Chapter 13: The Nature of Justification Proved from the Difference of the Covenants
THat which we plead in the third place unto our purpose, is the difference between the two covenants. And herein it may be observed;
1. That by the two covenants I understand those which were absolutely given unto the whole church, and were all to bring it unto a compleat and perfect state; that is the covenant of works, or the law of our creation as it was given unto us, with promises and Threatnings, or Rewards and Punishments annexed unto it: and the covenant of grace revealed and proposed in the first promise. As unto the covenant of Sinai, and the New testament as actually confirmed in the death of Christ, with all the Spiritual Priviledges thence emerging, and the differences between them, they belong not unto our present argument.
2. The whole intire nature of the covenant of works consisted in this; That upon our personal obedience, according unto the law and rule of it, we should be accepted with God, and rewarded with him. Herein the essence of it did consist. And whatever covenant proceeds on these terms, or has the nature of them in it, however it may be varied, with Additions or Alterations, is the same covenant still, and not another. As in the Renovation of the promise wherein the essence of the covenant of grace was contained, God did oft-times make other Additions unto it, as unto Abraham and David; yet was it still the same covenant for the substance of it, and not another; so whatever Variations may be made in, or Additions unto the dispensation of the first covenant, so long as this rule is retained, Do this and live; it is still the same covenant, for the substance and essence of it.
3. Hence two things belonged unto this covenant. (1.) That all things were transacted immediately between God and Man. There was no Mediator in it, no one to undertake any thing, either on the part of God or Man, between them. For the whole depending on every ones Personal obedience, there was no place for a Mediator. (2.) That nothing but perfect sinless obedience would be accepted with God, or preserve the covenant in its Primitive state and condition. There was nothing in it as to pardon of sin, no provision for any defect in Personal obedience.
4. Wherefore this covenant being once established between God and Man, there could be no new covenant made, unless the Essential Form of it were of another nature; namely, that our own Personal obedience be not the rule and cause of our Acceptation and justification before God. For whil'st this is so, as was before observed, the covenant is still the same; however the dispensation of it may be reformed or reduced, to suit unto our present state and condition. What grace soever might be introduced into it, that could not be so, which excluded all works from being the cause of our justification. But if a new covenant be made, such grace must be provided as is absolutely inconsistent with any works of ours, as unto the first ends of the covenant, as the apostle declares, Romans 11:6.
5. Wherefore the covenant of grace, supposing it a new, real, absolute covenant, and not a reformation of the dispensation of the old, or a Reduction of it unto the use of our present condition (as some imagine it to be) must differ in the essence, substance, and nature of it from that first covenant of works. And this it cannot do, if we are to be justified before God on our Personal obedience, wherein the essence of the first covenant consisted. If then the righteousness wherewith we are justified before God, be our own, our own Personal righteousness; we are yet under the first covenant, and no other.
6. But things in the new covenant are indeed quite otherwise. For (1.) it is of grace, which wholly excludes works; that is, so of grace, as that our own works are not the means of justification before God; as in the places before alledged. (2.) It has a Mediator and Surety, which is built alone on this Supposition, That what we cannot do in our selves which was originally required of us, and what the law of the first covenant cannot inable us to perform, that should be performed for us, by our Mediator and Surety. And if this be not included in the very first notion of a Mediator and Surety, yet it is in that of a Mediator or Surety that does voluntarily interpose himself upon an open acknowledgment, that those for whom he undertakes, were utterly insufficient to perform what was required of them; on which Supposition all the truth of the scripture does depend. It is one of the very first notions of Christian religion, that the Lord Christ was given to us, born to us, that he came as a Mediator, to do for us what we could not do for our selves, and not merely to suffer what we had deserved. And here instead of our own righteousness, we have the righteousness of God; instead of being righteous in our selves before God, he is the Lord our righteousness. And nothing but a righteousness of another kind and nature, unto justification before God could constitute another covenant. Wherefore the righteousness whereby we are justified, is the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, or we are still under the law, under the covenant of works.
It will be said that our Personal obedience is by none asserted to be the righteousness wherewith we are justified before God, in the same manner as it was under the covenant of works. But the argument speaks not as unto the manner or way whereby it is so; but to the thing it self. If it be so in any way or manner under what qualifications soever, we are under that covenant still. If it be of works any way, it is not of grace at all. But it is added, that the differences are such as are sufficient to constitute covenants effectually distinct. As (1.) The perfect sinless obedience was required in the first covenant; but in the new, that which is imperfect and accompanied with many sins and failings, is accepted. Answ. This is gratis dictum, and begs the question. No righteousness unto justification before God, is or can be accepted, but what is perfect. (2.) grace is the original fountain and cause of all our acceptation before God in the new covenant. Answ. It was so also in the old. The creation of Man in Original righteousness was an effect of Divine grace, Benignity, and goodness. And the reward of Eternal life in the enjoyment of God, was of mere Soveraign grace: Yet what was then of works, was not of grace, no more is it at present. (3.) There would then have been merit of works, which is now excluded. Answ. Such a merit as ariss from an equality and proportion between works and reward, by the rule of commutative justice, would not have been in the works of the first covenant; and in no other sense is it now rejected by them that oppose the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. (4.) All is now resolved into the merit of Christ, upon the account whereof alone, our own Personal righteousness is accepted before God unto our justification. Answ. The question is not on what account, nor for what reason it is so accepted, but whether it be or no; seeing its so being is effectually constitutive of a covenant of works.
The third argument for our position is drawn from the difference between the two covenants. The following observations apply.
First: by "the two covenants" I mean those given absolutely to the whole church, each designed to bring it to a complete and perfect state. The first is the covenant of works — the law of our creation as given to us, with promises and threats, rewards and punishments attached. The second is the covenant of grace, revealed and proposed in the first promise. The Sinai covenant, the new covenant as actually confirmed in Christ's death with all the spiritual privileges flowing from it, and the differences between them — these belong to a different discussion.
Second: the entire nature of the covenant of works consisted in this: that upon our personal obedience, according to its law and rule, we would be accepted by God and rewarded by Him. This is where its essential character lay. And whatever covenant proceeds on these terms, or has this nature in it — however it may be modified with additions or alterations — is still the same covenant, not a different one. Similarly, when God renewed the promise containing the essence of the covenant of grace — as He did with Abraham and David — He often added other provisions, yet it remained the same covenant in substance. So whatever variations or additions may be made to the administration of the first covenant, as long as the fundamental rule remains — "do this and live" — it is still the same covenant in its substance and essence.
Third: two things therefore belonged to this covenant. First, all transactions were directly between God and man — there was no Mediator, no one to undertake anything on either side. Since the whole covenant depended on each person's personal obedience, there was no place for a Mediator. Second, nothing but perfect, sinless obedience would be accepted by God or preserve the covenant in its original condition. There was no provision in it for the pardon of sin or for any deficiency in personal obedience.
Fourth: therefore, once this covenant was established between God and man, no new covenant could be made unless its essential form was of a different nature — specifically, that our personal obedience would no longer be the rule and ground of our acceptance and justification before God. For as long as it remains so, the covenant is still the same, however much its administration may be revised to suit our present condition. Any grace introduced into such a covenant could not be the kind that excludes works as the cause of justification. But if a new covenant is to be made, a grace must be provided that is entirely incompatible with any works of ours as the ground of the covenant's primary ends — as the apostle declares (Romans 11:6).
Fifth: the covenant of grace, if it is truly a new, real, and absolute covenant — and not merely a revised administration of the old one adapted to our present condition, as some suppose — must differ in its very essence, substance, and nature from the first covenant of works. And it cannot do so if we are justified before God on the basis of our personal obedience — which was the essence of the first covenant. If the righteousness by which we are justified before God is our own personal righteousness, then we are still under the first covenant and no other.
Sixth: but things in the new covenant are indeed altogether different. First, it is of grace — which entirely excludes works. That is, it is so entirely of grace that our own works are not the means of justification before God, as the passages cited above demonstrate. Second, it has a Mediator and Surety. This is built on the premise that what we could not do in ourselves — what was originally required of us and what the law of the first covenant could not enable us to perform — should be performed for us by our Mediator and Surety. Even if this is not necessarily implied in the bare concept of a mediator or surety, it is certainly implied in the concept of a Mediator or Surety who voluntarily intervenes on behalf of those who are openly acknowledged to be utterly unable to perform what was required of them. On this supposition the entire truth of Scripture rests. One of the very first principles of the Christian faith is that the Lord Christ was given for us and born for us — that He came as Mediator to do for us what we could not do for ourselves, and not merely to suffer what we had deserved. Here, instead of our own righteousness, we have the righteousness of God. Instead of being righteous in ourselves before God, He is the Lord our righteousness. And nothing but a righteousness of a different kind and nature from our own could constitute a different covenant for justification before God. Therefore the righteousness by which we are justified is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us — or we are still under the law, still under the covenant of works.
It will be said that no one claims our personal obedience is the righteousness by which we are justified before God in exactly the same way as under the covenant of works. But the argument is not about the manner or mode of its role — it is about the thing itself. If personal obedience serves as the basis of justification in any way, under whatever qualifications, we are still under that covenant. If it is based on works in any way, it is not of grace at all. It is then added that the differences are sufficient to constitute effectively distinct covenants. Four such differences are proposed. First: the first covenant required perfect, sinless obedience, whereas in the new covenant an obedience that is imperfect and accompanied by many sins and failures is accepted. In answer: this is simply asserted without proof and begs the question. No righteousness for justification before God is or can be accepted unless it is perfect. Second: grace is the original fountain and cause of all our acceptance before God in the new covenant. In answer: it was also so in the old. The creation of man in original righteousness was an effect of divine grace, kindness, and goodness. And the reward of eternal life in the enjoyment of God was of pure sovereign grace. Yet what was then of works was not of grace — and neither is it now. Third: in the old covenant there would have been merit from works, which is now excluded. In answer: the kind of merit that arises from equality and proportion between works and reward by the rule of commutative justice would not have existed even in the first covenant. And it is only in this sense that those who oppose the imputation of Christ's righteousness now reject merit. Fourth: everything now rests on the merit of Christ, on account of which alone our personal righteousness is accepted before God for justification. In answer: the question is not on what account or for what reason it is so accepted, but whether it is so accepted at all — since its being so is precisely what constitutes a covenant of works.
