The Reasonableness Of Person-

The Reasonableness Of Person-

A Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call. tiation, whenthey cannot reconcile one thing with another, they fly totheomnipotent power to do it.

But, fir, I wonderhow youhold andhugaprinciplethat runs naturally into ſuch groſs abſurdities : Do you ſee what follows from hencebyunavoidable conſequence ? You must, according to this principle, hold, That Mofes, and allGod's peculiar elect people in Ifrael,muſt, during their life, hang mid-way betweenjuſtification and condemnation ; and, after death, between heaven and hell.

(1.) During life, they must hang mid-waybetween juſtificationand condemnation ; justified theycould not be, forjuftification is the ſoul's paffing from death to life, 1 John iii. 14.

John v. 24.

This they could not poſſibly do, for the mini . ſtration of death and condemnation hindred.

He that is under condemnation by the law, cannot, during that ſtate, paſs into life. And yet tobe under condemnation is as impoſſible on the other fide ; for he that is justified, cannot at the fame time beunder condemnation, Rom. viii. 2. John v. 24. What remains then, but that during life they muſt ſtick mid-way betwixtboth, neither justified nor condemned; andyet both fo and fo.

Juſtification is our life, and condemnation our death, inlaw : Betwixt theſe two, which are privately opposed, there canbe no medium of participation, and yet ſuch a medium you here fancy.

(2.) Andthen afterdeath they must necafſſarilyhang betwixt heavenandhell; toheaven none can go that are under the veryrigourand tyranny ofthe law, a pure covenant of works, as you ſaythey were.

To hell they could not go,being der the pure covenant of grace : What remains then, but unfomethird ſtate must be aſſignedthem ? andſo at laſt we have found the limbus patrum, andyour poſitionleads us right to purgatory; aconclufion which,I believe, you yourſelfabhor as much as I.

(2dly,) This hypotheſis pinches you with another dilemma, viz. Eitherthere was pardon or repentance inMofes's covenant, and the Sinai diſpenſation ofthe law, or there was none ; if you ſay none, you directly contradict Lev. xxvi. 40, 46. if theywere, then it cannot be Adam's covenant ofworks.

You anſwer, pag. 179.

That God promiſeth pardon for the breach ofMofes's covenant, and ofAdam's covenant too, but neither Adam's covenant, nor the Jewish legal covenant,

• promifed any pardon upon repentance, but rather threatens • and inflicts the contrary.'

Reply. Either this is a direct answer to my argument, to

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

prove the law at Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's covenant, becauſe ithad apromife ofpardon annexedto it, Lev. xxvi. 40. butAdam's covenant had none.

If your anſwer be direct, thenit is a plain contradiction in ſaying it had, and it had not apromife ofpardonbelonging to it.

Or else it is amere evafion, and an eluding of the argument ; and your only meaning is, that the relief I ſpeak ofis notto be found in anypromiſe belonging to the Sinai diſpenſation, but in ſome other goſpel covenant orpromiſe. But, fir, thiswillnot ferve your turn; you ſee I cite the very promiſe ofgrace made to the Ifraelitiesonmount Sinai by the hand of Mofes,whereinGod promiſeth upon their humiliation, to remember his covenant for their good. Now, fir,you had as good have ſtood to your firſt anſwer, which is leſs contradictory, as to this whichis no leſs ſo ; as will evidently appear, by a nearer and more particular view of the place, and gathering up your own concefſions about it.

That this text, Lev. xxvi. 40. hath the nature of a gracious goſpel promise in it, no man will deny, except he that will denythatGod's remembring ofhis covenant, forthe reliefofpoor broken-hearted ſinners, is no goſpel-promiſe pertaining to the covenant of grace : Thatit was made tothepenitent Ifraelities upon mount Sinai, and there deliveredthemby the hand ofMofes for their relief, isas viſible and plain as the words and ſyllables ofthe 46th verſe are to him that readsthem. Letthe promisethen be confidered both ways.

(1.) Inyourſenſe, as a plain direction to the covenant ofgrace madewith Abrahamfor their relief; for ſo you say it was,p.

180. or let itbe confidered abſolutely, as that which contained relief in itſelf for the penitent Ifraelites that ſhould live towards the end ofthe world, after they ſhould begathered from all their difperfions and captivities, as you there ſpeak, and more fully explicate in your accommodation of a parallel promiſe,p. 111, 112, 113. Firſt, letus view it in yourſenſe, as a relative promise to the covenant ofgrace made with Abraham .

Gen. xii. towhich, fayyou, it plainly directs them ; and then this legaldifpenfation can never bethe famewithAdam's cavenant, for to that covenant no ſuch promiſe was ever annexed, which ſhouldguide andplainly direct them to Chriſt and pardon, as that ſtar which appeared to the wifemen directed their wayto Chrift.

Ifthere be any ſuch relative promiſe belonging toAdam's covenant in paradise, as this which Iplainly thew you was made on mount Sinai, be pleaſed to produce it, andyou end the controversy ; but ifyou cannot, (as you know you cannot) then never fay the legal diſpenſation at Sinai,

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call. andthecovenantofworks withAdaminparadise,are thevery fame covenant.

Secondly, Let us confider this promife abſolutely in itſelf, and then I demand, was there mercy, relief and pardoncontained initfor anypenitent finner preſentor to come? Yes, ſay you, it extends relieftopenitents, afterGod ſhall gather them from alltheir captivities at the end ofthe world; very good. Then it is a very vigorous promiſe of grace,which not only reaches 430 years backward, as far as the firſtpromiſe to Abraham,but alſo extends its reliefs and andcomfortsmany thousandyears forwards, evento the pureft times of thegoſpel, juſt before Chriſt coming to judgment:

And canſuch a promiſe as this be denied tobe initſelfagofpel-promife ? Sure it canneither be denied tobe ſuch, nor yet tobe madeupon mount Sinai by the hand ofMofes.

This dilemma is as pinching as the former.

Perhaps you'll fay, This promiſedidnot belongtothe moral law given at Sinai, but to the ceremonial law : If fo; then

I ſhould reasonably conclude, that you take the ceremoniallaw (ofwhich youſeem to make this abranch, pag. 181.) to be a covenant of grace, feeing one of its branches bears fuch a gracious promiſe upon it. No, that must not be ſo neither; for ſay you, p. 151. the ceremonial covenant is of theſamenature with the covenant of works, or law written in tables of stone : Whither then ſhall we fend this promiſe ?

To thecovenant ofgracewe must notfend it, unleſs only as an index or finger to point to it, becauſe itwas made upon mount Sinai, anddelivered to Ifrael by the hand of Mofes :

To thegoſpel-covenantwe must not thereforeannex it ; and to the legaldiſpenſation at Sinai you are as loth to annex it, be caufe itcontains ſo much reliefand grace in it for poor peni tents ; and that will prove,that neither the moralnor ceremo niallaw (place itin which you pleaſe) canbe a pure covenant ofworks as Adam's was .

Moreover, in making this the promise which must relieve andcomfort the diſtreſſed Iſraelites inthe pureſt goſpel-times, towards the end of the world, you as palpably contradict yourſelf in another reſpect ; for we shall find youby andby ſtoutly denying, that the goſpel promiſes have any conditions or qualifications annexed to them; but fo hath this, which you ſay relatestothem that ſhall live at the end oftheworld.

" Iftheir uncircumcifedhearts be humbled, and ifthey accept "the punishmentoftheir iniquites,then will Iremembermy

" covenant," &c.

Butbethis promiſeconditional or abfolute,

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

two things are undeniably clear : (1.) That it is apromife full ofgrace, for the relief of law-tranfgreffors, ver. 40. (2.) That itwas a mount Sinai promise, ver. 46. Andfuch apromife as you can never ſhew inAdam's covenant.

Beſides, it is to me an unaccountable thing, that a promiſe which hath a double comfortable aſpect, 430 years back, and ſome thoufands ofyears forward, ſhouldnot caſt one comfortableglance uponthe penitents ofthe preſent age, when it was made, nor uponany tillnear the end of the world.

What think you, fir, of the 3000Jews pricked at the heart, Acts ii. hadtheyno relieffrom it, becauſetheir lot fell not late enough in time ? Were the penitentJews in Mofes and Peter's days all born out ofdue time for this promife to relieve? O what ſhiftingand shuffling ishere !Who can think a man thattwiſts and winds every way, to avoid the dint of an argument, can poſſiblyhave a moral afſurance ofthe truth ofhis ownopinion ?

(3.) You ſay, pag. 134.

Thatthrough Chriſt's fatisfaction * there is no repugnancy, or hoftile contrariety,betwixtthe law

⚫and promiſe, but an agreement betwixt them, and that they differ only in reſpect ofſtrength and weakness ; the goſpel

* is able to go through-ſtitch with it,which thelaw cannotdo.

Reply. Well then, the law, confidered as a covenant of works, whoſe terms or condition is, "Do this and live ;" and the promise or goſpel,whoſe condition is," Believe andthou

" ſhaltbe ſaved ;" are not ſpecifically different, but onlygra dually, inpointof ſtrength and weakness: and the reaſon you give is as ſtrange, that this comes to pass through thefatisfaction of Christ .

Good fir, enlighten us in this rarenotion.

Did Chrift die to purchaſe a reconciliation betwixt the covenant ofworks as fuch, and the covenant of grace, as ifboth were now by the death of Chriſt agreed, and to be justified byworks and by faith, ſhould, after Chrift's death, make no odds or difference betweenthem ? Ifit be ſo, why have you kept ſuch a coil to prove Mofes's and Adam's covenant, yea,

Abraham's too, being asovenant of works, can never confift ormingle withthe gospel-covenant ? And thenI ſay, you contradict the apostle, who ſo directly oppoſes the covenant of worksas ſuch, to the covenant ofgrace, Gal. iii. 18. and tells us they are utterly inconſiſtent andexcluſive ofeach other; and thishe ſpake after Chriſt's death and actual ſatisfaction. But,

(4.) Thatwhich more amazes me, is the ſtrange anſwer you give toMr. Sedgwick, p. 132, 133. In your return to his argument, ' That ifthe law andthe promife can confift, then

VOL. VIII.

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

• the law cannot be ſet up as a covenant ofworks. You answer, • That the law and the promisehaving divers ends, itdothnot thence follow, that there is an inconſiſtence betwixt them, andthat the law, even as itis acovenant ofworks, instead of ** being against the promiſe, tends to the eſtabliſhment ofit.

Andp. 133. thatby convincing menoftheimpoffibilityof ⚫obtaining rest and peace inthemselves, and the neceffityof

⚫betaking themselves tothe promise,&c. thelaw is not againſt ⚫the promiſe, having fo bleffedafubferviency towards the eſta- ⚫blishment thereof.' Here you own afubfervieney, yea, a bleffedfubferviency of the law to the promise, which is that Mr.

Sedgwick and myselfhave urged toprove it cannot be ſo, as it is a pure Adam's covenant, but that therefore it must come

' under another confideration; only here we differ ; you fay it hatha bleffedfubferviency to the promiſe, as it is the famewith

Adam's covenant ; we say it can never be ſo as ſuch, but as it is either a covenant ofgrace, thơ' moreobſeure, ashe ſpeaks ; orthough the matter of it ſhould be the fame with Adam's covenant, yet it is ſubſervientlya covenant ofgrace, as others ſpeak ; andunder no other confideration can it be reconciled tothepromife.

Butwillyou ſtand tothis, that the lawhath no hoftilecontradiction to the promife, but a bleſſedfubferviency to it, as you ſpeak,p. 173. where you say, That ifwe preach up the •law as a covenant of life, or acovenant of faith and grace

(which are equipollent terms) letus diftinguiſh as we pleaſe •between acovenant ofgrace abfolutely andſubſerviently ſuch,

• then we makean ill uſeofthe law,byperverting it to ſuch a •ſerviceasGod neverintendedit for,and areguiltyofmingling

•law and goſpel, life anddeath together."

Reply. Here, fir, myunderſtanding is perfectly poſed, and I know not how to make any tolerable orthodox ſenſe out ofthis poſition: Is the lawpreached up as a pure covenant τ ofworks, (that is, preſſing mento the perſonal and punctual obedience ofit, in order totheirjuftification byworks) noway repugnant to the promife, but altogether ſo, when preached inſubſerviency to Chrift and faith ? This is new divinity withme, and I believe mustbe ſo to every intelligent reader.

Do not I oppoſe the promise, whenI preach up the law as a pure covenant of works, which therefore as fuch mustbe exclufive ofChriſt and the promise ? And do I oppoſe either, when I tell finners the terrors of the law ſerve only todrive them to Chriſt,their only remedy,who is " the end of the law

" for righteousness, to every onethat believeth," Rom. x.4-

AReply to Mr. Cary'sJolemn Call.

Areworks and gracemore conſiſtent thangracewith grace!

Explain your meaning in this paradoxical expreſſion, and leave notyourselfand others in ſuch amaze.

I read,Gal. iii. 19. for what endGod publiſhed the law 430 years after the promiſe was made to Abraham, and find it was added because of tranfgreffion, προσετέθη, itwasputto,not fet upby itſelf aloneas adiſtinct covenant,butadded asan appendix to the covenant of grace; whence it is plain, that God added the Sinai law to the promise, with evangelical ends and purposes.

If then I preachthe law tothe very fame evangelical uſes and purpoſes forwhichGod added it to thepromise, do I therein make an illuſe ofthe law, and mingle life anddeath together ? But preachingit, as apure covenantofworks, as itholds forthjuſtificationtoſinnersby obedience to its precepts,do I thenmake itbleſſedlyſubſervient (as you ſpeak) to the promise or covenant of grace ? The law was added becauſe of tranfgreffion, that is, to reſtrain fin in the world, and to convince ſinners under guilt, ofthe neceſſityofanother righteouſneſs thantheir own, even thatofChriſt, and for the ſame ends God added it tothepromise.

I always did, and ſtill ſhallpreach it, and I am perfuaded, without the leastdanger ofmingling law and gofpel, life anddeath together, inyour ſenſe.

It is plain to me, that in the publication ofthe law on Sinai, God didnot inthe leaſtintend to givethem ſomuchas a direction how toobtainjustificationbytheir most punctual obedience to its precepts, thatbeing to fallen man utterly impoſſible ; and beſide, had he promulgedthe law to that end andpurpoſe, he had not added it, but directly oppoſed it to thepromiſe ; which it ismanifeſtedhedid not; Gal. in. 21.

" Is the lawthen against the promise ofGod? God forbid."

And verſe 18. makes it appear, thathad it been ſetup to that endandpurpoſe, ithad utterlydiſannulledthe promise ; for if theinheritance be of the law, it isno more by promife. What thencanbeclearer, thanthat the law at Sinai was published with gracious goſpel-ends andpurpoſes, to leadmen to Chriſt, which Adam's covenant had no reſpect or reference to ?And therefore it can never be apure Adam's covenant, as you falſelycall it ; neither is itcapable ofbecoming apure covenant of works toanyman, butby hisown fault, in rejecting the righteouſneſs ofChrift, and ſeeking juftification by the works of the law, as the miſtaken carnal Jews did, Rom. x. 3. andother legal justiciaries now do. And upon this account only it isthatPaul, whoſohighly praiſes the law inits ſubſerviency

AReply to Mr. Cary's Jolemn Call. toChriſt, thunders ſo dreadfully against it, as it is thus ſetby ignorant miſtaken fouls in direct oppofition to Chrift.

(5thly,) Andfurther, toclear this point, the apostle tellsus, Rom. x. 4. " For Chriſt is the endofthe lawfor righteouſneſs

" to every one thatbelieveth." Whence I argue, That ifAdam's covenant hadanend, namely, the justificationof men bytheir own perſonal obedience; and the law at Sinai had a quite contrary end, namely, to bringfinners to Chrift by faith for their righteouſneſs ; the one tokeep him within himself, the other to take him quite out of himself, and bring him for his juſtification to the righteouſneſs of another, even that of Chrift; thenthat Sinai law cannot poſſibly be the ſame thing with Adam's covenant of works.

But the antecedent is true andplain inthe forecited text, therefore ſo is the conſequent.

Christ is the end of the lawfor righteousness.

Takethe law here either more strictly, for the moral law, or more largely, as it comprehendsthe ceremonial law, ſtill Chrift is the end ofthe law.

The moral law ſhuts up every man to Chrift for righteouſneſs, byconvincing him (according toGod's defign in the publication of it) ofthe impoffibility ofobtaining juftification in the way ofworks .

And the ceremonial law many ways prefigured Chriſt, his deathand fatisfaction, by blood, inour room, and ſo ledmen toChriſt, their true propitiation ; and all its types were fulfilled and ended in Chriſt.

Was there any fuch thing in Adam's covenant ? You must prove there was, elſe you will neverbe abletomake them one and the fame covenant.

(6thly,) It seems exceeding probable from Acts vii. 37, 38. that the Sinai covenant was delivered to Moſes byJeſus Chriſt, therecalledthe angel. " This is hethat was inthe church inthe

"wilderneſs, with the Angelthat ſpake tohimin the mount " Sinai, andwith our fathers, who received the lively oracles

"togiveuntous." Now, ifChriſthimself were theAngel, and theprecepts ofthe law delivered by him to Mofes were the lively oracles of God, as they are exprefly affirmedto be ; then the lawdelivered onmount Sinai cannot beapure Adam's covenant of works : for it is never to be imagined, that Jefus

Chrifthimselfſhould deliver to Moſes ſuch a covenant,directly oppoſite to allthe ends ofhis future incarnation ; and that thoſeprecepts (which, ifthey were ofthe ſame nature, and revivedto the ſame end, atwhich Adam's covenantdirectly aimed)ſhouldbecalledthe lively oracles ofGod; when contrariwiſe, uponyour ſuppoſition, they couldbe noother thana miniſtrationof condemnationanddeath : butthattheywere lively

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

18.1 gracles, viz. in their deſign and intention, is plain in the text; and that they were delivered to Moſes by Jeſus Chrift, theangelofthe cavenant, ſeems more than probable, bycomparing itwith the formerverſes.

(7thly,) Neither is it eaſyto imaginehow ſuch a covenant, whichby the fallofAdam hadutterly loſt allits promiſes, privileges, andbleſſings, andcould retainnothingbut the curſes and punishments annexed to it, in caſe of the least failure, could poſſiblybenumbred amongthe chiefprivileges inwhich

God's Ifrael gloried ; as it apparentlywas,Rom. ix. 4. "Who " are Ifraelites ; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the " glory, andthe covenants, and the giving of the law, and " the ſervice ofGod, and the promiſes,"

•Theſe things confidered, with many more (which the intended brevity ofthis diſcourſe willnotnowadmit) I am fully fatisfied of the falſity of your position, and ſo may you too, whenyou shall reviewthe many groſs and palpable abſurdities with which I have clogged and loaded it, with many more, regularly and fairly deducible from it; which I could eafily produce, did I not ſuſpecttheſe Ihaveproduced, have already preſtyour patience a little too far: but ifever I ſhallſee (which I never expect) a fair and ſcripturalſolutionof theſe weighty objections, you mayexpect from me more arguments againft yourunfoundposition, which, atthe preſent, Ijudgeneedleſs toadd.

To conclude: Theſe premises (as before I noted) cannever betrue, from whence fuch, and ſo many groſs and notorious abſurdities are regularly and unavoidably deducible. For ex veris nil nifi verum, from truepremiſes nothingbut truth can regularlyfollow.

Hadyouminded thoſe things which Iſeaſonably ſent you, you hadavoidedallthoſe bogs into which you arenowfunk, and been able fairlyto reconcile allthoſe ſeeming contradictions in Paul's epistles, with reſpect to the law at Sinai : But, however, bywhat hath beenfaid, your firſt poſition, That the Sinai covenant is the same covenant of works with Adam's in paradise, vanishes before the evidence ofſcripture, truth, and found reaſon.

Butyet, tho' what I have faiddestroys your falſe poſition, I am notwilling to leave you, orthe reader ignorant, wherein thetruth liesinthis controvertedpointbetwixt us; andthatwill appear, by a due confiderationofthe following particulars .

(1.) It is plainand uncontroverted, that Adam's covenant in paradise, containedin it a perfect law and ruleofnaturalrigh

A Reply to Mr. Cary's folenin Call... teouſneſs, foundedboth inGod'snature, and inman's; which, inits perfect ſtate of innocency, was every way enabled perfectly to comply therewith : For the ſcripture tells us, Eccl. vii. 29. ThatGod made man upright ; and his punctual complying therewith, was the righteouſneſs by which he stood.

(2.) This covenant of works being once broken, can never more be available to thejuftification and ſalvation ofany fallen man.

There was notnow a law found that could give righteouſneſs : The broken covenant of works loſt immediately all the bleſſings and privileges which before it contained, and retained only the curse and punishment ; in token whereof, cherubims, with flaming ſwords, turningevery way, were ſet tokeep theway ofthe tree of life, Gen. iii. 24.

(3.) Soon after the violation of the covenant ofworks,God was gracioufly pleaſed to publiſh for the relief of mankind, now miferable and hopeleſs, the second covenant, which wecall thecovenant of grace, Gen. iii. 15. which is the firſt opening of the grace ofGod inChriſt to fallenman. Andtho this firſt promiſe of Christ was but ſhort and obſcure, yet it was in every age to be opened clearer and clearer, until the promifed feed ſhouldcome. After the firſtopening of this new covenant, in the first promiſe ofChrist, the firſt covenant is thut up for ever, as a covenant of life and ſalvation ; and all theworld are ſhut up to the only way of ſalvation by Chrift,

Gal. iii. 23. It being contrary to the will of God, that two ways of falvation ſhould stand open to man atonce, andthey ſooppofite one to another, as the way of works, and theway of faith are, Acts iv. 12. John xiv.6. Gal. ii. 21.

(4.) It is evident, however, that after the firſt opening of thepromise of Chriſt, Gen. iii. 15. God foreſeeing the pride offallenman,who naturallyinclines toarighteouſneſs of his owninthewayofdoing, was pleaſed to revivethe law ofnature, as to its matter, inthe Sinai diſpenſation ; which was

430 years after the firſt promiſe hadbeen renewed, and furtheropenedunto Abraham, of whoſe feed Chriſt ſhould come :

And this hedid, not in oppoſition to the promiſe, but in fubferviencythereto, Gal. iii. 21. And though the matter and ſubſtance of the law of nature be found in the Sinai covenant, ſtrictly taken for the ten commandments ; yetthe ends and intentions of God in that terrible Sinai diſpenſation were twofold: (1. ) To convince fallen man of thefinfulness and impotency of his nature, and the impoffibility ofobtaining righte ouſneſs by the law, and ſo by a bleſſed neceſſity, to ſhut him up to Chrift, his onlyremedy. And, (2.)To be a ſtanding

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

rule of duty, both towards Godand man, to the end of the world.

But ifwe take the Sinai covenant more largely, as incluſiveoftheceremonialwiththemorallaw(as it isoftentaken, and is ſo by you, in theNewTestament;)then itdid notonly ſerve for a conviction of impotency, and a rule of duty; but exhibited and taught much ofChriſt, andthe mysteries ofthe new covenant in thoſe its ceremonies, wherein he was prefiguredtothem.

(5.) Whence it evidently appears, that the Sinai covenant was neither repugnant to the new covenant in its ſcope and aim ; " The law is not against the promise," Gal. iii. 21. nor yetſetup as co-ordinate with it, with adefign toopentwodifferentways of ſalvation to fallen man; but was added to the promife in reſpect ofits evangelical purpoſes and defigns : On whichaccount it is calledbyſome a covenant offaith, or grace,

in reſpect of its ſubſerviency untoChrift, who is the end ofthe law for righteouſneſs,Rom. x. 4. andby others a ſubſervient covenant, according toGal. iii. 23, 24. And accordinglywe findboth tables ofthe law put into the ark,Heb. ix. 4. which ſhews their conſiſtency and fubordination with, andtothe method of falvationbyChriſt inthe new covenant.

(6.)This deſign and intention ofGod was fatallymistaken bytheJews, ever finceGodpromulgedthat law at Sinai, and wasby them notorioufly perverted to a quite contrary end to that whichGodpromulged it for, even to give righteouſneſs and life, intheway ofperſonal and perfect obedience; Rom. x. 3. " For theybeing ignorantofGod'srighteouſneſs,andgo- " ingabout to eſtabliſh theirownrighteouſneſs, have notfub- " mittedthemſelves unto the righteousness ofGod."

Hence Chriſt came tobe flightedby them, and his righteouſneſs rejected: Forthey reſtedin the law,Rom. ii. 17. were married to the law, as an husband,Rom. vii. 2, 3. and ſo might have no conjugalcommunion with Chrift. However,Mofes,Abraham, and all the elect, diſcerned Chrift asthe end of the law forrighteouſneſs, and were led to him thereby.

(7.) This fatal mistake of the uſe and intent ofthe law, is the ground ofthoſe ſeeming contradictions, inPaul's epiftles.

Sometimes he magnifies the law, whenheſpeaks of it according toGod's end and purpoſe in its promulgation, Rom. vii.

12, 14, 16. But as itwas fatallymistakenbythe Jews, and ſet in oppoſition to Chriſt, ſo he thunders against it, calls it a ministration of death and condemnation; and all its appendant ceremonies weak andbeggarly elements.

Andby this diftinezion,whatsoever ſeens repugnant in Paul's epiftles, may be

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call. ſweetlyreconciled : and it is a diſtinction ofhis own making,

1Tim. i. 8. " We know that the law is good, ifweuſe it law- " fully."

There is a good and an evil uſe of the law.

Had you attended to theſe things, you had not ſo confidently and inconfiderately

Rom. x. 3 .

Rom. ii. 13. pronounced it a pure covenant of works.

II. Position.

Secondly, You affirm with like confidence, That the covenant of circumcision is also the fame; viz. the covenant of worksmadewith Adam in paradise.

This I utterly deny; and will try whether you have any better fucceſs in the proofofyour ſecond, thanyouhad inyour firstposition. Andtoconvinceyou ofyour mistake, let us confider what the general nature of this ordinance of circumcifion was; what its ends were ; and then prove, That it cannot be whatyou affirm it tobe, thevery fame covenantGod madewith

Adam before the fall, but must needs be a covenant ofgrace.

(1.) Circumcifion,in its generalnature,was, ( 1.)An ordinance ofGod's own inſtitution,in the gyth year of Abraham's age ; atwhich time of its inſtitution, God renewed the covenant with him, Gen. xvii. 9, 10.

( 2.) That it confifted (as all facraments do) of an external ſign, and a ſpiritualmyſtery ſignified thereby.

The external part ofit(which we call the fign) was the cutting offthe fore-fkin of the genital part oftheHe brewmales, on the eighth day from their birth.

The ſpiritual mystery thereby fignified and repreſented, was the cutting off the filth andguilt of fin from their fouls, by regeneration and juftification, called "the circumcifion ofthe heart," Deut. x.

16. And though this was laid upon themby 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 thyGod will circumciſethyheartto 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 afacramental relation ; from which relation it is calledthe " token ofthe covenant," Gen. xvii. 12. "The ſign and feal of the covenant," Rom. iv. 11.

Yea, " the covenant itſelf," Acts vii. 8.

(2.) Next, let us conſider the ends for which circumcifion was inſtituted and ordained ofGod: Ofwhich theſe were the principal.

(1.) Itwas inſtituted to bea convictive ſign of their natu ral corruption, propagated by the way of natural generation :

For which reafon, this natural corruption goes in fcripture

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

under the name of the uncircumcision of the heart, Jer. ix.

26.

(2.) It alfo fignified the putting offofthis bodyoffin, in the virtue ofChriſt's death, Col. ii. 11 .

(3.) Itwas appointedtobethe initiating ſign of the cove nant, or a token of their matriculation, and admiffion into thechurch and covenant ofGod, Gen. xvii. 9, 10, 11 .

(4.) It was ordained to be a diſcriminating mark betwixt God's covenantedpeople, and the Pagan world, who were ſtrangers tothecovenant, and without God in theworld. And accordingly both parties were, from this ordinance, denominatedthe circumcifion, and the uncircumcifion, Col. iii. 11 .

(5.) Itwas alſo anobliging fign to Abraham and his feed, to walkwithGodin the uprightness and fincerityoftheirhearts, in the performance of all covenantedduties ; inwhich duties,

Abraham, and the faithful, walked obediently withGod, looking toChrift forrighteouſneſs : but the carnal Jews refting in,and truſting to thoſe duties and ordinances for righteouſneſs and juftification, made it acovenant ofworks to themſelves, and circumcifion itſelfa bond ofthat covenant.

(6.) Now, foraſmuch as circumcifion prefigured Chriſt, who wastocome ofthis holy circumciſedſeed ofAbraham , and his death alſo was pointed at therein, Heb. ii. 16. Col. ii. 11. of neceſſity this ordinance muſtvaniſh atthe death ofChriſt ; and accordinglydid ſo.

Theſe things duly pondered, how irrational is ittoimagine this covenant of circumcision to be the very fame with theparadifical covenant ? Did that covenant diſcover native corruption,anddirect to its remedy in Chriſt, as this did ? Surely it gavenot the leaftglimpse ofany fuch thing. Didthat covenant ſeparate anddiftinguiſh one perſon from another, as this did?

No, no; it left allunder equalandcomon miſery, Eph. ii. 3 .

HadAdam's covenant a ſealofthe righteouſneſs offaith an-. nexed to it, asthis had ? Rom. iv. 11. " He received circum- "ciſion, a feal oftherighteouſneſs offaith."

The righteoufneſs offaith is evangelical righteouſneſs ; andthis circumcifion ſealed. Saynot itwas toAbraham only that it fealed it ; for itisan injurious restriction put upon the ſeal ofa covenant, which extended tothefathers as well as to Abraham, Luke i.

72. Butyou admit, however, that itfealed evangelical righteouſneſs toAbraham : but Ihopeyou willnotſay,that a feal ofthe covenant of works everdid, or could, ſeal evangelical righteoufneſstoanyindividual perſon inthe world. So then,

VOL. VIII.

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

4 turnwhichwayyou will, thistruth ſtillfollows you, andwill faſten upon you, thatthe covenant of circumcifion was not a pure covenant ofworks, buta gospel-covenant.

Which I thus prove :

Argument I.

Ifcircumcifion be a part of the ceremonial law, and the ceremonial law wasdedicatedbyblood, and whatsoever is ſo dedicated, is by you confeſſed tobe no part of the covenant of works ; then circumcifion is no part of the covenant ofworks, evenby your own confeffion.

But it is ; ergo, That it is a part ofthe ceremonial law, was never doubted, ordeniedby any man: that it was dedicated byblood, and therefore no partofthe morallaw, you yourself not only acknowledge, but vehemently plead for it, p. 148, where you blame Mr. Sedgwick with ſome ſharpneſs, and unbecoming reflection, for making no diftinction betwixt the ceremonial covenant, which was dedicated by blood,and the law written in tables ofſtone ; whichwas not ſodedicated, andtherefore could not bethe ſame with the moral law, which you make the covenant of works ; telling him, that this dedication by blood ought to diftinguish it fromthe moral law, or Sinai covenant ofworks, as you ſay it doth, and ought to do; how then can circumcifion be the fame with, and yet quite another thing from the Sinai covenant ? Was the ceremonial law dedicated byblood ? Yes, the apostle plainly afferts it,fromExod. xxiv. 7,

8. "Mofestook thebook ofthecovenant, and Heb.ix. 18, 19. " read it in the audience of the people;

" and took the blood, and ſprinkled it uponthe people, and " faid,Behold theblood of the covenant, which the Lordhath

" madewithyou, concerning theſe things." Butwhat kind of covenant thenwasthis covenantthatwas ſprinkledwith blood?

You tell us, p. 147, itcould not poſſiblybe thelaw written in ſtones, (which you make the covenant of works) ; but was indeed another covenant, delivered at a diftinct ſeaſon, and in a diftinct method.

What covenant then muſt this be, ſeeing it couldnot poffibly (as you ſay) be the Sinai covenant written in ſtones ? It must either be the covenant ofgrace, or none. No, ſayyou, that it was not, neither ; for it was ofthe fame nature with, and is no other than a covenant ofworks, p. 151.

Itwas the fame, andyetcould not poffiblybethefame.

Mr. Sedgwick, that learned and grave divine, is checked,p.

148, for confounding the ceremonial law that was ſprinkled with blood, with the moral law (which you call thecovenant of works) that was not ſprinkledwith blood;and ſay you, p.

A Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

147, It couldnotpoſſibly be thefame. Andthen,p. 151, you fay, It is clear, these two, viz. the moral and ceremonial law, were both ofthefame nature; that is, no other than a covenant ofworks. How doth this hang together ? Pray reconcile it, if you can. You ſay, It is an ungroundedſuppoſition of Mr.

Sedgwick's, that that covenant whichwasso confirmedby blood, muft ofneceffity be confirmedby the blood ofChriſt alſo ; p. 148 .

But, fir, the truth you oppoſe, viz. Thatthe book of the ceremoniallaw was ſprinkledbytypical blood, and therefore confirmed by the blood of Chriſt, for the time it was to continue, ſhines likeabright fun-beam inyourowneyes, fromHeb. ix. 14,

23.Wasnotthebloodthatſprinkledthis law, the figure ortype ofChriſt's own blood ? Whoſeblood was it then, ifnotChriſt's?

Howdareyou call this anungroundedſuppoſition?Was notthat blood typical blood? And what,I pray you, was the antitype, butChrift'sblood ? Anddid nottheholyGhoſt ſignify the one bythe other ? Heb. ix. 8. I ſtand amazed at theſe things !

You diftinguiſh, and confound all again. You ſay, it could not poſſibly be the fame with the law written in ſtone : and you ſay, it is clear both were ofthe ſame nature, no otherthan a covenant ofworks. Atthis rateyoumaysaywhat you pleaſe; for I fee contradiction is no crime inyourbook.

Argument II.

If circumcifion was the seal of the righteouſneſs of faith, it didnot pertain to the covenant ofworks ; for the righteouſneſs offaith and works are oppoſites, andbelong to two contrary covenants.

But circumcifionwas the feal of the righteousness offaith; Rom. iv. 11. " He (i. e. Abraham) received the fign of cir- " cumcifion, a ſeal ofthe righteouſneſs of faith."

Therefore itpertains not to the covenant ofworks, but grace.

Amanwould think it impoſſible to evade ſo clear and fcriptural an argument as 'this is. The major propofition is even ſelf-evident and undeniable ; the minor, the plain words ofthe apostle.

Andwhat isyourreply to this ? Certainly as ſtrange a one as ever I met with; p. 105. you fay, It is true, circumcifiom was a feal ofthe righteousness offaith to Abraham ; but it wasso to him only inhis extraordinary circumstances ; but it was not fo to any ofbis naturalfeed in its ordinary use.

I cannot deny but I have met with ſuch an affertion before inMr. Tombes; and I can tellyou too, that Bellarmine invented it before Mr-Tombeswas born, andthat Dr.Ames fully

A a 2

AReply to Mr. Cary Selemn Call. confuted it in his third tome p. 27. proving, that there was no extraordinary cauſe on Abraham's account,whyGodſhould juftifyor feal him morethan any other believer ; and thatAbrahamhad nothing to glory in before God.

But to reſtrain, asyou do, the public feal ofa covenant, that comprehended and equally concerned the whole church andpeople ofGod, to one ſingle perſon , ſo that neither Ifaac nor Jacob, who were by name enrolled in that great charter, ſhould have any right to the ſeal ofit, is ſuch a conceit as amazes an intelligent reader. WeknowAbraham was the first thatreceived it, but utterlydeny that he received itonly for himself ; buthe received it as the father ofallthem thatbelieve, whether Jews orGentiles, as the very next words tell us, "He received it, that he might

" be the father ofall them that believe ;" that is, for himself, and all his ſpiritual children. One halfofthisſacramentofcircumcifion you allow, p. 205. to the rest that were under it, viz. to be afign of the covenant ; but the other halfyou cut off, andfay, it was only afeal to him. Whatgood vouchers haveyou for this expoſitionof the text ? Haveyou the concurrence oforthodox expositors ? Or is it the raſh andbold adventure of your own head ? I am fure it no ways agrees with thedrift and ſcope ofthe Apostle's argument, which evidently is toprove, that both Jews andGentiles are justified by faith, as Abraham was ; and that the ground ofjustificationandbleſfedneſs iscommon both to the uncircumcised Gentiles, and

circumcised Jews ; and that Abraham and all other believers, have but one way ofjuſtification, and falvation, andthat how great foever Abraham was, in this cafe he hathfound nothing whereof to glory, ver. 1, 2. And is not your expoſition a notable one, to prove the communityofthe privilege ofjuſtification, becauſe the feal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone?

Rectify it, and better confider it.

Argument III.

Inthe covenant ofcircumcifion,Gen. xvii.God makes over himſelfto Abraham and his feed to betheirGod, or givethem a ſpecial intereſt inhimself.

But in the covenant of works, God doth not, fince the fall, make over himſelftoany,tobetheirGod by way ofſpecial intereſt .

Therefore the covenant ofcircumcision cannot be the covenant of works.

This is ſo plain and clear,that none can doubt ordeny it, that understands the natureofthe two covenants. And now, for,whatcourſedo you take to avoid this argument ? Such a

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

oneſureas no man that ever Imet withtook before you, and thatis this ,youboldlycutAbraham's covenant,Gen.xvii. into two parts, and make the firſtto be the pure covenant of grace, which isthe promiffory part, tothe ninth verſe; andthe reftipulation (as you call it,p. 205.) to be as pure a covenantof works. What hard ſhift willfome menmake tomaintain their opinion! You ſay truly,p. 205, that atthe seventh and eighth verfeswastheir reftipulation: why thendoyou ſay, p. 224, that at ver. the 7th he proceeds to ſpeak of another covenant thanwhathehadbeen ſpeaking of before ? Does the promiſe andthe reftipulation maketwo covenants ; or aretheyjust and neceffary parts of one and the ſame covenant ? You alfo tell us, that the covenant, Gen. xvii. 1, 2, 3, 4. was a plain tranſcriptofſeveralfreepromiſes ofthe goſpelunder thedenominationofacovenant. Butwhy then don't you take the reſtipulation, 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; theymustbe circumcised, andthat ſpoils all.

Whybut, fir, if the requiring of circumcifion alters the caſe ſogreatly, as to make it a quite contrary covenant; how comes it topaſs, that inthecovenanttoAbraham, he himselfwas firſt required tobe circumcised ? Why, this is thereaſon; here is ſomewhat requiredon theirpart as a condition ; and a condition quite alters thenatureofthe covenant.

Verywell; buttell me thenwhy you say, p. 223, and in manyother places, thatthe covenant madewith Abraham, inGen. xii. was a gospel covenant ; and yetthereAbraham is obliged to walkbefore God, and be perfect? Does notthat alſo there alter the nature of the covenant, aswellashere in theseventeenthchapter ? You alſo grant, the covenantmadewith Abraham, Gen. xxii. was apuregospel-covenant; orifyoudeny it,theapostle proves it, Heb. vi. 13. And yetthereismoreappearanceof reſpect toAbraham's obedience inthat covenant, than is in fubmitting to circumcifion : ſee

Gen. xxii. 16, 17. " By myſelf have I fworn, faith the Lord; " forbecauſe thou hast done this thing, &c. That in bleſſing,

" Iwill bleſs thee ; and in multiplying,Iwill multiplythee."

Iwill troubleyou, on this head,but with onequery more : if the four firſt verſes of the xvii. ofGenefis contain a pure goſpel-covenant, as you ſay, and the reftipulation inthe following verſes make a covenant ofworks, becauſe it thereby becomes conditional; then tell me, if you pleafe, whether whatGodgracioufly granted to Abraham in the former verſes benotallnulled,and made voidagainby their reftipulation ?

Doesnotthis ſeemhar ? HereyouhavebroughtAbraham,

Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

Ifaac, and Jacob, and all the believers ofAbraham's race,juſt into the fame caſe you brought Mofes and all the Ifraelites before, under two oppoſite covenants, where one cuts off all thatthe other granted.

But there is a ſtronger reaſon urged than the conditionality ofthe covenant, to prove it a covenant of works ; and that is, circumcifion is made the condition ofAbraham's covenant ; and that is the worst ofall 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 circumcised, Chriſt ſhall " profitus nothing." Thus it was in the covenant, Gen. xvii.

Great uſe is madeofthis inmany parts ofyour diſcourſe.

But, fir, you are greatly mistaken in applying theſe texts to the purpoſes you do ; for the apostle all along in that epiftle tothe Galatians, argues against the falſeteachers, who taught and preſſed the neceſſity of circumcifion, as a bond obliging them to the ſtrict and perfect obedience ofthe law, in order, to their juſtification thereby, or at least to join it with the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as a con-cause of justification ; fee

Gal. ii . 4, 5. and iii. 1. Now against this abuſe of circumcifion it is that the apostle argues thus, and tells them, that in fubmitting to it on that account, they made the death of Chrift ofno effect, and obligedthemſelvesby ittothe whole law ; for circumcifion did not ſimply and abſolutely, in the nature of the work or action, oblige men to thewhole law in theway ofjustificationby it, but itdid ſo from the intention ofthe worker, andthe ſuppoſition offuch an opinion of it, anddeſign in it, for in itſelf, and with reſpect to God's deſign inthe inſtitution ofit ; it was to be a feal ofthe righteouſneſs of faith, Rom. iv. 11. and ſo it was an excellent, uſeful, inſtructive ordinance to all believers, as long as the ceremonial law ſtood ; and even when it was expiring, as the goſpel began to open more and more clearly, there was yet ſome kind of toleration of it to fuch as were born ofJewish parents : Thus Paul himselfcircumciſed Timothy, his mother being a Jeweſs, Acts xvi. 1, 3. but Titus, being a Greek, was not circumcised, and that becauſe oftheſe falſe teachers, thatwouldmake an ill uſe of that their liberty, Gal. ii. 3, 4.

ThisPaul could never have done, in cafe circumcifion, in the nature of the act, had bound Timothy to keepthe law for juſtification .

By which it appears, that the action in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole law, but fromthe intention ofthe agent; and therefore, as the apostle

AReply to Mr. Gary's folemn Call.

rightly argues, ifamanbe circumcifed with adeſign tobejuſtifiedby it, hewould thereby bind himselfto the whole law, and fruſtrate the death of Chrift to himself ; but itwas now to have its funeral with all other parts of the ceremonial law, which vaniſhed, and were accomplished inthe death of Chriſt ; and it falling outthat fuch a vile uſe was made of it at that time, the apostle thus thunders against it.

Had this been obferved, as alſothe like abuſe ofthe moral law, you wouldhave knownhow to havereconciled the apostle's encomiums ofthem both, with his ſharp invectives against the one and the other.

But being ignorant of theſe two greatand neceſſary diſtinctions ofthe law, according to God's intention in the promulgation of it at Sinai, and the carnal Jewsfenfe ofit, as a pure covenant of works, against which the apostle ſo ſharply inveighs in the places by youcited, all your 23 arguments from page 183, to page 187, fall tothe ground at one ſtroke; your medius terminushavingoneſenſein yourmajorpropoſition, and another in your minor ; and ſo every argument hath fourterms in it, as will eafily be evincedby the particular confideration ofthe reſpective places from whence youdraw them.

So in likemanner, in your arguing here against circumcifion, asabond to keep the whole law, and as fuch vacating thedeath of Chriſt, is a stumble at the ſame ſtone, not diftinguiſhing as you ought to have done, betwixt an obligation arifing out ofthe nature of the work, and out of the endand intentionofthe workers ; and this every learned and judicious eyewilleafilydifcern. Butwe proceed to Argument IV.

Thatwhich in its direct and primary end teacheth man the corruption ofhis nature by fin, andthe mortification of finby the Spirit of Chriſt, cannot be a condition of the covenant of works ; but ſo did circumcifion inthe very direct and primary end of it.

This ordinance ſuppoſeth the fall of man, points to the means and instruments of his fin and miſery, and alſo to the remedy thereofbyChrift : (1.) It ſingles outthat genital part bywhich original fin was propagated, Gen. xvii. 11. Pfal. li.

1. To this the fign ofthe covenant is applied in circumcifion, forthe remiſſion of fins paſt, and the extirpation of fin for the future.

(2.) Therefore it was inſtituted of God, that men might fee both the neceffity and true way of mortifying their lufts, in the virtue of Chriſt's death and refurrection, whereof baptifm, that ſucceeds it, is a ſign now, as circumcifion was then; as isplain from Col. ii. 11, 12. " In whom al

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

" ſoye are circumciſed with the circumcifion made without " hands, in puttingoffthe body ofthe fins ofthe fleſn by the " circumcifionofChrift, buried withhim in baptifm,where- " in alſoye are riſen with him, through thefaith ofthe ope

" ration of God, who raiſedhim from thedead."

It is clear then that circumcifion directed men to the death and refurrec tion ofChriſt, as the true and only means ofmortifying their luſts ; and if it did ſo, ſure itwas not the covenant ofworks, for that gives fallen man no hintof a remedy. (3.) It was alſo a difcriminatingfign or token, betwixt the church and the world:

God's people, andtheheathens, who wereaccordinglydenominated from it, the circumcision and the uncircumcifion, the holyfeed and the Gentiles ; and now under the New Teſtament,the children ofAbrahamby faith, and the children ofthe flesh : This alſo ſhews it cannotbe the covenant of works ; for inthatcovenant all are equally and alike concluded under fin and miſery, Eph . ii. 3. andthere is nodifference madeby that covenantbetwixt perſon and perſon, ſtate and ſtate.

Ifthis be notenough to evince, that the covenant of circum ciſionis a covenant ofgrace, I promiseyou many more arguments to prove it, as soon as I shall find theſe refuted, and yourcontrary afſertion welldiſcharged from the groſs abfurditieswith which it is clogged and loaded. You ſeehowge nuine, natural, andcongruous to ſcripture the notion ofit as acovenant ofgrace is, and allthe world may fee how harſh, alien, and repugnant to ſcriptureyour notion of circumcifion, as a covenant of works, is.

You ſee into whatbogs you are again driven indefence ofyour opinion : Exemp. gra.

That circumcifion is a part ofthe ceremonial law, which was dedicated with blood, and therefore could be no part of the morallaw or ten commandments, which was (ſayyou) the covenant of works ; and yet that it is ofthe ſame nature, and that it is clear it is no other than a covenant ofworks : do not youthere diſtinguiſh and confound all again,blame and check

Mr. Sedgwick without cauſe, and commit a greater abſurdity preſentlythan you charged him with ? Do not you queſtion whether that covenant was typically ſealed by Chrift's blood?

Pray, fir, confider where-everGod commands typical blood to be applied, it relates to Chriſt's blood ſpiritually applied, of tonothing.

Are not you forced, indefence of your erroneous theſis, to ſay with Bellarmine, That circumcifion was extraordinary inits inſtitution, and applied as a feal to none but Abraham himſelf? It excludedevenIfaac, thetype ofChriſt,andJacob,

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

a princewithGod. O what will not menventure upon in defence oftheir darling opinions !

Areyounot forced,foryour ſecurity fromthedanger ofthe thirdargument, to cut one of the fame covenants made with Abrahamjuft intwo, and ofthe pure promiſſory part tomake acovenant ofgrace ; and ofthe other part, which you yourſelfcall a reftipulation, to make another quite oppoſite covenant ? Do notyou magnify the bounty andgrace of God to Abraham inthe firſt four verſes, and then destroy it all, by puttinghim at once under a contrary covenant, and ſo cut off all capacity to enjoy one of thoſe mercies ?

Do notyou make circumcifion, 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 Chrift, and yetmuft grant, that Paul himselftook Timothy, and circumciſed him, and yet thereby brought him under no ſuch dangerous obligation to thelaw ? Ina word,

You reject allthoſe covenants as legal, that have any condi tions inthem, or refpect to anything that is to bedonebyus, and allow Gen. xii. and Gen. xxii. to be puregospel covenants ofgrace ; andyetin the firſt,Abraham is boundto "walk be- " foreGod and be perfect ;" and in the other God faith,

" Forbecauſe thou haftdone this thing, ſurely bleſſing I will " bleſs thee."

Andsomuch for Abraham's covenant.

III. Ofthe conditionality of thenew covenant.

Come we next to confider that opinion ofyours,which led you intotheſeothergroſs mistakes and abſurdities, andthat is this, that the covenant ofgrace is abſolute; and whatever covenant is not ſo, but hath any condition upon our part, muſt needs for that reaſon be a covenant ofworks.

Seepag. 229.

It is obfervable (ſay you) that as the covenants mentioned Gen. ii. Exod. xx. &c. were all conditional, and therefore legalcovenants, requiringstrict and perfect obedience, as the condition propounded, in order to the enjoyment ofthe mercies contained in them, which are all therefore dome away in Christ ; fo ontheotherhandwefee, that thecovenant ofGodmadewith Abraham, Gen. xii. 2, 3. and Gen. xvii. 2, 3. andGen. xxii. 16,

17, 18. was whollyfree andabfolute, and therefore purely evangelical, &c. We will review theſe things anon, and fee ifyou truly repreſent the matter; but in orderto it, let me tell you,

First, What we meanby a goſpel-condition.

Secondly, Prove that there are ſuch in the goſpel-covenant.

VOL. VIII.

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

Thirdly, Shew you the abſurdity of your opinion against it (1.) What we mean by a condition in the goſpel-covenant.

By a condition ofthe covenant, we do not mean in the ſtricteit rigid ſenſe of the word, ſuch areftipulation toGod from man of perfect obedience in his own perſon, at all times, foas the leaft failure therein forfeits all the mercies of the covenant ; that is rather the conditionof Adam's covenant ofworks, than ofthe evangelical covenant: nordo we affert anymeri torious condition, that inthe nature ofan impulfive cauſe ſhall bringman intothe covenant and its privileges, orcontinuehim inwhen broughtin.

This we renounce as well as you : but our queſtion is about ſuch a condition as is neither in the nature of it an act perfect in every degree, nor meritorious in the leaſt ofthe benefit conferred, nor yetdone in our own ſtrength.

But plainly and briefly, our question is, Whether there be notfomething as an act required of us in point ofduty, to a bleffing confequent by virtue of a promise ? Such a thing, whatever itbe, hath the nature of a condition, inasmuch as it is antecedent to the benefit of the promise , and the mercy or benefit granted, is ſuſpended until it be performed.

The question is not, whether there be any intrinfical worth or value inthe thing ſo required, to oblige the diſpoſer to make or perform the grant or promiſe, butmerely that it be antecedent to the enjoyment of the benefit ; and that the difpofer of the benefit do ſuſpend the benefit until itbe performed ? Thus an act or duty of ours, which hath nothing at all of merit in it, or anſwerable value to the benefit it relates to, may be in a proper ſenſe a condition ofthe faid benefit. " For what is a condition in the true notion of it, but " * the ſuſpenſion of a grant until ſomething future be

"done?"

" Or, † as others to the fame purpoſe, The adding " ofwords to a grant, for the future, ofa ſuſpending quality,

" according to which the difpofer willhave the benefithedif- " poſeth to be regulated ?" This properly is a condition though there be nothing of equivalent value or merit in the thing required.

And fuch your brethren, intheir narrative, pag. 14. do acknowledge faith to be, when they affert none can be actually reconciled, justified, or adopted, till they are really implanted into Jeſus Chrift by faith; and ſo, by virtue of this their union withhim, have theſe fundamental benefits

* Conditio eftfufpenfio alicujus difpofitionis, tantisper dum aliquidfuturumfiat Navarr. Enchirid. 482.

† Eft verborum adjectio infuturum fufpendentium, fecundum quam difponens vult difpofitum regulari.

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

actually conveyed untothem ; which contains the proper notion ofthe condition we contend for.

And fuch a condition offalvation we affertfaith to be in the new covenant grant ; that is to ſay, the grant of falvation by Godinthe goſpel-covenant is ſuſpendedfrom all men, tillthey believe, and is due by promise, not merit, tothem as foon as they do trulybelieve. The notes or figns of a condition given by civilians, or moralists, are ſuch as theſe, If, if not, unless, but if, except, only, and the like. When theſe are added in the promiſe ofa bleſſing or benefit forthe future, they make thatpromiſe conditional , andyourgrammar (according towhich you must ſpeak, if you ſpeak properly and ſtrictly) willtellyou, that Si,fin, modo, dum, dummodo, are all conditional particles ; and it is evident, that theſe conditional particles are frequently inſerted in the grants of the bleffings and privileges of the New Testament. As for example ; Mark ix.

23. ει δύνασαι πισέυσαι, " Ifthou canst believe."

Acts viii. 37. ει πισενείς εξ ολης της καρδίας, "" If thou believeſtwith thy whole

" heart, thou mayeſt," &c. Rom. x. 9. ότι εαν, " That if " thou shalt confeſs with thy mouth, and believe with thy

" heart, &c. thou shalt be ſaved."

Matth. xviii. 3. εαν μη, " Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye

" ſhall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Markv. 36.

"Only believe."

Mark xi. 26. 85 %, "But if ye " forgive not," &c. with multitudes more, which are all conditional particles inferted inthe grants ofbenefits .

(2.) Having shewn you what the nature of a condition is, I ſhall, I hope, make it plainto you, thatfaith is ſuch a condition in the gofpel-grant ofour falvation ; for we find the benefit ſuſpended till this act of faith be performed ; John iii. 36.

" He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting lifes and he " that believeth not the Son, ſhall not fee life, but the wrath

" of God abideth on him."

And moſt plainly, Rom. x. 9. having ſhewn before what the condition of legal righteoufneſs was, he tells us there what the goſpel-condition of falvation is ; " The righteouſneſs which is offaith, ſpeaketh on " this wife; That if thou shalt confefs with thy mouth the " Lord Jefus, and ſhaltbelieve in thy heart, that God raifed

" him from the dead, thou shal: be ſaved."

I ask you, fir, whether itbe poffible to putwords into a frame more lively ex-. preſſive of a condition than theſe are ? Dobut compare Mark xvi. 16. " He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be faved ; but he that believeth not, ſhallbe damned:" Dobut comBb 2

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. pare, I ſay, that ſcripture-phrafe withthewords ofJacob'sfont, which all allow to be conditional, Gen. xliii. 4, 5. " Ifthou

" wilt ſendour brother with us, wewill go down; but ifthou " wiltnotſendhim,wewill notgodown ;" andjudgewhether the onebe not as conditional asthe other: more particularly,

Argument I.

Ifwe cannotbejustified or ſaved till webelieve, thenfaith is the condition on whichthoſe conſequent benefits are ſuſpended.

Butwe cannot be justifiedor ſavedtillwe believe ; Ergo, The ſequel ofthe major is evident ; for, as we faid before, a condition is the ſuſpenſion ofagranttill ſomething future be done.

The minor is plainin ſcripture ; Rom. iv. 24. "Now " it was not written for his fake alone, that righteouſneſs was

" imputed tohim ; but for our ſakes alſo, towhom it ſhallbe " imputedifwe believe."

Οις μέλλει λογιζεσθαι, Quibus futurum eft ut imputetur, towhom it ſhallcome to paſs, that it ſhall be imputed, ifwe believe; And Acts x. 43. " Whosoever be- " lieveth on him, ſhall receive remiffion of ſins."

John iii, 36. " He thatbelieveth not, ſhall not fee life,but the wrath of " God abideth onhim;" with multitudes more. Now, fir, lay ſeriouflybefore your eyes ſuch ſcriptures as theſe, thatpromiſe ſalvation to believers, and threatendamnation to all unbelievers, as Mark xvi. 16. doth, and then give aplain and clear anſwer to this queſtion ; either the poſitive part of that text promiſes ſalvation abſolutely to men, whether they believe or believe not, and conſequently unbelievers ſhall be ſavedaswell as believers ; and the negative part threatens damnation abſolutely to finners,as finners ; and confequentlyall finners ſhall bedamned,whethertheybelieve orbelieve not : or elſe, ifyou allow neither to be abfolute, but that none can be ſavedtill theybelieve, nor any damned when theydo believe ; is not that a conditional promife and threatening ?

Argument II.

IfGod's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xii. 2, 3. and that Gen. xvii. 2, 3. were (as you ſay) pure goſpel-covenants of grace, and yet in both ſome things are required as duties on Abraham's part, to make him partaker of the benefits ofthe promises ; thenthe covenant of grace is not abſolute, but cont ditional.

But ſo itwas inboth theſecovenants ; Erga, The minor onlyrequires proof; for which let us have recourſe to the places, and ſee whether itbe ſo ornot.

(1.) For the firſtyou inſtance in as apure goſpel-covenant made with Abraham, Gen. xii.2, 3. I must confefs,asyou

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

diſmember the text, p. 229. by chufing out the ſecond and third verſes, and leaving out the firſt, which was the trial of Abraham's obedience, in forſaking his native country, and his father's houſe ; I ſay, give me but this liberty to ſeparate and disjoinone part ofacovenantfromthe other, and it is eaſy to make any conditional covenant inthe worldto become abſolute: for takebut the duty required, from the promise that is made, and that which was a conditional, preſently becomes an abſolute grant.

Suppoſe, ſir, that Abraham had refuſed to leave his dear native country, and dearest relations, as many do ; think youthatthepromiſed mercies hadbeenhis ? I muſt plainly tell you, you aſſume a ſtrange liberty in this matter, andmake a greatdeal bolder with the ſcriptures than you ought: and the very ſame uſage the other ſcriptures hath.

(2.) Forwhenyou citeyourfecondcovenant with Abraham, you only citeGen. xvii. 2,3. and then call it an abſolute gofpel-covenant ; whenindeedyou made it ſo,by leaving out the firſt verſe,whichcontains the condition or dutyrequired onAbraham'spart : forthus runthe three firſt verſes; "Andwhen

" Abraham was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to " Abraham, and ſaiduntohim,Iam theAlmightyGod ; walk

" thou before me, andbe thou perfect, and Iwillmakemy co- " venantbetween me and thee," &c. Here an upright converſation before God is required ofhim, at God's entrance into this covenant with him ; butthat is, and must be omitted,and cutoff, tomakethe covenant lookabſolute.

Iam really grieved to ſeethe fcriptures thus dealt with to ſerve adefign!

Argument III.

If all the promiſes of the goſpel be abſolute and unconditional, requiring no reftipulation from man, thenthey cannot properly and trulybelong to the new covenant.

But they doproperly and truly belong to the new covenant; therefore they are not all abſolute and unconditional.

The fequel ofthe major is only liable to doubt or denial, namely, That the abſoluteneſs of all the promises ofthe New

Teftament cuts off their relation to a covenant; but that it doth ſo, noman can deny, that underſtands the difference betweena covenant and an abſolute promife. A covenant is a mutual compact or agreement betwixt parties, in which they bind each other totheperformance of whatthey reſpectively promiſe, ſothat there can be no other proper covenant where there is not areftipulation or re-obligation ofone part, as well as apromife onthe other: but an abſolute promiſe binds only one party, andleavesthe otherwholly free andunobliged to

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. any thing, in order to the enjoyment of the goodpromiſed.

Sothen, ifall the New Testament promiſes beunconditional and abfolute, they are not part of a covenant, nor must that word be applied to them ; they are abfolute promiſes, binding nomantowhomthey are made to any duty, in order to the enjoymentof the mercies promised: Butthoſe perſons that are under theſe abſolute promises, muſt and ſhall enjoy the mercies of pardon and falvation, whether they repent or repent not, believe or believe not, obey or obey not.

Now, to what licentiouſneſs this doctrine leads men, is obvious to every eye.

Yet this abſoluteness of the covenant (as you improperly call it) is by you afferted, p. 229, 230.

There is (fay you) no condition at all, it is wholly free and abſolute, as the covenant with Abraham, Gen. xii. 2, 3. Gen. xvii. 2, 3.

Thank you, fir, for making them ſo ; for by cutting off the firſt verſes, where the duty required on Abraham's part is contained, you make them whatGod never intended them to be..

Andthe famefoulplay is inDeut. xxx. whereyou feparate the plainconditioncontained inver. 1, 2. from the promiſe, ver.

Or if the condition, ver. 1, 2. be not plain enough, but youwillmake itpart of the promise, Ihopethat after, in ver.

10. is too plain to be denied. Asto the other texts, more anon; meantime ſee howyou destroy the nature ofa covenant.

Object. But fay you, pag. 233. To impoſe new conditions, though never ſo mild, is a new covenant of works with ſome mercy, but not a covenant ofgrace, properly ſo called.

Sol. It is true, if thoſe works or acts of ours, whichGod requires, be understood of meritorious works in our own ſtrength and power to perform, it destroys the free grace of the covenant ; but this we utterly reject, and ſpeak only of faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God, which receives all from God, and gives the entireglory to God ; Eph . ii . 5, 8 .

Object. But you will fay, If faith be the condition, and that faith be not ofourselves, then both the promise and the condition are onGod's part (if you will call faith a condition) and ſo ſtill on our part the covenant is abſolute.

Sol. This is a mistake, and the mistake in this leads you into all the reft; though faith (which we call the condition on our part) be the gift of God, and the power of believing be derived from God, yet the act of believing is properly our act, though thepowerbywhich we believe be ofGod ; elſe it would follow, when we act any grace, as faith, repentance, or obedience, that Godbelieves, repents, and obeys in us, and it is not we, butGodthatdoth alltheſe.

This, Ihope, you will

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

notdare to affert; theyare truly our works, though wrought in God's ſtrength ? Ifa. xxvi. 12. " Lord, thou hast wrought

" allour works in us;" i. e. though they be our works, yet they are wrought in usby thy grace or ftrength .

As for Dr. Owen, itis plain from the place you cite in the doctrine of juftification, pag. 156. he only excludes conditions, as we do, in reſpect of the dignity of the act, as is more plain inhis treatise of redemption, pag. 103, 104. in which he allows conditions in both the covenants, and makes this the difference, That the Old requiredthem, butthe New effects them in all the foederates .

I know noorthodox divine in the world, that prefumes to thruſt in any work of man's into the covenant of grace, as a condition, which, inthe Arminian ſenſe, hemay or maynot perform, according to the power and pleaſure of his own free will, without the preventing or determining grace of God; whichpreventinggrace is contained in thoſe promiſes, Ezek. xxxvi, 25, 26, 27. &c. Nor yet that there is any meritorious worth, either of condignity or congruity in the Popiſh ſenſe, in the veryjustifying act of faith, for the which God juftifies and ſave us. But we ſay, That tho' God, in theway of preventing grace, works faith in us, and when it is ſo wrought, we need his affifting grace to act it, yet neither his aſſiſting nor preventing grace makes the act of faith no more to be our act ; itis we that believe ſtill tho' in God's ſtrength, andthat upon our believing,or notbelieving,we have or have not the benefits of God's promises ; which is the very proper notion of a condition .

Argument IV.

If all the promiſes of the new covenant be abſolute and unconditional, having no reſpect nor relation to any grace wrought in us, nor duty done by us, then the trial of our intereft in Chrift, by marks andsigns of grace, is not our duty, nor can we take comfort in ſanctification, as an evidence of ourjuſtification.

But it is a Chriſtan's duty to try his intereſt in Chriſt by marks andfigns ; andhe may take comfort in fanctification, as an evidence of justification ; Ergo, The ſequel of the major is undeniably clear; for that can never be a fignor evidence ofan intereſt in Chriſt, which that intereſt may be without ; yea, and as * Dr. Crifpe afferts, according to his Antinomian principles,

Chriſt is ours (faith *Dr. Crifpe, 2d. Vol. ofChriſt exalted, Serm. 14.

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

' he)before wehave gracious qualifications; everytrue mark ' and ſign must be inſeparable from that it ſignifies.' Now, if the works of the Spirit in us be not ſo, but an intereſt in Chriſtmaybe where theſe are not, thenthey areno proper marks or ſigns ; and ifthey are not, itcannot be ourduty to make use of them as ſuch, and conſequentlyifwe ſhould, they canyield us no comfort.

Theminor isplain in ſcripture ; I John ii. 3. " Hereby we " doknowthatwe knowhim, ifwekeep his commandments."

Themeaning is, we perceive and difcern ourſelves tobe fincere believers, and conſequently that Chriſt is our propitiation, whenobedience to his commands is become habitual and eaſy tous; So 1 John iii. 19. " Hereby we know that we are of " the truth, and ſhall aſſure our hearts before him ;" i. e. by our fincere cordial love to Chriſt and his members, as ver. 18. this ſhall demonftrate to us, that we arethe children of truth ; and again, I John iii. 14. "We knowthatwe arepaſſed from " death to life; becauſe we love the brethren :" With multititudes moreto the ſame purpoſe,whichplainly teach Chriftians to fetch the evidences of their juſtification out of their fanctification, andto prove their intereſt inChriſt,by the works of his Spirit foundin their own hearts.

Andthis isnot only a Chriſtian's liberty,buthis commandedduty to bring his intereſt inChriſt to this touchſtone, and teſt; 2 Cor. xiii. 5. " Examine yourſelves, prove yourſelves,"

&c. 2 Pet. i. 10. " Give alldiligence to make your calling " and election ſure ;" i. e. your election by your calling.

No man can make his election fure a priori, nor can any make it ſurer than it is infe; therefore it is only capable of being made fure to us aposteriori ; arguing from the work of fanctification in us, toGod's eternal choice ofus.

Andas thefaints in allages have taken this courſe, ſothey have taken great and lawful comfort in theuſe oftheſe marks and figns ofgrace ; 2 Kings xx. 3. 2 Cor. i. 12.

Iam ſenſible how vehemently the Antinomianparty, Dr.

Crifpe, Mr. Eyre, and ſome others, do oppugnthis truth, repreſenting it as legal and impracticable (for they are forthe abfoluteandunconditional nature ofthe new covenant, as well as you) ; but by your eſpouſing their principle, you have even runAnabaptifm intoAntinomianiſm ; andmuſt, by this principle ofyours, renounce all marks and trials ofan intereſt in Chrift,byany work of the Spiritwrought in us. Youmust only ſtick to the immediate ſealings ofthe Spirit; which, if fuch a thing be at all, itis butrare and extraordinary.

A Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

I will not deny but there may bean immediate teſtimony ofthe Spirit; but fufureI amhismediate teſtimonyby his graces inus, is his uſual way ofſealing believers. Wedo not affirm any of theſe his works to be meritorious cauſes ofourjustification; or that, confidered abſtractly from the Spirit, they can ofthemselves feal, or evidence our interest in Chriſt :

Neither do we affirm, that any ofthem are complete andperし fect works ; but this we ſay, that theybeing true and fincere, though imperfect graces, they are our úſual and fſtanding evidences, tomade out our intereſt in Chrift by.

And I hope you, and the whole Antinomian party, will find it hard, yea, and impoffible, to removethe faints from that comfortable and ſcriptural way of examining their intereſt in Chriſt, by the graces ofhis Spirit inthem; as the faints, who are gone to heaven beforethem, have done in all generations.

Argument V.

Ifthe covenant ofgracebe altogether abſolute and unconditional, requiring nothing to be done on our part, toentitle us to its benefits, then it cannotbe man'sduty in entring covenant withGod, to deliberate the terms, count the coſt, or givehis conſentbyword orwriting, explicitly to the terms of this covenant.

But itisman'sdutyinentring covenant withGod, todeliberatetheterms, and count the coſt ; Luke xiv. 26, to 34. and explicitly to givehis conſentthereunto, either by word orwriting: Ergo,

Theſequelofthe major is ſelf-evident: For wherethere are no terms or conditions required on our part, there canbenone to deliberate, or give our conſent to; and ſo a man maybe in acovenant without his own conſent.

The minor is undeniable in thetext cited: Ifyou ſay, Theſe are duties, but not conditions ; I reply, they are ſuch duties, without the performance of which we can have no benefitby

Chrift and thenew covenant, Luke xiv. 33. And ſuch duties have thetrue ſuſpending nature of conditions in them.

Ifyou ſaytheyare only ſubſequent duties, but not antecedent or concomitantacts, the 28th verſedirectlyoppoſes you: Let him first fitdown and count the coft. And for thoſe overt acts, whereby

we explicitly declare our conſent to the terms ofthe covenant, atour firſt entering into the bond of it, I hopeyou will not ſay, that it isa legalcovenant too ; Ifa. xliv. 3, 4. " I will pour

"water uponhim that is thirſty, and floods upon the dry "ground: I will pourmy Spirituponthyfeed, andmy blef

VOL . VIII.

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

66" ſingupon thine off-ſpring ; and they ſhall ſpring up as among the graſs, as willows by the water-courſes : One ſhall

" fay, I am the Lord's, and another ſhall call himſelfby the " name of Jacob ; and another ſhall ſubſcribe with his hand

" unto the Lord," &c. A plainallufion to foldiers, whenthey lift themſelves under a captain, or general.

Whatremains now to reply to theſe arguments, but either that the places by me cited and argued upon, do not intend thenew covenant, under which we are ; or that this new covenant hath its conditions, and is not altogether abſolute, as you have afferted it to be.

And thus, fir, you are fairlybeaten off (if I miſtake not) from the new ground you had choſen and marked out to raiſe yourbattery upon, to demoliſh that ſtröng fort which ſecures theright ofbelievers infants to baptism ; and you must return again to the old anſwers of Mr. Tombes, and others, to our folid and ſubſtantial argument from Abraham's covenant,

Gen. xvii. which have been baffled over and over by Baxter, Blake, Sydenham, and many other ftout champions for infants baptifm.

All that I am further concerned about, is to examine tomany of thoſe ſcriptures as you have ſpoken to, which are by us produced in defence of thoſe four grounds or principles mentioned in the beginning ofthisdiſcourſe, whereon we eſtabliſh the right ofinfants baptism ; and tovindicate thoſe ſcriptures from your ſtrained and injurious interpretations of them :

Whichbeingdone, they will each ofthem ſtand in thoſe eminent places ofſervice, where they havebeen ſo long uſeful to the cauſe we defend .

As for your pretended ſolutions of the incomparable Mr.

Baxter's, and the learned and accurate Dr. Burthogg's arguments, I admire at your confidence therein ; and let me tell you, without breach of charity, it is an high piece of confidence in you,tothrow the gantlet, andbid defiance to two fuch worthies yet alive, and easily able to detectyour folly, in the weakneſs and impertinency ofyour anſwers. Alas ! myfriend, you little know what it is to have ſuch weak and inartificial difcourſes as yours brought under the ſtrict examen of fuch acute and judicious eyes.

But, Sic dama leonem Infequitur, audetque viro concurrere virgo.

Nor will I prefume to anticipate either oftheir anſwers to your difcourſe (ifthey ſhall think it worthy of an anſwer) ;

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

but rather briefly reflect upon what you return to the arguments of thoſe eminent divines that are gone to glory in the faith of that truth you oppoſe, and are not capable ofdefend-ingtheir folidand regular interpretations of ſcriptures, against the notions you force uponthem, contrary both to the grammarand ſcope ofſeveral ofthem.

And here, fir, inthe beginning, letme mind you what a learned and judicious perſon ſaith, about all interpretations of fcriptures :

Four things (faith he) commendan interpretati- ⚫on, and eſtabliſh it as a king upon thethrone, againstwhom

⚫there is no rifing up.'

First, If the latter andgrammar ofthe text fairly bear it.

Secondly, Ifthe ſcope and argument ofthe placewillcloſe directly with it.

Thirdly, Ifthe interpretation ſet up againſt it, cannot ſtand before both, or either of the former.

Fourthly, If the judgment of learned, wife, and impartial menbe foundgenerally agreeable to it.

According to theſe rules (whereat you canhave no juſt exception) I shall briefly, yet I hope clearly and ſufficiently, anſwer ſome ofthe repliesyou make to the arguments ofthoſe deceaſed worthies : And, (1.) Inpag. 1. youproduce Mr. William Allen's argument, ad hominem, against your practice : ' He tells you, your own principle condemns you ; foryou reject thebaptizing ofinfants, becauſe there is no example in the New Testament of it; andyetbaptize perſons at age, whoſe parents were Chri- * ſtians ; which is as much without a goſpel precedent, or example, as the former.

The fum of your reply is, That tho' it ſhould be granted, that there is no expreſs example for • the baptizing fuch in ſcripture, yet there are examples enough concerning the baptifm of believers.'

Reply. Here you grant all that Mr. Allen objects ; viz .

That you are altogether without example or precedent for ' your practice: And object to him and us, what he nor we

⚫everſcrupledor denied ; viz .Thebaptizingoffome adultperſons, upon the perſonal profeſſion oftheir faith.' I have done it myſelf, and, in like circumstances, am ready todo it again.

Once you clearlyyield it, that you have no precedent nor example for your practice in the goſpel : That is allthat he ſeeks, andwhathe ſeeks,you plainly grant. As to the preceptand examples of baptizing adult believers, whoſe parents were unbelievers, and themſelves never baptizedin infancy, that is

Cc2 :

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call not the pointyou are now to ſpeak to; nor have we any con troverfyabout it.

Certainly you are none ofthe fittestperſons in the world to clamour ſo loudly against us, forwantofexpreſs precedents for infants baptism, whilst yourself confefſes, you want even one precedent in the New Testament to legitimate your own practice ; andin the meantime are found in the finful neglect of a ſweet and heavenly goſpel-ordinance, viz. the finging ofpfalms, for which you have both precepti andprecedent in the gospel, Col. iii. 16. James v. 13. 1 Cor. xiv. 26.

(2.) It is objected against you, page 2.

That ifthe commiffion, Matth. xxviii. excludes none from baptifm, but fuch as are to be excluded by the order therein tobe obſerved ; and ifbaptizing and teaching are to precede, or follow one the other, as there named by Chrift, then theſe two conclufions will follow.

(1.) That infants are not there excluded from baptifm. (2.) That a perſon maybe baptized, before he be taught; for there we have, First, Μαθητευσατέ

• πάντα ταέθνη, diſciple all nations;make them difçiples, or Chriftians. Secondly,WehaveΒαπτιζοντες και διδασκοντες ; which literallyto tranflate, isbaptizing and teaching. Now then diſcipling being a general word, that contains in it the two others that follow, viz. Baptizing and teaching ; and being the imperative mood, whereasthe other two are participles : it is manifeſt, that the whole command, or commiffion, is given in that, and the mode of execution intheſe. And if the mode of executing that general commiſſionbe expreſſed in theſe, where baptizing is firſt, and teaching comes after; what is become ofthe orderoftheAntipoedobaptists thathave been ſo long talked of??

11.

The ſum ofyour anſwer is, That ifbaptizing be firſt, and • teachingcomes after ; then it will follow, that the apostles understood nottheircommiffion aright; forthey firſtpreached, and then baptized them thatby their preaching believed,

Acts viii . Acts x. Acts ii, with many otherplaces you heap up to the ſame purpoſe. And therefore infants mustbe excludedby thatcommiffion,becauſe uncapableofbeing taught.

And therefore let us criticize aswe pleaſe upon imperative • moods and participles, the caſe is clear,teaching must gobe- * fore baptizing.'

Reply. It had been more modest to ſuſpect thatyou underſtood not the text aright, than that the apostles understood not their commiſſion aright.

The order of the words (as this well fortified objection declares, and you cannotdeny)

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

puts teaching after baptizing. And though we shouldallow you, that theydiſcipled adult perſons by teaching, and taught others baptized in infancy, after their baptizing them ; inboth they followed their order and commiffion, in difcipling the parentsbypreaching, andteaching their childrenbaptized,by virtue of the promise to them,after their baptifm.

For he declares, Acts ii. " the promise is to them, and to their chil " dren;" which gives a right to bothunto baptifm: And fo teaching, according to the order ofthis commiffion, may bean antecedentduty to the parent, and aſubſequent duty tohim andhisbaptizedchildren.

For ifΜαθητευσαλε includes teaching beforebaptizing, why shouldnotΔιδασοκλες, which is put after baptizing, reſpect the ſubſequentduty of teaching both theone andother?

(3.) Mr. Allen's nextargument, mentionedbyyou,pag. 5. is taken from Matth. xix. 14. " Suffer little children tocome

"unto me, andforbidthem not,for ofſuch is the kingdom of " heaven."

Whence he argues against your objection, of the incapacity of infants for baptism; that ifthey are capable ofintereſt, ormemberſhip inthekingdom ofheaven, or church, they are equallycapable of the ſign or cognizance, which is baptifm.

To this you reply three things: (1.) (That it remains to be proved, that theſe little children were infants, and not grownboys or girls, capable ofmaking an actual profeſſion of their faith in Chriſt.

(2.) It is doubtful, whether they • were for the preſent inthe kingdom ofGod, orwere only elected, and ſointime ſhould be ofhis kingdom. And (3.) whatever they were, they were brought unto Chrift, who himfelfbaptized not ; not to his diſciples, who did baptize.'

Reply.

Your firſt exception is vain and groundleſs : 'That they were very young, and little ones appears not only by Chrift's taking them inhis arms, but from the verynotation oftheword Παιδια, adiminutive word, ſignifying a little child, orinfant.

SoJohn was called, whennew-born, Luke i. 76.

And Chrift, whenhe lay in the manger ; and Mofes, when among the flags. And ifthis be not enough, St. Luke gives them anothername, Luke xvii. 15. Τα βρεφη, infants ; a word givento achild in thewomb, Luke i. 41. And for what you object out of Pifcator, thatthefame word is uſedof Timothy, who knew the ſcriptures from a child; it is an evident miſtake or shift: For the word is, απο βρεφω;; he knew them, not being an infant, but from his childhood, or infancy ; that is, whenhehadpaſſedhis infantstate, inwhich ſtate theſe were

Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. that were brought unto Chriſt. And, (2.) Whereas you queſtion their preſent right inthe kingdom ofGod, or whether it were not future, by virtue of their election ? The text will not allow yourintrepretation,Των γαρ τοιέτων εσιν, Offuch is: not, εσέlαι, shall be, the kingdom of God.

Their preſent church-memberſhip, aſſertedby Chrift, is alſo aknown rule, toregulate for the future the diſciples carriage towards them ; whichwas too ſevere, harſh, and therefore highly difpleafing to Chriſt : Butbytellingthem theywere members ofthe church, or kingdom ofheaven, (they being very probably the infants of believing parents, as their bringing them unto Chrift with ſuch affection, throughthe frowns andrepulfes ofthe difciples, ſhews) he gives them a known and plain rule, how to distinguish infants, and regulate their carriage towards them ; which God's election cannever be, thatbeing an unrevealed ſecret.

And, (3.) Whereas you ſay Chriſt did not baptize them : I reply, We never urgedthis ſcripture, to prove he did ſo; but only to prove their church-membership ; which, methinks, Chriſt aſſerts as plainly as words can affert it, whence he faith, offuchis thekingdom ofheaven. Andthough you uſe to quibble at the word 1οικίων, ofsuch, as though it reſpected not the preſent infants, but grown perfons, reſembling them inhumble and innocent qualities ; Mr. Sydenham hath fufficiently baffledthat interpretation, by ſhewing its inconfiftencewith the ſcope andargument ofthat place, and how ridiculousthis ſenſe wouldbe, when reduced to a formal argument.

(4.) Thefourth argumentyoupretendto anſwer,pag. 8. is drawn from 1 Cor. vii. 14. " Elfe wereyourchildrenunclean,

" but now arethey holy."

To this you anſwer two things :

(1.) That the holineſs here ſpokenof, is not a fæderal, but a matrimonial holiness, namely, legitimacy ; and is as much as to ſay, Your children are no bastards, ſeeing one ofyou is a believer.

Reply. Ifthis bethe true and genuine ſenſe of this text, then allthe children inthe world, not immediately deſcended from one, or both believing parents, muſt of neceffity be all baſtards ; their parents, how folemnly ſoever married, muſt live inuncleanneſs : And what madwork (thinkyou) will this affſertionmake in the world ? Andhow many millions ofperſons will itnearlytouch, both in point ofhonour and inheritance?

(2.) You ſay, thoughthe holiness here ſpoken of, ſhouldbe

AReply to Mr. Gary's folemn Call.

allowed to be a fœderal, or covenant holiness ; yet for want ofan expreſs inſtitution, it willnotwarrant our practice.

Reply. The holineſs of the children being granted to be a covenant holineſs, nonecan deny them tobe within the covenant : how elſe come they to be holy by covenant ? And if withinthe covenant, who can deny them the initiating ſign, which is baptifm ? Or how shall they (ordinarily) be viſibly admitted into the viſible church without it ? The connection betwixt their fœderal holineſs, and rightto baptifm, will appear plain enough from Acts ii. 38. which you come next to ſpeakto.

(5.)You attempt to anſwerMr. Allen's argumentfromActs ii . 38. " Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jeſus

" Chrift, for the remiſſionoffins, and ye ſhall receive the gift " oftheholyGhoſt.

Forthe promife is unto you, and to your " children, and unto allthat are afar off, evenas manyas the " Lord our God ſhall call."

On this text, you know, we lay a verygreat ſtreſs for the proof of infants baptism; and it deserves a remark, that you wholly ſuppreſs our arguments drawn from that text,but however return an answer to them all, ſuch as it is.

You firſt tell us, ' The promiſe here ſpoken of, is not apromiſe of any external privileges, but the promise of the goſpel, or the grace ofGod inChriſt Jeſus.'

Secondly, ' Thatthe promiſewas not totheir children, as believers feed, nor to them, or any other uncalledby the Lord; butonly apromise ofremiffion of fins, and receiving the holy

Ghoſt, upon their actual repentance ; which infants cannot perform, and therefore cannot here be intended.'

This is the true and whole ſenſe ofyour answer.

Reply.Now, becauſe you have wholly omitted our argument from this text (for which doubtleſs there was ſome reaſon) I think myſelf obliged to let the worldknow, how we expound it, and whatweduly infer from that expofition ofit; and then let the reader judge, whetherby the fore-mentioned rules of a juſt interpretation, you or we are in the right.

(1.) We obſerve this famous text tocontain the first argument uſed by the apostle, after Chriſt's aſcenſion, to perfuade theJews to embrace Chriftianity, by repenting, andfubmitting themſelves to baptifin, the initiating fign of it; and therefore here we juſtly expect much light about this controverted point : Nor doth the apostle, in this text, deceive our expectation.

(2.) We take it for granted, that the direct and proper

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call. ſcope ofthis place, is to perfuade the Jews (to whom St:

Peter preached) to repent, and be baptized.

This you allow; when you fay, p. 10.

He uſes it as a motive, why they and * theirs ſhould actually reperit, and be baptized.' In theſe two thenthere is no controverſy.

(3.) We take it for certain, that the promise here referred toby Peter, is that gracious promiſe, Gen. xvii. 7. " I will be

" aGiod to thee, and tothy feed after thee." The adjoining of their children tothem, faith Calvin, (and with him runs the general current of expositors) depends on the words of that promiſe, Genxvii. 6. Ifyou be not ſatisfiedwith this, but ra ther will refer it to Joel ii. 28. you are then obliged to anſwer

Mr. Sydenham's arguments afortiori,from thatreference. But you make no exception at all to this accommodation of it:

And then the ſenſe mustbe this; the promiſe ſhall run as before, " toyou and to your children."

(4) We ſay,that except ithadhad relation tothe covenant with Abraham, there had been no occafion, or reaſon at all, heretohave mentioned children as well as parents : " The "proniſe is toyou, and to your children." Ithadbeenenough; ifhehad only intended the believing parents, excluſive oftheir infant-feed, to have faid,The promise is made to " as many as the Lord ourGod ſhall call."

What reaſon, or occafion, was there tobring in their children at all?

(5.) We find herethe childrenboth ofbelieving Jews and Gentiles,mentioned inthe promise, accompanyingthe precept ofbaptism ; andtheprecept to them built on the promiſe, as thatwhich gave them their title to baptism ; Υμιν γαρ επαγγελίας,

" Forthepromiſe istoyou, andtoyour children." Intheſame line thathementionsbaptiſm,healſomentioristhepromiſeuponwhichtheirright is founded; and in the ſame breath withi whichhementionstheirchildren,healſomentionsthepromife: which hewould never have done,hadhis deſign,been tohave excluded their children from both, or either ofthem; eſpeciallyfeeing their children had been ſo long in the poffeffionof both.

These things are obvious, natural, and every wayagreealole, both to thegrammar andſcope ofthetext. Whence we argue :

Arg. Ifthepromisebethe ſame to believers underthe gofpel, that ever it was to Abraham and his natural feed ; ther the children of believers, by virtue thereof, have as good a title to baptism, as Abraham's children hadto circumcifion

But thepromise is theſame : Ergo,&c.

Next let usconfideryour answers.

AReply to Mr. Gary'sfolemn Call.

(1.) You lay, The promise, here spoken of, is not apromise of any external privilege, but thepromiseof thegospel.

Reply. Your diftinction isvainand groundless; for it oppoſeth promiſes, that contain external privileges, to goſpel promiſes, contrary to 1 Tim. iv. 8. "Godliness hath thepromiſe

" of the life that now is, and of that which is to come."

Secondly, Circumciſionthen,and baptifmnow, which haveboth theirfoundation in that promiſe, contain privileges in them of both forts. This no mancandeny, but he thatthinks it noprivilege tobe admitted intothe viſible church, by the external initiating ſign, and to be thereby diſtinguiſhed from the Pagan world. You have nowarrant, therefore, todivide thoſe things whichGod hath united.

(2.) You say, The promise wasnot to them as believers feed, nortoany uncalledby the Lord.

Reply. Your meaning is, that theſe words [asmanyas the LordSballcall, are a limitation of the promite to them only, whether parentsor children, that are actually called.

Let this your interpretation be compared with, and examined by the ſcope of the text, which you confeſſed before tobe amotive to perfuade them and theirs to repentance and baptifm, and fee if itcan standbefore it, as ours doth.

For if this bethe meaning, then the apoſtle's argument muſtrunthus :

I exhort you, • convinced Jews, to repentance and Chriſtian baptifm : for whereas you, and your children, have hitherto been an holy

• feed, and the promite formerly was to them as well as you ; • butnow the cafe is altered: if you yourselves repent, and be

⚫baptized, you ſhall have the benefit of the promise; but as • for your children, they ſhall be in the ſelf-lame cafe, and • ſtate, with the children of Pagans and infidels.

Indeed, if any of your children ſhall hereafter believe, they ſhall have • benefit by the promise, butno morethanthe children of Pagans and infidels, which upon repentance ſhall be equalwith

• them. " Repent ye therefore,and be baptized; for the pro- • " miſe isunto you, andtoyour children."

This, and noother, muſt the apoſtle's motive be, according to your interpre-

tation and limitation of his words .

We make the motive or argument to run thus :

' God hath now remembered his covenant to Abraham, in ſending that bleſſed ſeed, inwhom hepromiled tobe theGod of him, and • his feed; yea, and of allbelievingGentiles, as well as Jews

• and their children: do not you therefore, byyour unbelief, • deprivebothyourſelves, andyour dear children, ofthemer

VOL.VIIL Dd

A Reply to Mr Cary'sfolemn Call.

' cies and privileges of ſo great a promiſe ?

Repent, there fore, and be baptized; for the promise is unto you, and to your children," &c.

Let the impartial reader judge both, and the acknowledged ſcope of the place determine the matter. And as it cannot ſtand with the ſcope of the place, ſo neither (as Mr. Sydenham * hath plainly evinced) with the grammar of the text, nor rules of logic, bywhich, according toyour expofition, the word [children] must be redundant and fuperfluous, as being neither comprehended under Jews or Gentiles, thoſe that are near, or far off: into which two claſſes, orranks, the text diſtributes the whole world ; but muſt ſtand outof the text, as a party, by themselves, though exprefsly mentioned in it, as thoſe towhom the promise belongs.

But enoughof this.

(6.) Having vindicated Acts ii. 38, 39. which confirms our fourth affertion, viz. the identity of thepromise the Jews were, andwe are under ; we proceed next to vindicate Col. ii. 8, 9,

10, 11, 12, whereby we prove the ſucceſſion of baptism to circumcifion, and vindicate itfrom that foreign ſenſe you force upon it, to the great injury of the text, as well as of our infants, whom you exclude from any concernment therein.

Without any repreſentation at all of the grounds on which we proceed, to prove the fucceffion of this ordinance to that, you (as raſhly as confidently) call it a groundleſs inference ; which, whether itbe or no, letthe impartial judge, when they ſhall fee the grounds on whichwebuild that affertion.

(1.) It is out of controversy, that the ſcope of this place is totake off the Coloſſians from circumcision, and other Jewish rites and ceremonies, which the falſe teachers at that time earneſtly endeavoured to reduce them to; as appears, ver. 4. tobe hisplaindeſign : "And this I ſay, leſt any man fhould beguile

66 you with enticing words." And he faith itwith great concernment of mind, as appears ver. 1 .

(2.) It is as plain, that the argument by which he eſtabliſh esthem inthe truth of the goſpel, and fecures them againft thedanger of returning to thoſe Jewish rites, eſpeciallycircumciſion, is drawn from their completeness in Chriſt without it ; ver. 9, and 10. And thatwhatsoever theyhad under circumci fion, theynow enjoy inas complete and fullameaſure and manner, as ever Abraham and his feeddid. " And ye are complete

" in him," (i. e.) in Chriſt.

(3.) To evince this, he inſtanceth in the verycaſe then under * InfantBaptifm, p.44,45.

AReply to Mr. Cary'sJolemn Call.

debate, viz, circumcifion, ver. 11, 12. And firſtdiſtinguiſhing of a twofold circumcifion, one made with, and the other without hands, which he calls the circumcifion of Chrift : he tells them, as to both of theſe, (namely, inward circumcifion of theheart, and the external ſign thereof too)both are fully anfweredinbaptifm ; " Inwhom alſo ye are circumcifed withthe

" circumcifion made without hands; in putting off the body " of the ſins of the flesh, by the circumcifion of Chriſt, bu- " ried with him inbaptifm," ver. 11 , 12. That is, look, as before inwardcircumcifion of the heart was ſignified by outward circumcifionofthe fleſh, as the proper, direct, and appointed fign ofit; ſo now, thefame inward circumcifion, or regeneration of the foul, is as really and fully fignified toyou, by the newgofpel ſign of it, which is baptifm: and therefore you are as complete, in reſpect both of outward and inward privileges now, as ever Abraham and his feed were. Dobut convert the propoſition, and ſuppoſe the apoſtle'sdeſign had beentotake them off frombaptifm, and bring them back to circumcifion ; and in order to ithad faid, " In whom ye are alſo baptized with the " baptifm of Chriſt, being circumcised with him :" would not the fubſtitution of circumcifion in the place of baptifm have been clear ? Andwhy is not this as clear as that would have been?

(4.) We further ſay, That excepthe had intended in theſe words tohaveplacedbaptifm as an external ordinance, in place and ſtead of outward circumcifion, he could never have pitched upon aworſe inſtance than that of circumcifion, which was ſo much valued by them : yea, from the very inſtance he brings, hehad put a ſtrong objection intotheir mouths, against his afſertion, ver. 10. That we are every way as complete without it, as the Jews were with it; for then their children enjoyed an ordinanceof great value, which ours are deprived of, having noneunder thegospel in lieu of it.

Hence we argue :

Argument. If the ordinance of baptifm nowbe appointed to anſwerthe ſame ends that the circumcifion did to the Jews, and tomakeus everyway as complete in privileges as circumciſiondid them, then it comes in the place and room of it; and our childrenhave the fame right tothis, as theirs had to that.

But the antecedent is plain, from the ſcope and argument of theapoſtle inthis text and context: Ergo, So is the confe quent.

Thefum of your answer is, ( 1.) ' That circumcifion in the • fleſh, is neither expreſſed nor meant here, but that of Chrift

Dd2

Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

• inhis own perſon.

(2.) That if baptifm had been intended ⚫tohave come inthe place of circumcifion; then it would fol- • low, that females must be excluded from baptifm .'

Reply. Your firſt answer is manifeſtly falſe for if theapoſtle diftinguishes of a twofold circumcifion, one made with hands, the other made without hands ; then it is manifeſt, he means the circumcision in thefleſb, which is now abolished, and all its ends and uſes anſwered in gospel baptism. And whereas you ſay, The circumcifion here ſpoken of, is no other but the circumcifion of Chriſt in his own perſon ; I would gladly know howthe Coloffians are faid to be circumciſed in Chriſt's perſonal circumcifion only ? And whether the baptism here ſpoken of, wherewith they are ſaid to be buried with him, be not meant of Chriſt's perfonal baptism too ; and, conſequently, there is no need of the outward ordinance to paſs upon them, or us ; but eſpecially, it is worth while for you to explain the reasonwhy he calls the Coloſſians circumcifion, a circumcifion of Christmade without hands, if he only intends Chriſt's perfonal circumcifion; whenwe all know, that Chriſt's perſonal circumcifion was a circumcision made withhands; andcould not poffibly be ſuch a circumcifion as theirs was, conſiſting intheputting off thebody ofthe fins of the flesh, or mortification of their corruptions.

Chriſt had no ſin by propagation, to put off or mortify in his own perfon.

(2.) Your ſecondanswer is no leſs abſurd ; That, ifbaptifm, according to our argument, fucceeds in the place of circumcifion, thenfemales must be excluded from baptism.

Youhad as good heve faid, thatthe enlargement ofthe privilege under the gofpel, is nogood medium to provewe areas complete nowunder baptism as they wereunder circumcifion.

Cannot baptism ſtand intheplaceof circumcifion, becauſe it anſwers all its ends with an advantage ?

This, to me, isa very ſtrange anſwer; however, it muſt ſtand in the placeof a better, rather than baptifm thall stand in the place of circumcifion.

Object. But if baptism ſucceed in the room of circumcifion, and there be ſuch an analogybetwixt them, as you pretend; then it will follow, that you are obliged to baptize your childienon the eighth day, as they circumcised theirs .

Sol. The objection is frivolous and vain: no man, that I know, doubts, but the Lord's-fupperfucceeds inthe roomand place of the paſſover.

Chriſt was the ſubſtance of that, as well as this; and that was abrogated by his inſtitution of this, theveryfame night : as soon as he and his diſciples had celebrated the one, the otherwas inſtituted, and immediately fuc

AReply toMr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

Ceeded it. And yet Chriſtians are not obliged to the ſame month, day, or hour, for the celebration of the Lord's fupper : the analogy is betwixt the ſubſtantial parts of both ; amongst which, the ſpiritual myſtery, principal ends, and proper fubjects, are of principal confideration; not the minuter circumſtances of timeandplace.

In the paſſover and the Lord'sfup. per, there is a correſpondence betwixt the proper ſubjects of both. No uncircumcifed perſon, or ſtranger to the covenant, might eatof that, Exod. xii. 43, 48.

No unbelieving perſon, uncircumciſed inheart, hath aright to this, I Cor. xi . 27, 28.

So in the other ; the infants of God's covenanted people were the proper ſubjects of circumcifion then, andfo they are (faywe) of baptism now; for the fame promiſe is ſtill to believers and their children, Acts ii. 38, 39.

Here lies the analogy, and not in the variable circumſtances of time.

Whereas you ſay, pag. 12. Baptism cannot succeed circumciſion, becauſe itleaves no character ormarkupon the body, as that did.

This very objection of yours is borrowed in expreſs wordsfromSocinus, thatenemyof Chriſt, indifp. de bapt. pag.

113, and fully anſwered by Maccovius, lac.com. pag. 830, 831.

Object. But it will be further ſaid, That according toouropinion, there can be no analogy, or correſpondency, betwixt the very fubjects of both ordinances: for infants, at eightdaysold, were the proper ſubjects of circumcifion ; but the ſubjects of baptifm were adultbelievers, from the time of its firſt inſtitution : and ſo the analogy fails inthe very fubjects.

Sal. This objection is grounded upon a great mistake: it isyour opinion, not ours, that deſtroys it; for with us it lies fairly in theſe three reſpects of it.

(1.) We find, that at the firſt inſtitution of circumcifion, Abraham, the father, at ninety years old, and all the men of his houſe, were firſt circumcised,

Gen. xvii. 25, 26, 27 Anſwerably, at the firſt inſtitution of baptifm, parents, maſters of families, &c. being adult believers, were firſt baptized (2.) After the circumcifion of Abraham, andthe men of his houſe, their infant-feed were alſo circumcifed, the promiſebelonging to them, as well as their parents.

Anſwerably, under the gospel, the whole families of believers were baptized; and the promiſe runs to their infants under the gospel, as itdid before, Acts ii. 39.

(3.) As in the days of circumcifion, ifanyſtranger that had not been circumcised in his infancy, ſhould afterward become a proſelyte, and join himself to the Lord, he was to be circumcised, ofwhatever age he was : now, if any infidel ſhall be converted, he is to be baptized,

A Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

upon his perſonalprofeſſionof faith: and ſomuch for the ana? logy. As for yourcorreſpondency of identity, I cannot underſtandit.

I meetwith little more in your firſt part, wherein I have any concernment; only there I find four arguments, in mood and figure, against the innovationof symbolical rites, by human authority, into the worſhip of God; which is certainly the beſt page inyourbook: and of them I have nothing to ſay, but that they are good ware; and I very well know the mark and number of that parcel of goods, and to whom they properly belong.

But yet before Idiſmiſs your book, Ithink myſelf concerned tovindicate one place of ſcripture more, viz. Rom. xi. 16, 17 . which I alledged inthe beginning for the confirmation of our firſtpropoſition, viz. That God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. is the fame covenant for ſubſtance we Gentile believers are nowunder.

" If the firſt-fruits be holy, the lump is alſo holy: and if the root be holy, ſo are the branches.

And if " fomeof the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild 66 olive, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakeſt

" ofthe root and fatneſs of the olive-tree, boaſt not against the " branches," &c.

This place isdeſervedly ofgreat value with us, to prove, that we Gentile believers, with our infant-feed, areinveſted under thegospel with the ſame ſubſtantial privileges that the Jews and their infants formerlyenjoyed.

Here, without opening one term, you proceed, in your wonted manner, confidently to deny the arguments of our learned divines from this place.

I shall therefore open this famous text, and regularlydeduce the right of Gentile believers infants to baptism from it.

Andhere, keeping to the rules above ; (1.) I note, that verſes 13, 14, 15. give us the true level and ſcope of the apostle's argument, which is toprove the callingin-again of the Jews, though for the preſent broken off; and on this ground to excite himself to all diligence for their converfion, and ſuppreſs all glorying and boufting in theGentile believers, as if theywere more worthythan thoſe, becauſe they fill their rooms and places.

(2.) To prove the calling again of the Jews, he argues ſtrongly, verſe 16. from the foederal holiness derived to the branches from their root or ancestors ; namely, Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, with whom the covenant was made, Gen. xvii.

" For if the firſt-fruit be holy, the lump is alfo holy ; and if " the root be holy, ſo are the branches ;" i. e. Abraham, Ifaac, andJacob, being incovenant with God, afoederal holiness is

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

fromthemderived tothebranches. And thiscanbe no other than afoederal holiness, becauſe thoſe their ancestors were utterly uncapable to tranſmit any inherent holiness to them, that being the incommunicable prerogative of God.

This foederal holiness lying ſtill in the root (the covenant with Abraham) will recover thebranches again to life, though at preſent many of them be broken off; as Job ſpeaks in another cafe, Job xiv. 7, 8, 9.

" There is hope of a tree, though itbe cutdown, that itwill "ſprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not " ceaſe; though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and " the ſtock thereof dry in the ground ; yet through the ſcent

" of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant."

(3.) We affirm, by the authority of this text, That all the Jewishnationwas not broken off, but only a partof it : So the 17th verſe plainly declares ; " And if some of the branches be

" broken off," &c.

Not all, but ſome ; for many of them were converted to Chriſt ; we read of three thouſand at one fermon, Acts ii, and multitudes more at other times. All theſe converted Jews ſtood in the apoſtle's time as branches inthe true olive, ſtill enjoying all their privileges ; and that which brake off them that were broken off, was nothing elſebut their own unbelief : Ver. 20. "Well then, becauſe of unbelief they

" were broken off."

For at the promulgation of the goſpel, a new article was added to their creed ; namely, That this ſame Jeſus, whom they had crucified, is the promited and true Meffiah.

This ſome believed, and ſo ſtood by faith, ſtill enjoying all theirancient privilegesof the covenant : Others believednot, and their unbelief broke them off.

(4.) We find in this place two forts ofbranchesgrowing upon this root Abraham ; ſome natural branches ; namely, Jews by nature, embracing Chriſt by faith ; others wild and foreign branches, viz. Gentiles by nature, but ingrafted by faith, and by their ingrafture growing among the natural branches, and withthem partaking of the root and fatneſs of the olive-tree, verse 17. that is, the rich privileges of the covenant and promiſe toAbraham, Gen. xvii. " I will be aGod to thee, and to " thy ſeed."

This is the ſweet juice, or fatneſs of the olivetree, which both forts of branches live upon, ver. 17. ſome on the external, others on the internal ; ſome on both.

(5.) Theſe naturally wild, but now ingrafted branches, viz. the believing Gentiles, being graftedby faith amongstthe natural branches, and with them fucking the fatneſs of the ſame root and olive ; that is to ſay, the privileges, ordinances, and franchiſes of the church ; we cannotbutjudge it tobeanatu

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call. ral, clear, and neceſſary conſequent, that the ſame privileges the natural branches once had, and the remaining branches

(amongst whom the Gentile believers were ingrafted)thenhad; the very ſame the Gentile believers, and their children, do now enjoy, by virtue of their intereſt in the ſame root; elſe we cannot underſtand howwe ſhould be faid to partake with them of the root and fatness of the olive.

Certainly the ſap is the fame which the rootſends into all the branches, whether theybe natural, or ingrafted ones ; and is as plentifully communicated to the ingrafted, as to the natural branches : For the watering of this olive with the more rich and plentiful graceof the goſpel, muſt make the olive-tree as fat and flourishing as ever it was, to fupply all its branches, and more than ever before.

Seeing thenwe Gentiles have (1.) the ſame grafting intothe true olive ; and (2.) that our preſent grafting in, is anſwerable totheir preſent cafting out; and (3.) that their re-ingrafting, in the end of the world, ſhall be the ſame for ſubſtance that ours now is, and their own firſt was : Forwhen theywere firft taken in, they, and their children, were taken in together ; when they were broken off, theyand their children were broken off together ; and when they ſhallbe taken in again, they and their children hall be taken in again : And (4.) ſeeing alltheſe their expected mercies are ſecured to them bythe covenantmade with Abraham, Ifaac, andJacob, which willextend again to them when their unbelief ſhall be taken away ; methinks (as was faid before) nothing can be clearer than this conclufion, That we

Gentile believers are now inveſted with the ſame privileges they once enjoyed; and our children have the fame foederal holinefs or relation to the covenants theirshad, bybeing grafted amongst them, and living on the ſame ſap they did, and that by the ſame promiſe, Acts ii. 39.

But you will fay, There is no mention here made of the grafting in of our children with us.

We reply, Neither is there any mention here made of the breaking off of their childrenwith them ; which yet was ſo.

Nor was there need toſay it, ſeeing both their infants and ours are comprehended inthe parents, as twigs are comprehended in the branch, or buds in the graft, and the one being holy, ſo is the other.

And this foederal holiness of the children is not only mentioned in this chapter, ver. 16. but alſo in 1 Cor. vii. 14. Now are your chil drenholy. Andthe very fame promise, which conveyed the fatneſs of the olive to Abraham's natural feed, manifeſtly extends itſelf to the Gentile believers feed, Acts ii. 38, 39. And if men. willnot ſhut their eyes, and ſtudyevaſions, what canbe plain;

A Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call

er from ſcripture than this explication and application of this place? Wehave withus theconſentofthe generalityoforthodox expoſitors ; the ſenſe itſelf isgenuine, eaſy, and unconſtrained, agreeablewith the letter and ſcope of the text.

Whether the ſenſe you ſet up againſt it, be as probable as this, we comenext to examine. And truly, fir, your anſwer is as ambiguous as a Delphicoracle : For ( 1.) you tell us, page 8. That the ingraftingspoken of in this place, is into the invisible church, by election. We ſay, it is into the viſible church, byprofeſſion of faith; for we know not how to underſtand anybreaking off from the inviſible church, or falling from election : But it is like, you better confidered the conſequents of that opinion, drawn upon you byMr Sydenham, in his 85th page ; and therefore, naufeating thoſe dregs of Arminianiſm, you ſpeak more orthodoxly to the point, page 27.; where you honeftly acknowledge, That the church of the Jews andGentiles, as to the true effence and inward ſubſtance of either, is one and the ſame: In which reſpect, the believing Gentiles, according to the apoſtle's metaphor, are here ſaid tobe grafted in amongſt them, and, with them, to be made partakers ofthe rootand fatneſs of the olive-tree : And in reference hereunto, it is rightly added by the apoſtle, that the gifts and callings ofGodare withoutrepentance: The inward ſubſtance of the church, and covenant of grace, whereon it is founded,being invariable, and which ſhall for ever remain immoveable, though the outward form and adminiſtration be not ſo.

Well then, from hencewe havegainedtwo things : (1.) That the church of theJewsand

Gentiles are eſſentially and ſubſtantially the ſame church.

(2.) That the Jews were not broken off fromthe inviſible church, or from faith and election ; for theſe, you truly ſay, are invariable and immoveable : And if you haddenied it, the apoſtle affures us, that the foundation of God ſtands ſure ; and that thegifts and callings of God are without repentance. Butwhat thenwas their breaking off, andthe Gentiles grafting in, which made this great alteration in thechurch ? Can it be any thing elſe, butour ingrafting intotheviſiblechurch, bythe profeſſiott of our faith, from whence the Jews were broken off for their unbelief ? For certainly, from the inviſible church theywere not broken off, and into the inviſible church, multitudes of profeſſing Chriſtians are not ingrafted. Itisevident, therefore, bygrafting us intothe olive tree, he means the viſible church andbythe fatneſs thereof, the ordinances and privileges of that church.

Though we deny not but all fincere profeſſors and

VOL. VIII.

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call. members of the inviſible church alfo, anddo belong to the elec tion of grace ; but that is not the breaking off, or grafting in, hereſpokenof.

Andnow, having given up Mr Tombes's notion of the invifible church, and election, you are again put to your ſhifts ; andmuſt either ſhuffle, andſeek to hide yourself in an heap of ſtrange and unintelligible diſtinctions, or (which had beenmuch fairer) honeſtly have yieldedthe caute ; and, wherever you meet with them, I find a whole troop of diſtinctions rallied together for this purpoſe, page 23, 24 .

•This grafting in (fayyou) may be either into the viſible, or • inviſible church ; either by faith, profeſſion of faith, or by • ſome outward ordinance. Children may be either grown men,

• or infants.

The ingrafting in may be either certain, orprobable.

Certain, eitherby reaſon of election, or their natural ' birth, being children of believers. Probable, as being likely ;

•either becauſe frequently, or for the moſtpart, it happens fo :

•Though neceffary, and ſo not certain.

The thing to be proved, is, That the children of believers are in the covenant of freegrace in Chriſt, and by virtue thereof, to be baptized into the communion of the viſible church.

Reply. Words enough, and distinctions enough, to reduce the text toan indiviſible point. But whither doth all this tend ?

I will aſk you two or three plain queſtions, and then makewhat ufe you pleaſe of your distinctions.

(1.) Whether the breaking offof the Jews, andthe ingrafting of theGentiles, here ſpoken of, have relation to the invisible church by election, or to the visible church by profeſſion of faith, and fome outward ordinance ?

(2.) Whether, if itwere into the vifible church by profeffionof faith that the Gentile believers were grafted in, as doubtless iswas (andbyrelinquishing theformer ſenſe, you here ſeem toyield it, faying, this ingrafture maybe certain, uponthe accountof natural birth, being children of believers) ; then I would fainknow, why you fo ftate the queſtion, as tomake the certaintyof believers childrens intereſt in Chriſt to be the onlygroundof their admiffion intothe communion of the visible church?

This (fayyou) muft firſt be proved, or no baptifma forthem.

Alas, poor infants ! to what hard terms are they here tied up ? Very much harder than the terms any of your own fociety are tied to: And if baptifm muſt be ſuſpended, till this point canbe cleared, thatthe perfon to be baptized be firſt in Chriſt, andinthe covenant offreegrace, as to the ſaving benefits there of; then farewel to allbaptifm, both of infants and adultpro

A Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Gall.

feffors too.

For how canyou prove, that the perſons youbaptize, are all, or any of them, really in Chriſt ? May they not deceiveyou, as Simon Magusdid Peter ?

Idid not think you had proceeded in this matterupon a certainty, buta probability :

And if you proceed with yours upon the grounds of probability; how come you to tie up the children of believers, to a certainty of their intereſt inChriſt as the antecedent ſuſpendent condition of theirbaptifm ?

We need diſpute no more about the proper ſubjects of baptifm, forbythis account we have loſt the ordinance of baptifm itſelf.

We thought, fir, that our childrens title tobaptifm was derived to them from their believing parents, as the childrenof the Jews was to circumcifion, fromtheir circumciſed and profeſſing parents; and that the fame promiſe which conveyed their childrens privilegeto them, Gen. xvii. had conveyed the right of believers children to baptifm unto them alſo, Acts ii. 38, 39. and that the root being holy, the branches are holy alſo, that is foederally holy, Rom. xi. 16. But to this you make fuch an answer as aftoniſhes me to read, page 26 ; where allowing Abraham tobe the root, you say, " The holiness here ſpokenof,

* is firſt in reſpect of God's election ; holineſs perſonal and inherent, inGod'sintention : Eph . i. 4. " He hath choſenus in " him, that we should be holy."

(2.) It is alſo holiness de- ' rivative ; but not from any ancestors, but from Abraham only; and that not as a natural, but a spiritual father ; where- ' in he is a lively image, or figure of Chriſt, and is derived

• from the covenant of grace, which paſſed in his name to him ' and his feed. And, laſtly, itſhallbe inherent, being actually communicated bythe Spirit ofGod, when they ſhall be actually called.'

Reply. Herewe fee intowhat brakes and pits men run themſelves, when theydepart from the plainand ſafe path in explica tions of ſcripture. Here is ſuch a tripartite distinction of holineſs, as I never met with before.

( 1.) Here is perſonal holiness inherent in God's intention.

Bythis you must eithermean fanctification decreed for them, and to be beſtowed on them at the timeof their calling; and then it is coincident with the third member of your distinction.

Or else you mean, that it is holineſs inherent in the intention ofGod, as an accident in its fubject; and then the ſimplicityofGod's nature reſiſts your incongruous notion.

But it would be a leſs crime, toconfound the first with the laſt member of your vain and ſelf-createddiEe2

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. ſtinction, than to ſpeak things ſo repugnant to the ſimple and uncompounded nature of God.

Or if your meaning be, That this holiness is inGodbyway of intention, but in them by wayof inheſion ; that will not deliver you out of your confufion neither, but run you into greater: For then you confoundthe immanentwith the tranfient acts of God, and make the ſame thing at the ſame time, tobe purely in intention, and in execution ; or to be only inGod's purpoſe tobeſtow hereafter, andyet, at the preſent, inherentin the perſons he intends it for : So that I muſt leave your ſtrange notion of perional holiness inherent in God's intention, to be clearedby amore metaphysical headthan mine; or elfe to ſtand, amongother rare and unintelligible notions, to be admiredand applaudedby the ignorant'reader.

But then, whenwe come to the ſecond member of your diNinction, I am as much at a loſs to find your ſenſe as before :

For there you tell us, 'The holiness here ſpoken of, is a deri- ⚫vative holineſs alſo ; and that from Abraham only; and from 4 him, not as a natural, but a ſpiritual father, reſembling Chrift

4 herein.

Reply. This word derivative is an equivocal word, andmay fignify either inherent perſonal holiness, or foederal holiness ; for both of them are derived.

If you fay the former, it looks too black and horrid for me to believe you mean it, though you ſhould say you mean it; for then you make Abraham not only the figure and image of Chriſt, as you ſpeak, but Chriſt himself, by attributing to Abraham Chriſt's incommunicable property and prerogative.

Then Abraham may say to all his children, as Chriftdoth, John xv. 4, 5. Iam the vine, ye are the branches, c.I am he that fanctifiesyou. But if you mean the laſt (as neceſſarily you must, if you mean anything thathath orthodox ſenſe in it) then this derivative holiness you ſpeak of, isnot perſonal holiness, or internal fanctification, but foederal holiness, derivedfrom covenanted ancestors, orparents to their children ; and therein you come over to us, and to the true ſenſe of the text. Butwhy muſt this be ſqueezed from you with ſo much difficulty ? Andwhydidyouhide this foederalholiness under an equivocal term, left you ſhould seem to yield the controverfy with a word ? This is not fair.

Object. If you say we aretoo haſty, and triumphbefore the victory: For though youdo yield it to be a foederal holiness, yet it is ſuchas canbe derived from no other father, or progepitor, butAbraham only.

Sol. Yes,s, fir, I hope youwillallow Ifaac andJacob, at least,

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

tobetheroot and firſt-fruit, as well asAbraham, ſeeing the covenantwas jointly and expreſsly made with them all three, and thereby they became root and firſt-fruit ofthatholy nation:

Andif thatpeople becalledthe feed of Abraham, they are alſo calledthe feedof Jacob; and if father-hood be aſcribed toAbraham, it is aſcribed to Jacob too, Ifa. lviii. 14. And if Abrahambe firſtnamed in the covenant, ſois Jacob : See Lev. xxvii.

42. But if you allow theſe three patriarchs, perhaps that is all you will allow ; for you ſeem to ſay, thatno foederal holiness canbederivedfrom anyother progenitors. Good fir, whatever your own private opinion be in this matter, allow us to believe otherwise, as long as thoſe ſcriptures, I Cor. vii. 14. and Acts ii. 39. ſtandin ourBibles : For we cannot think but the foederal holiness of children reſults fromthe immediateparent's faith, orcovenant-intereſt, as well as from the remoter progenitors ; elſewecannotunderstand how the Corinthians children ſhould beholy, or how the promiſe ſhould belong to the childrenof them that are afar off, viz. the Gentiles, who could derive no fuch thing to their children by a lineal defcent fromAbraham, but only as theybecame ingrafted branches by faith ; and fo fuck the fatnefs of the olive to themselves, and totheirhuds, or children, as the natural branches did.

I defire you to confider alſo, how this covenant paſſed, as you say it did, toAbraham andhis feed, in Chriſt's name, if itbe the fame with Adam's covenant? Did that paſs to Adam in Chriſt's name too ?

I have now diſpatchedwhat I at firſt promiſed and intended, viz. the confutation of my friends miſtakes about the covenants ; and the vindication of thoſe fcriptures, by which our arguments, deduced from one of them, are confirmed. And now I have no farther concernment with Mr. Cary's folemn call; fave only to note his high confidence, rafn, and moſt unchriſtian cenfures, of all his differing friends and brethren, withwhich he concludes his diſcourſe; whereinhe calls infants

baptifm, (1.) Agreat abuse in the divineworship, page 242, 243. And yet hethat fo calls it, never looked half way intothe controverfy; nor is able, without manifeſt ſhuffling, and contradiction, bothto thewords of God, and his own words, to answer our arguments; as is here made too evident.

(2.) That it is no other than a change of a divine inſtitution, and making void the commandment of Christ, the horrid fin charged by Chriſt upon thoſe hypocrites, the Scribes and Phariſees, Matth. xv. 6.

With no better than theſe doth he rank

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. andaſſociate the many thousands of God's choice anddearpeo ple, who differ in this circumſtantial point from him.

(3.) He compares it with the fin of Nadab andAbihu ; and with that of Ifrael, with respect to the ark, 1 Chron. xv. 13. A fin, which provoked the Lord to execute judgment, by animmediate ſtroke in fire from heaven upon them.

Thus Mr Cary is ready to callfor fire from heaven upon his brethren.

Alas, poor man ! he knows not what Spirit he is of, as Chriſt told the diſciples in a like caſe. It is well we are not in his hands, toexecute the wrath, as well as charge the guilt upon us. But I hope all this is but raſhneſs in him.

(4.) He affirms it tobe no less than atransgreffing of the law, achanging of the ordinances, and a breaking of the everlasting covenant.

If it be a tranſgreſſing of the law, he ſhould have thewn us in what ſcripture that law that forbids it is, or where

Godhath repealed his former grant to the childrenofhis covenant-people. And forthe changing of the ordinances, I am of opinion, it is he that is guilty of that fin, andnot we: For we have proved, God ſettled this privilege upon the infant-feedof his people ; that thepromise, under the goſpel, continues ſtill to them; and if he exclude them from baptifm, he changes the ordinance of God. And for breaking the everlasting covenant, for which he cites Ifa. xxiv. 5, 6. the Lord make him ſenſible of the danger he hath puthimself under, from that very text heproduces againſt us; for it is manifeſt, that the covenant hereſpoken of, is God's covenant with Abraham, renewed with the Ifraelites at Sinai, which in that text is truly called an everlaftingcovenant; when, mean time, Mr. Cary hathpronounced itto be an Adam's covenant, and now utterly aboliſhed. Who is it, fir, that fights against, and changes this everlasting covenant, you or we, that are for its continuance to us and our children?

(5.) He affirms theſethings tobe of highest concernment to US.

If ſo, then ſure it must follow, that repentance from dead works, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Chriſt, must be inferior things tothem; for nothingcan be higher than the higheſt, or equal with it.

And then by making them the chief fundamentals in religion, as that expreſſion doth (if it be not a vain and finful hyperbole) the ſalvation or damnationofmendepends upon compliance or non-compliance with them. And then, whither muſt you sendallGod's people in the world, that differ from you ?

Sir, I find your brethren in the appendix to their confeffionof faith, page 110, placing one of theſe which you make of highest concernment, among the other circumſtances

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

of religion ; and doubtleſs that is in its proper place : Nor do I feehowthey can free themſelves from participation in your fin, till theyhave admoniſhed you for it, and cauſed you to expugn it out of your book.

(6.) That is a fettling ofyour thresholds by God's threshold :

Theſe words you recite from Ezek. xliii. 8. which ſpeak of the idolatrouskings of Judah and lfrael building temples and altars for their idols, in or near the courts of the temple of God; as the Engliſh annotations onthe text will inform you ; anabomination that defiled God's holy name, a wickedness not to be named, and for which the Lord confumed them, and calls it whoredom in the next words.

Here, fir, you have exceeded all the bounds of ſociety and Chriſtian charity, andmade this circumſtantial difference about the proper ſubject of baptism the groſſeſt heatheniſh idolatryin the world; and conſequently dif-" folved the bonds of Chriſtian charity, and broken off all communion with us ; for with ſuch idolaters you ought not to have any communion.

Your morewife and moderate brethren, in the place abovecited, tell us, ' They are loth hereby to alienate their affections

6 or converſations from any that fear the Lord, and are willing ' to participate of the labours of thoſewhomGodhath endued

' with abilities above themselves; qualified andcalled tothe mi- • niſtry of the word ; deſirous of peace, and not of renewed

• conteſts hereabout.'

This is alanguage of another air : And if they be (as I dare not ſuſpect but they are) ſincere in that profeſſion, theydare not comprobate ſuch adefperate and unchriftian cenfure as yours is : If they do, then we may eaſily guess what our lot andtreatment ſhall be,whenever Anabaptifm

/ gets the afcendant in England ; we may expect as civil uſage as is due to groſs idolaters, and no better: But I hope better things.

(7.) Youſay, that as theſe things are of highest concernment, ſothey ought to be our most ferious practice and endeavour, page

243. ult. Good Lord ! whither hath zeal for an opinion tranfported you ! Our most serious practice and endeavour !

Sir, I thought the moſt ſerious practice of a minifter had been to preach Chriftand ſalvation to the fouls of men, andnot tobaptize : I am fure St. Paul reckoned ſo;

Chrift fent me not to baptize, but to preach ; that is, baptism is not my principal work, or main buſineſs.

And ver. 14th, he thanks God hehad baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius.

I believe he never uttered ſuch an expreſſion about his other work of preaching Chrift. And for all Chriſtians, I thought the fecuring of their

AReply to Mr Cary's folemn Gall. intereſt inChriſt, living inthe duties of communionwithhim, watching their hearts, and mortifying their corruptions, had beenthe object matter of their moſt ſerious practice, and faithful endeavour ; and not the litigations aboutbaptifm. But I hope theſe were only inconfiderate expreſſions, falling from your pen, whilſt you were in a paroxiím of zeal, or a tranſport in the height of a conceited triumph : But whatever was the cauſe, I am fure you ought to revoke and repent fuch words.

(8.) You with your testimony riſe not up at last asa witnessagainstus.

Sir, we do not apprehend any cauſe we have to fear your teſtimony againſt us, or ſevereſt cenſures of us, whilft we are ſatisfied, that as you neither have the faculty or commiſſion to be our judge, ſo neither is there anyconvincing evidence in your reply to our arguments. But I think you have much more cauſe to fear, left thoſe arguments ſhould come in at laſt as a witneſs againſt you, who deny and contemn them ; when, mean time, you are put tomoſt lamentable ſhifts, even contradictions, and fomewhat worſe, to eſcape the point and edgeof them.

(9.) To conclude, You tell us, we must not expect the ſpecial prefence of Chriſt to be afforded to us, without our compliance in theſe points with you.

Sir, we never yet deſerted the judgment or practice of infants baptifm, and yet have had (bleſſed be Jeſus Chriſt for it) great and manifold, ſweet and ſigual proofs and evidences of hisprefence with us: He hath owned and bleſſed our miniſtry to the converſion of many; and there are ſome, and thoſe not mean, or few, of our ſpiritual children, now in your ſocieties in England, who have acknowledged us to be the firſt inſtruments of their converſion : The Lordlay it not to their charge, who now defert that miniſtry in which they firſt received Chriſt !

But as for the departure of his preſence, I aſſure you, friend, I am more afraid of the rents and diviſions you now renew fo unſeaſonably among the churches of Chriſt, than of any one thing amongst us beſide.

It grieved my foul to ſee you, quieta movere, awake a fleeping controversy, eſpecially in fuch a ſeaſon, when we are little more than half delivered from our enemies and dangers ; you take us by the heel, as Jacob did his brother, whilst but yet in the birth.

Sir, except you return to a more quiet and Chriſtian temper, than you ſeem here to be in, I am out of hope that ever you and I fhall ſee thoſe bleſſed days, we have fo often, with pleaſure, comforted ourſelves with the hopes of. However, extend

A Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

your charity (ifyouhave any left) ſofar, as tobelieve that I am one, notwithstanding ofallthis, thatam ſtudious of the church'speace, and inquiſitive intothe rules ofduty, notdaring toholdany truth ofGod in unrighteousness ; and yetwell fatisfied Iam, in the path of my duty, wherein, though we cannotwalktogether, yet I hope to meetyou atthe end ofour way, in our Father's houſe, where perfect light and peace dwells.

AndhereI had put an endto this debate,hadInot received your returnto ſomeoftheſe ſheets, whilft the laſt ofthemwas undermy hand; wherein I only findfour things inwhich I amconcerned.

In general, you tell me, You are not con- * vincedof anyerror, by what Ihave faid.' I am forry tohear it: But confidering the nature of error on one fide, andthe difficulty offelf-denial on the other, you have not much deceivedmyexpectation.

More particularly, (1.) You ſay, As to your hooking the Sinai covenant into thiscontroverſy, Igave you the firstoccafion of it ; for when you ſhewedme yourpapers aboutGod's covenantwithAbra ham, I told you, that you werebeſt firſt to try ifyou could provethe covenant at Sinai tobe a covenantof works ; forafmuch as our divines are ſo far from conceiting the covenant withAbraham tobe a covenantof works, that they will not allowtheSinai law itſelftobe ſo; and to convince you ofit,

I lent youMr. Roberts and Mr. Sedgwick onthe covenant, to enlighten and fatisfyyou about it: But little did I think you hadconfidence enough toenter the lifts with two ſuch learned andeminentdivines, and makethem to follow your triumphant chariot, ſhackledwith the incomparable Baxter andAllen,

Sydenham andBurthogg, like three pair of noble priſoners of war.

Butwhatever was the occafion (fetting afide your fin) Iam not forry you have given a fit opportunity to enlighten the world in that point alſo.

(2.) Youſeem to fancy in your letter, that I once was of youropinion about the moral law, becauſeyou findtheſepaf ſages in a fermon ofmine, upon John viii. 36. "Ifthe Son

" therefore ſhall make you free, than are you free indeed;" viz.

• That the law required perfect working, underpain ofthat curſe; accepted no ſhort endeavours, admitted no repent- ⚫ance, andgave no ſtrength.

But finding me here pleading for the law, youthink you find ime ina contradiction to that doctrine.

VOL. VIII.

F f

AReply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.

The words I own ; the contradiction I poſitively deny ; for I ſpeak not there, and here, adidem ; for inthat fermon, and in thoſe very words you cite, I ſpeak against the law, not as God intended it, whenhe added it tothepromife;but as the ignoranceand infidelityofunregeneratemen,make itto themſelves acovenant ofworks, by looking upon it as the very rule and reaſon of their juftification beforeGod: This was the ſtumbling-ftone at which all legal justiciaries thendid, and ſtill do ſtumble, Rom. ix. 31, 32, 33. In this ſenſe the apostle, inhis epiftles tothe Romans and Galatians, argues against the law, and fo do I in the words you cite; but vindicatethe law in the very fame fermon you mention, as confiftent with, and ſubſervient to Chriſt, inthe former ſenſe ; and there tellyou,

The law ſends us to Chriſt to bejustified;andChrift ſends us ⚫backto the law tobe regulated.' The very fame double ſenſe ofthe law you will find in this diſcourſe; and from the miſtaken end and abuſe of the law, which the apostle ſo vehemently oppoſeth, I here prove against you, thatthe law in this fenfe cannot confiſt with, or be added to the promise ; and therefore make itmymedium to prove againstyou, that the true nature and denomination of the Sinai law, can never befound in this ſenſeof it, but itmust be eſtimated and denominatedfrom the purpoſe and intention of God, which I have proved to be evangelical.

Try your ſkill to faften acontradiction betwixt my words in that fermon and this difcourſe.

I know you would be glad to find the shadow of one, to make fome ſmall excuſe, or atonement for the many faults of thatnature youhave here committed.

(3. ) Your letter alſo informs me, that you hear you are anfwered by one hand already; and, for ought you know, many more may be employed against you, and I for one ; and fo we shall compaſs you about like bees.

Reply. Ihave only feen Mr. Whiſton's little book against your brother Grantham, wherein he hath baffled two ofyour principal arguments ; butyou only come in collaterally there, andmustnot look upon it as a full anſwer to your book, but only as a lafh for your folly, en paſſant. And for our compafling you aboutlikebees, methinksyou seem tobe elated in yourownfancy, bythe ſuppoſition, or expectation, ofamultitude ofopponents.

You know as well as I, who it is that glories inthis motto, Umis contra omnes.

Sir, I think your mind maybe much at reſt inthat matter. Ofall the fix famous adverfaries mentioned inyour title page, thereare but (

AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Gall.

wo living: and you know, Mortui nonmordent ; and ofthe remaining two, one of them, viz . Mr. Baxter, is almoſt in heaven, living inthe daily views, and chearful expectations ofthefaints everlifting rest with GOD ; and is left for a littlewhileamong us, as a great example of the life of faith.

•And it is queſtionable with me, whether fuch a great andheavenlyfoul can find any leiſure or diſpoſition to attend ſuch a weak and trivial diſcourſe as this.

Andas for myſelf, you need not much fear me; I have not, neither do I intend to vibrate my ſting against you, unless I findyou infecting or disturbing that hive to which I belong, and to which I am daily gathering and carrying honey ; and thenwho but adronewould not ſting.

(4.) To conclude: inthe cloſe of your letteryou fall into the former ftrainoflove, aſſuring me, ' That the ancient friendthip of ſomany years, ſhall ſtillcontinue on yourpart.'

Reply. All that I shall return to this, is onlyto relate a ſhort ſtory out of Plutarch, in the life ofAlexander; where he tells us, That whilst he was warring in theIndies, one Taxiles an Indianking, came with his company to meet him ; and falutingAlexander, ſaid, ' What need you and I to fight and ' war one upon another ? Ifthou comeſt not to take away our water, and the neceffaries of life from us, for which we

' muſt needs fight : As for other goods, if I am richer than thee, I am ready togive thee ofmine; and if I have lefs, I ' will not think ſcorn to thank thee for thine."

Alexander, highlypleaſed with his words, madehim this reply ; Think- ' eft thou, that this meeting ofours canbe without fighting?

' No, no ; thou haftwon nothing by all thy fair words ; for I ' will fight and contend with thee in honesty and courtesy,

⚫and thou ſhaltnot exceedme in bounty and liberality.'

I faywith Taxiles, Ihad never armed against you, had you notcome to take away our water, and the neceſſaries of life;

Imean, the covenantofGod with Abraham, which contains the rich charter of the Gentile believers children, and make it an abolished Adam's cevenant, and told us, that we must come up to the primitive purity in theſe things ; that is, in renouncing it as a covenant ofgrace, andrelinquiſhing infants baptifm, as grounded thereon .

Sir, were myown father alive, I must and would oppofe him, ſhouldheattemptwhat here you do. Infant-baptifm, with you is not ; finging ofpfalms, that plain and heavenly gofpelordinance, with you, isnot; and will you takeaway our

Ff2

$28 AReply to Mr. Gary folemn Calt,

Benjamin alſo ? What ! the covenant of Godwith Abraham andhis children in their generations ? All these things are against us. No, fir, we cannot part with that covenant, as an aboliſhedAdam's covenant, nor will I give it up for all the friendſhip inthe world.

Andyet Iwill ſaywith Alexander, I will contendwith you in friendſhip and courtesy, even whilft I earnestlycontendagainſtyoufor the truths of GOD, which you have here oppoſed, and I have endeavoured to vindicate.

Onewordmore before I part with you; Ido affure you, andthe wholeworld, that in this controversywithyou, Ihave not, knowingly oradviſedly, miſrepreſented yourſenſe: Ifyou ſhall ſay I didſo inmy ſecond argument, from the words,pag.

179, Iaffureyou, both myſelf, and others, could understand youno otherwise than Idid inthepapers Iſent you ; andwhen you told me, you meant therewas no pardon in either ofthoſe covenants, butthat it plainly directedto Abraham's covenant, youwill find, I have given you as fair a choice as youcan defire, either to ſtand to your words inthe firſt ſenſe, whereinI understood them, or (which willbe theſame tome) to your own ſenſe, in which you afterwards explained itto me. And whereas I blame you over and over in my epiſtle andconclufion, for putting the proper ſubject of baptifm amongst the highestthings in religion ; let the reader view yourconclufion, andfee, whetheryou do, or not.

Ifyou fay, you ſpeak ofthe covenantthere, as well as of baptifm, I allowthatyou do ſo; yet 1hope it is equally asbad, nay, indeed andtruth, agreat aggravation of your fault, to make this article, viz.

God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. an abolishedAdam's covenant, one ofthe highest concernments of a Chriſtian, the baptifm only of adult believers another. My conſequences, fromyour words, are just and regular, how furprizing foever. theyfeem toyou.

Ifyouthink fit to rejoin tothis my anſwer, Idefireyouwill avoid, as much as you can, atedious harangue ofwords, and ſpeak ſtrictlyand regularly to my arguments, by limiting, diſtinguiſhing, ordenying, as a difputant ought to do: Ifso, I promise you a reply ; but ifI find no ſuch thing, it ſhall paſs with mebut for waſte paper ; nor will I waste time about it.

The Lord give us unity in things neceſſary, libertyinthings indifferent, andcharity inallthings !

↑ Back to top