(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 co- venant is distinguished from it by a IMediator, 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 Mr. C. no wrong in my assumption from his own words, for which he so reviles and abuses me. But this will appear as clear 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 co- venant from that covenant that had no Mediator, nor dedication by blood. To deny this, were to confound law .-md 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. ix. 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.
A}'ff. 2. 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. iv. 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 v/ords) is this, ' He confesses this argument seems very plausible; but, however, ' Abraham was a believer before circumcision ; and though indeed
• Charnock on the Attributes, p. 390.
516 VINDICIAIIUM VINDEX:.
' 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 ser- ' vitude and bondage.' This is the sum and substance of his reply.
Reply. But, 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 Vindicice, <^c. Did vou find it an hot iroti which you durst not touch ?' It is 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. iv. 11. The righteousness of faith is evan- gelical righteonsness, and this circumcision sealed. Say not it was to Abraham only that it sealed it, for it is an injui'ious 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 7iot say, that a seal of the covenant tf works (for so you made circumcision to he) ever did, or could seed evangelical righteousness to any individual person, in the world.
I find you a man of great confidence, but certainly here it failed 3^ou ; not one word in reply to this. (2.) ' I told you your dis- ' tinction was invented by Bellarmine, and shewed you where it ' was confuted by Dr. Ames : but not a word to that.' (3.) I shew- *■ ed, ' 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 Jews and Gentiles are ' justified by faith, as Abraham was : and that the ground of justi- ' fication 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 privilege 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 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 but a weak manager of a bad cause, which is the less hazard to truth.
Arg. 3. In the covenant of circumcision. Gen. xvii. God makes over himself to Abraham and his seed, to be their God, or gives them a special interest in himself.
But, in the covenant of Avorks, God doth not, since the fall, make over himself to any to be their God, by way of special interest.
Therefore the covenant of circumcision cannot be the covenant of works.
VIXDICIARUM VIXDEX. hit
The sum of your replij, in p. 76. is under two heads.
(1.) You boldly tell me, That ' God doth in the covenant of ^ works make over himself to sinners to be their God by way of * special interest ; but it being upon such hard terms that it is ut- ' terly impossible for sinners that way to attain unto life, he hath « therefore been pleased to abolish that, and make a new covenant ;' and bring Exod. xx. 1. to prove it.