George Paxton I.4

SECT. IV.

OF FEDERAL REPRESENTATION.

---

WHEN the constituent members of a religious society devote themselves and their posterity to God in a covenant of duty, the obligation descends from one generation to another, as long as that particular church endures. In a proceeding of this kind, the posterity of the original covenanters are truly covenanters in the loins of their fathers. This is not mere assertion, nor is it a figment resembling some of those legal devices, which nations have adopted for their security; for in scripture,

[Page 24]

scripture, the deed of an ancestor is by the inspired writer ascribed to the posterity, as if they had been actually present, and taking a decided part in the business. “And as I may so say, Levi also, who received tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him*.” In these verses, the Apostle asserts, that the whole tribe of Levi, who by the law received tithes, did themselves virtually pay tithes to the king of Salem, in and through Abraham, as their common father and representative. For Levi and all his descendents were comprehended in Abraham, not only as their natural, but also as their covenant father, who had received the promises for them as well as for himself; otherwise, for what purpose does the Apostle mention Abraham’s having the promises†? And it is as easy to understand how our fathers represented us in their religious covenants, as how Levi paid tithes in the loins of his progenitor. As in many civil contracts, the heir, though unborn, or still a minor, is considered as present and consenting to the deed of his father, and is accordingly bound to fulfil the contract when he comes of age, and enters upon the possession, so are the descendents of covenanting ancestors, virtually present, and engaging with them in that solemn act of worship. An obligation of the same nature and extent, bind the fathers and their succeeding race. The same force may be justly exerted upon both to prevent them from breaking their engagements, or to compel them to return to their duty, or to punish their perfidy. This observation, perhaps, does not fully apply to oaths. If a man purchase an estate, and engage upon oath to pay the price in six months, but die before that time, his heir who enters upon the possession, is bound to fulfil the bargain; for the heir is rightly bound to pay the just debts of his predecessor, to whose goods he succeeds; and it is perfectly just that the inheritance descend with all its burdens. The heir, however, in the opinion of some casuists, is not bound by the oath which was taken by the deceased. “If he refuse to fulfil the engagement of his father, he is indeed unjust, but not perjured. The reason is, an oath is a personal bond, and lays an obligation only upon the conscience of the individual who swears it. But in personal matters no one is bound without his own consent. If it be said, that a man, by his own personal act can bind himself and his heirs, as is done every day in civil agreements, and, therefore, that he may bind his heirs by his own oath, especially if he declare, that he swears in his own name, and in that of his posterity. To this it is answered, That the cases are not the same. Because a spiritual obligation, which is in the conscience must

_____

* Heb. vii. 9, 10.

† See Dr. Guyse.

[Page 25]

must be personal; as every man’s conscience is his own property, and cannot be transferred to his heir. But a temporal obligation follows a temporal matter, which, as it may be transferred to another, can consequently lay an obligation upon another person. The heir then, is bound by the equity of the bargain, not by the obligation of the oath which his father swore*.” But though it were admitted, that the obligation of an oath terminates with the life of the swearer, it will by no means follow, that the obligation of that covenant, which the extinguished oath was employed to ratify, ceases with the life of the covenanter too. Were civil society to admit that the obligation of a covenant cannot descend to posterity, the most fatal consequences to its peace, and even to its very existence, would follow. An oath and a covenant are quite distinct; and so are their obligations. Therefore, as an oath is not essential to a religious covenant, though the obligation of the former end with the life of the swearer, that circumstance can make no change in the obligation of the latter.

But there is some reason to believe that even the obligation of an oath takes hold of posterity as well as that of a covenant. The Patriarch Joseph engaged his brethren by oath to carry up his bones from Egypt to the promised land; and Moses, a hundred and forty years afterwards, religiously fulfilled the obligation. The sacred historian not satisfied with recording the fact, assigns the reason, and clearly recognizes the obligation of the agreement between Joseph and the children of Israel, and makes particular mention of the solemn oath by which the covenant was ratified: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him; for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.” But why does Moses use this language, if he did not believe that the obligation of that oath was now in force? None of the persons were alive who took this oath, when Israel began their journey to Canaan; for it is written, “And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.” According to the opinion we are calling in question, that oath must then have been extinguished; and yet Moses mentions it as the only reason that he carried with him the bones of the deceased Patriarch.

The address of Moses to Israel on the banks of Jordan, besides affording a clear proof that the obligation of a religious covenant descends to posterity, gives some reason to suspect that the obligation of an oath also affects the progeny of the swearer. “Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; but with him that stand-

_____

* Sanderson de Juram.

[Page 26]

eth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day*.” All the congregation of Israel were now present, young and old, men and women, high and low, and the stranger that was in their camp, from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water. Those, then, who were not there with them, could be none other than their future progeny; but with them also, Moses, the inspired prophet of God, declares the covenant was made: and to them accordingly the obligation must extend. But he distinguishes the oath from the covenant which it ratified; and expressly says, that it was made with them and with their children; but this could not be true, if its obligation died with the immediate swearer.

On this doubtful point, however, we shall not insist. But, though it be granted, that the obligation of an oath is personal and incommunicable, the descending obligation of a covenant is not in the least affected; the doctrine for which we plead remains in all its force. Sanderson himself allows, that the obligation of a covenant descends to the posterity of the covenanter, at the very same time that he insists on the impossibility of an oath obliging the conscience of any person but the swearer himself. Nay, by allowing that an oath dies with the swearer, the argument in favour of a descending federal obligation is illustrated and confirmed, as it is disencumbered of a strong objection which is frequently started, “Why are religious covenants renewed, if their obligation descends entire?” The answer is now easy, and we think completely satisfactory. In a covenant ratified by oath there are two distinct obligations; the obligation of the covenant itself, which the above writer calls its Equity, and which, according to him, binds the children or heirs of the contractor; and the obligation of the oath by which it is confirmed. The last obligation terminates with the life of the swearer, and only the first descends to his posterity. Now, as God requires his people not only to vow, but also to swear, the Lord liveth, as we have already proven, posterity are bound, as well as their fathers, to ratify their religious covenant by solemn oath; and therefore, to renew the Deed of their covenanting ancestors, becomes a reasonable and important duty.

Persons become representatives by the choice of those whom they represent; or by the appointment of the lawful superior of both. Ancestors must become the representatives of their succeeding race, not by choice, but by appointment. The laws of every country, directed by the light of nature and the imperious wants of society, appoint the father to represent his child in civil contracts. The God of Israel ap-

_____

* Deut. xxix. 14, 15.

[Page 27]

pointed Abraham to “be the heir of the world,” the Lord and Chief and Representative of the believing world, Jews and Gentiles, to whom the promise was first made, and from whom it was transmitted to the succeeding generations of his natural and spiritual seed, according to the covenant which was made with him. In pursuance of the promise to Abraham, He appointed the congregation at Horeb to represent in their church covenant, all the succeeding generations of that people. In the same manner, it is conceived, and by the same high authority, the radical congregation of every church, covenanting with God, is the representative of all their successors.

When we assert that our fathers represented their posterity in their religious covenants, we only mean, that they were the first of that society who expressed their assent to the promise of spiritual and heavenly blessings, by solemn covenant; and this promise is transmitted from them to us, according to their covenant, as far as it agrees with the word of God. This differs entirely from the representation of Adam. He was appointed by God the federal head of his posterity, in the Covenant of Works, to fulfil the condition of it in their room and stead; but a religious vow imposes no condition whatever, neither upon the representatives nor their successors. The posterity of Adam were bound to stand and fall with him; but our fathers never could and never meant to impose upon us an obligation of this kind. It would have been presumptuous wickedness in the posterity of Adam to examine whether there was any thing faulty in the Covenant of Works, to receive with adoring submission was their duty; but the same rule is given to us, as to our fathers—Search the scriptures—believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, judge for yourselves, and reject whatever you find in their faith and practice discordant with the word of God. Adam undertook both for himself and his posterity; but our fathers undertook only for themselves, and their obedience was never intended to supersede in any manner or degree that of their descendents. The latter are still bound to perform in their own persons all that the former engaged to in theirs.

But, though covenanting ancestors perform no condition in the room of their posterity, God, before whose eyes are all the future generation of men, made his covenant with both. He ordained that the obligation of the covenant should equally reach the fathers and the children, and subject them to punishment for their neglect or breach of vows. The representation of the people of Israel was precisely of this kind. Their illustrious progenitor Abraham fulfilled no condition for his posterity, but received the covenant in the form of a free pro-

[Page 28]

mise, and by faith consented to it. This covenant was so free, that it is called “the giving of the promise;” because, though the promises had been given to the Patriarch before, they were now more fully and clearly revealed than they had ever been.

When God renewed this covenant with the congregation of Israel at Sinai, which was the first particular application of the general covenant made with the common father of all the faithful, that people performed no condition even for themselves, but received the promise of God, and at his command vowed obedience to his law. Hear how the Lord himself represents this covenant between himself and Israel; “Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments and judgments, and to hearken to his voice. And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldst keep all his commandments.”

This was a covenant of gratitude and thankfulness. It by no means required the children of Israel to yield obedience to the law of Moses as the condition upon which they were to inherit the land of Canaan. Had this been the requisition of the covenant, it would have been a covenant of works, by which the reward would have been reckoned not of grace but of debt, and the free and absolute promise to Abraham, rendered of no effect. But, says the Apostle, “The covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of no effect.” The promise of the land of Canaan to the Israelites, and the promise of eternal life, are alike in this respect, that both are absolutely free and unconditional. The Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, “Unto thy seed will I give this land*.” Not a word is spoken of a condition to be performed by Abram, or by his seed. The Israelites enter into the land of Canaan by believing the promise of God, in the same manner as a sinner enters into the heavenly inheritance. They heard the divine promise, and were persuaded that the Lord would not fail to put his people in possession of the good land. Therefore they professed their faith in him, and avowed their desire and resolution, in the strength of his promise, to express their thankfulness to their God and Redeemer, by a cheerful obedience to all his commandments. This was the exercise which Moses intended by these words; “Ye have avouched the Lord to be your God, to walk in his ways.”

Nor, is it any real objection to this view of Israel’s covenanting, that the outward dispensations of Providence towards them were according

_____

* Gen. xv. 18.

[Page 29]

to the regard they had to their covenant with the Lord; that they flourished in prosperity and peace, while they persevered in dutiful obedience to Jehovah, and suffered the desolating calamities of war, famine, and pestilence, when they rebelled against him. We are by no means to think that because the Lord chastises his people for their disobedience, by depriving them of worldly, and even of spiritual comforts, that their obedience is the condition or tenure on which they enjoy these comforts. The supposition is contrary to the nature of the everlasting covenant, by which believers receive all the blessings of time and eternity, as the gift of free and sovereign grace; nor can any work they do, or any quality they possess, add, in the least degree, to the right which the great and precious promises of the covenant give them to those blessings. This was the case under the Old Testament no less than under the New. We learn from the words of Moses that the grant of Canaan to Israel was absolutely free: “Not for thy righteousness, nor for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go in to possess the land; but for the wickedness of these nations THE LORD THY GOD doth drive them out from before thee; and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The Lord dealt with these nations as moral agents, according to the demerit of their crimes; but with Israel as church members, according to the gracious promises of the everlasting covenant*.

As the people of Israel at Sinai and Jordan did not, in any respect, acquire, by their obedience, the enjoyment of the promised land for themselves; so they did not perform any condition for their posterity. Many of the covenanting Israelites came short of their rest through unbelief; yet their children who avoided their rebellion, entered into Canaan. But if they had been required to perform any condition for their descendents, they must have stood and fallen together. The sin of that people affected only the guilty individuals. The carcases of the rebellious fell in the wilderness, but the rest of the congregation remained safe under the protection of God. The language of Moses to Israel, at the renovation of their covenant, corroborates these observations. He does not require them to do something in the name of the people of Israel who were not present on that occasion; but says expressly, that the covenant was made with them who were not there, as well as with them who were present†. As a king bestows an estate upon one of his subjects, and his heirs and successors for ever; requiring, as the only return, that he and they should serve him with inviolable fi-

_____

* Anderson’s Essays.

† Deut. xxix. 5.

[Page 30]

delity; so God, of his royal bounty, gave the land of Canaan, the type of the heavenly inheritance, to Israel, commanding them, as a testimony of their gratitude, to walk in his ways. And thus the Promise or Covenant made with Abraham is to them and to their children, and not to them only, but in the same manner to the Gentiles, who at that time were far from God, and from his covenant, even as many of them as the Lord our God should graciously call to the faith and fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ.