their lusts, in the virtue of Clirist's death and resurrection, whereof baptism that succeeds it, is a sign now, as circumcision was then ; as is plain from Col. ii. 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."* It is 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 tohen^ 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 cove7ia7it of worhs ; for in that covenant all are equally and alike concluded under sin and misery, Eph. ii. 3. and there is no difference made by that cove- nant 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 clogged 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 circum- cision, as a covenant of works, is. You see into what bogs you are again driven in defence of your opinion : Exemp. girt.
That circumcision is a part of the ceremonial law, which was dedi- cated with blood, and therefore could be no part of the moral law or ten commandments, which was (say you) the covenant of works; and yet that it is of the same nature, and that it is clear it is no other than a covenant of works : do you not there distinguish and confound all again, blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without cause, and commit a greater absurdity presently than you charged him with ? Do not you question whether that covenant was typically sealed by Chrisf s blood? Pray, sir, consider wherever God commands typical blood to be ap- plied, it relates to Christ's blood spiritually applied^ 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 applied 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 of the same covenants 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 yourself call a restipulation, to make
348 A REPLr TO MR. CARY's SOLEMN CALL.
another quite opposite covenant ? Do not you magnify the bounty and grace of God to Abraham in the first four verses, and then de- stroy it all, by putting him at once under a contrary covenant, and so cut off all capacity to enjoy one of those mercies?
Do not 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. xii. and Gen. xxii. to be pure gospel covenants of grace ; and yet in the first, Abraham is bound to ' walk before God and be per- fect ;' 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.
III. Of the conditionallty of the new covenant.
Come we next to consider that opinion of yours, which led you into these other gross mistakes and absurdities, and that is this, that the covenant of grace is absolute ; and whatever covenant is not so, but hath any condition upon our part, must needs for that reason be a covenant of worlds. See page 229- It is observable (say you) that as the covenants mentioned Gen. ii. Exod. xx. ^c. we?'e all conditional^ and therefore legal covenants, requiring strict and perfect obedience, as the ccmdition propounded, in order to the enjoyment of the mei'cies contained in them, which are all therefore done away in Christ ; so on the other hand we see, that the covenant God made with Abraham, Gen. xii. 2, 3. and Gen. xvii. 2, 3. and Gen. xxii. 16, 17, 18. was wholly free and absolute, and therefore purely evangelical, <^c. We will review these things anon, and see if you truly represent the matter ; but in order to it, let me tell you,
First, What we mean by a gospel-condition.
Secondly, Prove that there are such in the gospel-covenant.
Thirdly, Shew you the absurdity of your opinion against it.
(1.) What we mean by a coiidition in the gospel-covenant. By a condition of the covenant, we do not mean in the strictest rigid sense of the word, such a restipulation to God from man of perfect obe- dience in his own person, at all times, so as the least failure therein forfeits all the mercies of the covenant ; that is rather the condition of Adam's covenant of works, than of the evangelical covenant : nor do we assert any meritorious condition, that in the nature of an im- pulsive cause shall bring man into the covenant and its privileges, or continue him in when brought in. This we renounce as well as you : but our question is about such a condition as is neither in the nature of an act perfect in every degree, nor meritorious in the least of the benefit conferred, nor yet done in our own strength. But plainly and briefly, our question is. Whether there be not something
A REPLY TO MH. CARy's SOLEMN CALL. 349