[421] Gen. xxviii. 12.

[422] Is. lv. 4.

[423] Eph. ii. 14.

[424] Is. x.x.xii. 18; Is. xlii. 19.

[425] "The Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ." By the Rev. Dr.

William Symington. 2d Ed., pp. 9, 10, 11.

[426] Job x.x.xiii. 23, 24.

[427] "Atonement and Intercession," pp. 257, 258.

[428] Acts v. 3, 4, 9.

[429] 1 Cor. x. 14; 1 John v. 21.

[430] Rom. xii. 1; Rom. vi. 13.

[431] Heb. iv. 14; x. 23.

[432] Rev. ii. 25.

[433] Compare Eph. ii. 10, with Is. xliv. 2.

[434] Eph. ii. 20, 21; 1 Pet. ii. 5-10.

[435] Eph. i. 13.

[436] Heb. x. 22.

[437] Rom. iv. 11, and Col. ii. 11, 12.

[438] 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.

[439] Eph. ii. 17, and Rom. x. 15.

[440] John xiv. 27.

[441] Is. xix. 21.

[442] John iii. 33.

[443] Heb. iii. 1.

[444] Col. iii. 24, and 1 Pet. i. 4, 5.

[445] Mat. xiii. 38.

[446] Eph. v. 1.

[447] John xv. 14.

[448] Rom. viii. 17.

[449] 1 Pet. v. 3.

[450] Rev. xxi. 9.

[451] Philip, iii. 15.

[452] 1 Tim. iii. 15.

[453] Heb. viii. 13; Eph. ii. 12

[454] Heb. ix. 15.

[455] Heb. ix. 15-20.

CHAPTER VII.

COVENANTING ADAPTED TO THE MORAL CONSt.i.tUTION OF MAN.

The law of G.o.d originates in his nature, but the attributes of his creatures are due to his sovereignty. The former is, accordingly, to be viewed as necessarily obligatory on the moral subjects of his government, and the latter--which are all consistent with the holiness of the Divine nature, are to be considered as called into exercise according to his appointment. Hence, also, the law of G.o.d is independent of his creatures, though made known on their account; but the operation of their attributes behove to be regulated according to that law. The principles of eternal holiness, embodied in the law, necessarily existed because of the eternity and infinite glory of G.o.d; but would not have been made the basis of a law had creatures not been formed. The const.i.tution of creatures who should be called to give obedience, was wholly due to the will of G.o.d, but in perfect harmony with the spirit of his commands. Moral creatures having been formed, the law of G.o.d speaks one language to all of them. They, possessed of different characteristic attributes, alike recognise its appeals. Angels have a const.i.tution which distinguishes them from man, yet with him they apprehend the authority of the one moral law. Over a range, therefore, of infinite extent, the principles of eternal rect.i.tude are maintained. Man, in innocence, recognised them. Man, redeemed, cleaves to them according to his attainments in grace. Angels, possessed of a nature different from that of man, acknowledge their obligation upon them. And G.o.d himself, distant from his highest moral offspring by a difference that is infinite, exhibits them as a manifestation of his holiness, and the principles according to which he acts towards his creatures. Much, therefore, in common belongs to the const.i.tution of the moral natures of angels and men, and necessarily proceeds from and accords with the nature of G.o.d. His law, we have seen, inculcates the duty of Covenanting. From what has been said, we would, therefore, conclude that the const.i.tution of man was fitted to that exercise. That it was so appears, moreover, from other considerations now to be adduced.

Covenanting was adapted to the moral const.i.tution of man in innocence.

First. From the Scripture account of that const.i.tution this appears. In this manner he is there represented--"G.o.d created man in his own image, in the image of G.o.d created he him."[456] "G.o.d hath made man upright."[457] These declarations imply that man was created at least "in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness," and accordingly, in conformity with the will of G.o.d, as to his intellect, his affections, his conscience, and will. When brought into existence, his intellectual and moral powers were full grown, and his knowledge was suited to the state of a creature fitted to hold communion with G.o.d. His intellect was fitted completely to survey, according to its capacity, the whole scene of natural and moral existence presented before it, from the lowest stage of dependent being to what it was competent to him to know of G.o.d.

His affections, in a flame alike pure and ardent, glowed at the prospect of moral excellence which appeared in the works of G.o.d, and above all, in Himself. His conscience, tender as the perfection of a delicate spiritual organisation worthy the creative energy of a Being of spotless infinite holiness, was in perfect sympathy with the awards of that perfection of judgment which, from eternity to eternity, is unchanged.

And his will, the mighty gift, emblem of the volition of the Giver, approved what He decreed. With such capacities, accompanied with corresponding knowledge of the external world and the internal man, and with a perfect acquaintance with the nature and demands of G.o.d's law, the favoured creature man could not but acquiesce in it. To the claims of its glorious Author, put forth by it, he was led by the most sure, and yet most gentle and delightful constraints, to give his acquiescence. What it demanded as duty to G.o.d, and duty to man, as if bound, yet free, he joyously proffered and endeavoured to give. What it forbade, he, in the same spirit, desired not to attain to, but resolved to reject. That law required, in its first command, the avouchment of G.o.d as a G.o.d in Covenant; in its second, it demanded the same, in antic.i.p.ation of whatever evil--such as the inroads of satan, might tempt to lead from him; in its third, it claimed the fulfilment of the duty of solemn appeal to the I Am by oath; in its ninth, it required the speaking of truth to man, and consequently, the public avouchment of G.o.d as a G.o.d in Covenant before others; and in entering into Covenant with him, the favoured creature man, to all these and the other statutes of that law, from his holy nature, gave his adherence. In his nature, as a living personification of finite excellence, designed to transact with G.o.d, and rendered fit to adhere to his engagements, and true to the const.i.tutional character of his existence, in the presence of his glorious Lord he stood a being in Covenant with him. Had there even not been a representative phase of character provided for Adam, he had, therefore, necessarily, from his very const.i.tution, been in Covenant with G.o.d. A law was made known to him by the great Creator and Ruler; a willingness to accept of it as a guide to duty, manifested by receiving it, was given to him. To the formation of a covenant, though any other condition that G.o.d should propose might be added, nothing more was necessary. The covenant due to this was embodied in that which, as we shall presently see was, at his creation, in sovereignty made with him.

Secondly. This appears from the fact, that the law of G.o.d to man in innocence, was given in a covenant form. From the very origin of his existence, Adam was placed under law to G.o.d, both as an individual, and as the representative head of the human family. Under both aspects of his condition he was, accordingly, amenable to that law; nay, more, to that law in a covenant form.

To him, as an individual, it was promulgated, not merely as a law but as a covenant. It could not have been proclaimed to him as the federal head of others, had it not conferred obligation upon him as a moral agent, responsible for his own actions. Now, the law that was given to him in his twofold character was, in reality, a condition of a covenant. Both the positive precept and the statutes of the decalogue unfolded what was designed as a covenant claim. The command to obey, implying the command to agree to obey, is an injunction to enter into covenant, and, therefore, itself the condition of a covenant, to be const.i.tuted in the acquiescence of the creature addressed. The giving of any command to man, therefore, in a state of innocence, was a recognition of him as a creature on his const.i.tution designed, and, in the providence of G.o.d, to be called, to enter into covenant with him. But this conclusion is corroborated by the very matter of the moral law itself. We have seen that several of the precepts of that law require the observance of entering into covenant. These commands could not have been obeyed as the dictates of G.o.d's laws, had the duty of Covenanting not been performed.

And that duty could not have been performed otherwise than in the recognition of the commands of the law as the conditions of a Covenant.

From other considerations this also appears. We are warranted to maintain that the covenant of G.o.d dispensed to men is in reality a covenant. But the positive precept forbidding man to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is inculcated in the very same terms in which the Covenant of G.o.d is enjoined. Both are spoken of as commanded.

"And the Lord G.o.d commanded (???) the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it."[458] "He hath commanded (???) his covenant for ever."[459] A law, when promulgated, cannot but be commanded. A covenant when revealed, as we here see, is commanded. We should, therefore, take an unwarrantably circ.u.mscribed view of the law given to man at first, were we to view it as given as a law, but not as a covenant. Even as the matter of the law revealed at Sinai was an exhibition of the provisions of the Covenant of Grace, so that of the law given to man in innocence was the condition of the Covenant of Works. It was not merely by the promise, but also by the gift of life, that the positive law was converted into the nature of a covenant. By that promise, indeed, the Covenant of Works was distinguished; that showed the unspeakably beneficent design of the great Creator, and formed the most powerful motive to obedience. But the making of that promise was not essential to the existence of a covenant between the parties. By the giving of that promise, G.o.d indeed became, by explicit intimation, engaged to man; but by giving to his creature capacities for enjoying good, and desiring it, he virtually engaged to give him what was to be beneficial for him, so long as He should choose. Adam was in the enjoyment of good when G.o.d revealed to him his law. G.o.d addressed him, not as one who might be doubtful whether or not he should receive good from his hand, but as one in possession of powers and capacities even then appropriating extensive benefits. His delighting himself in G.o.d--the highest good that he could enjoy, though no explicit promise of good had been made to him, would have been a token to him that he was in covenant. But the promise in which that good was implied rendered the antic.i.p.ation of it definite, both as to time and duration.

Again, the law of G.o.d was given both as a law and as a covenant to Adam, as the representative of the human race. Though the giving of the positive precept put him into a covenant state as a federal head, and though by breaking it he fell, and in consequence of his sin they fell in him, yet it is unwarrantable to maintain that the duty of abstaining from the tree of life was the only condition of the covenant to be observed by him as the public covenant head of his descendants. What would have been his condition had he neglected any other duty inc.u.mbent on him? Would he not have been depraved as an individual personally guilty? and accordingly seeing that he that offends in one point is guilty of all, would he not have been unworthy of representing his posterity, or in consequence of his depravity would he not have resolved to eat of the tree of life, and thus have exposed himself to the stroke of Divine indignation, and have been cut off? As, had he existed alone, he would from the very const.i.tution of his nature have been under covenant obligation to perform whatever duties his Creator might have made known to him, so in his public character, his obedience to the law of G.o.d on his own behalf and towards the fulfilment of the peculiar duties connected with his relation to his descendants, was due as required by covenant. As one with his posterity he was bound by requirements that would have brought them under obligation. Feeling himself commanded to obey on behalf of many of whom he himself was one, no less than as if he had acted in an individual capacity, did he or could he recognise his obligations to acquiesce in duty prescribed, nor less was he called and urged solemnly by covenant to engage to them.

Accordingly, man in his original condition, was, from his const.i.tution, engaged in covenant to G.o.d by his law. By a twofold bond, the obligation laid upon him was imposed. The authority of G.o.d requiring obedience was one of the bonds. The authority of G.o.d requiring fulfilment of an engagement made according to his command was the other. The giving of the law implied the disposition of the const.i.tution of man to respond to its appeal, and demonstrated that both were of G.o.d. Seeing that He determined to create moral subjects on earth, his arrangements provided that he should make them disposed to acquiesce in that law; and hence, so long as man continued to possess the moral standing in which he was placed at first, he must have had an impression that by the const.i.tution which had been given him, G.o.d was engaged to bestow good upon him, which he was brought under obligation by Covenanting to accept.

Covenanting is adapted to the moral const.i.tution of man in a state of grace.