Infant Baptism from Heaven and Not of Men, Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
Objections againſt the firſt ſubordinate Propoſition conſidered and anſwered.
THus having ſeen ſomewhat (for much more might be produced) of that evidence the Scriptures give in, for the confirmation of this firſt Propoſition, I ſhall now conſider the Objections I have yet met with, or can poſſibly imagine may be made, that have any appearance of weight in them, againſt the truth hitherto aſſerted and pleaded for: That which I plead for is this, That God in that grand Promiſe of the Covenant, wherein he engaged himſelf to be a God to Abraham and his ſeed in their generations, intended his natural Seed, and that indefinitely one as well as another, immediately proceeding from his own loins, as the immediate and next Subjects of it. Now at leaſt ſome. (I ſuppoſe not all) of thoſe, whoſe judgment and practice vary from the truth pleaded for, will contend, that this term Seed is to be underſtood in a reſtrained ſenſe, as only intended of one or more of Abraham's immediate Children, to the excluding of the reſt, and that it is not to be extended to all indefinitely. But yet, I ſuppoſe, they are not agreed among themſelves, which to aſſign as the proper Subjects of this Promiſe; ſome have denied Iſaac to be the ſeed or part of the ſeed here intended; others, and I ſuppoſe the major part of our oppoſers, deny that Iſhmael was intended, or ought to be accounted as part of the ſeed here ſpoken of; As for thoſe that judge Iſaac was not intended in this Promiſe, the only ground they go upon, for ought I have yet met with, is this Suppoſition, viz. That God made a twofold Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, the one a legal or temporal Covenant, conſiſting only in temporal promiſes, and requiring only an external obedience; the other a Covenant of Grace, conſiſting of ſpiritual promiſes, and requiring internal and ſpiritual obedience; and they conceive, that this Covenant entred with Abraham and his Seed, mentioned Gen. 17.7. was only a legal or temporal Covenant; and that the Covenant of Grace is that formerly ſpoken of, Gen. 12.3. and again re-eſtabliſhed with Iſaac at the nineteenth verſe of this ſeventeenth Chapter: And then the Objection that the perſons of this perſwaſion raiſe againſt our Propoſition in the ſenſe given, is to this purpoſe: That this term Seed is not to be underſtood in that extenſive ſenſe given of it, in as much as this Covenant, mentioned in this ſeventh verſe, was only a temporal or legal Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham, as a natural Father, and his fleſhly ſeed, and not the Covenant of Grace, eſtabliſhed with him, as a ſpiritual Father, and with his ſpiritual ſeed, now Iſaac being a Child of promiſe, and conſequently to be accounted of Abraham's ſpiritual ſeed, could not be intended in that promiſe, which alone intended his fleſhly of natural ſeed.
Anſw. I anſwer, That Iſaac in particular was intended in this Promiſe, and that as a principal Subject of it, as it reſpected Abraham's natural ſeed, hath been already proved, and as for the Objection now made, it involves the framers of it in ſuch abſurdities and contradictions, and ſuppoſing it granted, would ſo little advantage the cauſe, the promotion of which is in the ultimate deſign of it aimed at, that it needs no reply at all, I ſhall therefore only in a direct oppoſition to that Suppoſition, this Objection is grounded upon, affirm, that there was but one Covenant eſtabliſhed between God and Abraham, and his ſeed, and that was a Covenant of Grace, and the very ſame for ſubſtance that believers are now under, and conſequently that that Promiſe in Gen. 12.3. was either a branch of this Covenant, or rather the very ſame promiſe with this, under conſideration, expreſſed in other terms. And that that Covenant mentioned verſe 19. is the ſame with this mentioned ver. 7. There are ſeveral branches of this general Aſſertion: As,
Firſt, That there was but one Covenant made and eſtabliſhed between God and Abraham, with reference to himſelf and his ſeed; I do not ſay, that there was but one Covenant made with the ſeed of Abraham, underſtanding that term Seed of his Race or Poſterity in following ages, but I ſay, there was but one eſtabliſhed with Abraham, wherein himſelf, in common with his Seed; was concerned; now this appears from the conſtant phraſe of Scripture alwayes, where ſpeaking of the Covenant made with Abraham, ſpeaking in the ſingular number, the Covenant, and not in the plural, Covenants.
Secondly, I ſay, this was a Covenant of Grace.
Thirdly, That it was the very ſame Covenant for ſubſtance that Believers are now under.
Fourthly, That that Promiſe, Gen. 12.3. is one branch of the Covenant now eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his Seed, or rather the ſame Promiſe with this mentioned, in our firſt Propoſition expreſſed in different terms; theſe things I ſhall ſpeak to hereafter, and the truth of them will, I doubt not, fully appear by the proof of the ſecond Propoſition, and therefore I ſhall ſay nothing to them at preſent.
Laſtly, That the Covenant mentioned verſe 19. is the very ſame mentioned verſe 7. this is ſufficiently evident to any that will but read the whole Chapter. In the former part of the Chapter, we read how God promiſeth to eſtabliſh his Covenant with Abraham and his Seed in their generations, for an everlaſting Covenant, that is, to endure while Abraham ſhould have a Seed upon earth: Now at verſe 19. the Lord ſhews Abraham, in which of his Seed, and his Line, or poſterity this Promiſe ſhould take place, and have its accompliſhment, and that was Iſaac. Therefore obſerve how the Text runs, And God ſaid, Sarah ſhall bear thee a Son, and I will eſtabliſh my Covenant with him. Mark, here is no intimation of any other Covenant, different from that before mentioned; he doth not ſay, I will alſo make, or I will eſtabliſh a Covenant, or another Covenant, but I will eſtabliſh my Covenant: What Covenant? Doubtleſs that before entred in with Abraham, with reference to his Seed in their generations; and this limitation of the Covenant, as afore made and eſtabliſhed, with Abraham, in reference to his Seed in their generations, unto Iſaac alone, doth plainly imply, that in the firſt eſtabliſhment of it, Abraham's whole Seed, as immediately proceeding from his own loms, were included and intended; for what need an explanatory limitation of it, in regard of the eſtabliſhment thereof, for an everlaſting Covenant to Iſaac and his Seed, had it not been more comprehenſive in the firſt promulgation of it; and it is as if the Lord ſhould ſay, Though I have entred Covenant with thee, and thy Seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlaſting-Covenant, and have received and taken in thy whole Seed, as proceeding immediately from thine own loins, univerſally and indefinitely one as well as another, into a Covenant relation, together with thee with my ſelf, yet my meaning is, not that this Covenant-relation between me and thy Seed, ſhall be continued in each of their reſpective lines, throughout their reſpective generations; but it is with Iſaac that I will eſtabliſh my Covenant, and with his Seed, as the perſon in whom, and in whoſe Seed, my Covenant ſhall take place, and be accompliſhed; though thy whole Seed be intended in the Promiſe, as the next and immediate Subjects of it, yet the Promiſe in the full latitude and extent of it, as it runs to Seed in their generations, for a Promiſe to continue ſucceſſively throughout all generations, ſhall only take place and receive its full accompliſhment in Iſaac and his Line: But not to ſpend time upon this, that Iſaac was intended in this Promiſe is evident beyond all rational contradiction, and that is all at preſent I contend for.
Object. 2. Secondly, Others, and I ſuppoſe, vaſtly the major part of our oppoſers in the main truth pleaded for, conceive that it was Iſaac alone intended as the only Subject of that Promiſe, and conſequently that Iſhmael, and the other children of Abraham, were excluded from any right or title to it: And there are three Objections made againſt our extending that Promiſe, to the including and taking in Iſhmael, and the Sons of Abraham by Keturab, as the joynt Subjects with Iſaac of it.
Firſt, Say ſome, as God promiſed to be a God to Abraham and his Seed, ſo he promiſed the Land of Canaan for an everlaſting poſſeſſion to that Seed, to whom he promiſed to be a God; but the Land of Canaan was never given to, nor intended for, either Iſhmael, or any of Abraham's other Children by Keturah, or any of their Seeds, and therefore certainly neither Iſhmael, nor any of Abraham's Seed by Keturah, could be intended in that Promiſe; for do we thine that God would promiſe that which he never intended to give? or ſhall we think that God would promiſe the Land of Canaan to all Abraham's Seed, and yet never mind his promiſe after, nor regard to make good what he had promiſed.
Anſw. To that I anſwer two things.
Firſt, That, in that any of Abraham's Seed did not actually poſſeſs the Land of Canaan, nor in that God intended not that they ſhould poſſeſs it, it is no Argument they were not intended in, as the Subjects of, this grand Promiſe, wherein God ingaged to be a God to them in their generations: This is evident, becauſe ſome, who were undoubtedly the Subjects of this Promiſe, never did, nor was it intended by God, that they ſhould actually poſſeſs that Land; Abraham himſelf, who was the prime and principal party in this Covenant, according to the letter of it, and conſequently the undoubted Subject of this Promiſe, as referring to himſelf, never had, nor was it intended by God, that he ſhould have the actual poſſeſſion of this Land; ſo for Iſaac and Jacob, Heirs with him of the ſame Promiſe, they never had, nor was it Gods intendment they ſhould have, the actual poſſeſſion of that Land. But
Two things are replyed to this.
Firſt, Though they did not poſſeſs it in their own perſons, yet in their poſterity they did; their poſterity had the actual poſſeſſion of it, and God gave it unto them only as a reverſion, to be poſſeſſed by their Children, when the ſin of the Inhabitants was full.
To that I anſwer, It is certain all their poſterity did not poſſeſs it, witneſs the whole race and poſterity of Iſaac deſcended by Eſan.
But you will ſay, Yet ſome of their poſterity did poſſeſs it, and that was enough to verifie the Promiſe unto them, conſidering under what notion it was promiſed, viz. as afore expreſſed, a reverſion to be enjoyed by their poſterity.
To that I anſwer, It is true, and ſo for what appears, the poſterity of any or of all of Abraham's other Children, ſhould have had the joynt poſſeſſion with Iſaac and Jacob's poſterity, had not their Fathers forfeited their own and their poſterities right and title to the Promiſe, and their not inheriting, through an antecedent forfeiture of the Promiſe, is no evidence that their firſt Parents, as immediately proceeding from Abraham, were not intended either in that or the former grand Promiſe of the Covenant.
Secondly, It is replyed, that though Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob did not, nor was it intended by God, that they ſhould in their own perſons, at that time, as then upon earth, enjoy the Land of Canaan, yet there is a time when they ſhall have the perſonal enjoyment of it, they ſhall ariſe again, and during the thouſand years reign of Chriſt upon earth, ſhall have the promiſe in the very letter made good unto them.
To that I anſwer, Not to divert to debates excentrical to our preſent Queſtion, ſuppoſe that notion prove true, I would ſay the ſame of Iſhmael, and the other Children of Abrahame, both he and they, with their reſpective poſterities, ſuppoſing their not being finally caſt out from the Covenant, and the Promiſes thereof, through their own or their Progenitors ſin, ſhall partake with Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob in that their ſuppoſed felicity, and therefore neither their not actual poſſeſſing, nor Gods intention, that they ſhould not actually poſſeſs that Land, will prove, that they were not intended in that grand Promiſe, their caſe was no other than the caſe of ſeveral others, who were undoubtedly intended in that Promiſe.
Secondly, I anſwer, That the Land of Canaan was either a meer temporal good, and the enjoyment of it only a temporal mercy, or elſe it was a type and pledge of a higher good, viz. of that City that hath foundations, whoſe Maker and Builder is God; and anſwerably taking it as a type, it was a ſpiritual good, and the enjoyment of it a ſpiritual bleſſing, and an eſſential part of the Covenant of Grace, the Land of Canaan muſt be looked upon under the one or the other of theſe notions, or under both, according to the letter under the former, according to the myſtical or typical ſence under the latter. Now let our Oppoſites tell us, how or under what notions they look upon that Land, the ſubject matter of that Promiſe: if they ſay they look upon it under the firſt notion, namely, as a temporal good, and the Jews poſſeſſing of it only as a temporal bleſſing, then, I ſay, it was only an appendant, and not pertaining to the eſſence of the Covenant, and the promiſe of it only a definite promiſe, made to Abraham's Seed, collectively or generally taken, and anſwerably the Promiſe was verified in that any of his Seed, had the poſſeſſion of it: Indefinite promiſes, as made to any ſpecies or ſorts of perſons, collectively conſidered, are equivalent to particular promiſes, and they are verified, in caſe only ſome of that ſpecies, or ſort of perſons, have the good promiſed: That this promiſe of the Land of Canaan, ſuppoſing it to be only a temporal promiſe, is thus to be taken, is unqueſtionable from the way and manner of Gods performing of it, had it been a promiſe to Abraham and his Seed, diſtributively or particularly taken, it muſt have been made good to each particular Subject of the promiſe, both to Abraham and all his Seed univerſally, which it is evident it was not. If they ſay it was a ſpiritual promiſe, or the promiſe of a ſpiritual good, a higher and greater good typified by it: then I ſay, it was of the Eſſence of the Covenant, and was either in the letter, or in the ſpiritual ſence and meaning of it, performed both to Abraham and to all his Seed in their generations, whether Iſaac, or Iſhmael, or his Sons by Keturah, who did not through a failure in the performance of the condition of the Covenant, looſe their right and title to the promiſe of it; that is, though they had not the good promiſed it ſelf in the letter, yet they had the good typified by that Land, and principally intended in the Promiſe: A further proof of this I need not add than the Promiſe it ſelf conſidered, in conjunction with the faithfulneſs of God in the performance of his Promiſe.
Thirdly, If they will ſay, they look upon it under both notions, which I conceive is moſt agreeable to the mind of God in that Promiſe; then I ſay as before, 'twas as a temporal promiſe, only an appendant to the Covenant, as a ſpiritual promiſe of the Eſſence of it, and anſwerably was made and made good to Abraham's Seed, both collectively and diſtributively taken, in the ſenſe afore opened; from all it evidently appears, that in that neither Iſhmael, nor the Sons of Keturah, did, nor was it intended by God, that they ſhould enjoy the Land of Canaan, it will not follow, that they were not intended in that grand Promiſe, wherein God ingageth himſelf, to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their generations, they might be intended in that Promiſe, and yet not actually enjoy that Land promiſed, as many others, who were undoubtedly intended in the former Promiſe, yet never actually in the letter enjoyed the good of that Promiſe.
Object. 2. Say others, If Iſhmael were intended in this Promiſe, and received as one of Abraham's Seed into his Covenant, why doth Abraham pray ſo earneſtly for him, Gen. 17.18? Doth not his praying ſo earneſtly for him, at leaſt, ſtrongly intimate, he had no right to, or intereſt in the Covenant afore eſtabliſhed with Abraham, with reference to his Seed? If Iſhmael was under the promiſe of having God a God to him, what need Abraham pray ſo earneſtly that he might live before God?
Anſw. I anſwer, May not a promiſed good be prayed for? Or may not a father pray that his child may live, grow up, and enjoy the good of promiſes relating to this life, and give comfortable diſcoveries of his intereſt in the Promiſes of the Covenant? Who can queſtion, but that he may? But the true reaſon of Abraham's prayer for Iſhmael, was an intimation given by God, in thoſe promiſes made with reference to that child to be born of Sarah, of what is more plainly after expreſſed, that he ſhould be the ſpecial Child, in whom, and in whoſe line the Seed ſhould be called, that it with whom and with whoſe Seed the Covenant ſhould be eſtabliſhed, according to the full extent and latitude of the promiſes of it, but this is no intimation at all, much leſs a concluſive Argument, that Iſhmael was not at preſent taken into Covenant, and intended in the Promiſes of it, as one of the immediate Subjects thereof.
Object. 3. And that which by moſt of our Oppoſites is eſpecially inſiſted upon, is a ſuppoſed inconſiſtency between what is affirmed in this our firſt Propoſition, viz. That God in this grand Promiſe of the Covenant intended all Abraham's natural Seed univerſally and indefinitely, one as well as another, as the next and immediate Subjects of it, conſidering what the ſacred Story relates of Iſhmael in particular, one of Abraham's Seed, affirmed by us to be intended in that Promiſe, and other Principles and Aſſertions conſtantly maintained by us, who ground the infant-ſeed of believing parents right to and intereſt in the Covenant, upon this its firſt eſtabliſhment with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations; theſe Principles and Aſſertions, with which what is affirmed of all Abraham's natural Seed, and of Iſhmael in particular, is ſuppoſed to be inconſiſtent, are more eſpecially theſe two.
Firſt, That that Covenant, now eſtabliſhed with Abraham, was a Covenant of Grace, and the very ſame for ſubſtance with that under which Believers are under the Goſpel adminiſtration.
Secondly, That the Covenant of Grace is an immutable and unchangeable Covenant, a Covenant that cannot be broken, a Covenant from a ſtanding in which none can fall. Now it is objected, That if it be true as we affirm, that this Covenant, now eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his Seed, was the Covenant of Grace, and that Iſhmael in particular was intended in this Promiſe, and anſwerably taken into this Covenant with Abraham, as one of his Seed there intended, then the Covenant of Grace muſt be granted to be a mutable and changeable Covenant, a Covenant that may be broken, contrary to our other principles, ſeeing it is evident, and granted by us, that in caſe Iſhmael was ever in this Covenant, he did break it, and was caſt out of it, and was diſinherited of the promiſe contained in it; and if ſo, then it will follow, contrary to what we elſewhere affirm, that a man may be in the Covenant of Grace to day, and caſt out to morrow, and then may be in again within a few dayes after, and yet caſt out again, and in the cloſe finally periſh. Now it is ſaid, How can Principles or Aſſertions, lying in ſuch a diametrical oppoſition one to another, be all true? Therefore ſure we muſt either grant, that Iſhmael was not intended in this Promiſe, and conſequently not one of this Seed of Abraham, with whom, in conjunction with Abraham himſelf, God never entred Covenant, noiſe that Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace, under which Believers now are, or elſe that the Covenant of Grace is mutable, and may be broken; that perſons may be in it, and after caſt out and diſpoſſeſſed of that good they had ſometimes a Covenant-right and title to.
Before I return a direct Anſwer to this Objection, I ſhall premiſe, that this Objection is urged by our Oppoſites to a twofold end or purpoſe.
Firſt, It is urged by ſome, to diſprove or overthrow what we affirm of this Covenant, now eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his Seed, viz. That it is the Covenant of Grace, the ſame for ſubſtance that Believers in Goſpel times are under. Say they, This Covenant made with Abraham, and his natural Seed, might be broken, but the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken; one might be in that Covenant to day, and caſt out to morrow; witneſs Iſhmael, who though taken into Covenant, yet was ſoon caſt out again; but it is otherwiſe with the Covenant of Grace, and the perſons admitted into it, that is, a Covenant that cannot be broken, perſons once, in that Covenant are never caſt out again; and therefore this could not be a Covenant of Grace, but a legal Covenant, as ſome call it, a temporal Covenant, as others.
Secondly, It is urged by others, in a way of oppoſition to what is affirmed concerning Iſhmael's being intended in this Promiſe, and conſequently received into Covenant with Abraham: Theſe grant that this was a Covenant of Grace, and hold with us, that the Covenant of Grace of Grace is a Covenant that cannot be broken. Now ſay they, it is ridiculous to affirm, that Iſhmael was in this Covenant, ſeeing it is certain he never enjoyed the good promiſed, which he ſhould undoubtedly have done, had he been taken in as a party in it. The Covenant of Grace, ſay they, infallibly ſecutes the good promiſed in it to all that have admiſſion into it, it is a Covenant that is immutable, thoſe that are once in it are never caſt out, but ſhall infallibly enjoy the good promiſed: but Iſhmael enjoyed not the good promiſed in this Covenant; therefore it is ridiculous to ſay, he was ever taken into it. So that we may ſee our Oppoſites are not agreed among themſelves, ſome granting that Iſhmael was intended in that Promiſe, and conſequently that he was a party in that Covenant, but deny that that Covenant was a Covenant of Grace: Others granting, that that was a Covenant of Grace, but deny Iſhmael to be a party in it, whence it appears, that in all theſe three Aſſertions, viz. that Iſhmael was intended in that Promiſe, that the Covenant, in which the Promiſe is contained, is a Covenant of Grace. That the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken, we have the ſuffrage of ſome of our Oppoſites, as they are taken ſeverally.
But you will ſay, They all agree, … be all true taken conjunctively: It is t… they do ſo; and where their miſtake lies, either as … what we affirm, or as to the truth it ſelf, ſhall be now conſidered.
Firſt, And I ſhall firſt ſhew in what ſence we hold and maintain the Covenant of Grace, to be an immutable and unchangeable Covenant, a Covenant that cannot be broken.
Secondly, Lay down ſome Propoſitions for the vindicating the truth aſſerted in this firſt Propoſition, for carrying any appearance of repugnancy to that Principle held and maintained by us, in the ſence it is held and maintained by us, concerning the immutability of the Covenant of Grace.
For the firſt: and thus we muſt obſerve a twofold diſtinction.
Firſt, We muſt diſtinguiſh between an external and viſible, and an internal and inviſible being in Covenant, or between the Covenant of Grace, as externally and viſibly, and as internally and inviſibly plighted, or mutually entred between God and men; that there is an external and viſible being in Covenant, or that there is an external and viſible plighting, or mutual entring of Covenant between God and men, where yet there is not an internal and inviſible being in Covenant, nor any internal mutual entring Covenant between God and men, is evident through the whole Scripture and is ſo demonſtratively proved by others, eſpecially Mr. Cobbett of New-England, that it is wholly ſuperfluous to add any thing, I ſhall therefore only ſay, that unleſs we do grant this diſtinction, we muſt hold, that either Chriſt hath no viſible Body, Church, or People in the World, or elſe that ſome may be of the viſible. Body, Church or People of Chriſt, who yet are not in any ſence in the Covenant of Grace; the former ſure none will affirm, and the granting the latter will grant what I contend for, as will appear in the proceſs of our diſcourſe.
Secondly, We muſt diſtinguiſh between being in Covenant, through a perſonal acceptation of the terms of the Covenant, and ingaging with God in a Covenant way, and being in Covenant, by vertue of the gratious tenour of the Covenant it ſelf, as made with Abraham and his Seed in their generations; that there is a being in Covenant by a perſonal acceptation of the terms of the Covenant, and ingaging with God in a Covenant way, will be denied by none; and that there is a being in Covenant, or being under the promiſes of the Covenant, by vertue of the gracious tenour of the Covenant it ſelf, will I hope ſufficiently appear from the proof of this and our next Propoſition. Now when we ſay, the Covenant of Grace is an immutable and unchangeable Covenant, a Covenant that cannot be broken, we intend it of the Covenant as perſonally, and that intnely and ſincerely entred by a truly regenerate Soul, and not of the Covenant as only externally and unſincerely entred by Hypocrites, nor of the Covenant as made with believing Parents, with reference to their natural Seed; and the meaning of what is affirmed concerning the immutability and unchangeableneſs of the Covenant of Grace is only this, that when once a Soul is ſavingly wrought upon, to a rightly cloſing in with Chriſt, and a ſaving cloſing with the terms of the Covenant, that Soul ſhall never totally and finally fall away, ſo as to ſuffer an abſolute and total loſs of that Grace wrought in it, nor be abſolutely caſt out of a Covenant ſtate and relation God-ward: whether theſe promiſes, upon the warrant of which this immutability and unchangeableneſs of the Covenant is afferted and maintained, will prove any more, ſhall be conſidered, at leaſt ſo far as concerns my preſent purpoſe, by and by. Having then given the ſence, in which we hold the Covenant of Grace to be immutable and unchangeable, I proceed to the ſecond thing promiſed, the Propoſitions, and they are theſe.
Firſt, That this Covenant now eſtabliſhed between God and Abraham, and his Seed in their generations, which I grant, yea affirm, that it was a Covenant of Grace, the ſame in ſubſtance that Believers are ſtill under, was and ſtill is a conditional Covenant: Let not that term conditional offend, I intend no more than what I ſuppoſe will on all hands be granted, viz. That as God promiſed good to Abraham, with reference both to himſelf and his Seed in their generations, ſo he required the performance of duty as from Abraham himſelf, ſo from his Seed in their reſpective generations: In brief thus, this Covenant contained promiſes of good from God, yet with a reſtipulation of duty from the parties with whom it was made, and unto whom the promiſes did appertain, and this is eſſential to the very being of a Covenant as properly taken: It is true, this term Covenant is variouſly uſed in Scripture, ſometimes for a bare promiſe on Gods part, ſometimes for the reſtipulation on mans part, ſometimes for the token of the Covenant, but theſe are improper ſignifications of the word; when it is properly taken, it alwayes ſignifies a mutual compact between God and man, wherein God ingageth himſelf by promiſe to them, and ingageth them to the performance of what himſelf hath conſtituted to be their duty: a Covenant in general when properly taken, and conſequently this Covenant in particular, which muſt partake of the general nature of Covenants, every Species muſt partake of its Genus, being quiddam: complexum, implying two or more parties covenanting, ſo two parties covenanted, the giving of ſome good on the one part, and the return of ſome performance on the other, and that as indiſpenſably neceſſary to the preſervation of the Covenant inviolate on each part.
Secondly, That this reſtipulation or condition on Abraham's part, did concern him, both as a ſingle perſon, and as a Parent, ſtanding in a parental relation towards his Seed, taken in as joynt parties with himſelf into covenant, my meaning is evident, Abraham ſtood in a double capacity, as a ſingle party, with whom God entred covenant, and as a father of children, to whom the promiſes of the Covenant did in common with himſelf appertain. Now as Abraham, as a ſingle perſon in covenant, was to accept of, and perform the conditions of the Covenant, he was in that capacity ingaged to by God, ſo as a parent he had ſomething of duty incumbent upon him, with reference to his Seed, as immediately deſcending from his own loins, and as his faithful performance of that duty incumbent upon him in his ſingle capacity, ſo his performing that duty incumbent upon him as a parent, in reference to his Seed, was abſolutely neceſſary in order to his enjoying the good promiſed, with reference both to himſelf and his Seed: The truth of this Propoſition is evident from theſe two places of Scripture, compared together, Gen. 17.1. and Gen. 18.19. Walk before me, and be thou perfect, There was Abraham's duty, in reference to himſelf as a ſingle perſon, with whom the Covenant was entred; For I know him, that he will command his Children, and his Houſhold after him, and they ſhall keep judgment and juſtice, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath ſpoken of him; that is, that he may be a God to him, and his Seed after him: There was Abraham's duty, as a Parent and Maſter of a Family, and under this term Command all other duties, ſubſerving or referring to their walking in the way of the Lord, were implyed and comprehended. Now ſaith the Lord, Abraham will thus command his Children and Houſhold, that the Lord may bring upon him what he hath ſpoken of him: Whence it appears, that Abraham's performance of his duty towards his Children and Houſhold, was a neceſſary condition of Gods bringing upon him, or making good to him, what he had promiſed, in reference to his Children and Houſhold, and that without the performance of that duty he could not expect, according to the true intent and meaning of the Promiſe, that God ſhould bring that good upon him, or do that good to him: and what is ſaid of Abraham is true of all his Seed, ſuppoſing them under that double capacity: Abraham was to be a pattern to all his Seed, both in priviledges and in duties.
Thirdly, That whatever was the condition or reſtipulation of the Covenant as made with Abraham, was the condition or reſtipulation required of his natural Seed, and to be actually performed by them in their own perſons, ſo ſoon as they came to that maturity of age, as rendred them capable thereof, and that as indiſpenſably neceſſary to the compleating and continuance of their covenant relation with God, into which they, as Abraham's natural Seed, were admitted in their infancy; though God was pleaſed to enter covenant, not only with Abraham himſelf, but with his Seed together with him, and his accepting of the Covenant for himſelf and them, conſtituted a covenant relation between God and Abraham, and his Seed; and that covenant-relation was continued during his Seeds infant capacity upon Abraham's account, yet when they grew up to a capacity of a perſonal ingaging with God in a Covenant way, and performing the reſtipulation required. Now the continuance of that covenant-relation between God and them, indiſpenſably required their perſonal accepting of, and performing that reſtipulation or condition, that Abraham in their infancy had accepted for them, and their non-acceptance or non-performance of that condition did, ipſo facto, diſanul the Covenant, or forfeit their right to, and intereſt in it and the promiſes of it, God ſtood the longer by vertue of that Promiſe obliged to be a God unto them; and for them to have ſuppoſed the continuance of that covenant-relation between God and them, into which they were afore admitted, and upon that account expected the good promiſed; without their perſonal performance of the duty the Covenant did oblige them to, had been a groundleſs preſumption, The truth of this Propoſition is evident in part from what hath been already ſaid, and will more fully appear, when I come to the proof of my ſecond Propoſition. Abraham's commanding his Children and Houſhold to keep the way of the Lord, in order to that end, namely, their enjoying the good promiſed neceſſarily ſuppoſeth it; for why ſhould he command them to keep the way of the Lord, in relation to ſuch an end, if their keeping that way had no neceſſary reference to that end, but the end had been attained without their keeping that way; beſides, were not this true, there could have been no ſuch thing, as breach of covenant, found among any of Abraham's natural Seed, as will be obvious to every ordinary capacity. Before I proceed further, let me note by the way, that this Covenant, now eſtabliſhed with Abraham, and his Seed in their generations, implyed a twofold condition, neceſſary to be obſerved in order to Gods making good the promiſes of it, referring to his Seed.
Firſt, There was a condition incumbent on Abraham himſelf, there was ſomething of duty required of him, with reference to his Seed, viz. that he command them to keep the way of the Lord, as is obſerved in the foregoing Propoſition.
Secondly, There was a condition incumbent upon the Seed, as grown up and become capable of underſtanding and performing it, that is, That they walk in the way of the Lord; and ſuppoſing that either Abraham had failed in his duty, or his Seed in theirs, God had been acquitted of any charge of unfaithfulneſs to his promiſe, though the good promiſed, with reference to his Seed, had never been given in; God promiſeth to be a God to Abraham's Seed, as well as to himſelf, yet with this condition, that he inſtruct and command his Seed, and that they accept of, and perform the duty ingaged to by covenant.
Fourthly, That Iſhmael's breach of covenant did neither proceed from a failure on Gods part, in making good the Promiſes made to him, nor conſiſt in his own looſing or falling from inherent Grace, but did wholly lye in his non performance of that duty required, as indiſpenſably neceſſary to the compleating and continuance of that Covenant-relation he was admitted into with God, and tranſgreſſing thoſe Commands he was obliged to the obſervation of; in brief, he fell from a Covenant-ſtate, but not from Covenanted-grace, for that he never had an actual poſſeſſion of; ſo that to affirm, that Iſhmael was in the Covenant, now eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his Seed, and that that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace that Believers are ſ…ill under, notwithſtanding his breach of Covenant in the ſence now opened, is no way inconſiſtent with what is affirmed concerning the immutability of the Covenant of Grace, we freely grant, and our Oppoſites muſt grant it too, unleſs they will admit of the abſurdities aforementioned verſe 12. that perſons may be in an external Covenant ſtate God ward, and yet want the truth of Grace, may looſe a Covenant-ſtate, though not looſe Covenanted-Grace, or fall from a ſtate of Grace. But not to leave any doubt, that may a riſe in the minds of any, about what hath been ſaid, unſatisfied, I am aware of one Objection, and that not without a ſeeming weight and ſtrength in it, will be made againſt what hath been ſaid, and that is this.
Object. It will be ſaid, Doth not the Scripture plainly intimate, it not poſitively offer …, That the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken, no not in the ſence in which it is now ſuppoſed Iſhmael did break it, and is not that at leaſt one Characteriſtical difference between the Covenant of Grace and the firſt Covenant, and the peculiar excellency, in reſpect of which the Covenant of Grace doth excel that former Covenant? Hath not God promiſed to write his Law in the inward parts, and put his fear in the hearts of all that have admiſſion into this Covenant, as the means to prevent their breach of it? Now it will be ſaid, How could Iſhmael, or any Child of believing Parents, ſuppoſing he was and they are in the Covenant of Grace, ſ…il in performing the conditions of that Covenant, unleſs God ſhould fail in making good theſe Promiſes, which to affirm would be blaſphemy, and therefore ſure, had he been and were they in the Covenant of Grace, he never had, not they never would break Covenant, through a failing in performing the conditions of it.
Now to this I anſwer, That take theſe Promiſes as indefinitely laid down, ſo they are only made to the Church indefinitely as a collective body, and indefinite Promiſes, as ſo made, do not infallibly ſecure the good promiſed to every individual perſon externally intereſſed in them.
But you will ſay, Suppoſe the truth of this firſt Propoſition, viz. That Abraham's natural Seed, immediately proceeding from his own loins, were to be looked upon as the Subjects of this Promiſe, diſtributively taken then every one in particular had a real and actual intereſt in it.
To that I anſwer, It is true: but conſider what hath been already ſaid; the Covenant and Promiſes of it were conditional, and his not performing the conditions forfeited the good promiſed.
But you will further ſay, Are not theſe promiſes, of writing the Law in the inward parts, &c. included in that grand Promiſe, wherein God promiſeth to be a God to him and them, and conſequently their performance of the condition was virtually included and implyed in the Promiſe it ſelf, and ſo the Promiſe did ſecure their performance of the condition; though the Covenant of Grace hath conditions, yet they are Couditiones conditionatae, conditions which are themſelves promiſed in the Covenant; hence though the Covenant be not abſolutely unconditional, yet it is equivalent thereunto, in as much as the conditions are themſelves included in the Promiſes of the Covenant; and therefore ſure if they had been actually under Covenant, their performance of the conditions had been ſecured by this Promiſe.
To this I anſwer two things, That though theſe Promiſes do hold forth the main and principle conditions of the Covenant, as Regeneration, Faith, Repentance, and the like, and they ſhould be included in this Promiſe, of Gods being a God to his people, and though they run in the external tenour of them abſolutely, yet they are not abſolutely abſolute, as I may ſo ſpeak; they have a ſubordinate condition, and that is, that the parties concerned in them do faithfully uſe the means appointed of God, in a ſubſerviency to his working in or beſtowing upon them the good promiſed; this is evident from Ezek. 36.37. where we have the very ſame good, though in other terms or phraſes, promiſed; ſo alſo in Prov. 2.6. theſe Promiſes hold forth what we of our ſelves cannot attain to or perform; but they ſuppoſe, and require our uſe of means, which, as Mr. Feuner excellently expreſſeth it, lye between our can and our cannot, and though it is true, a man, while in his natural eſtate, cannot uſe the means ſo, as ſhall infallibly ſecure the good promiſed to himſelf, yet his not uſing of them according to what, through the improvement of what ability, whether natural or ſpiritual, he hath received, he might do, will acquit God from unfaithfulneſs in denying the good promiſed.
But ſecondly, I anſwer, That take the Covenant as externally made and declared to Abraham, and his Seed in their generations, as implying a ſtipulation on Gods part, and a reſtipulation on mans part, ſo theſe Promiſes of divine teachings, writing the Law in the heart, &c. are not included as eſſential to this Promiſe, of Gods being a God to them, but are diſtinct Promiſes, made indefinitely, to the Covenant-people of God; in making good of which, God acts according to his Soveraign will and pleaſure, in a complyance with his eternal Decrees and Purpoſes of election and preterition, and anſwerably, no individual perſon can lay an actual claim to them, afore they are at leaſt initially or inchoatively fulfilled; Gods being a God to any individual perſon, doth require and preſuppoſe, that they do for the preſent, ſuppoſing them capable, or for the furture, as ſoon as capable, take God in Chriſt as their God, which that his Elect ſhall do, is ſecured by theſe Promiſes; but that every individual perſon externally in Covenant, and under the Promiſes thereof ſhall do, is not ſecured by them. If any ſhall affirm, that theſe Promiſes are included, as an eſſential part of the good of that grand Promiſe of the Covenant, it concerns them to make good what they affirm, and ſhew how the very ſame Promiſe, at leaſt for the ſubſtance of it, was made good to the ſeed of the Jews, and how it came to paſs, notwithſtanding that Promiſe, that they never had their hearts truly circumciſed to love the Lord with all their hearts, and all their ſouls, as the letter of that Promiſe, Deut. 30.6. affirms they ſhould. Beſides, let it is be further noted, that the Covenants-relation ſtabliſhed between God and the ſeed of believing Parents, meetly by vertue of the external tenour of the Covenant, is not ſo full and compleat as that is, which is conſtituted through a Souls perſonal acceptation of the Covenant, and actual ingaging with God in a Covenant way; the Covenant in a proper and full ſence muſt be mutual; but ſo it is not in the caſe of the Infant-ſeed of believing parents, their being in covenant is rather a being under a conditional Promiſe of the good contained in the Covenant, than being properly and compleatly in covenant with God, though in a ſence God may, as he is in Scripture ſaid to enter covenant with them, he enters covenant as he makes promiſe of the good of the Covenant to them, which yet he doth, as I have ſaid, only conditionally, and the compleating of the Covenant-relation between God and them, depends upon their perſonal acceptance of the terms propoſed in it, when they come to ripeneſs of years.
To put a cloſe to this firſt ſubordinate Propoſition, by what hath been ſaid, I ſuppoſe, the truth aſſerted in it is ſufficiently evident, notwithſtanding what may be objected in a way of oppoſition to it; and I have inſiſted the longer upon this, becauſe it is the foundation to our whole Structure to be raiſed, in reference to the confirmation of the truth pleaded for, and the full evidencing of this, will make out way plain to the following Propoſitions, in as much as Abraham, being the firſt perſon with whom the Covenant was, at leaſt in ſuch a latitude, formally and expreſly entred, he muſt needs be the rule, meaſure or pattern, according to which the Covenant, in all following Ages, ſhould be entred and continued between God and his Seed. Primum in unoque que genere eſt regula a… …fura ceterorum ejuſdem generis. God did … Abraham ſet a pattern how he would deal in relation to the tenour of his Covenant with all his Seed; and Abraham being a Father of all admitted into a Covenant-relation with God. It highly concerns us, rightly to underſtand and know the terms and tenour of the Covenant, as made with him, in reference to us who are his Seed; it being made with his Seed in the ſame tenour, and upon the ſame terms generically conſidered, as it was with him; he was the great pattern, as I have ſaid, both of priviledges and duties to his whole Seed, as will appear more fully in our ſecond Propoſition, which I now proceed to.