondly. Unto the second inquiry, which ariseth out of this supposition, namely, that the law did convince of sin, and condemn for sin, which is, whether it be not then contrary to the grace of God? the apostle, in like manner, returns a double answer, taken from the second use of the law before insisted on, with repect unto the promise.
1. He says, that although the law doth thus rebuke sin, convince of sin, and condemn for sin, so setting bounds unto transgressions and transgressors, yet did God never intend it as a means to give life and righteousness, nor was it able so todo. The end of the promise was to give righteousness, justification, and salvation, all by Christ, to whom and concerning whom it was made. But this was not the end for which the law was revived in the covenant of Sinai. For although in itself it requires a perfect righteousness, and gives a promise of life thereon, ‘ he that doth these things he shall live in them;’ yet it could give neither righteousness nor life, unto any in the state of sin; see Rom. vii. 3, x. 4. Wherefore the promise and the law having - divers ends, they are not contrary to one another.
2. The law, saith he, had a great respect unto the promise, and was given of God for this very end, that it might lead and direct men unto Christ, which is sufficient to answer the question proposed at the beginning of this discourse, about the ends of this covenant, and the advantage which the church received thereby.
What hath been spoken, may suffice to declare the nature of this covenant in general; and two things do here evidently follow, wherein the substance of the whole truth contended for by the apostle doth consist.
1, That whilst the covenant of grace was contained and proposed only in the promise, before it was solemnly confirmed in the blood and sacrifice of Christ, and so legalized or*established as the only rule of the worship of the church, the introduction of this other covenant on Sinai did not constitute a new way or means of righteousness, life, and salvation; but believers sought for them by the covenant of grace alone, as declared in the promise. This follows evidently upon what we have discoursed, and it secures absolutely that great fundamental truth, which the apostle in this and all his other epistles so earnestly contendeth for; namely, that there neither is, nor ever was, either righteousness, justification, life, or salvation, to be attained by any law, or the works of it, (for this covenant at Mount Sinai comprehended every law that God ever gave unto the church,) but by Christ alone, and faith in him.
2. That whereas, when this covenant was introduced in the pleasure. of God, there was prescribed with it a forin of outward worship, suited to that dispensation of times, and to the then present state of the church; so, upon the introduction of the new covenant in the fulness of times, to be the rule of all intercourse between God and the church, both that covenant and all its worship must be disannulled. This is that which the apostle proves with all sorts of arguments, manifesting the great advantage of the church thereby. These things, I say do evidently follow on the preceding discourses, and are the main truths contended for by the apostle.
Fourthly. There remaineth one thing more only to be considered, before we enter on the comparison between the two covenants, here directed unto by the apostle. And this is, how this first covenant came to be an especial covenant unto that people; wherein we shall manifest the reason of its introduction at that season. And unto this end sundry things are to be considered concerning that people, and the church of God in them, with whom this covenant was made, which will farther evidence both the nature, use, and necessity of it.
First. This people were the posterity of Abraham unto whom the promise was made, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Wherefore, from among them was the promised seed to be raised up in the fulness of time, or its proper season. From among them was the Son of God to take on him the seed of Abraham. To this end sundry things were necessary.
1. That they should have a certain abiding place-or country, which they might freely inhabit, distinct from other nations, and under a rule or sceptre of their own. So it is said of them, ‘that the people should dwell alone, and not to be reckoned among the nations,’ Num. xxl. 9, and ‘the Sceptre was not to depart from them until Shiloh came,’ Gen. xlix. 10. For God had regard unto his own glory in his faithfulness, as unto his word and oath given unto Abraham, not only that they should be accomplished, but that their accomplishment should be evident and conspicuous. But if this posterity of Abraham, from among whom the promised seed was to rise, had been, as it is at this day with them, scattered abroad on the face of the earth, mixed with all nations, and under their power, although God might have accomplished his promise really in raising up Christ from among some of his posterity, yet could it not be proved or evidenced that he had so done, by reason of the confusion and mixture of the people with — others. Wherefore God provided a land and country for them, which they might inhabit by themselves, and as their own, even the land of Canaan. And this was so suited unto all the ends of God towards that people, as might be declared in sundry instances, that God is said, to ‘have espied this land out for them,’ Ezek. xx. 6. He chose it out as most meet for his purpose, towards that people, of all lands under heaven.
2. That there should be always kept among them, an open confession and visible representation of the end for which they were so separated. from all nations of the world. They were not to dwell in the land of Canaan, merely for secular ends, and to make, as it were, a dumb show: but as they were there maintained and preserved to evidence the faithfulness of God, in bringing forth the promised seed in the fulness of time; so there was to be a testimony kept up among, them unto that end-of God whereunto they were preserved. ‘This was the end of all their ordinances οἵ worship, of the tabernacle, priesthood, sacrifices, and ordinances, which were all appointed by Moses on the command of God, for a ‘testimony of those things which should be spoken, afterwards,’ Heb. i.5. These things were necessary in the first place, with respect unto the ends of God towards that — people.
Secondly. It becomes not the wisdom, holiness, and sovereignty of God, to call any people into an especial relation unto himself, to do them good in an eminent and peculiar manner, and then to suffer them to live at their pleasure, without any regard unto what he had done for them. Wherefore, having granted unto this people, those great privileges of the land of Canaan, and the ordinances of worship relating unto the great end mentioned, he moreover preseribed unto them laws, rules, and terms ef obedience, whereon they should hold and enjoy that land, with all the privileges annexed unto the possession thereof: And these are both expressed, and frequently inculeated in the repetition and promises of the law. But yet, in the prescription of these terms, God reserved to himself the sovereignty of dealing with them. For, had he left them to stand or fall, absolutely by the terms prescribed unto them, they might and would have utterly forfeited both the land, and all the privileges they enjoyed therein. And had it so fallen out, then the great end of God in preserving them a separate people until the seed should come, and in presenting a representation thereof among them, had been frustrated. Wherefore, although he punished them for their transgressions, according to the threatenings of the law, yet would he not bring the oon, or ‘curse of the law’ upon them, and utterly cast them off, until his great end was accomplished, Mal. iv. 4—6.
Thirdly. God would not take this people off from the promise, because his church was among them, and they could neither please God, nor be accepted with him, but by faith therein. But yet they were to be dealt withal, according as it was meet. For they were generally a people of a hard heart, and stiff-necked, lifted up with an opinion of their own righteousness and worth above others. This, Moses endeavoureth, by ail manner of reasons and instances to the contrary, to take them off from, in the book of Deuteronomy. Yet was it not effected among the generality of them, nor is it to thisday. For, in the midst of all their wickedness and misery, they still trust to, and boast of their own righteousness, and will have it, that God hath an especial obligation unto them on that account. For this cause God saw it necessary, and it pleased him to put a grievous and heavy yoke upon them, to subdue the pride of their spirits, and to cause them to breathe after deliverance. This, the apostle Peter calls a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, Acts xv. 10, that is, with peace, ease, and rest; which, therefore, the Lord Christ invited them to seek for, in himself alone, Matt. xi. 29,30. And this yoke that God put on them, consisted in these three things.
1. Ina multitude of precepts, hard to be understood, and difficult to be observed. The present Jews reckon up six hundred and thirteen of them, about the sense of most of which they dispute endlessly among themselves. But the truth is, since the days of the pharisees, they have increased their own yoke, and made obedience unto their law, in any tolerable manner, altogether unpracticable. It were easy to manifest, for instance, that no man under heaven ever did, or ever ean keep the Sabbath, according to the rules they give about it in their Talmuds. And they generally scarce observe one of them themselves. But in the law, as given by God himself, it is certain, that there were a multitude of arbitrary precepts, and those in themselves, not accompanied with any spiritual advantages, as our apostle shows, ch. ix. 9, 10, only they were obliged to perform them, by a mere sovereign act of power and authority.
2. In the severity wherewith the observance of all those precepts were enjoined them. And this was the threatening of death. For he that despised Moses’ law, died without mercy, and every trans- gression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward. Hence was their complaint of old, ‘Behold we die, we perish, we all perish; whosoever cometh near unto the tabernacle of the Lord, shall die; shall we be consumed with dying?” Num. xvi. 12, 13. And the curse solemnly denounced against every one that confirmed not all things written in the law, was continually before them.
3. In a spirit of bondage unto fear. This was administered in the giving and dispensation of the law, even as a spirit of liberty and power is administered in and by the gospel. And as this respected their present obedience, and manner of its performance, so in particular, it regardeth death not yet conquered by Christ. Hence our apostle affirms, that through fear of death, they were all their lifetime subject unto bondage. This state God brought them into, partly to subdue the pride of their hearts trusting in their own righteousness, and partly to cause them to look out earnestly after the promised deliverer.
Fourthly. Into this estate and condition, God brought them by a solemn covenant, confirmed by mutual consent between him and them. The tenure, force, and solemn ratification of this covenant is expressed, Exod. xxiv. 3—S8. Unto the terms and conditions of this covenant, | was the whole church obliged indispensably on pain of extermination, until all was accomplished, Mal. iv.4—6. Unto this covenant belonged the decalogue, with all precepts of moral obedience, thence educed. So also did the laws of political rule, established among them, and the whole system of religious worship, given unto them. All these laws were brought within the verge of this covenant, and were the matter of it. And it had especial promises and threatenings annexed unto it as such, whereof none did exceed the bounds of the land of Canaan. For even many of the laws of it, were such as obliged nowhere else. Such was the law of the Sabbatical year, and all their sacrifices. There was sin and obedience in them, or about them, in the land of Canaan, none elsewhere. Hence,
Fifthly. This covenant thus made with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it, did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant formally as such. It did indeed revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works, and therein, as the apostle speaks, was the ministry of condemnation, 2 Cor. ii. 9. For, ‘by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.’ And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.
Sixthly. Hereon occasionally fell out the ruin of that people; their table became a snare unto them, and that which should have been for their welfare, became a trap, according to the prediction of our Saviour, Ps. lxix. 22. It was this covenant that raised and ruined them: it raised them to glory and honour when given of God; it ruined them when abused by themselves, contrary to express declarations of bis mind and will For although the generality of them were always wicked and rebellious, breaking the terms of the covenant which God made with them, so far as it was possible they should, whilst God determined to reign over them until the appointed season; and although they repined under the burden of it, yet they would have this coyenant to be the only rule and means of righteousness, life, and salvation, as the apostle declares, Rom. ix. 31—33, x. 3. For, as we have often said, there were two things in it, both which they abused unto other ends than what God designed them.
1, There was the renovation of the rule of the covenant of works for righteousness and life. And this they would have to be given unto them for those ends, and so sought for righteousness by the works of the law.,
2. There was ordained in it a typical representation of the way and means whereby the promise was to be made effectual, namely, in the mediation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which was the end of all their - ordinances of worship. And the outward law thereof, with the observance of its institution, they looked on as their only relief when they came short of exact and perfect righteousness. Against both these pernicious errors, the apostle disputes expressly in his epistle unto the Romans and the Galatians, to save them, if it were possible. from that ruin into which they were casting themselves. Hereon the elect obtained, but the rest were hardened. For hereby they made an absolute renunciation of the promise, wherein alone, God had enwrapped the way of life and salvation.
This is the nature and substance of that covenant which God made with that people; a particular temporary covenant it was, and not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace.
That which remains for the declaration of the mind of the Holy Ghost in this whole matter, is to declare the differences that are between those two covenants, whence the one is said to be better than the other, and to be built upon better promises.
Those of the church of Rome, do commonly place this difference in three things. 1. In the promises of them; which in the old covenant were temporal only; in the new, spiritual and heavenly.
2. In the precepts of them; which under the old, required only external obedience, designing the righteousness of the outward man; under the new, they are internal, respecting principally the inner man of the heart.
3. In their sacraments; for those under the Old Testament, were only outwardly figurative, but those of the New, are operative of grace.
But these things do not express much, if any thing at all, of what the Scripture placeth this difference in. And besides, as by some of them explained, they are not true, especially the two latter of them. For I cannot but somewhat admire, how it came into the heart or mind of any man to think or say, that God ever gave a law or laws, precept or precepts, that should respect the outward man only, and the regulation of external duties. The thought of it is contrary unto 94 2 all the essential properties of the nature of God, and meet only to ingenerate apprehensions of him, unsuited unto all his glorious excel- Jencies. The life and foundation of all the laws under the Old Testament was, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul,’ without which no outward obedience was ever accepted with him. And for the third of the supposed differences, neither were the sacraments of the law so barely figurative, but that they did exhibit Christ unto believers; for they all drank of the spiritual rock, which rock was Christ; nor are those of the gospel so operative of grace, but that without faith, they are useless unto them that do receive them.
The things wherein this difference doth consist, as expressed in the Scripture, are partly circumstantial, and partly substantial, and may be reduced unto the heads ensuing.
1. These two covenants differ in the circumstance of time, as to their promulgation, declaration, and establishment. This difference the apostle expresseth from the prophet Jeremiah in the ninth verse of this chapter, where it must be more fully spoken unto. In brief, the first covenant was made at tlhe time that God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, and took its date from the third month after their coming up from thence, Exod. xix. and xxiv. From what is re-_ ported in the latter place, wherein the people give their actual consent to the terms of it, it began its formal obligation as a covenant. And we must afterwards inquire when it was abrogated and ceased to oblige the church. The new covenant was declared and made known in the latter days, Heb. 1. 1, in the dispensation of the fulness of time, Eph. i. 10. And he took date as a covenant, formally obliging the whole church, from the death, resurrection, ascension of Christ, and sending of the Holy Ghost. I bring these all into the epoch of this covenant, because, though principally it was established by the first, yet it was not absolutely obligatory as a covenant, until after the last of them.
ion, which the Scripture also taketh notice of. The first was declared on Mount Sinai, the manner whereof, and the station of the people in receiving the law, I have in my Exercitations unto the first part of this Exposition, at large declared, and thither the reader is referred, Exod. xix. 18. The other was declared on Mount Sinai, and the law of it went forth from Jerusalem, Isa. 11. 2. This difference, with many remarkable instances from it, our apostle insists on, Gal. iv. 24—26. « These are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth unto bondage, which is Agar.’ That is, Agar the bondwoman, whom Abraham took before the heir of promise was born, was a type of the old covenant given on Sinai, before the introduction of the new, or the covenant of promise. For so he adds; ‘ For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth unto Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage with her children.’ This mount Sinai, when the old covenant was given, and which was represented by Agar, is in Arabia, cast quite out of the verge and confines of the church. And it answereth, or is placed in the same series, rank, and order with Jerusalem, namely, in the opposition of the two covenants. For as the new covenant, the covenant of promise giving freedom and liberty, was given at Jerusalem in the death and resurrection of Christ, with the preaching of the gospel which ensued thereon; so the old covenant that brought the people into bondage, was given at Mount Sinai in Arabia.
ΠῚ. They differ in the manner of their promulgation and establishment. There were two things remarkable that accompanied the solemn declaration of the first covenant.
1, ‘The dread and terror of the outward appearance on Mount Sinai, which filled all the people, yea Moses himself, with fear and trembling, Heb. xii. 18—21; Exod. xix. 16, xx. 18,19. Together herewith, was a spirit of fear and bondage administered unto all the people, so as that they chose to keep at a distance and not draw nigh unto God, Deut. v. 23—27.
2. That it was given by the ministry and disposition of angels, Acts vil. 53; Gal. iii. 19. Hence the people where in a sense, put in subjection to angels, and they had an authoritative ministry in that covenant. The church that then was, was put into some kind of subjection to angels, as the apostle plainly intimates, Heb. 11. 5. Hence the worshipping or adoration of angels began among the people, Col. ii. 18. Which some, with an addition unto their folly and superstition, would introduce into the Christian church, wherein they have no such authoritative ministry as they had under the old covenant.
Things are quite otherwise in the promulgation of the new covenant, The Son of God in his own person, did declare it. This he spake from heaven, as the apostle observes, in opposition unto the giving oi the law on the earth, Heb. xii. 25, yet did he speak on the earth also; the mystery whereof himself declares, John in. 13. And he did all things that belong unto the establishment of this covenant, in a spirit of meekness and condescension, with the highest evidence of love, grace, and compassion, encouraging and inviting the weary, the burdened, and the heavy laden to come to him. And by his Spirit, he made his disciples to carry on the same work, until the covenant was fully declared, Heb. ii. 3; see John 1. 17,18. And the whole ministry of angels in the giving of this covenant, was merely in a way of service and obedience unto Christ, and they owned themselves the fellowservants only of them that have the testimony of Jesus, Rev. xix. 10. So that this world to come, as it was called of old, was no way put in subjection unto them. |
IV. They differ in their mediators. The mediator of the first covenant was Moses. ‘It was ordained by angels in the hand of ἃ mediator,’ Gal. iii. 19. And this was no other but Moses, who was a ‘ servant in the house of God,’ Heb. i. 6. And he was a mediator, as designed of God, so chosen of the people, in that dread and consternation which befel them, upon the terrible promulgation of the law. For they saw that they could no way bear the immediate presence of God, nor treat with him in their own persons. Wherefore they desired that there might be an internuntius, a mediator between God and them, and that Moses might be the person, Deut. v. 25—27. But the | mediator of the new covenant, is the Son of God himself For ‘there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all,’ 1 Tim. 11, 5.
He who is the Son, and the Lord over his own house, graciously undertook in his own person to be the mediator of this covenant; and herein it is unspeakably preferred before the old covenant.
V. They differ in their subject-matter, both as unto precepts and promises, the advantage being still on the part of the new covenant. For,
First. The old covenant, in the preceptive part of 10, renewed the command of the covenant of works, and that on their original terms. Sin it forbade, that is, all and every sin, in matter and manner, on the pain of death, and gave the promise of life unto perfect sinless obedience only. Whence the decalogue itself, which is a transcript of the law of works, is called the covenant, Exod. xxxiv. 28. And _ besides this, as we observed before, it had other precepts innumerable, accommodated unto the present condition of the people, and imposed on them with rigour. But in the new covenant, the very first thing that is proposed, is the accomplishment and establishment of the covenant of works, both as unto its commands and sanction, in the obedience and suffering of the mediator. Hereon the commands of it, as unto the obedience of the covenanters, are not grievous, the yoke of Christ being easy, and his burden light. |
1. No promise of grace, to communicate spiritual strength, or to assist us in obedience; nor,
2. Any promise of eternal life, no otherwise but as it was contained in the promise of the covenant of works, ‘The man that doth these things, shall live in them;’ and,
3. It had promises of temporal things in the land of Canaan inseparable from it. In the new covenant all things are otherwise, as will be declared in the exposition of the ensuing verses.
IV. They differ, and that principally, in the manner of their dedication and sanction. This is that which gives any thing the formal nature of a covenant or testament. There may be a promise, there may be an agreement in general, which hath not the formal nature of a covenant or testament; and such was the covenant of grace before the death of Christ. But it is the solemnity and manner of the confirmation, dedication, and sanction of any promise or agreement, that gives it the formal nature of a covenant or testament. And this is by a sacrifice, wherein there is both blood-shedding and death ensuing thereon. Now this, in the confirmation of the old covenant, was only the sacrifice of beasts, whose blood was sprinkled on all the people, Exod. xxiv. 5—9. But the New Testament was solemnly confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ himself, Zech. ix. 11; Heb. x. 29, xii. 20. And the Lord Christ dying as the mediator and surety of the covenant, he purchased all good things for the church, and as a testator bequeathed them unto it. Hence he says of the sacramental cup, that it is the new testament in his blood, or the pledge of his bequeathing unto the church all the promises and mercies of the covenant, which is the New Testament, or the disposition of his goods unto his children. But because the apostle expressly handleth this difference between these two covenants, ch. ix. 18—19, we must thither refer the full consideration of it.:
VII. They differ in the priests that were to officiate before God in the behalf of the people. In the old covenant, Aaron and his posterity alone were to discharge that office; in the new, the Son of God himself is the only priest of the church. This difference, with the advantage of the gospel state thereon, we have handled at large in the exposition of the chapter foregoing.
VIII. They differ in the sacrifices, whereon the peace and reconciliation with God which is tendered in them, doth depend. And this also must be spoken unto in the ensuing chapter, if God permit.
IX. They differ in the way or manner of their solemn writing or enrolment. All covenants were of old, solemnly written in tables of brass or stone, where they might be faithfully preserved for the use of the parties concerned, So the old covenant, as to the principal fundamental part of it, was engraven in tables of stone which were kept in the ark, Exod. xxxi. 18; Deut. ix. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 7. And God did so order it in his providence, that the first draught of them should be broken, to intimate that the covenant contained in them, was not everlasting nor unalterable. But the new covenant is written in the fleshly tables of the hearts of them that do believe, 2 Cor. iii. 3; Jer. Xxxi. 33.
X. They differ in their ends. The principal end of the first covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it, and to set bounds unto it. So, saith the apostle, ‘It was added because of transgressions.’ And this it did several ways.
1. By conviction; for the knowledge of sin is by the law; it convinced sinners, and caused every mouth to be stopped before
2. By condemning the sinner, in an application of the sanction of the law unto his consience.
3. By the judgments and punishments wherewith on all occasions it was accompanied. In all it manifested and represented the justice and severity of God. ‘The end of the new covenant is, to declare the love, grace, and mercy of God, and therewith to give repentance, remission of sin, and life eternal.
ΧΙ. They differed in their effects. For the first covenant, being the ministration of death and condemnation, it brought the minds and spirits of them that were under it, into servitude and bondage, whereas spiritual liberty is the immediate effect of the New Testament. And there is no one thing wherein the Spirit of God doth more frequently give us an account of the difference between these two covenants, than this of the liberty of the one, and the bondage of the other; see Rom. vill. 15; 2 Cor. ili. 17; Gal. iv. 1—4, 24, 25, 30, 31; Heb. ii. 14, 15. This therefore we must a little explain. Wherefore the bondage which was the effect of the old covenant, arose from several causes concurring unto the effecting of it.
1. The renovation of the terms and sanction of the covenant of works, contributed much thereunto. For the people saw not how the commands of that covenant could be observed, nor how its curse could be avoided. They saw it not, I say, by any thing in the covenant of Sinai, which therefore gendered unto bondage. All the prospect they had of deliverance was from the promise.
2. It arose from the manner of the delivery of the law, and God’s entering thereon into covenant with them. This was ordered on purpose to fill them with dread and fear. And it could not but do-so, whenever they called it to remembrance.:
3. From the severity of the penalties annexed unto the transgression of the law. And God had taken upon himself, that where punishment was not exacted according to the law, he himself would cut them off. This kept them always anxious and solicitous, not knowing when they were safe or secure.
4, From the nature of the whole ministry of the law, which was the ministration of death and condemnation, 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7,9, which declared the desert of every sin to be death, and denounced death unto every sinner, administering by itself no relief unto the minds and consciences of men. So was it the letter that killed them that were under its power.
5. From the darkness of their own minds in the means, ways, and causes, of deliverance from all these things. It is true, they had a promise before of life and salvation, which was not abolished by this covenant, even the promise made unto Abraham. But this belonged not unto this covenant. And the way of its accomplishment, by the incarnation and mediation of the Son of God, was much hidden from them, yea from the prophets themselves who yet foretold them. This left them under much bondage. For the principal cause and means of the liberty of believers under the gospel, ariseth from the clear light they have into the mystery of the love and grace of God in Christ. This faith and knowledge of his incarnation, humiliation, sufferings, and sacrifice, whereby he made atonement for sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness, is that which gives them liberty and boldness in their obedience, 2 Cor. ii. 17, 18. Whilst they of old were in the dark as unto these things, they must needs be kept under much bondage.
6. It was increased by the yoke of a multitude of laws, rites, and ceremonies imposed on them, which made the whole of their worship a burden unto them, and unsupportable, Acts xv. 10.
In and by all these ways and means, there was a spirit of bondage and fear administered unto them. And this God did, thus he dealt with them, to the end that they might not rest in that state, but continually look out after deliverance.
On the other hand, the new covenant gives liberty and boldness, the liberty and boldness of children, unto all believers. It is the Son in it that makes us free, or gives us universally all that liberty which is any way needful for us, or useful unto us. For where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty, namely, to serve God not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit. And it is declared, that this was the great end of bringing in the new covenant, in the accomplishment of the promise made unto Abraham, namely, ‘ that we, being delivered from the hands of all our enemies, might serve God without fear all the days of our lives,’ Luke i. 72—75. And we may briefly consider wherein this deliverance and liberty by the new covenant doth consist, which it doth in the things ensuing.
less perfect obedience, in order to righteousness and justification before God. Its commands we are still: subject to, but not in order to life and salvation. For to those ends it is fulfilled in and by the mediator of the new covenant, who is ‘the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,’ Rom. x. 4.
2. In our freedom from the condemning power of the law, and the sanction of it in the curse. This being undergone and answered by him, who was made a curse for us, we are freed from it, Rom. vii. 6; Gal. iii. 138,14. And therein also are we delivered from the fear of death, Heb. 11. 15, as it was penal, and an entrance into judgment or condemnation, John v. 24.
3. In our freedom from conscience of sin, Heb. x. 2. That is, conscience disquieting, perplexing, and condemning our persons, the hearts of all that believe being sprinkled from an evil conscience by the blood of Christ.
4. In our freedom from the old system of Mosaic worship, in all the rites, and ceremonies, and ordinances of it; and what a burden this was, the apostles do declare, Acts xv. and our apostle at large in his epistle to the Galatians.
5. From all the laws of men in things appertaining to the worship of God, 1 Cor. vii. 23. And by all these, and the like instances of spiritual liberty, doth the gospel free believers from that spirit of bondage to fear, which was administered under the old covenant.
It remains only that we point at the heads of those ways whereby this liberty is communicated to us under the new covenant. And itis done,
First. Principally by the grant and communication of the Spirit of the Son, as a spirit of adoption, giving the freedom, boldness, and liberty of children, John i. 12; Rom. viii. 156—17; Gal. iv. 6, 7. From hence the apostle lays it down as a certain rule, that where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty, 2 Cor. iii. 17. Let men pretend what they will, let them boast of the freedom of their outward condition in this world, and of the inward liberty or freedom of their wills, there is indeed no true liberty where the Spirit of God is not. The ways whereby he giveth freedom, power, a sound mind, spiritual boldness, courage, and contempt of the cross, holy confidence before God, a readiness for obedience and enlargedness of heart in duties, with all other things wherein true liberty doth consist, or which any way belongs to it, I must not here divert to declare. The world judges that there is no bondage, but where the Spirit of God is; for that gives that conscientious fear of sin, that awe of God in all our thoughts, actions, and ways, that careful and circumspect walking, that temperance in things lawful, that abstinence from all appearance of evil, wherein they judge the greatest bondage on the earth to consist. But those who have received him, do know that the whole world doth lie in evil,-and that all those to whom spiritual liberty is a bondage, are the servants and slaves of Satan.