Reply to Philip Cary, Part · Section 2
II Position.
Secondly, you affirm with like Confidence, That the Covenant of Circumcision is also the same, viz. The Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise.
This I utterly deny, and will try whether you have any better Success in the Proof of your second, than you had in your first Position; and to convince you of your mistake, let us consider what the general nature of this Ordinance of Circumcision was, what its ends were, and then prove that it cannot be what you affirm it to be, the very same Covenant God made with Adam before the Fall, but must needs be a Covenant of Grace.
(1.) Circumcision in its general Nature, was (1.) an Ordinance of God's own Institution in the 99th year of Abraham's Age, at which time of its Institution, God renewed the Covenant with him, Gen. 17. 9, 10. (2.) That it consisted (as all Sacraments do) of an external Sign, and a Spiritual Mystery signified thereby. The external part of it (which we call the Sign) was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Genital part of the Hebrew Males, on the eighth Day from their Birth. The Spiritual Mystery thereby signified and represented, was the cutting off the Filth and Guilt of Sin from their Souls, by Regeneration and Justification, called, the Circumcision of the heart, Deut. 10. 16. And though this was laid upon them by the Command, as their Duty, yet a gracious Promise of Power from God to perform that Duty, was added to the Command, Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart to love him, &c. just as Promises of Grace in the New Testament, are added to commands of Duty: (3.) Betwixt this outward visible Sign, and Spiritual Mystery, there was a Sacramental Relation, from which Relation it is called the Token of the Covenant, Gen. 17. 12. The Sign and Seal of the Covenant, Rom. 4. 11. yea, the Covenant it self, Acts 7. 8.
(2.) Next let us consider the ends for which Circumcision was instituted and ordained of God, of which these were the Principal.
(1.) It was instituted to be a convictive Sign of their natural Corruption, propagated by the way of natural Generation. For which reason this natural Corruption goes in Scripture under the name of the Uncircumcision of the heart▪ …. 9. 26.
(2.) It also signified the putting off of this Body of Sin, in the vertue of Christ's Death, Col. 2. 11.
(3.) It was appointed to be the initiating Sign of the Covenant, or a token of their Matriculation and Admission into the Church and Covenant of God, Gen. 17. 9, 10, 11.
(4.) It was ordained to be a discriminating Mark betwixt God's Covenanted People, and the Pagan World, who were Strangers to the Covenant, and without God in the World: And accordingly, both Parties were from this Ordinance denominated the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision, Col. 3. 11.
(5.) It was also an obliging Sign to Abraham and his Seed, to walk with God in the Uprightness and Sincerity of their Hearts, in the performance of all covenanted Duties, in which Duties Abraham and the Faithful wa…ked Obedientially with God, looking to Christ for Righteousness; but the carnal Jews resting in, and trusting to those Duties and Ordinances for Righteousness and Justification, made it a Covenant of Works to themselves, and Circumcision it self a Bond of that Covenant.
(6.) Now for as much as Circumcision prefigured Christ, who was to come of this Holy circumcised Seed of Abraham, and his Death also was pointed at therein, Heb. 2. 16. Col. 2. 11. of necessity this Ordinance must vanish at the Death of Christ, and accordingly did so.
These things duly pondered, how irrational is it to imagine this Covenant of Circumcision to be the very same with the Paradisical Covenant! Did that Covenant discover native Corruption, and direct to its remedy in Christ as this did? Surely it gave not the least glimps of any such thing. Did that Covenant separate and distinguish one Person from another as this did? No, no, it left all under equal and common Misery, Eph. 2. 3.
Had Adam's Covenant a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith annexed to it as this had? Rom. 4. 11. He received Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. 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, Luke 1. 72. But you admit however, that it sealed Evangelical Righteousness to Abraham; but I hope you will not say, that a Seal of the Covenant of Works ever did or could Seal Evangelical Righteousness to any individual Person in the World. So then turn which way you will, this truth still follows you, and will fasten upon you; That the Covenant of Circumcision was not a pure Covenant of Works, but a Gospel-Covenant, which I thus prove.
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; then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of works, even by your own confession. But it is so, Ergo.
That it is a part of the Ceremonial Law, was never doubted or denied by any Man: That it was dedicated by Blood, and therefore no part of the Moral Law, you your self not only acknowledge, but vehemently plead for it, Page 148. where you blame Mr. Sedgwick with some Sharpness, and unbecoming Reflection, for making no distinction betwixt the Ceremonial Covenant which was dedicated by Blood, and the Law written in Tables of Stone; which was not so dedicated, and therefore could not be the same with the Moral Law, which you make the Covenant of works; telling him, that this Dedication by Blood ought to distinguish it from the Moral Law, or Sinai Covenant of works, as you say it doth, and ought to do; how then can Circumcision be the same with, and yet quite another thing from the Sinai Covenant? was the Ceremonial Law dedicated by …lood? Yes, the Apostle …lainly asserts it from Exod. Heb. 9. 18, 19. …4. 7, 8. Moses took the Book …f the Covenant, and read it in the audience …f the people, and took the blood, and sprink…d it upon the people, and said, behold the …lood of the Covenant, which the Lord hath …ade with you concerning these things. But …hat kind of Covenant then was this Co…enant that was sprinkled with Blood? …ou tell us, Page 147. it could not possi…y be the Law written in Stones (which …ou make the Covenant of works) but …as indeed another Covenant delivered … a distinct Season, and in a distinct …ethod. What Covenant then must this …e, seeing it could not possibly (as you …y) be the Sinai Covenant written in …ones? It must either be the Covenant …f Grace, or none. No, say you, that … was not neither; for it was of the same …ture with, and is no other than a Co…enant of works, Page 151. it was the …me, and yet could not possibly be the same. Mr. Sedgwick, that Learned-Grave Divine, is check'd Page 148. for confounding the Ceremonial Law that wa… sprinkled with Blood, with the Mora… Law (which you call the Covenant o… works) that was not sprinkled wit… Blood; and say you, Page 147. It coul… not possibly be the same: And then P. 151 you say, It's clear, these two, viz. th… Moral and Ceremonial Law, were both … the same nature, that is, no other than … Covenant of Works. How doth this han… together? Pray reconcile it if you ca… You say it is an ungrounded Supposition … Mr. Sedgwick's, that that Covenant whi… was so confirmed by Blood, must of necessi… be confirmed by the Blood of Christ als… Page 148. But Sir, the truth you oppos… viz. That the Book of the Ceremoni… Law was sprinkled by Typical Bloo… and therefore confirmed by the Blo… of Christ for the time it was to contin… shines like a bright Sun-beam in yo… Eyes, from Heb. 9. 14, 23. was not t… Blood that sprinkled this Law, the … gure or Type of Christ's own Blood whose Blood was it then, if not Christ'… How dare you call this an unground… Supposition? was not that Blood Typ… cal Blood? And what, I pray you, was the Antitype but Christ's Blood? And did not the Holy Ghost signifie the one by the other? Heb. 9. 8. I stand amazed at these things: You distinguish and confound all again. You say it could not possibly be the same with the Law written in Stone, and you say it's clear both were of the same nature, no other than a Covenant of works. At this …ate you may say what you please, for … see Contradiction is no Crime in your Book.
Argument II.
If Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, it did not per…ain 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, Rom. 4. 11. He …i. e. Abraham) received the sign of Cir…umcision, a seal of the righteousness of Faith. Therefore it pertains not to the Cove…ant of Works, but Grace.
A Man would think it impossible to evade so clear and Scripture 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 Circumstance… but it was not so to any of his natural S… 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 Dr. Ames fully confuted it in his third Tome, Page 27. proving that there was no extraordinary cause o… Abraham's account, why God should justifie 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 publick Seal of a Covenant, that comprehended and equally concerned the whole Church and People of God, to one single Person, so tha… neither Isaac nor Jacob, who were b… name enrolled in that great Charter, …hould have any right to the Seal of it; …s such a Conceit as amazes an intelligent Reader. We know Abraham was the …rst that received it, but utterly deny …hat he received only for himself; but …e received it as the Father of all them …hat Believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, …s the very next words tell us, he re…eived it that he might be the Father of …ll that Believe, that is, for himself, and …ll his Spiritual Children. One half of his Sacrament of Circumcision you allow, …age 205. to the rest that were under …, viz. to be a sign of the Covenant; but …e other half you cut off, and say it …as only a Seal to him. What good …ouchers have you for this Exposition …f the Text? Have you the Concurrence … Orthodox Expositors? Or is it the rash …d bold Adventure of your own head? …am sure it no ways agrees with the drift …d scope of the Apostles Argument, …hich evidently is to prove, that both …ws and Gentiles are justified by Faith, as …braham was; and that the Ground of …stification and Blessedness, is common …th to the uncircumcised Gentiles, and …cumcised Jews; and that Abraham, and all other Believers, have but one way of Justification and Salvation; and that how great soever Abraham was, in this case he hath found nothing whereof to Glory, ver. 1, 2. 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? rectifie it, and better consider it.
Argument III.
In the Covenant of Circumcision▪ Gen. 17. God makes over himself t… Abraham and his Seed to be their God or give them a special Interest in himself.
But in the Covenant of Works, God doth not, since the Fall, make over himself to any to be their God by way o… special Interest.
Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision cannot be the Covenant of Work…
This is so plain and clear, that no… can doubt or deny it, that understand the nature of the two Covenants. A… now Sir, what course do you take … avoid this Argument? such a one sure, … no Man that ever I met with took before you; and that's this, you boldly cut Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. into two parts, and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace; which is the promissory part, to the ninth Verse, and the Restipulation (as you call it) Page 205. …o be as pure a Covenant of Works. What hard shift will some Men make …o maintain their Opinion! You say …ruly Page 205. that at the seventh and …ighth Verses was their Restipulation, why …hen do you say, Page 224. that at Verse …he seventh, he proceeds to speak of ano…her Covenant than what he had been …eaking of before? Does the Promise …nd the Restipulation make two Cove…ants, or are they just and necessary parts …f one and the same Covenant? You …lso tell us, that the Covenant Gen. 17. …, 2, 3, 4. was a plain Transcript of …veral free Promises of the Gospel, under …e denomination of a Covenant. But …hy then don't you take the Restipula…on, verse 7, 8, 9, 10. to be a part of …? Oh, no, there is something required … Abraham's and his Posterities part, …ey must be circumcised, and that spoils …l. Why, but Sir, if the requiring of Circumcision alters the case so greatly, as to make it a quite contrary Covenant, how comes it to pass, that in the Covenant to Abraham, he himself was first required to be circumcised? Why this is the reason, here is somewhat required on their part as a Condition, and a Condition quite alters the nature of the Covenant. Very well, but tell me then, why you say, Page 223. and in many other places, that the Covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 12. was a Gospel-Covenant, and yet there Abraham is obliged to walk before God, and be perfect? Does not that also there alter the nature of the Covenant, as well as here in the seventeenth Chapter? You also grant the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 22. was a pure Gospel-Covenant, or if you deny it, the Apostle proves it, Heb. 6. 13. and yet there is more appearance of respect to Abraham's Obedience in that Covenant, than is in submitting to Circumcision; see Gen. 22. 16, 17. By my self have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, &c. That in Blessing I will bless thee; and in multiplying I will multiply thee.
I will trouble you on this Head but with one Query more: If the four first Verses of the Seventeenth of Genesis, contain a pure Gospel-Covenant as you say, and the Restipulation in the following Verses make a Covenant of works, because it thereby becomes Conditional: Then tell me, if you please, whether what God graciously granted to Abraham in the former Verses, be not all null'd, and made void again by their Restipulation? Does not this seem Harsh? Here you have brought Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the believers of Abraham's race, just into the same case you brought Moses and all the Israelites before, under two opposite Covenants, where one cuts off all that the other granted.
But there is a stronger reason urged than the conditionality of the Covenant, to prove it a Covenant of Works, and that is, Circumcision is made the Condition of Abraham's Covenant; and that's the worst of all conditions; for it obliges a man to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3. 'tis the yoke of bondage, and to whatsoever Covenant it be so annexed, it makes it become a bondage Legal Covenant. If we be circumcised, Christ shall profit us nothing. Thus it was in the Covenant. Gen. 17.
Great use is made of this in many parts of your Discourse; but Sir, you are greatly mistaken in applying these Texts to the Purposes you do. For the Apostle all along in that Epistle to the Galatians argues against the false Teachers, who taught and pressed the necessity of Circumcision, as a Bond obliging them to the strict and perfect Obedience of the Law, in order to their Justification thereby, or at least to joyn it with the Righteousness of Christ, as a Con-cause of Justification; see Gal. 2. 4, 5. and the 3. 1. Now against this Abuse of Circumcision it is that the Apostle argues thus, and tells them, that in submitting to it on that account, they made the Death of Christ of no Effect, and obliged themselves by it to the whole Law; for Circumcision did not simply and absolutely, in the nature of the work or action, oblige Men to the whole Law in the way of Justification by it, but it did so from the Intention of the worker, and the Supposition of such an Opinion of it, and design in it; for in it self, and with respect to Gods design in the Institution of it, it was to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. and so it was an excellent useful instructive Ordinance to all Believers, as long as the Ceremonial Law stood; and even when it was expiring, as the Gospel began to open more and more clearly, there was yet some kind of Toleration of it, to such as were born of Jewish Parents: Thus Paul himself circumcised Timothy, his Mother being a Jewess, Acts 16. 1, 3. but Titus being a Greek was not circumcised; and that because of these false Teachers, that would make an ill use of that their Liberty, Gal. 2. 3, 4. this Paul could never have done, in case Circumcision, in the nature of the act, had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Justification. By which it appears that the action in its own nature, did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law, but from the Intention of the Agent; and therefore as the Apostle rightly argues, if a Man be circumcised with this design to be justified by it, he would thereby bind himself to the whole Law, and frustrate the Death of Christ to himself; but it was now to have its Funeral with all other parts of the Ceremonial Law which vanish'd, and were accomplished in the Death of Christ; and it falling out that such a vile use was made of it at that time, the Apostle thus thunders against it. Had this been observed, as also the like abuse of the Moral Law, you would have known how to have reconciled the Apostles Encomiums of them both, with his sharp Invectives against the one, and the other. But being Ignorant of these two great and necessary Distinctions of the Law, according to Gods Intention in the Promulgation of it at Sinai, and the carnal Jews Sense of it, as a pure Covenant of works, against which the Apostle so sharply inveighs in the places by you cited, all your 23 Arguments from Page 183. to Page 187. fall to the Ground at one stroke, your Medius Terminus having one sense in your Major Proposition, and another in your Minor; and so every Argument hath four Terms in it; as will easily be evinced by the particular consideration of the respective places from whence you draw them.
So in like manner in your arguing here against Circumcision, as a Bond to keep the whole Law; and as such vacating the Death of Christ, is a stumble at the same stone, not distinguishing as you ought to have done, betwixt an Obligation, arising out of the nature of the work, and out of the end and intention of the Workers, and this every learned and judicious Eye will easily discern. But we proceed to
Argument IV.
That which in its direct and primary end, teacheth Man the Corruption of his Nature by Sin, and the Mortification of Sin by the Spirit of Christ, cannot be a condition of the Covenant of works; but so did Circumcision in the very direct and primary end of it.
This Ordinance supposeth the Fall of Man, points to the Means and Instruments of his Sin and Misery; and also to the Remedy thereof by Christ. (1.) It singles out that Genital part, by which original Sin was propagated, Gen. 17. 11. Psalm 51. 5. to this the Sign of the Covenant is applied in Circumcision, for the Remission of Sins past, and the Extirpation of Sin for the future. (2.) Therefore it was instituted of God, that Men might see both the necessity and true way of Mortifying their Lusts, in the vertue of Christ's Death and Resurrection; whereof Baptism, that succeeds it, is a Sign now, as Circumcision was then; as is plain from Col. 2. 11, 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the Sins of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ, buried with him in Baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the Faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead. 'Tis clear then, that Circumcision directed Men to the Death and Resurrection of Christ, as the true and only means of mortifying their Lusts; and if it did so, sure it was not the Covenant of Works, for that gives Fallen Man no hint of a remedy. (3.) It was also a discriminating Sign or Token, betwixt the Church and the World. God's People, and the Heathens, who were accordingly denominated from it, the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision, the Holy Seed and the Gentiles. And now under the New Testament, the Children of Abraham by Faith, and the Children of the Flesh. This also shews it cannot be the Covenant of Works; for in that Covenant all are equally and alike concluded under Sin and Misery, Ephes. 2. 3. and there is no difference made by that Covenant betwixt Person and Person, State and State.
If this be not enough to evince, that the Covenant of Circumcision is a Covenant of Grace, I promise you many more Arguments to prove it, as soon as I shall find these refuted, and your contrary Assertion well discharged from the gross Absurdities with which it is clog'd and loaded. You see how genuine, natural and congruous to Scripture the notion of it as a Covenant of Grace is, and all the World may see how harsh, alien, and repugnant to Scripture your Notion of Circumcision, as a Covenant of Works, is. You see into what Boggs you are again driven in defence of your Opinion. Exemp. gra.
That Circumcision is a part of the Ceremonial Law, which was dedicated with Blood, and therefore could be no …art of the Moral Law or Ten Commandments, which was (say you) the Co…enant of Works; and yet that it is of …he same nature; and that it's clear … is no other than a Covenant of Works. Don't you there distinguish and confound all again? blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without Cause, and commit a greater Absurdity presently than you charged him with? Don't you question whether that Covenant that was typically sealed by Blood, was sealed by Christs Blood? Pray, Sir, consider where-ever God commands typical Blood to be applyed, it relates to Christs Blood Spiritually apply'd, or to nothing.
Are not you forced in defence of your erroneous Thesis, to say with Bellarmine, That Circumcision was extraordinary in its Institution, and applyed as a Seal to none but Abraham himself? it excluded even Isaac the Type of Christ, and Jacob a Prince with God. O what will not Men venture upon in defence of their darling Opinions!
Are you not forced for your Security from the danger of the Third Argument to cut one and the same Covenant made with Abraham just in two, and of the pure promissory part to make a Covenant of Grace; and of the other part, which you your self call a Restipulation, to make another quite opposite Covenant? Don't you magnifie the Bounty and Grace of God to Abraham in the first four Verses, and then destroy it all, by putting him at once under a contrary Covenant, and so cut off all capacity to enjoy one of those mercies?
Don't you make Circumcision in its own Nature, without respect to the intention of the Person, an Obligation to the whole Law, and that which frustrates the Death of Christ, and yet must grant, that Paul himself took Timothy and circumcised him, and yet thereby brought him under no such dangerous obligation to the Law? In a word,
You reject all those Covenants as legal, that have any conditions in them, or respect to any thing that is to be done by us, and allow Gen. 12. and Gen. 22. to be pure Gospel-Covenants of Grace; and yet in the first Abraham is bound to walk before God and be perfect; and in the other God saith, For because thou hast done this thing, surely blessing I will bless thee.
And so much for Abraham's Covenant.