6. We have seen that Abraham, on the account of his faith, and not of his separation according to the flesh, was the father of all that believe, and heir of the world. And in the covenant made with him, as to that which concerns, not the bringing forth of the promised Seed according to the flesh, but as unto faith therein, and in the work of redemption to be performed thereby, lies the foundation of the church in all ages. Wheresoever this covenant is, and with whomsoever it is established, with them is the church; unto whom all the promises and privileges of the church do belong. Hence it was, that at the coming of the Messiah there was not one church taken away, and another set up in the room thereof; but the church continued the same, in those that were the children of Abraham according to the faith. The Christian church is not another church, but the very same that was before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and interested in the same covenant.
It is true, the former carnal privilege of Abraham and his posterity expiring, on the grounds before mentioned, the ordinances of worship which were suited thereunto did necessarily cease also. And this cast the Jews into great perplexities, and proved the last trial that God made of them; for whereas both these,—namely, the carnal and spiritual privileges of Abraham’s covenant,—had been carried on together in a mixed way for many generations, coming now to be separated, and a trial to be made (Mal. 3) who of the Jews had interest in both, who in one only, those who had only the carnal privilege, of being children of Abraham according to the flesh, contended for a share on that single account in the other also,—that is, in all the promises annexed unto the covenant. But the foundation of their plea was taken away, and the church, unto which the promises belong, remained with them that were heirs of Abraham’s faith only.
7. It remains, then, that the church founded in the covenant, and unto which all the promises did and do belong, abode at the coming of Christ, and doth abide ever since, in and among those who are the children of Abraham by faith. The old church was not taken away, and a new one set up, but the same church was continued, only in those who by faith inherited the promises. Great alterations, indeed, were then made in the outward state and condition of the church; as,—(1.) The carnal privilege of the Jews, in their separation to bring forth the Messiah, then failed; and therewith their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham. (2.) The ordinances of worship suited unto that privilege expired and came to an end. (3.) New ordinances of worship were appointed, suited unto the new light and grace then granted unto the church. (4.) The Gentiles came in to the faith of Abraham together with the Jews, to be fellow-heirs with them in his blessing. But none of these, nor all of them together, made any such alteration in the church but that it was still one and the same. The olive-tree was the same, only some branches were broken off, and others planted in; the Jews fell, and the Gentiles came in their room.And this doth and must determine the difference between the Jews and Christians about the promises of the Old Testament. They are all made unto the church. No individual person hath any interest in them but by virtue of his membership therewith. This church is, and always was, one and the same. With whomsoever it remains, the promises are theirs; and that not by implication or analogy, but directly and properly. They belong as immediately, at this day, either to the Jews or Christians, as they did of old to any. The question is, With whom is this church, founded on the promised Seed in the covenant? This is Zion, Jerusalem, Israel, Jacob, the temple of God. The Jews plead that it is with them, because they are the children of Abraham according to the flesh. Christians tell them that their privilege on this account was of another nature, and ended with the coming of the Messiah; that the church unto whom all the promises belong are only those who are heirs of Abraham’s faith, believing as he did, and thereby interested in his covenant. Not as though the promise made to Abraham were of none effect; for as it was made good unto his carnal seed in the exhibition of the Messiah, so the spiritual privileges of it belonged only unto those of the Jews and Gentiles in whom God had graciously purposed to effect the faith of Abraham. Thus was and is the church, whereunto all the promises belong, still one and the same, namely, Abraham’s children according to the faith: and among those promises this is one, that God will be a God unto them and their seed for ever.
John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews<.em>, ed. W. H. Goold, vol. 18, Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1854), 123–24. (HT: Chad Vegas)
Hey brother. I recently became a paedobaptist. Most of the historical evidence I’ve seen supports the Peadobaptists position. However, Aristedes, writing in the 2nd century, argued that it was only after the servants or children of professing believers became Christians that they were called ‘brothers and sisters’ without distinction. So it was only then that they were received into the Christian community. Does this not exclude infant baptism?
Toluwan,
You refer to the Apology of Aristides dated to perhaps 125 AD. His job in this work is to explain to a pagan the differences between Christianity, Judaism, and paganism. In ch. 15 he wrote:
The section to which you refer specifically says: “Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction.” His intent is not to describe the process of church membership or baptism but simply to note that, in Christ, there is neither slave nor free (Gal 3:28). He explaining to his audience why Christians treat as equals those whom the Romans regarded as inferior.
I don’t see how to draw a reasonable inference about baptism from this passage read in context.
Bringing these distinctions between the Law and the Gospel, forward, provides useful tools for a discussion with my young friend who holds to Messianic practices. I’m praying he sees and takes in the distinctions. Thank you for your devotion to Confessional Reformed Theology and clarifying the unity among its guides.
Wonderful quotation from Owen affirming that God’s people, the true church, are always those who have the faith of Abraham, because they trust in the God\Savior who promises to fulfill all righteousness and suffer the death curse in their place as their representative. That is the covenant of grace that was first announced in the garden and then established as the covenant of grace, when God alone walked through the pieces and gave Abraham the bloody covenant sign of circumcision pointing to the One who would fulfill it as the new covenant established by His blood. God’s purpose is always the same, to gather up a people with the faith of Abraham, and that faith is demonstrated by their desire to obey God’s commands. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only son, in submission and obedience, is the supreme example of obedience to God.