John Erskine's "The Nature of the Sinai Covenant"

[brandonadams]

I enjoyed recently reading John Erskine's work. Has anyone else read it?

John Erskine’s “The Nature the Sinai Covenant” | Contrast

 

[MW]

It has been many years, but if I remember correctly he stated something similar to Witsius by calling it neither a covenant of works nor a covenant of grace as those terms are used in systematic theology.

 

[brandonadams]

Yes, he did say that, among many other things.

Obedience to them was never design- ed to entitle to heavenly and spiritual bleslings. These last are only to be looked for through another and a better covenant, established upon bet- ter promises.

If any enquire whether the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works or of grace ; I reply, it was neither, in thesense in which systematic divines, generally use these terms : but a mixed covenant, partaking of the nature of both. God's loving the Jews above other nations, taking them into covenant with himself, and appointing sacrifices to expiate sins which would otherwise have been a breach of this covenant, were all owing to free unmerited goodness. Not to observe that the Mosaic covenant had a respecl: to the cove- nant of grace as typified by it. But then the burdensome servile obedience it enjoined, was to be performed by the Jews without any special di- vine alTistance, and was to found their legal title to covenant blessings.

But without regarding systematic ideas, let us examine the Scripture account of the Mosaic co- venant, and particularly of the parties covenant- ing, the good things promised, and the condi- tion on which the bellowing them was suspended.

The common distinction of the church into visible and invisible, or at least the incautious manner in which some have explained it, has contributed not a little to the prevalence of this opinion. But let us impartially examine, whether it has any solid foundation in the sacred oracles; and for this purpose enquire whether the proofs of such an external covenant under the Old Testament, will equally apply to gospel times.

The blessings of the Sinai covenant, were patterns of the heavenly things (Heb 9:9,23), shadows of good things to come (Col 2:16,17), and surely patterns and shadows differ in nature from the things of which they are patterns and shadows. (33)

Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, which was as it were the foundation of the Sinai covenant, was only an outward redemption. Is it then reasonable to suppose, that the blessings founded upon it were spiritual and heavenly? (24)

Obedience to them [Mosaic laws] was never designed to entitle to heavenly and spiritual blessings. These last are only to be looked for through another and a better covenant, established upon better promises. (4)

He who yielded an external obedience to the law of Moses, was termed righteous, and had a claim in virtue of this his obedience to the land of Canaan, so that doing these things he lived by them (s). Hence, says Moses (t), “It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments,” i. e. it shall be the cause and matter of our justification, it shall found our title to covenant blessings. (44)

(s) Lev. xviii. 5. Deut. v. 33. (t) Deut. vi.25

…Deut 26:12-15 – Would God have directed them, think you, to glory in their observance of that law, if, in fact, the sincerest among them had not observed it. Yet doubtless that was the case, if its demands were the same as those of the law of nature. But indeed, the things mentioned in that form of glorying were only external performances, and one may see, with half an eye, many might truly boast they had done them all, who were strangers not with-standing to charity, flowing from a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. Job, who probably represents the Jews after their return from the Babylonish captivity, was perfect and upright {v). Zacharias and Elizabeth were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless(w). The young man, who came to Jesus, enquiring what he should do to inherit eternal life, professed that he had kept the commandments from his youth up, and our Lord does not charge him with falsehood in that profession (x). Paul was touching the righteousness which was of the law, blameless (y). Yet Job curses the day in which he was born (z) Zacharias is guilty of unbelief {a) ; the young man, in the gospel loves this world better than Christ (b) ; and Paul himself groans to be delivered from a body of sin and death (c), These seeming contradictions will vanish, if we take notice, that all of these though chargeable with manifold breaches of the law of nature, had kept the letter of the Mosaic law, and thus were entitled to the earthly happiness promised to its observers.

(v) Job i. i» xix. 20. (a) Luke i. ao. vii. 24. (w) Luke i. 6. (x) Matth. (y) Phil. iii. 6. (z) Job iii. i, 3. (Jb) Mat. xix, 22, 23. (c) Rom.

Bishop Warburton has observed, Divine Legation vol. II. part I. p. 355,—360. that the title of Man after God’s own heart, was given to David, not on account of his private morals, but of a behavior so different from that of Saul, in steadily maintaining purity of worship. (47)

 

[Peairtach]

Being sinners, the Israelites would never have made an approximation of observing even the ceremonial law properly without grace. It's enough to say that there was not the fulness of grace we enjoy, in either the period from Adam to Abraham, in the period from Abraham to Moses, and under the Mosaic administration, that we have now under the New Testament. The grace was administered during these periods in a way God saw suitable to teach His OT people first, and also to teach us, His NT people, secondarily. That doesn't mean they were put under another CoW.

As for Christ, He picked up the exact same CoW which had been broken by Adam but could be hypothetically fulfilled by a suitable sinless man, if one was provided. He fulfilled it on behalf of His elect.

The imperfection and provisionality of the Mosaic Covenant is particularly shown in that there was not a sacrifice provided for presumptuous sins (Num 15; Ps 51). This provisionality did not mean that it was not a covenant of grace, and (always imperfect) obedience to it was to be fulfilled by grace through faith and not by the works of the law. The Lord found mere outward works' religion fulfilling of His worship and ceremonies a stench in His nostrils as the prophets testify.






Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

Obedience to them was never designed to entitle to heavenly and spiritual blessings. These last are only to be looked for through another and a better covenant, established upon better promises.

He is using "covenant" in its simplistic sense as used in the book of Hebrews, which leaves out of view the typological relation to the new covenant, and merely contrasts it with the new covenant.

I don't think his idea of external obedience can be substantiated, as all the references to love and fear in the book of Deuteronomy will show that internal obedience was also required.

The emphasis on temporal rewards is correct, but it would not be good to leave out of view the typical element, or the fact that real people were saved under this dispensation by the grace of God. These other factors must be accounted for when considering the broader systematic question as to how this fits in with the covenant of grace as a dogmatic category.

 

[brandonadams]

Thanks for the comments.

He does account for these other factors.

"I don't think his idea of external obedience can be substantiated, as all the references to love and fear in the book of Deuteronomy will show that internal obedience was also required."

There is another difficulty, which merits a fuller difcuflion. The Ifraelites were forbidden to covet what was their neighbours, and to luft after evil things,, and were required to love the Lord with all their heart and foul, and mind and flrength, and to love their neighbours as them- felves. Hence it is plaufibly argued, that ab- ftaining from actual injuftice, freedom from ido- latry and other grofs fins, and an obfervance of the external inftitutions of God's worfhip, was not the only condition of the Sinai covenant. That conclufion, however, is more than the promifes will warrant. Thefe precepts unque- flionably prove, that God prefcribed to the Jews inward devotion. And, which ought to be re- membered, they equally prove-, that God pre- scribed to them a perfect obedience, free from the very leaft finful defect. Indeed the law of na- ture, being of eternal and unchangeable obliga- tion, muft necefTarily have demanded fuch an obedience from the Jews, as it dill demands it from all mankind. Bui, to fuppofe perfect obe- dience required, as the condition of a covenant, in which provifion was made for the imperfection
of obedience, would be contradictory.

We must not imagine that everything in Moses’s writings relates to the Sinai covenant. Some things in them were intended as a republication of the law of nature. And they contain many passages, which evidently relate to the duties and privileges of thofe interested in the gospel covenant.

...I would further observe, that the laws of Moses in general had a Spiritual and a literal meaning The righteousness upon which the temporal prosperity of Israel depended, was the righteousness of the letter of the law. The righteousness through which believers are entitled to eternal life, is the righteousness of the spirit of the law. And as the earthly Canaan was a type of heaven, so that external obedience which gave a right to it, prefigured that perfect obedience of the Redeemer, whereby alone we are entitled to the heavenly bliss. The law therefore, in its spiritual sense, required inward, nay, even perfect obedience. And possibly the prohibition of coveting, and the precept of loving God with all the heart, were left in the letter of the law, to lead good men to the spirit of it : the very letter of these precepts, when taken in their full emphasis, reaching to the inmost thoughts and intents of the heart, and forbidding the least sinful desire.

p.49-51

"The emphasis on temporal rewards is correct, but it would not be good to leave out of view the typical element"

§ 3. Perhaps it may be alledged to invalidate my argument, that the land of Canaan was a type of the heavenly inheritance: that the temporal blessings of the Sinai covenant, were representations, earnests, and pledges of spiritual and eternal blessings : that the meaning of these types and figures was explained to those to whom "they were first delivered, and by oral tradition transmitted to succeeding ages : so that the Sinai covenant was inforced not only by the temporal promises which it literally contained., but also by the spiritual promises which the letter of that covenant pointed out.—As this is plaufible, it merits to be thoroughly examined.


That types not explained, were too obscure a medium, for conveying the pretended spiritual sanctions of the Sinai covenant, especially to so gross and carnal a people as the Jews, will be proved § 5. Now no explanation is given of the types, in the books of the Old Teftament, which were the only rule of faith and practice to the Jewish church. And finely, that which was intended as a principal sanction of the Sinai covenant, would not have been left to so treacherous and uncertain a method of transmission as oral tradition. We are told, 2 Cor. iii. 13. that " Mofes put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished," i. e. could not discern what was typified by the precepts and sanctions of the temporary Sinai covenant. Surely, casting a veil over an object, and holding it up to full and open view, are two things so very opposite, that a scheme to do both at once, could never enter into any rational mind. If the meaning of the types was delivered to the Jewish church, a typical delineation would no more have veiled from them the spirit of the law, than the meaning of a Greek or Latin classic is veiled from a boy at school, by publishing it along with an exact literal tranflation into his mother language. The nature of types demonstrates, that they can have no existence, where there is nothing to be veiled or covered. If therefore, when the law of Moses was given to Israel, the spiritual sense of it was known, or was intended to be revealed, a carnal veil to conceal that sense, must on either of these suppositions be absurd and preposterous. So that the typical genius of the Old Teftament, instead of proving, plainly confutes the alledged spiritual sanctions of the Sinai covenant.

…And it seems to me less culpable to adopt sentiments, which I could not improve than to do wrong to my argument by omitting an essential branch of it, and perhaps also to raise suspicions in some of my readers, that I declined meddling with a knotty objection, merely becaufe I was conscious I could not resolve it. Upon the whole, I firmly believe that Canaan was a type of the heavenly inheritance. But this only proves, that it represented heaven, as the Jews who possessed it, represented the heirs of heaven. It does not prove, that the land flowing with milk and honey, was bestowed, to reveal and seal to its inhabitants spiritual and heavenly blessings.

p. 29

"or the fact that real people were saved under this dispensation by the grace of God."

The dispensation of grace, which took place under the Mosaic covenant, was no part of it, did not extend to all who were, and did extend to some who were not under it.

p. 3

§ 7. Let it not however be thought, I would conclude from this and such like Scriptures, that none under the Sinai covenant had an interest in spiritual blessings. I only mean to alert, that the claim of the inwardly pious Jew to pardoning mercy, to sanctifying grace, and to the heavenly glory, was no more founded on his obedience to Moses' law, than Job's claim to these bleflings was founded on his being born in the land of Uz, and having seven sons and three daughters. The special favor of God was vouchsafed both to Jew and Arabian, only in virtue of that promise, which being before the law, could not be annulled by it (Gal 3:17). The law, or Sinai covenant, made nothing perfect, that honour being referved to the bringing in of a better hope (Heb 7:19). It could not give life (Gal 3:21). It could not give righteousness (2 Cor 3:9). Sins committed under it, as to their moral guilt, and spiritual and eternal punifhment, were forgiven only in consequence of the New Teftament, confirmed by the death of Chrift (Heb 9:15), without whose death the righteousness of God in forgiving these sins could not have been manifested (Rom 3:25). So that without us, the Old Testament saints were not made perfect (Heb 11:40)

p. 36-37

 

[MW]

I'm not sure what the point of these extracts might be.

A telescope can help to bring detail to specific parts but it also excludes the broader landscape. I can appreciate Erskine's focus within a limited context, but within the flow of progressive revelation there are larger concerns which constrain us to observe both contrast and resemblance as a result of the coming of Christ.

 

[brandonadams]

I'm not sure what the point of these extracts might be.

To show you what Erskine said

 

[brandonadams]

And to clarify Erskine's point in writing the excerpts, it was to argue against the idea that the New Covenant is a continuation of the Mosaic Covenant.

“The greater part of modern Christians, have, I acknowledge, in their sentiments of the nature of the church, widely deviated from Scripture and antiquity. And the fiction of a visible church, really in covenant with God, and yet partly made up of hypocrites, has almost universally prevailed.”

Many however maintain, that an external covenant subsists under the Gospel, by which professors of Christianity, though inwardly disaffecled to God and goodness (#), are entitled to certain outward blessings, and church privileges. The common distinction of the church into visible and invisible, or at least the incautious manner in which some have explained it, has contributed not a little to the prevalence of this opinion. But let us impartially examine, whether it has any solid foundation in the sacred oracles; and for this purpose enquire whether the proofs of such an external covenant under the Old Testament, will equally apply to gospel times.

…Now, if the church of Christ, is a society of persons who obey the gospel call, it is evident, hypocrites are no members of that church.

…What then are the covenant blessings, that belong to unconverted professors of Christianity? Surely, not the spiritual blessings infallibly connected with salvation, for in these, believers only have an interest. Not outward prosperity, that being no where promised in the covenant of grace, either to the visible, or to the invisible church. Not the sacraments, which, unless as signs and seals of spiritual blessings, are of little value. Not the call of the gospel, for they have no more benefit by it, than infidels, and the openly profane. A strange covenant indeed, which confers only an empty unmeaning title, but from which the persons in covenant derive no advantage!

…I should do injustice to my argument, if said nothing of some passages of Scripture, from which, those who read without due attention, may be apt to conclude, that hypocrites are true members of the church.
The church seems compared to a field, where tares grow up with the wheat, to a threshing floor, where good grain is mixed with the chaff, to a net which draws bad fish as well as good, and to a feast where a guest comes, not having on the wedding garment, Matth. xiii. throughout, andxxii. n. Must we not conclude from these Scriptures, that hypocrites are members of the church?—By no means. Unless we must also infer, that chaff is good grain, and that tares are wheat, because they often happen to be mingled together. There is no occasion for an inference thus dishonourable to sacred writ. These parables represent to us, not the nature of the church, but her condition in this world where hypocrites are mingled with Christians, breathe the same air, worship in the same temple, and make the same outward profession.

…It deserves our notice, that the apostle does not speak of some of the church as within and others as without, and thus give countenance to the distinction of a visible and an invisible church, but speaks of all the members of the church as within, and of the world as without. All then who belong to the church, are within, or members of the church invisible. Some are so, truly, and in the eyes of God ; others, only apparently, and in the eyes of men. The first have a title to be within. The second have no title. If we reckon them within, it is only, because their profession being credible, we charitably believe it sincere, and that consequently they are united to Christ. And hence, so soon as we find, from their course of life, that their profession was deceitful, it becomes our duty, to renounce communion with them.

…§ 5. The greater part of modern Christians, have, I acknowledge, in their sentiments of the nature of the church, widely deviated from Scripture and antiquity. And the fiction of a visible church, really in covenant with God, and yet partly made up of hypocrites, has almost universally prevailed.”

 

[MW]

I'm not sure what the point of these extracts might be.

To show you what Erskine said

I have Erskine's work and I thought we already agreed as to his position on the Sinai covenant.

Your serial quotations seem pointless without some kind of commentary to accompany them.

 

[MW]

It might be worth pointing out that John Erskine has a sermon on infant baptism which shows he had a broader systematic view of the covenants. He taught, for example, that circumcision was a sign of the covenant of grace in the place of which baptism has come. This means that for Erskine the administration of circumcision to the people of Israel under the Sinai covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.

It is not without ground that we assert, that baptism succeeds in the room of circumcision, as an initiating seal. Circumcision is expressly stiled a seal of the righteousness of faith, which implies that it is a seal of the covenant of grace. Nay the first institution of it proves this, where it is not only annexed to the covenant, but is called the covenant. It was also the initiating or first seal, by which those who received it were solemnly admitted as members of the church of God. -- Discourses preached on several occasions, 2:277.

This illustrates that a telescopic view of the Sinai covenant does not suffice for understanding the length and breadth and depth and height of God's covenant dealings in redemptive history.

 

[brandonadams]

Did I suggest anywhere that one's view of the Sinai covenant does suffice for understanding the length and breadth and depth and height or God's covenant dealings in redemptive history?

My point was to demonstrate that Erskine has a unique view of the Mosaic covenant and share some of his quotes in case anyone was interested in reading his work. I understand that you have. Perhaps others have not.

This means that for Erskine the administration of circumcision to the people of Israel under the Sinai covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.

I have read his sermon on infant baptism. It does not teach that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace. He says the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, but not the Mosaic. He believed that circumcision had a dual significance based on two different covenants.

But it will more clearly appear, who were interested in the Sinai covenant, by considering, who were allowed to partake of the seals of it. Now circumcision belonging to all the Jews in common, the Sinai covenant, of which it was a seal, must belong to them too. Circumcision, I acknowledge was also a seal of the righteousness of faith. But it was not so to all who received it. As derived from Abraham, it was to all who imitated his faith a seal of the covenant of grace; as inserted in the ceremonial law a seal of the Sinai covenant. Or rather, it was to Abraham, a seal both of an external and spiritual covenant. And therefore, even to these, who were only interested in the external covenant, it was of use.

p.10

 

[MW]

Brandon, If you just wanted to provide quotations you could have done that without making them in reply to my specific statements. As they stand, they look like they are a reply to me, but you provided no comment of your own to point out what the purpose of these quotations were.

Circumcision was administered under the Mosaic covenant, and Erskine states circumcision was a seal of the covenant of grace. This indicates that his dissertation was specifically narrow in scope and does not bring out all he says on the subject.

If one is desirous to know what Erskine taught it is helpful to see what he said on a range of related issues.

 

[brandonadams]

You're quite amazing Matthew

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Brandon,

We have seen others who have written in this vein of thought. It is acknowledged to be a view with a minority of the period and it continues on into this day. One can read Owen or even some of our modern theologians to get the same gist. I have read quite a few of them myself as you know Brandon. The various positions concerning the Mosaic Covenant show that it is not an easy subject. We can all pick our poison or health so to speak. There are various hermeneutical places to land depending on how you view Law and Grace, Old and New, Cursing and Blessing.

I pray for the health of the Church and for the Society it is a light unto. I pray for God's Spirit to enlighten us and grant us mercy, repentance, and goodness for our sake and for God's goodness and love to be known. I want God's word to permeate all of Society that our hearts might be affected and become effectually enlivened unto our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I for one wasn't raised in Church. The only biblical thinking I received as a child and young kid came from watching television as the Ten Commandments were played annually during the holiday seasons. That show had enough scripture in it to reveal God's goodness and character to me. It also revealed to me His name, I AM. It revealed a God who cared about man, righteousness, and a God who cared to redeem man. Even in judgment. From the least of them to the greatest.

Did Petto, Owen, Bolton, Erksine, or others get it right? It is possible. I tend to disagree with them as I fully see the grace of God in all of the Mosaic Covenant. Even in judgment. I became a Christian because of the Mosaic Covenant. To a majority of great Reformed theologians it is an Administration of the Covenant of Grace. I agree with them as I have gotten to know their writings and examined the scriptures a bit more without my Rose Colored Particular Baptist glasses on. I have even gone back and reread quotes by Hodge, and Witsius which I use to quote to prove my Reformed Baptist positions only to find out I wasn't listening to their content close enough. I actually did that yesterday with a Charles Hodge quote I have on my Puritanboard blog. When I first posted it years ago I was trying more to prove a point. I was hearing what I thought was being said so that I could prove my theology correct. I probably still do that quite a bit today. I like everyone here wants to get it correct so that we might be pleasing to God. We all have heard that orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy. Who wants to be wrong? Certainly not me.

Thanks for showing us what Erskine said. He has some good company of godly men. I just don't think it is new. I have also found that Owen and others spoke differently concerning the Covenant of Grace during different periods of their lives and also depending upon the context. When taken in a larger context of his writings the synthesis of his thought is broader. I learned that from Reformed Baptist Elder Victor Bottomly.

Just to reiterate, Erskine's position concerning the Mosaic Covenant seems to line up with what is acknowledged as a minority position amongst the older Divines and one that is being resurrected more so now days as we have been indoctrinated by a ministry which has a popular media today. For the life of me I can't understand why Owen, or those guys weren't Particular Baptists. I know why I am not now. But I dearly love my RB roots. I am still very tenderly affected by them when I consider them.

Thanks for showing us Erskine again. It possibly confirms the minority view existed a bit more substantially.

Be Encouraged,
Randy

 

[MW]

For the life of me I can't understand why Owen, or those guys weren't Particular Baptists.

Randy, I think you have wrongly categorised these divines. They believed in the post-fall covenant of grace and that salvation was and always has been by grace alone. This includes the Mosaic covenant, even when it is understood in different terms.

"Particular Baptists" believe in the salvation of elect infants by Christ. A "covenant theology" which includes only elect people in its administration does not exclude elect infants. The antipaedobaptist disparity between covenant and baptism remains.

 

[One Little Nail]

Brandon,
We have seen others who have written in this vein of thought. It is acknowledged to be a view with a minority of the period and it continues on into this day.

Thanks for showing us Erskine again. It possibly confirms the minority view existed a bit more substantially.
Be Encouraged,
Randy

Randy I'd like to thank you for a Peaceable, Gentle, Gracious & Fatherly response to Brother Brandon's post.

While the Republication of the Covenant of Works in Conjunction with an Administration of the Covenant of
Grace within the Mosaic is a minority view amongst the Reformed past & present,
it is nevertheless a Reformed view contra Lutheran & Dispensationalism's Law/Grace Dichotomy, much in the same
way that Supralapsarianism is held amongst Predestinarians, which is likewise a minority view within the Reformed Circles,

Republicationism is a genuine expression of Reformed Theology, albeit in the Minority.