Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 42
SECT. XLII. Animadversions on Sect. 7: of the same chap. shewing that the body of the Jewish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external Interest therein.
IN the seaventh Sect. Mr. C▪ sets down this conclusion, that the body of the Jewish Church was under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church Covenant, in respect of external interest therein. In which as almost in all his writings about this point, there's much ambiguity. He neither sheweth whom he means by the body of the Jewish Church whether every Jew or some only, and if some who those are whether the most part or the chiefest; nor what he means by the Covenant of grace, what promise they are under nor how they are under it: Nor doth explain what he means by Church-Covenant or investing with it, nor what is the external interest therein which they have, nor how they are under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church covant in respect of external interest therein, and not with respect to internal interest. For my part so far as I am able to discern his meaning this is it, that all the Jews from the promise made to Abraham I wil be thy God & the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7. have this privilege; that all should be accounted members of that Church and the males circumcised. But I know not how it comes to pass, this author either affects, or it is his vein to use ambiguous expressions when he might use plain, and to talk in a new phrases hard to be understood of the Covenant, seal, Church-seed &c. And not to explain his conclusions afore he proves, nor to shew how he proves out of the text he allegeth, but leaves his reader to fish out his meaning as he can from scattered passages. However I shall view his dictates.
He denies that the Jewes had only a Covenant of grace among them which was made to some choice ones among them. And yet the Apostle directly teacheth that the promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed as a promise of saving grace was not made to all Israel, but the elect only Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. And clear it is that the Covenant made with the body of the Israelites at mount Sinai was the Covenant of workes, as is plain from Rom. 10.5. 2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 9. Gal. 3.12, and 4.24, 25. Heb. 8▪ 9, 10, 11. &c. and 12.18, 19, 21.
It is false that he hath any where proved that the external & Ecclesiastical right to circumcision came from the circumcised persons interest in the Covenant of grace invested with Church-covenant. Neither did God appoint all them to receive the visible seal thereof meaning Circumcision: for he did not appoint the females or males under eight dayes old to be circumcised though in the Covenant as well as the infant male of eight dayes old.
He bids us see Gen. 17.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. and 26.3, 4, 5. and 28.12, 13, 14. But I can see none of his dictates in those texts. I find there that God made a covenant with Abraham. after renewed it to Isaac and Jacob assuring to their inheriting posterity the inheritance of Canaan, the multiplying of them &c. that God injoyned circumcision to them for a memorial and assurance of that covenant. This covenant as, containing the promise of Canaan &c. to the natural postority of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ▪ is expressed to be by reason of Abrahams obedience Gen. 26.5. circumcision is required Gen. 17. and Exod. 19. Levit. 26. obedience is required to the laws given by Moses. They that term the Covenant Exo. 19. a covenant of works speak sutable to the Apostle Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.12. yet I deny not but in Covert expressions Gen. 17. and elswere God promised Christ to the elect whether Jews or Gentiles and blessing that is righteousness and eternal life by faith in him Gal. 3.16. &c. which Abraham and all the ancient Saints expressed by faith Iohn. 8.56. and elswhere. Now it is not true, that those covenant Fathers Abraham, Isaac and Iacob recieved the covenant Evaneglical in referrence to their natural children: nor in respect of justification before God and external life had a contrary covenant of life and death, grace and workes made with them. For though the Jews succeding were under the whole law of Moses because of transgressions, yet not so as to have life by it Gal. 3.17, 18, 19, 21. no… is it any absurdity to say that the legal justitiaries who rested in the law were at one and the same time externally under the blessing of God in respect of their outward prosperity in Canaan, and yet internally under the curse of God Gal. 3.10. as seeking righteousness before God by their observing the Law.
It is, no where said that any other than Abraham is the root or first fruits to his seed Rom 11.16. nor they termed his seed, lump, branches any other way than either naturally or spiritually, that is by natural generation or by following his faith by vertue of election Rom. 11 16. doth not say, Abraham was the root as recieving the covenant for the branches, but as propagating the branches. Nor need we say that he either received a covenant o… works alone, in referrence to them all elected, or that he recieved the Covenant of grace with Ecclesiastical respect to them all. The plain doctrine of the Scripture is set down above, Mr. C's. dictates are meer phantasms without Scripture.
The substance of the Covenan… is a novel expression, and ambiguous. I deny not the covenant Gen. 17. to be evangelical. yet I concieve it not purely such, but as I say in my Exercit. pag. 2. mixt, that is containing political and Evangelical promises. I deny not but it was the jews covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God or their ordinances as their privilege, yea and his presence therein until the Messiah came, yet so as that when thay set up Idols the glory of God departed from them Ezek. 11.22, 23. They had also Gods oracles with them, deliverance from Egypt, Christ to be with them in the wilderness: nor do I deny these to have bin by vertue of Christs mediation, yet so far as these were national mercies they were proper to the Jews. What ever be meant by the Covenant & the promise Rom 9 4. they do not agree to Gentile believers. And though I say they were by vertue of Christs mediation, yet I concieve the mediation of Christ was directly for the elect only, for others only obliquely, by consequent, and by accident by reason of the Cohabitation of them on earth. I deny not that filling the Temple with smoake Rev. 15.8. allusively to that which was 1 Kings. 8.10, 11. Isai. 6.1, 2, 3, 4. might restifie the presence of God in the Churches after Christs ascension in a way of mercy to his people, and for their sakes in a way of justice against his and their enemies.
I neither do, nor need say that Canaan was all which God promised the Jews I grant it was promised to them as an everlasting possession Gen. 17.8. But the▪ wrod foreign which the Gr: translate foreign, everlasting, notes freequently but a duration of some age or ages as 2 Chron. 2.4. &c. I deny not but the Patriarchs looked futher than Canaan Heb. 11.9, 10. I deny not that the promise of Canaan was in some sense ratified in Christ, and all other temporal blessings to the elect now 1 Cor. 3.21, 22, 23. that Christ is said to drive out their enemies Exod. 23.20, 21. and that the land they possessed was called Immanuel… land Es…i 8.8 that sundry were excluded from thence for unbelief Heb. 3▪ la… compared with ch. 4 2. though if it be not warily explained Moses and Aaron should be guilty of the Gospel sin of unbelief. If God promised to be a God to them, and as one branch thereof instanceth in giving them Canaan Gen. 17, 7, 8. then the promise of Canaan is a branch of the promise, I wil be a God to them▪ If the Proselyted strangers were to have Abrahams Covenant sealed to them and theirs by circumcision, yet had no lots in Can…an, then persons were to be circumcised to whom the promise belonged not.
I grant that Christ was mediator of the Covenant with Abraham so far as it contains evangelical promises, but deny that it was held out to all the Jews by the sacrafices. For though the typical sacr…fices in respect of purif…ing the flesh did purge the whole Congregation, yet none were pur…ed by Christs blood, but the elect. The high Preist bare the names of the 12. tribes and these represented the elect for whom Christ made intercession, and atonement not every I…raelite Rom. 9.6.
What Mr. C. saith, the Covenant of works holds out pardon or mercy to transgress I do much question. It seems to me that A…ab, though under a Covenant of works yet, had some mercy 1 Kings 21.29. And whether the offence against some of the laws were not in some respect forgiven Levit. 4. to them, who had not faith in Christ, for the sacrafice they offered (which were all offered according to the Law Heb. 10.8.) I do make question. Nor do I think but that by the Covenant of the law in respect of temporal evils there was some pardon by vertue of obedience to legal prescriptions, though some sins as of presumption Num 15. were not, no not to them that were in the covenant of grace, as its li…ely in Eli. his Case 1 Sam. 3.24. see Gethard. Ioh. Voss. resp. ad Judic. Ravensp. c. 22.23. Concerning the Covenant of the Law though it require no faith in Christ, or repentance for justification, yet whether according to the covenant of the law some repentance were not accepted for revoking some temporal evils contrary to the promises of the Covenant with the Iews at mount Sinai may be doubted from Deut. 29 21.25. and 30.2, 3, 8, 9, 10. But of these Chapters. more hereafter in answer to M.B. I grant no salvation but by Christ, but denies that therefore al the Iews best & worst had salvation & external covenant-right: nor though al the Iews best, & worst, had the same dispensers of the covenant mentioned Exod. 19.5.6. & 24.7.8. wil it follow they had all right at least externally in the covenant of grace. For that speaks of the covenant of the law. I grant that the first Covenant of works was made withal in Adam, and that the Covenant Gen. 17. was a particular covenant made with the seed of Abraham, yet the Covenant at mount Sinai was not made with all men, without distinction, but only with Israel, whom he brought out of Egypt ▪ the Jews Ro. 11.20. were broken off from the invisible church of true believers, which was in that nation in their progenitors, as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. &c. I agree with Mr. C. that the Covenant in Horeb Deut. 29.1.2. with Deut. 30.6. had the stipulation of, do this and live, and that the Covenant of the law was differnt from the promise, Gen. 17. that it held out temporals, this externals. How the Gentiles were ingraffed in the room of the Iewes, and not into the externall right & privilege, as by Mr C. imagines is shewed in the Review, ubi supra, That the covenant of Sinai was without mercy, I question as above. And methinks, Ezek. 16.60. proves, That God would remember his covenant with Israel in the dayes of their youth, and shew them mercy for it.
Now the covenant made with Israel in the dayes of its youth, is meant of the covenant made with them when they came out of Egypt: for so the whole description of their pitiful estate (which can be referred to no other than the time of their bondage in Egypt, v. 4, 5, 6, 7. after which was his covenant in the dayes of their youth, v. 8) shews the covenant in the dayes of their youth to have been the covenant at mount Sinai. And so the new Annot. on Ezek. 16, 8, [I sware unto thee] I made a solemn covenant with thee that I would take thee to be my people, Exod. 19 & 24 chapters, Ier. 2.2. Piscat. S▪ hol: in v. 7▪ nudissima] i. e. destituta omni ope pressa, sc: servitute in Aegypto, in v: 8, visitari te per Mosen educendo te ex Aegypto & pangendo tecum fedus atque ita ducendo te in uxorem. Grot. in Ezek▪ 16.5, Populus enim in Aegypto natus est in v. 7. & sic exprimitur miseria Ge…tis in Aegypto in v. 8, & ingressus sum pactum tecum] in Sinai. As for Mr C. his paraphrase on Ezek. 16.60. I will remember my covenant with [Thee] not with this or that particular Jew, but with them all in an Ecclesiastical way, and in respect of externall right: albeit some onelyonly had the saving benefits thereof, as being the select covenanters mainly intended, He therein supposeth that some had the saving benefit of that covenant, which is contrary to Rom. 3 20. That by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in Gods sight. And he supposeth the covenant was made with them all in an Ecclesiasticall way, and in respect of externall right.
Which what it is else but this, that they should all have a right to circumcision, and other Ecclesiastical privileges, I know not: Whereas the covenant was of prosperity in Canaan, continuance of long life, &c. to them upon obedience to the law he gave them by Moses, which notwithstanding they had broken, & were carried captive; yet he would remember his covenant made with that people when he brought them out of Aegypt, and upon the prayers of Daniel, &c. restore them to their own land, Esay 48 1, 2, 3, &c. teacheth the Jewes, that notwithstanding they were evill, yet he would for his names sake, that the heathens might not say that God could not deliver them and bring them from the north, v. 10, 11, 14. The like is, Ezek. 20, 14.
The objection from Rom. 9 7, 8, is ill framed, and as ill answered: 1. it is proved from the Text, that the promise of ful…lling, of which the Apostle speaks, was the promise to Abraham, I will be the God of thy seed, Gen. 17.7. from the terms used Rom. 9.7, 8. which shews that the question was, how Gods word could be true concerning Abrahams seed, if the Jewes were rejected, as the Apostle supposeth, v. …. 2. That the answer is directly this, that this promise was not made to all Israel, or to all the children of the flesh, that is, begotten of Abraham by naturall generation, for it was not promised to Ishmael and Esau, but to the elect as Isaac and Jacob, whence this proposition ariseth, They onelyonly are children of the promise (that is by an usuall Hebra…sm) subjects of the promise to whom it belong, as children of wrath to whom wrath belongs, a son of perdition to whom perdition belongs) who are elect, therefore not all the naturall seed of Abraham. And consequently the promise. Gen. 17.7. belonged not in the Evangelicall sense to the body of the Jewes, even the worst.
Now what doth Mr. C. answer? He distinguisheth between children of the promise, in respect of externall filiation, and externall salvation, and applies it thus, In the later they were not, but if you take it of the Church-seed of the promise, and such as were externally adopted of God, and instated in the covenant of grace as invested with church covenant, so they were children even of the free covenant of blessing in Christ, Acts 3, 25, 26, and had the promise indefinitly, as Deut: 30.6, Jerem: 31.37, Gen. 17.7.
In which answer. 1. he makes a distinction to include them in the promise whom the Apostle excludes from it. 2. Whereas the Apostle determines the elect onelyonly to be included in the promise taken in an Evangelicall sense, Mr. C. includes the elect and non-elect, even the worst of the Iewes whom the Apostle excludes. 3. He abuseth Acts 3.25, 26, Deut: 30.6, by interpreting them as belonging to the worst of the Jewes in respect of externall right, which are express about turning from iniquities and circumcising the heart,
The second objection is better framed, yet not so fully as had been requisite: Mr C. his conclusion is, That the covenant of grace as invested with church-covena…nt, belonged to all the Iewes even the worst of them, in respect of externall right to outward ordinances.
But that is false: For it did not belong to the children after the flesh, to the Jerusalem that then was, which was in bondage with her children, they were to be cast out being of the bond…woman, Gal. 3.23, 25, 28, 30, 31. Ergo, the covenant of grace, &c.
Again, They to whom belongs the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenant in respect of externall right, are children of the promise, Gen. 17.7. But many of the Iewes were not children of the promise, Gen. 17.7. as is proved from Gal. 4.28, 29, Rom. 9 8. Ergo,
Now what doth Mr. C. answer? He tells us, That they are called children of the flesh, not begotten by naturall generation, for then Isaac also should be a child of the flesh. But he is called a child of the flesh, who though born by naturall generation of Abraham, yet sought righteousness by the Law, which was not Ierusalem of old, but Ierusalem which was when Paul wrote this, long after Christs time.
Res. But was not it true also of the Ierusalem that was when Christ was? Did not our Lord Christ deny them to be Abrahams childrē, & told them they were the Divels children, Iohn 8.39, 44. though he granted them to be Abrahams seed by natural generation, v. 37. and yet Mr C calls them Abrahams Church-seed, or Church-seed of the promise instated in the covenant of grace, as invested also with Church-cavenant, children even of that free covenant of blessing in Christ, Acts 3.25, 26, and had the promises indefinitly, as Deut. 30, 6. Jer. 31, 37. Gen. 17.7. &c. beloaging to them, Rom. 9.4. and were children of God, Christs, Matth. 15, 26. I deny not but Iohn 1.12. those that rejected Christ are called Christs own, but not because of their right in him, or promise to them to own them as in the covenant of grace, but as they were ingaged to him in respect of his deliverance out of Aegypt, and other mercies to them, and their nearness of consanguinity to him, as Paul calls Israel his flesh, Rom. 11.14, Christ being from them according to the flesh, Rom. 9, 5. But to say that even then they were in the covenant of grace when they received not Christ, is to conceive they were in the Olive when they were broken off. And yet I deny not that they had in Christs time a right to circumcision, but no externall right to the covenant of grace, as Mr C. dreams.