Reply, Position 2 — Argument 4

That which in its direct and primary end teaches man the corruption of his nature by sin, and the mortification of sin by the Spirit of Christ, cannot be a condition of the covenant of works; but so did circumcision in the very direct and primary end of it.

This ordinance supposes the fall of man, points to the means and instruments of his sin and misery; and also to the remedy thereof by Christ. (1.) It singles out that genital part, by which original sin was propagated (Genesis 17:11; Psalm 51:5); to this the sign of the covenant is applied in circumcision, for the remission of sins past, and the extirpation of sin for the future. (2.) Therefore it was instituted of God, that men might see both the necessity and true way of mortifying their lusts, in the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection; of which baptism, that succeeds it, is a sign now, as circumcision was then; as is plain from Colossians 2:11-12: "In whom also you 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, in which also you 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 token, between 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 shows it cannot be the covenant of works; for in that covenant all are equally and alike concluded under sin and misery (Ephesians 2:3), and there is no difference made by that covenant between 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 circumcision, as a covenant of works, is. You see into what bogs you are again driven in defense of your opinion. For example:

That circumcision is a part of the ceremonial law, which was dedicated with blood, and therefore could be no [reconstructed: part] of the moral law or ten commandments, which was (say you) the [reconstructed: covenant] of works; and yet that it is of [reconstructed: the] same nature; and that it is clear [reconstructed: that it] is no other than a covenant of works. Don't you there distinguish and confound all again? Blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without cause, and commit a greater absurdity presently than you charged him with? Don't you question whether that covenant that was typically sealed by blood, was sealed by Christ's blood? Pray, sir, consider: wherever God commands typical blood to be applied, it relates to Christ's blood spiritually applied, or to nothing.

Are not you forced in defense 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 defense of their darling opinions!

Are you not forced for your security from the danger of the third argument to cut one and the same covenant 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 another quite opposite covenant? Don't you magnify the bounty and grace of God to Abraham in the first four verses, and then destroy it all, by putting him at once under a contrary covenant, and so cut off all capacity to enjoy one of those mercies?

Don't 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 Genesis 12 and Genesis 22 to be pure gospel-covenants of grace; and yet in the first Abraham is bound to walk before God and be perfect; and in the other God says, "For because you have done this thing, surely blessing I will bless you."

And so much for Abraham's covenant.