Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 4
SECT. IV. The Covenant, Genesis 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. was a mixt Covenant.
BUt afore …e comes to prove it, he brings in an objection, Gods Covenant with Abraham, was not a pure Gospel-Covenant, as appears, say they, by his promising Abraham temporal things, Gen. 17.8. therefore we may not argue from thence to the Covenant of Grace.
It is true, both in my Exercitation, and in my Examen, Part 3. Sect. 2. and else where, I deny the Covenant made with Ahraham, Gen. 17. to be a pure Gospel-Covenant, and aver it to be mixt, and shew how it is mixt, to wit, of promises not belonging to every one with whom the New Covenant of the Gospel is made, but respecting peculiarly Abrahams house, and the policy of Israel, and that the promises Evangelical are delivered, Gen. 17. in words expressing proper benefits to Abraham and his natural seed, though in the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost, Evangelical promises were meant, and therefore it may be well doubted, whether that Covenant may be termed simply Evangelical: Yea the Scripture where it speaks of this Covenant, often mentions no other promise, but of the Land of Canaan, as Exod. 6.4. Psal. 105.8, 9, 10, 11. 1 Chron. 16.17, 18. Act. 7.5. Where Stephen mentions Gods promise to Abraham, he mentions that of the land of Canaan; and vers. 8. calls the promise of Canaan, the Covenant of Circumsion. Wherefore Cameron in his Thescs of the threefold Covenant of God, Thesi. 78. saith,Mr. Gatakers Annot. on Jer. 31.30. The former Covenant comprehended, together with those spiritual promises, which yet were the principal part of it, many temporal blessings, as the possession of the land of Canaan, and multiplicity of issue, and outward prosperity, Gen. 15.5, 7, 18. & 17.2, 7, 8. Psal. 105.8. Deut. 28.1, 19. Whereas this later runneth wholly upon the Spiritual and Celestial blessings, Rom. 3.24, 25. & 5.1, 2. Eph. 1.3. Heb. 8.6. That Circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations, sealed the earthly promise, it signified sanctification secondarily. Whence I inferre, that when Paedobaptists speak of Circumcision as if it were a Seal of the Covenant of Grace onelyonly, and from it gather Rules and Conclusions concerning the Ordinance of Baptism, in the New Testament, as if the Reason of Circumcising Infants were from nothing proper to the policy or Nation of Israel, but onelyonly out of the respect it had to the promise of Evangelical grace, they do but mislead the people, and speak their own conceits, and not the Language and minde of the Scripture.
To this Master Drew saith, I answer, The Scripture no where calls that Covenant a mixt Covenant, but on the contrary, notwithstanding any civil promises of temporal things, it is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be; the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, Gal. 3.17. which I think is enough to make it a pure Gospel-Covenant. Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant, but that of Grace: outward things as appurtenances altered not the Covenant, nor made it mixt at all, unless that Covenant we live under be mixt too, for outward things are promised to believers under the Gospel, Rom. 8.32. 1 Cor. 3.22, 23. 1 Tim. 4.8. Besides, this Covenant with Abraham is called a Covenant of justification, Rom. 4.2, 3. of Grace, vers. 4. of Faith, vers. 13. and I am perswaded, that Abraham had not been called the Father of the Faithful, if Believers had stood in a different Covenant towards God, with that in which he stood; as for differences in the manner of administring and dispensing that Covenant, they matter nothing, if there be no difference in those Evangelical promises, which make it a Covenant of Grace; but no man is able to make this appear; therefore this exception weakens not our proposition, nor the Argument at all.
I reply, if it be true which I allege, that the Covenant, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, was a mixt Covenant, as I shew in the places forecited, and that Circumcision injoyned, vers. 9, 10, 11, 12. had reference as a signe or token not onelyonly to that promise (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed) but also to the promises which peculiarly respect the house of Abraham, and policy of Israel, which cannot be understood to belong to every believer, as vers. 7. to be the father of many Nations, to be exceeding fruitful, that God would make Nations of him, and Kings should come out of him; that he would give unto him and his seed after him the Land wherein he was a stranger, all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession; Then it follows, that the reason of the command, vers. 9, 10, 11, 12. is not onelyonly from the promise vers. 7. but those other promises, and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another, as well as that vers. 7. and then if the argument be good, The Infants of those to whom the promise is, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, are to have the first seal, because of the dependence there, it will follow, he to whom God gives the Land of Canaan for a possession, he out of whom God brings Nations and Kings, he is likewise to be sealed with the first seal, sith there is as much dependence in the text, of Circumcision on the promises vers. 4, 5, 6, 8. as on the promise vers. 7. so that if this reasoning of Master Drew's be good; for my part I see not but that the Turk, possessour now of Canaan, may be intitled to Baptism by the same reason he produceth for Infant-baptism of Believers children.
Now whereas he saith, That the Scripture no where calls that Covenant mixt, I grant it, and it is true also, that it no where calls it a pure Gospel-covenant, nor Circumcision a seal of the Covenant of Grace, or the first seal; yet, the thing I mean by it being proved out of those texts forenamed, there is no reason to except against the expression.
Nor can it be true, that the Covenant Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be, if the promises are of sundry things not assured to Believers in the Covenant of the New Testament. Which is most evident: for no Believer hath now a promise of the possession of the Land of Canaan, but rather an assurance of persecution, no promise of such greatness, as to be the progenitor of Kings and Nations, but rather of obscurity and debasement.
A pure Gospel Covenant containing many promises, is rare in the Old Testament, except where he foretells us he would make a new Covenant. God made a Covenant with David, Psal. 89.3, &c. Nor do I deny it was a Gospel-covenant, yet therein are promises peculiar to his house, as vers. 30, 31, 32, 33. yea the promises which were Evangelical in the furthest intent and aim, were domestical in the first place, and the most open expressions. Nor is it a whit against the mixture of Abrahams Covenant which I avouch, That the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, Gal. 3.17. And that Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant but that of Grace. For the word is in Greek foreign rendered in Christum by the Tigurines, into or unto Christ, or as Master Dickson renders it, respectu Christi, in respect of Christ, That is, as in his paraphrase, with relation to Christ, or as Diodati, whose foundation was Christ, not as the Testator, but as the party concerning whom the Testament was made, or as the executor by whom the things promised were performed. Now in either of these senses it is easie to conceive how the pro…ise might be in Christ, or unto Christ, and yet the Covenant not a pure Gospel-covenant. He might be either a Legatee, or an Executor in that Testament which contained not onelyonly Evangelical blessings of justification, &c. which were common to all true Believers, but also outward blessings, which few or no Believers had in the New Testament. I see not any inconvenience in it to say that the Testament was confirmed in Christ, in respect of the promises, so far as they were Evangelical, and yet to say there were promises in the same which were not such, nor they … in Christ, though in the same Covenant.
And whereas he calls outward things appertenances, I conceive the promises of outward things, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 8. are as truely parts of the Covenant as the promise, vers. 7. Yea in the p…ces foretold, the promise of Canaan hath the title of the covenant. And those promises, though they alter not the Covenant, yet they must needs make a mixture in the covenant, for by reason of them the covenant contains promises of diverse sorts.
And for that which is said, That now under the Gospel, outward things are promised to Believers: I grant it, yet it is nothing against the mixture in the covenant, Gen. 17. which I assert: For those promises are not the p…omise of Canaan, to be progenitor of Kings, which are not made to every Believer, but of a different sort. Whence I infer, that there was a mixture in the covenant, Gen. 17. which is not in the New Testament, and the reference of circumcision to that covenant, might be and was in respect of those domestick promises, as well or more then of the Gospel promises as such. Nor do I finde Rom. 4.2, 3, 4. any mention of the covenant, Gen, 17. much less is it there, which Master Drew saith, That it is called the covenant of justification and of grace. It is true Abraham is there said to be justified by Grace, yet no mention of the covenant, and the text there cited, is Gen. 15.6. not Gen. 17. And though Rom. 4.13. it be said, The promise to Abraham and his seed, that he should be heir of the world, was not by the law, but by the righteousness of saith; yet it neither calls the covenant the covenant of faith; nor doth it assert that the covenant, Gen. 17. contained no other promise but what was Evangelical or common to all Believers of Jews and Gentiles. Neither do I, nor need I say, that Believers stood in a different covenant towards God with that in which Abraham stood. I am perswaded as Mr. Drew, that Believers now are justified by the same covenant that Abraham was justified by, to wit, that in Abraham all Nations of the earth should be blessed, Gal. 3.8. & Rom. 4.13. A father of many Nations have I made thee. I onelyonly say, that the covenant Gen. 17. contained promises which were proper to the Jews, together with the Evangelical promises. And to make those promises no parts of the covenant, but onelyonly the manner of administring and dispensing the covenant, because the Holy Ghost alludes to them as figures and types of spiritual things, is not right. For even the promise, vers. 7. was in the like manner typical, Abrahams natural seed inheriting, shadowing the Israel of God, true believers, and then by this reason the promise, I will be a God to thy seed, should be no part of the covenant, but belong to the manner of administring and dispensing the Covenant.
The like may be said of the rest of the promises, they all shadowed out spiritual benefits, and so there should be no parts of the covenant, and consequently no covenant at all, but a manner of administring and dispensing of I know not what covenant. But the speeches vers. 4, 5, 6, 8. do contain promises, as well as vers. 7. and either I am uncapable to understand the meaning of terms, or else promises are parts, yea substantial or essential, or integral parts of a covenant, the description of a covenant, being a collective of promises, and the Scripture, what Gal. 3.15. is called a covenant or testament, calls vers. 16. promises. And therefore ro make the promises Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 8. not to be parts, but appurtenances to the covenant, or the manner of administring and dispensing it, hath in my apprehension, neither truth nor congruous sense. Now if they be part of the covenant, as hath been made appear, and circumcision had its appointment by reason of them, as well as the promise, vers. 7. it matters much to weaken Master Drew's proposition and argument, though there be no difference in those Evangelical promises which make it a covenant of grace between Abrahams covenant and ours. Master Drew proceeds.