The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
The outward, and not the inward Covenant, is a covenant, properly ſo called.
WHereas there is an uſual diſtinction (almoſt in all that write or ſpeak of the covenant) of a double covenant between God and his people, one external, and the other internal; one paſſing outwardly, and the other inwardly kept and obſerved. Or (as Dr. Preſton expreſſeth it) a ſingle and double covenant, which I ſhall forbear to examine, ſeeing I know there is a right meaning; though I much doubt whether there be in the Reader a right underſtanding. My ſecond Propoſition ſhall be, that it is the external Covenant, not the inward, that exactly and properly is called by the name of a Covenant: and to which priviledges of Ordinances and title to Sacraments are annext. This Propoſition, occaſioned by this received diſtinction, is, of three heads, which in caſe the Reader pleaſe, he may ſubdivide into three diſtinct Poſitions.
1. The outward, The outward and not the inward Covenant, is properly a Covenant.and not the inward Covenant, is, moſt exactly and properly called by the name of a Covenant, which I thus make good: 1. That covenant to which the definition of a covenant doth belong, hath exactly and properly the nature of a covenant, this none can deny: The definition ſets out the nature of the thing defined; But the definition moſt actly belongs, to the outward covenant, not to the inward; This is plain; An agreement of parties, on tearms and Propoſitions is the definition of a covenant: Now the outward covenant, is an agreement on tearmes and Propoſitions, as I have abundantly declared, in that covenant God engages himſelf to man for his happineſſe; and man engages to faith and obedience. The inward covenant hath no tearmes or Propoſitions at all, for man to make good, upon account of his covenanting: ſeeing the performance of the conditions of the Scripture-covenant, is his very entrance into the inward covenant. He that believes and repents keeps covenant, nothing more is expected of God, or promiſed by man: But beleeving, and repenting, is the firſt cloſing with God in covenant, according to them that ſpeak of an inward covenant. 2. A covenant to perform conditions is a covenant properly ſo called; But the outward covenant, not the inward, is a covenant to perform conditions, This is plain: The conditions in the inward covenant, are the covenant. 3. That which confounds entrance into covenant, and keeping of covenant, is no covenant properly ſo called; In a covenant properly ſo called theſe are diſtinct: But the inward covenant confounds entrance into covenant and keeping of covenant, and therefore in exact propriety of ſpeech is no covenant.
2. The outward, The outward Covenant is moſt uſually in Scripture called by the name of Covenant.and not the inward Covenant, is, moſt uſually in Scripture, called by the name of a Covenant; which is plaine, in that, they that have no part, or portion, in the inward covenant, are, yet ſtill ſpoken of, in Scripture, as people in covenant; God calls all Iſrael his people, and that upon covenant termes; Deut. 29. 10▪ 11, 12, 13. Al of thoſe, that thus covenanted with God, were not in the inward covenant. This people at their worſt, and the wroſt among them, are called the people of God, as by thoſe that were ſtrangers to this covenant: Theſe are the people of the Lord, (ſay the men of Babylon) and are gone forth out of his land, Ezek. 36. 20. ſo, alſo by the Lord himſelf Jer. 2. 32. Can a Bride forget her attire? yet my people have forgotten me dayes without number. How often doth God own Iſrael as his people, when he yet brands them as a rebellious, revolting, ſtiff-necked, treacherous, and adulterous people. They that forſake the covenant of God, that break covenant, that deale falſely in it, upon whom God brings a ſword to avenge the quarrel of his covenant, are in the outward, not in the inward covenant: But ſuch there be among Gods covenant-people, as he frequently complaines, that break covenant, &c. Theſe, are not then, in his inward, but outward covenant.
The great objection is, (and all that carries colour againſt this) Jer. 31. 32, 33. where the Lord differencing the Old and New covenant, ſaith, This is the covenant that I will make with the houſe of Iſrael, and the houſe of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my Covenant they brake, although I was an husband to them, ſaith the Lord: But this ſhall be my Covenant that I will make with the houſe of Iſrael, After thoſe dayes, ſaith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they ſhall be my people. That is alone the inward covenant, and the elect regenerate are alone within it. The inward covenant then is called in Scripture a covenant, and is in exact propriety of ſpeech a covenant.
For anſwer, I ſhall have further occaſion to ſpeak to this Text. In this place I ſhall only put ſome Queries.
1. Whether thoſe that carry this Text to an unconditionate covenant, and reſtrain it alone to that which they call the inward covenant, do not make the covenant in the time of the Law, and that in Goſpel-times eſſentially different, and conſequently, either make two covenants of grace, diſtinct, in kind; or thruſt all that were under the Old covenant, out of all hope of ſalvation, contrary to all Interpreters, who make theſe covenants, one in ſubſtance? See the laſt larger Annotations on the words.
2. Whether ſuch an Interpretation, do not utterly contradict, New-Teſtament-light, which holds out the New covenant in like latitude with the former, in which many are called, but few are choſen; and where conditions are as explicitely, and fully required, as in Old Teſtament diſpenſations?
3. Whether, when Scripture ſpeaks of things, in oppoſition to mens erroneous conceits, (for a further Explanation of them, and rectifying mens judgements in them) it do uſually lay down a full, compleat, and formal definition, to which nothing is to be added? or whether it doth not, uſually ſupply that, in which men through miſtake were defective and ſhort? And whether thoſe Texts, Eſay 58 6, 7. Is not this the faſt that I have choſen, to looſe the bands of wickedneſſe, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppreſſed go free, and that ye break every yoak? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are caſt out into thy houſe, when thou ſeeſt the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thy ſelf from thy own fleſh? Jer. 22. 15, 16. Did not thy father eat and drink, and do juſtice and judgement, and then it was well with him? He judged the cauſe of the poor and needy, and then it was well with him; was not this to know me, ſaith the Lord? Jam. 1. 27. Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to viſit the fatherleſſe and widows in their affliction, and to keep himſelf unſpotted from the world, are not parallel to this text in their way of delivery. And in caſe we cannot finde a full definition of a religious Faſt in that of Eſay, nor the whole of it that makes up ſaving knowledge in that of Jeremy, nor the whole that makes Religion compleat in that of James; why is it that we ſhould earneſtly contend, that the full nature of a covenant is in this text expreſt, being fully parallel in the way of delivery to thoſe other texts.Men enjoy priviledges of ordinances and intereſt in Sacraments upon account of the outward Covenant.
Thirdly, it is upon the account of the outward Covenant, and not the inward, that men enjoy priviledges of Ordinances, and intereſt in Sacraments; Men that are ſo far honoured as to enjoy an outward covenant, have juſt title to theſe priviledges. It is in behalf of the Jew outwardly that the Apoſtle having ſo decryed his condition, reſpective to the approbation of God, puts the queſtion, What advantage hath the Jew? what profit is there of Circumciſion? Rom. 3. 1. The Jew and Circumciſion are there one; A Jew outwardly, and circumciſion in the fleſh, go there in equal latitude. He that by nature is a Jew (as Paul ſpeaks, Gal. 2. 15.) is of the circumciſion; And to theſe, the Oracles of God are committed; The inſtruments, deeds and evidences of the covenants, ſay the laſt Annotations. It was the priviledge of Iſrael, Pſal. 147. 19. Rom. 3. and then, the priviledg of no other Nation; Now it is, the priviledg of all, ingraffed in their ſtead. This is confeſt, even by a great part of thoſe, that underſtand the inward covenant, (or covenant keeping to acceptation,) almoſt whenſoever they mention a covenant, in that, they baptize infants, upon covenant grounds, even all their infants that make a covenant profeſſion, and that upon juſt warranty. It is further plaine in reaſon, The outward covenant muſt have priviledges ſuitable to it ſelf, otherwiſe there is no manner of benefit, or advantage of it. This priviledge of the Sacrament is ſuitable, being outward, as the covenant is outward; This is elſewhere ſpoken to at large, and therefore I ſhall hear forbear.
I have indeed been challenged for this diſtinction of an outward and inward covenant, as though I had been the ſole Authour of it, when all know that it is a diſtinction, that of a long time, among Divines hath been in common uſe; and in caſe it had not been commonly received, I ſhould have forborne the uſe of it. As, I heard Mr. Ball, once in diſcourſe, ſay, that he denyed any ſuch diſtinction, of an outward, and an inward call to the Miniſtery, all calling being external, unleſſe the man called were a Prophet, that which men terme, an inward call, being onelyonly qualifications fitting for the work: So that I deny, in exact propriety of ſpeech, the inward covenant, is any covenant, but the anſwer of the ſoul, unto that which the covenant requires. And whereas it is ſaid of me by way of conjecture. It is probable that he thus diſtributes them, from the bleſſings promiſed, whereof ſome are inward, and ſome outward; for though he explain not himſelf fully, yet I know no other ſenſe that it will bear. To this I ſay, that I thus diſtinguiſh them, to apply my ſelf to the Readers underſtanding, that hath been accumſtomed, ſo to call them; and further I ſay, that men, that barely covenant, and keep not covenant, have onelyonly priviledges that are outward, They are viſible Church-members, and they have viſible Church-priviledges, and thoſe, who anſwer to covenant engagements (which uſually is called the inward covenant) have priviledges both outward and inward. A Jew outwardly had outward priviledges, A Jew inwardly (that is, he that anſwered to his outward profeſſion, that worſhipped God in ſpirit) hath both thoſe that were outward and inward. It is further ſaid, It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no ſeal; for it is a Covenant de ſigillis conferendis; If therefore it have a ſeal, it is either the ſame which is promiſed, or ſome other. What this Authour means, when he ſays, it is a covenant de ſigillis conferendis, I am to learn; If he mean that the ſeal follows the covenant, and is put to, after the covenant, ſo it is in all covenants whatſoever. He ſayes, they no where tell us, what is the ſeal of their outward covenant; me thinks, we had no need to tell, what the ſeal of that covenant was, that the Jew entered; was it not circumciſion? and did there not another follow, viz. the Paſſeover? Now I tell him that Circumciſion and the Paſſeover, were, and Baptiſme and the Lords Supper, are, ſeales of this covenant. The Nation of the Jewes were in covenant, as our Authour (though he would, yet) muſt not deny; They were not all in the inward covenant; and yet they had theſe ſeales. He ſays, we are bound to give the ſeals to ſuch, Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward profeſſion of ſaving faith, is larger then election, and makes men ſuch, whom we are bound to baptize; And ſuch we ſay have right to them. And to help him a little further. Thoſe men, that he ſayes the Church muſt baptize, though without right, we ſay, are truely in covenant, and have right; when he knows, what a childe he is to baptize, he knows, who we ſay, are in covenant, and have covenant-right to baptiſme; ſo that a ſecond covenant, of which he ſpeaks, to give right to a firſt, is a ſtrange fancy. But ſeeing I am no better underſtood, I ſhall endeavour (if it may be) to clear my meaning in certain poſitions which here follow.