CHAPTER XII.

The Abrahamick covenant, though a gracious covenant, or a dispensation of the covenant of grace, yet shown to be distinct from the covenant of grace itself.

Ir is generally maintained by Pedobaptists, that the covenant which God made with Abraham, and ratified by circumcision, was the covenant of grace. But on careful examination, this

notion will be found to be incorrect.

It may be properly termed a covenant of grace, or a dispensation of the covenant of grace, but not the covenant of grace itself.

When we speak properly of the covenant of grace, we are restricted by the phrase to one definite engagement or transaction, containing the method of salvation by grace through a Mediator in contradistinction to the covenant of works. The definite article which is prefixed, limits the idea to one and the same co

venant.

But when we speak of a covenant of grace, we are referred to one gracious engagement, or stipulation, in distinction from certain other engagements equally founded in grace. The indefinite article which is prefixed, implies that there are more covenants of grace than one, or that God has entered into various distinct engagements with men in their fallen state, or with some portion of them, which engagements, from the very nature of the case, must be wholly of grace or unmerited fa

vour.

This

And when we speak of a dispensation of the covenant of grace, the definite and proper meaning is a particular mode or method of dispensing the blessings of that covenant. manner of expression also implies that there are different modes of dispensing the blessings of this covenant, all tending to the same great and glorious result.

These distinctions are of high importance.

If God has, in fact, entered into various distinct covenants of grace with men, or that there have been various modes or ways.

of dispensing the blessings of the covenant of grace adopted, it ought to be distinctly observed. All these covenants, or dispensations, are based upon the one proper covenant of grace; yet they have distinctive characteristicks, and ought not to be confounded either with one another, or with that original covenant on which they are all based.

It is upon the principle now stated that I call the covenant made with Abraham a covenant of grace, or a dispensation of the covenant of grace; but not the covenant of grace itself. If this distinction can be sustained, it will reflect great light upon the present question-yea, it will be a key to the whole subject..

While the Pedobaptists insist that the covenant of which circumcision was the appointed token was the covenant of grace, the Baptists insist that it was not; but merely a covenant of property-a temporal covenant, or a covenant of works. At the same time they admit that the covenant of grace was also made with Abraham, but hold that it was altogether distinct from the covenant of circumcision. Herein they manifestly err.

For it is capable of the clearest proof, that God made but one covenant with that patriarch, although it was exhibited, more or less clearly, at different times, or by distinct parts; and although it contained both temporal and spiritual blessings, which covenant was finally sealed or ratified by circumcision.

God indeed said, "My covenant shall be in your flesh;" yet it is evident that it was not a covenant by itself, but it was a token of the covenant. It could not be both the covenant and the token, because this would be making it a token of itself, i. e. a token of a token, which would be perfect nonsense.

Much, it is conceived, is lost to the cause of believers' baptism, by an attempt to make out that two distinct covenants were made with Abraham, and that circumcision was not a seal of what is termed the spiritual covenant, but only of what is termed the carnal or temporal; because the notion is so evidently contrary to fact.

Whatever the transaction with Abraham implied, it is manifest that God made but one covenant with him-that all the promises made at different times prior to the date of the transaction recorded in the xvii. chapter of Genesis, were then condensed and put into the form of a covenant, and solemnly confirmed by the rite of circumcision.

Nevertheless, we shall find, on examination, that this was neither a mere temporal or carnal covenant, or a covenant of works, nor the covenant of grace itself, but simply a peculiar gracious covenant founded on that covenant, or a mere dispensation.

of the covenant of grace, which might afterwards be varied, and another dispensation, or other dispensations thereof, might ensue. To determine the justness of this distinction, it will be necessary to obtain a correct definition of the covenant of grace. The ideas of many appear to be loose and indistinct upon this subject. They are accustomed to speak of the covenant of grace, as though it were one definite engagement, and yet make it mean one thing at one time, and another at another. This is evidently not a proper manner of treating the subject.

We ought to fix upon some one definite transaction, engagement, or promise, as being that covenant; and then, when we talk of the covenant of grace, constantly refer thereto.

The covenant of grace will be found, upon due examination, to be the same as the covenant of redemption, of which President Dwight gives, in his System of Theology, the following definition, viz. "God the Father entered into a covenant with Christ, in which he promised him, on condition that he should become a propitiation and intercessor for sinners, as a reward of his labours and sufferings, the future possession of a church, which, under his government, should be glorious and happy for ever." This definition, with one addition, viz. that the subjects respected in this covenant should become interested therein by faith, is a very proper definition of the covenant of grace. Dr. Hopkins, in his System of Divinity, allows that "the covenant of grace, in the highest sense, is the same as the covenant of redemption," though he undertakes to distinguish it therefrom, and to make out that it is made directly with men themselves in time. This is plainly making it a different thing from itself, which is absurd. Two covenants cannot be the same, and yet distinct. Indeed two or more covenants may be similar in certain respects, but they cannot be different covenants at different periods, or under different circumstances, and yet the same covenant. The covenants which God has made with men in their fallen state, are similar in certain respects to the covenant made with Christ before the foundation of the world, yet they are manifestly distinct: for one of the parties is distinct in the one case from what it is in the other. To make a covenant with Christ respecting men, is obviously a different thing from making one directly with men themselves. We cannot, therefore, with consistency, make a distinction between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption, and yet say that the former is the same as the latter in its highest sense. If the covenant of grace, in its highest sense, be the same as the covenant of redemption, then we ought ever to consider it the same,

and to regard the covenants made with us as only dispensations thereof, or as gracious covenants founded thereon.

The Presbyterian Confession of Faith allows the sameness of the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption, though many Presbyterians distinguish between them.

Now, it is evidently of great importance to determine whether these covenants are the same or not; for the one or the other must be the fact. They cannot be the same and yet distinct; though they may be distinct, and yet similar in certain respects, but not in all.

If these covenants be the same, then it will follow that the covenant of grace was not made with Abraham or with any other man, or with men collectively, but with Christ as the Redeemer and Representative of his elect people in the ages of eternity, and consisted in the promise of the Father to give him a seed from among men, which should in due time be effectually called, justified by faith, and glorified. The scriptures abundantly teach that there was such a compact, or engagement, between the Father and the Son, before the world began. And if this be the covenant of grace in the true and proper sense, then the several promises which God has at different times made to men, or the different engagements which he has entered into with them, or any individual or body of them, are only dispensations of this covenant, or covenants of grace founded thereon, and tending to the same glorious end. It would not be proper to call either the covenant of grace, because by this appellation, a different transaction is referred to-one that took place before. men existed.

It is perfectly manifest that God has made various covenants with men in their fallen state, or with some individual, or portion of them; and these, from the very nature of the case, must be gracious covenants, whether they contain temporal or spiritual blessings, or both. He cannot treat favourably with sinners upon any other footing than that of grace. Yet these all have distinctive marks, and are as capable of being distinguished from the covenant of grace itself, as any one deed whatever is capaple of being distinguished from another.

Should we disallow the sameness or identity of the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption, and say that the former was not made with Christ, but with men themselves, or with some individual, or portion of mankind, we shall be involv ed in difficulty in regard to fixing upon the proper instrument and giving it a proper definition.

If we say that the covenant of grace is the general promise of salvation to mankind upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ, it

may be objected that this promise contains nothing in itself to secure the existence of faith and salvation, to any extent, and consequently, nothing to ensure the continuance of the church. Whereas the covenant of grace being the foundation of the church, must naturally be supposed to contain effectual provision for her continuance and ultimate triumph. But every one can see that a merely conditional promise, or covenant, does not contain this provision.

Besides, so far as any argument can be drawn from this view of the covenant for the baptism of the children of believers, it is equally in favour of the baptism of the children of unbelievers; yea, of all classes of sinners, whatever be their age or character; for this conditional promise is equally to them all. Christ hath tasted death for every man; and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; yea, it is said, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved;" and "whosoever will, let him come, and take of the water of life freely." It would be absurd to limit baptism, as based upon this covenant, as now exhibited, to the children of believers, when the children of unbelievers, yea, all unbelievers whatever, have the same conditional promise of salvation made to them.

Many of those who consider the covenant of grace distinct from that of redemption, regard it as merely conditional. The proper definition of it, then, would be the promise of God to save sinners through faith in Christ. Here, therefore, is nothing peculiar to one class of children, or to one class of adult sinners. Whoever believes shall be saved. Hence the argument for infant baptism would be equally an argument for indiscriminate baptism. And for aught the covenant contains, sinners may, with one consent, reject the gospel, and the church

run out.

And, if we should extend the promise so as to make it absolute as it respects the children of believers, or some of them, on condition of parental faithfulness, it will be seen that it does not secure this faithfulness, and so the blessing may not descend. Or if one parent is faithful, and consequently inherits the blessing for his immediate seed, they may not be faithful in their turn, and so the succession of pious men may be broken. Those who hold that there is a promise to parents respecting their children, consider it a different thing to possess faith so as to secure one's own salvation, from what it is to maintain that faithfulness towards children which will secure the transmission of the blessing to them. So that the covenant, even as now construed and extended, will not guaranty the continued ex