The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 7 · Section 3
SECT. III. Propoſition. 2.
SEcondly, 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 Doctor Preſton expreſſeth it) a ſingle and a 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 and not the inward Covenant is moſt exactly and properly called by the name of a Covenant, The outward and not the inward Covenant, is properly a Covenant.which I thus make good: 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 tearms and Propoſitions, as elſewhere I have abundantly declared. In that Covenant God engages himſelf to man for his happineſs; and man engages to faith and obedience. The inward Covenant hath no tearms 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 believing and repenting is the firſt cloſing with God in Covenant according to them that ſpeak of an inward Covenant. A Covenant to perform conditions is a Covenant properly ſo called; But the outward Covenant, not the inward, is a Covenant to performe conditions, is plain: The conditions in the inward Covenant are the Covenant. 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.
The outward Covenant is moſt uſually in Scripture called by the name of Covenant.2. The outward and not the inward Covenant is moſt uſually in Scripture called by the name of a Covenant; which is plain, in that they that have no part or portion in the inward Covenant, are ſtill ſpoken of in Scripture as a people of Covenant; God calls all Iſrael his people, and that upon Covenant termes; ſee the place quoted, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. All of thoſe that there thus Covenanted with God, were not in the inward Covenant. This people at their worſt, and the worſt 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 gonc 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 deal 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 …he 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 refer the Reader to what I have ſaid, ſcil. Treatiſe of the Covenant, Pag. 64, 65. 66. In this place onelyonly putting theſe Queries.
1. Whether thoſe that carry this text to an unconditionate Covenant, and reſtrain it 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 thoſe 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, and 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 widowes in their affliction, and to keep himſelf unſpotted from the world, are not parallell to this text in their way of delivery. And in caſe we cannot find 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 parallell 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 farre honoured as to an outward Covenant, have juſt title to theſe priviledges. It is in behalfe of the Jew outwardly that the Apoſtle, Rom. 3.1. puts the queſtion; having ſo decried his condition, reſpective to the approbation of God, he objects, What advantage hath the Jew? what profit is there of Circumciſion? 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 evidencos of the Covenants, ſay the laſt Annotations. It was the priviledg of Iſrael, Pſal. 147.19. Rom. 3. and then the priviledg of no other Nation; now it is the priviledg of all engraffed 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, all their infants that make a Covenant profeſſion, and that upon juſt warranty: Scripture honouring them (as I have ſhewen) with the name of children, and ſervants of God. It is further plain in reaſon. The outward Covenant muſt have priviledges ſuitable to it, otherwiſe there is no manner of benefit or advantage of it. This priviledg of the Sacrament is ſuitable, being outward as the Covenant is outward; And it was ſufficiently cleered in the proofe of the main obſervation, where the Covenant people of God are affirmed to be the adaequate ſubject of the Sacraments, and all the Scriptures there urged, lead us to an outward Covenant, or (as ſome ſpeak) to the intereſt of an outward adminiſtration of it; So that in caſe any will contend ſtill, that it is an inward Covenant that Scripture uſually mentions and honours with that title, yet being here in (as for a great part we ſeem) agreed, that priviledges of Sacraments are annext to the outward Covenant or outward adminiſtration, we have what we deſire.
When this was almoſt ready for the Preſſe, Mr. Baxters Apologie came forth, in which, pag 103. I am challenged for this diſtinction of an outward and inward Covenant, as though I had been the Author 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 forborn 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 I deny in exact propriety of ſpeech, that the inward Covenant is any Covenant, but the anſwer of the ſoul unto that which the Covenant requires. And whereas Mr. Baxter ſaith, It is apparent that Mr. Blake distinguiſheth, ex parte Dei, between the outward and the inward Covenant; 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. I thus diſtinguiſh them, to apply my ſelf to the Readers underſtanding, that hath been accuſtomed ſo to call them; and I ſay indeed, that men that barely Covenant, and keep not Covenant, have onelyonly privlledges 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 his ſpirit) hath both thoſe that were outward and inward. It is there 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 he meanes, when he ſaies, it is a Covenant de ſigillis conferendis, I am to learn; If he mean that the ſeal followes the Covenant, and is put to after the Covenant, ſo it is in all Covenants whatſoever. He ſaies, they no where tell us what is the ſeal of their outward Covenant; me thinkes we had no need to tell what the ſeal of that Covenant was, that the Jew entred; 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 Mr. Baxter (though he would, yet) muſt not deny they were in no inward Covenant; and yet they had theſe ſeales. Mr. Baxter ſayes, we are bound to give the ſeales to ſuch, Apolo. 88. Vocation which is effectual onelyonly 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 Baptiſme. And to help Mr. Baxter, thoſe men that he ſaies the Church muſt baptize, though without right, we ſay are truely in Covenant, and have right; when he knowes what child he is to baptize, he knowes who we ſay are in Covenant, and have Covenant right to Baptiſme; ſo that a ſecond Covenant of which he ſpeakes to give right to a firſt, is a ſtrange fancy. But of this I ſhall have further occaſion.