Genesis 17

Views of ancient and modern writers. That the Angel of the Lord is the Logos of John, who is connected with the supreme God by unity of nature, but personally distinct from him, was, if we except Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, the universal doctrine of the Early Church. The Fathers of the first Synod in Antioch (A.D. 269), in a letter sent to Paul of Samosata before his deposition, affirm that “the Angel of the Father, being himself Lord and God,” appeared to Abraham and to Jacob, and to Moses in the burning bush. Hengstenberg.—Two principal opponents of this view among the German biblical writers, Hofmann and Delitzsch, maintain the Angel of the Lord to be a created angel. Kurtz at first agreed with Hengstenberg, but afterward adopted the view of Hofmann and Delitzsch. Among later English writers the view maintained in these pages is held by Dr. Gordon, Christ as made known to the Ancient Church (Edinburgh, 1854); Canon Barry, Article Angel, in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 1869; Macdonald, Introduction to the Pentateuch, 1861; Steward, Mediatorial Sovereignty, 1863; Dr. Walsh, Bishop of Ossory, in his very interesting work, The Angel of the Lord, or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament (Seeley, 1876); and the Speaker’s Commentary; also by the Danish Bishop of Seeland, Dr. H. Martensen, in his Christian Dogmatics, 1866. Medd.

[Read note in Sect. 49, verse 17, for full outline of arguments on either side.]

1. AND when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said 2 unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my 3 covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his 4 face; and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and 5 thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abraham, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made 6 thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings 7 shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and 8 to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. 9 And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy 10 seed after thee throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a 12 covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money 13 of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh 14 for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. 15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but 16 Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her. 17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born 18 unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And 19 Abraham said unto God, Oh that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish

20 my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee; behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

1. A second time God appeared, to repeat His promises with greater explicitness than before, and to seal by a sacramental symbol His servant’s adhesion to the covenant. In substance, the earlier promises to which God had bound Himself by the night ceremony thirteen years before were reiterated on this second occasion. But they were reiterated with an amplitude and completeness which had never been approached.

I am God Almighty. By this time, a child of their marriage was become, according to the usual laws of life, a physical impossibility. It is no wonder that, when God designed to demand of His aged servants faith in so improbable an announcement, He should have prefaced the oracle by proclaiming as His new name EL SHADDAI—God the Almighty one. For the only key that will unlock such a difficulty as this—it is in effect the standing difficulty of our age, the presence of the supernatural among the sequences of nature—lies in these words of a greater than Abraham: “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” “Is anything too hard for Jehovah,” if the Jehovah Who is Abraham’s God be indeed El Shaddai, the all-powerful Maker and Lord of nature, the quickener of all things, Who vivifies the dead, and calls the things that are not as though they were?

Walk before me, and be thou perfect. God had chosen Abraham to be His friend. If Abraham accept such a lofty title, he must walk in friendship with God. Jehovah had pledged Himself to be the God of Abraham. If Abraham receive such a pledge, he must faithfully own and serve Jehovah as his God. A loyal, obedient, worshipful attitude toward this gracious Covenanter is implied in the very act of becoming a party to His covenant. Before the details of the divine engagement fall to be recited, the interview is prefaced by these words, which must be viewed as a summary of the whole in its outstanding lines:

“I am EL SHADDAI: walk before me and be perfect, and I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.” To “walk before the face or presence of God,” meant to order his daily life and behavior according to His will, so as to retain His friendly approval. To be “perfect” in this holy bond of amity meant to adhere to it with an undivided loyalty to the service of Jehovah Shaddai. Dykes.

The words seem to imply that the realization of the Divine Presence in all things is the great secret of perfection; that is, of such perfection as man can by grace attain unto. But how shall we obtain an habitual assurance of a truth whereof our senses give us no notice whatever?—how shall we walk before God, as seeing Him who is invisible? In the same way by which all other results in the spiritual life are obtained,—by trustful, expectant, sanguine prayer, and effort. It is obvious that this very grace—mindfulness or consciousness of God’s presence—may be made the subject of special prayer, an answer to which, as in the case of every spiritual blessing which we petition for, should be looked for with confidence, on the ground of God’s promise to prayer. But then there is, besides this, the doing what in us lies to attain the end. And what in us lies is this,—to call the attention definitely to God’s presence, as occasion offers, at the necessary breaks or periods in our work, and the occasional mingling with the act of recollection two or three words of secret prayer which may suggest themselves on the moment. And it will be found in course of time, that the constant recurrence of the thoughts to God will pass into an instinctive consciousness of His presence and that the mind will acquire a tendency to gravitate toward Him at all times, which will operate easily and naturally as soon as it is relieved of the strain which worldly affairs put upon it. E. M. G.

Communion with God consists chiefly in an ordering our ways as in the presence of Him that is invisible. This would make us spiritual, careful and watchful in all our passions, if we considered that God is present with us as with the angels in heaven; who though they have a presence of glory above us, yet have not a greater measure of His essential presence than we have. If God should appear visibly to us when we were alone, should we not be reverent and serious before Him? God is everywhere about us, He doth encompass us with His presence; should not God’s seeing have the same influence upon us as our seeing God? He is not more essentially present if He should so manifest Himself to us than when He doth not. We could not seriously think of His presence, but there would pass some intercourse between us; we should be putting up some petition upon the sense of our indigence, or sending up our praises to Him upon the sense of His bounty. The actual thought of the presence of God is the life and spirit of all religion; we could not have sluggish spirits and a careless watch if we considered that His eye is upon us all day. Charnock.

Walk before me, and be thou perfect, that is, upright and sincere; for herein the covenant of grace is well ordered, that sincerity is our gospel perfection. To be religious is to walk before God in our integrity; it is to set God always before us, and to think and speak and act in everything, as those that are always under his eye. It is to have a constant regard to his word as our rule, and to his glory as our end, in all our actions, and to be continually in his fear. It is to be inward with him, in all the duties of religious worship, for in them particularly we walk before God, and to be entire for him, in all holy conversation. Upright walking with God, is the condition of our interest in his all sufficiency. If we neglect him, or dissemble with him, we forfeit the benefit and comfort of our relation to him. A continual regard to God’s all-sufficiency will have a great influence upon our upright walking with him. H.

Those who profess to believe in him must not live as they list, but as he pleases. Though redeemed from the curse of the law and from the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish church, they are under the law to Christ, and must walk before him—be in all things obedient to that moral law, which is an emanation from the righteousness of God and of eternal obligation; and let it ever be remembered, that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him. Without faith and obedience, there can be no holiness; and without holiness, none can see the Lord.

Be all that God would have thee to be, and God will be to thee all that thou canst possibly require. He never gives a precept, but he offers sufficient grace to enable thee to perform it. Believe as he would have thee, and act as he shall strengthen thee; and thou wilt then believe all things savingly, and do all things well. A. C.

4-6. A most numerous and wide branching posterity was secured by the contract. Already it had been again and again promised—first in Haran, next at Bethel, and last at Mamre. The fullest expression was now given to it in these words: “Thou shalt be a father of many nations.” Dykes.—Mark the increase and graduation of the divine promise. The seal to it is the new name, “Abraham,"—that is, father of a multitude (of nations). Even from Ishmael sprung a great people. The Edomites spread themselves abroad. Numerous families came from Keturah. From Jacob the twelve tribes and their descendants derived their origin, with all the numerous Abrahamids who, during eighteen centuries, have been incorporated into the Christian Church; and besides these, the spiritual Israel, to which the nations converted from heathenism to Christ also belong.—“And kings?” Saul and David, and their successors for centuries. Above all, we must not forget him who has said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” C. G. B.—To be called “Father of a multitude” was not a reward attached to his confidence in the divine assurances, so much as a gracious attestation and memorial of them. It made it easier, so to say, to keep alive his confidence in the future, when the very name by which other men addressed him was itself a standing pledge of that future, given from Heaven.

7. Thus ran the wonderful words: “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” Here lay the heart and kernel of the whole. It is the heart of all the deepest experiences of the saints, from that day to this. It is the “blessing” which wraps up within it every other divine benefit, and makes our earthly boons to be blessings indeed. That God did bind Himself to act as God—their God—toward this man and his posterity; to bless them; to make them channels of blessing for mankind; to be all and do all for their advantage that a friendly, propitious God can do or be for His fallen human children;—here was the magnificent and quite inexhaustible treasure of this amazing treaty. Dykes.

The promise to be a God to him and his seed could not have meant simply a covenant for his personal salvation; for this had been assured to him before when “he believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Nor can it mean to be a covenant of natural blessings to his natural descendants, for in the covenant are included the household, embracing servants and all; while, on the other hand, many of his descendants, as the families of Ishmael and Esau, had no birthright in this covenant. The Apostle Paul expresses it fully by declaring that in this covenant Abraham was “the heir of the world,” and the representative of all who in all ages after should exercise the faith of Abraham. If so, then the covenant to be their God and to make them a blessing indicates a purpose specially to dwell among, and manifest himself to, this peculiar body, and, through it, to manifest his grace to the nations. In short, here are all the elements of a definition of the visible Church; and this is the beginning of that peculiar society as a separate visible body on earth. Nor is this charter ever to be annulled. It is “an everlasting covenant.” And though the term everlasting may, at times, be used in a limited sense, such cannot be the case here; for its blessings are to reach to all generations of him who is the representative father of the faithful. Under this charter Moses may develop the theocratic commonwealth, and David the theocratic kingdom, and these may pass away again—but still the covenant charter is not annulled. Just as, under the covenant of grace, the great fact of justification by faith may be exhibited, now in the simple sacrifices of Adam or Abel or Noah, or now in the elaborate ritual of Moses, or now in the simple ordinances of the New Testament, without thereby annulling or even impairing that covenant; so in the case of this great charter covenant of the Church. This covenant with Abraham is, therefore, the divine charter of the visible Church as heretofore and still existing. There is no other charter found in Scripture. Paul, in Rom. 3:29 and 4:11-17, and in Gal. 3:7-9, expressly declares that the New Testament Church of believers is the true successor to the covenant with Abraham. S. R.

The wonderful argument in Gal. 3:16-29 proves the identity of the system of grace in the Old Testament and the New. The gospel is, in reality, older than the law. When Jehovah entered into a covenant with Abraham to bless all nations in his seed, that promise looked forward to Christ. Between the giving of the promise and its fulfilment, the law came in as a means of training and discipline. It was our schoolmaster, or, more exactly, our pedagogue,—the name given to a guardian who every day led the child to the teacher, and kept him under proper restraint in going and coming. So the law led to Christ; and this in two ways: its commands caused men to realize the failure of self-made righteousness, of attempts at character; and its sacrifices fixed in the human mind and in human speech the idea of an atonement. With the coming of Christ, the Jewish system, with all that was local or national or typical in it, passed away; but the original platform of the gospel remained. J. P. T.—To this hour there is for none of us any standing more secure or blessed. That covenant with Abraham is in essence the new covenant of our peace, which has been sealed by the blood of Abraham’s seed. Dykes.

10-14. The covenant of circumcision, which was made with Abraham after the birth of Ishmael, and the change which took place in his name, brought out with a quite new force the truths which he had been gradually apprehending before. That covenant, like the covenant with Noah, was one not of bargain, but of blessing. It was an assurance, that he who entered into it was called, chosen, set apart by God. He had not taken up the position himself; his business was simply to acknowledge that it was his, and to act as if it were. But, unlike the former covenant, man was to make the sign; the sign was a perpetual indication to him that he must give up his own natural inclinations if he would be a true man according to God’s call and purpose. It taught Abraham a truth about himself which the rainbow could not teach him. Yet he only acquired this wisdom through an ordinance which concerned every member of his household, and all who were to come after him, as much as it concerned him. Maurice.

And thou. On the earlier occasion (13 years before, Gen. 15) it was the Divine Party in the covenant Who, as the gracious originator of it, bound Himself to its observance by a solemn ceremony,—the passage of the glory between the sacrifices. Now it was His human friend, elevated to the dignity of a covenanter with God, who was called upon to accept his share of obligation, and bind himself to its performance by a parallel ceremony—the symbolic rite of circumcision. It has to be noted with care, that not until the promises of God had all been for a long while accepted by the tacit faith of the patriarch, did he receive any command touching circumcision. To this order in the events Paul calls attention as significant (Rom.

4 : 9). Faith precedes the sacramental seal; and the man’s acceptance in God’s sight as His covenanted friend hangs upon his faith, and is synchronous with that, not with his circumcision. The sign which attested on man’s side his adhesion to the alliance and his acceptance of the blessing, was no more than “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised.” It is the uniform order of the divine dealings with fallen man. Grace comes first; for God must volunteer the blessing which through sin we have forfeited. Dykes.

11. Token of a covenant.** All theocratic ordinances are in general signs and pledges of the covenant relation. But the main sign of the covenant is circumcision, which is the constant symbol of covenant obligations, and of consequent covenant rights. O.—Its first and most obvious design was to serve as a sign of the covenant into which the posterity of Abraham were, in the person of their father, to enter; or in other words, to fix upon the persons of all his natural descendants a distinguishing mark, separating them from the rest of the world and denoting their peculiar relation to the true God. There are expressions of Scripture which show that this rite imported the highest degree of sanctification and holiness. Moses repeatedly speaks of the “circumcising of the heart to love the Lord with all our heart and all our soul” (Deut. 10 : 16 ; 30 : 6). And the prophet Jeremiah’s language is singularly emphatic (Jer. 4 : 4). It served also to Abraham and his seed as a memorial of their engagements. When they submitted to this ordinance, whether it were in infancy or at an adult age, they were no longer to consider themselves their own or at their own disposal, but as dedicated to the service of their God. Paul instructs us to consider it as “a seal of the righteousness of faith,” inasmuch as it shadows out a circumcision of the heart, which is an inward seal that the sinner is justified by faith as Abraham was. Bush.

For Abraham and Israel alone circumcision was divinely commanded, and established as a covenant-sign. And because God actually did enjoin it, it here appears a sacred institution, which was destined to endure until the Lord should establish a higher covenant-sign, and, in place of the circumcision of the flesh, should divinely appoint that of the heart, which the former prefigured, and which enlarged means of grace rendered more attainable. Its object and significance is no doubt cleansing, moral purity—purity or circumcision of heart; the outward, as in baptism, being the emblem of the inward. C. G. B.

Viewed in its negative bearing, circumcision, as introduced in the family of Abraham, implied a symbolical removal from generation of what was unholy and impure; viewed positively, it conveyed a symbolic dedication and setting apart thereof for Divine purposes, in and through the covenant. For in this manner the covenant people is called into being and continued, and this people is to be a holy and a priestly nation (Ex. 19 : 5 and 6). This is the objective import of circumcision, the ground on which God insists upon it. Its subjective aspect, the ground on which Abraham administered the rite to himself and to his family, was, that thereby man falls in with the Divine covenant-idea and undertakes the covenant obligations devolving on him. Thus circumcision becomes a sign and seal of the covenant, i.e., it makes every one who has submitted to it a partaker of the privileges, and demands at his hands fulfilment of the duties connected with the covenant. And because not only the abstract and ideal totality of the people, but every single individual, shares in the covenant privileges and obligations, he must also personally have part in the covenant and take its sign upon himself. If even the generation of the covenant people is to be sanctified and devoted to covenant-purposes, it follows, as matter of course, that their whole life, which commences with this generation, is to be set apart for these objects (Rom. 11 : 16), to subserve and to advance them. The child begotten in circumcision is thereby sanctified for the covenant (1 Cor. 7 : 14), and this is realized when in turn it undergoes circumcision. Circumcision, which is to remove the growth of nature—that which is unholy and impure—from the principle and source of life, is, so to speak, to extend its power and influence through all the ramifications of life. It implies the obligation of withdrawing all the other relations of life from the dominion of nature, of circumcising the foreskin of the heart, of the lips, of the ear, and of devoting heart and mind to the duties and purposes of the covenant. K.

Circumcision may be called, with Ewald, “the offering of the body.” It does not operate as an individual means of grace. Circumcision is no vehicle of sanctifying forces, as it makes no demand in reference to the internal state of the recipient. The rite effects admission to the fellowship of the covenant people, securing to the individual as a member of the nation his share in the promises and saving benefits granted to the nation as a whole. On the other hand, circumcision binds him who was received it to obedience to God, whose covenant sign he bears in his body and to a blameless walk before him. Thus it is the symbol of the renewal and purification of heart. This signification of the rite is in the Old Testament specially brought out in the use of the phrase, uncircumcision of heart, to denote a want of receptivity for the things of God; while, on the other hand, the purification of the heart by which it becomes receptive for the things of God and capable of executing God’s will, is called circumcision of the heart. With circumcision was combined the naming of the child, which although it is first expressly mentioned in Luke 1:59; 2:21, is clearly indicated by the connection of Gen. 17:5 with what follows and 21:3 f. By this it is signified that his name expresses his having a place in the divine covenant. How frequently the giving of a name was in Israel an act of religious confession, is seen in the meanings of numerous biblical proper names. O.—Circumcision taught that what is born of the flesh can only be flesh. It suggested that it is by the painful renunciation of fleshly desire and natural self-confidence, man must be surrendered to God’s service as His fit instrument for gracious ends. It was like a symbol carved upon the very flesh of Abraham, to tell him that his entire being, even in its merely animal basis of physical desires and physical powers, was claimed for the service of that God Who had called him to be His friend. Dykes.

In later times, when the children of Israel had grown into a distinct people, and everything was placed under the strict administration of law, it was always left open to people of other lands and tribes to enter into the bonds of the covenant through the rite of circumcision. This rite, therefore, must have had a significance for them, as well as for the more favored seed of Jacob. It spoke also to their hearts and consciences, and virtually declared that the covenant which it symbolized had nothing in its main design of an exclusive and contracted spirit; that its greater things lay open to all who were willing to seek them in the appointed way; and that if at first there were individual persons, and afterward a single people, who were more especially identified with the covenant, it was only to mark them out as the chosen representatives of its nature and objects, and to constitute them lights for the instruction and benefit of others. There never was a more evident misreading of the palpable facts of history than appears in the disposition so often manifested to limit the rite of circumcision to one line merely of Abraham’s posterity, and to regard it as the mere outward badge of an external national distinction. It is to be held, then, as certain in regard to the sign of the covenant as in regard to the covenant itself, that its more special and marked connection with individuals was only for the sake of more effectually helping forward its general design. And not less firmly is it to be held that the outwardness in the rite was for the sake of the inward and spiritual truths it symbolized. It was appointed as the distinctive badge of the covenant, because it was peculiarly fitted for symbolically expressing the spiritual character and design of the covenant. It marked the condition of every one who received it, as having to do both with higher powers and higher objects than those of corrupt nature, as the condition of one brought into blessed fellowship with God, and therefore called to walk before Him and be perfect. When God was establishing a covenant, the great object of which was to reverse the propagation of evil, to secure a seed that should be itself blessed, and a source of blessing to the world, He affixed to the covenant this symbolical rite—to show that the end was to be reached, not as the result of nature’s ordinary productiveness, but of nature purged from its uncleanness—nature raised above itself, in league with the grace of God, and bearing on it the distinctive impress of His character and working. It taught the circumcised man that he must no longer follow the unregulated will and impulse of nature, but live in accordance with the high relation he occupied, and the sacred calling he had received.

Most truly, therefore, does the apostle say that Abraham received circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had—a divine token in his own case that he had attained through faith to such fellowship with God, and righteousness in him—and a token for every child that should afterward receive it; not indeed that he actually possessed the same, but that he was called to possess it, and had a right to the privileges and hopes which might enable him to attain to the possession. Most truly also does the apostle say in another place: “He is not a Jew which is one outwardly (i.e., not a Jew in the right sense, not such an one as God would recognize and own); neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” The very design of the covenant was to secure a seed with these inward and spiritual characteristics; and the sign of the covenant, the outward impression in the flesh, was worthless, a mere external concision—as the apostle calls it, when it came to be alone—excepting in so far as it was the expression of the corresponding reality. . . . The children of Israel had no right to the benefits of the covenant merely because they had been outwardly circumcised; nor were any promises made to them simply as the natural seed of Abraham. Both elements had to meet in their condition, the natural and the spiritual; the spiritual, however, more especially, and the natural only as connected with the spiritual, and a means for securing it. Hence Moses urged them so earnestly to circumcise their hearts, as absolutely necessary to their getting the fulfilment of what was promised. . . . It may also be noted, that by this quite natural and fundamental view of the ordinance, subordinate peculiarities admit of an easy explanation. For example, the limitation of the sign to males—which in the circumstances could not be otherwise; though the special purifications under the law for women might justly be regarded as providing for them a sort of counterpart. Then, the fixing on the eighth day as the proper one for the rite—that being the first day after the revolution of an entire week of separation from the mother, and when fully withdrawn from connection with the parent’s blood, it began to live and breathe in its own impurity. P. F.

14. The uncircumcised shall be cut off.** The entrance into this covenant was not voluntary. None of Abraham’s posterity could withdraw from the grace which, by means of this covenant, was bestowed on the whole people, and through them on the whole world. The punishment of “being cut off from his people,” which God threatens on the neglect of circumcision, occurs very frequently afterward, under the law, as the penalty for very grievous crimes. This punishment is a threatening, on God’s part, that all the evil should overtake the transgressor, from which, through God’s covenant, he was defended. Gerl.—The simple meaning seems to be, that the uncircumcised should have no right to nor share in the blessings of the covenant, which were both of a temporal and spiritual kind; and if so, then eternal death was implied; for it was impossible for a person who had not received the spiritual purification to enter into eternal glory. The spirit of this law extends to all ages and dispensations—he whose heart is not purified from sin cannot enter into the kingdom of God. A. C.

5. Thy name shall be Abraham.**

15. Sarah her name shall be.** It certainly has a peculiar meaning, that when we enter on the second stage in the life of the chosen, the names of Abraham and his wife should be changed. This, as it were, is a symbol and an earnest of the new thing which the Lord is to bring forth. For “the name indicates the character.” It is the motto for the new path of life opening before them. K.

17. Abraham fell upon his face and laughed.** From the reverential attitude assumed by Abraham we infer that his laughter sprang from joyful and grateful surprise. Said in his heart. The following questions of wonder are not addressed to God; they do not express doubt of the fulfilment of the promise, but surprise at the unexpected mode in which it is to be fulfilled. M.—It was a laughter of delight, not of distrust. Even the promises of a holy God, as well as his performances, are the joys of holy souls; there is the joy of faith as well as the joy of fruition. Now it was that Abraham rejoiced to see Christ’s day; now he saw it and was glad (John 8 : 56), for as he saw heaven in the promise of Canaan, so he saw Christ in the promise of Isaac. He does not here speak as at all doubtful (for we are sure that he staggered not at the promise), but as very wonderful, and that which could not be effected but by the almighty power of God. H.

18. In that plaintive, clinging cry of fatherhood, “Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!” one hears with what a painful reading of heart the man tore himself loose from the anticipations of a dozen years, to school himself into the expectation of a gift, new, strange, and unheard-of—the gift of a miraculous child. Dykes.—Even so—responds the great parental heart of God—I know the heart of a parent; therefore I said “I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee;” not to thee alone but to thee, and also, not less, to thy beloved offspring besides. I have heard thee, for Ishmael! H. C.

19. Temporal blessings were assured to Ishmael, in answer to Abraham’s earnest prayer; but the covenant was “established with Isaac.” He is emphatically called the child of the promise and Ishmael the child of the flesh by the Apostle Paul, who carries out the contrast in a very remarkable passage (Gal. 4 : 21-31). Ishmael’s share in the temporal promise was confirmed by his circumcision; and the rite is still observed by the Arabs and other Semitic races. P. S.

20. Twelve princes shall be beget.** This circumstance is particular, but it was fulfilled. Moses hath given us the names of these twelve princes (chap. 25: 13-16), by which we are to understand, not that they were so many distinct sovereign princes but heads of clans or tribes. Heathen writers speak of the Arabian phylarchs, or rulers of tribes; and of that people having twelve kings over them. The people have ever since lived in tribes; and still continue to do so, as Thevenot and other modern travellers testify. . . . It was somewhat wonderful and not to be foreseen by human sagacity, that a man’s whole posterity should so nearly resemble him, and retain the same inclinations, the same habits, and the same customs, throughout all ages! These are the only people, besides the Jews, who have subsisted as a distinct people from the beginning; and in some respects they very much resemble each other. 1. The Arabs, as well as the Jews, are descended from Abraham, and both boast of their descent from the father of the faithful. 2. The Arabs, as well as the Jews, are circumcised, and both profess to have derived this ceremony from Abraham. 3. The Arabs, as well as the Jews, had originally twelve patriarchs, who were their princes or governors. 4. The Arabs, as well as the Jews, marry among themselves, and in their own tribes. 5. The Arabs, as well as the Jews, are singular in several of their customs, and are standing monuments to all ages, of the exactness of the divine predictions, and of the veracity of Scripture history. We may, with more confidence, believe the particulars related of Abraham and Ishmael, when we see them verified in their posterity at this day. This is having, as it were, ocular demonstration for our faith. Bp. Newton.

21. My covenant will I establish with Isaac.** All temporal good things are promised to Ishmael and his posterity, but the establishment of the Lord’s covenant is to be with Isaac. Hence it is fully evident, that this covenant referred chiefly to spiritual things—to the Messiah, and the salvation which should be brought to both Jews and Gentiles by his incarnation, death, and glorification. A. C.—My spiritual covenant; my everlasting covenant. As for the temporal covenant, or promise, Ishmael was made as much partaker of it as Isaac; and so was Esau as well as Jacob. Bp. Wilson—Paul points out a material difference between these two sons of Abraham. He says that Ishmael, the son of the bond-woman, was born only according to the flesh, in the common course of nature; but that Isaac was born by virtue of the promise, and by the particular interposition of the Divine power: and that these two sons of Abraham were designed to represent the two covenants of the Law and of the Gospel; the former a state of bondage, the latter of freedom (Gal. 4). Bp. Tomline.

22. God went up from Abraham.** Ascended evidently before him so that he had the fullest proof that it was no human being, no earthly angel or messenger, that talked with him: and the promise of a son in the course of a single year, at this set time in the next year (ver. 21), which had every human probability against it, was to be the sure token of the truth of all that had hitherto taken place; and the proof that all that was further promised should be fulfilled in its due time. A. C.

23-27. Abraham executes the divine command first upon Ishmael, whose descendants (the Arabs) still perform the rite at the age of thirteen; next upon his servants, both those born in his house, and those bought (“with his money of any stranger, not of his seed,” ver. 12), and lastly upon himself (ver. 26), being now no less than ninety-nine years old. We may infer from the execution of this order how greatly Abraham was reverenced by his family, his authority over them, and the excellent discipline he maintained among them. How punctual also his obedience: “on the self-same day!” C. G. B.—Abraham fulfils the Divine command in the obedience of faith. Here was the sign of his unwavering faith in God’s promise and covenant. However momentary doubt may have dimmed his spiritual sight, the direct assurance from God clears it again. He hesitates not to perform the painful operation on himself and all in his house. Nor is there the slightest delay. It is done “the self-same day.” A. F.—It was a speedy obedience. Sincere obedience is not dilatory. While the command is yet sounding in our ears, and the sense of duty is fresh, it is good to apply ourselves to it immediately, lest we deceive ourselves by putting it off to a more convenient season. It was an universal obedience; he did not circumcise his family and excuse himself, but set them an example; nor did he take the comfort of the seal of the covenant to himself only, but desired that all might share with him in it. H.

Ever since those days has the sign of circumcision remained to bear testimony to the covenant with Abraham. On the eighth day, as the first full period of seven has elapsed, a new period is, as it were, to begin; and each Jewish child so circumcised is a living witness to the transaction between God and Abraham more than three thousand years ago. A. E.

As the sense of the passover covenant, expressive of faith in the atoning blood of the Lamb from a prophetic standpoint, in eating the flesh and sprinkling the blood, was modified to express faith in the atoning blood from a historic standpoint, by eating the bread, symbolizing the broken body, and drinking the wine, symbolizing the shed blood of the Lamb of God;—so circumcision, the seal of the covenant with Abraham organizing the Church, was changed—from the act symbolizing from a prophetic standpoint, faith’s longings and hopeful trust in divine power for the cutting off the sins of the flesh—to the act of washing with water, symbolizing from a historic standpoint, faith contemplating the divine power to regenerate and purify, given in the outpouring of the Spirit. Just as the Lord’s Supper is simply a New Testament modification of the passover seal of the covenant through Moses to redeem the Church by his blood, so the ordinance of baptism is but the New Testament modification of the seal of circumcision appended to the covenant with Abraham organizing the visible Church. S. R.

The relation between circumcision and baptism is not properly that of type and antitype; the one is a symbolical ordinance as well as the other, and both alike have an outward form and an inward reality. It is precisely in such ordinances that the Old and the New Dispensations approach nearest to each other, and, we might almost say, stand formally upon the same level. The difference does not so much lie in the ordinances themselves, as in the comparative amount of grace and truth respectively exhibited in them—necessarily less in the earlier, and more in the later. The difference in external form was in each case conditioned by the circumstances of the time. In circumcision it bore respect to the propagation of offspring, as it was through the production of a seed of blessing that the covenant, in its preparatory form, was to attain its realization. But when the seed in that respect had reached its culminating point in Christ, and the objects of the covenant were no longer dependent on natural propagation of seed, but were to be carried forward by spiritual means and influences used in connection with the faith of Christ, the external ordinance was fitly altered, so as to express simply a change of nature and state in the individual that received it. The apostle makes use of the earlier rite to explain the symbolical import of the later, and describes the spiritual change inindicated and required by it as “a putting-off of the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ,” and “having the uncircumcision of the flesh quickened together with Christ.” It would have been travelling entirely in the wrong direction, to use such language for purposes of explanation in Christian times, if the ordinance of circumcision had not shadowed forth this spiritual quickening and purification even more palpably and impressively than baptism itself; and shadowed it forth, not prospectively alone for future times, but immediately and personally for the members of the Old Covenant. For the outward putting away of the filth of the flesh in circumcision could never have symbolized a corresponding inward purification for the members of the New Covenant, if it had not first done this for the members of the Old. The shadow must have a substance in the one case as well as in the other. Such being the case as to the essential agreement between the two ordinances, an important element for deciding in regard to the propriety of infant baptism may still be derived from the practice established in the rite of circumcision. The grand principle of connecting parent and child together for the attainment of spiritual objects, and marking the connection by an impressive signature, was there most distinctly and broadly sanctioned. And if the parental bond and its attendant obligations be not weakened, but rather elevated and strengthened, by the higher revelations of the Gospel, it would be strange indeed if the liberty at least, nay, the propriety and right, if not the actual obligation, to have their children brought by an initiatory ordinance under the bond of the covenant, did not belong to parents under the Gospel. The one ordinance no more than the other insures the actual transmission of the grace necessary to effect the requisite change; but it exhibits that grace—on the part of God pledges it—and takes the subject of the ordinance bound to use it for the accomplishment of the proper end. Baptism does this now, as circumcision did of old; and if it was done in the one case through the medium of the parent to the child, one does not see why it may not be done now, unless positively prohibited, in the other. . . . It is not in respect to the soul’s inward and personal state, that either ordinance can properly be called initiatory (for in that respect blessing might be had initially without the one as well as the other), but in respect to the person’s recognized connection with the corporate society of those who are subjects of blessing. This begins now with baptism, and it began of old with circumcision : till the individual was circumcised, he was not reckoned as belonging to that society ; and if passing the proper time for the ordinance without it, he was to be held as ipso facto cut off. Under both covenants there is an inward and an outward bond of connection with the peculiar blessing : the inward faith in God’s word of promise (of old, faith in God ; now more specifically, faith in Christ) ; the outward, circumcision formerly, now baptism. Yet the two in neither case should be viewed as altogether apart, but the one should rather be held as the formal expression and seal of the other. P. F.

In this covenant charter to Abraham a principle common to all the covenants pertaining to the work of redemption, the principle of family representation, stands out with peculiar prominence. While the scriptures, everywhere, especially guard us against the error of supposing that the blessings of salvation, according to the covenant of grace, have respect to natural descent, or that men born again are born “of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man,” or any other than “born of God ;” yet, on the other hand, special prominence is given to the fact, that in the out-working, in time, of the scheme of redemption, the children of those who are themselves parties to the covenants of God have a birthright to the privileges and the penalties of those covenants. Thus, by virtue of the penalty of the broken covenant of works with Adam, every child born of the race of Adam is born to die. By virtue of the covenant of redemption with Christ, as the second Adam, every mortal that dies must rise again from the dead. Under the covenant of grace with Adam, when there was to be a destruction of the race by water, God said unto Noah, “Come thou and all thy house into the ark, for the have I seen righteous ;” and for the righteousness of Noah, even the scoffing Ham is sheltered from the impending doom. Under the covenant with Noah, not to destroy again with a flood, every child descended from Noah to the end of time has a birthright in that guarantee promise. Under the covenant with David, his male offspring, in every succeeding generation, had a birthright claim to the throne of Israel, to which even their unfaithfulness could prove no bar ; the reason assigned for not rejecting the unworthy apostates, as Saul was rejected, is—“the oath which I swear to David.” In several careful repetitions that principle is made to stand forth pre-eminently in this covenant with Abraham. His children, in successive generations, are recognized as having a birthright, not only in its general privileges, but as born members of the great visible community which this covenant, as a charter, founds and organizes ; and it is commanded that they be formally recognized as citizens by birth, by affixing, through their parents for them, their signature, and the seal to this covenant. And so intimate a part of the structure is this principle, that no matter what extent of meaning be given to the covenant, this principle must go into that meaning ; and no matter what enlarged degree of development of the covenant, this principle must go into that development. Here, then, far back at the very root of the visible Church, and fundamental in its charter, we find the rights of our children to a place with us in the Church, as Christ’s spiritual commonwealth. S. R.

Listen to the covenant : “He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you.” Mark how this renewal of the covenant turns upon the consecration of children. God did appoint circumcision for the child eight days old ! Christian baptism is founded upon this very covenant. Abraham was ninety-and-nine years old when he was circumcised, Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, and then came the infant men children. So in heathen countries, the man is baptized, and the woman, and the child of days. We plead Divine precedent. Whatever objections stand against baptism stand against circumcision, and, therefore, stand against God. The child does not understand the alphabet, do not teach it ; the child does not understand language, do not teach it ; the child does not understand the Lord’s Prayer, do not teach it. You say the child will understand by and by ; exactly so ; that answer is good ; and by and by the child will understand that it was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, three persons in one God. Beautiful, too, is Christian baptism when regarded as the expansion of the idea of circumcision. It well befits a tenderer law ; circumcision was severe ; baptism is gentle : circumcision was limited to men-children ; baptism is administered to all : circumcision was established in one tribe, or family, or line of descent ; baptism is the universal rite.—Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So we go from law to grace ; from Moses to the Lamb ; from the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, to the quiet and holy Zion. J. P.

When the Son of God came to earth he found a church existing. Of that church not only up-grown believers, but their little ones, were members. That Church, with all its faults of administration, was still the Church of God, and the Lord Jesus joined it, and he joined it in his infancy. True, he himself set up another Church, but that other Church was virtually an expansion and a spiritualization of the old one. There was still a chosen generation,—a holy nation, a peculiar people, a royal priesthood,—and the question just is, “Are the privileges of the Christian Church equal to those of its Hebrew predecessor? Federally, in respect of a covenant relation to God, is the child of a New Testament believer on as good a footing as the child of an Old Testament saint; and in joining Christ’s Church, with its new and better promises, may I claim as much for my children as in joining the old church of Moses?” Remember that Christ’s charge, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them,” was addressed to Hebrew apostles. It was addressed, that is, not to Gentiles nor to anti-pedobaptists, but to Jews,—men to whom the idea of infant-membership in the Church was as familiar as the membership of adults. Ten days had elapsed since the baptismal commission was issued. The Holy Ghost was given, and the great Christian mission began, and to his audience of five thousand awakened penitents, all Jews or Jewish proselytes, all familiar with the idea of infant Church-membership, all clinging with a fond intensity to the great federal promise on which that infant Church-membership was founded, in the first Christian sermon ever preached, Peter exclaimed: “Repent and be baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost; for the promise is to you, and to your children.” Publishing the salvation of the Gospel covenant, and summoning that convinced assembly to Christian Baptism, Christ’s Apostles, endowed with power from on high, maintain that the old connection between parents and children still subsists. What would be the inference of their Hebrew auditors? What else could it possibly be, but that, like the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of Christian Baptism was broad enough to take in not only the up-grown proselyte, but his children too? We feel that the Church cannot err in receiving into its arms those whom the Saviour embraced in His own. We feel that the New Testament Church cannot err in receiving as its inmates those who were members of the Old Testament Church, and who are to be members of the Church in heaven. Hamilton.

The covenant of God with Abraham under the old dispensation, and his covenant with men in these days of the Gospel, compose his great church arrangement for the salvation of the world. The Church of God, as to its origin, was intimated to man at the moment of his fall, but found its first development in the Abrahamic covenant; as to its essence, the unity of the Church in earlier and in later times is established by identity of parties, relations, agencies, and objects; as to its form, it was encumbered by a multitude of observances, ceremonial and political, in ancient times, while its modern administration is marked by simplicity and spirituality; and as to its force, while the Abrahamic covenant worked as a temporal arrangement to the close of the first dispensation, it clearly carried at the same time a spiritual bearing, co-extensive with the general features of the Christian Church in the gospel dispensation. Therefore The Church under the Abrahamic covenant, and the New Testament dispensation are substantially one and the same institution.

The New Testament Church embraces six particulars, and only six that are material: 1. Its dignity; a permanent covenant. 2. Its parties; God and man. 3. Its provisions; the Son and the Spirit. 4. Its great requirement of man; faith. 5. Its great promise by God; salvation. 6. Its appointed seal; a significant rite. Each of these particulars is fully embraced in God’s covenant with the patriarch; that covenant therefore is the great gospel covenant; the constitution of the Church.

1. The Abrahamic covenant is a permanent arrangement. This appears from the language of the covenant itself; “I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant.” The multiplied and most solemn rehearsals of the covenant through all periods of the Old Testament dispensation declare it to be an everlasting covenant. It survives the Old Testament dispensation, and acts in full force under the reign of the Gospel, as an everlasting covenant. Writing to the Galatians, Paul argues the necessary perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, from its very nature as a solemnized compact. Such a transaction between men, says the apostle, is stable and binding; “Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto” (3:15). The Abrahamic covenant had been “ordered in all things and sure,” and preceded the Sinai covenant more than four centuries, wherefore Paul continues, “Now this I say, brethren, that the covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, could not disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” In substance this is Paul’s reasoning: All the integrities of the Godhead had solemnly pledged certain blessings to Abraham and his seed forever. This covenant is immutable in its nature. Therefore the introduction of a new economy five hundred years after, in the days of Moses, could not destroy the covenant. By parity of reasoning, the introduction of another, two thousand years after, in the days of Christ, could not make the promise of none effect. Thus, with the strongest assurance, the apostle speaks of the blessings of God’s covenant with Abraham as actually descending upon Gentiles in these days of the Gospel.

The Abrahamic covenant is therefore clearly a permanent arrangement for all periods of this world’s history: because it is God’s covenant with Abraham and his seed in their generations for an everlasting covenant; it was renewed in the persons of Isaac, Jacob, David, and all Israel as a covenant, an oath, a law, a word to a thousand generations, an everlasting covenant; was rehearsed as such by the prophets to the very close of the Old Testament dispensation; is still denominated in the New Testament an everlasting covenant, and marked by the well-known patriarchal promises; and is finally proved by the express argument of an inspired man to be essentially immutable.

II. The parties to the Abrahamic covenant are clearly God and man, because Abraham, the representative of man’s interest in the covenant, is styled the “father of many nations,” “of all that believe,” “of us all,” and “heir of the world;” because the condition of the covenant being spiritual, one man is as near to the covenant as another, and all have access to it; because Abraham believed before he was circumcised, that the covenant might not be confined to the Jews, but extend to all mankind.

So far as the second feature of the New Testament Church is concerned—the parties—the Abrahamic covenant is identical with the Gospel. The New Testament Church extends to all who believe. So does the Abrahamic covenant.

III. Its provisions are the Son and the Spirit. That the Abrahamic covenant embraces Christ we are fully assured by the most explicit apostolic interpretation of its language. In the seventeenth of Genesis, God covenants with Abraham and his seed. In the third of Galatians, Paul says explicitly that the seed of Abraham, in the eye of this covenant, is Christ. If Christ is indeed the seed of Abraham, then these things clearly follow: The Abrahamic covenant is a standing covenant, not confined to the old economy, but extending to all generations; a universal covenant, not limited to the Jews, but opening itself to all the human family; a covenant, in its bounty providing the Son and the Spirit; in its authority, requiring faith on man’s part; its reward, in promising salvation on the part of God; and in its designation, marked by a heaven-appointed seal. Paul assures us, that long before the institution of the Mosaic economy the Abrahamic covenant was confirmed by God in Christ (Gal. 3:17). If so, then, that covenant must have included the Saviour from its earliest inception. This glorious truth is sealed by the declared end of Christ’s sufferings and work on Calvary. It is inspired language that “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” But why? “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.” If the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant looks to Christ crucified as a channel,—as means to an end,—that covenant includes Christ. Now if Christ is the seed of the covenant; if he is a horn of salvation in performance of the covenant; if he is a helper of Israel in remembrance of the covenant; if he is God’s confirmation of the covenant; if he is a curse for us to secure the blessings of the covenant; then, of a truth, the Abrahamic covenant embraces Christ, and was always a nullity without him.

The Abrahamic covenant provides the Spirit also. We have the express Scripture testimony on this head. We are told that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, “that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:14). Here, in one inspired sentence, the blessing vouchsafed to Abraham and his seed in the covenant, includes in express terms both the Son and the Spirit. Christ works to secure the blessing of the covenant, and the Spirit is promised as a part of the blessing thus secured. Then in this third feature—the provisions involved—the Abrahamic covenant is identical with the Gospel.

IV. All men know that faith is the all-inclusive requirement of the Gospel. But the Abrahamic covenant, like the Gospel, works through the righteousness of faith. (1.) The promise to Abraham was through faith. We know that Abraham believed God before he was circumcised. We know, too, that Abraham’s faith was counted to him for righteousness. We know by the Old Testament that the seal of the covenant was circumcision. And we know by the New Testament that the great import of circumcision was faith. For we have the testimony of an apostle, that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, “a seal of the righteousness of faith.” (2.) The promise of Abraham’s seed required faith. The apostle says, “the promise to Abraham and his seed was not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 4 : 13). “Know ye, therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. So then they who are of faith, the same are blessed with faithful Abraham” (Gal. 3 : 7, 9). Now if Abraham was justified by the righteousness of faith; if the promise to his seed is made only through the righteousness of faith; if it was recorded in the beginning that Abraham obtained his righteousness by faith, precisely that we might believe and obtain the same righteousness; if we who believe are the children of Abraham, and any other principle of acceptance, as the apostle says, would vitiate the promise; if the seal of the covenant is circumcision, and the scriptural meaning of circumcision is faith; and, finally, if the provisions of the covenant are, first, Christ a curse for us, the great object of faith, and, second, the Spirit of Christ, the great agent of faith,—what can be clearer than that in this fourth feature—the requirement of faith—the Abrahamic covenant is identical with the New Testament Church?

V. The great promise by God is redemption. Spiritual and saving promises are perpetually connected with the Abrahamic covenant as interpreted both by Old and New Testament writers. All their language evidently imports the salvation of the Gospel. New Testament statements, especially, settle this point. The duty required by the covenant—faith a righteousness—clearly shows that salvation is the reward. The provisions secured—the Son and the Spirit—clearly show that nothing less than salvation can be the offer of the covenant. The price of the blessing—Christ a curse for us—settles the fact that God’s promise in the Abrahamic covenant is Christian redemption. Now if the language of the covenant promises Canaan for a possession, and Jehovah for a God; if the prophetic interpretation of the covenant inincludes God’s presence with them, and abode in them, and blessing upon them, clothing them with robes of righteousness and the garments of salvation; and if the New Testament teaches that the Abrahamic covenant requires faith, promises the Son and the Spirit, and needs the atonement to secure the blessing,—then, of a truth, the great promise of God in the Abrahamic covenant is salvation. Then in this fifth feature of the covenant—its reward—the Abrahamic institution is identical with the Gospel.

VI. Its appointed seal is an emblematic rite. It is not enough to say that the Abrahamic covenant, like the New Testament Church, has its divinely appointed sign and seal. More than this is true. Substantially the sign and the seal of the Abrahamic covenant is the sign and the seal of the Gospel covenant. This is true in a general sense. Each in its general nature is an outward sign of an inward grace. “Baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3 : 21). “Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter” (Rom. 2 : 29). Each, too, in its general office, is the covenant of a purity required of man (Gen 17 : 11), and promised by God (Deut. 30 : 6). But the similitude between baptism and circumcision is not confined to their general features; it is exact in every important particular. Four things define Christian baptism: 1. By its nature, baptism expresses purification from defilement. So does circumcision. 2. By scriptural appointment, baptism stands for faith a righteousness. So does circumcision (Rom. 4 : 11). 3. By baptism the subject speaks out his repentance and faith, covenanting with God, and God pledges purification and pardon, covenanting with the subject. Precisely this is the operation in circumcision (Gen. 17 : 11). 4. In the very use of baptism the subject literally enters into God’s family, and is received by him. Exactly so was it with him who was circumcised of old (Phil. 3 : 3). Respecting this last feature of the New Testament Church—the appointed seal, an emblematic rite—is not the Abrahamic covenant identical with the New Testament Church? The covenant of the Church in our day carries a sign and a seal appointed of God, and embodying the substance of the covenant, both on God’s part and on man’s. The covenant of the Church in Abraham’s day employed a sign and a seal equally appointed of God, and descriptive of the respective pledges of the parties. It follows that the Abrahamic covenant and the

Gospel economy, or New Testament Church, are one and the same institution.

It will be readily granted, if we separate from any given institution a permanent character; or from it its parties, God and man; or from its provisions, the Son and the Spirit; or from its requirements, faith a righteousness; or from its promise, eternal salvation; or from its consummation, a divine seal emblematic of the covenant; we thereby prove that it is not the New Testament Church. But if we show an institution of which these six things are true:—first, it is a divine arrangement as durable as the world; second, its parties are God and man; third, its provisions are the Son and the Spirit; fourth, its requirement is faith a righteousness; fifth, its promise is final salvation; sixth, its consummation is a divine rite embodying the covenant,—is not that institution the Gospel economy—the New Testament Church? If any man denies this proposition, what can he say? Certainly such an institution fills up the definition of the Church precisely. What is lacking? Here is the Founder of the Church! And the permanency of the Church! And the parties of the Church! And the provisions of the Church! And the requirement of the Church! And the reward of the Church! And the seal of the Church! And what of the Church is not here? Thus the Abrahamic covenant is the Gospel,—that is, it is a system of salvation by Jesus Christ, which of old justified Abraham by faith, and is now justifying the heathen on the same principle. In the third chapter of Galatians the New Testament name is given to the Old Testament covenant. The apostle expressly affirms this covenant with Abraham to be “The Gospel.” God of old made a covenant with Abraham. In so doing, the apostle says, “He preached the Gospel unto Abraham.” J. C. Styles.