 |
|
|
|
|
Minister of the Gospel at Wishawtown. JEREMIAH 11:10. THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH, HAVE BROKEN MY COVENANT, WHICH I MADE WITH FATHERS.
Glasgow: Printed by E. Miller. 1799.
In the days of Jeremiah’s prophecy, the people of God had greatly corrupted their way, and exposed themselves to sore judgments, which the Lord, during that period, actually brought upon them. His ministry among them was designed to convince them of their sin, to give them the knowledge of their duty, and to turn them from the evil of their ways unto the service of the Lord. Their acting in opposition to the solemn obligations under which they were to be the Lord’s people, and to serve him, by the public national covenant which subsisted betwixt God and them, was one of the principal ways in which they had contracted great guilt, carried on rebellion against God, and incurred his displeasure. The prophet, therefore, in the beginning of the chapter, receives a commission from the Lord, to speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, concerning the origin of this covenant, which was the will and command of God;—the period of which Israel was first brought under the obligation of this covenant, when the Lord delivered them out of the iron furnace of bondage in the land of Egypt;—the design of this covenant as to the, their hearing the words of it, and giving obedience thereunto;—the misery they would bring upon themselves by breaking this covenant, they should be exposed unto the curse of God;—and the happy effects of their religiously fulfilling their covenant obligations, they should be the Lord’s people, he would be their God, and would perform the oath which he had sworn unto their fathers, in giving them the land of Canaan for an inheritance. When the prophet heard the author of this message represent it to his mind, he was constrained to express his hearty approbation of it; Then answered I, and said, So be it, O Lord.
In the 6th verse, the Lord renews his royal order unto the prophet, to proclaim in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, all these words, and to say, Hear ye the words of this covenant, and do them. The 7th verse represents the condescending and importunate expostulation which the Lord, by the ministry of his servants, had employed with Israel, in their different generations, to excite them to keep, and to deter them from breaking their covenant obligations unto him. And the following verse exhibits to our view both their rebellious conduct, and their awful doom. The 9th and 10th verses contain that part of the prophet’s message, which had a special respect to the men of that generation. A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. A conspiracy, against the Lord and his anointed, against his authority and law, against the ordinances of his worship and the truths of his church, was formed and acted upon by that people, upon whom the Lord had bestowed so many high and peculiar favours. The manner in which they executed the conspiracy against the Lord, is described in the verse which contains our text, in three awful charges which is brought against them. They are turned back to the iniquity of their forefathers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them, the house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broken my covenant, which I made with their fathers. These may either be considered as three separate charges, which the Lord brings against his people; or the first and second may be viewed as evidences of the truth of the third. They have turned back to the iniquity of their forefathers, and gone after other gods, and in so doing have broken my covenant. In this manner they had conspired against the Lord, acted high treason against the God of Israel, and did what they could to dethrone him from his mercy seat. The last of the particulars, which are contained in this verse, being the subject of our present exercise, to it we shall now confine our attention. The house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.
The speaker of these words is the Lord God of Israel. Although the prophet delivered them unto the people, he both spake in the name of the Lord, and had his commission from him, and, therefore, he says, verse 9th, The Lord said unto me.
The party addressed by the Lord is the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The house of Israel has formerly broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. The kingdom of the ten tribes, who were now in a state of captivity, are most frequently, in the writings of the prophets, called by this name, the house of Israel. If that part of the posterity of Jacob is meant in these words, the Lord brings their breach of covenant into the view of the house of Judah, that they might take warning from the low state to which the ten tribes were now reduced, on account of this sin, by the hand of the king of Assyria. And the house of Judah; that part of God’s ancient people which continued subject to the house of David, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, who were yet spared, notwithstanding of great provocations, to possess their possessions, in the land of promise. Or, by the house of Israel, and the house of Judah, we may understand the kingdom of Judah, with those of the ten tribes, who, on different occasions, had fled to the land of Judah, had taken up their residence among them, and were incorporated with them, they and the house of Judah together have broken my covenant.
It is with respect to God’s covenant that the house of Israel, and the house of Judah, are here charged with sin. God’s covenant in scripture sometimes signifies that everlasting covenant which he made with Christ our mediator, from eternity, concerning the salvation of lost sinners, which was to him a covenant of purchase or redemption, but, as it is revealed and offered unto the children of men in the gospel, is to them a covenant altogether of rich, sovereign and free grace. But by God’s covenant, in the writings of inspiration, we must, at other times, understand that covenant of duties which takes place betwixt God and the church, wherein they devote themselves to the Lord, and engage to serve him all the days of their life. It is in this sense that the Lord’s covenant is to be understood in the words of the text.
The persons with whom the covenant was made are also mentioned; which I made with their fathers. The covenanting ancestors of the people of Israel are here meant. That generation with whom the Lord made this covenant at Horeb, and the other generations of Israel, in whose days the covenant was renewed, and who formally entered into the bond of it, may all be considered as their fathers, with whom the Lord had made this covenant.
The text likewise contains an account of the sin, with which the Lord charges the persons, to whom the prophet was sent; it is the breach of this covenant, they have broken my covenant. They have not kept my covenant; they have neither fulfilled their obligations, nor performed their vows unto me. They have broken my covenant, not by the omission of duties only, but by the commission of sin, and walking in those ways which they had solemnly sworn to avoid, and vowed to forsake.
Having thus endeavored to explain the text, and taken some view of the verses of the chapter which precede it, we shall now enter upon a more particular consideration of the subject, by prosecuting the two following designs.
I. We shall attempt to illustrate a few general observations concerning the public covenants betwixt God and the church, chiefly taken from the text.
II. Some practical inferences shall afterwards be deduced from the subject.
I. An illustration of some general observations on the public covenants betwixt God and the church, chiefly taken from the text, is now to be attempted.
First, God and his church are the parties in these solemn covenants, and both of them perform their part, in their different capacities, for establishing them. This observation is evident from these words, which I have made with their fathers. The most high God, as a reconciled God in Christ, revealing himself as a God of mercy through the Redeemer, and as the glorious Lord, and King, and Governor of his people, is one party in these solemn covenants. The church or people of God, as a company of professed visible believers in the name of Jesus, subjecting themselves unto the authority, word, and ordinances of God in Christ, having hope of salvation through him, and conscientiously desiring and endeavouring to act for his glory, is the other party in these public federal transactions. In the establishing of these covenants both these parties are active, in their respective capacities. By looking into the scriptural account of those solemn deeds, both parts of this observation will be confirmed. The original transaction of this kind, which is largely recorded in the 19th chapter of Exodus, deserves first to be considered. In the third verse we are told, that Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel. From the five following verses, which you may read from your Bibles, it appears, that the Lord, having employed the ministries of Moses to Israel, on this occasion, through him proposes the covenant unto the church, states the terms of it, makes the promise thereof, and, by his authority, lays it upon them in all its duties and obligations. The church, on the other hand, are also active, on their part, by giving an explicit, solemn, and voluntary consent thereunto, entering into the covenant, taking the obligation upon themselves, and promising obedience. The same things are evident from that covenanting which took place in Israel, before the death of Joshua. It is represented, at large, in the last chapter of his book, particularly, from the 14th to the 28th verse. Joshua, acting at this time in the name of the Lord, exhorts the people to their duty, calls them to choose whom they will serve, describes that God into whose service they were entered, and the nature of that obedience which he requires. The people, acting their part in the solemn business, engage themselves to this service, saying, We will serve the Lord, the Lord our God will we serve, and him will we obey. The consequence of which is declared, ver. 25. So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. The instance we have of public covenanting, in the days of Asa, the fourth from David, which is mentioned in the 15th chapter of 2 Chron. confirms also the truth of this observation. The Lord begins the great work, by sending a prophet to the king and the people, upon their return from a most victorious conquest of the Ethiopians, who had come out against them, and he delivers to them, in the name of the Lord, a most affecting discourse, tending to encourage them in the work of reformation. The king immediately gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and out of Simeon. The people of the land, obedient to the call, assembled at Jerusalem, in the third month of the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa. The divine account of the people’s conduct, at this time, is conveyed to us in the following words: And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers, with all their heart, and with all their soul. And they sware unto the Lord with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with cornets. And all Judah rejoiced at the oath. These instances are sufficient to prove, that the parties in public religious covenants are God and his church, and that each of them is active in their formation. All covenanting, in after-times, must be of the same general nature, a solemn transaction betwixt God and the church, wherein the parties are not concerned only, but also actively employed. By giving the church the revelation of his will respecting this duty in his holy word; by allowing them covenanting seasons, and calls from his word and providence to engage in that duty, by employing some to be active in leading the church in this solemn work; by stirring up the hearts of his people, at large, to vow and swear unto him; by carrying on the work among them in the course of his favourable providence; and by giving them infallible signs of his presence, acceptance, and blessing in this service,—does the God of the church perform his part in constituting these covenants? The people of God act their part in this great work, when they, being rightly informed about the nature of the duty, and convinced of the call which they have to perform it, do really vow and swear to the Lord to be his people, and to obey his voice; and in this manner join themselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant, that shall not be forgotten.
Secondly, The public covenants betwixt God and the church contain his gracious engaging himself to be their God, and to bless them; and their dutiful obliging themselves to be his people, and to serve him. This is the nature of all religious covenants with God. If they are considered in any other light, they are misunderstood; and if they are held up to men in any other point of view, they are misrepresented. They come not at all in the room of the covenant of works, have no connection with it, or proper analogy unto it. They do not in any respect supersede or corrupt the covenant of grace; but are built upon it, and tend to carry on its merciful designs among men. The covenant of grace is absolutely necessary as the foundation upon which these covenants must rest; and as the fountain from which they proceed. In order to an acceptable covenanting with God, either in a public or in a personal respect, faith in him as our God in Christ, is really essential. An individual Christian in a personal, or a body of them in a public capacity, entering into a covenant with God, do it not with a view to obtain an interest in him as their God, to regain his favour, or acquire a title to his salvation; but, having received Christ by faith, and taken hold of the covenant of which he is the mediator for these purposes, they, in their covenanting with God, solemnly devote themselves unto him, and vow or swear, in the strength of his grace, to glorify and serve him with their bodies and spirits which are his. Were it not for the everlasting covenant which God hath made with Christ for our salvation, the curse of the law, and the wrath of God, which we have incurred by sin, could not be removed from us; nor could we have access in any respect into a state of friendship or amicable intercourse with him. While matters betwixt God and us remained in this situation, acceptable and profitable covenanting with him must be impossible. But the Lord Jesus, having fulfilled the condition of the covenant of salvation, by his obedience, sufferings and death, has both redeemed his people from the curse of the law, and made peace betwixt God and them, by the blood of his cross. When sinners are enable in the exercise of a true faith to believe in Christ, and to take hold of the covenant of grace for salvation, God actually becomes their God in Christ, and they are brought into the blessed relation of a reconciled people unto him. It is therefore in these relations, which God and his people bear unto one another, in Christ by the covenant of grace, that they act towards one another in these covenants, into the nature of which we are now enquiring. Our covenants with God, therefore, must rest upon God’s covenant of grace as their foundation and be a mean of carrying on the blessed design of that covenant, betwixt God and his people, while they are in this world.
Christians, in their covenanting with God, whether in a personal or public capacity, have various objects to disclaim and abandon; a solemn renouncing of these must make a part of their covenanting exercise. In this work, Christians have many objects which they are called to embrace and receive; a deliberate and cordial acceptance of them, pertains also to this solemn transaction. When the members of the church draw near unto God in this duty, they have many things to surrender unto him, their persons, their time, their influence, their substance, their service, &c. for this reason a dedication of ourselves, all that we are, have, and can do, is included in our covenanting with God. As Christians, in the performance of this service, are to bind themselves with a bond to be the Lord’s people, and to serve him; their coming under solemn vows and engagements, to be for him and not for another, must be an essential branch of this important duty. Though there may be a difference betwixt the objects which a Christian as an individual, and a body of them in their collective capacity are called, in their covenanting with God, to renounce, accept, and devote to the Lord, and also in the duties to the performance of which they do engage; yet the nature and tendency of these solemn transactions are, in both cases, substantially the same.
The truth of this observation, and of what has now been said for its illustration will appear from the representations of this duty, with which we are favoured in the word of God. One of these is contained in Deut. 26:14,18,19. Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to by thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his testimonies, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice. And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments. And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour, and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God as he hath spoken. We said, the public covenants which exist betwixt God and the church contain his gracious engagement to be their God and to bless them. Here we are told, that, in these covenants, the Lord avouches the church to be his people; which plainly imports his engagement to be their God, and he will bless them. We likewise said, that, in these transactions, the church’s obligations to be the Lord’s people, and to serve him, is also comprehended. What else can be the meaning of these words, Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, &c. Thou hast solemnly taken hold of the Lord to be thy God, professed thy relation to him as his people, and engaged thine heart to serve him, by keeping this statutes, judgments, and commandments. Another representation of the nature of this duty, from which the truth of this observation may be confirmed, is found in 2 Chron. 15:12,15. And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers, with all their heart, and with all their souls.—And he was found of them, and the Lord gave them rest round about. Their covenanting exercise was a solemn engagement on their part, to seek and serve the Lord their God, who had been their fathers God; and, in this manner, to act as a people who belonged unto the Lord Jehovah, on his part, was found of them, as the Lord God of their fathers, and the Lord their God, and conferred covenant blessings upon them; for he gave them rest, peace and prosperity on every hand.
Thirdly, Public covenanting is a moral duty, incumbent upon the church in every age; during the new, as well as under the old dispensation of grace to the children of men. As this truth is greatly opposed in our day, we shall endeavour to confirm it; and which, we suppose, may be done, to the conviction of the unprejudiced, by the following arguments.
1st, There is nothing in the nature of these covenants, which subsisted betwixt God and Israel, that renders them inapplicable unto the church in new testament times. If the things which are essential unto public covenanting were such, as rendered it peculiar to the former dispensation, and utterly unsuitable to the new testament state of the church, the morality of that duty in gospel days could not be maintained. But no such thing is found to be the case; on the contrary, every thing belonging unto the nature of that exercise, suits the condition of the church since the coming of Christ, as well as before that period. Was it the privilege of the ancient church to have the Lord, by a public federal transaction, engaging himself to be their God, and to bless them? and does not the gospel church stand in need of the same distinguishing favour? Was it the exercise of the Israelites to engage themselves, as in duty bound, to be the Lord’s people, and to serve him? and is not this an employment perfectly suitable to the new testament church? There is nothing in the nature of the ancient covenanting that was not purely moral, and consequently this exercise belongs to us as well as to them. Many of the ordinances of that dispensation, indeed, to the observation of which the church of old, in their covenanting did bind themselves, are now abrogated; but there is a system of ordinances under the new dispensation, equally with them of divine authority, which we are commanded to keep as they have been delivered to us, to a due regard unto and improvement of which, we are to bind ourselves in our covenant transactions with God. The change which the Lord hath made in the outward ordinance of his worship, in his sovereign pleasure and according unto the state of the church under the different dispensations, makes not the smallest alteration in the moral obligation, which his people, existing in these different periods, were under, both to observe the ordinances which were divinely authorized in their time, and, by covenanting with God, to promise and vow such an observation of them as the Lord required. Since every thing essential to public covenanting, answers the state of the church now, as well as before the times of the gospel, it must be a duty incumbent upon the new testament church.
2d, The morality of this duty in our times further appears from scripture precepts requiring it, which are of a standing moral obligation upon the people of God in every age. The first precept in the moral law may justly be considered as a command unto men to avouch the Lord to be their God, and to devote themselves unto his service. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt have me to be thy God. Considering this precept in connection with the preface to the law, I am the Lord thy God, it certainly requires the exercise of our faith upon him as our God, an open profession of our relation to him, our dedication of ourselves unto him, and our special design of serving and glorifying him for ever. This precept, therefore, clearly comprehends all the parts of solemn covenanting with God; and this duty is one of the principal ways, whereby the church testifies that she has the Lord to be her God.—Another precept of the divine word which has a respect to this duty is found, 2 Chron. 30:8. Yield yourselves unto the Lord. The same command is given to the church by an apostle, Rom. 6:13. Yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead. In the Christian exercise of yielding themselves unto the Lord, the renouncing of the other lords, which, beside him, have had dominion over them; the embracing of him as their God; the dedication of themselves to him; and their engaging themselves to serve him, must be included. Since these particulars, which are the great substance of covenanting with God, are included in yielding ourselves unto him this precept must be a command warranting this necessary duty. As this precept is not given in the Old Testament only, but also required in the New, the duty of covenanting, which is contained in it, must be an exercise required of us as well as of believers under the former dispensation. The last precept I shall mention is the words of God by David, Psalm 76:11. Vow, and pay unto the Lord your God. Two divine precepts are here given to the church; Vow unto the Lord your God, and pay unto the Lord your God. The former requires Christians to come under solemn, voluntary obligations unto the Lord, by vowing and swearing unto him, or covenanting with him; and the latter enjoins that, as they have made their vows they should study to fulfil them every day. The precepts which have now been mentioned, as they plainly comprehend covenanting with God, so they are applicable to Christians acting as a body, as well as in their individual capacity. By the precepts of the divine law then, we are required to exercise ourselves in the duty of personal and public covenanting with God.
3d, The morality of this duty is also evident from scripture examples. If we are called to be followers of them, both in their personal and social conduct, who through faith and patience inherit the promises; and if we find that the church of God, with his approbation, have been employed in this solemn duty; why should we question its being the way of the Lord? When God brought Israel out of Egypt, and carried them forward to mount Sinai, he brought them, in the most solemn manner, into a covenant relation with himself. In the days of Joshua, when the children of Israel were peaceably settled in the land of promise, this solemn covenant with God was publicly renewed, and the people again entered into the bond thereof. When Israel had made great defection from the law of the Lord, by falling into idolatry, and the other evils which usually accompany it, they, in the days of Asa, returned from their evil ways unto the service of God, by entering into a solemn covenant with the Lord their God. In the days of Jehoiada the priest, when he had placed Joash upon the throne, and had put the king’s mother to death for her murder, idolatry and usurpation, the people of Judah, after a period of mournful apostasy from God, returned to him by public covenanting, of which we have the following account. And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord, and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord's people; between the king also and the people. 2 Kings 11:17. There is a twofold covenant here. A religious covenant, the design of which was that they should be the Lord’s people, wherein the Lord was one party, and the king and the people the other. And a civil covenant between the king and the people, in which the parties, no doubt, engaged to perform their different duties to each other. The church of God were also employed in this solemn exercise in the days of Josiah. When the book of the law was found, and the message from Huldah received, this pious youth, having convened at Jerusalem the whole inhabitants of the land, engaged in the great work of reforming his kingdom, abolishing idolatry, and setting up the worship of God; and all this he confirmed by entering into a covenant to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes. When Judah returned from Babylon, and were again planted in their own land, they, under the conduct of Ezra the priest, and Nehemiah the tirshatha did solemnly renew their covenant with God. Shall such glorious and profitable solemnities be the privilege of the church under the former dispensation; and shall nothing of the kind be permitted unto her, or found with her under the gospel? Having such illustrious examples before their eyes shall any nation be accounted innocent, that has embraced the true religion, if they are found neglecting this solemn mean of glorifying God, and of promoting their own spiritual advantage? How unjust and impious must it be, to condemn the practice of our reforming ancestors, in joining themselves to the Lord in a solemn covenant, when their conduct is supported by such glorious precedents?
4th, Prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the gospel church, which foretell that public covenanting should be their exercise, prove the lawfulness of this duty in gospel times. Three of these shall only be mentioned. The first is found in the words of David, Psalm 68:31. Princes shall come out of Egypt, and Ethiopia shall stretch out her hands unto God. The words are a prophecy concerning the conversion the Gentiles, in the times of the gospel, to the knowledge of the Lord and of his Christ. Egypt and Ethiopia are mentioned to signify the Gentile nations at large. It is said, princes shall come out of Egypt, they shall forsake the idolatry of Egypt, and believe in Christ for salvation. Of Ethiopia it is said, they shall stretch out their hand unto the Lord. This expression denotes that the Gentile nations should, in the days of the gospel church, openly take upon themselves the profession of Christianity, declare their subjection unto the law of the Redeemer, send up their supplications unto God in Christ, and vow and swear allegiance to the King of Zion.—Another prophecy which has a respect unto the days of the gospel, and describes the exercise of the new testament church, wherein public covenanting seems to be included, is record, Isa. 2:3. And many people shall go and say, come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. The two preceding and the two following verses belong to the same message of grace, which was delivered by the prophet to the church, relating to gospel times. The mountain of the Lord’s house, which signifies the new testament church is to be established by the power of God, in an elevated situation, exalted above her enemies, and all nations shall flow to it. The prophet here foretells that many nations, multitudes of persons in the Gentile nations, and Gentile lands in their national capacity, should go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; let us embrace the Lord, and take hold of the God of Jacob, by a public and solemn avouching him to be our God, and by a careful observation of the ordinances of his holy mountain. To this is added an account of the exercise of their faith on the divine promise, and their solemn resolution, vow or covenant to serve him. He will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. The glorious foundation of all this religious exercise, among the Gentile churches, is also declared; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. The gospel of divine grace, as revealed in the word, as preached by the servants of Jesus, and as savingly manifested by the Spirit, taking possession of the souls of men induces them as individuals to the exercise of personally devoting themselves to the Lord; and, when this becomes general, causes them as a nation to engage in this solemn work. In Micah 4th chap. at the beginning, this vision concerning the gospel is doubled, because the thing is true; from which we may assuredly conclude, that a solemn public taking hold of God as their God, and the devoting themselves to him to walk in his paths, which is the essence of public covenanting, is, and continues to be the duty of the church of God in every period of time.—Another prophecy to the same purpose, still more explicit, you have in Isa. 19:18,21. In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts. The period when this shall be accomplished is here mentioned, in that day. The prophets frequently speak of the gospel times in this manner, and it must be considered as referring to that period. Five cities of the land of Egypt are the objects of this prophecy. Egypt is here mentioned to signify the Gentile world, a part is put for the whole and one nation only is mentioned to signify the rest of the Gentile nations. Five cities in the land of Egypt signify many cities in many lands. They shall speak the language of Canaan. They shall become acquainted with divine revelation, know the glorious truths of the gospel, and have the holy law made plain before them. By this work of grace the Lord shall turn to them a pure language. It is also declared, they shall swear to the Lord of hosts. Upon no rational or religious grounds can it ever be denied, that these words are a clear prophecy, that public swearing to God, or covenanting with him, should be the exercise of the church in new testament times. It is not a swearing by the Lord, but a swearing to him, of which the Spirit of prophecy here speaks. In this religious oath, which the Gentile nations should swear, the Lord is not merely the object appealed unto, as the witness and the avenger; but he is the object to whom the oath is made, and to whom it is to be fulfilled. Both these exercises which are mentioned here are explained in verse 21. And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day—Yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it. The Egyptians speaking the language of Canaan is the same with their knowing the Lord, and their swearing unto the Lord is of the same import with their vowing a vow unto him. The exercise of public vowing and swearing to the Lord continues to be a duty incumbent upon Christians in new testament times, since the Spirit of God has expressly foretold, that, during this period, they should be so employed.
5th, The relation which subsists betwixt God and the church seems to render her public covenanting with him a necessary duty. Although this relation is infinitely more glorious than any relation that takes place among men, yet such is the goodness of God, that he condescends to represent it to us by these earthly relations; a few of which may be mentioned, and from each of them the morality and necessity of the church’s covenanting with God may be demonstrated. The relation betwixt a king and his subjects is a metaphor, which is used by the holy Spirit, to represent the relation betwixt God and the church. The language which the church holds concerning her God, when viewing him in his gracious relation unto her, is the following; The Lord is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth; the holy One of Israel is our King; the Lord is our King, he will save us. To the constituting of a moral relation betwixt an earthly king and his subjects, a public agreement, or solemn covenant is essential. When a person is advanced to this dignity and trust over men, he not only receives the promise of subjection and obedience from the people, but he also gives them security by his solemn oath, to rule them according to the laws. This is the covenant which is necessary to establish the relation betwixt a king and the people among whom he rules. In the same manner, there must be a public and solemn covenant betwixt the God of salvation, and his church; the former as her glorious King, and the latter as his willing and obedient subjects.—The relation between God and the church is also represented to us in scripture, by the relation betwixt husband and wife. The Lord speaks of himself as the church’s husband, and of the church as his spouse, in many places of sacred writing. Thou shalt be called Hephzi-bah, and thy land Beulah, for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married; turn, O backsliding children, faith the Lord, for I am married unto you; for thy Maker is thine husband; I will betroth thee unto me for ever. Betwixt the husband and the wife there subsist a marriage covenant, by which the parties are solemnly engaged to one another, and have vowed and sworn to fulfil mutually all conjugal and relative duties. Betwixt the Lord as the husband of his people, and the church as his blessed spouse, there must necessarily subsist a marriage covenant; and that not merely betwixt him an individual believer, but betwixt him and the church as a collective body; for unto the latter, not indeed to the collective body; for unto the latter, not indeed to the exclusion of the former, do the texts here quoted principally relate. To the relation betwixt a master and his servant, is the relation betwixt God and the church like-wife compared. A servant honoureth his master, if I be a Master, where is my fear, saith the Lord of hosts. This relation among men is constituted by a mutual covenant either in the way of verbal agreement, or written and subscribed indenture or articled contract; whereby the master engages to pay the stipulated reward, and the servant to perform the specified work: the relation betwixt God and the church, being compared to this must necessarily require, that, as he hath covenanted with them, for his glory and their salvation, in Christ to be their Master, they should covenant with him, through the Redeemer, to be his servants for ever. I shall conclude this argument by observing, that the reasoning here advanced is not founded upon a mere circumstance in these relations, from which it would be very unsafe to reason, concerning the nature and tendency of the spiritual relation, of which they are metaphorical representations. But our reasoning here is taken from that which is essential unto these relations among men. We may therefore be certain that, since the Spirit of God has compared the one to the other, there must be something belong to the spiritual relation, analogous to that which is essential to these relations among the creatures, by which it is represented to us; and this can be nothing else, at least in its most formal and explicit shape, than a public and solemn covenant betwixt God and the church.
6th, The perpetual morality of the duty of public covenanting with God is evident, from the acknowledged morality of other duties, which are of the same specific nature. It certainly will not be denied, that it is the duty of the church to form and express holy resolutions, relative unto their serving the Lord, and walking in his ways. Neither will it be refused, that the church is called to make and utter promises, in the strength of grace, to cleave unto the Lord, and to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. The morality of these religious resolutions and promises is evident, from the scriptural account of the spiritual exercise of the church and people of God; because their exercise, as recorded in the sacred page, is full of such resolutions and promises, whereby they engage themselves to be for the Lord, and not for another. Now, if it is the duty of the church to resolve and promise, in the strength of divine grace, to serve the Lord; where is the dictate of right reason, where is the precept in the book of God that forbids them to make the things which they resolve upon, or promise to perform, the matter of a vow or of an oath unto the most high God? If they may resolve or promise to avoid, and endeavour to suppress any evil, or to perform and maintain any thing that is good; what can hinder them to vow, covenant, or swear to the Lord of hosts, to do the same things? These duties are the same in their general nature, only the latter partakes of a greater degree of solemnity. If it is lawful to do the one, it is impossible that it can be sinful to do the other.
7th, The morality of public covenanting with God appears also, from these ordinances of divine appointment, and duties of his worship, which contain in them a solemn vow or oath unto the Lord. The ordination of the public office-bearers in the church of Christ, is an ordinance which contains a vow or oath unto the Lord. When the teaching and ruling elders of the church are set apart unto their sacred office and work, they, in the presence of the church and with their consent, come under a solemn vow or oath unto the Lord, to perform the duties of that station in which they are placed. If the ministers and elders of the church do vow and swear unto the Lord, why should it be thought improper and sinful for the church, in all her officers and members, to vow and swear unto the Lord to perform the duties, which, in their different stations, are incumbent on them? The ordinance of baptism also contains a vow or oath unto the Lord. What is it that the members of the church do, when they come unto this ordinance, with their children? Do they not profess to take the Lord, as he is reconciled in Christ, as their God, and the God of their seed; to act faith upon the blood and Spirit of Christ, presented to them in this ordinance, for justification and sanctification, both to themselves and their children; to devote themselves and their little ones unto the Lord, that they may be his; and to engage, by solemn promise, vow and oath unto the Lord, to perform all the duties incumbent upon them, particularly to train up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? If an individual, in this ordinance, is permitted to do this, where is the evil of his doing the same things substantially, in company with the rest of his fellow Christians, by joining themselves solemnly unto the Lord, in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten? If we take a view of the Lord’s supper, it will appear, that a vow or oath unto the Most High is found in the Christian's exercise, while he is observing that most solemn ordinance. The name that was anciently imposed upon it, and that by which it is still commonly called, a sacrament, shows that this was the view which the Christians in the primitive times had, and which Christians still have of the nature of this institution. The word, from which this name sacrament is derived, signifies an oath, a covenant, or sacred obligation, under which persons bring themselves. It was used to signify the oath which the Roman soldiers sware, to be faithful to the rulers of the state, to their military leaders, and to interests of the Roman people. The nature of the ordinance itself, abstract from its ordinary name, shows us, that Christians therein embrace the Lord and his Christ as their God, and Saviour, and portion; and also come under solemn obligations to be the Lord’s people. If this is the duty of Christians in this ordinance, by what law does it become sinful for them to do the same things, by binding their souls with a bond to be his people, in a public covenant with God?
8th, The morality of the duty of personal covenanting proves the morality of the church’s covenanting with the Lord, in her collective capacity. Few will be disposed to deny, that personal covenanting with God is one of the sacred duties of religion, which Christians should perform, and in which they sometimes have much spiritual delight. Christians perform this sacred spiritual duty, when they, in the exercise of grace, solemnly renounce all false confidences for salvation, take hold of God's covenant, yield themselves to the Lord, and promise and vow, in his strength, to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present world. The person who lives in the neglect of this duty, omits an exercise which is eminently calculated, and often signally blessed to promote the holiness and comfort of believers. If this is an employment which is competent to a believer in a solitary state, must it not be an exercise that is lawful for a company of them to perform in a social capacity? There are a variety of duties incumbent upon the church in her public state, which are, for the substance of them, the same with these exercises which belong unto an individual Christian. Public prayer, public fasting or mourning for sin, and public thanksgiving and praise unto God, correspond unto the exercises of secret prayer, personal fasting and thanksgiving. Since Christians, as individuals, are under a moral obligation to pray, confess or repent and mourn for sin, and praise the Lord for his goodness; we may conclude that they are morally bound to perform these duties in a public capacity. In like manner, since it is the duty of a believer by himself, to covenant with the Lord as his God in Christ; it must be the duty of a multitude of them to perform the same service, in a suitableness to their public character.
9th, The morality of this duty will further appear both from the absurdity and impiety of the contrary opinion, and the weakness of the reasons by which it is supported. Those who oppose that truth, for which we are now arguing, must hold it to be an immoral and unlawful thing, for a Christian people to avouch the Lord to be their God, and to serve him; that they have no warrant in the word of God to resolve, promise, vow or swear that they shall to the uttermost of their power maintain his gospel, cleave unto his ordinances, obey his laws, support the interests of his glory in the world, and oppose whatever is contrary thereunto; and that it is a criminal and unlawful thing for them to join themselves unto the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten. The mentioning of this sentiment is surely sufficient to expose it to the detestation of all spiritually illuminated and holy minds. As this opinion bears impiety and absurdity in the very face of it, so the arguments by which its friends endeavour to support it are fallacious and vain. One of them is this, That the public covenanting under the former dispensation was typical, and, when Christ the substance appeared, it fled away, with the rest of the shadows of the ceremonial law. This is easily said, but the proving of it has always been found to be impossible. Must the solemn exercise of the church of God, in taking him for their God in Christ, in devoting themselves unto him, and in binding themselves with a bond to serve and glorify him, be ranked among the carnal ordinances which were imposed upon the church till the times of reformation, and make a part of that yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. The idea is utterly absurd. It is essential unto all typical institutions to have something in the gospel church with which it is connected as a shadow, and which it did prefigure. But what is this? where is its Antitype? There is nothing in the state of the gospel church, nothing among all her duties, or her privileges, with which you can associate public covenanting under the old dispensation, but public covenanting under the new; and how absurd it is, to make a moral duty under the law typical of the same moral duty under the gospel, must be evident to all who know any thing about the truths of God. Besides, it is essential unto every typical ordinance, to appear in the view of an intelligent Christian, to be peculiarly suitable to the state of the church before the coming of Christ, and to be utterly incompatible with her condition after the manifestation of God in the flesh. Now, what is there in the nature of the church's covenanting with God, that makes it peculiar to her state prior to Christ's incarnation, and inconsistent with her situation after it? Nothing at all; and therefore let the nature of this duty be what it will, typical it cannot be. Another of these arguments by which this opinion is attempted to be supported, is the following. Public covenanting in Israel was not a moral, but a positive institution, and was abolished at the death of Christ. What! shall the death of Christ abolish the great Christian duty of taking the Lord for our God, of giving ourselves unto him, and of solemnly resolving, vowing and swearing to wait upon the Lord, and keep his way? The death of Christ did indeed abolish the obligation of the Israelitish covenants with God, in so far as they bound that people to support and practice the legal ceremonies; but it did not abolish the obligation of their national oath to the most High, either to perform the duties of the moral law, which were included in it, or to receive and observe that system of more spiritual ordinances instituted by Christ, and which came in the room of the abrogated ceremonies. The death of Christ is the grand foundation of all the duties and privileges of his people. Shall it therefore abolish one of the most solemn duties, and one of the most important privileges of the church of the living God? The death of Christ is the meritorious cause of that new covenant relation that takes place betwixt God and his church, and of all its spiritual and eternal effects. Can it therefore abolish that solemn exercise of covenanting with God, by which the Lord avouches the church to be his people, whereby the church avouches the Lord to be their God, and wherein both parties recognize avow and act towards one another according to that relation? Certainly not. Far be it from us to harbour such a thought. To ascribe this to the death of Christ, is to blaspheme it, and to make it one of the ends thereof to abolish the law, with a witness.
In defence of this sentiment, it has also been urged, that public covenanting is not expressly enjoined upon Christians in the New Testament, and, therefore, it cannot be a moral duty in the days of the gospel. Were it not that this argument is still sinfully urged against the morality of public covenanting with God, under the New Testament, with a view to prejudice the inconsiderate against this solemn exercise, even by those who cannot be supposed to be ignorant of the satisfactory answers which have been given to it, we would not have mentioned it at all. Public covenanting, as is very clear from the Old Testament, was once an ordinance of God from the Old Testament, was once an ordinance of God, and the indispensable duty of his church. It is, therefore, necessary for those, who oppose its morality now, to prove in a clear manner, either from the nature of the thing itself, or from express scripture declaration in the New Testament, that it is abrogated by the authority of God. Till this is done, which will never be accomplished, we are warranted to consider it still as an ordinance of God, and the duty of his church.—This argument takes it for granted, that all moral duties which are incumbent on the church, in gospel times, are expressly enjoined in the New Testament; which is a gross mistake. There are other duties, besides public covenanting, for which there are no express precepts in the New Testament. The baptism of infants, secret prayer on the morning and evening of every day, family fasting, and family worship every morning and evening, are all mentioned in the Old Testament, but none of them are enjoined in the New. Now, if these duties, the obligation of which upon us cannot be denied, are not expressly required in the New Testament, how weak and inconclusive must the argument against public covenanting be, which is derived from this source? If our obligation to perform the one is denied on this account; it will be impossible, for the same reason, to defend our obligation to practice the others. The real state of the matter is this; the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, taken together, are a complete revelation of the will of God to the children of men, both with respect to truth and duty. Public covenanting, and the other duties formerly mentioned, are so clearly revealed in the Old Testament, that there is no necessity for their being expressly mentioned in the writings of the New. While there is nothing in the nature of the things themselves inconsistent with the state of the gospel church, nor the smallest hint in the New Testament of their abrogation, we are to consider the authority of God in the precepts of the Old Testament, which are illustrated and recommended to us by approved examples, as still binding the church of Christ, in these last days, to perform the same solemn services.
In support of this opinion, it has likewise been said, that the Lord Jesus never performed the duty of public covenanting, and, therefore, this exercise cannot be a duty incumbent upon us. In answer to this it may be observed, that this argument plainly supposes that Christ exemplified, in his own practice, all the moral duties which are incumbent on his people, which is not true. A variety of important moral duties, which belong unto Christians, who stand in certain human relations to each other, were never performed by the Lord Christ; because, it was not consistent with his person, dignity, office and work, that he should occupy any of these relations. The necessary duties of repentance for sin, the mortification of it, and the exercises of the mind connected therewith, could not be exemplified by him, because he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. Besides, we find him refusing to perform a moral duty, to which he was solicited, because it belonged to the civil magistrate, which was a station he did not fill. If Christ never performed the various duties now mentioned and alluded unto, and yet their morality remains unshaken to the end; what argument can justly be drawn, from Christ’s not having publicly covenanted in the days of his flesh, against the morality of that duty? To this argument we further reply. Public covenanting with God is not a stated, but an occasional moral duty, to be performed by the church, when the calls of divine providence point it out to them to be their present duty. As it is sinful to neglect it, when the Lord by his providence is calling thereunto; so it is equally improper to engage in it, when the providence of God clearly manifests, that the performance of this service would not answer the ends for which it is intended. This was exactly the case in the days of the Redeemer’s incarnation, and, therefore, he could not possible have any call to perform the duty of public covenanting with God. Among the many glorious ends of his coming into the world, this was one, to abolish in his death the ceremonial observances, and to set up a more excellent and spiritual system of gospel worship in its stead. If Christ and the church had entered into a public covenant with God, the ceremonial system behooved to have been recognized and sworn unto therein; as it was binding on the church till the death of Christ. To covenant with God for the support of a system which was just about to be destroyed, would have been to contradict the designs, appearances, and calls of his providence. If ever there was a time when public covenanting with God was unseasonable, it was when the fulness of the time was come, when God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Let none say, this renders the obedience and example of Christ imperfect. By no means. The non-performance of occasional moral duties, when there is no call in providence thereunto, but rather providential obstructions in the way of their being done, can never be justly considered as a defect in the obedience or example either of Christ himself, or of his followers; but the performance of them, in these circumstances, would certainly be a blemish in both.
The last argument that shall be mentioned, in support of this opinion, is the following. The apostles and primitive Christians did not enter into public covenants with God, and, therefore, it cannot be a moral duty in New Testament times. Although it were granted, that the apostles and the primitive Christians did not publicly covenant with God, yet no argument can be drawn from this, that is of any weight, against the morality of that duty under the Christian dispensation. If they really did not covenant with God in a public manner, we may be certain that it was because they had not a call in providence to be employed in this duty. The situation and circumstances of the church may be such, as to render it inexpedient or unnecessary to carry forward the work of public covenanting. This is clear from the account we have of the performance of that duty in the times of the Old Testament. In the days of some of the most religious kings, and some of the most remarkable prophets of the Lord, it does not appear that the church performed this solemn duty. The reason is plain, they had not those calls of providence, arising from the peculiar state of the church, and from the particular dispensations of God towards her, which are necessary to make public covenanting the present duty of any people. Now, if the apostles and primitive Christians did not perform this duty, we may certainly conclude that their circumstances, in the course of divine providence, rendered it either unnecessary or inexpedient for them to be so employed. In a word, let the situation and circumstances of the church in the wilderness, before the death of Joshua, in the time of Asa, in the days of Jehoiada, under the reign of Josiah, and when the Jews returned from Babylon to their own land, be carefully considered, and when the situation and circumstances of the Christian church, at any time or in any place, clearly corresponds with either of these, public covenanting with God is their present duty; but when it is otherwise, this solemn exercise is not required at their hand. To this argument it may also be answered, that it does not appear to be true, that we have no example of public covenanting with God, in the days of the apostles. There is certainly something recorded concerning one of the apostolic churches, which signifies their having publicly vowed unto, or covenanted with God. It is the conduct of the church of Macedonia, mentioned by Paul, 2 Cor. 8:5. And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their ownselves unto the Lord, and unto us by the will of God. The meaning of which must be this, the Macedonian churches, having gathered their collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, and having requested us to take the charge of conveying it to them, before they actually put it into our hand, did first of all, contrary indeed to our expectation solemnly devote themselves unto us, as the ministering servants of Jesus, in which exercises they had respect unto, and complied with, the will of God. I defy any man to make common sense of the apostle’s words, if this is denied. It is unquestionable, that this exercise of that church behooved to be done by them, in some public and solemn act of religious worship; and it may easily be proved, that this act of worship could be no other than a public vow or oath unto the Lord, or covenant with him. This appears from the similarity of the expression here used unto the words of the Old Testament, by which Israel’s covenanting with God is described. They are said to join themselves to the Lord, in a perpetual covenant; Jer. 50:5. What else can the exercise of the Macedonian churches mean, when they gave their ownselves to the Lord? Are not our joining ourselves unto the Lord, and our giving our ownselves to the Lord, expressions of the same import? If the former signifies our covenanting with God, the latter can mean nothing less. Israel’s covenanting is also described in the following words; And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord, and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people; 2 Kings 11:17. And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers, with all their heart, and with all their soul. 2 Chron. 15:12. The nature of the church’s covenanting with God, was just a solemn engagement that they should be the Lord’s people, and to seek him with all their heart, and with all their soul. As this was the church’s covenanting under the old dispensation, and as we have here the whole substance of it in the exercise of a church under the new; we therefore have a clear example of public covenanting under the gospel state of the church.—The truth of this will further appear, if we consider that there is no other religious duty or exercise, by which the Macedonian believers could perform this work, as the apostle here represents it, but by a vow or covenant with God. The enemies of public covenanting have mentioned three ways, by which the Macedonians, on this occasion, might have given themselves to the Lord, without a religious vow or covenant. Let us now see how they will correspond with the apostle’s account of the matter. It has been said, that the Macedonians might give their ownselves to the Lord, by making a public profession of Christianity. We answer, they had made a public profession of Christianity before they had any thought of sending a supply to the poor saints at Jerusalem; they were daily making that profession, by abstaining from their former heathenish worship and religion, and cleaving to the truths and ordinances of Christ; this, therefore, could not be the exercise of that church of which the apostle here speaks. Besides, how could the apostle say, concerning this act of the Macedonians, that it was not as he hoped, if it contained nothing else than their professing Christianity? the apostle could never hope that they would not profess Christianity, when they had, on former occasions, solemnly taken this profession on themselves. In fine, where is the church’s profession of Christianity ever represented, in the New Testament, by their giving their ownselves to the Lord? These things show the gross absurdity of this supposition. It has also been said, that they might give themselves to the Lord in the "ordinances" of baptism. To this we may answer, the members of these churches were certainly baptized before this time. The apostle is here speaking of a solemn act performed by the Macedonians, after they had gathered their collection for the church in Judea, and before they actually sent it away. Can it be supposed, that the believers in these churches had either referred their baptism for this juncture, or that they were all re-baptized on this occasion? could ever the apostle say that he did not hope that they would submit to the ordinance of baptism, if they were yet unbaptized? or where is the administration of baptism represented, in the word of God, by the exercise of a whole church giving their ownselves to the Lord? this supposition is equally absurd as the other. It has further been said, that the Macedonian churches might give their ownselves to the Lord, by receiving the Lord’s supper. To this we reply, the apostle speaks of this act of the Macedonians as a thing that was singular, and contrary to his expectation. If it was nothing more than their eating the Lord’s supper, it could be no way singular; for this ordinance was common to all the churches of Christ. Nor could it be contrary to his expectation; how could the apostle imagine that they would allow him to depart, with their collection to the Jewish believers, without dispensing to them the ordinance of the Lord’s supper? besides, the receiving of that ordnance is never represented, as is the case here, by different churches publicly giving their ownselves unto the Lord, and committing themselves to the care of the apostles, by the will of God. This deed of these churches, therefore, behooved to be some explicit, public, solemn, and religious act of worship, distinct from any of these which have been mentioned; and it is impossible to conceive of any other divine institution, that can answer the apostle's description, but a public religious vow, oath, or covenant with God.
Fourthly, The church’s public covenants with God have an intrinsic and moral obligation to duty of themselves, upon the consciences of the covenanters, distinct from the obligation to the same duties, by the binding force of the moral law. As this truth is grossly misrepresented by some, and flatly denied by others, it is necessary that something should be said, both for explaining the nature of this obligation, and for proving its reality. The moral law is both the fountain, in some respects, from which the obligation of these covenants does proceed, and the rule of direction by which the church’s covenanting exercises are to be regulated. The nature of the obligation of religious covenants with God may be understood, in some measure, if the following things are duly considered.
The great Jehovah possesses in himself, and exercises all that authority, by which the children of men are bound to obedience, and has given them his law as the regulating standard of their actions; but, in order more effectually to promote the ends thereof among men, he has instituted in his word, vowing and swearing unto him, and covenanting with him, as his ordinances unto them, as their indispensable duty. He has given to Christians a power over themselves, or a right of self-government, whereby they, in agreeableness to the prescriptions of his law, dispose of themselves, and voluntarily engage themselves unto his obedience. The church’s covenanting with God, and vowing and swearing unto him, are the principal ways by which they exercise this right, and use this power which God has given them, by disposing of themselves as the law requires, in taking upon themselves the yoke of Christ which is easy, and his burden which is light. When Christians are convinced, by the light of God’s word, that these exercises are their duty, and, in consequence thereof, do actually promise, vow and swear unto the Lord, or covenant with him, that they shall, in the strength of his grace, abstain from evil, and practice holiness; they are under obligation to obedience, by their own religious and voluntary promises, vows, oaths and covenants, as well as they are bound thereunto, by the infinite authority of God in his law.
It may tend to cast some light on this matter, to state a few of the differences betwixt the obligation to duty by the moral law, and that of the church’s covenants. The obligation of the church’s covenants is distinct from the obligation of the law. It is not independent of the law, nor separate from it; but the obligation of the one may be distinguished from that of the other. Christians are under an obligation to perform duties, by the authority of God in his law; and they are, at the same time, under an obligation to perform the same duties, by their own act, whereby they have bound themselves to practice them.—The obligation of the law is primary and supreme; that of the church’s covenants is secondary and subordinate thereunto.—The obligation of vows and covenants, both as to the matter and manner thereof, may always be examined by the rule of the law; but that which we know to be the law of God is not, as to its rectitude and obligation, the subject of any such examination.—The obligation of the law is necessary unto the very being of the rational creature; that of our covenants is not so. It is impossible for them to exist, without being under the obligation of the divine law; but the greater part of them are not under the obligation of religious covenants.—An act of the creature is necessary to bring us under obligation of vows and covenants; but no such act is requisite to subject us to the obligation of the moral law.—The obligation of our covenants with God reaches to time only; but that of the law of God extends to eternity.—By the former, we bind ourselves to sincere, though but imperfect obedience, but by the latter, we are divinely bound to perfection.—In the law, God, who is its glorious author, binds us to obedience, by his own authority; but, by our promises, vows and covenants, we bind ourselves to be the Lord’s people, and to serve him.
The moral law is the directing standard, by which these solemn transactions of the church are to be regulated. The regulations of the law, concerning these acts of the creatures, respect both the matter of them, and the manner of their performance. As the directions of the law respect the matter of our vows and covenants, they indispensably require, that the things we bind ourselves to perform be agreeable to the law, and in nothing contrary to the precepts of the word. If they are otherwise, our vows and covenants are null and void in their obligation; and it is sinful to fulfil them. Of this nature was that oath, which more than forty of the Jews had sworn, that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. The Christian has no right or power to bind himself to do any thing, that is contrary to the infinite obligation under which he is laid, by the authority of God in his law. It is, therefore, necessary in order that our vows, oaths and covenants may have validity in them, and an obligation arising from them to bind our consciences, that the matter of them be lawful, and agreeable to the commandments of God. The directions of the law extend also to the manner in which these solemn transactions are to be performed. The law of God requires that we vow or swear unto the Lord in truth, in righteousness, and in judgment; by faith in him as our God in Christ; expecting acceptance with him in this, as in all other duties, through the Mediator; with holy fear and reverence of his majesty and glory; in obedience to his holy law, which requires these duties of us; with a sincere intention of fulfilling them, in the strength of his grace; with a view to promote his glory; and with a design to advance the spiritual good of ourselves and others. When the church of God, by using his ordinance, and performing their duty, do vow or swear unto the Lord, and enter into a covenant with him, which is, in the matter of it, agreeable to his law, and, in the manner of performing it, is such as he requires, these acts lay them under a real, formal and moral obligation to perform the duties to which they have engaged, and to eschew the evils from which they have bound themselves to abstain. The proof of this is now to be attempted, and its truth may be confirmed, by the following arguments.
1st, That there is an intrinsic obligation to duty in the church’s vows, oaths or covenants, is evident from the words of the text, and other scriptures, wherein the children of men are charged with breaking or transgressing their covenant with God. The house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant. See also Jer. 34:18. Hosea 6:7. In these scriptures, the church of God are said to break, and to transgress the covenant betwixt God and them. It is impossible that the covenant could be broken, or transgressed, if it did not lay an obligation to duty on the consciences of the covenanters. How could they break a bond, if it had no binding force upon them? or how could they transgress a covenant, if they were not obliged to duty, by that covenant? since the people of God are charged with breaking and transgressing their covenant, they must have been bound to the performance of duty by their covenant; and, if to, religious covenants must have an intrinsic and formal obligation to duty of themselves, by which covenanters are bound.
2d, The truth of this observation will also appear, if we consider, that the sin of the church of God, as it is a transgression of the divine law, and their sin, as it is a breach of their covenant with God, are distinguished from each other. Isaiah 24:5. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. The sin of Judah is here described, both as it is a transgression of the law, and as it is a breach of the everlasting covenant. This plainly imports, that they were under an obligation to duty by the authority of God in his law, and, therefore, their sin was a transgression of his laws; and that they were under another obligation to duty from their entering into covenant with God, and, on this account, their sin is said to be a breach of the everlasting covenant. It is evident, that the divine law obliged them to obedience, and that they were under the obligation of it, when their sin is declared to be a transgression of that law; it is equally clear, that their covenant with God obliged them to obedience, and that they were under the obligation thereof, as their sin is here stated to be a breach of that covenant. From this text of scripture, we have just as much evidence, for the obligation of religious covenants on the consciences of men, as we have for that of the divine law upon them; for their sin is not a transgression of the law only, but also a breach of the covenant.
3d, the scriptural account of the nature of religious vows and oaths unto the Lord, fully confirms the truth of this observation. In the 30th chap. of Numbers, this is represented in the clearest manner; we shall particularly attend to the second verse. If a man shall vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. The exercises mentioned, vowing a vow, or swearing an oath unto the Lord.—The nature of the creatures vows and oaths unto the Lord, they are his binding his soul with a bond.—The duty of a person that has vowed or sworn unto the Lord, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. It is the second of these particulars which we have in view of at this time, wherein the nature of vows and oaths unto the Lord is described; it is said to be the person’s binding his soul with a bond. This expression is frequently used in the course of the chapter, as the description, which the Spirit of God uniformly gives of the nature of those religious exercises. If a person, by vowing and swearing unto the Lord, binds his soul with a bond, to do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth, must there not be an obligation laid upon his conscience to fulfil it, by his vow and oath? How is it possible that the soul can be bound with a bond by vowing and swearing to God, and yet there shall be no intrinsic obligation in his vow or oath? Words cannot be conceived more clearly and strongly to express the inviolable obligation of religious vows and oaths, than those which are here used. By our religious vows, oaths and covenants with God, we bind ourselves with a bond, we bring ourselves under a moral obligation, distinct from that of the divine law, to do according to all that proceedeth out of our mouth. Let none say that these vows and oaths relate to matters of indifferency, to which the soul was not bound, by the divine law; for if our vows and oaths bind our souls with a bond, with respect to things of this nature, much more must they bind our souls with a bond, and lay obligation upon us, when they are interposed, as they ought to be, about matters of superior moral importance.
4th, The intrinsic moral obligation of the church’s vows and covenants with God is also evident, from the commands of the divine law, which require the children of men to fulfil them. Some of the precepts of God’s word, which require this duty, are the following: Deut. 23:21. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt no slack to pay it; for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee, and it would be sin in thee; Psal. 76:11. Vow, and pay unto the Lord your God. Eccl. 5:4. When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools, pay that which thou hast vowed. Deut. 29:9. Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. Jer. 11:6. Hear ye the words of this covenant, and do them. In these portions of scripture, and in others of a similar nature, the Lord requires the children of men to pay their vows, and to keep their covenant with him. This plainly imports, that our vows contain an obligation in them, whereby we are bound to pay them; and that by our entering into a covenant with God, we are bound to keep it. When the Lord commands us to obey his law, it shows us that the law obliges us to obedience; and when he requires us to fulfil our vows and covenants, it plainly discovers that they possess an intrinsic obligation which binds our consciences. If the law laid no obligation upon us, God could not command us to obey it, and, if our vows and covenants did not bind us, the Lord could not enjoin us to fulfil them. It is not the command of God, requiring us to pay our vows and keep our covenants, that gives obligation unto them; this command only requires us to act according to that obligation, and warns us of the evil of violating it. The obligation arises entirely from the act of the creatures, using a divine ordinance, by vowing unto God, and covenanting with him, whereby they bind their souls with a bond to serve the Lord. The commands of God, relating to our vows and covenants, plainly suppose their intrinsic obligation upon us. In these divine precepts, the Lord clearly recognizes the moral obligation of these solemn deeds. Every one of these commands is a divine acknowledgment that our vows and covenants, which he requires us to fulfil, have an intrinsic obligation upon us. How could the Lord require his people to pay a vow, which did not at all oblige them to pay it? how could he command them to keep a covenant, which was void of all binding force upon them? The denial of the intrinsic obligation of our religious vows and covenants, readers the commands of God, wherein he requires us to pay the one and keep the other, absurd and senseless. It is as if the Lord should say unto his people; you have vowed a vow unto me, which indeed has no obligation in it, nevertheless you must pay it; you have entered into a covenant with me, which has no binding force upon you, yet you must keep it. Can the Lord interpose his authority in this manner? The supposition is blasphemous. The reverse is unquestionably the truth. These holy precepts of God’s word are his declaration unto the children of men, to the following effect. You have vowed a vow unto me, and entered into a covenant with me, by which you have, according to my ordinance, bound your souls with a bond, which morally obliges you to fulfil it; see therefore that you keep your covenant and pay your vow, and beware of breaking your solemn engagements. From these precepts of the Lord’s word, it is evident that religious vows and covenants contain in them an intrinsic obligation to duty.
5th, This truth is also confirmed from the scriptural account of the views, which believers had of their religious oaths and vows unto God; a few of these shall be mentioned. Psalm 119:106. I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments. This text contains the exercise, in which David had been employed, religious swearing unto the Lord; his resolution respecting it, I will perform it; and what was the matter of his oath, not a matter of indifferency, to which he was not previously bound by God in his law, but a thing moral in its nature, that he would keep God’s righteous judgments. David, having used the divine ordinance of swearing to the Lord of hosts, resolves to perform it, by keeping God’s righteous judgments. His resolving to perform his oath plainly shows, that he believed that he was bound by the oath he had sworn, as well as by the divine law, to keep God’s righteous judgments; and that his oath was a bond upon his soul, by which he had brought himself under a solemn and voluntary obligation to serve the Lord. Psalm 56:12. Thy vows are upon me, O God; I will render praises unto thee. The former part of this verse represents the situation of the holy man, he was under vows unto God; and the latter part of it expresses his fulfilling them, by praising and glorifying god. Thy vows are upon me; I have vowed unto the Lord, and the obligation of these vows constantly binds me. I am not under the obligation of thy law only, but the binding force of religious vows also, is upon my soul. Corresponding to this it is also said, Psalm 66:13,14. I will pay thee my vows, which my lips have uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble. These words contain the exercise of the holy man, he had vowed unto the Lord, his lips had uttered and his mouth had spoken them; the time when he had made his vows, it was a season of trouble; and his resolution concerning his vows, I will pay thee my vows. From this resolution it is evident, that the holy man considered his vows as a debt-bond unto the Lord, which he was engaged to pay, and as containing an obligation to duty, which he was bound to fulfil. From these instances, and others which might be mentioned, and probably will be recollected, it appears that the saints of God considered their oaths and vows unto him, as containing an intrinsic obligation to duty; and certainly this is the view which the church should entertain of them, till the end of the world.
6th, The obligation of our covenants with God is also evident, from the binding force of human contracts between man and man. It is a natural dictate of reason, which is confirmed by the word of God, that the promises, oaths and covenants of men with one another, oblige the parties to fulfil them; and that their failing therein, or acting contrary thereto, is a great evil. If our promises, oaths and covenants with our fellow creatures, bring us under a moral obligation, and bind us to fulfil them; must not our promises, oaths and covenants with the most high God, contain in them a moral obligation to perform duty to him? To allow the one and deny the other is certainly absurd and impious. Is absurd. Does not the divine law as expressly require us to fulfil our sacred engagements to God, as it enjoins us to implement our common obligations to men? Does not the word of God promise rewards to them that keep their covenant with God, as well as them to them who act according to their agreements with men? Does not the law of God threaten those with judgments who break their covenant with him, as well as it denounces vengeance against those who violate their engagements with their fellow creatures? How absurd therefore must it be to allow an obligation in the one case, and deny it in the other. This opinion is also impious. It is to say, that the law of God guards the rights of men, more than the interests of its glorious author; that, if we open our mouth unto men we are bound, but though we open our mouth unto God, no obligation at all arises from it; and, that our fellow creatures have a claim upon us by our contracting with them, but the great God has no claim upon us by our covenanting with him. The gross impiety of this must be evident to all.
7th, The obligation of religious oaths and covenants may be proved from the nature of our baptism, of the Lord’s supper, and of a religious profession. When we are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are we not brought under obligations to serve and glorify the three who bear record in heaven? When we sit down at the table of the Lord, and show forth his death till he come, do we not come under very particular engagements to be for the Lord, and not for another? When we take upon ourselves a religious profession, are we not bound to walk according to it? If these things are so, how much more must we be under an obligation to perform the duties of holiness, by an explicit and formal vowing or swearing unto the Lord, and covenanting with him.
The lax and prevailing sentiment by which this truth is opposed, is the following. Religious covenants are not formally, but only materially binding. They have no real obligation in themselves, but we are bound to the duties therein, because these duties are required in the moral law. This dangerous opinion appears to be imbibed by many professed witnesses for the covenanted reformation, by the influence of which, they seem to be precipitated into the gulf of public apostacy from these principles, which they formerly espoused. It is impossible for a person to believe it, without entertaining a secret contempt of religious vows, oaths and covenants; and it is impossible for him to act upon it, without being involved in a practical opposition to them. Having already established the contrary truth, it will not be necessary to say much for overthrowing the erroneous sentiment. If this opinion were true, the house of Israel and the house of Judah could not be charged with breaking the covenant: they might be charged with breaking the Lord’s law; but he could not have said, they have broken my covenant. If Israel’s covenant with God did not bind them, by an intrinsic obligation, their iniquity could not be a breach of the covenant, but only a transgression of the law; nor could it be any way criminal from the relation it had to the covenant, but only from the reference it had to the law. We may easily know what to think of an opinion, which necessarily renders the charges the Lord brings against his backsliding people, absurd and unjust.—Were this opinion true, there could be no such thing among the children of men, as the sins of perfidy, covenant-breaking or perjury. Though we may pledge our veracity, by religious promises and vows unto God, if there is no obligation in them, there can be no perfidy, or breach of faith in our disregarding them. Thou we may join ourselves to the Lord in solemn covenant, if that deed brings us under no obligation to fulfil it, the sin of covenant-breaking can have no existence. Though we should enter into an oath to walk in the Lord’s law, if this oath is not binding in itself, how can the sin of perjury, or despising the oath of God, be charged upon us? We are certain that these sins are mentioned in the word of God, and that they are committed by men; but this opinion destroys them for ever.—Were this sentiment right, then all the solemn acts of believers as individuals, and of the church as a body, are rendered void and useless to all intents and purposes. Of what use are promises, vows, oaths and covenants, if there is no obligation in them? If obligation to performance is refused to them, their very essence is destroyed. The mind cannot think on any of those transactions without considering an obligation to do as we have said, vowed or sworn as essential to their being. Promises, without an obligation to fulfil them, vows, without an obligation to pay them, oaths, without an obligation to perform them, are monsters both in divinity, and in morals, which are created by this monstrous opinion.—It is also the native import of this doctrine, that Christians are under no other obligation to duty, after they have promised, vowed and sworn unto the Lord, or covenanted with him, than they were before they engaged in these solemn and holy transactions. The man who can believe this, there is great reason to fear, is actuated by a desire to break the bands of the Lord and his anointed, and to cast away their cords from him. These things both show the gross error of this sentiment, and serve to confirm the truth of the contrary doctrine.
We shall conclude the illustration of this observation, by mentioning another opinion of which has been urged, for overthrowing the obligation of the church’s covenants with God. That the Christian’s vows and covenants have no obligation, except when they relate to things which are indifferent. When Christians vow or covenant with God, either to abstain from or perform any actions, to which they were not bound by the moral law, their covenants oblige them; but no obligation arises from them, when they contain articles that are moral in their nature, and to which they are previously bound by the divine law. I shall not take up time in showing the wild absurdity of an opinion, which allows Christians a power to bind themselves to the performance of things which are indifferent, and denies them a right of coming under a voluntary obligation unto the Lord, relative to duties which are morally binding by his holy law. Upon this it is only necessary to observe, that in all the instances we have of covenanting in scripture, moral duties, to which the church was bound by the law of God, constituted the matter of their vow and oath unto him. In the covenanting that was carried on in the land of Judah, at different periods, the scriptural account of the matter of these transactions is contained in the following expressions. And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord, and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people. 2 Kings 11:17. And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers, with all their heart, and with all their soul. 2 Chron. 15:12. And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all their heart, and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that are written in this book; and all the people stood to the covenant. 2 Kings 23:3. They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe, and do all the commandments of the Lord our God, and his judgments, and his statutes. Neh. 10:29. From these scriptures it is undeniable, that duties of a moral nature, such as the church was previously bound unto by the authority of God in his law, and these only, constituted the matter of their oaths unto God, and of their covenants with him. This opinion, therefore, plainly contradicting as it does the dictates of the Spirit of God must be rejected with abhorrence.
Fifthly, The church’s covenants with God bind the consciences of their posterity.
This may be confirmed by the following arguments.
1st, The truth of this observation is evident from the words of the text; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant, which I made with their fathers. They are charged with breaking this covenant, and this covenant was made with their fathers. It is not said that this covenant was made with themselves personally, but with their fathers; and yet they are charged with breaking it. From this it is perfectly evident, that they were under the obligation of God’s covenant, which was made with their fathers; that this covenant bound them to the performance of the duties which it contained; and that their sins were as really a breach of this covenant, as the sins of those could have been, who had personally entered into it. What further proof can be required of the binding obligation of religious covenants upon the covenanters posterity, for the matter is clear from the text. However, as the subject of this observation is of considerable importance, and is much controverted among Christians, we shall endeavour to confirm it from some other arguments.
2d, The scriptural account of the covenant, which the Lord made with Israel at Horeb, confirms the truth of this doctrine. We find it in Deut. 5:2,3. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even with us, who are all of us here alive this day. The covenant, of which Moses is here speaking, was made with the fathers of those, to whom he was now addressing himself. The persons with whom this covenant was made were all dead, or slain in the wilderness. This appears from Num. 26:64. But among these, there was not a man of them whom Moses and Aaron the priest numbered, when they numbered the children of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai. Moses here declares, that the covenant was not made with their fathers, it was not made with them only, the obligation did not lie upon them alone; but it was made likewise with those who were then before the Lord as their posterity, and the obligation of it extended even unto them. The Lord entered into a covenant with Israel at Horeb, soon after he had brought them out of the land of Egypt, and Moses, about forty years afterwards, when all who were above twenty years at the solemn transaction were dead and gone, informs the congregation of Israel, that this covenant was made with them, not with their fathers, but with them, even with them, who were alive at that day. From this scripture, the obligation of religious covenants upon posterity is established, beyond all possibility of reasonable contradiction; and it is truly astonishing and mournful that any, who profess to believe divine revelation, should deny it.
3d, We have still further evidence concerning this important matter, from the account given us of that covenanting in Israel, which took place a little before the death of Moses, the history of which is contained near the beginning of the 29th chap. of Deuteronomy. We have a description of the parties of which the assembly was composed, ver. 10,11. The captains of their tribes, their elders, and their officers, and all the men of Israel, their little ones, and their wives, the stranger in the camp, from the hewer of their wood, unto the drawer of their water. Not one of the whole camp was absent from the solemn convocation. We are informed also of the situation in which they stood, and the great end of their meeting, ver. 10,12. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day. The design of this transaction is stated, ver. 13. That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God. The parties concerned in this transaction are described, ver. 14,15. Neither with you only do I make this covenant, and this oath; But with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day. These two verses divide all the parties who were connected with this covenant, and bound by its obligation into three classes; those who were come to mature age, their children who were present, and their posterity who were yet unborn. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath, that is, it is not made only with you, who, by reason of age, are capable of entering, in your own persons, into the covenant and oath of God; but with him that standeth here before the Lord. These are their little ones, who, though they were present, were, by reason of nonage, incapable of entering into the bond of God’s covenant.—And also with him that is not with us this day; these signify their posterity who were yet to be born. The two last classes, as well as the first, are here declared to be under the obligation of the covenant and oath of the Lord their God. From this it is evident, that the obligation of the church’s covenants descend unto posterity; as it is impossible to take any rational and consistent view of this portion of scripture, without understanding it in this sense.
4th, That the obligation of religious vows and oaths extends unto posterity is evident also, from the names which the scriptures bestow upon the church’s covenants with God. They are called an everlasting covenant, Isa. 24:5. and a perpetual covenant, Jer. 50:5. These covenants are called an everlasting covenant, and a perpetual covenant, because their obligation is durable and permanent, and extends to future generations. If the obligation of these covenants perished at the decease of actual covenanters, they would be temporary, fleeting and transient in their nature indeed, and could have no title to these honourable appellations bestowed upon them by the Spirit of God.
5th, The obligation of public covenants with God may also be established from the nature of the ordinance of baptism. In this ordinance, the members of the church do not come under obligations for themselves only, but they bring their children also, under very solemn obligations, which partake of the nature of a covenant with God, or an oath unto him, and which they are bound to fulfil all the days of their life. Now, if an individual Christian may, according to the ordinance and law of God, bring his children, acting as their deputed governor and representative, under moral obligations to all duty, which shall bind them, in the baptismal covenant; may not a generation of Christians, according to the divine ordinance and law, bring the following age, whose deputed governors and representatives they are, under solemn bonds to be the Lord’s people, by covenanting with God, which shall be obligatory upon them unto the performance of the duties contained therein? The whole of the rising generation, belonging to the church, are actually brought under solemn obligations unto the Lord, by the deeds of their parents in the ordinance of baptism; and if they may do this in a solitary capacity, may not a company of them, in a social state, bring their posterity under similar bonds, in the ordinance of public covenanting? It is impossible to acknowledge the lawfulness of the one, without discerning, at the same time, the moral fitness and necessity of the other.
6th, The reasonableness and propriety of the obligation of religious covenants descending to posterity may be argued, from the power which belongs unto men to bind their children, in matters that pertain to the present life. In very many instances, do the children of men bind their posterity, both before and after they are born, by domestic contracts, social engagements, and public treaties, which are obligatory upon them, either for a time, or during the whole of their lives. Shall these civil contracts, whereby they have bound their posterity to their fellow creatures, have an obligation upon their seed; and shall their sacred covenants, whereby they have brought them under obligations to the Lord their God, have no binding force upon the following generation? To suppose this, is certainly exceedingly unreasonable. From the power that is bestowed upon men to bring their posterity under moral and lawful obligations, relative to their temporal concerns and interests, either by public or private contracts, the authority or warrant of Christians, to bring their seed under engagements unto the Lord, by public covenanting with him is unquestionably evident. From the obligation of civil contracts upon posterity, the binding force of religious covenants upon the following generation is equally clear. The truth is, the right of the children of men, in both the precepts of that law, which require the parties concerned to fulfil their engagements, show that both are obligatory.
It will be utterly vain for any to suggest, that this right of Christians to bind their posterity to duty, by public covenanting with God, and the obligation of these deeds upon the following race are an infringement upon the Christian liberty of their seed, in matters of religion; because no part of true Christian liberty can be mentioned, which is, in the smallest degree, trenched upon thereby. This Christian right, and the obligation under which posterity is brought by their using it, do not deprive the following generation of their liberty to accomplish a diligent search, by every possible mean of information, to be fully satisfied in their own mind, as their fathers were, of the morality of the duty of public covenanting, of the call their ancestors had to engage in it, of the binding obligation of the sacred deed upon them, and of the agreeableness of the matter of their fathers oath or covenant unto the unerring standard of God’s law. It is not of true Christian liberty, but the dominion of sin, by whatever name it may be called, which disposes men to break loose from those sacred moral obligations to duty which God has appointed in his word, and under which he, in the course of his favourable providence, has actually brought them.
It will be equally vain for any to object, that because the descendents of covenanters did not consent in their own persons, unto these obligations, they cannot be binding on them; because this principle would invalidate the lawful moral obligations binding posterity in civil things, by the deeds of their fathers, which would turn the world into absolute confusion. It is not necessary unto the transmission of the obligation of religious covenants unto posterity, that every generation of Christians should be, in their own persons, actual covenanters. We are sure this was not the case with the seed of Israel, and yet their national covenant with God was binding upon them, in all their generations. The church may be very culpable in neglecting the duty of public covenanting, whereby they give a formal explicitly consent, in their own persons, to these solemn obligations; or there may be seasons passing over the church, in which they may not have a call to engage in this solemn service; yet no neglect of this kind, whether sinful or necessary, can hinder this obligation from descending to posterity. Neither can the communication of this obligation to future generations be obstructed, by the wickedness of a people, in withdrawing their neck from the yoke of God, in acting contrary to their solemn engagements, and in openly denying that this obligation is remaining on them. No doubt, all this was the case with some of the generations of the house of Israel and Judah, nevertheless they were under the obligation of the covenant which God had made with their fathers, and the obligation of it was even through them transmitted to their posterity.
Another prevailing opinion, that seems to be embraced by may, who wish to be considered as friends to public covenanting, is in direct opposition to what has been said; and which, if I understand it, I may express in the following worse. The obligation of public covenants with God upon posterity consists only in aggravating their sin, if they forsake these principles, for maintaining of which, their fathers showed so much zeal, as to enter into a covenant to preserve and defend them. It is easy to see, that this opinion intirely denies and destroys the proper obligation of a people’s covenants with God, upon their posterity. The apostacy of a generation from the religious attainments, which have been reached in the days of their fathers, and which they have handed down unto them, will be a most aggravated evil, whether their fathers have covenanted with God or not. All covenants with God, and their obligation, are, by this opinion, rendered useless, as they respect the following age. It is not the design of the church’s covenants with God to aggravate the sin of apostacy, either in the actual covenanters, or in their seed; but it is the design of these sacred transactions to render apostacy a sin, both in themselves and in their posterity, from the relation it has to their covenant engagements. Apostacy from attainments in religion is a sin, by the law of God, since the following is one of its precepts; Hold fast that which thou hast. Apostacy is also a sin, by the church’s covenant, seeing they have bound themselves thereby to cleave unto the Lord, and not to suffer themselves to be drawn away from the profession of his gospel, the obedience of his law, and the observation of all his ordinances. It ought to be bewailed bitterly, that men, from whom we had many reasons to expect better things, should employ themselves to devise and propagate vain schemes of doctrine, to loose themselves and the generation, from moral and sacred obligations, by which they are fast bound unto the service of God. In opposition, however, unto this erroneous and immoral opinion, we must assert, that the obligation of public covenants with God, is substantially the same, as it now binds the consciences of posterity, and as it formerly bound the actual covenanters; and that as our fathers were bound by their covenanting with God, so we their posterity are equally bound by that deed, to the performance of covenant duties. This truth is clearly confirmed from these scriptures, which represent a generation of professors, who have not personally covenanted with God, but whose fathers had done so, to be chargeable with the sin of covenant-breaking. This is done in the words of our text, and in other portions of sacred writing. What more could be charged upon actual covenanters than this? If the charge, that is brought against non-covenanting posterity, is the same with what the charge against covenanting ancestors could really be, this will clearly demonstrate that both these classes of men are equally under covenant obligations.—The truth of this assertion is also established by these scriptures, which represent the punishment of the posterity of covenanters for the sin of covenant breaking. One of the principal evils, for which the kingdom of the ten tribes was carried into a dismal captivity, by the king of Assyria, was, because they rejected his statutes, and his covenant he had made with their fathers, 2 Kings 17:15. The great cause why the kingdom of Judah was carried captive unto Babylon, their holy city burnt with fire, their temple destroyed, and their land made desolate for seventy years, is represented in the following words of Jeremiah, chap. 22:8,9. Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this great city? And they shall answer, because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord their God, and worshipped other gods, and served them. It is evident, that neither the generation of Israelites in the kingdom of the ten tribes, nor in the kingdom of Judah, upon whom these calamities came, were in their own persons actual covenanters; yet the punishment of covenant breaking was inflicted upon them, in as remarkable a way, as it could have been brought upon those who had actually covenanted with God. How can we account for this, without believing that they, as well as their covenanting forefathers, were under the same covenant obligation.—This truth, and the fallacy of that opinion by which it is opposed, will further appear, from the scriptural account of the connection which posterity has with the covenants that are made with their fathers. The scripture represents this connection of non-covenanting posterity with the covenants of their fathers, as we have already seen, that the Lord made this covenant with them, that is with posterity, Deut. 5:2,3. This is the very way, in which the connection of actual covenanters with the covenant, is represented in the text, and in other scriptures, that the Lord has made the covenant with them. Now since the Spirit of God describes that connection, which actual covenanters have with the covenant, and the connection which non-covenanting posterity have with it, by the same words, it must undeniably prove that both the one and the other are equally under the obligation thereof. This being the case, there necessarily must be something more, in the obligation of religious covenants upon posterity, than this opinion, we are now opposing, will allow; and that can be nothing other than what we have asserted, that they are bound thereby, in a way, which is essentially the same, with the manner in which their covenanting fathers were thereby bound to the performance of covenant duties.
Sixthly, The church’s public religious covenants with God may, and ought to be national. A people’s covenanting with God may be said to be national, in the three following respects. When the civil and ecclesiastic rulers or representatives of a nation enter into a covenant with God; when the great body of the people enter themselves into the bond of this covenant; and when an acknowledgment of the obligation thereof, with a resolution to fulfil it, is made a fundamental law of the state, so as no person, who is an enemy thereunto, shall be intrusted with the affairs of the nation in their hands, either of a spiritual or temporal nature. In these senses we affirm that the church’s covenants with God may and ought to be national.
1st, The truth of this observation is evident both from the words of the text, and from the other inspired accounts we have of Israel’s covenanting with God. The house of Israel and the house of Judah, in their national capacity, are the party mentioned in the text, who was in covenant with God. The people without their rulers, the rulers without the people, or a part of the people without the concurrence of the rest could not be called the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The bond of this covenant extended to the whole family of Israel and Judah, and therefore it respected them in their national state. The more particular accounts which we have in the divine word, of the nature of the church's covenants with God, will further confirm this truth. It was Israel as a nation that stood before the Lord in Horeb, when he entered into covenant with them. Near forty years afterwards, and immediately before the death of Moses, Israel again appeared before the Lord in their national capacity, and entered into a covenant with him. In that solemn assembly, there were present the captains of their tribes, their elders, and their officers, with all the men of Israel, their little ones, their wives, and their stranger that was in their camp, from the hewer of their wood, unto the drawer of their water, who all entered into covenant with God, were thereby established for a people unto him, and he engaged to be their God. Deut. 29:10,11,12,13. the covenanting that took place in the days of Joshua, bears also clear marks of its being a national deed. The persons concerned in it are mentioned in Joshua 24:1,2. And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers, and they presented themselves before God. And Joshua said unto all the people, &c. Here the people were not without their rulers, nor the rulers without the people; but the whole body of the nation entered into a covenant with the Lord, which is largely declared in the following part of the chapter. When their covenant was renewed in the days of Asa, it was also a national transaction, as will be evident from the following account of it. And Asa gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and all the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon.—And they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem.—And entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers, with all their heart, and with all their soul. 2 Chron. 15:9,10,12. The same truth is clearly confirmed from the account of this solemn action the days of Josiah. The parties who covenanted with God on that occasion, are mentioned, 2 Chron. 34:29,30. Then the king sent, and gathered together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem, and the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people great and small, and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant, that was found in the house of the Lord. Upon the return of the captives from the land of Babylon, they again entered into a covenant with God, in their national capacity, as is evident from the 10th chap. of Nehemiah. In that chap. after expressing by name a considerable number of the priests, Levites, and heads of the people, it is added in the 28 and 29 verses; And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the fingers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, everyone having knowledge, and having understanding,; they clave unto their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse and into an oath, to walk in God’s law. These scriptures plainly prove that God’s covenant with Israel was made with them, in their public national capacity. It was not made with one of the tribes, or with some individuals in all the tribes; but it was with the whole body of the people that this covenant was made and to all of them its obligation extended. The covenanting, therefore, that is warranted, in the days of the gospel, to be carried on in Christian lands, may and ought to be transacted by them, in their public national character. It is not lawful for a few persons in a land only, when they come to be enlightened in the knowledge of the gospel, and have been determined to embrace it, to join themselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant; but it is lawful for a people, in their national state, when they are brought to the knowledge or profession of the truth, to do the same thing. Since covenanting with God was a moral duty, incumbent upon his people, under the former dispensation, and was performed by them in their national character; it certainly must be the duty of the Christian church, when the Lord in his goodness brings her in any land unto a national form, to practice this moral duty in their public capacity.
2d, In order farther to confirm the truth of this observation, it shall be proved, that the scriptures represent the Gentile churches serving the Lord in their national capacity. Many scripture prophecies, which speak of the Gentile church, plainly represent that they shall do service to the Lord, and receive blessings from him in their national state; from each of which the reasonableness and necessity of national covenanting among them may be deduced. A few of these, out of many, shall be mentioned. Early did the Lord, by the spirit of prophecy, reveal this truth to the children of men; even as early as the days of Noah, by whom the following declaration was made, Gen. 9:27. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. In what capacity did the seed of Abraham, who were the descendents of Shem, dwell in their tents, or enjoy religious and spiritual privileges from God? It certainly was in their national state. When the posterity of Japheth, by whose offspring the islands of the Gentiles were divided in their lands, did succeed to the privileges of Shem, and dwell in their tents, which began in the apostles preaching unto them; must not they also, in order to the full accomplishment of this prophecy, enjoy privileges from God, and perform duties unto him in their national capacity? If the posterity of Shem, when they dwelt in their own tents, had it as their peculiar honour to be, as a nation, in covenant with God; must it not be the distinguishing privilege of the offspring of Japheth, when they dwell in the tents of Shem, to enjoy the same blessedness?—This argument will be corroborated, by the words spoken by the Lord unto Abraham, Gen. 22:18. And in thy seed, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. As these words secure the conversion of many in all nations to the faith of Christ, and their enjoying eternal salvation through him; so they also plainly foretell, that the gospel should become a national blessing unto them, and lay them under national obligations unto God in Christ.—Another of these prophecies is recorded, Psal. 22:27. All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. All the ends of the world, and all the kindreds of the nations certainly relate to people in their large public capacities; and their turning to the Lord, and their worshipping before him must signify, that public, solemn, and spiritual duties should be performed by them in that character.—That very important piece of prophetic information, which is contained in Isa. 52:15. must not be omitted; So shall he sprinkle many nations, the kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they consider. After describing the humiliation and sufferings of Christ for the salvation of men, the prophet mentions the effect of these, in their application unto them by the hand of the Redeemer, so shall he sprinkle many nations. He shall reveal himself to many nations, bring them to the knowledge of his truth, the profession of his gospel, the obedience of his law, and subjection to his ordinances in their national capacity; as well as justify, sanctify and save multitudes of persons among them. The conduct of the civil rulers of these sprinkled nations is also declared, the kings shall shut their mouths at him. They shall no more oppose the propagation of the kingdom of Christ, no more thunder forth bloody edicts against his followers, nor persecute them on account of the profession of his truth; but should be silent before, and submit unto the Lord of the whole earth. The text also gives the best of all reasons for this change, which should be accomplished upon Gentile nations, and on their governors, for that which had not been told them shall they see, &c. Scriptural illumination in the knowledge of Christ, inducing them to a serious consideration, and to an affectionate embracing of him and his religion, shall effectually accomplish it. The Spirit of God assures us here, that Gentile nations, and their rulers shall be sprinkled by Christ, shall be enlightened in the knowledge of him, and shall submit unto him; and must not they, therefore, devote themselves unto and serve him in their national character.—The dictate of inspired prophecy which is recorded in Jer. 4:2. may be also mentioned. Thou shalt swear, the Lord liveth, in truth, in righteousness, and in judgment; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. In the beginning of this verse, the prophet describes the duty of Israel, Thou shalt swear, the Lord liveth, thou shalt swear unto the Lord, and in thy solemn oath unto him, shalt assert that he is the living God, that he is thy God, that he is the foundation of all thy hope, and is intitled unto thy obedience. The manner in which this religious oath unto the Lord should be made, is here described; in truth, in righteousness, and in judgment. The prophet proceeds to declare, in the end of the verse, what should happen among the Gentile nations; they shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. The nations shall account it their highest privilege to know, serve and enjoy the living God, shall look unto him for the enjoyment of all blessedness, shall esteem it their chiefest honour to be related and engaged unto him, and shall have it as their exercise to rejoice and triumph in him. The spiritual employment of Israel and of the Gentile nations which is here mentioned, though expressed in different words, is substantially the same; for when Israel sware that the Lord liveth, they also blessed themselves in him, and gloried in him; and when the Gentile nations do this, they must also be considered, as avouching the Lord to be the living God, and their God in Christ by vowing and swearing unto him. Besides, in the very same capacity in which Israel did swear the Lord liveth, the Gentile nations shall bless themselves in the Lord, and glory in him, and this certainly was in their national state; for, the party mentioned, in the beginning of the verse, is called Israel in the context; and the party spoken of, in the end of the verse, is called the nations; which signifies both their acting in their national character, and that many nations should be thus employed.—The irrefragable confirmation of this truth, with which we are furnished, in the words that were spoken to Daniel, in the visions of God wherewith he was privileged, must not be omitted; Dan. 7:27. And the kingdom, and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominion shall serve and obey him. The words now before us are a part of a most stupendous vision, which Daniel saw, and wherein many of the most astonishing events of divine providence, yet to be accomplished, were clearly unfolded to his view. The design of this part of the vision is to describe the nature of that dominion, glory and kingdom, which were given unto the one like the Son of man, who came with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of days, in order that all people, nations and languages should serve him, which is clearly expressed in the 13 and 14 verses of this chapter. The words of this verse represent the exalted state, to which the people of the saints of the Most High should be advanced in this world, under Christ their redeeming Saviour, and ruling King. The kingdom and the dominion shall be given unto them, which signify either the perfection of their power, or the different kinds of instituted authority, civil and ecclesiastic, which are the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. The greatness of the kingdom imports the glory and prosperity to which civil and ecclesiastic authority should be advanced in their hands. The extent of this is pointed out in the expression, under the whole heaven; not confined unto one nation, as under the old dispensation, but spread over all the earth. This shall be given unto the people of the saints of the Most High, the professors of his religion shall be exalted unto a national state. They shall no more be in a low, oppressed and persecuted state, not being reckoned among the nations; but they shall take and possess the kingdom, and the nations shall be denominated from them. As this kingdom is extensive, it shall also be permanent; for it shall be an everlasting kingdom, continue to the end of the world, and remain in its perfect state through eternity. It is added, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. All divinely instituted authority among men shall acknowledge Jesus as their Lord, shall submit themselves to his gospel, shall regulate their conduct by his law, shall promote the interests of his glory, and shall advance the prosperity of his church. The meaning of this prophecy is so clear, and the proof of the point in hand, which it contains, so conclusive, that nothing further need be said for its illustration.—The prophetic declaration of Zechariah, chap. 2:14. deserves also our consideration, And many nations shall be joined unto the Lord in that day, and shall be my people. The parties spoken of are many nations, the people who were sitting in darkness, and in the region and shadow of death. The Gentile lands, in their national capacity, are the objects of this prophecy. What is aid of them? they shall be joined unto the Lord; they shall forsake the service of idols, and the darkness of their heathenish state; they shall believe in God through Christ, take upon them the profession of his religion, and devote themselves unto him in a solemn covenant. The expression of the prophet seems to point at this public and solemn transaction; because it is the same phrase which is used by Jeremiah, when he is speaking of this important duty; Come, let us join ourselves unto the Lord in a perpetual covenant, that shall not be forgotten. The time when this shall be accomplished is also specified, in that day. This is one of the expressions of the ancient prophets, by which they usually point at the times of the New Testament church; and we are sure that this must be its meaning in this verse, because this prophecy is only fulfilled during that period. We are likewise informed of the blessed consequence of their believing joined unto the Lord, and they shall be my people. This privilege of the Gentile nations must be of the same nature with the blessedness of ancient Israel, because it is both expressed in the same words, they shall be my people, and founded upon the same ground they shall be joined unto the Lord; and therefore it must signify that these heathen lands should become, in their national capacity, the Lord’s professing, privileged and covenant people.—The last prophetic declaration, that shall be mentioned, is recorded in Rev. 11:15. And the seventh angel sounded, and there were great voices in heaven saying, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever. The part of the verse alluded unto is that which records the precious truth, proclaimed by the great voices in heaven, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever. These words describe the situation of the nations of the earth, after the pouring out of the seven vials, mentioned chap. 16. which immediately followed the founding of the seventh trumpet. The heathen, Mahometan, and antichristian nations, who were in many respects kingdoms of this world, corrupt, carnal and earthly, both in their constitutions and administrations, shall undergo, by the grace, Spirit, word, and providence of God, an holy and spiritual revolution, by which they should, as nations, become the kingdoms of the God of the church, and of his holy anointed One, devote themselves u