confuted it in his third tome p. 27. proving, that there was no extraordinary caufe on Abraham's account, why God fhould juftify or feal him more than any other believer; and that Abraham had nothing to glory in before God. But to restrain, as you do, the public feal of a covenant, that comprehended and equally concerned the whole church and people of God, to one fingle perfon; fo that neither Ifaac nor Jacob, who were by name enrolled in that great charter, fhould have any right to the feal of it, is fuch a conceit as amazes an intelligent reader. We know Abraham was the first that received it, but utterly deny that he received it only for himfelf; but he received it as the father of all them that believe, whether 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 fpiritual children. One half of this facrament of circumcifion you allow, p. 205. to the reft that were under it, viz. to be a fign of the covenant; but the other half you cut off, and fay, it was only a feal to him. What good vouchers have you for this expofition of the text? Have you the concurrence of orthodox expofitors? Or is it the rash and bold adventure of your own head? I am fure it no ways agrees with the drift and scope of the Apoftle's argument, which evidently is to prove, that both Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith, as Abraham was; and that the ground of juftification and bleffedness is common both to the uncircumcifed Gentiles, and circumcifed Jews; and that Abraham and all other believers, have but one way of juftification, and falvation, and that how great foever Abraham was, in this cafe he hath found nothing. whereof to glory, ver. 1, 2. And is not your expofition a notable one, to prove the community of the privilege of justifica-` tion, because the feal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone? Rectify it, and better confider it.

Argument III

In the covenant of circumcifion, Gen. xvii. God makes over himself to Abraham and his feed to be their God, or give them a special intereft in himself.

But in the covenant of works, God doth not, fince the fall, make over himself to any, to be their God by way of special in-` tereft.

Therefore the covenant of circumcifion cannot be the covenant of works.

This is fo plain and clear, that none can doubt or deny it, that understands the nature of the two covenants. And now, fir, what courfe do you take to avoid this argument? Such a

pne fure 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 promiffory part, to the ninth verse; and the reftipulation (as you call it, p. 205.) to be as pure a covenant of works. What hard fhift will fome men make to maintain their opinion! You fay truly, p. 205, that at the feventh and eighth verfes was their reftipulation: why then do you fay, p. 224, that at ver. the 7th he proceeds to speak of another covenant than what he had been speaking of before? Does the promise and the reftipulation make two covenints; or are they just and neceffary parts of one and the fame covenant? You also tell us, that the covenant, Gen. xvii. 1, 2, 3, 4. was a plain tranfcript of feveral free promises of the gofpel under the denomination of a covenant. But why then don't you take the reftipulation, ver. 7, 8, 9, 10. to be a part of it? O no; there is fomething required on Abraham's and his pofterity's part; they must be circumcised, and that fpoils all. Why but, fir, if the requiring of circumcifion alters the cafe fo greatly, as to make it a quite contrary covenant; how comes it to pass, that in the covenant to Abraham, he himself was firft required to be circumcifed? Why, this is the reason; here is fomewhat 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 fay, p. 223, and in many other places, that the covenant made with Abraham, in Gen. xii. was a gofpel 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 feventeenth chapter? You also grant, the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. xxii. was a pure gospel-covenant; or if you deny it, the apoftle proves it, Heb. vi. 13. And yet there is more appearance of refpect to Abraham's obedience" in that covenant, than is in fubmitting to circumcifion: fee Gen. xxii. 16, 17. "By myself have I fworn, faith the Lord; for becaufe thou haft done this thing, &c. That in bleffing, "I will blefs thee; and in multiplying, I will multiply thee." I will trouble you, on this head, but with one query more : if the four first verfes of the xvii. of Genefis contain a pure gofpel-covenant, as you fay, and the reftipulation in the following verfes make a covenant of works, because it thereby becomes conditional; then tell me, if you pleafe, whether what God graciously granted to Abraham in the former verfes be not all nulled, and made void again by their reftipulation? Does not this feem har? Here you have brought Abraham,

Ifaac, and Jacob, and all the believers of Abraham's race, juft into the fame cafe you brought Mofes and all the Ifraelites before, under two oppofite covenants, where one cuts off all that the other granted.

But there is a stronger reafon urged than the conditionality of the covenant, to prove it a covenant of works; and that is, circumcifion is made the condition of Abraham's covenant; and that is the worst of all conditions, for it obliges a man to keep the whole law, Gal. v. 3. it is the yoke of bondage, and to whatsoever covenant it be so annexed, it makes it become a bondage legal covenant. "If we be circumcifed, Chrift fhall "profit us nothing." Thus it was in the covenant, Gen. xvii.

Great ufe is made of this in many parts of your difcourfe. But, fir, you are greatly mistaken in applying these texts to the purposes you do; for the apoftle all along in that epiftle to the Galatians, argues against the falfe teachers, who taught and preffed the neceffity of circumcifion, as a bond obliging them to the strict and perfect obedience of the law, in order, to their juftification thereby, or at least to join it with the righteousness of Chrift, as a con-caufe of justification: fee Gal. ii. 4, 5. and iii. 1. Now against this abufe of circumcifion it is that the apoftle argues thus, and tells them, that in fubmitting to it on that account, they made the death of Chrift of no effect, and obliged themselves by it to the whole law ; for circumcifion did not fimply and abfolutely, in the nature of the work or action, oblige men to the whole law in the way of justification by it, but it did fo from the intention. of the worker, and the fuppofition of fuch an opinion of it, and defign in it, for in itself, and with refpect to God's defign in the inftitution of it; it was to be a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith, Rom. iv. 11. and fo it was an excellent, ufeful, inftructive ordinance to all believers, as long as the ceremonial law ftood; and even when it was expiring, as the gofpel began to open more and more clearly, there was yet fome kind of toleration of it to fuch as were born of Jewish parents: Thus Paul himself circumcifed Timothy, his mother being a Jewefs, Acts xvi. 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. ii. 3, 4. This Paul could never have done, in cafe circumcifion, in the nature of the act, had bound Timothy to keep the law for juftification. 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 apoftle

rightly argues, if a man be circumcifed with a defign to be ju ftified by it, he would thereby bind himself to the whole law, and frustrate the death of Chrift to himself; but it was now to have its funeral with all other parts of the ceremonial law, which vanished, and were accomplished in the death of Chrift; and it falling out that such a vile use was made of it at that time, the apoftle thus thunders against it. Had this been ob

ferved, as also the like abuse of the moral law, you would have known how to have reconciled the apoftle's encomiums of them both, with his fharp invectives against the one and the other. But being ignorant of these two great and neceffary diftinctions of the law, according to God's intention in the promulgation of it at Sinai, and the carnal Jews fenfe of it, as a pure covenant of works, against which the apoftle fo fharply inveighs in the places by you cited, all your 23 arguments from page 183, to page 187, fall to the ground at one ftroke; your medius terminus having one fenfe in your major propofition, and another in your minor; and fo every argument hath four terms in it, as will eafily be evinced by the particular confideration of the respective places from whence you draw them.

So in like manner, in your arguing here against circumcifion, as a bond to keep the whole law, and as fuch vacating the death of Christ, is a stumble at the same stone, not diftinguishing as you ought to have done, betwixt an obligation arifing 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 eafily difcern. But we proceed to

Argument IV.

That which in its direct and primary end teacheth man the corruption of his nature by fin, and the mortification of fin by the Spirit of Chrift, cannot be a condition of the covenant of works; but fo did circumcifion in the very direct and primary end of it.

This ordinance fuppofeth the fall of man, points to the means and inftruments of his fin and mifery, and also to the remedy thereof by Chrift: (1.) It fingles out that genital part by which original fin was propagated, Gen. xvii. 1. Pfal. li. 1. To this the fign of the covenant is applied in circumcifion, for the remiffion of fins paft, and the extirpation of fin for the future. (2.) Therefore it was inftituted of God, that men might fee both the neceffity and true way of mortifying their lufts, in the virtue of Chrift's death and refurrection, whereof baptifm, that fucceeds it, is a fign now, as circumcifion was then; as is plain from Col. ii. 11, 12. “In whom al

"fo ye are circumcifed with the circumcifion made without hands, in putting off the body of the fins of the flesh by the "circumcifion of Chrift, buried with him in baptism, where"in alfo ye are rifen with him, through the faith of the ope *ration of God, who raised him from the dead." It is clear then that circumcifion directed men to the death and refurrec tion of Chrift, as the true and only means of mortifying their lufts; and if it did fo, fure it was not the covenant of works, for that gives fallen man no hint of a remedy. (3.) It was also a difcriminating fign or token, betwixt the church and the world: God's people, and the heathens, who were accordingly denominated from it, the circumcifion and the uncircumcifion, the holy feed and the Gentiles; and now under the New Teftament, the children of Abraham by faith, and the children of the flefb: This alfo fhews it cannot be the covenant of works; for in that covenant all are equally and alike concluded under fin and mifery, Eph. ii. 3. and there is no difference made by that covenant betwixt person and person, state and state.

ge

If this be not enough to evince, that the covenant of circumcifion is a covenant of grace, I promise you many more arguments to prove it, as foon as I fhall find these refuted, and your contrary affertion well discharged from the grofs abfurdities with which it is clogged and loaded. You fee how nuine, natural, and congruous to fcripture the notion of it as a covenant of grace is, and all the world may fee how harsh, alien, and repugnant to fcripture your notion of circumcifion, as a covenant of works, is. You fee into what bogs you are again driven in defence of your opinion: Exemp. gra.

That circumcifion is a part of the ceremonial law, which was dedicated with blood, and therefore could be no part of the moral law or ten commandments, which was (fay you) the covenant of works; and yet that it is of the fame nature, and that it is clear it is no other than a covenant of works: do not you there diftinguish and confound all again, blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without caufe, and commit a greater abfurdity presently than you charged him with? Do not you question whether that covenant was typically fealed by Chrift's blood? Pray, fir, confider where-ever God commands typical blood to be applied, it relates to Chrift's blood spiritually applied, of to nothing.

Are not you forced, in defence of your erroneous thefts, to fay with Bellarmine, That circumcifion was extraordinary in its inftitution, and applied as a feal to none but Abraham himself? It excluded even Ifaac, the type of Chrift, and Jacoby