Thirdly. Because of the Church's social character. As it is not merely in their individual, but also in their social capacity, that her members enjoy privileges, so in both they are called to duty. The actions of an individual are not those of any society to which he may belong, except he act for them, and according to their appointment. But the deeds of a society are those of every member thereof, who does not disapprove of them; nay, of every one who, because of these deeds, does not leave its communion. The engagements of society are understood to be acceded to by every member of it existing when these are made, and of every one who may become connected with it before they be fulfilled. Every one who joins a society is understood by his act of joining it, to approve of its organization, to accept of its privileges, and become engaged to its duties. It would be impossible for society to continue, were obligation to cease so soon as the individuals who may have come under it should leave it, by death, or otherwise. Were the duties of social bodies to cease in this manner, it might be held that these communities should be re-constructed on the death of every individual member of them, and also on the accession of each one who might become connected with them. What accomplishes the same end which such practices would lead to, is secured in a far better manner by the whole body coming under, and fulfilling, obligations which do not become void either by the increase or the diminution of its members.
Every individual capable of making a choice, who, by receiving the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, becomes connected with the Church, engages to accept its privileges, and to perform its duties. In the most solemn manner, by vow before God, this is done. All that is incumbent on each member of the Church, then, devolves also on him. The obligations that bind it, may have been conferred ages before; but when he makes his profession, even then, by his own act, they descend upon him. The representation given of such a one, shews that formerly he was a heathen, or else one living in a Christian land, without the pale of the true Church. Before making his solemn acknowledgment, he was under obligation to become connected with the Church, and the evils that are threatened against those who are far from God hung over him. By entering the communion of the Church, he becomes an integral part of her society, and whatever advantage or responsibility attaches to membership within her, is extended to him.
The children of Church members, are members of the Church, and are therefore under obligation. Because of their relation to their parents, children are in possession of the peculiar privileges of the families to which they belong; and to perform the duties of these, they are under obligation. Every child of a citizen, or free member of civil society, in consequence of its birth, is entitled to the protection and other privileges of that society, and is viewed as bound by the laws of that community. In like manner, every child born of those in communion with the Church, is viewed as the care of the Church, and as under the obligations of its members. In the providence of God, children are cast upon the care of parents and of civil communities; and are they not committed to the regard of the society of the faithful? Duties are incumbent upon them, in consequence of their civil relations; and are none obligatory on them because of their relation to the Church? The Lord himself recognises the children of believing parents as the members of his Church. In order to manifest his claim upon them, and acceptance of them as such, He instituted the ordinance of circumcision in a former period, and that of baptism to be obligatory in the present. Children are, therefore, bound by the obligations of the Church. Is that moral obligation which binds the father, not binding on the son? If the parent, by Covenanting, ought to vow to observe a system of moral duties, ought not the offspring? Is what is good for the one, bad for the other? Would it be consistent for a father, after having willingly engaged to duty for himself, to say such may or may not, according to his pleasure, and in either case, too, without any blame, be done by my son? Certainly the earlier that an obligation to do good can be conferred, the better. And if a parent can lawfully act for his child in any other matter, why not in performing this?
The privileges enjoyed by the children of those in communion with the Church, manifest them to be under obligation. Duty and privilege are universally connected; and hence, where the one is awanting, the other cannot be found. In the beneficent arrangements of Divine love to the young, the latter is first extended. The enjoyment of it by them is a palpable evidence that obligation rests upon them. It is an adage among men, that what one inherits from his ancestors he owes to his descendants; and it is also manifest, that along with privilege, duty is hereditary. In regard to the things of religion, both of these things are most obvious. Would not that parent deal unjustly with his child, who, instead of bequeathing to him some privilege for his acceptance, would say, I do not know whether or not he will conform to the duties connected with it, and therefore I will sacrifice it or leave it to another? And would a child to whom some peculiarly valuable privilege has been bequeathed, and of the fruits of which he may have largely partaken, be warranted in reckoning as unlawful an entailed obligation to corresponding duty? Do not the laws of a nation find an individual bound so soon as he opens his eyes on the light of the sun? And ought not moral obligations, entered into willingly by Covenanting parents and ancestors, also, to hold the rising race completely bound? The privileges of civil society are available to youth long before they are able of themselves to take an active part in its public affairs; and thus these are brought under an obligation to support its good laws so soon as they voluntarily and effectively can. The privileges of a Christian community are, to a certain extent, enjoyed by its youth long before they can exert themselves actively for its interests; they are, therefore, under obligation, and so soon as they can perceive the importance of its voluntary Covenant engagements, they ought explicitly, to accede to them. Would it be cruel to cut off children from the privileges of civil society because of their feebleness? and would it not be cruel to deprive them of the advantages of covenants made for a defence to ourselves, which they equally need? Would it be hideously wicked to expose them to the knife of the murderer? and would it not be unspeakably criminal, by disregarding their education and failing to make engagements to instruct them, to abandon them to be poisoned by infidelity, superstition, error, or immorality? And if, by Covenanting and the fulfilment of the solemn engagements made on their behalf, the best privileges that could be bequeathed to youth, are conveyed to them, are they warranted to cast off the pleasing yoke of obligation, so gently laid upon them, and by resolving to neglect duty, to manifest themselves as unworthy of all the care that had been employed on their behalf? But it cannot be: all who have enjoyed the positive spiritual blessings that are conferred, in the mercy of God, on those who have entered into public solemn Covenants with him, will acknowledge themselves as his servants, and, far from reckoning themselves as under no descending obligation to duty, will rejoice, give thanks to him for laying a claim upon them by these, and gladly take hold on his Covenant again in their social capacity, that others to succeed them, even as they did, may gladly confess themselves to be devoted to him.
Fourthly. Because Social Covenanting, approved in Scripture, conferred descending obligation. Abimelech required Abraham to enter into a covenant with him, which the patriarch would keep, by not dealing falsely with himself, nor with his son, nor with his son's son.[346] And accordingly that engagement, which was ratified by oath, was viewed by both parties, and unquestionably properly, as binding on all the individuals specified. By oath, the children of Israel made with Joseph a covenant, by which their descendants in fulfilling it, acknowledged themselves as engaged to carry up his bones from Egypt.[347] The covenant made by Joseph and the princes of the congregation of Israel with the Gibeonites, was kept by the descendants of both parties: and the breach of it on one occasion by Saul, was followed by tokens of Divine displeasure.[348] The covenant of the Rechabites, and that of David with Hiram—which obtained also between that individual and Solomon, are other illustrations. Such covenants were lawful. The sentiments entertained concerning the descending nature of their obligations, being uncondemned, were correct. A disregard for these obligations in one case having been followed by punishment, they must have been complete. There was nothing about any of these covenants that gave to their engagements a claim to continuance beyond those of other covenants, in which the welfare of posterity is contemplated. The obligation of such, therefore, even as those of the covenants specified, behove to continue.
Fifthly. Because the ends of such covenants may not be attained during the existence on earth of those who entered into them. Nothing is more common in the providence of God, than for one to begin, and another to finish. Indeed the grand end of the Church's continuance in the world, is aspired at by the efforts of all her true members. Guided by Divine teaching, the fearers of God adopt means for declaring His glory. In His providence, however, their lawful purposes are in general carried only partially into effect. The work which he gives countenance to some to undertake, according to his own good pleasure, he commits to others. Hence his people are employed in filling up what others had designed, and also in arranging what their own successors may complete. A glorious Lord rules over every occurrence in the Church's history. Schemes of reformation set on foot by his servants he acknowledges. When he will, they are enabled to complete them; otherwise they are wound up by others. To resolve to use means to bring the Church to a state of excellence, to which, according to the promise of God, she will yet come on earth, is obligatory on them who fear him. To vow to use those means, they are under obligation. Though they may not live to fulfil all that they intended, yet they will be preserved till the work assigned to them be accomplished. Their removal does not manifest their Lord's displeasure at them, but his intention to bestow upon them a gracious reward. Nor does the blank left in the Church by their decease, manifest that the works which they had undertaken, behoved not to be fulfilled. Others, the Lord of all, will call to the service, and accept of the obedience rendered by them as the fulfilment of obligations to obey him, which had been made by others, not merely on their own behalf, but on behalf of such as he might employ to serve him. What his people lawfully vow to him, he will afford means to perform. And in carrying his purposes into effect, he will make them at once to serve him, and to accomplish what others in dependence on Divine grace had pledged themselves to use every means in their power to perform.
Sixthly. Because the people of God view themselves as bound by anterior engagements of his Church. In the land of Moab Moses said, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day."[349] Many of those whom he addressed in these words were not then born. The obligations of their fathers must, therefore, have descended to them. In many passages of Scripture do the saints acknowledge themselves as included in the covenant made with Abraham, and, consequently, as brought under its obligations.[350] By a prophet of the Lord Israel are exhibited as recognising themselves to have been represented in the covenant transaction of Bethel. "He found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us."[351] The words of Peter to the people of Israel on this point are explicit,—"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."[352] Expressing the sentiment, that their fathers had entered into Covenant engagements with God, in which they were recognised, Moses, and all Israel, on the shores of the Red Sea, thus sang,—"The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him."[353] And in language acknowledging explicitly obligation to obedience that had been transmitted by the deeds of parents or ancestors engaged to God's service, the Psalmist offers praise—"O Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant and the son of thy handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds. I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people."[354]
Finally. Because the Lord himself always views his Church as bound by the Covenant engagements thereof, competent to its circumstances, made in all earlier periods. By the covenant which he made with his servant Abraham, and once and again renewed to him, he held his people bound. At the ratification of that covenant the scene was impressive. It is thus described,—"I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.... And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram."[355] The lamp of fire was an emblem of God's gracious presence as a Covenant God. The smoking furnace symbolized the people of Israel who were to be tried in the iron furnace of affliction in Egypt. These were not then born. Yet in Abraham they were present. By the lamp of fire passing between the parts of the sacrifice, the Lord's ratification of the covenant was denoted. And by the smoking furnace also, proceeding between the parts, it was pointed out, that they even then were taken into covenant with him. That covenant the Lord kept with the whole house of Israel, even as if they had all of them been then present. "Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham: and foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him, to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous."[356] And the duties of the covenant, as if all Israel had been before him when it was made, he enjoined on them. "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant, therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their generations."[357] Moreover, he commands all to keep his covenant as made, not merely with his people at any given period, but as entered into by the faithful who went before them. "He hath commanded his covenant for ever." We have seen that these words inculcate the exercise of Covenanting. It is manifest, also, that they intimate that a covenant with God by each one, should be kept by those who make it. But the full scope of the passage is not brought out, if we do not view it as inculcating, not merely that the duty of Covenanting should be performed throughout every age, but that, until all the engagements of the people of God, made in every period, be implemented, they confer obligation on their successors. And he is angry with, and threatens those who keep not the covenants of those who represented them, as if they had broken a covenant with him made by themselves. "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."[358]
Hence, in conclusion,
First, Covenanting entails obligation even on the unbeliever who vows and swears. Were it not to do so, then no command of God would be binding on the wicked; the moral unfitness of man in a state of nature, would shield him from the claims of God's law, and any ordinance of God might be abused with impunity. But, God will not be mocked. Whosoever attempts duty will be either accepted or found guilty. Divine institutions must be respected. Every law of God contemplates an immediate and an ultimate end. If a vow be made in sincerity, God will give grace to fulfil it in some measure; and if neglect in the supposed case follow, chastisement will be inflicted. If a vow be made deceitfully—otherwise than which the wicked cannot make it—a double obligation is contracted:—an obligation to punishment for dealing falsely with God; and a debt of obedience because of submitting, though feignedly, to an ordinance appointed by him. The law of God, enjoining the duty of Covenanting, is founded on His own nature; the imperfections of man, therefore, cannot abate its claims. Even as the observation of the other ordinances of God brings under special obligations, so the exercise of attending to this confers one peculiar to itself. It is lawful to pray, but it is sinful to do so without sincerity. God will not answer the supplication that is not presented in faith; but he will demand the obedience which the grace prayed for, if asked aright, would afford strength to perform. It is necessary to read the word of God, but sinful to peruse it thoughtlessly, or in an irreverent frame of mind. But, however it may be read, he will call for the duty which a proper reading of that word by His blessing would afford a resolution to perform. Thus, also, God will not accept the vows of the wicked; but He will claim what they vow, and will punish them if they do not make it good. Thus Israel, though many of them did not enter into it with sincerity, were charged with breaking the covenant with God which they professed to make in the wilderness at Sinai, and punished for the sin thereby contracted.[359] Thus, also, Zedekiah suffered for breaking the covenant which he made with the king of Babylon by oath.[360] Indeed, it is the wicked alone who break the covenant of God. They never sincerely have entered into it, but their disregard of it, after having professed to accede to it, is represented as a violation of it; and over such impends a fearful woe. "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate."[361] How dreadful, then, is it for sinners to speak to God perfidiously! And how important, according to his commandment, to draw near unto him in making solemn vows, in dependence on that grace which it is his to give, in order that the vow may be acceptably made, and also performed!