Discourse of Mental Errors, Appendix 1 · Part · Section 1 – Section 2
Argument I.
If Circumcision be a part of the Ceremonial Law, and the Ceremonial Law was dedicated by Blood; and whatsoever is so dedicated, is by you confessed to be no part of the Covenant of Works:Vindiciae Legis, &c. p. 42. then Circumcision can be no part of the Covenant of Works, even by your own confession. But it is so. Ergo.
To this Mr.Reply. P. 68. Cary returns a Tragical Complaint instead of a Rational Answer. Insinuates my falsehood and gross abuse of him. Appeals to his Reader. Tells him I have taken a liberty to say what I please, as if there were no future Iudgment to be regarded. And that I can expect no comfort another day without repentance now. For those things that have thus passed betwixt him and me, shall again be revised, and set in order before me. That he is weary of noting my Miscarriages of this kind. That there is hardly a Page or Paragraph in my whole Reply, but abounds with Transgressions of this nature. He begs the Lord to forgive me; and wishes he could say, Father, forgive him, for he knows not what he doth; as if my Sin were greater than the Sin of those that stoned Stephen, or crucified Christ.
Either I am guilty or innocent in the matters here charged upon me by Mr. C. If guilty, Reply.I promise him an ingenuous acknowledgment. If innocent, (as both my Conscience, and his own Book will prove me to be) then I shall only say, he knoweth not what spirit he is of. The Case must be tried by his own Book, and it will quickly be decided. These are the very words in his Solemn Call, p. 148. He (that is, Mr. Sedgwick) makes no distinction betwixt the Ceremonial Covenant that was dedicated with blood, and the Law written in stones that was not so dedicated. How strangely doth he confound and obscure the word and truth of God, which ought to have been cleared and distinctly declared to those he had preached or written to? With much more, p. 149, 150, 151. where he saith, It's plain, that the Law written in Stones, and the Book wherein the Statutes and Iudgments were contained, were two distinct Covenants, and delivered at distinct seasons, and in a distinct method; the one with, the other without a Mediator; the one dedicated with blood and sprinkling, the other (that we read of) not so dedicated.
Now let the Reader judge whether I have deserved such Tragical Complaints and dreadful Charges for inferring from these words, That the Ceremonial Law being by him pronounced a distinct Covenant from the Moral Law, which he makes all one with Adam's Covenant; delivered at a distinct season, and in a distinct method; the Ceremonial Law with a Mediator, the Moral Law without a Mediator; the Ceremonial Law dedicated with blood and sprinkling, the Moral Law not so dedicated: let him judge (I say) whether I have wronged him in saying, that by his own confession, Circumcision being a part of this Ceremonial Law, it can therefore be no part of the Covenant of Works?
But Mr. Cary hath two things to say for himself.Exception. (1.) That in the same place he makes the Ceremonial Law no other than a Covenant of Works: And the wrong I have done him, is by not distinguishing (as he did) betwixt A Covenant of Works, and The Covenant of Works. Here it seems lies my guilt upon which this dreadful out-cry against me is made.
But if I should chance to prove,Reply. that there never was, is, or can be any more than one Covenant of Works; and that any other Covenant which is distinguished from it (as he confesses the Ceremonial Law was) by a Mediator, and the blood of sprinkling, can be no part of that Covenant of Works: what then will become of Mr. C's distinction of A Covenant of Works, and The Covenant of Works? Now the matter is plain and evident, That as there never were, are, or can be more than two common Heads appointed by God, namely Adam, and Christ, 1 Cor. 15. 45, 46, 47, 48. Rom. 5. 15, 17, 18, 19. so it is impossible there should be more than two Covenants, under which Mankind stands, under these two common Heads. And the First Covenant once broken, it is utterly impossible that fallen Man should ever attain life that way, or that ever God should set it up again with such an intention and scope,Charnock on the Attributes, p. 390. unless (as Mr. Charnock speaks) he had reduced man's Body to the dust, and his Soul to nothing, and framed another man to have governed him by a Covenant of Works; but that had not been the same man that had revolted, and upon his revolt was stained and disabled. If Mr. C. therefore be not able to prove more Covenants of Works with Mankind than one, let him rather blush at his silly distinction betwixt a… Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Works. For indeed he makes at least four distinct Covenants of Works, one with Adam, two with Moses; one Moral, the other Ceremonial; and a fourth with Abraham at the institution of Circumcision, Gen. 17.
(2.) If it appear (as it clearly doth) that as there never was, is, or can be any more than one Covenant of Works, so whatsoever Covenant is distinguished from it by a Mediator, and dedication by the sprinkling of blood (as he saith the Ceremonial Law was) cannot possibly, for the Reasons he gives, be any part or member of Adam's Covenant of Works; then, I hope, I have done M. C. no wrong in my assumption from his own words, for which he so reviles and abuses me. But this will appear as plain as the Noon-day-light: for a Covenant with a Mediator, and dedicated by sprinkling of blood, doth, and necessarily must essentially difference such a Covenant from that Covenant that had no Mediator, nor dedication by blood. To deny this, were to confound Law and Gospel, Adam's and Christ's Covenant; but the distinction betwixt them is his own, therefore my assumption was just. That this blood was typically the blood of Christ, and that the Holy Ghost signified the one by the other, is plain from Heb. 9. 7, 8. And I never met with that man that scrupled it before Mr. Cary. So then my first Argument to prove Abraham's Covenant of Circumcision to be the Covenant of Grace, and not an Adam's Covenant, or any part thereof, stands firm after Mr. C's passionate Reply, which I hope the Lord will pardon to him, though he had scarce Charity enough left to desire a pardon for his Friend, who had neither wronged the Truth, nor him.
Argument II.
My second Argument was this. 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 opposite.
But Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. Ergo.
The sum of what he answers to this, p. 72, 73, &c. (as far as I can pick his true sense out of a multitude of needless words) is this. He confesses this Argument seems very plausible; but however, Abraham was a Believer before Circumcision; and tho indeed it sealed the Righteousness of Faith to him, yet it sealed it to him only as the Father of Believers: and denies that ever Jacob, or Isaac, or any other enrolled in that Covenant, were sealed by it; but to all the rest beside Abraham, it was rather a token of servitude and bondage. This is the sum and substance of his Reply.
But,Reply. Sir, let me ask you two or three plain Questions. (1.) What is the reason you silently slide over the Question I asked you, p. 41. of my Vindiciae, &c? Did you find it an hot Iron, which you durst not touch? 'Tis like you did. My Question was this. Had Adam's Covenant a seal of the righteousness of faith annexed to it, as this had, Rom. 4. 11? The righteousness of faith is evangelical righteousness, and this Circumcision sealed. Say not it was to Abraham only that it sealed it, for 'tis an injurious restriction put upon the Seal of a Covenant which extended to the Fathers, as well as to Abraham: however, you admit that it sealed evangelical righteousness to Abraham: but I hope you will not say, that a Seal of the Covenant of Works (for so you make Circumcision to be) ever did, or could seal evangelical righteousness to any individual person in the World.
I find you a man of great confidence, but certainly here it failed you: not one word in Reply to this. (2.) I told you your distinction was invented by Bellarmine, and shew'd you where it was confuted by Dr. Ames: but not a word to that. (3.) I show'd, That the extending of that Seal to all Believers as well as Abraham, is most agreeable to the drift and scope of the Apostle's Argument, which is to prove, that both Iews and Gentiles are justified by Faith, as Abraham was: and that the ground of …ustification is common to both: and that how great soever Abraham was, yet in this case he hath found nothing whereof to glory. And is not your Exposition a notable one, to prove the community of the priviledge of Justification, because the Seal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone? p. 47, 48.
Sir, You have spent words enough upon this Head to tire your Reader. But why can I not meet with one word among them, that fairly advances to grapple with my Argument? or answer the important Questions before you, upon which the matter depends? If this be all you have to say, I must tell you, You are a weak manager of a bad Cause; which is the less hazard to Truth.