Calebs Inheritance in Canaan, Chapter 10
CHAP. X. Wherein his 3, 4, 5, and 6, Arguments are anſwered to prove Circumciſion a covenant of Works.
III. P: pag. 58. WE are now come to his third Argument, and that is, becauſe there is no promiſe of eternal life in it, but only a temporal bleſſing in the Land of Canaan, as protection and proviſion, and the like, to prove this he quotes Heb. 8.6: Jer. 11.2, 3. Deut. 7.12, 13, & 30, 13.
A. 1. That Circumciſion, had no promiſe of eternal life attending it is falſe, for eternal life was promiſed in Gods telling Abraham, he would be his God; it is ſuch a blank, that a believer may write what happineſs he will in it: God could not ſay more, nor a believer deſire more.
2. It had the promiſe of the heart-Circumciſion in order to prepare a ſoul for heaven, as the places above cited prove. Therefore it had the promiſe alſo of eternal life.
3. If it had not had the promiſe of eternal happineſs, but onelyonly an earthly Canaan, and protection therein, then in vain doth S. Paul ſay, God was not aſhamed to be called Abrahams God, Heb. 11.16. And in vain alſo did he with Iſaac and Jacob walk as Pilgrims in that land, expecting a better Country, i. e. a heavenly, Heb. 11.8, 14, 16.
4. As to thoſe Texts he mentions, there is not one of them proves that God only promiſed Abrahams ſeed proſperity in Canaan, though that alſo was included, upon their obedience to Gods covenant, which was of Grace, not works, as hath been before largely proved We ſee therefore how well he hath diſtinguiſht the Covenants.
P. IV. His next Argument to prove Circumciſion a covenant of works is, becauſ a man by laying out a little mony might have bought a heathen into this covenant, and have intereſſed him into all the priviledges thereof.
A. The covenant had two parts, one external, relating to mans duty in forms of worſhip; The other ſpiritual, relating to communion with God in thoſe forms, as hath been often mentioned; into the firſt of theſe, all the perſons born in Abrahams houſe, or …ought with mony were to be admitted, and the reaſon is, becauſe all Abrahams family ſo qualifyed were the viſible Church, and ſuch a taking into his family was a taking into the Church: which alſo w…s a type of the purchaſe that Chriſt ſhould pay by his blood. For the Gentiles, we e to be brought into Church-communion, of which that was the firſt fruits, both to them and …heir ſeed; for doing whereof, Gods command did bear him out. And this was to be a ſtanding rule to Iſrael when they came to be a kingdom, becauſe the foundation of the kingdom was laid in Abrahams family, Therefore,
2. When he ſaith, that all ſo bought, were purchac'd into all the priviledges of the covenant, it is a groſs untruth: for juſtification, and ſalvation were the choice priviledges of that covenant wh…ch they could not be bought into, and in that ſenſe Peters anſwer to Simon Magus, Thy mony periſh with thee, had been properly applyed though yet in the other conſideration, what he did was an Ordinance of God.
V. P. His next Argument is, becauſe men out of this covenant might be ſaved, and ſuch as were in it might be damned.
A. Here is ſtill the ſame diſtinction to be noted as before, for thoſe that went to hell were never intereſſed in the ſpiritual part of the covenant, but onelyonly into the external forms of worſhip; the l…ke inſtance we have in the Apoſtles days, Judas, Simon Magus, with the reſt of thoſe hypocrites, and Apoſtates, were all intereſſed in the external part of the covenant, and yet went to hell: this likewiſe was the condition of the fooliſh virgins, who becauſe they had lamps lighted, thought themſelves well enough, and there reſted: in this ſenſe alſo are the words of Chriſt to be underſtood. [The children of the kingdom ſhall be caſt out.] I would a little return this Argument to M: P. How many dipt Apoſtates have fallen quite away from all grace and goodneſs of late yeers, both from them and us? Surely it cannot be denyed, but they were viſibly once in the covenant; therefore all thoſe Scriptures and examples by him brought in, pag. 62, 63, 64. are by this diſtinction anſwered, and the falſe varniſh by him put upon them is hereby waſht off, that ſo they may be ſeen in their glory and ſplendor.
2. It alſo appears that it was the ſame covenant of Grace that juſtifyed Lot, Job, and all Jobs friends that were godly, though dwelling in another Country, that juſtifyed Abraham and his ſeed: for though they had not the ſeal of the covenant, becauſe Abraham was the perſon pitcht upon, to whom it ſhould be firſt adminiſtred; yet they were worſhippers of God in a ſolemn way of ſacrificing: the like we may charitably think now, that many in the world who have not the ſame means of Goſpel-Ordinances, may yet have ſincere hearts to God, and be as a ſcattered ſeed of ſome gracious predeceſſors; and yet not be within the viſible pale of the covenant.
This alſo duely conſidered, is a full anſwer to the reſt of thoſe inſtances, of Davids ſons, and Abrahams ſons, with the whole lump of Iſrael, of all which many were damned, becauſe onelyonly in the viſible part of the covenant. We may therefore ſee hitherto what feeble Arguments Mr. Patient brings to prove Circumciſion a covenant of works.
VI. P. His ſixth Argument for the ends aboveſaid is, becauſe this covenant of Circumciſion may be broken, Gen. 17.14.
A. Still the former diſtinction kept makes the anſwer eaſie and plain; for ſuch who broke the covenant, broke but the external part thereof; the other part could not be broken, and in this ſenſe alſo the covenant in Goſpel days is broken, and as God unchurcht Iſrael for breach of covenant, ſo he doth ſtill, when a Church or people do apoſtatize from his Ordinances: The Apoſtle tells us ſo, Heb. 3.6 Whoſe houſe are we if we hold faſt the confidence and rejoycing of the hope firm to the end, his meaning is, we are his houſe if we keep to the Ordinances of worſhip: implying, That if a people once caſt off the Ordinances, they have broken the covenant, and ſtand related to Chriſt no longer as his houſe. I am ſure that the extent of this Explication will reach Mr Patient, who hath broken the covenant of God, by caſting out of his ſeed. And upon this very hinge it was, That all thoſe examples of Gods judgements upon Iſrael are given, when they revolted from God, and brake this covenant, then God plagues them and cuts them off; and when they renewed their covenant, faſted, humbled their ſouls and repented, God ſhewed Mercy; all which agrees to that remarkable place, which proves the covenant of Grace conditional, Gen. 18.19. For I know Abraham will command his children and his houſhould after him, and they ſhall keep the Way of the Lord, to do Juſtice and judgement. That the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath ſpoken of him; cleerly implying, that if Abrahams ſeed did not walk cloſe in their duties, they ſhould fall ſhort of their expectations, as we afterwards finde Iſrael did.
Therefore whereas M. P. ſaith it is impoſſible the covenant of Grace ſhould be broken, it is falſe. For the external part may be broken, which is part of the covenant: but the inward part of it can never be broken.
P. Pag. 67. He comes to anſwer this diſtinction of the covenant as an Objection, but ſo poorly, that it ſeems he would gladly favour his own opinion; perſons ſaith he, may profeſs outwardly, to be in Chriſt, and ſo in the covenant of Grace by profeſſion: but becauſe it was but a profeſſion onelyonly, and not in truth; therefore they profeſs to be in that wherein they never were.
A. We are now ſpeaking of perſons being in the covenant as the Scripture holds them forth, to be within it; And as men may in the judgement of Charity believe perſons to be in it, in order to Communion of Saints in the world. If therefore the Scriptures tell us there is a twofold being in it, then perſons are in the covenant that are within the viſible part of, as hath been ſufficiently proved, and as his own practice doth acknowledge: ſo that in his anſwer to the Objection, he rather works like a ferry…man, then a preacher; he ſeems to look towards an anſwer, but rows the other way: therefore whereas he ſaith, we have an infallible rule to judge Abraham and his ſeed to be within the covenant of Circumciſion, becauſe God ſaith it, and the Objection before is groundleſs.
A. It hath bean already cleared, that Circumciſion was part of the covenant of Grace; and therefore by this he confeſſeth that perſons are viſible within it, becauſe the infallible rule of the word of God ſaith it; and ſo was the ſeed he ſpeaks of infallible (as he calls it) within the Covenant: The like now, all that by profeſſion, are admitted into Goſpel-Churches. We have the ſame rule to judge by. That they are as really within the covenant as the ſeed of Abraham was then; By which we may ſee the Objection ſtands in force, notwithſtanding thoſe puffs of wind, he hath given at it.
2. Neither doth his bringing in that great Catalogue of Iſraels ſins at all help him; For though it is not denyed but the moſt part of them were wicked and prophane, yet as a ſeparated people God had choſen out, from the reſt of the world, to be a Church, to whom he committed his Oracles, in that ſenſe they were a people in covenant, and ſo ſtood till they were divorc't, and caſt off from being a people. For which ſee Rom. 9. at large. And the reaſon why they were ſo wicked and profane, may be gathered from that place before mentioned, Gen. 18.19. becauſe they kept not up family duties, grew carnal and looſe in their Judgements; and therefore looſeneſs in practice and converſation followed; a needful Item to all Gods people in theſe days.
The like anſwer is to be given to Joh. 8 40, 44. by all which then it appears, that not one Argument he hath hitherto brought, proves Circumciſion to be a covenant of works: we are now arrived at his laſt Argument, and that drawn from the many inconveniencies that will follow, if it be maintained a covenant of Grace: therefore ſo to underſtand Scriptures, as to croſs any fundamentals, cannot be agreeable to the mind of God.