DEUT. 4. 13.
I Have already handled the Law as it is a Rule, and now come to consider of it as a Covenant, that so the whole Law may be fully understood. I shall not be long upon this, though the matter be large and difficult, though the subject be like the Land of Canaan, yet there are many Gyants, and great Objections in the way. I will rather handle it positively, then controversally; for I do not finde in any point of Divinity, learned men so confused and perplexed (being like Abrahams Ram, hung in a bush of briars and brambles by the head) as here. That I may methodically proceed, observe the context of this verse, and the scope, Moses being to perswade the people of Israel to obedience1 of the Law, useth severall forcible arguments.
As, ver. 1. The good and profitable issue thereof, which is to live and possesse the land, not as if this mercy were only temporall, but by this was represented eternall life in heaven.
A second argument is, from the perfection of it, that nothing may be added to it, or detracted from it.
The third argument is, from the great wisdome and understanding they shall hold forth hereby to all other Nations, there being no people under the sun, that had such holy and perfect lawes as they had, and if that be true of Bernard, Sapiens est cui res sapiunt pro ut sunt, he is a wise man to whom things do taste and relish as they are divine and holy things, as holy; earthly things, as earthly and fading; then certainly, by this Law of God, there was true wisdome prescribed. Other arguments Moses doth bring, as, The great authority God put upon the Law, The great mercy in giving it to them rather then another Nation. And the verse I have read belongs to that argument which proveth the dignity and glorious authority of the Law, from the manner of delivering it: Which Law he declareth to us by the name and title of a Covenant. Now this take notice of, that the word Covenant (to omit other significations) is taken sometimes syecdochially, for part of the Covenant, as it is here in these words.
The Doctrine I will insist upon, is, That the Law was delivered2 by God on Mount Sinai in a Covenant way: Or, The Law was a Covenant that God made with the people of Israel. This will appeare in that it hath the name of a Covenant, and the reall properties of a Covenant.
- The name of a Covenant. 2 King. 18. 12. Because they3 obeyed not the voyce of the Lord their God, but transgressed his Covenant, and all that Moses, the servant of God, commanded.
Deut, 17. 2. If there be found any—that hath wrought wickednesse—in transgressing the Covenant, which was the ten Commandements, as appeareth ver. 3. And more expresly, 2 Chro. 6. 11. In it have I put the Arke wherein is the Covenant of the Lord, that he made with the children of Israel. Yea, if we would speake exactly and strictly, the books of Moses and the Prophets cannot be so well called the Old Covenant, or Testament; as this doctrine that was then delivered on Mount Sinai, with all the administrations thereof; as appeareth. Heb 7. & chap. 8. Even as when the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 3. 6. God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament, he doth not meane the writings, or books, but the Gospel, or Covenant of grace. Take but one place more, where the Law is called a Covenant, and that is Jer. 11. 2, 3, 4.
- In the next place you may see the reall properties of a Covenant,4 which are a mutuall consent and stipulation on both sides: See a full relation of this. Exod, 3: 24. from the 3. v. to the 9th. The Apostle relateth this history, Heb. 9. wherein learned Interpreters observe many difficulties: but I shall not meddle with them.
In the words quoted out of Exodus, you see these things which belong to a Covenant: First, there is God himselfe expressing his consent and willingnesse to be their God, if they will keep such Commandements there and then delivered to them ver. 3. Secondly, you have the peoples full consent, and ready willingnesse to obey them, ver. 3. & ver. 7. Thirdly, because Covenants used to be written down for a memoriall unto posterity, therefore we see Moses writing the precepts down in a book. Fourthly, because Covenants used to be confirmed by some outward visible signes, especially by killing of beasts, and offering them in sacrifice, therefore we have this also done, and halfe of the blood was sprinkled on the Altar, to denote Gods entring into Covenant, and the people also were sprinckled with blood, to shew their voluntary covenanting. Thus we have reall covenanting when the Law is given.
So also you may see this in effect, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, 13. where it’s expresly said, that they stood to enter into Covenant with God; that he may establish them to be a people unto himself, and that he may be a God unto them. Again, you have this clearly in Deut. 26. 17, 18. where it is said, Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walke in his wayes—And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people. So, that it’s very plain, the Law was given as a Covenant; yea, the Apostle cals it a Testament: for howsoever some have disliked that distinction of the Old and New Testament, especially as applied to the books & writings of the holy Pen-men of Scripture (thinking as Austin, they may be better called the Old and New Instruments, because they are authenticall, and confirmed by sufficient witnesses: As Tertullian cals the Bible, Nostra digesta, from the Lawyers; and others called it, Our Pandects, from them also) yet 1 Cor. 3. doth warrant such a distinction. Only the question is, how this Covenant can be called properly a Testament, because Christ died not twice, and there cannot be a Testament, without the death of a Testator. But the answer is, that there was a typicall death of Christ in the sacrifices, and that was ground enough to make the Covenant to be5 called a Testament.
Having proved it is a Covenant, all the difficulty remaineth in declaring what Covenant it is; for here is much difference of judgements, even with the Learned and Orthodox: and this doth arise from the different places of the Scripture, which, although they be not contrary one to another, yet the weaknesse of our understandings is many times overmastered by some places: Some (as you have heard) make it a Covenant of workes, others a mixt Covenant, some a subservient Covenant; but I am perswaded to goe with those who hold it to be a Covenant of grace: and indeed, it is very easie to bring strong arguments for the affirmative; but then there will be some difficulty to answer such places as are brought for the negative; and if the affirmative prove true, the dignity and excellency of the Law will appeare the more. Now, before I come to the arguments, which induce me hereunto, consider in what sense it6 may be explained, that it is a Covenant of grace.
Some explaine it thus, that it was indeed a Covenant of grace, but the Jewes, by their corrupt understanding, made it a Covenant of workes, and so opposed it unto Christ: and therefore, say they, the Apostle argueth against the Law, as making it to oppose the promises and grace: not that it did so, but only in regard of the Jewes corrupt minds, who made an opposition where there was none. This hath some truth in it, but it is not full.
Some make the Law to be a Covenant of grace, but very obscurely; and therefore they hold the Gospel and the Law to be the same, differing only as the acorne while it is in the huske, and the oke when it’s branched out into a tall tree. Now if this should be understood in a Popish sense, as if the righteousnesse of the Law and the Gospel were all one, in which sense the Papists speake of the old Law and the new, it would be very dangerous and directly thwarting the Scripture.
Some explain it thus: God (say they,) had a primary or antecedent will in giving of the Law, or a secondary and consequent: His primary will was to hold out perfect and exact righteousnesse, against which the Apostle argueth, and proveth no man can be justified thereby: but then God knowing mans impotency and inability, did secondarily command repentance, and promiseth a gracious acceptance through Christ; and this may be very well received, if it be not vexed with ill interpretations.
But, lastly, this way I shall go: The Law (as to this purpose) may be considered more largely, as that whole doctrine delivered on Mount Sinai, with the preface and promises adjoyned, and all things that may be reduced to it; or more strictly, as it is an abstracted rule of righteousnesse, holding forth life upon no termes, but perfect obedience. Now take it in the former sense, it was a Covenant of grace; take it in the later sense, as abstracted from Moses his administration of it, and so it was not of grace, but workes.
This distinction will overthrow all the Objections against the negative. Nor may it be any wonder that the Apostle should consider the Law so differently, seeing there is nothing more ordinary with Paul in his Epistle, and that in these very controversies, then to doe so: as for example, take this instance, Rom. 10. ver. 5, 6. where Paul describeth the righteousnesse of the Law from those words, Doe this and live, which is said to have reference to Levit. 18. 5. but we find this in effect, Deut 30. v. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the righteousnesse which is by faith: And Beza doth acknowledg, that that which Moses speakes of the Law, Paul doth apply to the Gospel: Now how can this be reconciled, unlesse wee distinguish between the generall doctrine of Moses which was delivered unto the people in the circumstantiall administrations of it, and the particular doctrine about the Law, taken in a limited and abstracted consideration? Onely this take notice of, that although the Law were a Covenant of grace, yet the righteousnesse of works and faith differ as much as heaven and earth. But the Papists, they make this difference: The righteousnesse of the Law (saith Stapleton, Antid. in hunc locum) is that which we of our owne power have and doe by the knowledge and understanding of the Law: but the righteousnesse of faith, they make the righteousnesse of the Law, to which wee are enabled by grace through Christ: So that they compare not these two together, as two contraries, (in which sense Paul doth) but as an imperfect righteousnesse with a perfect. But we know, that the Apostle excludeth the workes of David & Abraham, that they did in obedience to the Law, to which they were enabled by grace; so necessary is it in matter of justification and pardon to exclude all workes, any thing that is ours; Tolle te à te, impedis te, said Austine well. Nor doth it availe us, that this grace in us is from God, because the Apostle makes the opposition wholy between any thing that is ours, howsoever we come by it, and that of faith in Christ. Having thus explained the state of the Question, I come to the arguments to prove the affirmative: And thus I shall order them;
The first shall be taken from the relation of the Covenanters;7 God on one part, and the Israelites on the other: God did not deale at this time, as absolutely considered, but as their God and Father. Hence God saith hee is their God; and when Christ quoteth the commanders, hee brings the preface, Heare O Israel, the Lord thy God is one. And, Rom. 9. 4. To the Israelites belong adoption, and the glory, and the covenants and the giving of the Law, and the promises. Now, unlesse this were a covenant of grace, how could God be their God, who were sinners? Thus also if you consider the people of Israel into what relation they are taken, this will much confirme the point. Ezod. 19. 5, 6. If yee will obey my voice, you shall be a peculiar treasure unto me, and yee shall be unto me a kingdom of Priests, and an holy Nation: which is applied by Peter to the people of God under the Gospel. If therefore the Law had been a Covenant of works, how could such an agreement come betweene them?
-
If we consider the good things annexed unto this Covenant, it8 must needs be a Covenant of grace: for there we have remission and pardon of sinne, whereas in the Covenant of workes, there is no way for repentance or pardon. In the second Commandment, God is described to be one shewing mercy unto thousands: and by shewing mercy is meant pardon, as appeareth by the contrary, visiting iniquity. Now doth the Law, strictly taken, receive any humbling & debasing of themselves? no, but curseth every one that doth not continue in all the things commanded, and that with a full and perfect obedience. Hence, Exod. 34. ver. 6, 7. God proclaimeth himselfe in manifold attributes of being gracious, and long-suffering, keeping mercie for thousands, and forgiving iniquity; and this he doth upon the renewing of the two Tables: whereas, if the people of Israel had been strictly held up to the Law, as it required universall perfect obedience, without any failing, they must also necessarily have despaired, and perished without any hope at all.
-
If we consider the duties commanded in the Law so generally taken, it must needs be a Covenant of grace: for what is the meaning9 of the first Commandment, but to have one God in Christ our God by faith? For if faith had not been on such tearmes commanded, it had been imposible for them to love God, or to pray unto God. Must not the meaning then be, to love, and delight in God, and to trust in him? But how can this be without faith through Christ? Hence some urge, that the end of the commandment is love from faith unfeigned; but because Scultetus doth very probably, by commandment, understand there, The Apostles preaching and exhortation, (it being in the Greek […], and not […], or […], and the Apostle using the word in that Epistle in the same sense) I leave it. It’s true there is no mention made of Christ, or faith in the first Commandment, but that is nothing, for love also is not mentioned: yet our Saviour discovers it there, and so must faith and Christ be supposed there by necessary consequence. And can we think, that the people of Israel, though indeed they were too confident in themselves, yet when they took upon themselves to keep and observe the Law, that the meaning was, they would do it without any spot or blemish by sinne, or without the grace of God for pardon, if they should at any time break the Law.
-
From the Ceremoniall Law. All Divines say, that this is reduced10 to the Morall Law, so that Sacrifices were commanded by vertue of the second Commandment. Now we all know, that the Sacrifices were evangelicall, and did hold forth remission of sinns through the blood of Christ: If therefore these were commanded by the Morall Law, there must necessarily be grace included, although indeed it was very obscure and dark. And it is to be observed, that the Apostle doth as much argue against circumcision, and even all the Ceremoniall Law, as the Morall; yea the first rise of the controversie was from that: Now all must confesse, that circumcision and the sacrifices did not oppose Christ, or grace, but rather included them. And this hath been alwaies a very strong argument to perswade me for the affirmative. It is true, the Jewes they rested upon these, and did not look to Christ; but so do our Christians in these times upon the Sacraments, and other duties.
-
This will appear from the visible seale to ratifie this Covenant which you heard, was by sacrifices, and sprinkling the people11 with blood: And this did signifie Christ, for Christ he also was the Mediatour of this Covenant, seeing that reconciliation cannot possibly be made with a sinner, through the Mediation of any mortall man. When therefore Moses is called the Mediatour, it is to be understood typically, even as the sacrifices did wash away sin typically. And, indeed, if it had been a Covenant of works, there needed no Mediatour, either typicall, or real; some think Christ likewise was the Angell spoke of Act. 7. with whom Moses was in the wildernesse; and it is probable. Now if Christ was the Mediatour of the Law as a Covenant, the Antinomian distinction must fall to the ground, that makes the Law as in the hand of Moses, and not in the hand of Christ; whereas on Mount Sinai, the Law was in the hand of Christ.
-
If the Law were the same Covenant with that oath, which12 God made to Isaac, then it must needs be a Covenant of grace: But we shall finde that God, when he gave this Law to them; makes it an argument of his love and grace to them; and therefore remembers what he had promised to Abraham, Deut. 7. 12. Wherefore it shall come to passe, if ye hearken to these judgements, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant, & the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers. And, certainly, if the Law had been a Covenant of works, God had fully abrogated and broken his Covenant and Promise of grace which he made with Abraham and his seed. Therefore, when the Apostle, Gal. 3. 18. opposeth the Law and the promise together, making the inheritance by one, & not the other; it is to be understood according to the distinction before mentioned of the Law taken in a most strict and limited sense: for it is plain, that Moses in the administration of this Law, had regard to the Covenant and Promise, yea made it the same with it.13
Now to all this, there are strong objections made from those places of Scripture, where the Law and faith, or the promise, are so directly opposed, as Rom. 10. before quoted, so Gal. 3. 18. Rom 4. 14. so likewise from those places, where the Law is said to be the ministery of death, and to work wrath. Now to these places, I answer these things:
First, that if they should be rigidly, and universally true, then that doctrine of the Socinians would plainly prevaile, who from these places of Scripture do urge, that there was no grace, or faith, nor nothing of Christ, vouchsafed unto the Jewes; whereas they reade they had the Adoption, though the state was a state of bondage.
In the second place consider that as it is said of the Law, it worketh death, so the Gospel is said to be the savour of death, and men are said to have no sin, if Christ had not come; yea they are said to partake of more grievous judgements, who despised Christ, then those that despised the Law of Moses: so that this effect of the Law was meerly accidentall through our corruption: only here is the difference, God doth not vouchsafe any such grace, as whereby we can have justification in a strict legall way: but he doth whereby we may obtain it in an Evangelicall way.
Thirdly, consider that the Apostle speaketh these derogatory passages (as they may seem to be) as well of the Ceremoniall Law; yet all do acknowledge here was Christ and grace held forth.
Fourthly, much of these places is true in a respective sense, according to the interpretation of the Jew, who taking these without Christ, make it a killing letter, even as if we should the doctrine of the Gospel, without the grace of Christ. And, certainly, if any Jew, had stood up and said to Moses, Why do you say, you give us the doctrine of life; it’s nothing but a killing letter, and the ministery of death, would he not have been judged a blasphemer against the Law of Moses? The Apostle therefore must understand it, as seperated, yea and opposed to Christ and his grace.
And lastly, we are still to retain that distinction of the Law in a more large sense, as delivered by Moses; and a more strict sense, as it consisteth in precepts, threatnings and promises upon a condition impossible to us, which is, the fulfilling of the Law in a perfect manner.
Footnotes
-
Arguments used by Moses to perswade obedience to the Law. ↩
-
That the Law God delivered to Israel was a Covenant, appears. ↩
-
- In that it hath the name of a Covenant.
-
2 In that it hath the reall properties of a Covenant. ↩
-
The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant. ↩
-
In what sense it may be a Covenant of grace explained. ↩
-
Arguments proving the Law a Covenant of grace. Argum. 1. ↩
-
Argum. 2. ↩
-
Argum. 3. ↩
-
Argum. 4. ↩
-
Argum. 5. ↩
-
Argum. 6. ↩
-
Obiections impugning the former Arguments answered. ↩