XXVI. Concerning the colours he goes on as follows. From the matter, which is water, and from the nature of the colours, which represent both the light and darkness of water, it appears to be a suitable symbol. For, by this, God has promised, that, for the future, he would so order the waters, that they should not destroy all things but what represses or restrains waters more than heat, both contained in and signified by light? This sign, which is mixed with water, has something to give it a check, I mean the light of heaven, whereby God restrains its violence. Grotius observes, that the three colours of the rainbow represent the severity, mercy, and goodness of God. Another learned person thinks, that the colours of the rainbow, red, fiery, and green, signify a mixture of holiness and mercy by means of blood; that both these, being manifested by the shedding of blood, may render God venerable and lovely in our eyes on account of these perfections of his nature. The same person elsewhere would have us behold in the rainbow the colour of fire, blood, and green grass, and in them to reflect on the zeal of God, the blood of Christ, and on mercy and life: the zeal of God is unto life, by the blood of Christ. Another likewise has observed, that the rainbow, with which John saw the throne of God encompassed, was only of one colour, in sight like unto an emerald, Rev. iv. 3. to set forth, that God's gracious covenant with the church is different from the general covenant made with all mankind after the flood. For in this covenant, God, indeed, promised, he would no more cover the whole earth with water; yet, at times, he hath reduced whole countries to ashes by avenging flame: and therefore the symbol of this covenant was painted out in various colours, the red or fiery colour flashing out between the bright and green. But the sign of the covenant of grace made

with the church is of one colour only, namely, green or emerald; to represent, that this covenant was always one, and always yielding joy to those who are truly in covenant. For in the kingdom of God there is nothing but peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom. xiv. 17. These observations of learned men are curious and judicious, and may be matter of pious meditation: but I doubt whether they will meet with the assent of those of a difficult and nice taste. It is enough, that we have related them. Let the prudent and pious reader judge for himself.

CHAP. VIII.

Of Circumcision.

LET us now speak of circuncision. Concerning

which we shall take notice of the following things. I. The outward ceremony. II. The divine institution. III. The subject of it. IV. The necessity. V. The minister. VI. The time. VII. The spiritual signification. VIII. Its abrogation.

II. The rite of circumcision was, according to God's appointment, as follows. The extreme cuticle or thin skin of the glans was cut off with a sharp knife. This, from its natural use, was called NGARLAH by the Hebrews, Gen. xxxiv. 14. from the verb NGARAL, to close or stop up. The Greek interpreters of the Old Testament, and the writers of the New, express it by an elegant term AKROBUSTIA, because To AKRON TES BALAINOU, it covers the extremity of the glans. Gomarus, ad Luc. ii. 21. has made many learned remarks on this word. The Latins call it preputium, a

word of uncertain derivation. On account of circumcision, the Jews were, by way of contempt, and in derision, called apelle and recutiti, because they had not that pellicle or skin. But it pleased God, in order to confound all the wisdom of the flesh, and to try the faith and obedience of his people, to give them for a sign of his covenant a rite, so much to be blushed at, and almost ashamed of; just as he also laid the ground-work of all our salvation in what appears no less shameful to Hesh, namely, the cross of Christ.

III. The instrument of circumcision was any knife they could procure, made of any matter, that was fit to take an edge; namely, of stone, glass, or wood. Yet. Buxtorf, in Synagoga Judaica, says, that it was generally one of iron, and that very sharp, as surgeons instruments usually are. Some think that knives of stone were formerly used, because the instrument of circumcision, mentioned Exod. iv. 25. is called TZOR, which in Ezek. iii. 9. denotes a stone and in Josh. v. 2. the knives of circumcision are called swords of stone. But that inference is not so certain. For TZOR, signifies not only a stone, but also an edge; as is manifest from Ps. lxxxix. 43. Thou hast turned the edge of his sword: nor formerly did they fight with swords of stone. Hence the Chaldee paraphrase translates Josh. v. 2. sharp

knives.

IV. The first institution of circumcision, Gen. xvii. 11. was in the house and family of Abraham, about the year of the world* two thousand. Circumcision was not immediately given to be a public and universal sacrament to the whole church in those times, but was confined to Abraham's family. The remnant of the an-.

According to the chronology of the learned Archbishop Usher, circumcision was instituted in the year of the world 2107, and

before Christ 1997.

cient fathers, satisfied with their sacrificial sacraments, could exercise their faith, and please God, in uncircumcision, without being obliged to submit to this rite. But, after the expiration of about four centuries, when the visible churches without Abraham's family gradually apostatised to Heathenism, the godly remnant being removed to the heavenly assembly; and when the republic of Israel, in the mean time, wonderfully increased, and the measure of iniquity among the nations being now full, the church was confined to Israel, and the rest of the world was rejected; and all that feared God, were bound to join themselves in communion with them, by a participation of the same rites. Well says Maimonides in Issure Bia, c. 13. Whenever any Gentile would betake himself to the Israelitish covenant, and put himself under the wings of the Divine Majesty, and take upon him the yoke of the law, there were required circumcision, baptism, and a voluntary offering." From that time, circumcision became an universal sacrament of the church. Thus the Lord Jesus distinguishes it, as it was of the fathers, to them it was a family-institution, and as given by Moses, an universal sacrament of the church, that was to be constituted or set up, John vii. 22.

V. Moreover, circumcision was not only enjoined upon Abraham and Isaac, but also on all the descendents of Abraham, whether by Sarah, Hagar, or Keturah, and even on all his domestics bought with his money, and strangers, Gen. xvii. 25, 26, 27. For though, even at that time, God had determined to form a peculiar people to himself from the posterity of Isaac alone, not indeed from all of them; nevertheless the time was not yet come, when he would have his church confined to one particular people. Nor are we to doubt, but he had his chosen people among the other sons and de

Those

scendents of Abraham. And nothing is more certain, than that, within the compass of these four centuries, circumcision, and, with it, the visible church, was propagated among all those eastern people, who derived their origin from Ishmael, from the sons of Keturah, from Esau, and the proselytes who were circumcised in Abraham's family. But I would observe by the way, that most of the Jewish Rabbins will have it, that Keturah was Hagar herself, while others of them sometimes deny it, and at other times call it in question; as may be seen in Selden, de synedr. lib. 2. c. 3. churches therefore, which, from among Abraham's posterity, had the sign of circumcision, as well as the un-circumcised churches, from the pious remnant of the other fathers, together with the Israelites, whom God began to claim to himself by a nearer relation, made up the universal church of those times. Nor should they, in the mean time, be accounted strangers from the covenant of God, confirmed with Abraham in Christ, but rather brethren, and fellow-professors of the same religion. To this purpose we may apply Deut. xxiii. 7. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother. And as circumcision was at first enjoined even on strangers in Abraham's family, this ought afterwards to have put the Israelites in mind of the future calling of the Gentiles.

VI. Méan while, among the nations that descended from Abraham, the use of circumcision continued much longer than the true religion. For, while they revolted by degrees from the God of their fathers, so they polluted themselves with horrible idolatries, and were rejected by God, and banished from his covenant: but still they retained circumcision. Accordingly authors of every kind speak of many circumcised nations, besides the Israelites. Grotius has drawn up a catalogue of them,