The patent points in this new system, put in briefest words, were—Abraham the head of a great family; the founder of a great nation; the representative of the family covenant and its first and illustrious exemplar; the progenitor of the Great, long-promised Messiah; and coupled with his lineal posterity, the repositories of God’s truth and promises—his offspring, the people with whom God dwelt and was publicly worshiped for ages in the presence of the idolatrous nations of the earth; over whom God became their visible earthly Sovereign, their recognized King and God.——Thus the Lord laid the foundation for progressive manifestations of himself and for a growing development of religious truth and of its legitimate forces from age to age till the Messiah should appear.
Plainly we may recognize among the divine purposes in this new system,
1. In general—to conserve, concentrate, augment and perpetuate the religious and moral forces of revealed truth.
2. In particular:
(1.) To utilize all the best elements of the family relation, turning to fullest account parental care and affection and the facilities furnished by nature to parents for the training and culture of their offspring. The germinal idea of this great family covenant lies in the promise, so often reiterated—“I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee” (Gen. 17: 7, 10, 19). A marvellous wealth of significance lies in these brief words; for what can be more rich and all-embracing than this—“I will be a God to thee”—thy God; all that a God can become to man made in his image; his loving Friend, his “Shield and exceeding great reward”; his hope and joy and trust; and to crown all, his glorious salvation! Surely this cup of blessings is rich and full enough to meet the largest wants of any individual human heart. But when man becomes a father—when woman becomes a mother—a new love is born in the soul and new wants are thence begotten, forthe parental heart instinctively cries out as the heart of Abraham did—“O that Ishmael might live before thee”! Even so—responds the great parental heart of God—I know the heart of a parent; therefore I said “I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee”; not to thee alone but to thee, and also, not less, to thy beloved offspring besides.
The one comprehensive condition for the fulfillment of this great promise is briefly indicated in the case of Abraham, of whom God said—“I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him” (Gen. 18: 19). The Lord knew that Abraham would fulfill the conditions so conscientiously and well that he could fulfill his promise. The conditions are thus incidentally brought out—viz. parental fidelity and authority; the early culture and training of his household; consecration, the prayer and the faith which are legitimately begotten of this covenant and naturally correlated to it;—these are obviously the fitting conditions upon which the fulfillment of this covenant on God’s part must depend.——But, O, the wealth of blessings garnered up within its bosom for those who walk in the steps of Abraham with like precious faith and like godly nurture! How wonderfully does piety become self-perpetuating in the family line from generation to generation of those who take this covenant to their inmost heart and find God in it ever faithful and ever true and evermore “mighty to save” as he hath said!
Here, strange to say, some good men would thrust in a peremptory limitation, asserting that this family covenant is Abrahamic and Jewish only; good for them, but not good for the Christian age; good in the national but not in the family sense and application thereof.——But what is the logic of such a limitation? Was the love of parent for offspring lost out of the human heart at the coming of Christ? Or did the Lord forget at that point how deeply he had implanted this love in human bosoms? Or did he think that piety, under the improved auspices of the gospel age, could thrive without the help of this family covenant? Or did he reason thus—thatthe gospel age having the advantage of the Jewish in so many points, could afford to forego this family promise, and yet not on the whole fall below the Abrahamic dispensation?——Or in another point of view, looking at the evidence rather historically than logically, it is claimed, as I understand the argument, that Christ did not renew the promise—“A God to thee and to thy seed after thee”; and therefore it did not pass over into the gospel age.——To which I reply; The real question is—not, Did Christ renew? but, Did he annul? Did he say—I have come to make void the law, not to fulfill? Did he say—That family covenant which the patriarchs loved so dearly, in the faith of which they trained their sons and daughters into the love and service of their fathers’ God, has well done its work and can stand no longer? Did he labor to reconcile the parental heart of his Jewish disciples—loving their dear little ones so tenderly—to this sudden withdrawal of divine promise—to this sore bereavement of hope and slaughter of faith? Was this what he meant when he said; “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven”? Or was this the meaning of Peter when in the first Pentecostal sermon he proclaimed—“The promise (of the Holy Ghost) is to you and to your children” (Ac. 2: 39)? Or could this have been the purpose of Paul when he testified; “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3: 29)?——The proof that the gospel age ruled out the great family covenant is by no means apparent.——It should be considered that the covenant is one thing; circumcision another. The covenant does not of necessity die because circumcision is discontinued. The covenant existed before circumcision and could be operative without it; indeed could live without any visible sign or seal, if so the Lord pleased.——Nor does the perpetuity of this covenant turn on the proof that baptism takes in all respects the place of circumcision. Whether it does fill the same place or does not, the covenant standeth sure. There is value in an external rite or seal—else God had never enjoined it. But it falls exceedingly far short of being the thing of chief value.
Into the argument respecting the change from the old seal to a new one, it is not in place here to enter.