The Reasonableness Of Person-

The Reasonableness Of Person-

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call. tiation, when they cannot reconcile one thing with another, they fly to the omnipotent power to do it.

But, fir, I wonder how you hold andhugaprinciplethat runs naturally into such gross absurdities : Do you see what follows from hencebyunavoidable consequence ? You must, according to this principle, hold, That Moses, and all God's peculiar elect people in Israel,must, during their life, hang mid-way between justification and condemnation ; and, after death, between heaven and hell.

(1.) During life, they must hang mid-way between justification and condemnation ; justified they could not be, forjuftification is the soul's passing 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 to be under condemnation is as impossible on the other side ; for he that is justified, cannot at the fame time be under condemnation, Rom. viii. 2. John v. 24. What remains then, but that during life they must stick mid-way betwixt both, neither justified nor condemned; and yet both fo and fo.

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

(2.) And then after death they must necafssarilyhang betwixt heavenandhell; to heaven none can go that are under the veryrigourand tyranny of the law, a pure covenant of works, as you say they were.

To hell they could not go,being der the pure covenant of grace : What remains then, but unfomethird state must be assigned them ? and so at last we have found the limbus pat rum, and your position leads us right to purgatory; aconclufion which,I believe, you yourselfabhor as much as I.

(2dly,) This hypothesis pinches you with another dilemma, viz. Either there was pardon or repentance in Moses's covenant, and the Sinai dispensation of the law, or there was none ; if you say none, you directly contradict Lev. xxvi. 40, 46. if they were, then it cannot be Adam's covenant of works.

You answer, pag. 179.

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

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

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

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

prove the law at Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's covenant, because it had apromife of pardon annexed to it, Lev. xxvi. 40. but A dam's covenant had none.

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

Or else it is a mere evasion, and an eluding of the argument ; and your only meaning is, that the relief I speak of is not to be found in any promise belonging to the Sinai dispensation, but in some other gospel covenant or promise. But, fir, this will not serve your turn; you see I cite the very promise of grace made to the Ifraelitiesonmount Sinai by the hand of Moses,wherein God 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 which is no less so ; as will evidently appear, by a nearer and more particular view of the place, and gathering up your own concessions 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 of his covenant, for the reliefofpoor broken-hearted sinners, is no gospel-promise pertaining to the covenant of grace : That it was made to the penitent Ifraelities upon mount Sinai, and there deliveredthemby the hand of Moses for their relief, is as visible and plain as the words and syllables of the 46th verse are to him that reads them. Let the promise then be considered both ways.

(1.) In your sense, as a plain direction to the covenant of grace made with Abraham for their relief; for so you say it was,p.

180. or let it be considered absolutely, as that which contained relief in itself for the penitent Ifraelites that should live towards the end of the world, after they should be gathered 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, let us view it in your sense, as a relative promise to the covenant of grace made with Abraham .

Gen. xii. to which, 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 should guide and plainly direct them to Christ and pardon, as that star which appeared to the wifemen directed their way to Christ.

If there be any such relative promise belonging to Adam's covenant in paradise, as this which I plainly thew you was made on mount Sinai, be pleased to produce it, and you end the controversy ; but if you cannot, (as you know you cannot) then never fay the legal dispensation at Sinai,

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call. andthecovenantofworks withAdaminparadise,are the very fame covenant.

Secondly, Let us confider this promise absolutely in itself, and then I demand, was there mercy, relief and pardon contained in it for any penitent sinner present or to come? Yes, say you, it extends relieftopenitents, after God shall gather them from all their captivities at the end of the world; very good. Then it is a very vigorous promise of grace,which not only reaches 430 years backward, as far as the first promise to Abraham,but also extends its reliefs and andcomfortsmany thousand years forwards, even to the purest times of the gospel, just before Christ coming to judgment:

And can such a promise as this be denied to be initselfagofpel-promise ? Sure it can neither be denied to be such, nor yet to be made upon mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.

This dilemma is as pinching as the former.

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

I should reasonably conclude, that you take the ceremonial law (of which you seem to make this a branch, pag. 181.) to be a covenant of grace, seeing one of its branches bears such 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 the covenant of grace we must notfend it, unless only as an index or finger to point to it, because it was made upon mount Sinai, and delivered to Israel by the hand of Moses :

To the gospel-covenant we must not thereforeannex it ; and to the legal dispensation at Sinai you are as loth to annex it, be cause it contains so much relief and grace in it for poor pen i tents ; and that will prove,that neither the moral nor ceremo niallaw (place it in which you please) can be a pure covenant of works as Adam's was .

Moreover, in making this the promise which must relieve and comfort the distressed Israelites in the purest gospel-times, towards the end of the world, you as palpably contradict yourself in another respect ; for we shall find you by and by 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 of the world.

" If their uncircumcifedhearts be humbled, and if they accept "the punishment of their iniquites,then will I remember my

" covenant," &c.

But be this promise conditional or absolute,

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

two things are undeniably clear : (1.) That it is apromife full of grace, for the relief of law-tranfgreffors, ver. 40. (2.) That it was a mount Sinai promise, ver. 46. And such apromife as you can never shew in Adam's covenant.

Besides, it is to me an unaccountable thing, that a promise which hath a double comfortable aspect, 430 years back, and some thousands of years forward, should not cast one comfortable glance upon the penitents of the present age, when it was made, nor upon any till near the end of the world.

What think you, fir, of the 3000Jews pricked at the heart, Acts ii. had they no relief from it, because their lot fell not late enough in time ? Were the penitent Jews in Moses and Peter's days all born out of due time for this promise to relieve? O what shifting and shuffling is here !Who can think a man that twists and winds every way, to avoid the dint of an argument, can possibly have a moral assurance of the truth of his own opinion ?

(3.) You say, pag. 134.

That through Christ's satisfaction * there is no repugnancy, or hostile contrariety,betwixt the law

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

* is able to go through-stitch with it,which the law cannot do.

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

" shalt be saved ;" are not specifically different, but onlygra dually, in point of strength and weakness: and the reason you give is as strange, that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ .

Good fir, enlighten us in this rare notion.

Did Christ die to purchase a reconciliation betwixt the covenant of works as such, and the covenant of grace, as if both were now by the death of Christ agreed, and to be justified by works and by faith, should, after Christ's death, make no odds or difference between them ? I fit be so, why have you kept such a coil to prove Moses's and Adam's covenant, yea,

Abraham's too, being asovenant of works, can never consist or mingle with the gospel-covenant ? And then I say, you contradict the apostle, who so directly opposes the covenant of works as such, to the covenant of grace, Gal. iii. 18. and tells us they are utterly inconsistent and exclusive of each other; and this he spake after Christ's death and actual satisfaction. But,

(4.) That which more amazes me, is the strange answer you give toMr. Sedgwick, p. 132, 133. In your return to his argument, ' That if the law and the promise can consist, then

VOL. VIII.

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

• the law cannot be set up as a covenant of works. You answer, • That the law and the promise having divers ends, it doth not thence follow, that there is an inconsistence betwixt them, and that the law, even as it is a covenant of works, instead of ** being against the promise, tends to the establishment of it.

Andp. 133. that by convincing menoftheimpoffibilityof ⚫obtaining rest and peace in themselves, and the neceffityof

⚫betaking themselves to the promise,&c. the law 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 myself have urged to prove it cannot be so, as it is a pure Adam's covenant, but that therefore it must come

' under another consideration; only here we differ ; you fay it hath a bleffedfubferviency to the promise, as it is the fame with

Adam's covenant ; we say it can never be so as such, but as it is either a covenant of grace, thơ' moreobseure, ashe speaks ; or though the matter of it should be the fame with Adam's covenant, yet it is subservientlya covenant of grace, as others speak ; and under no other consideration can it be reconciled tothepromife.

But will you stand to this, that the law hath no hoftilecontradiction to the promise, but a blessedfubferviency to it, as you speak,p. 173. where you say, That if we preach up the •law as a covenant of life, or a covenant of faith and grace

(which are equipollent terms) let us distinguish as we please •between a covenant of grace absolutely andsubserviently such,

• then we make an ill use of the law,by perverting it to such a •serviceasGod neverintendedit for,and areguiltyofmingling

•law and gospel, life and death together."

Reply. Here, fir, my understanding is perfectly posed, and I know not how to make any tolerable orthodox sense out of this position: Is the law preached up as a pure covenant τ of works, (that is, pressing men to the personal and punctual obedience of it, in order totheirjuftification by works) noway repugnant to the promise, but altogether so, when preached insubserviency to Christ and faith ? This is new divinity with me, and I believe must be so to every intelligent reader.

Do not I oppose the promise, when I preach up the law as a pure covenant of works, which therefore as such must be exclusive of Christ and the promise ? And do I oppose either, when I tell sinners the terrors of the law serve only to drive them to Christ,their only remedy,who is " the end of the law

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

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sJolemn Call.

Are works and grace more consistent thangracewith grace!

Explain your meaning in this paradoxical expression, and leave not yourself and others in such amaze.

I read,Gal. iii. 19. for what end God published the law 430 years after the promise was made to Abraham, and find it was added because of transgression, προσετέθη, itwasputto,not set up by itself alone as a distinct covenant,but added as an 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 preach the law to the very fame evangelical uses and purposes for which God added it to the promise, do I therein make an ill use of the law, and mingle life and death together ? But preaching it, as apure covenantofworks, as it holds forthjustificationtosinnersby obedience to its precepts,do I then make itblessedlysubservient (as you speak) to the promise or covenant of grace ? The law was added because of transgression, that is, to restrain fin in the world, and to convince sinners under guilt, of the necessityofanother righteousness than their own, even that of Christ, and for the same ends God added it to the promise.

I always did, and still shall preach it, and I am persuaded, without the least danger of mingling law and gospel, life and death together, in your sense.

It is plain to me, that in the publication of the law on Sinai, God did not in the least intend to give them so much as a direction how toobtainjustificationbytheir most punctual obedience to its precepts, that being to fallen man utterly impossible ; and beside, had he promulgedthe law to that end and purpose, he had not added it, but directly opposed it to the promise ; which it ismanifestedhedid not; Gal. in. 21.

" Is the law then against the promise of God? God forbid."

And verse 18. makes it appear, that had it been setup to that endandpurpose, it had utterlydisannulledthe promise ; for if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more by promise. What thencanbeclearer, than that the law at Sinai was published with gracious gospel-ends and purposes, 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 falsely call it ; neither is it capable of becoming apure covenant of works toanyman, but by his own fault, in rejecting the righteousness of Christ, and seeking justification by the works of the law, as the mistaken carnal Jews did, Rom. x. 3. and other legal justiciaries now do. And upon this account only it isthatPaul, who so highly praises the law in its subserviency

A Reply to Mr. Cary's Jolemn Call. to Christ, thunders so dreadfully against it, as it is thus set by ignorant mistaken fouls in direct opposition to Christ.

(5thly,) And further, to clear this point, the apostle tells us, Rom. x. 4. " For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness

" to every one thatbelieveth." Whence I argue, That if A dam's covenant had an end, namely, the justification of men by their own personal obedience; and the law at Sinai had a quite contrary end, namely, to bringfinners to Christ by faith for their righteousness ; the one to keep 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 Christ; then that Sinai law cannot possibly be the same thing with Adam's covenant of works.

But the antecedent is true and plain in the forecited text, therefore so is the consequent.

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.

Take the law here either more strictly, for the moral law, or more largely, as it comprehendsthe ceremonial law, still Christ is the end of the law.

The moral law shuts up every man to Christ for righteousness, by convincing him (according to God's design in the publication of it) of the impossibility of obtaining justification in the way of works .

And the ceremonial law many ways prefigured Christ, his death and satisfaction, by blood, in our room, and so ledmen to Christ, their true propitiation ; and all its types were fulfilled and ended in Christ.

Was there any such thing in Adam's covenant ? You must prove there was, else you will never be 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 by Jesus Christ, the recalled the angel. " This is he that was in the church in the

"wilderness, with the Angel that spake to him in the mount " Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the lively oracles

"togiveuntous." Now, ifChristhimself were the Angel, and the precepts of the law delivered by him to Moses were the lively oracles of God, as they are exprefly affirmedto be ; then the law delivered on mount Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's covenant of works : for it is never to be imagined, that Jesus

Chrifthimselfshould deliver to Moses such a covenant,directly opposite to all the ends of his future incarnation ; and that those precepts (which, if they were of the same nature, and revived to the same end, at which Adam's covenant directly aimed)shouldbecalledthe lively oracles of God; when contrariwise, upon your supposition, they could be no other 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 Christ, theangelofthe cavenant, seems more than probable, by comparing it with the former verses.

(7thly,) Neither is it easy to imagine how such a covenant, which by the fallofAdam had utterly lost all its promises, privileges, and blessings, and could retainnothingbut the curses and punishments annexed to it, in case of the least failure, could possiblybenumbred among the chief privileges in which

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

•These things considered, with many more (which the intended brevity of this discourse willnotnowadmit) I am fully satisfied of the falsity of your position, and so may you too, when you shall review the 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 easily produce, did I not suspect these I have produced, have already prestyour patience a little too far: but i fever I shall see (which I never expect) a fair and scripturalsolutionof these weighty objections, you may expect from me more arguments against yourunfoundposition, which, at the present, Ijudgeneedless to add.

To conclude: These premises (as before I noted) can never be true, from whence such, and so many gross and notorious absurdities are regularly and unavoidably deducible. For ex veris nil nifi verum, from true premises nothing but truth can regularly follow.

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

But yet, tho' what I have faiddestroys your false position, I am not willing to leave you, or the reader ignorant, wherein the truth lies in this controvertedpointbetwixt us; and that will appear, by a due confiderationofthe following particulars .

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

A Reply to Mr. Cary's folenin Call... teousness, founded both in God'snature, and in man's; which, in its perfect state of innocency, was every way enabled perfectly to comply therewith : For the scripture tells us, Eccl. vii. 29. That God 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 of any fallen man.

There was not now 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, turning every way, were set to keep the way of the tree of life, Gen. iii. 24.

(3.) Soon after the violation of the covenant of works,God was graciously pleased to publish for the relief of mankind, now miserable and hopeless, the second covenant, which we call the covenant of grace, Gen. iii. 15. which is the first opening of the grace of God in Christ 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 promised feed should come. After the first opening of this new covenant, in the first promise of Christ, the first covenant is thut up for ever, as a covenant of life and salvation ; and all the world are shut up to the only way of salvation by Christ,

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

(4.) It is evident, however, that after the first opening of the promise of Christ, Gen. iii. 15. God foreseeing the pride offallenman,who naturallyinclines to a righteousness of his owninthewayofdoing, was pleased to revive the law of nature, as to its matter, in the Sinai dispensation ; which was

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

And this he did, 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 ; yet the 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 impossibility of obtaining righte ousness by the law, and so by a blessed necessity, to shut him up to Christ, his only remedy. And, (2.)To be a standing

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

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

But if we take the Sinai covenant more largely, as inclusiveoftheceremonialwiththemorallaw(as it isoftentaken, and is so by you, in theNewTestament;)then it did not only serve for a conviction of impotency, and a rule of duty; but exhibited and taught much of Christ, and the mysteries of the 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 yet setup as co-ordinate with it, with adefign toopentwodifferentways of salvation to fallen man; but was added to the promise in respect of its evangelical purposes and designs : On which account it is calledbysome a covenant of faith, or grace,

in respect of its subserviency untoChrift, who is the end of the law for righteousness,Rom. x. 4. and by others a subservient covenant, according to Gal. iii. 23, 24. And accordingly we find both tables of the law put into the ark,Heb. ix. 4. which shews their consistency and fubordination with, and to the method of falvationbyChrist in the new covenant.

(6.)This design and intention of God was fatally mistaken by the Jews, ever finceGodpromulgedthat law at Sinai, and was by them notoriously perverted to a quite contrary end to that whichGodpromulged it for, even to give righteousness and life, in the way of personal and perfect obedience; Rom. x. 3. " For they being ignorantofGod'srighteousness,andgo- " ingabout to establish theirownrighteousness, have notfub- " mittedthemselves unto the righteousness of God."

Hence Christ came to be flightedby them, and his righteousness rejected: For they rested in the law,Rom. ii. 17. were married to the law, as an husband,Rom. vii. 2, 3. and so might have no conjugal communion with Christ. However,Moses,Abraham, and all the elect, discerned Christ as the end of the law for righteousness, and were led to him thereby.

(7.) This fatal mistake of the use and intent of the law, is the ground of those seeming contradictions, in Paul's epiftles.

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

12, 14, 16. But as it was 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.

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

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call. sweetly reconciled : and it is a distinction of his own making,

1Tim. i. 8. " We know that the law is good, if we use 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 success in the proof of your second, thanyouhad in your first position. Andtoconvinceyou of your mistake, let us confider what the general nature of this ordinance of circumcision was; what its ends were ; and then prove, That it cannot be what you affirm it to be, the very fame covenant God made with

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

(1.) Circumcision,in its general nature,was, ( 1.)An ordinance of God's own institution,in the gyth year of Abraham's age ; at which time of its institution, God renewed the covenant with him, Gen. xvii. 9, 10.

( 2.) That it consisted (as all sacraments do) of an external sign, and a spiritual mystery signified thereby.

The external part of it(which we call the sign) was the cutting off the fore-skin of the genital part of the He brewmales, on the eighth day from their birth.

The spiritual mystery thereby signified and represented, was the cutting off the filth and guilt of fin from their souls, by regeneration and justification, called "the circumcision of the heart," Deut. x.

16. And though this was laid upon them by 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 thy God 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 called the " token of the 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 circumcision was instituted and ordained of God: Of which these were the principal.

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

For which reason, this natural corruption goes in scripture

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

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

26.

(2.) It also signified the putting off of this bodyoffin, in the virtue of Christ's death, Col. ii. 11 .

(3.) It was appointedtobethe initiating sign of the cove nant, or a token of their matriculation, and admission into the church and covenant of God, 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 to the covenant, and without God in the world. And accordingly both parties were, from this ordinance, denominatedthe circumcision, and the uncircumcifion, Col. iii. 11 .

(5.) It was also an obliging sign to Abraham and his feed, to walkwithGodin the uprightness and fincerityoftheirhearts, in the performance of all covenantedduties ; in which duties,

Abraham, and the faithful, walked obediently with God, looking to Christ for righteousness : but the carnal Jews resting in,and trusting to those duties and ordinances for righteousness and justification, made it a covenant of works to themselves, and circumcision itself a bond of that covenant.

(6.) Now, forasmuch as circumcision prefigured Christ, who was to come of this holy circumcised seed of Abraham , and his death also was pointed at therein, Heb. ii. 16. Col. ii. 11. of necessity this ordinance must vanish at the death of Christ ; and accordingly did so.

These things duly pondered, how irrational is it to imagine this covenant of circumcision to be the very fame with theparadifical covenant ? Did that covenant discover native corruption,and direct to its remedy in Christ, as this did ? Surely it gave not the leaftglimpse of any such thing. Did that covenant separate and distinguish one person from another, as this did?

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

Had A dam's covenant a seal of the righteousness of faith an-. nexed to it, as this had ? Rom. iv. 11. " He received circum- "cision, a feal of the righteousness of faith."

The righteousness of faith is evangelical righteousness ; and this circumcision sealed. Say not it was to Abraham only that it sealed it ; for it is an injurious restriction put upon the seal ofa covenant, which extended to the fathers as well as to Abraham, Luke i.

72. But you admit, however, that it sealed evangelical righteousness to Abraham : but Ihopeyou will not say,that a feal of the covenant of works ever did, or could, seal evangelical righteoufnesstoanyindividual person in the world. So then,

VOL. VIII.

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

4 turnwhichwayyou will, this truth still follows you, and will fasten upon you, that the covenant of circumcision was not a pure covenant of works, but a 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 to be no part of the covenant of works ; then circumcision is no part of the covenant of works, even by your own confession.

But it is ; ergo, That it is a part of the ceremonial law, was never doubted, or denied by any man: that it was dedicated by blood, and therefore no part of the moral law, 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 distinction betwixt the ceremonial covenant, which was dedicated by blood,and the law written in tables of stone ; which was not so dedicated, and therefore could not bethe same with the moral law, which you make the covenant of works ; telling him, that this dedication by blood ought to distinguish it from the moral law, or Sinai covenant of works, as you say it doth, and ought to do; how then can circumcision be the fame with, and yet quite another thing from the Sinai covenant ? Was the ceremonial law dedicated by blood ? Yes, the apostle plainly asserts it,fromExod. xxiv. 7,

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

" and took the blood, and sprinkled it upon the people, and " said,Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath

" madewithyou, concerning these things." But what kind of covenant then was this covenant that was sprinkled with blood?

You tell us, p. 147, it could not possibly be the law written in stones, (which you make the covenant of works) ; but was indeed another covenant, delivered at a distinct season, and in a distinct method.

What covenant then must this be, seeing it could not possibly (as you say) be the Sinai covenant written in stones ? It must either be the covenant of grace, or none. No, say you, that it was not, neither ; for it was of the fame nature with, and is no other than a covenant of works, p. 151.

It was 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 the covenant of works) that was not sprinkled with blood;and say you, p.

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

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

Sedgwick's, that that covenant which was so confirmed by blood, must of necessity be confirmed by the blood of Christ also ; p. 148 .

But, fir, the truth you oppose, viz. That the book of the ceremonial law 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 or type of Christ's own blood ? Whose blood was it then, if not Christ's?

Howdareyou call this anungroundedsupposition?Was not that blood typical blood? And what,I pray you, was the antitype, butChrift'sblood ? And did nottheholyGhost signify the one by the other ? Heb. ix. 8. I stand amazed at these things !

You distinguish, and confound all again. You say, it could not possibly be the fame with the law written in stone : and you say, it is clear both were of the same nature, no other than a covenant of works. At this rateyoumaysaywhat you please; for I fee contradiction is no crime in your book.

Argument II.

If circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith, it did not pertain to the covenant of works ; for the righteousness of faith and works are opposites, and belong to two contrary covenants.

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

Therefore it pertains not to the covenant of works, but grace.

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

And what is your reply to this ? Certainly as strange a one as ever I met with; p. 105. you fay, It is true, circumcifiom was a feal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham ; but it was so to him only in his extraordinary circumstances ; but it was not fo to any ofbis natural feed in its ordinary use.

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

A a 2

A Reply 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 more than any other believer ; and that Abraham had nothing to glory in before God.

But to restrain, as you do, the public feal ofa covenant, that comprehended and equally concerned the whole church and people of God, to one single person , so that neither Isaac nor Jacob, who were by name enrolled in that great charter, should have any right to the seal of it, is such a conceit as amazes an intelligent reader. WeknowAbraham was the first that received it, but utterly deny that he received it only for himself ; but he received it as the father of all them that believe, whether Jews orGentiles, as the very next words tell us, "He received it, that he might

" be the father of all them that believe ;" that is, for himself, and all his spiritual children. One halfofthissacramentofcircumcifion you allow, p. 205. to the rest that were under it, viz. to be afign of the covenant ; but the other half you cut off, andfay, it was only afeal to him. What good vouchers have you for this exposition of the text ? Have you the concurrence of orthodox expositors ? Or is it the rash and bold adventure of your own head ? I am sure it no ways agrees with the drift and scope of the Apostle's argument, which evidently is to prove, that both Jews andGentiles are justified by faith, as Abraham was ; and that the ground ofjustificationandblesfedness is common both to the uncircumcised Gentiles, and

circumcised Jews ; and that Abraham and all other believers, have but one way of justification, and salvation, and that how great soever Abraham was, in this case he hath found nothing whereof to glory, ver. 1, 2. And is not your exposition a notable one, to prove the community of the privilege of justification, because the feal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone?

Rectify it, and better confider it.

Argument III.

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

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

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

This is so plain and clear,that none can doubt or deny it, that understands the nature of the 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 I met with took before you, and that is this ,youboldlycutAbraham's covenant,Gen.xvii. into two parts, and make the first to be the pure covenant of grace, which is the promissory part, to the ninth verse; and the reftipulation (as you call it,p. 205.) to be as pure a covenant of works. What hard shift willfome men make to maintain their opinion! You say truly,p. 205, that at the 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 and the reftipulation make two covenants ; or aretheyjust and necessary parts of one and the same covenant ? You also tell us, that the covenant, Gen. xvii. 1, 2, 3, 4. was a plain transcriptofseveralfreepromises of the gospel under thedenominationofacovenant. But why then don't you take the restipulation, ver. 7, 8 ,9, 10. to be a part of it? O no ; there is something required on Abraham's and his posterity's part; theymustbe circumcised, and that spoils all.

Why but, fir, if the requiring of circumcision alters the case so greatly, as to make it a quite contrary covenant; how comes it to pass, that inthecovenanttoAbraham, he himself was first required to be circumcised ? Why, this is the reason; here is somewhat required on their part as a condition ; and a condition quite alters thenatureofthe covenant.

Very well; but tell me then why you say, p. 223, and in many other places, that the covenant made with Abraham, inGen. xii. was a gospel covenant ; and yetthereAbraham is obliged to walk before God, and be perfect? Does not that also there alter the nature of the covenant, aswellashere in theseventeenthchapter ? You also grant, the covenantmadewith Abraham, Gen. xxii. was apuregospel-covenant; orifyoudeny it,the apostle proves it, Heb. vi. 13. And yetthereismoreappearanceof respect to Abraham's obedience in that covenant, than is in submitting to circumcision : see

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

" I will bless thee ; and in multiplying,I will multiply thee."

I will trouble you, 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 in the following verses make a covenant of works, because it thereby becomes conditional; then tell me, if you please, whether whatGodgracioufly granted to Abraham in the former verses benotallnulled,and made voidagainby their reftipulation ?

Does not this seemhar ? HereyouhavebroughtAbraham,

Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

Isaac, and Jacob, and all the believers of Abraham's race,just into the fame case you brought Moses and all the Ifraelites before, under two opposite covenants, where one cuts off all that the other granted.

But there is a stronger reason urged than the conditionality of the covenant, to prove it a covenant of works ; and that is, circumcision is made the condition of Abraham's covenant ; and that is the worst of all conditions, for it obliges a man to keep the whole law, Gal. v. 3. it is the yoke of bondage, and to whatsoever covenant it be so annexed, it makes it become a bondage legal covenant.

" If we be circumcised, Christ shall " profit us nothing." Thus it was in the covenant, Gen. xvii.

Great use is made of this in many parts of your discourse.

But, fir, you are greatly mistaken in applying these texts to the purposes you do ; for the apostle all along in that epiftle to the Galatians, argues against the false teachers, who taught and pressed the necessity of circumcision, as a bond obliging them to the strict and perfect obedience of the 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 circumcision it is that the apostle argues thus, and tells them, that in submitting to it on that account, they made the death of Christ of no effect, and obligedthemselvesby it to the whole law ; for circumcision did not simply and absolutely, in the nature of the work or action, oblige men to the whole law in the way of justification by it, but it did so from the intention of the worker, and the supposition offuch an opinion of it, and design in it, for in itself, and with respect to God's design in the institution of it ; it was to be a feal of the 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 such as were born of Jewish parents : Thus Paul himself circumcised Timothy, his mother being a Jewess, Acts xvi. 1, 3. but Titus, being a Greek, was not circumcised, and that because of these false teachers, thatwouldmake an ill use of that their liberty, Gal. ii. 3, 4.

ThisPaul could never have done, in case circumcision, in the nature of the act, had bound Timothy to keep the 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 from the intention of the agent; and therefore, as the apostle

A Reply to Mr. Gary's solemn Call.

rightly argues, ifamanbe circumcised with a design tobejustifiedby it, he would thereby bind himself to the whole law, and frustrate the death of Christ to himself ; but it was now to have its funeral with all other parts of the ceremonial law, which vanished, and were accomplished in the death of Christ ; and it falling out that such a vile use was made of it at that time, the apostle thus thunders against it.

Had this been observed, as also the like abuse of the moral law, you would have known how to have reconciled the apostle's encomiums of them both, with his sharp invectives against the one and the other.

But being ignorant of these two great and necessary distinctions of the law, according to God's intention in the promulgation of it at Sinai, and the carnal Jewsfenfe of it, 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 to the ground at one stroke; your medius terminushavingonesensein yourmajorproposition, and another in your minor ; and so every argument hath four terms in it, as will easily be evincedby the particular consideration of the respective places from whence you draw them.

So in like manner, in your arguing here against circumcision, as a bond to keep the whole law, and as such vacating the death of Christ, is a stumble at the same stone, not distinguishing as you ought to have done, betwixt an obligation arising out of the nature of the work, and out of the end and intention of the workers ; and this every learned and judicious eyewilleafilydifcern. But we proceed to Argument IV.

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

This ordinance 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 out that genital part by which original fin was propagated, Gen. xvii. 11. Psal. li.

1. To this the sign of the covenant is applied in circumcision, for the 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 necessity and true way of mortifying their lusts, in the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, whereof baptism, that succeeds it, is a sign now, as circumcision was then; as is plain from Col. ii. 11, 12. " In whom al

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

" soye are circumcised with the circumcision made without " hands, in puttingoffthe body of the fins of the flesn by the " circumcifionofChrift, buried with him in baptism,where- " in alsoye are risen with him, through the faith of the ope

" ration of God, who raised him from the dead."

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

God's people, and the heathens, who wereaccordinglydenominated from it, the circumcision and the uncircumcifion, the holy feed and the Gentiles ; and now under the New Testament,the children of Abraham by faith, and the children of the flesh : This also shews it cannot be the covenant of works ; for in that covenant all are equally and alike concluded under fin and misery, Eph . ii. 3. and there is no difference made by that covenant betwixt person and person, state and state.

If this be not enough to evince, that the covenant of circum cisionis a covenant of grace, I promise you many more arguments to prove it, as soon as I shall find these refuted, and your contrary assertion well discharged from the gross abfurditieswith which it is clogged and loaded. You seehowge nuine, natural, andcongruous to scripture the notion of it as a covenant of grace is, and all the world may fee how harsh, alien, and repugnant to scripture your notion of circumcision, as a covenant of works, is.

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

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

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

Pray, fir, confider where-ever God commands typical blood to be applied, it relates to Christ's blood spiritually applied, of to nothing.

Are not you forced, indefence of your erroneous thesis, to say with Bellarmine, That circumcision was extraordinary in its institution, and applied as a feal to none but Abraham himself? It excludedevenIfaac, the type of Christ,andJacob,

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

a princewithGod. O what will not men venture upon in defence of their darling opinions !

Are you not forced,for your security from the danger of the third argument, to cut one of the fame covenants made with Abrahamjuft in two, and of the pure promissory part to make a covenant of grace ; and of the other part, which you yourself call a reftipulation, to make another quite opposite covenant ? Do not you magnify the bounty and grace of God to Abraham in the first four verses, and then destroy it all, by putting him at once under a contrary covenant, and so cut off all capacity to enjoy one of those mercies ?

Do not you make circumcision, in its own nature, without respect to the intention of the person, an obligation to the whole law, and that which frustrates the death of Christ, and yetmuft grant, that Paul himself took Timothy, and circumcised him, and yet thereby brought him under no such dangerous obligation to the law ? Ina word,

You reject all those covenants as legal, that have any condi tions in them, or respect to anything that is to bedonebyus, and allow Gen. xii. and Gen. xxii. to be pure gospel covenants of grace ; and yet in the first,Abraham is bound to "walk be- " foreGod and be perfect ;" and in the other God faith,

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

And so much for Abraham's covenant.

III. Of the conditionality of the new covenant.

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

Seepag. 229.

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

17, 18. was wholly free and absolute, and therefore purely evangelical, &c. We will review these things anon, and fee if you truly represent the matter; but in order to it, let me tell you,

First, What we mean by a gospel-condition.

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

VOL. VIII.

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn 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 of the covenant, we do not mean in the stricteit rigid sense of the word, such areftipulation to God from man of perfect obedience in his own person, at all times, foas the least failure therein forfeits all the mercies of the covenant ; that is rather the condition of Adam's covenant of works, than of the evangelical covenant: nor do we assert anymeri torious condition, that in the nature of an impulsive cause shall bringman into the covenant and its privileges, orcontinuehim in when brought in.

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

But plainly and briefly, our question is, Whether there be notfomething as an act required of us in point of duty, to a blessing confequent by virtue of a promise ? Such a thing, whatever it be, 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 in the thing so required, to oblige the disposer to make or perform the grant or promise, but merely that it be antecedent to the enjoyment of the benefit ; and that the difpofer of the benefit do suspend the benefit until it be 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 of the said 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 " of words to a grant, for the future, ofa suspending quality,

" according to which the difpofer will have 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 such your brethren, in their narrative, pag. 14. do acknowledge faith to be, when they assert none can be actually reconciled, justified, or adopted, till they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by faith; and so, by virtue of this their union with him, have these fundamental benefits

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

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

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

actually conveyed unto them ; which contains the proper notion of the condition we contend for.

And such a condition offalvation we affertfaith to be in the new covenant grant ; that is to say, the grant of salvation by God in the gospel-covenant is suspended from all men, till they believe, and is due by promise, not merit, to them as soon as they do truly believe. The notes or signs 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 for the future, they make that promise conditional , and your grammar (according to which 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 blessings and privileges of the New Testament. As for example ; Mark ix.

23. ει δύνασαι πισέυσαι, " If thou 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 inserted in the grants of benefits .

(2.) Having shewn you what the nature of a condition is, I shall, I hope, make it plain to you, that faith is such a condition in the gospel-grant of our salvation ; 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 righteousness was, he tells us there what the gospel-condition of salvation is ; " The righteousness which is of faith, speaketh on " this wife; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the " Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart, that God raised

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

I ask you, fir, whether it be possible to put words into a frame more lively ex-. pressive of a condition than these are ? Do but compare Mark xvi. 16. " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned:" Do but comBb 2

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. pare, I say, that scripture-phrase with the words ofJacob'sfont, which all allow to be conditional, Gen. xliii. 4, 5. " If thou

" wilt send our brother with us, we will go down; but if thou " wiltnotsendhim,we will notgodown ;" andjudgewhether the one be not as conditional as the other: more particularly,

Argument I.

If we cannotbejustified or saved till we believe, then faith is the condition on which those consequent benefits are suspended.

But we cannot be justified or savedtillwe believe ; Ergo, The sequel of the major is evident ; for, as we said before, a condition is the suspension ofagranttill something future be done.

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

" imputed to him ; but for our sakes also, to whom it shall be " imputedifwe believe."

Οις μέλλει λογιζεσθαι, Quibus futurum eft ut imputetur, to whom it shall come to pass, that it shall be imputed, if we believe; And Acts x. 43. " Whosoever be- " lieveth on him, shall receive remission of sins."

John iii, 36. " He thatbelieveth not, shall not fee life,but the wrath of " God abideth on him;" with multitudes more. Now, fir, lay seriouflybefore your eyes such scriptures as these, that promise salvation to believers, and threaten damnation to all unbelievers, as Mark xvi. 16. doth, and then give a plain 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 sinners,as sinners ; and confequentlyall sinners shall be damned,whethertheybelieve or believe not : or else, if you allow neither to be absolute, but that none can be saved till they believe, nor any damned when they do believe ; is not that a conditional promise and threatening ?

Argument II.

If God'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 of the promises ; then the covenant of grace is not absolute, but cont ditional.

But so it was in both thesecovenants ; Erga, The minor only requires proof; for which let us have recourse to the places, and see whether it be so or not.

(1.) For the first you instance in as apure gospel-covenant made with Abraham, Gen. xii.2, 3. I must confess,as you

A Reply 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 in the world to become absolute: for take but 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 had been his ? I must plainly tell you, you assume a strange liberty in this matter, and make a great deal 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 gospel-covenant ; whenindeedyou made it so,by leaving out the first verse,which contains the condition or duty required on Abraham'spart : for thus run the three first verses; "And when

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

" thou before me, and be thou perfect, and Iwillmakemy co- " venantbetween me and thee," &c. Here an upright conversation before God is required of him, at God's entrance into this covenant with him ; but that is, and must be omitted,and cutoff, to make the covenant look absolute.

I am really grieved to seethe scriptures thus dealt with to serve adefign!

Argument III.

If all the promises of the gospel be absolute and unconditional, requiring no reftipulation from man, then they cannot properly and truly belong to the new covenant.

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

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

Testament cuts off their relation to a covenant; but that it doth so, noman can deny, that understands the difference between a covenant and an absolute promise. A covenant is a mutual compact or agreement betwixt parties, in which they bind each other to the performance of what they respectively promise, so that there can be no other proper covenant where there is not areftipulation or re-obligation of one part, as well as apromife on the other: but an absolute promise binds only one party, and leaves the other wholly free andunobliged to

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. any thing, in order to the enjoyment of the good promised.

So then, if all the New Testament promises be unconditional and absolute, they are not part of a covenant, nor must that word be applied to them ; they are absolute promises, binding nomantowhomthey are made to any duty, in order to the enjoyment of the mercies promised: But those persons that are under these absolute promises, must and shall enjoy the mercies of pardon and salvation, 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 asserted, 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 what God never intended them to be..

And the famefoulplay is inDeut. xxx. where you separate the plainconditioncontained inver. 1, 2. from the promise, ver.

Or if the condition, ver. 1, 2. be not plain enough, but youwillmake it part of the promise, I hope that after, in ver.

10. is too plain to be denied. As to the other texts, more anon; meantime see how you 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 of grace, properly so called.

Sol. It is true, if those works or acts of ours, which God 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 entire glory to God ; Eph . ii . 5, 8 .

Object. But you will fay, If faith be the condition, and that faith be not of ourselves, then both the promise and the condition are on God'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 of God ; else it would follow, when we act any grace, as faith, repentance, or obedience, that God believes, repents, and obeys in us, and it is not we, butGodthatdoth all these.

This, I hope, you will

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

not dare to assert; they are truly our works, though wrought in God's strength ? Ifa. xxvi. 12. " Lord, thou hast wrought

" all our works in us;" i. e. though they be our works, yet they are wrought in us by thy grace or strength .

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

I know no orthodox divine in the world, that presumes to thrust in any work of man's into the covenant of grace, as a condition, which, in the Arminian sense, he may or may not 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 con dignity or congruity in the Popish sense, in the very justifying act of faith, for the which God justifies and save us. But we say, That tho' God, in the way of preventing grace, works faith in us, and when it is so wrought, we need his assisting grace to act it, yet neither his assisting nor preventing grace makes the act of faith no more to be our act ; it is we that believe still tho' in God's strength, and that upon our believing,or not believing,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 interest in Christ, by marks and signs of grace, is not our duty, nor can we take comfort in sanctification, as an evidence of our justification.

But it is a Christ an's duty to try his interest in Christ by marks and signs ; and he 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 signor evidence of an interest in Christ, which that interest may be without ; yea, and as * Dr. Crifpe asserts, according to his Antinomian principles,

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

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

' he)before we have gracious qualifications; every true 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 Christ maybe where these are not, then they are no proper marks or signs ; and if they are not, it cannot be our duty to make use of them as such, and consequently if we should, they can yield us no comfort.

The minor is plain in scripture ; I John ii. 3. " Hereby we " doknowthatwe know him, if we keep his commandments."

The meaning is, we perceive and discern ourselves to be sincere believers, and consequently that Christ is our propitiation, when obedience to his commands is become habitual and easy to us; 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 sincere cordial love to Christ and his members, as ver. 18. this shall demonstrate to us, that we are the children of truth ; and again, I John iii. 14. "We know that we are passed from " death to life; because we love the brethren :" With multititudes more to the same purpose,which plainly teach Christians to fetch the evidences of their justification out of their fanctification, and to prove their interest in Christ,by the works of his Spirit found in their own hearts.

And this is not only a Christian's liberty,but his commanded duty to bring his interest in Christ to this touchstone, and test; 2 Cor. xiii. 5. " Examine yourselves, prove yourselves,"

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

No man can make his election sure a prior i, nor can any make it surer than it is infe; therefore it is only capable of being made sure to us a posterior i ; arguing from the work of fanctification in us, to God's eternal choice of us.

And as the faints in all ages have taken this course, so they have taken great and lawful comfort in the use of these marks and signs of grace ; 2 Kings xx. 3. 2 Cor. i. 12.

I am sensible how vehemently the Antinomianparty, Dr.

Crifpe, Mr. Eyre, and some others, do oppugnthis truth, representing it as legal and impracticable (for they are for the abfoluteandunconditional nature of the new covenant, as well as you) ; but by your espousing their principle, you have even runAnabaptifm intoAntinomianism ; and must, by this principle of yours, renounce all marks and trials of an interest in Christ,by any work of the Spirit wrought in us. You must only stick to the immediate sealings of the Spirit; which, if such a thing be at all, it is but rare and extraordinary.

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

I will not deny but there may bean immediate testimony of the Spirit; but fufureI am his mediate testimony by his graces in us, is his usual way of sealing believers. We do not affirm any of these his works to be meritorious causes of our justification; or that, considered abstractly from the Spirit, they can of themselves feal, or evidence our interest in Christ :

Neither do we affirm, that any of them are complete and perし sect works ; but this we say, that they being true and sincere, though imperfect graces, they are our úsual and fstanding evidences, to made out our interest in Christ by.

And I hope you, and the whole Antinomian party, will find it hard, yea, and impossible, to remove the faints from that comfortable and scriptural way of examining their interest in Christ, by the graces of his Spirit in them; as the saints, who are gone to heaven before them, have done in all generations.

Argument V.

If the covenant of grace be altogether absolute and unconditional, requiring nothing to be done on our part, to entitle us to its benefits, then it cannot be man'sduty in entring covenant with God, to deliberate the terms, count the cost, or give his consentbyword or writing, explicitly to the terms of this covenant.

But itisman'sdutyinentring covenant with God, todeliberatetheterms, and count the cost ; Luke xiv. 26, to 34. and explicitly to give his consentthereunto, either by word or writing: Ergo,

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

The minor is undeniable in the text cited: If you say, These are duties, but not conditions ; I reply, they are such duties, without the performance of which we can have no benefit by

Christ and the new covenant, Luke xiv. 33. And such duties have the true suspending nature of conditions in them.

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

we explicitly declare our consent to the terms of the covenant, at our first entering into the bond of it, I hope you will not say, that it isa legal covenant too ; Ifa. xliv. 3, 4. " I will pour

"water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry "ground: I will pour my Spirituponthyfeed, and my blef

VOL . VIII.

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

66" sing upon 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 himself by the " name of Jacob ; and another shall subscribe with his hand

" unto the Lord," &c. A plainallufion to soldiers, when they lift themselves under a captain, or general.

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

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

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

All that I am further concerned about, is to examine to many 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 of this discourse, whereon we establish the right of infants baptism ; and to vindicate those scriptures from your strained and injurious interpretations of them :

Whichbeingdone, they will each of them stand in those eminent places of service, where they have been 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,to throw the gantlet, and bid defiance to two such worthies yet alive, and easily able to detect your folly, in the weakness and impertinency of your answers. Alas ! my friend, you little know what it is to have such weak and inartificial difcourses as yours brought under the strict examen of such acute and judicious eyes.

But, Sic dam a leonem Infequitur, audetque viro concurrere virgo.

Nor will I presume to anticipate either of their answers to your discourse (if they shall think it worthy of an answer) ;

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn 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 of defend-ingtheir folidand regular interpretations of scriptures, against the notions you force upon them, contrary both to the grammar and scope of several of them.

And here, fir, in the beginning, let me mind you what a learned and judicious person saith, about all interpretations of scriptures :

Four things (faith he) commend an interpret at i- ⚫on, and establish it as a king upon the throne, against whom

⚫there is no rising up.'

First, If the latter and grammar of the text fairly bear it.

Secondly, If the scope and argument of the placewillclose directly with it.

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

Fourthly, If the judgment of learned, wife, and impartial men be found generally agreeable to it.

According to these rules (whereat you can have no just exception) I shall briefly, yet I hope clearly and sufficiently, answer some of the replies you make to the arguments of those deceased worthies : And, (1.) Inpag. 1. you produce Mr. William Allen's argument, ad hominem, against your practice : ' He tells you, your own principle condemns you ; for you reject thebaptizing of infants, 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 sum of your reply is, That tho' it should be granted, that there is no express example for • the baptizing such in scripture, yet there are examples enough concerning the baptism 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 adult persons, upon the personal profession of their faith.' I have done it myself, and, in like circumstances, am ready to do it again.

Once you clearly yield it, that you have no precedent nor example for your practice in the gospel : That is all that he seeks, and what he seeks,you plainly grant. As to the precept and examples of baptizing adult believers, whose parents were unbelievers, and themselves never baptized in infancy, that is

Cc2 :

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call not the point you are now to speak to; nor have we any con troverfyabout it.

Certainly you are none of the fittest persons in the world to clamour so loudly against us, forwantofexpress precedents for infants baptism, whilst yourself confesses, you want even one precedent in the New Testament to legitimate your own practice ; and in the meantime are found in the sinful neglect of a sweet and heavenly gospel-ordinance, viz. the singing ofpfalms, for which you have both precept i and precedent in the gospel, Col. iii. 16. James v. 13. 1 Cor. xiv. 26.

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

That if the commission, Matth. xxviii. excludes none from baptism, but such as are to be excluded by the order therein to be observed ; and ifbaptizing and teaching are to precede, or follow one the other, as there named by Christ, then these two conclusions will follow.

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

• πάντα ταέθνη, disciple all nations;make them disçiples, or Christians. Secondly,We haveΒαπτιζοντες και διδασκοντες ; which literally to translate, 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, whereas the other two are participles : it is manifest, that the whole command, or commission, is given in that, and the mode of execution in these. And if the mode of executing that general commission be expressed in these, where baptizing is first, and teaching comes after; what is become of the orderoftheAntipoedobaptists that have been so long talked of??

11.

The sum of your answer is, That ifbaptizing be first, and • teaching comes after ; then it will follow, that the apostles understood nottheircommiffion aright; for they first preached, and then baptized them that by their preaching believed,

Acts viii . Acts x. Acts ii, with many other places you heap up to the same purpose. And therefore infants must be excluded by thatcommiffion,because uncapableofbeing taught.

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

Reply. It had been more modest to suspect that you 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 cannot deny)

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

puts teaching after baptizing. And though we should allow you, that theydiscipled adult persons by teaching, and taught others baptized in infancy, after their baptizing them ; in both they followed their order and commission, in difcipling the parentsbypreaching, and teaching their children baptized,by virtue of the promise to them,after their baptism.

For he declares, Acts ii. " the promise is to them, and to their chil " dren;" which gives a right to both unto baptism: And fo teaching, according to the order of this commission, may bean antecedentduty to the parent, and a subsequent duty to him andhisbaptizedchildren.

For ifΜαθητευσαλε includes teaching beforebaptizing, why should notΔιδασοκλες, which is put after baptizing, respect the subsequent duty of teaching both the one and other?

(3.) Mr. Allen's next argument, mentionedbyyou,pag. 5. is taken from Matth. xix. 14. " Suffer little children to come

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

Whence he argues against your objection, of the incapacity of infants for baptism; that if they are capable of interest, or membership in the kingdom of heaven, or church, they are equally capable of the sign or cognizance, which is baptism.

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

(2.) It is doubtful, whether they • were for the present in the kingdom of God, or were only elected, and so in time should be of his kingdom. And (3.) whatever they were, they were brought unto Christ, 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 Christ's taking them in his arms, but from the very notation of the word Παιδια, a diminutive word, signifying a little child, or infant.

So John was called, when new-born, Luke i. 76.

And Christ, when he lay in the manger ; and Moses, when among the flags. And if this be not enough, St. Luke gives them another name, Luke xvii. 15. Τα βρεφη, infants ; a word given to a child in the womb, Luke i. 41. And for what you object out of Pifcator, that the fame word is used of 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 infant state, in which state these were

Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. that were brought unto Christ. And, (2.) Whereas you question their present right in the kingdom of God, 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, asserted by Christ, is also a known rule, to regulate for the future the disciples carriage towards them ; which was too severe, harsh, and therefore highly displeasing to Christ : Butbytellingthem they were members of the church, or kingdom of heaven, (they being very probably the infants of believing parents, as their bringing them unto Christ with such affection, through the frowns andrepulfes of the disciples, shews) he gives them a known and plain rule, how to distinguish infants, and regulate their carriage towards them ; which God's election can never be, that being 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 assert it, whence he faith, offuchis the kingdom of heaven. And though you use to quibble at the word 1οικίων, of such, as though it respected not the present infants, but grown persons, resembling them in humble and innocent qualities ; Mr. Sydenham hath sufficiently baffled that interpretation, by shewing its inconfiftencewith the scope and argument of that place, and how ridiculous this sense would be, when reduced to a formal argument.

(4.) The fourth argumentyoupretendto answer,pag. 8. is drawn from 1 Cor. vii. 14. " Else wereyourchildrenunclean,

" but now are they holy."

To this you answer two things :

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

Reply. If this bethe true and genuine sense of this text, then all the children in the world, not immediately descended from one, or both believing parents, must of necessity be all bastards ; their parents, how solemnly soever married, must live inuncleanness : And what mad work (think you) will this affsertionmake in the world ? And how many millions of persons will itnearlytouch, both in point ofhonour and inheritance?

(2.) You say, thought he holiness here spoken of, should be

A Reply to Mr. Gary's solemn Call.

allowed to be a fœderal, or covenant holiness ; yet for want of an express institution, it will not warrant our practice.

Reply. The holiness of the children being granted to be a covenant holiness, none can deny them to be within the covenant : how else come they to be holy by covenant ? And if within the covenant, who can deny them the initiating sign, which is baptism ? Or how shall they (ordinarily) be visibly admitted into the visible church without it ? The connection betwixt their fœderal holiness, and right to baptism, will appear plain enough from Acts ii. 38. which you come next to speak to.

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

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

For the promise is unto you, and to your " children, and unto all that are afar off, even as many as the " Lord our God shall call."

On this text, you know, we lay a very great 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 a promise of any external privileges, but the promise of the gospel, or the grace of God in Christ Jesus.'

Secondly, ' That the promise was not to their children, as believers feed, nor to them, or any other uncalled by the Lord; but only a promise 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 of your 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 world know, how we expound it, and whatweduly infer from that exposition of it; and then let the reader judge, whether by the fore-mentioned rules of a just interpretation, you or we are in the right.

(1.) We observe this famous text to contain the first argument used by the apostle, after Christ's ascension, to persuade the Jews to embrace Christianity, by repenting, andfubmitting themselves to baptifin, the initiating sign 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

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call. scope of this place, is to persuade 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 then there 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 to thy feed after thee." The adjoining of their children to them, faith Calvin, (and with him runs the general current of expositors) depends on the words of that promise, Genxvii. 6. If you be not satisfied with this, but ra ther will refer it to Joel ii. 28. you are then obliged to answer

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

And then the sense must be this; the promise shall run as before, " to you and to your children."

(4) We say,that except it had had relation to the covenant with Abraham, there had been no occasion, or reason at all, hereto have mentioned children as well as parents : " The "pronise is to you, and to your children." Ithadbeenenough; if he had only intended the believing parents, exclusive of their infant-feed, to have said,The promise is made to " as many as the Lord our God shall call."

What reason, or occasion, was there to bring in their children at all?

(5.) We find here the children both of believing Jews and Gentiles,mentioned in the promise, accompanying the precept of baptism ; and the precept to them built on the promise, as that which gave them their title to baptism ; Υμιν γαρ επαγγελίας,

" For the promise is to you, and to your children." In the same line thathementionsbaptism,healsomentioristhepromiseuponwhichtheirright is founded; and in the same breath with i whichhementionstheirchildren,healsomentionsthepromife: which he would never have done,had his design,been to have excluded their children from both, or either of them; especiallyfeeing their children had been so long in the poffeffionof both.

These things are obvious, natural, and every wayagreealole, both to the grammar and scope of the text. Whence we argue :

Arg. Ifthepromisebethe same to believers under the gospel, 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 had to circumcision

But the promise is the same : Ergo,&c.

Next let usconfideryour answers.

A Reply to Mr. Gary'sfolemn Call.

(1.) You lay, The promise, here spoken of, is not a promise of any external privilege, but the promise of the gospel.

Reply. Your distinction is vain and groundless; for it opposeth promises, that contain external privileges, to gospel promises, contrary to 1 Tim. iv. 8. "Godliness hath the promise

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

Secondly, Circumcision then,and baptifmnow, which have both their foundation in that promise, contain privileges in them of both forts. This no mancandeny, but he that thinks it no privilege to be admitted into the visible church, by the external initiating sign, and to be thereby distinguished from the Pagan world. You have no warrant, therefore, to divide those things which God hath united.

(2.) You say, The promise was not to them as believers feed, nortoany uncalled by the Lord.

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

Let this your interpretation be compared with, and examined by the scope of the text, which you confessed before to be a motive to persuade them and theirs to repentance and baptism, and fee if it can stand before it, as ours doth.

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

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

• feed, and the promite formerly was to them as well as you ; • but now the case 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 case, 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, but no morethanthe children of Pagans and infidels, which upon repentance shall be equal with

• them. " Repent ye therefore,and be baptized; for the pro- • " mise is unto you, and to your children."

This, and no other, 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, in whom hepromiled to be the God of him, and • his feed; yea, and of allbelievingGentiles, as well as Jews

• and their children: do not you therefore, by your unbelief, • deprivebothyourselves, and your 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, by which, according to your exposition, the word [children] must be redundant and superfluous, as being neither comprehended under Jews or Gentiles, those that are near, or far off: into which two classes, or ranks, the text distributes the whole world ; but must stand out of the text, as a party, by themselves, though expressly mentioned in it, as those to whom the promise belongs.

But enough of this.

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

10, 11, 12, whereby we prove the succession of baptism to circumcision, and vindicate it from 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 succession of this ordinance to that, you (as rashly as confidently) call it a groundless inference ; which, whether it be or no, let the impartial judge, when they shall fee the grounds on which we build that assertion.

(1.) It is out of controversy, that the scope of this place is to take 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. to be hisplaindesign : "And this I say, lest any man should beguile

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

(2.) It is as plain, that the argument by which he establish esthem in the truth of the gospel, and secures them against the danger of returning to those Jewish rites, especially circumcision, is drawn from their completeness in Christ without it ; ver. 9, and 10. And that whatsoever they had under circumci fion, they now enjoy in as complete and fullameasure and manner, as ever Abraham and his feed did. " And ye are complete

" in him," (i. e.) in Christ.

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

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sJolemn Call.

debate, viz, circumcision, ver. 11, 12. And first distinguishing of a twofold circumcision, one made with, and the other without hands, which he calls the circumcision of Christ : he tells them, as to both of these, (namely, inward circumcision of the heart, and the external sign thereof too)both are fully anfweredinbaptifm ; " In whom also ye are circumcised with the

" circumcision made without hands; in putting off the body " of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 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 sign of it; so now, the fame inward circumcision, or regeneration of the soul, is as really and fully signified to you, by the newgofpel sign of it, which is baptism: and therefore you are as complete, in respect both of outward and inward privileges now, as ever Abraham and his feed were. Do but convert the proposition, and suppose the apostle'sdesign had beentotake them off frombaptifm, and bring them back to circumcision ; and in order to it had said, " In whom ye are also baptized with the " baptism of Christ, being circumcised with him :" would not the substitution of circumcision in the place of baptism have been clear ? And why is not this as clear as that would have been?

(4.) We further say, That except he had intended in these words tohaveplacedbaptifm as an external ordinance, in place and stead of outward circumcision, he could never have pitched upon a worse instance than that of circumcision, which was so much valued by them : yea, from the very instance he brings, he had put a strong objection into their mouths, against his assertion, ver. 10. That we are every way as complete without it, as the Jews were with it; for then their children enjoyed an ordinance of great value, which ours are deprived of, having none under the gospel in lieu of it.

Hence we argue :

Argument. If the ordinance of baptism now be appointed to answer the same ends that the circumcision did to the Jews, and to make us everyway as complete in privileges as circumcision did them, then it comes in the place and room of it; and our children have the fame right to this, as theirs had to that.

But the antecedent is plain, from the scope and argument of the apostle in this text and context: Ergo, So is the confe quent.

The sum of your answer is, ( 1.) ' That circumcision in the • flesh, is neither expressed nor meant here, but that of Christ

Dd2

Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

• in his own person.

(2.) That if baptism had been intended ⚫to have come in the place of circumcision; then it would sol- • low, that females must be excluded from baptism .'

Reply. Your first answer is manifestly false for if the apostle distinguishes of a twofold circumcision, 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 circumcision here spoken of, is no other but the circumcision of Christ in his own person ; I would gladly know how the Coloffians are said to be circumcised in Christ's personal circumcision only ? And whether the baptism here spoken of, wherewith they are said to be buried with him, be not meant of Christ's personal 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 reason why he calls the Colossians circumcision, a circumcision of Christ made without hands, if he only intends Christ's personal circumcision; when we all know, that Christ's personal circumcision was a circumcision made with hands; and could not possibly be such a circumcision as theirs was, consisting in the putting off the body of the fins of the flesh, or mortification of their corruptions.

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

(2.) Your second answer is no less absurd ; That, ifbaptifm, according to our argument, succeeds in the place of circumcision, then females must be excluded from baptism.

You had as good heve said, that the enlargement of the privilege under the gospel, is no good medium to prove we areas complete now under baptism as they were under circumcision.

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

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

Object. But if baptism succeed in the room of circumcision, and there be such an analogy betwixt 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 in the room and 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 other was instituted, and immediately fuc

A Reply 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 supper : the analogy is betwixt the substantial parts of both ; amongst which, the spiritual mystery, principal ends, and proper subjects, are of principal consideration; 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 uncircumcised person, or stranger to the covenant, might eat of that, Exod. xii. 43, 48.

No unbelieving person, uncircumcised in heart, 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 circumcision 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 it leaves no character ormarkupon the body, as that did.

This very objection of yours is borrowed in express wordsfromSocinus, that enemy of 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 to our opinion, there can be no analogy, or correspondency, betwixt the very subjects of both ordinances: for infants, at eightdaysold, were the proper subjects of circumcision ; but the subjects of baptism were adult believers, from the time of its first institution : and so the analogy fails in the very subjects.

Sal. This objection is grounded upon a great mistake: it is your 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 circumcision, 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 baptism, parents, masters of families, &c. being adult believers, were first baptized (2.) After the circumcision of Abraham, and the men of his house, their infant-feed were also circumcised, the promise belonging 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 it did before, Acts ii. 39.

(3.) As in the days of circumcision, 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, of whatever age he was : now, if any infidel shall be converted, he is to be baptized,

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

upon his personalprofessionof faith: and so much for the ana? logy. As for yourcorrespondency of identity, I cannot understand it.

I meet with little more in your first part, wherein I have any concernment; only there I find four arguments, in mood and figure, against the innovation of symbolical rites, by human authority, into the worship of God; which is certainly the best page in your book: 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 I dismiss your book, I think myself concerned to vindicate one place of scripture more, viz. Rom. xi. 16, 17 . which I alledged in the beginning for the confirmation of our first proposition, viz. That God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. is the fame covenant for substance we Gentile believers are now under.

" 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 grassed in among them, and with them partakest

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

This place isdeservedly of great value with us, to prove, that we Gentile believers, with our infant-feed, are invested under the gospel with the same substantial privileges that the Jews and their infants formerly enjoyed.

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 regularly deduce the right of Gentile believers infants to baptism from it.

And here, 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 to prove the calling in-again of the Jews, though for the present broken off; and on this ground to excite himself to all diligence for their conversion, and suppress all glorying and boufting in the Gentile believers, as if they were more worthy than 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, Isaac, and Jacob, with whom the covenant was made, Gen. xvii.

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

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

fromthemderived to the branches. And this can be 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 the branches again to life, though at present many of them be broken off; as Job speaks in another case, Job xiv. 7, 8, 9.

" There is hope of a tree, though it be cut down, that it will "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 part of 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 sermon, Acts ii, and multitudes more at other times. All these converted Jews stood in the apostle's time as branches in the true olive, still enjoying all their privileges ; and that which brake off them that were broken off, was nothing else but 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 Messiah.

This some believed, and so stood by faith, still enjoying all their ancient privileges of the covenant : Others believed not, 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 with them partaking of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, verse 17. that is, the rich privileges of the covenant and promise to Abraham, Gen. xvii. " I will be a God to thee, and to " thy seed."

This is the sweet juice, or fatness of the olive tree, 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 grafted by faith amongst the 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

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn 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)then had; 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 how we should be said to partake with them of the root and fatness of the olive.

Certainly the sap is the fame which the root sends into all the branches, whether they be 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 grace of the gospel, must make the olive-tree as fat and flourishing as ever it was, to supply all its branches, and more than ever before.

Seeing then we Gentiles have (1.) the same grafting into the true olive ; and (2.) that our present grafting in, is answerable to their present casting 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 : For when they were first taken in, they, and their children, were taken in together ; when they were broken off, they and their children were broken off together ; and when they shall be taken in again, they and their children hall be taken in again : And (4.) seeing all these their expected mercies are secured to them by the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, andJacob, which will extend again to them when their unbelief shall be taken away ; methinks (as was said before) nothing can be clearer than this conclusion, That we

Gentile believers are now invested with the same privileges they once enjoyed; and our children have the fame foederal holiness or relation to the covenants theirs had, by being 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 children with them ; which yet was so.

Nor was there need to say it, seeing both their infants and ours are comprehended in the 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. And the 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. will not shut their eyes, and studyevasions, what can be plain;

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call

er from scripture than this explication and application of this place? We have with us theconsentofthe generalityoforthodox expositors ; the sense itself is genuine, easy, and unconstrained, agreeable with the letter and scope of the text.

Whether the sense you set up against it, be as probable as this, we come next 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, by profession of faith; for we know not how to understand any breaking off from the invisible church, or falling from election : But it is like, you better considered the consequents of that opinion, drawn upon you byMr Sydenham, in his 85th page ; and therefore, nauseating those dregs of Arminianism, you speak more orthodoxly to the point, page 27.; where you honestly acknowledge, That the church of the Jews andGentiles, as to the true essence 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 to be grafted in amongst them, and, with them, to be made partakers of the root and fatness of the olive-tree : And in reference hereunto, it is rightly added by the apostle, that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance: 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 hence we havegainedtwo things : (1.) That the church of the Jews and

Gentiles are essentially and substantially the same church.

(2.) That the Jews were not broken off from the invisible church, or from faith and election ; for these, you truly say, are invariable and immoveable : And if you had denied it, the apostle assures us, that the foundation of God stands sure ; and that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. But what then was their breaking off, and the Gentiles grafting in, which made this great alteration in the church ? Can it be any thing else, but our ingrafting intothevisiblechurch, by the professiott of our faith, from whence the Jews were broken off for their unbelief ? For certainly, from the invisible church they were not broken off, and into the invisible church, multitudes of professing Christians are not ingrafted. It is evident, therefore, by grafting us into the olive tree, he means the visible church and by the fatness thereof, the ordinances and privileges of that church.

Though we deny not but all sincere professors and

VOL. VIII.

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call. members of the invisible church also, and do belong to the elec tion of grace ; but that is not the breaking off, or grafting in, herespokenof.

And now, having given up Mr Tombes's notion of the invisible church, and election, you are again put to your shifts ; and must either shuffle, and seek to hide yourself in an heap of strange and unintelligible distinctions, or (which had been much fairer) honestly have yielded the 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, or probable.

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

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

•Though necessary, and so not certain.

The thing to be proved, is, That the children of believers are in the covenant of free grace 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 to an indivisible point. But whither doth all this tend ?

I will ask you two or three plain questions, and then make what use you please of your distinctions.

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

(2.) Whether, if it were into the visible church by profeffionof faith that the Gentile believers were grafted in, as doubtless is was (and by relinquishing the former sense, you here seem to yield it, saying, this ingrafture maybe certain, upon the account of natural birth, being children of believers) ; then I would fainknow, why you fo state the question, as to make the certainty of believers childrens interest in Christ to be the onlygroundof their admission into the communion of the visible church?

This (fayyou) must first be proved, or no baptifma for them.

Alas, poor infants ! to what hard terms are they here tied up ? Very much harder than the terms any of your own society are tied to: And if baptism must be suspended, till this point can be cleared, that the person to be baptized be first in Christ, and in the covenant offreegrace, as to the saving benefits there of; then farewel to allbaptifm, both of infants and adult pro

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Gall.

feffors too.

For how can you prove, that the persons you baptize, are all, or any of them, really in Christ ? May they not deceive you, as Simon Magusdid Peter ?

I did not think you had proceeded in this matter upon a certainty, but a 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 in Christ as the antecedent suspendent condition of theirbaptifm ?

We need dispute no more about the proper subjects of baptism, for by this account we have lost the ordinance of baptism itself.

We thought, fir, that our childrens title tobaptifm was derived to them from their believing parents, as the children of the Jews was to circumcision, from their circumcised and professing parents; and that the fame promise which conveyed their childrens privilege to them, Gen. xvii. had conveyed the right of believers children to baptism 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 such an answer as astonishes me to read, page 26 ; where allowing Abraham to be the root, you say, " The holiness here spoken of,

* is first in respect of God's election ; holiness personal and inherent, in God'sintention : Eph . i. 4. " He hath chosen us 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, it shall be inherent, being actually communicated by the Spirit of God, when they shall be actually called.'

Reply. Here we fee into what brakes and pits men run themselves, when they depart from the plain and 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.

By this you must either mean fanctification decreed for them, and to be bestowed on them at the time of 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 of God, as an accident in its subject; and then the simplicityofGod's nature resists your incongruous notion.

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

A Reply 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 way of inhesion ; that will not deliver you out of your confusion neither, but run you into greater: For then you confound the immanentwith the transient acts of God, and make the same thing at the same time, to be purely in intention, and in execution ; or to be only in God's purpose to bestow hereafter, and yet, at the present, inherent in the persons he intends it for : So that I must leave your strange notion of perional holiness inherent in God's intention, to be cleared by a more metaphysical head than mine; or else to stand, among other rare and unintelligible notions, to be admired and applauded by the ignorant'reader.

But then, when we 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 Christ

4 herein.

Reply. This word derivative is an equivocal word, and may signify 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. I am 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 that hath orthodox sense in it) then this derivative holiness you speak of, is not personal holiness, or internal fanctification, but foederal holiness, derived from covenanted ancestors, or parents to their children ; and therein you come over to us, and to the true sense of the text. But why must this be squeezed from you with so much difficulty ? Andwhydidyouhide this foederalholiness under an equivocal term, left you should seem to yield the controversy with a word ? This is not fair.

Object. If you say we are too hasty, and triumph before the victory: For though you do yield it to be a foederal holiness, yet it is such as can be derived from no other father, or progepitor, but Abraham only.

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

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.

tobetheroot and first-fruit, as well as Abraham, seeing the covenant was jointly and expressly made with them all three, and thereby they became root and first-fruit of that holy nation:

And if that people be called the feed of Abraham, they are also called the feed of Jacob; and if father-hood be ascribed to Abraham, it is ascribed to Jacob too, Ifa. lviii. 14. And if Abraham be first named in the covenant, so is Jacob : See Lev. xxvii.

42. But if you allow these three patriarchs, perhaps that is all you will allow ; for you seem to say, that no foederal holiness canbederivedfrom any other 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. stand in our Bibles : For we cannot think but the foederal holiness of children results from the immediate parent's faith, or covenant-interest, as well as from the remoter progenitors ; elsewecannotunderstand how the Corinthians children should be holy, or how the promise should belong to the children of them that are afar off, viz. the Gentiles, who could derive no such thing to their children by a lineal descent from Abraham, but only as they became ingrafted branches by faith ; and fo fuck the fatnefs of the olive to themselves, and totheirhuds, or children, as the natural branches did.

I desire you to confider also, how this covenant passed, as you say it did, to Abraham and his feed, in Christ's name, if it be the fame with Adam's covenant? Did that pass to Adam in Christ's name too ?

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

baptism, (1.) A great abuse in the divine worship, page 242, 243. And yet he that fo calls it, never looked half way into the controversy; nor is able, without manifest shuffling, and contradiction, both to the words 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

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. and associate 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 Israel, with respect to the ark, 1 Chron. xv. 13. A fin, which provoked the Lord to execute judgment, by an immediate stroke in fire from heaven upon them.

Thus Mr Cary is ready to call for 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, to execute the wrath, as well as charge the guilt upon us. But I hope all this is but rashness in him.

(4.) He affirms it to be no less than atransgreffing of the law, a changing 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

God hath repealed his former grant to the children of his covenant-people. And for the changing of the ordinances, I am of opinion, it is he that is guilty of that fin, and not we: For we have proved, God settled this privilege upon the infant-feed of his people ; that the promise, under the gospel, continues still to them; and if he exclude them from baptism, 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 put himself under, from that very text he produces against us; for it is manifest, that the covenant here spoken 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 hath pronounced it to 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 these things to be 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 to them; for nothing can 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 sinful 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

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

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

(6.) That is a fetthng of your 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 on the text will inform you ; an abomination that defiled God's holy name, a wickedness not to be named, and for which the Lord consumed them, and calls it whoredom in the next words.

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

Your more wife 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 and called to the mi- • nistry of the word ; desirous of peace, and not of renewed

• contests hereabout.'

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

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

(7.) You say, that as these things are of highest concernment, so they ought to be our most serious practice and endeavour, page

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

Sir, I thought the most serious practice of a minister had been to preach Chriftand salvation to the souls of men, and not to baptize : I am sure St. Paul reckoned so;

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

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

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

A Reply to Mr Cary's solemn Gall. interest in Christ, living in the duties of communionwithhim, watching their hearts, and mortifying their corruptions, had been the object matter of their most serious practice, and faithful endeavour ; and not the litigations aboutbaptifm. But I hope these were only inconsiderate 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 sure you ought to revoke and repent such 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, whilst we are satisfied, that as you neither have the faculty or commission to be our judge, so neither is there any convincing 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 to most lamentable shifts, even contradictions, and somewhat worse, to escape the point and edge of them.

(9.) To conclude, You tell us, we must not expect the special presence 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 baptism, 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 Lord lay it not to their charge, who now desert 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 soul to see you, quiet a movere, awake a sleeping controversy, especially in such 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 shall see those blessed days, we have fo often, with pleasure, comforted ourselves with the hopes of. However, extend

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

your charity (if you have any left) sofar, as to believe that I am one, notwithstanding of all this, that am studious of the church'speace, and inquisitive into the rules of duty, not daring toholdany truth of God in unrighteousness ; and yet well satisfied I am, in the path of my duty, wherein, though we cannotwalktogether, yet I hope to meet you at the end of our way, in our Father's house, where perfect light and peace dwells.

And here I had put an end to this debate,had I not received your return to someofthese sheets, whilst the last of them was under my hand; wherein I only find four things in which I am concerned.

In general, you tell me, You are not con- * vincedof any error, by what I have said.' I am sorry to hear it: But considering the nature of error on one side, and the difficulty offelf-denial on the other, you have not much deceivedmyexpectation.

More particularly, (1.) You say, As to your hooking the Sinai covenant into this controversy, I gave you the firstoccafion of it ; for when you shewedme your papers about God's covenantwithAbra ham, I told you, that you were best first to try if you could prove the covenant at Sinai to be a covenant of works ; forafmuch as our divines are so far from conceiting the covenant with Abraham to be a covenant of works, that they will not allowtheSinai law itself to be so; and to convince you of it,

I lent youMr. Roberts and Mr. Sedgwick on the covenant, to enlighten and fatisfyyou about it: But little did I think you had confidence enough to enter the lifts with two such learned andeminentdivines, and make them to follow your triumphant chariot, shackled with the incomparable Baxter andAllen,

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

But whatever was the occasion (setting aside your fin) I am not sorry you have given a fit opportunity to enlighten the world in that point also.

(2.) You seem to fancy in your letter, that I once was of your opinion about the moral law, because you findthesepaf sages in a sermon of mine, upon John viii. 36. "If the Son

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

• That the law required perfect working, under pain of that curse; accepted no short endeavours, admitted no repent- ⚫ance, and gave no strength.

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

VOL. VIII.

F f

A Reply to Mr. Cary's solemn Call.

The words I own ; the contradiction I positively deny ; for I speak not there, and here, adidem ; for in that sermon, and in those very words you cite, I speak against the law, not as God intended it, when he added it tothepromife;but as the ignorance and infidelityofunregeneratemen,make it to themselves a covenant of works, by looking upon it as the very rule and reason of their justification before God: This was the stumbling-stone at which all legal justiciaries then did, and still do stumble, Rom. ix. 31, 32, 33. In this sense the apostle, in his epiftles to the Romans and Galatians, argues against the law, and fo do I in the words you cite; but vindicate the law in the very fame sermon you mention, as consistent with, and subservient to Christ, in the former sense ; and there tell you,

The law sends us to Christ to be justified;and Christ sends us ⚫back to the law to be regulated.' The very fame double sense of the 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, that the law in this sense cannot consist with, or be added to the promise ; and therefore make it my medium to prove against you, that the true nature and denomination of the Sinai law, can never be found in this sense of it, but it must be estimated and denominatedfrom the purpose and intention of God, which I have proved to be evangelical.

Try your skill to fasten a contradiction betwixt my words in that sermon and this discourse.

I know you would be glad to find the shadow of one, to make some small excuse, or atonement for the many faults of that nature you have here committed.

(3. ) Your letter also informs me, that you hear you are answered 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. I have only seen Mr. Whiston's little book against your brother Grant ham, wherein he hath baffled two of your principal arguments ; but you only come in collaterally there, and must not look upon it as a full answer to your book, but only as a lash for your folly, en passant. And for our compafling you abouthkebees, methinks you seem to be elated in yourownfancy, by the supposition, or expectation, of a multitude of opponents.

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

Sir, I think your mind maybe much at rest in that matter. Of all the fix famous adversaries mentioned in your title page, there are but (

A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Gall.

wo living: and you know, Mortui nonmordent ; and of the remaining two, one of them, viz . Mr. Baxter, is almost in heaven, living in the daily views, and chearful expectations of the faints ever lifting 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 such a great andheavenlyfoul can find any leisure or disposition to attend such a weak and trivial discourse as this.

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

(4.) To conclude: in the close of your letter you fall into the former ftrainoflove, assuring me, ' That the ancient friendthip of so many years, shall still continue on your part.'

Reply. All that I shall return to this, is only to relate a short story out of Plutarch, in the life of Alexander; where he tells us, That whilst he was warring in the Indies, one Taxiles an Indian king, came with his company to meet him ; and falutingAlexander, said, ' What need you and I to fight and ' war one upon another ? If thou 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 to give thee of mine; and if I have less, I ' will not think scorn to thank thee for thine."

Alexander, highly pleased with his words, made him this reply ; Think- ' eft thou, that this meeting of ours can be 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 shalt not exceed me in bounty and liberality.'

I faywith Taxiles, I had never armed against you, had you not come to take away our water, and the necessaries of life;

I mean, 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 of grace, and relinquishing infants baptism, as grounded thereon .

Sir, were my own father alive, I must and would oppose him, shouldheattemptwhat here you do. Infant-baptism, with you is not ; singing ofpfalms, that plain and heavenly gofpelordinance, with you, is not; and will you takeaway our

Ff2

$28 A Reply to Mr. Gary solemn Calt,

Benjamin also ? What ! the covenant of God with Abraham and his 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 in the world.

And yet I will say with Alexander, I will contend with you in friendship and courtesy, even whilst I earnestlycontendagainstyoufor the truths of GOD, which you have here opposed, and I have endeavoured to vindicate.

Onewordmore before I part with you; Ido assure you, and the whole world, that in this controversywithyou, I have not, knowingly oradvisedly, misrepresented your sense: If you shall say I did so in my second argument, from the words,pag.

179, Iaffureyou, both myself, and others, could understand you no otherwise than I did in the papers I sent you ; and when you told me, you meant there was no pardon in either of those covenants, but that it plainly directed to Abraham's covenant, you will find, I have given you as fair a choice as you can desire, either to stand to your words in the first sense, wherein I understood them, or (which will be the same tome) to your own sense, in which you afterwards explained it to me. And whereas I blame you over and over in my epistle and conclusion, for putting the proper subject of baptism amongst the highest things in religion ; let the reader view yourconclufion, and fee, whether you do, or not.

If you fay, you speak of the covenant there, as well as of baptism, I allowthatyou do so; yet 1hope it is equally as bad, nay, indeed and truth, a great aggravation of your fault, to make this article, viz.

God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. an abolishedAdam's covenant, one of the highest concernments of a Christian, the baptism only of adult believers another. My consequences, from your words, are just and regular, how furprizing soever. theyfeem to you.

Ifyouthink fit to rejoin to this my answer, Idefireyouwill avoid, as much as you can, a tedious harangue of words, and speak strictly and regularly to my arguments, by limiting, distinguishing, or denying, as a difputant ought to do: If so, I promise you a reply ; but ifI find no such thing, it shall pass with me but for waste paper ; nor will I waste time about it.

The Lord give us unity in things necessary, libertyinthings indifferent, and charity in all things !

↑ Back to top