Reply. If you call this an oppofition to the fequel of my major, either your brains or mine do want Hellebore. Doth he not fay the very fame thing I do, That there must be a reftipulation in a proper covenant? And, as for the word An which, he faith, fignifieth a covenant improperly, but properly is a teftamentary difpofition, I fully concur with him therein; but I hope a teftamentary difpofition may have a condition in it; to be fure fuch a one as I affert faith here to be, which is the free gift of God: and in this fenfe I fhewed you before, where the Doctor yields faith to be the condition of the new

Covenant.

Argum. 4. My fourth argument was this, If all the promises of the new covenant be abfolute and unconditional, and have no refpect nor relation to any grace wrought in us, or duty done by us; then the trial of our interest in Chrift by marks and figns of grace, is not our duty, nor can we take comfort in fanctification, as it is an evidence of our justification, &c.

Your answer, p. 120. is, That at this rate I may prove quidlibet a quolibet: for it doth not follow, that, because the new covenant is abfolute, therefore it hath no respect, nor relation, to any grace wrought in us, nor duty done by us, or that we may not justly take comfort in fanctification, as an e'vidence of our juftification.'

Reply. If I had a mind to learn the art of proving quidlibet a quodlibet, and make myself ridiculous to others, by fuch foolish attempts, I know no book in the world fitter to inftru&t me therein than yours. Certainly you have the knack of it, and gave us an inftance of it but now, in confuting the fequel of my major, by an allegation out of Dr. Owen, which exprefly confirms and establishes it. But to the point; I would willingly know how it is poffible for fanctification to be a true and cer tain mark and fign of juftification, when (according to the Antinomian principle, which you here too much comprobate and espouse) a man may be juftified before he believe, yea, before he is a man, even from the time of Christ's death, and (as others of them speak) from eternity. A true mark and fign must be proper to, and infeparable from that which it fignifies. Now, if that be true which you faid before, That after Christ's fulfilling of the law in his own perfon, &c. nothing can remain, but to declare this to men to incline them to believe and accept it, and to pre fcribe in what way they shall come to inherit eternal life. If this be all that can remain to us, then nothing but the declarations, and prefcriptions of the gofpel, which are things without us, can remain to be marks and figns of juftification to us: and

1

Anfwer, p. 122, 123.

confequently all thofe to whom thofe declarations and prefcriptions are made and given, have therein the marks and evidences of their juftification. But I am truly weary of such stuff, I am fure the apostle places vocation before juftification. Rom. viii. 30. "Whom he called, them he juftified." And without an immediate testimony from heaven, I know not how to evidence and prove my juftification, but from, and by my faith, and other parts of fanctification; whereby I apprehend and applied the righteoufnefs of Chrift: if you can prove it from the declarations, and prefcriptions of the gofpel, I cannot. Argum. 5. My fifth and last argument, ran thus: if the covenant of grace be altogether abfolute, and unconditional, requiring nothing to be done on our part, to entitle us to its benefits; then it cannot be man's duty, in entering covenant with God, to deliberate the terms, count the cost, or give his confent by word or writing, to the terms of this covenant: for where there are no terms at all (as in abfolute promises there are none) there can be none to deliberate. But I fhewed you, this is man's duty, from clear and undeniable fcriptures, &c. You fay, by way of answer hereunto, that You must tell me, that the fcriptures do make a · plain distinction betwixt the new and everlasting covenant, which God hath been pleased to make with finners in Jefus Chrift; and the return of that fincere and dutiful obe. dience which he requires of us, by way of anfwer thereunto. (2.) You fay, there are many things, which though promifed in the covenant, and wrought in us by the grace of God; are yet duties indifpenfably required of us in order to the participation of the full end of the covenant in glory: and in refpect hereof, we are indeed to deliberate the terms, count the cost, and give up ourselves folemnly to him, with fincere ⚫ refolutions, &c. But then you thought I had understood ⚫ there had been a vaft difference betwixt God's covenant with · us, and our covenant with God, citing Ezek. xvi. 59, 60, 61. where God promifeth to "give them their fifters for daughters, but not by their covenant." And with this you com pare Pfal. lxxxix." My covenant will I not break;" where (you fay) we find a plain distinction betwixt God's covenant with them, and their duty to God. And laftly, you fay, p. 105. that the want of a due obfervation of this plain fcripture• diftinction, betwixt God's free and abfolute covenant made ⚫ with finners in Chrift, and our covenants with God by way of return thereunto, is the true reason of all our mistakes about ⚫ the true nature of the gospel covenant, whilst we jumble and

⚫ confound together that which the fcriptares do so plainly dif • tinguish.'

Reply. To your firft anfwer, I fay; it is true, the fcriptures do diftinguish betwixt covenant and covenant; that of works, and that of grace. It also distinguishes the fame covenant of grace for substance, according to its various adminiftrations into the old and new covenant. It also distinguishes betwixt the promiffory part of the fame covenant of grace, and the reftipulatory part; not as of two oppofite covenants, (as you diftinguish them, Gen. xvii.) but as the juft and neceffary parts of one and the fame covenant. It also distinguishes betwixt vows made by men to God in fome particular cafes, and the covenant of grace betwixt God and them. But what's all this to your purpose? Or in what point doth it touch my argument? You defire me to caft mine eye upon Ezek. xvi. and Pial. lxxxix. I have done fo, and that impartially; and do affure you, I admire why you produce them againft my argument. That in Ezek. fpeaks of the enlargement of the church by the acceffion of the Gentiles to it; and the fenfe of those words feems to me to be this; That this enlargement of the church is a gracious addition, or fomething beyond what God had ever done in his former difpenfations of the covenant to that people. And for Pfal. lxxxix. I know not what you mean to produce it for, unless it be to prove, what I never denied, That notwithstanding our failures in duty towards God, God will still keep his covenant with us; though he will visit the iniquities of his covenantpeople with a rod.

To your fecond answer, That we are to deliberate the terms and count the coll, with refpect to thofe duties, which are in order to the participation of the full end of the covenant in glory by which I fupppfe you mean felf-denial, perfeve rance, &c. I have no controverfy with you about that. Our question is, Whether there be no deliberations required of, or to be performed by men who are not yet in Chrift by juftifying faith, but under fome preparatory works towards faith? And whether at the very time of their closing with Christ, there be not a confent of the will unto those terms required of them? If you fay there be (as by the places I alledged it evidently appears there are) then you yield the point I contend for. If you fay they are not before, or at the time of believing, to confider any terms, or give their consent to them by word or writing; fuch an answer would fly in the ve ry face of thofe fcriptures I produced: for then a man may be in covenant without his own confent; he that deliberates not,

sonfents not ; non confentit, qui non fentit. And therefore you durft not speak it out (for which modefty I commend you) and fo leave me with half an anfwer, not touching that part, viz. Antecedent deliberations, which were concerned in this argument. And now let your most partial friends judge, whether from this performance of yours, you have any just ground for that vain boast which concludes your anfwer, viz. That the covenants themselves, which those privileges are bottomed on; are now repealed, and that there is no room left for any other argument to infer the baptifm of infants:' at least, I fhall willingly commit it to the judgment of all intelligent and impartial readers, Whether Mr. Cary hath any real ground in this performance of his, for fuch a thrafonical conclufion, fuch a vain and fulfome boaft?

4

I find that with like confidence he hath alfo attempted a reply to Mr. Joseph Whiston, a reverend, learned, and aged divine, who hath accurately, and fuccefsfully defended God's covenant with Abraham, againft Mr. Cox, and doubt not, if Mr. Cary, and his party, have but confidence enough to expofe it to the public view, and to adventure the cause of infant-baptifm upon it, the world would quickly fee an end of this long-continued and unhappy controverfy, which hath vexed the church of God, and alienated the affections of good men ; and that the wifdom of providence hath permitted and overruled this laft attempt, to the fingular advantage of the truths of God, and tranquility of good men, whofe concernment (at this time efpecially) is rather to strengthen their faith, and heighten their encouragements from God's gracious covenant, than to undermine it, when all things befide it are shaking and tottering round about them.

And now, Sir, for a coronis to all thofe things that have been controverted betwixt us about the covenants of God, and the right of believers infants to baptifm, refulting from one of them, which I have afferted, and argued, against you in my first answer, and you have filently and wholly paffed over in your reply, hoping to deftroy them all at once, by proving God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. to be a pure Adam's covenant of works; I judge it neceffary, as matters now lie between us, to give the reader the grounds and reafons of my faith and practice with respect unto the ordinance of infant baptifm, and that as fuccinctly and clearly as I can, in the following Thefes; which being laid together by an unprejudiced and confiderative reader, will, I think, amount to more than a strong probability, That VOL. IV. Sf

it is the will of God, that the infant feed of believers ought now to be baptized.

But here I muft remind the reader, and beg him P. 61, 62. to review what I have faid before in the third Caufe of Errors, That to arrive to satisfaction in this point, requires a due and ferious fearch of the whole word of God; with a fedate, rational, and impartial mind; comparing one thing with another, though they lie scattered at a distance in the fcriptures; fome in the Old Teftament and fome in the New, Bring but these things to an interview, as we do in discovering the change of the fabbath, and we may arrive unto a due fatisfaction of the will of God herein. This I confefs, calls for Arength of mind, great fedulity, attention, and impartiality; and yet what man would think all this too much, if it were but to clear his children's title unto a small earthly inheritance? I intend not to give the reader here an account of all the arguments drawn from several scripture topics by the ftrenuous defenders of infants baptifm; but to keep only to the arguments drawn from God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. which is the fcripture mainly controverted betwixt us: You affirming boldly and dangerously, that covenant to be no other than an Adam's covenant of works; and I juftly denying and abhorring your pofition upon the grounds and reafons before given, which you neither have, nor ever will be able to destroy. Now that the reader, who hath neither time nor ability to read the larger, and more elaborate treatises on this fubject may as iv TUTW in one fhort view, fee the deduction of believers infants right to baptifm from this gospel covenant of God with Abraham, I fhall gather the fubftance of what I contend for, and lay it as clearly as I can before the eyes of my reader in the following Thefes; which being diftinctly confidered as. to the evident truth of each, and then rationally compared one with the other, he will fee how each fortifies other, and how all together do ftrongly confirm this conclufion, That the infants of believers under the gofpel, as they naturally defcend from Abraham's spiritual feed, are therefore partakers at least of the external privileges of the visible church, and therefore ought now to be baptized.

Thefis 1. It hath pleafed God, in all ages of the world, fince man was created, to deal with his church and people, by way of covenant, and in the fame way he will fill deal with them unto the end the world.

God might have dealt with us in a fupreme way of mere fo vereignty and dominion, commanding what duties he pleased,