Reply, Position 2 — Argument 2

If circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith, it did not pertain to the covenant of works, for the righteousness of faith and works are opposites, and belong to two contrary covenants.

But circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith (Romans 4:11). He, that is, Abraham, received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith. Therefore it pertains not to the covenant of works, but grace.

A man would think it impossible to evade so clear and scriptural an argument as this is. The major proposition is even self-evident and undeniable; the minor, the plain words of the Apostle.

And what is your reply to this? Certainly as strange a one as ever I met with, page 205. You say, 'Tis true, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham, but it was so to him only, in his extraordinary circumstances; but it was not so to any of his natural sons in its ordinary use.

I cannot deny but I have met with such an assertion before in Mr. Tombes, and I can tell you too, that Bellarmine invented it before Mr. Tombes was born, and that Doctor Ames fully confuted it in his third tome, page 27, proving that there was no extraordinary cause on Abraham's account why God should justify or seal him more than any other believer, and that Abraham had nothing to glory in before God. But to restrain, as you do, the public seal of a covenant that comprehended and equally concerned the whole church and people of God, to one single person, so that neither Isaac nor Jacob, who were by name enrolled in that great charter, should have any right to the seal of it — is such a conceit as amazes an intelligent reader. We know Abraham was the first that received it, but utterly deny that he received it only for himself; but he received it as the father of all them that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, as the very next words tell us: he received it that he might be the father of all that believe, that is, for himself, and all his spiritual children. One half of his sacrament of circumcision you allow, page 205, to the rest that were under [illegible], namely, to be a sign of the covenant; but the other half you cut off, and say it was only a seal to him. What good vouchers have you for this exposition of the text? Have you the concurrence of orthodox expositors? Or is it the rash and bold adventure of your own head? I am sure it no ways agrees with the drift and scope of the Apostle's argument, which evidently is to prove that both Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith, as Abraham was, and that the ground of justification and blessedness is common both to the uncircumcised Gentiles and circumcised Jews, and that Abraham and all other believers have but one way of justification and salvation, and that however great Abraham was, in this case he has found nothing of which to glory (verse 1-2). And is not your exposition a notable one, to prove the community of the privilege of justification, because the seal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone? Rectify it, and better consider it.