Calebs Inheritance in Canaan, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII An anſwer to the ſecond general head touching the Covenant.
PAg. 42. The next general head by him laid down to prove, is, That Circumciſion is no covenant of grace, but of works, called a covenant in the fleſh, Gen. 17.13. but before he comes to his Arguments, he opens the meaning of the word everlaſting, which is to be underſtood of the ever of the Law, eſpecially when it comprehends with it their ſeed in their generations, and this he lays down as a maxim; to prove which, he brings Lev. 16. Num. 25.13. Exod. 40.15. ch. 30.20, 21. all which places speak of the Levitical Prieſthood, either of the line in which it ſhould run, or the way by which they were inſtated into their office, by anointing, or the manner by which they approacht conſtantly into the Tabernacle, or of the manner of their atonement for the people, all which ſhould remain as an everlaſting ſtatute in their generations.
A. That by everlaſting we are to underſtand the ever of the Law onelyonly, is no ſound maxim: for though it be ſo to be underſtood in the places quoted, becauſe it related to the Prieſthood, and Tabernacle worſhip; yet if that covenant in Gen. 17. Which Circumciſion ſealed then, upon which God promiſed the Land of Canaan as a type of heaven, remains ſtill as an everlaſting covenant, then his maxim is broken: ſee therefore that parallel Text, Pſal. 105.6 to Gen. 17. O ye ſeed of …braham his ſervant, he is the Lord our God, he hath remembred his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thouſand generations, which covenant he made with Abraham and his oath with Iſaac, and confirmed the ſame to Jacob for a Law, and to Iſrael for an everlaſting covenant, ſaying, To thee will I give the Land of Canaan, &c.
From which it appear, that the word everlaſting is to be underſtood to a thouſand generations, i. e. to the worlds end; becauſe the giving Iſrael Canaan, was a type of heaven, and from Abrahams days to Chriſt was but forty two Generations. Therefore this difference is to be obſerved; that when he ſpeaks of ſtatutes everlaſting to be obſerved in their generations. 'Tis meant of thoſe Statute Laws, that God gave to Iſrael for worſhip; and ſo as Mr Patient obſerves it is to be underſtood for the ever of the Law. But when the Holy Ghoſt ſpeaks of a covenant, everlaſting, as in Gen. 1….15. 'Tis ſuch a covenant that is to continue▪ ſo long as the heavens and earth ſhall continue, ſo Paul calls it, Heb. 13.20. The blood of the everlaſting covenant. And this in Gal. 3.17. was that covenant that Chriſt confirmed to Abraham and his ſeed 430 yeers before the Law, and called everlaſting, in that place of Geneſis befo e quoted, which everlaſting covenant …o…k in an everlaſting ſeed and is called a Goſpel-preaching to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. and by John, Rev. 14.6. is alſo explained to be an eve…laſting Goſpel: from hence alſo it is that Paul in Heb. 6. when …e ſpeaks of Gods bleſſing Abraham and multiplying his ſeed, which he c lls …he h…rs of promiſe, calls it his immutable Counſel, as relating to both the covenant, and the ſeed of the covenant. Now if there be an everlaſtingneſs in the covenant which takes in ſuch a ſeed as it did to Abraham, then muſt it continue longer then the Law, or elſe there muſt be a mutability. So again, if the perſons row covenant ng were changed, i. e. If God were not the ſame to believers and their ſeed now, as …e was t…en, or if believers ſhould now covenant onelyonly for themſelves, and leave out their ſeed; then there is a mutation of the covenant: therefore David in Pſal. 102.26, 27, 28. before quoted, ſpeaking of the infant ſeed of the Church, tells us, that though the heavens and earth ſhould wax old and periſh as a garment, (which words are qu…ted by Paul, Heb. ….1. to a Goſpel-…h rch) yet that Church ſ…ed ſhould continue, ſo alſo Pſal. 103.17 18. from everlaſting to everlaſting, and that by vertue of t at everlaſting covenant: therefore what feeble maxin s this new Doctor teacheth, and how ill he compares Texts we may here ſee:
Pag 4…. The next thing he opens is theſe words, I will be thy God, and thy ſeeds God, and that two ways; the o…e b a covenant of Grace, the other by a cov…nant of Works; the firſt abſolute, the ſecond conditional, and ſo God gave himſelf to be Abrahams God by a conditional c…v…nant of Works.
A. That this is ſtrange Divinity, that God ſhould be a peoples God by a Covenant of Works ſince the fall, I doubt not but it will appear to ſound Ch iſtians, from what hath been already ſaid: I ſhall therefore paſs it, to come to his confuſed Arguments, ſome of which I have contracted into form, to take the better proſpect thereof.
P. H…s firſt Argument runs thus. That covenant that runs upon conditions, is a covenant of Works: but ſo doth Circumciſion, therefore.
A. To which I anſwer, The firſt propoſition is denyed and d…ſproved, and it is by him confeſt that faith and repentance is a condition of the covenant. So that by this he affirms pro and con and may as well ſay plainly, that the covenant of grace is a covenant of works, becauſe it hath conditions: therefore his foundation is too weak, and rotten for ſuch a building.
P. In pag. 45. he would prove the land of Canaan to be given to Abraham and his ſeed by a covenant of works, and ſo would be their God, and then his Argument runs thus. If God g…ve the Land of Canaan to Abraham and his ſeed upon the condition of Circumciſion, and keeping the Law; then he gave the land of Canaan by a covenant of works: but God gave the land to Abraham upon condition he would circumciſe his ſeed; Therefore.
A. This hath been already cleared, that circumciſion and keep…ng of the law was mans part of the covenant of Grace, in which the Church was to walk with God, being bound up to viſible duties then, as it is now: and that Canaan was not g ven Iſrael by works, my anſwer to the preceding head makes clear, to which I refer the Read…r, yea it is directly againſt theſe Scriptures before quoted, Deut. 9.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ch. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16. Exod. 3.24. Heb, 3.18. ch. 4.1, 2. ch 11. 8, 9, 10. yea ſo to affirm is to put an affront upon God himſelf, and to make him aſhamed of that title of being Abrahams God, Heb. 11.16. See alſo the twelve Scripture-conſiderations before mentioned.
P. In pag 45, 46. he brings ſeveral Scriptures to prove that Circumciſion bound to the keeping of the Law. But not one of all thoſe places by him quoted, ſpeaks that they were bound to keep it as a covenant of works, but as the Law of Chriſt, and ſo Iſraels Goſpel, in which Juſtification was conveyed; and therefore when we read of the Primitive revoltings from Goſpel-Ordinances, to Circumciſion and the works of the law, as the Church at Rome, and Galatia did, it was upon the like miſtake of this Author, who thought the law had been given them as a Covenant of works, which was not ſo intended, and by this means they came to reſt in the law, and are condemned for it by the Apoſtle, Rom. 2.13, 17. Gal. 5.1, 2.
2. Conſider, that Baptiſm now, binds as much to keep the law Moral and Goſpel-Ordinances as Circumciſion then, did bind Iſrael to keep the ſame moral law, with the legal Ordinances; and he m…ght with as much evidence of truth argue, That becauſe Baptiſm binds to keep the law, therefore the Churches of Chriſt now are under a covenant of works.
P. page 47 he winds up thus: Abraham, as if God ſhould ſay, I will be thy God, and thy ſeeds God, to protect, defend, deliver and bleſs thee; with the bleſſings of Canaan, in the fruit of the womb in thy basket and ſtore, and with all outward bleſſings, upon condition that thou wilt be circumciſed, and keep the law as a covenant of works.
A. A poor Argument, was it not? to prevail with Abraham when he might have replyed, Lord there are many that do poſſeſs a far greater portion in the world, yea thou haſt ſaid that my ſon Iſhmael ſhall have twelve Princes riſe from him, and that he ſhall be a great man in the earth, yet none of them are bound up to ſuch ſtrict obligations. And when thou gaveſt a covenant of works to Adam, he ſhould have had heaven, and eternal happineſs and glory. And ſhall I be content with an earthly portion upon ſuch hard terms? And upon this account it is, the Author to the Hebrews doth ſo argue. That God would have been aſhamed to be called Abrahams God, which yet Mr Patient is not aſhamed to tell the world in print that he was Abrahams God by a covenant of Works: — Horrid ſtuffe: —
The like anſwer is to be given to that place, Jer. 11.2, 3, 4, 5. curſed be the man that obeys not the words of this covenant which I commnnded your Fathers, When I brought them from Egypt, ſaying, Obey my voice, ſo ſhall ye be my people, and I will be your God, that I may confirm the oath which I ſware to your Fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey; the Land was given by grace, and the covenant he ſpeaks of was a covenant of grace, not of works; but as faith leads to works, ſo the covenant leads man to h…s duty, in keeping the commands of God; it was ſo then, and ſo it is now, and in this ſenſe, that place is true, Pſal. 6. he rewardeth every man according to his works, not for his works. And we are at this day Gods people, and be our God upon the ſame terms of works, as then, See 2 Cor. 6.17, 18, come out from amongſt them, and be ye ſeparate, and touch not the unclean thing, and then I will be your Father, and ye ſhall be my ſons and daughters, ſo that God becomes ours upon conditions ſtill, and yet by no covenant of works.
P. Page 48. The laſt thing with which he concludes this firſt Argument (if ſuch it be) is this. Abraham had a covenant of Grace made with him, twenty four yeers before that covenant of works, and his happineſs with all his ſpiritual ſeed was in that abſolute covenant.
A. Had M. Patients memory been good, he would not ſo have contradicted himſelf, For firſt, this covenant of works he hath made to begin from Adam, and ſo deſcended to Abraham. For he hath long before proved that the Law which was given from Sinai was in force before the days of Noah, how then is that like to hold with this, that the covenant of works was not given to Abraham? tis twenty four yeers after that of Grace.
2 If he make Circumciſion the covenant of works, that he means: then it implyes that Abraham had two covenants of works; one by deſcent, and the other made afterwards.
3 Where he tells us, the happineſs of his ſpiritual ſeed lies in the abſolute covenant; I anſwer, what ſpiritual ſeed had Abraham if it was not Iſaac? And yet Iſaac was the line in which the covenant of Circumciſion was to run, and not Iſhmael, Gen 17.21. So that look what happineſs the promiſe gave him of Gods being his God, was conveyed in that covenant: and either Mr Patient muſt ſay, it was no happineſs to him, to have God to be his God; or elſe if it was a happineſs: then he muſt acknowledge it in that covenant. Thus we ſee how ſadly he is be error'd: certainly had this Doctrine been brought in the Apoſtles days, he would have lookt upon it as another Goſpel, …nd it is a ſad curſe that he gives to the preachers thereof.
P. A ſecond Argument, though very improperly ſo called, to prove circumciſion a covenant of works, is, becauſe it was a national covenant in the fleſh.
A. The prudent Reader may eaſily obſerve what a poor ſhift this is to maintain Circumciſion a covenant of works; as if a covenant of Grace could not be national: and though what hath been ſaid to prove Circumciſion a covenant of pure Grace, be ſufficient; yet I ſhall briefly add: If the promiſe made with Abraham, was a Goſpel promiſe, in wh ch were contained national bleſſings, in thy ſeed all the nations of the earth ſhall be bleſſed; If the Jews ſhall be re ingraffed as they were cut off; If by the ſtone cut out of the mountains, that ſhall fill the world be to be underſtood the Church and kingdom of Chriſt; If the knowledge of the Lord ſhall cover the earth, as the waters cover the ſeas; If there ſhall be a new heaven, and a new earth, wherein ſhall dwell righteouſneſs; If the kingdom of God was taken from the Jews and given to another Nation:
If the Church now coming out of the wilderneſs, holds parallel with the Church in the wilderneſs, under the Law; If the kingdoms of this world ſhall become the kingdoms of the Lord Chriſt, if that Commiſſion, Mat. 28. in order hereunto, be to teach all Nations, &c. If that Nation and kingdom that will not ſerve Chriſt ſhall be cut off, Iſa 60.12. Then are the bleſſings of a covenant of Grace national bleſſings; and what God intended in Abrahams covenant was national: I need ſay no more.
P. In pag. 49, 50, 51, 52. he runs into a large field of diſcourſe, and over-runs the old Scriptures again (as it is uſual with him) to prove, that though the Jews had the covenant of Circumciſion given them by entail, yet as to matter of Juſtification they were as far off, as Pagans, and heathens: and what Juſtification Abraham had, was while he was uncircumciſed, and yet withal granting, That the Jews had the advantage of other Nations, by having thoſe Eminent tenders of the Goſpel held out amongſt them. And notwithſtanding that covenant in the fleſh: yet they were all ſinners, and therefore there is but one way of Juſtification, which is by faith in his blood; therefore Circumciſion muſt needs be a covenant of works, for if it had been a covenant of Grace, it would have adminiſtred Juſtification with it; This is the full ſenſe as neer as I can collect, out of ſuch ſtragling diſcourſes.
Though the Scriptures he brings in theſe pages to prove what he aſſerts were before omitted, yet I ſhall here take them in, as moſt fit in this place, becauſe the running over things ſo often, would otherwiſe make the Anſwer ſo bulkiſh, and therefore,
A. Though he ſaith, Juſtification by faith was not given by Circumciſion, i. e. by the act done, as neither is it now given by Baptiſm, yet Juſtification was given in that Covenant of Grace which Circumciſion ſealed, and ſo the Elect did obtain it, Rom. 4.11. He received the ſign of Circumciſion, a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of Faith, that he might be the Father of all that believe, though they be not Circumciſed. So that Circumciſion was the covenants ſeal, and not the ſeal of his faith, out of which the Gentile Nations were excluded, till that Jewiſh Church was caſt off, ſo that the Jews were neerer then Pagans and Heathens, notwithſtanding any thing he affirms, becauſe the one was under the call of the Goſpel and the tenders of Grace, when the other was a far off, Aliens and ſtrangers, Eph. 2.11, 12, 13. But when the Goſpel came amongſt them alſo, then they were made nigh by the blood of Chriſt. The Heathens in New-England, will any ſober underſtanding Chriſtian ſay, they are as neer to a ſtate of Juſtification as thoſe that are born and bred up, and dwell under the ſound of the Goſpel? yea Mr. P. himſelf doth contradict what he in this affirms, in acknowledging that the Jews were priviledged before other Nations, in having ſuch precious tenders of the Goſpel, p. 49. ſo that we ſee he doth not ſtick faſt to his own judgement in any thing. But wherein theſe precious priviledges ſhould lye, or how the G…ſpel ſhould be tendred, if they were not viſible under the covenant of Grace, and ſo neerer then Heathens, I cannot ſee, nor, I am ſure, he himſelf: for had not Juſtification run in the Jewiſh Ordinances, more freely then it did to the Gentiles, that had them not, they had inſtead of being priviledged, been more in bondage and ſlavery then any Nation in the world.
2. There is not any one place, or Text or ſyllable in the 2, 3. or 4 to Rom. or in 12, 15, 17, 18, 22. of Gen. or 3, 4, 5. Gal. that ſaith, Juſtification by faith was not given in the covenant of Circumciſion, or that Juſtification by faith is oppoſed to Circumciſion, or that becauſe Abraham was Juſtified, before circumciſed; therefore Circumciſion is a covenant of Works. But this the Texts ſay, that juſtification is to be had in the covenant of Circumciſion, which were it a covenant of works, would not there be found, Rom. 3.1, 2, 3, 30. But
3. And becauſe he tells us in pag. 55. That there is no Text in all the Scripture more cleer to prove the covenant of Circumciſion to be a covenant of works then this 4. Rom. ſetting Faith and Circumciſion in oppoſition, ſhewing that Abrahams ſpiritual ſeed, had their juſtification in another covenant, and not in circumciſion; I have therefore taken it into this place, becauſe one anſwer will ſerve both.
To cleer this place therefore from this cloud of error caſt upon it, I ſhall ſtay ſome time, to ſearch into it. The words are theſe; What ſhall we ſay then, that Abraham our Father as appertaining to the fleſh hath found? For if Abraham was juſtified by works, He hath whereof to glory, but not before God; but Abraham believed God, &c. And how was it then reckoned? when he was in Circumciſion, or in uncircumciſion? not in Circumciſion, &c.
A. By comparing this with the preceding chapter, as alſo with ch. 5, 6, 7, 8. we finde the Roman Church that had imbraced the Ordinances of the Goſpel, were then falling back into the works of the Law, and thoſe legal Ordinances, in them to gain juſtification. And therefore they would be liſtening after thoſe falſe Teachers that preacht up Circumciſion after the manner of Moſes, which was the prevailing error in that Church, and is at this day, it being ſo fallen that they maintain good works, do juſtifie. Now the Apoſtle to bring them off from this error, bids them look upon Abraham, whom they acknowledged to be the father of the faithful; and ſee how the caſe ſtood with him, how he was juſtifyed; ſecretly implying that if he that was the Father of all believers was not juſtifyed by works, then it would be unreaſonable in his children to think that they were; and therefore it was their duty to follow him: by which we ſee Abraham is held forth as a publick perſon in the Goſpel, to which Goſpel-Churches are to have recourſe, to rectifie errors in doctrines of Faith; and if upon ſearch they found that Abraham was juſtifyed in urcircumciſion, then they ſhould not think that Circumciſion was of abſolute neceſſity to juſtification; and therefore tells them it was their miſtake, the Law was never intended by God to juſtifie any, but ch. 3.9. both Jew and Gentile are all under ſin, and ver. 20. therefore by the deeds of the Law no fleſh can be juſtifyed, for all have ſinned, and are therefore juſtifyed freely by his Grace without the deeds of the Law, ver. 28. upon which the Romans make this Objection, Rom. 4.1. What benefit or advantage then hath Abraham found, to whom the covenant was made? The meaning is becauſe Abraham had not his juſtification by circumciſion; therefore they could not ſee any Goſpel-benefit that came by that Ordinance at all; ſo much is implyed in the words: the like alſo ch. 3. what profit then is there of Circumciſion? and it is the ſame objection in effect that M. P. makes, onelyonly a little changed, For thus his runs: If Abraham was not juſtified in the covenant of Circumciſion, then is Circumciſion a covenant of works: both which the Apoſtle anſwers, that though Abraham and his ſeed were not juſtifyed by the Law, as a law or covenant of works; yet there was a conſiderable advantage the Jews had by circumciſion, and chiefly, becauſe unto them were c…mmitted the oracles of God, and ch. 9.4. who are Iſraelites, i. e a peculiar Nation incloſed by God himſelf from all the Nations of the world, to them appertains the adoption, and the Glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the ſervice of God, and the Promiſes, whoſe are the Fathers, and of whom concerning the fleſh Chriſt came; As if he had ſaid, all this heap and bundle of benefits came in to the Jews and that Nation, which no Nation under heaven had beſides, and yet for all this there were many that did not believe, ch. 3.3. For what though ſome did not believe? ſhall their unbelief make the Faith of God without effect? God forbid; as if he had ſaid, The end for which God did ſo much priviledge them above others was, that all his might believe; but yet ſome did not; implying that ſome did, i. e. many of them were juſtifyed. T…erefore ch. 4. 9. he draws t…wards a reſult, cometh this bleſſedneſs then upon the Circumciſion onelyonly, or upon the uncircumciſion alſo? how was it then reckoned? i. e. If Abraham was juſtifyed in uncircumciſion, then the righteouſneſs of Faith comes not upon the Circumciſion onelyonly: and ver. 12. To them who are not of the Circumciſion onelyonly: and ver. 16. Not to that ſeed onelyonly which is of the Law And then the Apoſtle concludes, ver. 23. that it was not written for Abrahams ſake alone that righteouſneſs was imputed to him, but for us alſo, i. e. Rom. and all other Gentiles, if they believe, to whom Abraham is as well a Father, as to the Jews.
So that this triumphant place gives not the leaſt continuance to his opinion; either that Circumciſion was a covenant of works, or that it ſtands in direct oppoſition to ſaith, or that God gave a covenant of works to Abraham, to ſeal a covenant of Grace, as he conſequentially affirms, p. 53. Therefore ſuch an interpretation as he hath given of this place is moſt unſound.
The like anſwer is to be given to that place, Ph…l 3.2, 3, 4. which he brings in pag. 55. as an Appendix to this ſecond Argument; the Philippians were alſo revolting to ſeek after Juſtification by the works of the Law, the teachers of which Doctrine the Apoſtle calls dogs, and evil-workers. And if any had cauſe to boaſt of the law of Works, he had more; yet to him it was but dung and dogs meat, all his priviledges of being a Jew, a Phariſee, Circumciſed; one that concerning the Law was blameleſs. All this ſaith Paul, I can boaſt of, but what is this as to matter of juſtification, which is by faith alone in Chriſt? The like plain anſwer alſo is and may he given to that other place, Gal. 3.3. which Church alſo were back ſliding into the ſame error, and therefore he calls them fools, and tells them they were bewitched ch. 5.1. And if they would be ſeeking Juſtification by works, they ſhould find they were miſtaken. For as many as ſought to be juſtifyed by the works of the Law, were under the curſe. And that no man by the works of the Law was ever juſtifyed, is evident, becauſe the juſt ſhall live by Faith, ver. 10, 11. And therefore he ſends them alſo to Abrahams covenant, For to Abraham and his ſeed were the promiſes made. And ver. 18. he ſhews them the ill-conſequence that would follow, if they thought to be juſtifyed by works, For then the inheritance muſt be by works, that is the inheritance of Abrahams promiſes, both for the Land of Canaan, and all other ſpiritual bleſſings. If it were by the Law then it is no more of promiſes, But God gave them to Abraham by promiſe, And not by a covenant of works, remember that Mr P. upon this again comes with the old Objection, Wherefore then ſerveth the Law, If a man may not be juſtifyed and ſaved by the works of the Law? to what end and purpoſe then was it given? The anſwer is, it was added becauſe of tranſgreſſion, that is, to make ſin look like ſin; and thereby to ingage Gods people then, to walk cloſe in the duties thereof, and in ver. 21. The Apoſtle directly confutes Mr. Patients Doctrine. Is the Law then againſt the Promiſes, or in oppoſition to the Promiſes? God forbid. By all which it appears that the Law was no covenant of Works, nor is Circumciſion or any part of the Law oppoſed to Faith, as he would make us beheve; but this was the great miſtake of many in Primitive Churches by falſe teachers means. And ſo of all Iſrael, as it is alſo of Mr P. that the Law was given to the Church of the Jews as a covenant of works, which God never intended to any ſuch end or purpoſe.