The Ordinance of Covenanting

by John Cunningham

The two passages of Scripture that represent the exercise of vowing, as not obligatory in certain cases, may be explained in perfect consistency with the general command enjoining it. These do not imply that the neglect of the vow may be in general allowable; nor do they teach, that it may be vowed, solely, or at all, according to caprice. They manifestly admit that vowing is lawful in certain cases, and is therefore enjoined, but show, that given circumstances may be unfavourable to some species of the exercise. Even as the other religious observances are not obligatory at every season, vowing should not be engaged in to the exclusion of any incumbent duty. Circumstances might occur, in which there would be no warrant from Scripture or providence for making a given vow. If it be impossible to make performance, the engagement is not required; and hence, if made, it would not be valid, but involve the party to it in sin. The first of the passages referred to, is the following—"If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee."[201] The statement does not give scope to a disregard of the vow, but implies that the law of God does not enforce it where it would prove oppressive, or otherwise injurious. It does not in the smallest abate the claim of the law enjoining an engagement by vow to perform every definite duty; but teaches that it is not sinful to abstain from vowing in some circumstances vows that ought to be vowed in others. Some duties are so definite and so constantly obligatory that they ought to be vowed by all; others, obligatory only on some in certain circumstances, ought by such, in these circumstances alone, to be engaged to. Thus, in all times and conditions, it is dutiful for all to vow to keep the sabbath. It is dutiful for some to give themselves to the work of the ministry, and to vow to do its duties; but not dutiful for all. It is dutiful for the parties entering into the marriage covenant to vow to fulfil the obligations of that relation; but it is not incumbent on those who are not called in providence to enter into that relation, to vow to perform its duties. Under the law, some things were, by His express appointment, holy to the Lord. As he had an explicit claim upon them, these might not be devoted to him in the same manner as some other things were, but they behoved to be offered. Those other things depended on the peculiar circumstances of the people, and accordingly were of a changing amount, and had a great variety of character; but not less than the things that might be vowed according to circumstances, were those that were denominated, "holy to the Lord," vowed to him. Israel, at Sinai, vowed to present the first-born of their males and their first-fruits to the Lord; and that vow they homologated when they Covenanted again. On such occasions they could not vow specific offerings to the Lord; but their engagements then made implied in general that they would vow to the Lord thereafter according to the showings of his providence. At other times the specialities of providence called for the explicit vows, which could not have been made when their circumstances were not anticipated. The vows of the people, on occasions of public solemn Covenanting, and also in secret, implied obligations to perform the duties of the various relations into which they might enter; but they did not embody an explicit engagement to perform the special duties of many of these. These public vows included, for example, that such of the people as should be called to the priest's office, should enter into the covenant of the priesthood, and keep it, and that such of them as had in providence a call to become a Nazarite, should take the requisite vow at the proper season, and thereafter perform it. But on the former occasions referred to, it was not incumbent to swear the oaths that were probably requisite on an entrance to the priest's office; nor was it required, nor even possible, thus to take the vow of the Nazarite. The priesthood were devoted to the Lord, and when the time appointed came, such of them as were qualified for their office entered upon it. The Nazarites, also, were devoted to the Lord, but according to a different arrangement. The priest had no alternative but to enter upon his office. The individual who was more qualified for becoming a Nazarite than to act in any other sphere, was no less called to enter upon his functions, than the sons of Aaron were to enter on theirs. The call addressed to the former was so explicit, as to be easily apprehensible by all; that tendered to the latter, was not less solemn nor emphatic, nor obligatory, though presented through a providence which was not so very capable of being interpreted as that which gave transmission to the claims laid upon the other. It is only when the making of the vow would be at variance with the requirements of duty, that forbearing to vow would be no sin. All are called to vow to abstain from all sin, and to perform all duty; but as providence makes varied provision for men in different circumstances, so in regard both to the absolute amount of service to God, and to the nature and the time of it, there ought necessarily to be a variety in the making of the vow.

The second passage is, "Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay."[202] The declaration does not bear, that if one were not inclined to pay, it would not be sinful to omit vowing; but means that it is sinful to make a vow falsely, and omit the performance of what should have been sincerely vowed. It is the paying of the vow—the performance of some duty, that the language is employed to inculcate. When the heart of any one is opposed to duty, he cannot vow sincerely. That he is not disposed to vow when the duty presents itself is his sin. And to vow falsely—else than which he could not do in his circumstances, would also be sin in him. He is, therefore, called upon, not to do a sinful act, but, in the use of means, to endeavour to obtain a disposition to vow with cordiality, and then to perform the duty. It is better for him to supplicate God to change his heart, than to insult him by promising to do what he is unwilling to perform. It is better for him not to attempt to change his own heart—for that he cannot do—but to pray to God to carry on a good work within him, and along with that, to yield himself to Him. Duties should be performed in a certain order; and those who transgress the arrangement for these laid down in the Scriptures, act culpably, as well as those who do not perform them at all. The statement refers to the order in which the duties, among which stands the exercise of vowing, should be performed. The observance is incumbent on an individual in a certain condition; but his heart is against it. Two duties at least are, therefore, obligatory on him then;—to seek a disposition willingly to vow, and then to make the vow. He would sin were he to do the latter without the former, or before it. Both are obligatory at the same instant of time, and both might possibly be performed in one moment. But the order of first acquiescing in the call to vow and then vowing, must be observed, and cannot be inverted without transgression.

Commands inculcating the swearing of the oath. These are of two classes. First, those which in general terms explicitly enjoin it.—"Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name."[203] "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name."[204] And next, that which, in addition, thus enjoins the manner of swearing.—"Thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness."[205] Since the oath is never disconnected from a covenant with God, therefore, when it is enjoined, the duty of Covenanting with him in a formal manner, is enjoined. Every command that sanctions it, sanctions every exercise of Covenanting in which it is used. When the oath is commanded, Covenanting with God concerning things civil is commanded. When the oath is commanded, Covenanting with God concerning things religious is inculcated by his authority. Yea, the exercise concerning things both civil and religious, in such a case, is enjoined. Lawful oaths between nations, or between a people and their sovereign, bind all parties, not merely to one another, but also in solemn engagement to the Most High. Oaths taken in courts of judicature, civil or religious, and the marriage oath, bind the parties in like manner. The vows made on entering into church fellowship, which include an oath, and the explicit oaths which, in different ages of the Church, have been sworn in such a case, as well as the vows or oaths made by a minister at his ordination, or by a parent receiving baptism for his child, or by believers at the Lord's table, do, in each case, confirm a covenant with God. And oaths are sworn, ratifying covenants with God, made either in secret, or in a public, social manner. When the oath is enjoined, Covenanting is enjoined,—not merely concerning some duties, but in reference to all,—concerning not merely things civil, but also things religious,—concerning not merely the less, but also the greater,—regarding not only apart, but the whole,—regarding not merely some things important, but all that is so,—yea, in reference to every possible case, the exercise is enjoined.

The duty of swearing the oath has not been abrogated, and therefore that of Covenanting is of perpetual obligation. With comparatively few exceptions, it is generally admitted that the use of the oath is lawful in things civil; and on the grounds on which this rests, it must be concluded that swearing is obligatory in those also that are religious. The Lord himself, in an extraordinary manner, called Abraham once and again, formally to enter into Covenant with him, and accordingly to swear; but after the resurrection—the dawn of the present dispensation—the Redeemer addressed Peter in terms warranting him to reply in the use of the oath—"Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee."[206] In His instructions, He did not condemn the use of the oath on every occasion. He said, "I say unto you, Swear not at all: neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."[207] But in these words he does not forbid every use of the oath. The passage, along with another[208] of kindred import, must not be considered as condemnatory of swearing by the name of God in some cases; for that holy name is not mentioned among those things that may not be used in swearing; but may be viewed as reproving the practice of swearing irreligiously in common conversation, as well as the idolatry of swearing by the creature in any case, with or without the intention of thereby appealing to God. The oath, therefore, coeval with other institutes of religious worship, with them, through every age, shall continue to be observed. It stands enjoined among those precepts that are inculcated for every dispensation. Till the consummation of all things, the law enjoining it will not be fulfilled; nor before that period will it pass away; and with it the exercise of Covenanting will endure. In every age there will be found those who, entering into explicit engagements with the Lord by oath, will obey his words,—"Let him take hold of my strength,[209] that he may make peace with me; and he shall make peace with me."[210] Finally,

Commands enjoining the exercise in all its parts. That such have been promulgated, there is distinct evidence. "He hath commanded his Covenant for ever." That He delivered statutes, enjoining the keeping of his Covenant, these words imply. One of the duties of this Covenant was Covenanting. "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting Covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." They indicate, therefore, that this was enjoined. And of these statutes, like the foregoing, this other is explicit, "Be ye mindful always of his Covenant, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations."[211]

The exercise is inculcated in threatenings of Divine judgment uttered against such as disregard it. In language peculiarly strong, it is said, "The uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." And if it was culpable and dangerous to refuse a sign of the Covenant, is it not peculiarly so to refuse to accede to it in actually taking hold upon it? Hence, neglect of the duty has been denounced. "The Lord said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They are turned back to the iniquities 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. Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them."[212] Among the observances engaged to by Israel at Sinai, were those of vowing and swearing. But for disobeying the words of that Covenant, and consequently, for not observing the exercise of Covenanting, many were threatened with a curse. "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God."[213] To show that the sin of refusing to engage in this exercise is corresponding to that of breaking the Covenant of God, and consistent with it, those who have broken their vows, and those who have not in vowing sought the Lord, are classed and threatened together. "I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off ... them that are turned back from the Lord; and those that have not sought the Lord, nor enquired for him."[214] The sin of refusing to Covenant, when found in the visible Church, is the breach of an anterior Covenant obligation to engage in the service, and is punishable as a breach of Covenant. And finally, what a powerful motive to perform the duty is afforded in the Saviour's denunciation,—"He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God!" And, it is also commanded in those denunciations that are uttered against such as do not perform it aright. Were it not lawful declarations concerning the manner of doing it would not be made. In the Scriptures there is no such thing as the condemnation of insincerity in making an evil engagement; but every such compact is forbidden. When, therefore, as in many passages, swearing falsely is denounced with a heavy curse, swearing properly is virtually enjoined, and consequently, there is in like manner enjoined, every species of Covenanting in which the oath is applicable.

Personal Covenanting is commanded. Every individual, willing or unwilling, is a moral subject of the Mediator. On every one, therefore, as an individual, obedience to his law is obligatory. To every one He says, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." These words were indeed addressed at first to the Israelites; and they imply the existence of a Covenant relation between God and them. But they address a command to engage in Covenanting to all to whom they are known. On the same principle, that the application of them would be confined to the people of God, might every precept of the moral law be reckoned obligatory on believers alone. But even as the epistles of the inspired servants of Christ, though addressed to saints, commanded the attention of all who were in the churches that received them, and invited the regard of them as under an obligation to sustain in reality the character which they professed, so those precepts which were addressed to the Church of God in every age, not merely commanded obedience to the duties inculcated in them, but enjoined all to endeavour to attain to the character of the Covenant people to whom they were first delivered. The saints of God alone can render acceptable obedience; but all are commanded to obey. Commands enjoining Covenanting must be obligatory on men, in an individual, or in a social capacity, or in both. But they cannot be obeyed by men in an incorporate condition, without being obeyed by each member as an individual. The whole engage, only by each giving consent. If the whole society were reduced to one, the moral duties engaged to by the whole, ought, according to his circumstances, to be engaged to by that one alone. And as the duties frequently incumbent on a given person could not be explicitly engaged to by a society, so he himself is called to Covenant to discharge these duties; and each precept, enjoining the service in general, may be considered as addressing each one as an individual.

Social Covenanting is commanded. The exercise is acknowledged in the Scriptures as a fact, and stands there uncondemned. And seeing that the law of God ought to be viewed as extending its authority to every exercise that may be performed, those commands that inculcate the service in general, should be interpreted as enjoining the performance of this. Besides, though each of these commands is delivered to all individually, yet many of them are addressed to men in an incorporate relation, and cannot be understood as enjoining duty merely upon them singly. Again, social duties, not less than duties of a personal character, are sanctioned in the Divine law, and no reason can be given for vowing to perform those of the latter class, that does not countenance the exercise of socially Covenanting to discharge those of the other. And, finally, this view is beautifully illustrated by the designation of the people of God as his "witnesses," "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen."[215] Their witnessing for him is a part of his service, and is therefore commanded. The witness testifies not unfrequently by the oath; and a testimony in its most general acceptation must be considered as accompanied by the use of it. The people of God testify for him in the use of the oath. It is not singly alone, but also in their social capacity, that they do so; nor is it merely in secret, but likewise before the eyes of the world. Even as the witness swears to the truth of his deposition; even as various witnesses by oath testify to the same facts observed by them; the people of God, by Covenanting, harmoniously testify to His precious truth in swearing by his name. To this they are called by his high authority; their oath sworn in their social capacity is prescribed by his command. But particularly,

Covenanting, in an Ecclesiastical capacity, is commanded. The visible Church of Christ is a moral subject. The Redeemer "gives it existence, organises, incorporates, and purchases it,—confers upon it interesting properties—accomplishes important ends by it—institutes its ordinances—prescribes the qualification of its members—appoints, qualifies, and invests its office-bearers—renders its administration effectual, and diffuses and perpetuates it."[216] Individual churches, sound in the faith, having a lawful and regular ministry, and enjoying the ordinances of grace properly dispensed, being Sections of the true Church, are each accordingly subject to the Mediator; and the precepts prescribed to the whole, they receive as addressed to themselves. All the laws that enjoin the exercise of Covenanting, were delivered to the Church. Her members, in an individual capacity, are bound by all these. These laws demand, too, the obedience of the whole Church in her associate capacity, and consequently that of each of her Sections. Possessing a constitution essentially distinct from that of every other community, she is under peculiar obligations; and because of her subjection, and of the delivery of Divine statutes to her, in her proper character she is called to vow and swear to fulfil these. There is no Section of the Church but ought to attempt the service. If Sections of the true Church simultaneously exist in the same land, and accordingly be in one class of circumstances, each of these ought to renounce its dross and tin, and endeavouring to the utmost to maintain the Lord's testimony, unite with the others, in one enlarged Section of the Church, in displaying a banner for the whole truth, and confirm their union by entering into solemn Covenant engagement with the Lord. While these Sections, however, separately exist, not one of them, if consistent with its own profession, can say that the others have separately a right to engage in Covenanting, or in any other exercise, according to those views of any of these others which are a ground of difference between it and them, but are warranted in affirming that it is their duty to engage in the exercise in that way which, as to its manner, and by the nature and extent of its engagements, is right. What would justify each of such Sections of the Church in approving of every Covenant engagement of all the others, would not merely warrant but demand, a union in one ecclesiastical body among all of them, and their vows as one society dedicated to the Lord. And this might be extended even overall the earth. Though the circumstances of a Section of the Church in one land, might not precisely correspond with those of Sections of it elsewhere; though, for example, a testimony might have to be borne, principally against paganism in one case, against mohammedanism in another, against popery in a third, and so on; yet as all ought, generally, to testify against all error, and to maintain all truth, all might be united in one ecclesiastical connection. Were the churches to see eye to eye, there might be adopted, by solemn oath, a testimony so universal in the exhibition of truth, and condemnation of error, as would suit the exigencies of the Church in every land; and these, submitting to one form of government, holding the same doctrine, abiding by the same worship and discipline, and carrying their final appeals to one general council, instead of being reckoned merely sister churches, would appear as one church, by solemn Covenant explicitly devoted to the Lord, and jointly witnessing for Him. And wherever such a federal union would take place in some lands, what encouragement would be afforded that it would be extended to all! And how would the general confederation testify to a glorious work of reformation! And how might the whole visible society, though imperfect still, be expected to proceed from strength to strength!

Societies,—such as Socinian and Popish, that hold not the truth, ought not to be reckoned as a part of the Church of God. Any change for good among such would be to their dissolution and reconstruction on principles which they do not now hold. They cannot be reformed, but are to be destroyed. Were the members of them to receive the truth, and jointly to cleave to it, these societies would thereby perish. Having become corrupt, they are under the curse entailed on those who break God's covenant, and not one privilege of the true Church do they enjoy. It is the duty of all connected with them to mourn for the sin of their breach of God's covenant, to give up all connection with these, to join themselves to the Church of Christ, and thereafter to act under impressions of solemn Covenant engagement to be for the Lord, and for none other.