The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 35
CHAP. XXXV.
The Old Covenant was a pure Goſpel-Covenant, and not mixt.
2ly. OThers that riſe not ſo high againſt the firſt covenant, as to make it a covenant meerly carnal; yet loth to yield to ſo much truth, as to confeſſe it to be a covenant Evangelical; have found out a middle way; which yet they think may carry on their intereſts, and ſay, It is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixt; and therein differs from the ſecond covenant, which is wholly Evangelical: In which they ſeem to go, but one half of the way with their old friends the Jeſuites, from whom in this controverſie they ſo much glean, yet, far enough to ſit down with Anabaptiſts, to caſt Infants (as they hope) out of the covenant and Church-memberſhip, and ſo exclude them from Baptiſme. Here I ſhall undertake to make good theſe foure particulars.
1. That this expreſſion of theirs is very untoward;That expreſſion of a mixt Covenant under which the Fathers are ſuppoſed to live untoward. and ſuch that will bear no fair ſenſe, without the utter overthrow, even of that difference between the Covenants, which they would build on this diſtinction.
2. That the proof that they bring of this mixture of the firſt covenant is very weak, and not at all cogent.
3. That they are not conſtant to themſelves, but give and take, and know not what to determine.
4. In caſe all were granted, yet they know not how to bring any thing home, of all that they ſay, to ſerve their own intereſts. Their expreſſions, I ſay, are untoward, in denying purity of Goſpel in the firſt Covenant, and affirming a mixture. That which is not pure, but mixt, is a compound of pure and impure; ſuch that hath ſome ingredients, ſuch as they ought, and others ſuch that make all adulterate: As ſilver mingled with dreſſe, or wine with water, Iſa. 1. 22. The falſe teachers (Saint Pauls adverſaries) preach ſuch a mixt Goſpel, when they urged with ſuch vehemency a mixture of works, which cauſed the Apoſtle to ſtand in ſuch feare of the Corinthians, leſt they ſhould be drawn away from the ſimplicity that is in Chriſt, 2 Cor. 11. 2. They do not beleeve that the Goſpel which Paul tells us was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3. 8. was any ſuch impure Goſpel, this ſure is not their meaning, they dare not ſay that Abraham was under any ſuch deluſion; What then can be the meaning, but that he had promiſes, not only of bliſſe, and in reference to eternal ſalvation; but alſo promiſes of earthly concernment, as that of the land of Canaan, and his plantation there? The Covenant takes its denomination from the Promiſes, (ſaith one of them) but the Promiſes are mixt; ſome Evangelical, belonging to thoſe to whom the Goſpel belongeth; ſome are domeſtick or civil Promiſes, ſpecially reſpecting the houſe of Abraham, and the policie of Iſrael. To this I readily agree, and then the diſtinction falls to nothing; Seeing in Goſpel times, in New Teſtament-dayes, this will denominate a not pure, but mixt Goſpel as well as in thoſe times, we our ſelves are under ſuch a Goſpel as well as the Jewes. I know not how we could pray in faith, Give us this day our daily bread; in caſe we were without a promiſe of theſe things, or how man could live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, in caſe we had no word from God. The Apoſtle tells us, Godlineſſe hath the promiſe of this life, and that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4. 8. It would trouble many a perplexed man in caſe he could not make good, that thoſe words, Verily thou ſhalt be fed, Pſal. 37. 3. did not at all belong to him. There is no believing man in any relation, but he hath Goſpel-Promiſes in concernment to that relation, as appears in that ſpeech of Pauls encouragement of ſervants, Epeſ 6. 8. Knowing whatſoever for good thing any man doth, the ſame ſhall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. It It were ill with all ſorts, had not they their domeſtick relation-promiſes, which theſe ſpeak of, as making a mixture.
2. As their expreſſions are untoward, ſo taking them at the beſt, their proof is weak, That the Covenant takes its denomination from the Promiſes; but the Promiſes are mixt, ſay theſe men. The moſt eminent Promiſes, which contain the marrow of all, give the denomination, and not ſuch that are annext as Appendants to them. The Promiſe of the land of Canaan, is an appendant to the great covenant made of God with Abraham, as Chamier with good warrant from the text, Gen. 17. 7, 8. calls it, lib. de baptiſ. cap. ſec. The Covenant being made of God, to be the God of Abraham and his ſeed, which might have been made good whereſoever they had inhabited or ſojourned, the promiſe of Canaan is over and above added to it. The reaſon given in by one for his diſlike of Chamiers expreſſion, calling it an Appendix to the covenant, is little to purpoſe, Pſal. 105. 10, 11. The gift of the land of Canaan is called a Covenant, ſaith he, and therefore is not an appendant to it. By the ſame reaſon Circumciſion muſt be the Covenant, and not a Seal appendant to it; ſeeing Circumciſion is called a Covenant, Gen. 17. 10. they are not ignorant of theſe Scripture-metonymies.
3. As the proof is weak, to make the Covenant not a pure Goſpel-covenant, but mixt; ſo, they are not conſtant to themſelves, pointing that out, which makes pure Goſpel, Gen. 17. 5. Gen. 15. 5. Gen. 12. 3. Gen. 18. 18. illuſtrated by ſome New Teſtament-Scriptures, Rom. 4. 17, 18. Gal. 3. 8, 9, 16. Acts 3. 25. one obſerves, it is to be noted, that thoſe Promiſes, which were Evangelical, according to the more inward ſenſe of the Holy Ghoſt, do point at the priviledges of Abrahams houſe in the outward face of the words, and thereupon raiſes a doubt, whether any covenant made with Abraham be ſimply Evangelical? And ſo he findes out Evangelical-Promiſes in the inwards of that covenant, which is non-Evangelical in the outward face; So Bellarmine, with whom he ſo much (to ſpeak in his own language) ſymbolizeth, finds out ſpiritual Evangelical Promiſes, in that which he concludes to be of another nature; denying that the Promiſe made to Abraham in the letter, was any Promiſe of forgiveneſſe of ſins, but of ſpecial protection and government, and earthly happineſſe; yet confeſſeth that in a myſtical ſenſe they were ſpiritual Promiſes,… quodam ſenſu fuiſſe e…iam … promiſſiones & remiſſionis peec…m ac vita …ternae & ad nos pertinere. both of pardon of ſin, and life eternal, and that they belong to us, Bellar. de Sacr. Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. whereupon Chamier obſerves, That which is promiſed myſtically, God in covenant doth promiſe, but heaven is here promiſed myſtically; therefore in this covenant here is a Promiſe of heaven; ſo the inward, and outward face, will be all Evangelical.
Laſtly, they yet know not how to bring any thing home (were all granted) to ſerve their intereſt, they ſeem to contend that the Evangelical Promiſes are veſted in the perſons of true Belevers. The other which are civil, or domeſtick, ſerving to make up the mixture, were priviledges deſcendable, and traducible to poſterity, and upon this account, circumciſion of the natural ſeed of Abraham came in for confirmation and ſeale of that which alone was civil, domeſtical, and non-Evangelical; and being not conſidered, as a leading Sacrament of the whole Church, as Baptiſme is now, but only of the Jewiſh Church, as ſuch, proper to Abraham and his poſterity, and much differing from Baptiſme, it is no argument that we in Goſpel-times tranſmit any ſuch priviledge to poſterity,Circumciſion was a Seal of ſpiritual mercies of the ſame that Baptiſme ſealeth. or that our ſeed before actual faith, have any title to the covenant. This ſeems to be their meaning, to which we have many things to ſay.
Firſt, that Orthodox Divines, both ancient and moderne have made circumciſion to be of the ſame ſignification and uſe as Baptiſm, and till Anabaptiſts cloſed, they had no adverſaries but Papiſts, who to advance their …pus operatum in the Sacraments of the New Teſtament, will have them, as far to exceed the Old, as heaven doth earth, and the ſubſtance doth the ſhadow; This is obſerved by Chamier Panſtrat. Cathol. Tom. 4. lib. 2. cap. 19. ſect. 58. having reckoned up ſeveral teſtimonies to this purpoſe, he addes,aPlurima ſunt ejuſdem teſtimonia exquibus conſtat perſuaſum olim fuiſſe Chriſtianis, non fuiſſe admodum diverſan circumciſionis rationem & Baptiſmi. Cur bodie mutatum▪ & quidem in Papiſtarum gratiam & …idem ad arbitrium Jeſunarum. There are very many like teſtimonies, by which it appears, that Chriſtians were heretofore perſwaded that there was no ſo great difference between circumciſion and baptiſme; and why, ſaith he, is it now changed? Truly in favour of the Papiſts, and according to the pleaſure of the Ieſuites.
Secondly, if circumciſion have reſpect to thoſe Promiſes that were no Goſpel mercies, but civil, domeſtical, reſtrained to Jews, and not appertaining to Chriſtians; How could it be a diſtinction between Jew and Gentile reſpective to Religion? it might have made a civil diſtinction, and the want of it have been an evidence againſt other Nations, that they had been none of the multiplied ſeed of Abraham according to the fleſh, and that their intereſt had not been in Canaan. But how it could have concluded them to have been without Chriſt, ſtrangers from the covenant of Promiſe, having no hope, and without God in the world, as the Apoſtle determines upon their uncircumciſion, Eph. 2. 11, 12. cannot be imagined.
Thirdly, How is it that we hear ſo much in Scripture of circumciſion of the heare Jer. 4. 4. Rom. 2. 28. Deut. 10. 16. Deut. 30. 6. Ezek. 44. 9. and the circumciſed to have this character, that they worſhip God in Spirit and in Truth; if circumciſion have not relation to Promiſes that are ſpiritual? When complaint is made of uncircumciſion in heart, is it not (as it is ordinarily underſtood) that their …ndes were carnal, and not taken up with ſpiritual things or is it that they were not fixt on their civil and domeſtick intereſts? when they are ſaid to be uncircumciſed, as Ier. 6. 10. is it not upon that account that Ieremy there gives, that they could not hear the Word of the Lord, that they had no delight in it, that it was a reproach to them; or is it becauſe they could not ſuck in Promiſes of meer civil, home, and ſelf-intereſts? So it muſt need be if circumciſion be ſuch a Seale, when they emproved it for the uſe to which it was inſtituted, they kept the right uſe of it, and were not worthy of reproof concerning it.
Fourthly, what Sacraments had the Jewes of any Goſpel-relation, if this reſpected alone their civil intereſts? There might be more ſpoken to that of the Paſſeover, to carry it to peculiar National mercies, than to this of circumciſion. See Exod. 13. 14, 15. And it ſhall be when thy ſinne asketh thee in time to come, ſaying, What is this? that thou ſhalt ſay unto him, By ſtrength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the … of B…ndage. And it came to paſſe when Pharao… would hardly let us go, that the Lord ſlew all the firſt-borne in the land of Egypt; both the firſt borne of man, and the firſt-borne of beaſts; therefore I ſacrifice unto the Lord all that openeth the Matrix, being males; but all the firſt-born of my children, I redeem. I am ſure far leſſe can be ſaid to carry it to that which is ſpiritual, and of common concernment both to Jews and Chriſtians.
Fifthly, how is it that the Apoſtle giving a definition of circumciſion, refers it to nothing national, civil, or domeſtick; but only to that which is purely ſpiritual, Speaking of Abraham, he ſaith; He received the ſigne of Circumciſion, a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumciſed? The righteouſneſſe of faith, is a Promiſe purely Evangelical, Romanes 3. 22. Romanes 3. 30. Romanes 10. 3. Philippians 3. 8. and this Circumciſion ſealed, the ſelf-ſame thing that our Sacraments ſeale; So that as their extraordinary Sacraments are expreſſely affirmed to be the ſame with ours, by the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 10. 3 They eat all the ſame ſpiritual meat, and did all drink the ſame ſpiritual drink, ſo are their appointed eſtabliſhed Sacraments, Circumciſion, and the Paſſeover. Will they with Bellarmine, lib. 1. cap. 17. de Sacramentis in genere, deny, that Circumciſion was an univerſal ſeale of faith, and affirme that it was only an individual ſeale of the individual faith of Abraham, that ſo all may fall to the ground which is ſpoken from that Text of the uſe of Circumciſion to the Jewes, all that is there ſpoken, having reference only to Abraham in perſon; I anſwer, 1. This Popiſh ſhift is flat againſt the Apoſtle; He brings it as an argument for proof of the way, of our Juſtification to be by faith alone, which were a meer inconſequence, if proper to him, and not belonging to others. 2. It is flat againſt Moſes, who referres this of circumciſion to the covenant there mentioned, Geneſis 17. 7. But the covenant is not with Abraham alone, but his ſeed alſo together with him, as is there plaine. 3. It carries ſeveral abſurdities with it. (1.) By this meanes Gods covenant with Abraham in perſon, and his covenant with Chriſtians in Goſpel-times is indeed the ſame; but his covenant with all beleevers in the Old Teſtament and with beleevers in the New Teſtament are eſſentially differing. Abraham, and New-Teſtament beleevers, are under one covenant; Old Teſtament-beleevers are under a covenant eſſentially differing. (2.) Then Zachary, Luke 1. 72. interpreting the covenant made with Abraham of ſalvation by Chriſt ſhould have limited it to Abraham, and not extended it to the Fathers; But we ſee all are there, under one and the ſame mercy; our father Abraham; and all that followed him, even all that came out of Egypt, and were for Canaan, are called Fathers, 1 Corinth. 10. 1. All our Fathers were under the cloud, and all paſſed through the ſea, and all theſe had the ſame mercy in promiſe with Abraham. To performe the mercy (ſaith Zachary) promiſed to our Fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the Oath which he ſware to our father Abraham. (3.) Then Abraham himſelf in perſon, and Chriſtians in the dayes of the Goſpel are intereſſed in Chriſt, and all other beleevers in the Law were without Chriſt; but the contrary is plain. Moſes eſteemed the reproach of Chriſt greater than the treaſures of Egypt, Heb. 11. 26. (4.) Then Abraham and Chriſtians have from God the Kingdom of heaven and ſalvation; but the reſt of the Jewes have nothing better than the land of Canaan. They have no more than the covenant reaches unto, and the ſeale of the covenant did confirm; But the covenant reaches only temporal Promiſes, as the land of Canaan, in their opinion. Theſe evaſions Bellarmine is put to, and Anabaptiſts are glad to follow, both of them willing to ſay any thing rather than confeſſe a truth.
But they ſay, Object. This was a ſeale to Abraham, of the righteouſneſſe of faith, that he might be the Father of all them that beleeve, &c. But only Abraham is ſuch a father.Sol. Anſw. This priority of receiving the Faith, and the ſigne and ſeale, is proper to Abraham; each one could not be firſt, but father and childe, both received it, and both had the righteouſneſſe of Faith ſealed in it. If Bellarmine pleaſe ſo well, I ſhall referre to Bellarmines oppoſites, Chamier de Sacramentis in genere, lib. 2. cap. 9. Ameſ. Tom. 3. more eſpecially Whittaker praelectiones de Sacramentis page 22 23. H…c deſperationis, &c. So that which way ſoever they take truth faſtens upon them, and the friends of truth flie in their face; and all to make it appear that a pure Goſpel was preach't to Abraham, and that the firſt covenant was not mixt, but truly Evangelical.