Mr. Sedgwick, that learned and grave divine, is checked, p. 148. for confounding the ceremonial lazv that was sprinkled with blood, with themorallaw (which you call the covenant of works)t.hgit was not sprink- led with blood ; and say you, p. 147. It could not possibly he the same. And then, p. 151, you say. It is clear, these two, viz. the moral and ceremonial law, were both ofths same nature; that is, no other Hian a covenant of works. How doth this hang together ? Pray reconcile it if you can. You say. It is an ungrounded supposition of Mr. Sedgmck's, that that covenant which was so confirmed by blood, must of necessity be confirmed by the blood of Christ also: p. 148. But, sir, the truth you oppose, viz. That the book of the ceremonial law was sprinkled by typical blood, and therefore confirmed by the blood of Christ, for the time it was to continue, shines like a bright sun-beam
A REPLY TO MR. fAIlv's SOLEMN CALL. 543
in your own eyes, from Heb. ix. 14, 23. Was not the blood that sprinkled this law, the figure or type of Christ's own blood ? Whose blood was it then, if not Christ's .? How dare you call this an un- grounded supposition ? Was not that blood typical blood ? And what, I pray you, was the antitype, but Christ's blood ? And did not the Holy Ghost signify the one by the other ? Heb. ix. 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 is clear both were of the same nature, no other than a covenant of works. At this rate you may say what you please; for I see contradiction is no crime in your book.
If circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith, it did not pertain to the covenant ofworlcs ; for the righteousness o^ faith and works are opposites, and belong to the two contrary covenants.
But circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith; Rom. iv. 11. "He (i. e. Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith." Therefore it pertains not to the covenant of works, but grace.
A man would think it impossible to evade so clear and scriptural 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 ; p. 105. you say. It is true, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham ; but it was so to him only in his extraordinary circumstances ; but it was not so to any of his natural seed 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, p. 27. proving, that there was no extraordinary cause on Abra- ham's account, why God should justify 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 public seal of a covenant, that compre- hended and equally concerned the whole church and people of God, to one single person; so that neither Isaac nor Jacob, who were by name enrolled in that great charter, should have any right to the seal of it, is such a conceit as amazes an intelligent reader. We know Abra ham was the first that received it, but utterly deny that he received it only for himself; but he received it as the father of all them that be- lieve, whither Jews or Gentiles, as the very next words tell us, " He received it, that he might be the father of all them that believe;"** that is, for himself, and all his spiritual children. Onehalf of this sacrament of circumcision you allow, p. 205. to the rest that were under it, viz. to be a sign of the covenant; but the other half you cut off, and say, it was only a seal to him. What good vouchers have you for this ex-
position of the text? Have you the concurrence oi^ orthodox expositors? Or is it the rash and bold adventure of your own head ? I am sure it no way agrees with the drift and scope of the apostle's argument, ■which evidently is to prove, that both Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith, as Abraham was; and that the ground of justification and blessedness iscommon both to theuncircumcised Gentiles, and circum- cised Jews; and that Abraham and all other believers, have but one way of justification, and salvation, and that how great soever Abra- ham 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 com- munity of the privilege of justification, because the seal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone ? Rectify it, and better consider it.
In the covenant of circumcision, Gen. xvii. God makes over him- self to Abraham and his seed to be their God, or give them a special interest in himself
But in the covenant qfworlcs, 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 qfi£07'ks.
This is so plain and clear, that none can doubt or deny it, that un- derstands the nature of the two covenants. And now, sir, what course do you take to avoid this argument "^ Such a one sure as no man that ever I met with took before you, and that is this ; you boldly cut Abraham's covenant. Gen. xvii. 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 restipidation (as you call it,p.S05.) to be as pure a covenant of works. What hard shift will some men make to main- tain their opinion ! You say truly, p. 205, that at the seve7ithar\d eighth lyerses was their restipulation : why then do you say, p. 224, that at ver. 1th he proceeds to speak of another covenant than what he had been speaking of before.^ Does the promise and the restipulation make two covenants; or are they just and necessary parts of one and the same co- venant f You also tell us, that the covenant, Gen. xvii. 1, 2, 3, 4. was a plain transcript of several free promises of the gospel under the de- nomination oi 3. covenant. But why then don't you take the restipu- lation, ver. 7, 8, 9, 10. to be a part of it ? O no ; there is something required on Abraham's and his posterity's part ; they must be circum- cised, and that spoils all. Why but, sir, if the requiring of circumcision alters the case so greatly, as to make it a quite contr 3iry covetiant ; how comes it to pass, that in the covenant to Abraham, he himself was first required to he 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, p. 223, and in many other places, that the covenant made with Abra- ham, in Gen. xii. was a gospel-covenant ; and yet there Abraham is
A REPLY TO MR. CAIIY's SOLI^MX CALL. 345