صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

4

*' come, fulfilled the terms

were

the boundaries of

ansgressions exposed nothing else but a

urokes, is doctrine Un). into the other. T

Again if such as did not may be consider as a covenants

thereby entitled to its ing of that of

- they themselves were under subsequent

Therefore the ing theref

o tome on them. Their blessings were

inges, though blessings in themselves, 2dly.

And as temporal strokes to the nants,

Plessings in disguise, so prosperity to the th

Bothing more than a covered curse. To

[ocr errors]

crenant of works.

but as a

و پرور

was

es of

*wid not prove the contrary. It will not be said

**** te instances of Jehu and Nebuchadrezzer Frk. IX. 18, 20,

[ocr errors]

bra' m

her were in covenant with God, though for serices they had their reward, 2 Kings X. 30.

But not to multiply words, the nature of that covenant which was made Mirist God and the Israelites. They avouched the he arouched them to be liis peculiar people, Deut.

Lard to be their God, and to walk in his ways, and Ir. 17, 18. What was this, but the covenant of sonal is, or ought to be, nothing else but a taking grace! And all covenanting whether national or per. hold of God's covenant of grace, and promising in the strength thereof to keep his commandments: an arouching the Lord to be our God, and to walk in his ways. This was indeed the covenant made with the Israclites, wherein some of them were sincere and some not. The former were really in it before the

. Lord, the latter were only visibly, or externally in it, in respect of their outward profession. The one had the real, the spiritual blessings of the covenant, as well as its temporal ones. The other had nothing but the external and temporal privileges of the cove. pant. As they gave a shadow only of obedience, not the substance; so they had the shadow only of the blessing, not the substantial blessing itself. While they were externally in the one covenant, they were really under the other with respect to the state of their soul

, and thcrefore under its awful curse. In one word,

got One

y blessed, they were really accursed. ant of works was not, properly speaking, .th the Israelites, but only repeated, or deto them: that seeing its inexorable severity, might the more gladly take hold of the covenant grace. They were a mixed multitude in a moral sense, and at Sinai there was a mixed, or a twofold dispensation of law and grace. Believers were in the covenant of grace, unbelievers under that of works. The repetition of this covenant showed the one what they had escaped, the other what they might expect, if still abiding under it. The covenant of grace was offered to those who were under the covenant of works. Thus there was great beauty in dispensing these two covenants to the Israelites: and none of the em. harrassments occur here, which necessarily attend the hypothesis of a third covenant, distinct from both. What some call a covenant of duties, cannot be a different covenant from that of grace. It is not one cove. nant which God makes with us, and another that we make with him. It is not lawful to make a covenant with him, different from that which he hath made with us.

4thly. From what has been said, it appears that the law was given at Sinai both as a covenant of works, and as a rule of righteousness to such as were under grace. The first of these has been proven at large. The other is obvious of itself. The law as a covenant bound such as were under it to take Jehovah, the God of Abraham, for their God. As a rule it obliged such as had already taken him, to continue, to increase in faith and obedience. To the one it was a covenant of works, to the other it could not be so, inasmuch as they were under another covenant. Nevertheless it could not but be a rule of obedience unto them, they

a being under law to a God in Christ. Since God bore a different relation to these two sorts of people, no marvel if his law did the same. To the one he was an offended judge, to the other a merciful father. Therefore to the one his law was a covenant, binding them over as transgressors to his curse; to the other it was

But that believers are for their transgressions exposed to any curse, though to many strokes, is doctrine unknown in holy scripture. Again if such as did not believe in him who was to come, fulfilled the terms of this covenant, they were thereby entitled to its blessings. Meanwhile they themselves were under the curse of the covenant of works. Therefore the temporal good things, though blessings in themselves, were not blessings to them. Their blessings were cursed, Mal. ii. 2. And as temporal strokes to the godly were blessings in disguise, so prosperity to the ungodiy was nothing more than a covered curse. To allege the instances of Jehu and Nebuchadrezzer here, will not prove the contrary. It will not be said that they were in covenant with God, though for their services they had their reward, 2 Kings 1. 30. Ezek. xxix. 18, 20, But not to multiply words, let us see the nature of that covenant which was made betwixt God and the Israelites. They avouched the Lord to be their God, and to walk in his ways, and he avouched them to be his peculiar people, Deut. xxvi. 17, 18. What was this, but the covenant of grace? And all covenanting whether national or per. sonal is, or ought to be, nothing else but a taking hold of God's covenant of grace, and promising in the strength thercof to kecp bis commandments: an ávouching the Lord to be our God, and to walk in his ways. This was indeed the covenant made with the Israelites, wherein some of them were sincere and some not. The former were really in it before the Lord, the latter were only visibly, or externally in it, in respect of their outward profession. The onc had the real, the spiritual blessings of the covenant, as well as its temporal ones. The other had nothing but the external and temporal privileges of the cove. nant. As they gave a shadow only of obedience, not the substance; so they had the shadow only of the blessing, not the substantial blessing itself. While they were externally in the one covenant, they were really under the other with respect to the state of their soul, and thcrcfore under its awful curse. In one word, though visibly blessed, they were really accursed. The covenant of works was not, properly speaking, made with the Israelites, but only repeated, or delivered to them: that seeing its inexorable severity, they might the more gladly take hold of the covenant of grace. They were a mixed multitude in a moral sense, and at Sinai there was a mixed, or a twofold dispensation of law and grace. Believers were in the covenant of grace, unbelievers under that of works. The repetition of this covenant showed the one what they liad escaped, the other what they might expect, if still abiding under it. The covenant of grace was offered to those who were under the covenant of works. Thus there was great beauty in dispensing these two covenants to the Israelites: and none of the em. harrassments occur here, which necessarily attend the hypothesis of a third covenant, distinct from both. What some call a covenant of duties, cannot be a different covenant from that of grace. It is not one cove. nant which God makes with us, and another that we make with him. It is not lawful to make a covenant with him, different from that which he hath made with us.

4thly. From what has been said, it appears that the law was given at Sinai both as a covenant of works, and as a rule of righteousness to such as were under grace. The first of these has been proven at large. The other is obvious of itself. The law as a covenant bound such as were under it to take Jehovah, the God of Abraham, for their God. As a rule it obliged such as had already taken bim, to continue, to increase in faith and obedience. To the one it was a covenant of works, to the other it could not be so, inasmuch as they were under another covenant. Nevertheless it could not but be a rule of obedience unto them, they being under law to a God in Christ. Since God bore a different relation to these two sorts of people, no marvel if his law did the same. To the one he was an offended judge, to the otlier a merciful father. There. fore to the one his law was a covenant, binding them over as transgressors to his curse; to the other it was

a

a rule, directing them as obedient children in his ways. This twofold consideration of the ten commandments as the law of works, and as the law of Christ, was perhaps intimated in their being twice written by Jehovah himself on tables of stone. The first tables were the work of God, Exod. xxxii. 16. which were broken in pieces, verse 19. called the tables of the covenant, Dent. ix. 9, 11, 15. The second tables were the work of Moses, the typical mediator, Exod. xxxiv. 1. and were laid up in the ark within the tabernacle, Exod. xxv. 16. xl. 20. The covering of the ark was the mercyseat, between the cherubims: whence a reconciled, a covenanted God gave responses; where he sat as on a throne, and where he met and communed with the typical mediator, Exod. xxv. 16–22. Thus the law was covered as with mercy. It was related not to the burning mount, but to the mercy-seat. No obscure intimation, I think, that it was not a covenant in the hand of an angry God, but a rule given out from the God of mercy, enthroned as on the mercy-seat 7.

5thly. From what has been said, we may see the reason, I think, why the tables are called the tables of the covenant, Deut. ix. 9, 11, 15. and the coinmand. ments, the words of the covenant, Exod. xxxiv. 28. Deut. iv. 13. They are so called, ist. Because they contain the demands of the covenant of works. As that covenant they were delivered from mount Sinai, and as such they were given to Moses to be laid up in the ark, to signify the removing of that covenant from them, as to believers *. But 2dly. They are so

+ it is also observable that the Decalogue, as it stands in the Hebrew Bible, has a double accentuation. The preface to the ten conimandments, Exod. xx. 2. Deut. v. 6. stands both as a part of a sentence, joined to the first command, and also as an entire sentence, separated from it, and shut up by itself. (Boston on the MarTow, p. 58.). Whether this double accentuation, may intimate the twofold notion of the Decalogue as a covenant, and as a rule, i dare not say, especially as another passage of Scripture is doubly accented, viz. Gen. xxxv. 22. The true reason of this accentuation is perhaps a discovery reserved to the latter days, when knowledge shall be increased. Meanwhile I would prefer the above conjecture, to that of the Jewish Rabbies and some learned Christians. (Buxt. Thes. p. 59. Rob. Grani. P. 53.)

• Boston on the Marrow, p. 98.

[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »