This I utterly deny ; and will Xxy whether you have any better success in the proof of your second, than you had in your ^Y$,t posi- tion. 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. xvii. 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 cut- ting off the filth and guilt of sin from their souls, by regeneration and justification, called " the circumcision of the heart," Deut. x. 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. xxx. 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 visible outward sign, and spiritual mystery, there was a sacramental relation ; from which revelation it is called the " token of the cove- nant," Gen. xvii. 12. " The sign and seal of the covenant," Rom. iv. 11. Yea, " the covenant itself," Acts vii. 8.
A REPLY TO MR. CA11Y*S SOLEMN CALL. 841
(S.) Next, let us consider the ends for which circumcision was insti- tuted and ordained of God ; Of which these were the principal.
(1.) It was instituted to be a convictive sig^i of their natural cor- ruption, propagated by the way of natural generation : For which reason, this natural corruption goes in scripture under the name of the uncircumcision of the hearty Jer. ix, 26.
(2.) It also signified the putting off of this body of sin, in the vir- tue of Christ's death. Col. ii. 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. xvii. 9, 10, H.
(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. iii. 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 per- formance of all covenanted duties ; in which duties, Abraham, and the faithful, walked obediently, Avith God, looking to Christ for righ- teousness: 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 itself a bond o^ thai covenant.
(6) Now, forasmuch as circumcision prefigured Christ, who was to come of this holy circumcised seed of Abraham, and his death also was pointed at therein, Heb. ii. 16. Col. ii. 11. of necessity this ordi- nance 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 glimpse of any such thing. Did that covenant separate and distin- guish one person from another, as this did ? No, no ; it left all under equal and common misery, Eph. ii. 3.
Had Adam's covenant a seal of the righteousness of faith annexed to it, as thishad.^ Rom. iv. 11. " He received circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith." The righteousness of faith is evangelical righteousness; and tliis circumcision sealed. Say not it was to Abra- ham only that it sealed it ; for it is an injurious restriction put upon the seal of a covenant, which extended to x\\g Jhthers as well as to Abraham, Luke i. 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 oficorTts ever did, or could, seal evange- lical 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 ofzvorks, but a gospcl-covcnanf. Which I thus prove :
342 A REPLY TO MR. CARY's SOLEMN CALL. ^
If circumcision be a part of the cermonial law, and the ce^'emO" nial lazv was dedicated by blood, and whatsoever is so dedicated, is by you confessed to be ho part of the covenant of works ; then cir- cumcision is no part of the covenant of works, even by your own confession. But it is : ergo.
That it is a part of the ceremonial lato, was never doubted, or de- nied by any man : that it was dedicated by blood, and therefore no part of the moral law, you yourself not only acknowledge, but vehe- mently plead for it, page 148, where you blame Mr. Sedgwick with some sharpness, and unbecoming reflection, for making no distinction heX.'ivhiiihe ceremonial covenant,\v\\\ch was dedicated by blood, and the law written in tables of stone; which was not so dedicated, and there- fore could not be the same with the moral law, which you make the covenantofworh ; telling him, that this dedication by blood ought to distinguish it from the moral law, or Sinai covenant o^ y!oxk%, 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 blood? Yes, the apostle plainly asserts it, (Heb. ix. 18, 19.) from Exod. xxiv. 7, 8. ' Moses took the book of the covenant, and read it m the audience of the people ; and took the blood, and sprinkled it upon the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you, concerning these things." But what kind of covenant then was this covenant that was sprinkled with blood ? You tell us, p. 147, it could not pos- sibly be the law written in stones, (which you make the covenant of works;) h\ii was indeed another covenant, delivered at a distinct sea- son, and in a distinct method. What covenant then must this be, seeing it could not possibly (as you say) be the Sinai covenant written in stones .? It must either be the covenant of grace, or none. No, say you, that it was not, neither ; for it was of the same nature with, and is no other than a covenant of works, p. 151. It was the same, and yet could not possibly be the same.