Calebs Inheritance in Canaan, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. The next thing we come to is the ſeveral Arguments he brings in p. 53. to prove Circumciſion onelyonly a ſeal to Abraham, anſwered.
I. FIrſt, becauſe the righteouſneſs of Faith which it ſealed, Abraham had it, before the ſeal was given, but his poſterity could not be ſaid to believe at eight days old: Therefore it was a ſeal to him, and not to them.
A. The ſeal was not annext to Abrahams Faith, as Abrahams, but to Gods covenant made with Abraham; therefore it is called the ſeal of the righteouſneſs of Faith. So that what it ſealed to Abraham was, as he was an heir of the ſame Promiſes with Iſaac and Jacob, Heb. 11.9. therefore what it ſealed to him as an heir, it ſealed to Iſaac and Jacob, and ſo to all believers as co-heirs of the ſame inheritance, Heb. 6.17.
2. If it was a ſeal of Abrahams Faith onelyonly, then it muſt be either as it was a weak faith, or ſtrong faith.
1 It could not be the firſt, becauſe Abrahams faith is by the Apoſtle ſaid not to be weak, Rom. 4.19, 20.
2. If it had been given as a badge of honor to Abrahams Faith (as I have ſeen it affirmed in a piece or C. B.) as a ſtrong faith: then it ſhould have been given to Adam and Noah, who had as ſtrong faiths as Abraham; and leſs Goſpel-light then Abraham had to work it.
3. There was no neceſſity to have Abrahams juſtification ſealed, more then Adams, Seths, Noahs, or any of his predeceſſors, eſpecially if it be conſidered what M. P. himſelf grants, that he was juſtifyed twenty four years before this ſeal was given, therefore
4. Had it not been a ſeal to Iſaac, as well as to Abraham, and ſo not onelyonly a ſeal of Abrahams faith, it might have been given upon the birth of Iſhmael, and Abraham need not have ſtaid for a ſon of promiſe, for it would have ſealed as much then to Abraham, as it did after, if it was not the covenant-ſeal.
5. Had it not been a ſeal to Iſaac, and ſo a part of the covenant, then Iſaacs not being circumciſed had been no breach of the covenant; directly againſt that place, Gen. 17.10. For a ſeal the Apoſtle calls it, and a ſign God calls it. So that had it onelyonly been a ſeal of Abrahams Faith, the covenant had not come ſealed to Iſaac; becauſe the ſeal reacht onelyonly the Faith of Abraham, and when he dyed, the ſeal was broken off. Therefore
6. It is a cleer truth, that as the bleſſings of the covenant were made to Abraham by Promiſe, and to his ſeed, ſo Gods main drift being to make thoſe covenant-bleſſings ſure to all the heirs of Promiſe, Heb. 6.17: he therefore deals as a man that would be believed. Firſt he promiſe…, ſecondly, he ſwears to confirm that Promiſe, Thirdly, he ſeals what he hath promiſed. So the ſeal becomes the covenant-ſeal, as the oath is the Covenants oath: and what God promiſed to Abraham, he promiſed to his ſeed; and what he confirmed by oath to Abraham he confirmed to his ſeed; and what God therefore ſealed to Abraham, he ſealed alſo to his ſeed. All which was to ſhew the immutability of his Counſel to the heirs of Promiſe, not only to ſuch as were heirs under the Law, but to the worlds end, as the Apoſtle tells us before, in the place quoted.
II. His next reaſon or Argument why it ſealed onelyonly to Abraham is, becauſe it is ſaid, he received it, that he might be the Father of all that believe. Which could not be ſaid of Iſaac, becauſe he was but a child.
A. Though Abraham was made the Father of the faithful, by having that ſeal given him; yet he could not have been ſuch a father without ſuch a ſon, becauſe they are relatives, not onelyonly in the natural relation, but in the promiſe, for though Iſhmael was born thirteen yeers before Iſaac was promiſed; yet had God given him circumciſion then, Abraham had not been the Father of the faithful, becauſe Iſhmael was not a faithful child. So that, that which was required to make Abraham a father of a faithful ſon, was required in Iſaac to make him ſuch a ſon of a faithful Father: Therefore that ſeal that was given to Abraham as a father, was given to Iſaac as a ſon.
III. His third Argument to prove it a ſeal onelyonly to Abraham is Here is the ſpirit of God affirming the ſealing uſe of Circumciſion to Abraham onelyonly, upon a reaſon ſpecial to him; therefore where the Scripture hath not a mouth to ſpeak, we muſt not have an ear to hear.
A. The ſpirit of God ſpeaks no ſuch thing, but the ſpirit of M. P. for where is it ſaid, it was a ſeal to him onelyonly? no ſuch Text is to be ſound in all the Scriptures, for as is before ſaid, what it ſealed to him as a father, it ſealed to Iſaac as a ſon of that Father, for the covenant related to poſterity. I may therefore ſay of him as the Prophet ſaid of the falſe Prophets, who ſaid the Lord ſaith it, as here M P. doth, when indeed the Lord hath not ſpoken: therefore the Scripture hath a mouth to ſpeak, if he had an underſtanding heart to know when and what it ſpeaks: let ſuch therefore who have ears to hear, hear what the ſpirit ſpeaks to the Churches.
IV. P. A fourth ground or reaſon he gives that Circumciſion ſealed onelyonly to Abraham, is drawn from Rom. 4.13. The promiſe that he ſhould be the heir of the world was not to him and his ſeed through the Law, i. e. ſaith M. P. through the covenant of Circumciſion, But through the righteouſneſs of Faith. For if they that be of the Law be heirs, then Faith is made void.
A. 1. He here again ſuppoſes that which is denyed, and the contrary proved, i. e. That Circumciſion was not a covenant of works.
2. When it is ſaid the promiſe of his being the heir of the world was not made to Abraham through the Law, The Apoſtle means, that it was not to be confined and ſhut up to the generations of the Law onelyonly, and ſo it was not to his ſeed through the Law onelyonly, but through the righteouſneſs of Faith; that is, his Patrimony came upon ſuch high tearms as would reach to a thouſand generations, Pſal. …05. even to the Gentiles under the Goſpel to the worlds end: and that this is his meaning is clear, by the following words, For if they which are of the Law be heirs (i. e. They and they onelyonly, but heirs they were, Faith is made void. That is, the faith which Abraham had, by which he did believe the multiplying of his ſeed in all Nations upon the grounds of the Promiſe, that faith is quite fruſtrated, becauſe it went no further then the generations of the Law; And therefore it is of faith that it might be by Grace, to the end the promiſe might be ſure to all the ſeed, and then he fully explains what he ſaid before, Not ſure to that ſeed onelyonly, which were of the Law, where the word onelyonly doth ſuppoſe it was ſure to the legal ſeed, therefore it cannot be meant of a covenant of works, for ſo the promiſe was never ſure to any from the Creation to this day, or ever ſhall be.
3. If the place were to be underſtood in his ſenſe, namely of a covenant of works, Then it confutes in direct terms w…at he hath ſo much pleaded for in his book. As that Canaan ſhould be given by a covenant of works. For the promiſe that he ſhould be the heir of the world, (in which that land was included) was not to him and his ſeed through the Law, i e. ſaith Mr P not by the covenant of Circumciſion, but through the righteouſneſs of faith. And if the Apoſtle ſaith, not by that covenant, then why doth Mr P. ſo often affirm elſewhere it was?
Thus we ſee, there is nothing in all he hath ſaid, that proves Ci… cumciſion either a covenant of works or ſeal to Abraham onelyonly, but enough to prove it a ſeal to all the heirs of promiſe, even whilſt they are infants: All ye therefore that belong to the covenant of Grace, fear not to give your infant-ſeed that Ordinance which now is the ſeal of the covenant.
P. The laſt Scripture he here brings to prove Circumciſion a covenant of works is Gal. 4. latter end, where the Apoſtle compa es the two covenants to Sarah and Hagar, the covenant of Circumciſion is held forth to be the bondwoman, ch. 5.1.2, 3. ch 6.13. wh…ch place doth prove, the covenant made in the fleſhly line of Abraham is a covenant of Works. And that which the Goſpel is ſet in oppoſition to, For the covenant of Grace is, I will put my Law in their hearts but the covenant of Circumciſion is not in the heart, but in the fleſh.
A. The diligent Reader may eaſily obſerve the palpable contradictions that are here to be found. Hagar types out the covenant of works. Sarah types out the covenant of grace, and the fl…ſhly covenant of Circumciſion (as he calls it) which is typed out by Hagar, is made in the fleſhly line of Abraham which muſt be Iſhmael. And then he contradicts what he hath been all this while maintaining, i e. that the fleſhly line is Iſaac and Jacob, in which the covenant of Circumciſion was to run: and ſo alſo he oppoſeth the Apoſtle Gal. 4 23 But he that was born of the bondwoman, was born after the fleſh: but he of the free-woman was by Promiſe; ſo that what Paul calls the children by promiſe, he calls the children of the fleſh. Thus men leaving truth making wiſe, God leaves them to publiſh their own folly.
That place Gal. 1.2, 3. is already anſwered, they were ſuch that were falling back from Grace to be juſtified by works through their groſs miſtake, thinking as Mr P. doth, that the Law had been given for a covenant of works.
Laſtly, Though God hath promiſed to write the new covenant in the heart, yet the ſeals of that covenant are written in the fleſh: ſo it was then. For God writ the new covenant in the heart, under the Law, and yet circumciſion was no covenant of works. But a figure of what God did within, Deut. 30.6. Rom. 2.28, 29. by which places we may ſee Circumciſion had the ſame promiſes attending it then to believers and their ſeed, as baptiſm hath now. And it may with as much evidence of truth, be ſaid, that baptiſm is a covenant of Works, becauſe it is adminiſtred upon the fleſh; as Circumciſion was then. Therefore all his Arguments and Scriptures he hath brought hitherto to prove Circumciſion a covenant of works, have been ill drawn, and worſe applyed.