Discourse of Mental Errors, Appendix 1 · Part · Section 2

Discourse of Mental Errors · Appendix 1 · Part · Section 2

p. 242Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant.

This Question, Whether the Covenant of Grace be conditionate or absolute, was moved (as a learned Man observes) in the former Age, by occasion of the Controversy about Justification, betwixt the Protestants and Papists. Among the Protestants, some denied, and others affirmed the Conditionality of the Gospel-covenant. Those that denied it, did so for fear of mingling Law and Gospel, Christ's Righteousness and Man's, as the Papists had wickedly done before. Those that affirmed it, did so out of fear also; lest the necessity of Faith and Holiness being relaxed, Libertinism should be that way introduced. But if the Question were duly stated, and the sense of its p. 243Terms agreed upon, the Gospel-Covenant may be affirmed to be conditional, to secure the People of God from Libertinism, without the least diminution of the Righteousness of Christ, or clouding the Freegrace of God.

I did in my first Answer to your Call, endeavour to prevent the needless trouble you have here given your self, by a succinct state of the Question: telling you the Controversy betwixt us, is not, (1.) Whether the Gospel-covenant requires no duties at all of them that are under it? nor (2.) Whether it requires any such Conditions as were in Adam's Covenant, namely, perfect, personal, and perpetual Obedience under the penalty of the Curse, and admitting no place of Repentance? nor (3.) Whether any Condition required by it on our part, have any thing in its own nature meritorious of the Benefits promised? nor (4.) Whether we be able in our own strength, and by the power of our Free-will, without the preventing, as well as the assisting Grace of God, to perform any such work or duty as we call a Condition? These things I told you were to be excluded out of this Controversy. But the only Question betwixt us, is, p. 244Whether in the New Covenant, Quest.some act of ours (though it have no merit in it, nor can be done in our own single strength) be not required to be performed by us antecedently to a blessing or privilege consequent by vertue of a promise? And whether such an act or duty, being of a suspending nature to the blessing promised, it have not the true and proper nature of a Gospel-condition?

In your Reply (contrary to all rule and reason) you include and chiefly argue against the very Particulars by me there excluded; and scarcely (if at all) touch the true Question, as it was stated, and by you ought accordingly to have been considered. I might therefore justly think my self discharged from any further concernment with you about it: for if you will include what I plainly excluded, you argue not against mine, but another man's Position, which I am not concerned to defend. You here dispute against meritorious Conditions, which I explode and abhor as much as your self. You say, p. 34. of your Reply, that a Condition plainly implies something of merit, by way of condignity or congruity; which is false, and turns the Question from me to the Papists. And were it not more for the clearing up of so great a p. 245Point for the instruction and satisfaction of others, than any hope you give me of convincing you, I should not have touched this Question again, unless I had found your Replies more distinct and pertinent. But finding the Point in controversy of great weight, I will once more tell you,

1. What the word [Condition] signifies.

2. In what sense it is by us used in this Controversy.

3. Establish my Arguments for the conditionality of the New Covenant.

(1.) And first we grant, That neither our word [Condition] nor your term [Absolute] are either of them found in Scripture, with respect to God's covenanting with Man; so that we contend not about the signification of a Scripture term. But though the word Conditional be not there, yet the thing being found there, That brings the word Conditional into use in this Controversy. For we know not how to express those … sacred Particles, foreign &c. If, If not, Vnless, But if, Except, Only, and the like, which are frequently used to limit and restrain the p. 246Grants and Privileges of the New Covenant, Rom. 10. 9. Matt. 18. 3. Mark 5. 36. Mark 11. 26. Rom. 4. 24. I say, we know not how to express the true sense and force of these Particles in this Controversy, by any other word so fit and full as the word Conditional is. Now this word Condition being a Law-term, is variously used among Iurists; and the various use of the word, occasions that confusion which is found in this Controversy. He therefore that shall clearly distinguish the various senses and uses of the word, is most likely to labour with success in this Controversy. I shall therefore briefly note the principal senses and uses of the term, and shew in what sense we here take it. Of Conditions there be two sorts.

Conditions.

1. Antecedent

2. Consequent

As to the latter, namely, consequent Conditions, you your self acknowledge, p. 100. That in the outward dispensation of the Covenant, many things are required of us in order unto the participation or enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in glory.

p. 247So then the Covenant is acknowledged to be consequently conditional,Si promissiones foederisintelliganturde fine, nemo negare potest esse conditionale…; quià fiunt semper sub conditione fidei. & poenitentiae. Turrettine. which is no more than to say with the Apostle, Without holiness no man shall see God; or, that if any man draw… back, his soul shall have no pleasure in him, &c. Our Controversy therefore is not about consequent Conditions, laid by God upon Believers, after they are in Christ and the Covenant; the Covenant so considered, à posteriori, will not be denied to be Condi…tional. The only Question is about Antecedent Conditions; and of these we are here to consider,

1. Such as respect the first Sanction of the Covenant in Christ.

2. Such as respect the application of the benefits of the Covenant unto Men**Si foedus specterur ratione sanctionis primae in Christo, nullam habet conditionem praeviam; sed solâ gratiâ Dei, & Christi merito nititur. Sed si attendatur ratione acceptationis & applicationis in fideli, conditionem habet Fidem, quae hominem unit Christo, & sic in communionem foederis mittit. Turret. vol. 2. p. 203..

As to the first Sanction of the Covenant in Christ, we freely acknowledg …t hath no previous Condition on Man…s part; but depends purely and only upon the Grace of God, and Merit of Christ. So that our Question proceeds about such p. 248antecedent Conditions only as respect the Application of the Benefits of the Covenant unto Men. And of these Antecedent Conditions there are likewise two sorts, which must be carefully distinguished.

1. Such Antecedent Conditions which have the force of a meritorious and impulsive Cause, which being performed by the proper strength of Nature, or at most by the help of common assisting Grace, do give a Man a right to the reward or blessings of the Covenant. And in this sense we utterly disclaim antecedent Conditions, as I plainly told you, p. 61. of my Vindiciae, &c. Or,

2. An Antecedent Condition signifying no more than an Act of ours, which though it be neither perfect in every degree, nor in the least meritorious of the benefit conferred; nor performed in our own natural strength; yet according to the constitution of the Covenant, is required of us in order to the blessings consequent thereupon by vertue of the Promise: and consequently p. 249the benefits and mercies granted in the Promise in this order are, and must be suspended by the Donor or Disposer of them, until it be performed. Such a Condition we affirm Faith to be. But here again, Faith … the Condition of the New Covenant, is considered,

1. Essentially. Or,

2. Organically and Instrumentally.

In the first consideration of Faith, according to its Essence▪ it is contained under Obedience, and in that respect we exclude it from justifying our persons, or entitling us to the saving-mercies of the New Covenant, as it is a work of ours; and so I excluded it, p. 133. of my Method of Grace, which you ignorantly or wilfully mistake, when in your Reply, p. 88, 89. you object it against me. Faith considered in this sense, is not the Condition of the Covenant, nor can pretend to be so, more than any other Grace. But

We consider it Organically, Relatively, and (as most speak) Instrumentally, as it receives Christ, Ioh. 1. 12. and so p. 250gives us power to become the Sons of God; it being impossible for any Man to partake of the saving benefits of the Covenant, but as he is united to Christ. For all the Promises of God in him are yea; and in him, Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. And united to Christ no Man can be, before he be a believer; for Christ dwelleth in our hearts by Faith, Eph. 3. 17. Upon which Scriptural Grounds and Reasons it is, that we affirm Faith to be an Antecedent Condition, or, Causa sine quâ non, to the saving benefits of the new Covenant; and that it must go before them, at least in order of nature, which is that we mean, when we say Faith is the antecedent Condition of the New Covenant. And those that deny it to be so, as the Antinomians do, who talk of actual and personal Justification from Eternity, or at least from the death of Christ, must consequently assert the actual Justification of Infidels; and not only disturb, but destroy the whole order of the Gospel, and open the Sluces and Flood-gates to all manner of licentiousness.

And thus our Pious and Learned Divines generally affirm Faith to be the condition of the Covenant.Moses's Self-denial. p. 188. So Mr. Ieremiah p. 251Burroughs, Faith (saith he) hath the great honour above all other Graces, to be the Condition of the second Covenant; therefore certainly it is some great matter that Faith enables us to do. Whatsoever keeps Covenant with God, brings strength, though it self be never so weak; as Sampson …s Hair. What is weaker than a little Hair? Yet because the keeping that, was keeping Covenant with God; therefore even a little Hair was so great strength to Sampson. Faith then, that is the Condition of the Covenant, in which all Grace and Mercy is contained, if it be kept, it will cause strength indeed to do great things.

And as this excellent Man, Mr. Burroughs, is in this sense for the Conditionality of the New Covenant; so are the most Learned and Eminent of our own Divines. Dr. Edward Reynold's assigning the differences betwixt the two Covenants, gives this for one:Dr. Reynold's his Life of Christ. p. 512. They differ in the Condition (saith he); there Legal Obedience, here only Faith; and the certain consequent thereof, Repentance. There is difference likewise in he manner of performing these Conditions: For now God himself begins p. 252first to work upon us, and in us, before we move or stir towards him. He doth not only command us, and leave us to our created strength to obey the Command; but he furnisheth us with his own Grace and Spirit to obey the Command.

Of the same judgment is Dr. Owen. Dr. Owen Treatise of Redemption. Book 3. chap. 1. p. 103, 104. And in his Tract of Iustification, p. 299, &c.Are we able (saith he) of our selves to fulfil the Condition of the New Covenant? Is it not as easie for a Man by his own strength to fulfil the whole Law, as to repent, and believe the Promise of the Gospel? This then is one main difference of these two Covenants, That the Lord did in the Old only require the Condition; now in the New, he also effects it in all the foederates to whom the Covenant is extended. This is the Man you pretend to be against Conditions.

Mr. William Pemble opening the nature of the two Covenants,Pemble, of Iustif. Sect. 4. Chap. 1. p. 214, 215, 216, 217. saith, The Law offers Life unto Man upon condition of perfect Obedience; the Gospel offers Life unto Man upon another condition, to wit, of Repentance, and Faith in Christ. And after his proofs for it, saith, From whence we conclude firmly, That the difference p. 253between the Law and the Gospel, assigned by our Divines, is most certain and agreeable to the Scriptures, viz. That the Law gives Life unto the just, upon condition of perfect obedience in all things; the Gospel gives Life unto sinners, upon condition they repent and believe in Christ Jesus.

Learned and judicious Mr. William Perkins thus;Perkins, Order of Causes, Chap. 31. p. 17. The Covenant of Grace is that whereby God freely promising Christ and his Benefits, exacts again of Man, that he would by Faith receive Christ. And again, in the Covenant of Grace two things must be considered, the Substance thereof, and the Condition. Reformed Catholick, of Iustif. p. 570.The Substance of the Covenant is, That Righteousness and Life Everlasting, is given to God's Church and People by Christ. The Condition is, That we for our parts are by Faith to receive the foresaid Benefits; and this Condition is by Grace, as well as the Substance.

That Learned, Humble, and Painful Minister of Christ Mr. Iohn Ball, Mr. J. Ball of the Covenant of Grace, Chap. 1. Of the Ne… Covenant, p. 198.stating the difference betwixt the two Covenants, shews, that in the Covenant at Sinai, in the Covenant with Abraham, and that with David, that in all these p. 254Covenant expressures, there are for substance the same Evangelical conditions of Faith and Sincerity.

Dr. Davenant thus:Davenant De Justif. Act. cap. 30. In the Covenant of the Gospel it is otherwise; for in this Covenant, to the obtainment of Reconciliation, Justification, and Li…e Eternal, there is no other condition required than of true and lively Faith, Iohn 3. 16. Therefore Justification, and the right to Eternal Life, doth depend on the Condition of Faith alone.

Dr. Downame harmonizeth with the rest in these words: That which is the only Condition of the Covenant of Grace,Tract. 1. Of Iustif. Lib. 6. cap. 8. Sect. 10. and Lib. 7. cap. 2. Sect. 6. by that alone we are justified: But Faith is the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, which is therefore called Lex Fidei. Our Writers (saith he) distinguishing the two Covenants of God, that is, the Law and the Gospel, whereof one is the Covenant of Works, the other the Covenant of Grace, do teach, That the Law of Works is that which to Justification requireth works as the Condition thereof: The Law of Faith that, which to Justification requireth Faith as the Condition thereof. The former saith, Do this, and thou shalt live; the latter, Believe in Christ, and thou shalt be saved.

p. 255But what stand I upon particular, though renowned names? You may see a whole Constellation of our sound and famous Divines in the Assembly, thus expressing themselves about this Point. The Grace of God (say they) is manifested in the second Covenant, in that he freely provideth, and offereth to sinners a Mediator,Larger Catech. 4^to. London 1648. p. 8. and Life and Salvation by him, and requiring Faith as the Condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his Elect, to work in them that Faith, with all other saving Graces, and to enable them to all holy Obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their Faith, &c.

I could even tire the Reader with the Testimonies of eminent foreign Divines, as Cameron de triplici foedere, Thes. 82. Vrsinus & Paraeus explicatio Catech. Quest 18. de foedere. Wendeline, Christian Theology, Lib. 1. cap. 19. Thes. 9. Poliander, Rivet, Wallaeus, and Thysius, the four learned Professors at Leyden, Synops. Disp. 23. Sect. 27, &c. And as for those Ancient and Modern Divines, whom the Antinomians have corrupted and misrepresented, the Reader may see them all vindicated, p. 256and their concurrence with those I have named, evidenced by that Learned and Pious Mr. Iohn Graile, in his Modest Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace, from p. 58. onward; a Man whose name and memory is precious with me, not only upon the account of that excellent Sermon he Preached, and those fervent Prayers he poured out many years since at my Ordination; but for that Learned and Judicious Treatise of his against Mr. Eyre, wherein he hath cast great light upon this Controversy, as excellent Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Woodbridge have also done. But alas, what evidence is sufficient to satisfy ignorant and obstinate Men!

Sir, it pities me to see the lamentable confusion you are in. You are forced by the evidence of truth to yield and own the substance of what I contend for. You have yielded the Covenant to be consequently Conditional in p. 84. of your Reply. You have also as plainly yielded, that the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls, is in order of nature consequent unto believing; p. 31. of your Reply. From both which concessions in your own words recited, this Conclusion is evident and unavoidable, viz.

p. 257That no adult person, notwithstanding God's Eternal Election, and Christ's meritorious death and satisfaction, according to the Constitution and Order of the New Covenant, can either be justified in this World, or saved in the World to come, unless he first believe.

For if the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls, is in order of Nature consequent unto believing (as you truly affirm it to be) then according to the Constitution and Order of the New Covenant, no application of pardoning Mercy can be made to our Souls before we believe. And if it be evident (as you say it is, p. 84.) that unto a full and compleat enjoyment of all the Promises of the Covenant, Faith on our part is required; then as no Man can be actually justified in this World, so neither can he be saved before, or without Faith in the World to come. And if you did but see the true suspending nature of Faith, which you plainly yield in these two concessions; you would quickly grant the conditional nature of it: For what is the proper nature and true notion of a Condition, but to suspend the benefits and grants of that Covenant in which it is so inserted? And thus the Controversy betwixt us is fairly p. 258issued. But I doubt you understand not what you have here written, or are troubled with a very bad memory: Because I find you in a far different note from this in p. 103. of your Reply, where you say, That if Iesus Christ fulfilled the Law, and purchased Heaven and Happiness for Men (as all true Protestants hitherto have taught) then nothing can remain, but to declare this to them, to incline them to believe and accept it; and to prescribe in what way, and by what means they shall finally come to inherit Eternal Life. To affirm therefore, that Faith and Repentance are the Conditions of the New Covenant required of us in point of Duty, antecedent to the benefit of the Promise, doth necessarily suppose, that Christ hath not done all for us, nor purchased a right to Life for any; but only made way that they may have it upon certain terms, or (as some say) he hath merited that we might merit: But the Conditions of the Covenant are not to be performed by the Head and Members both, Gal. 4. 4. Christ therefore having in our stead performed the Conditions of Life, there remains nothing but a Promise, and the Obedience of Children, as the fruit and effect thereof p. 259to them that believe in him, together with means of obtaining the full possession, which here we want.

Either these passages I have here cited and compared,Reply: were fetched at a great distance of time, out of Authors differing as much in judgment as you and I do; and so the dissonancy of them is the meer effect of oblivion, and incogitancy: Or else your Intellectuals are more confused and weak than I am willing to suspect them to be. For if the application of Pardoning Mercy to our Souls▪ is in order of Nature consequent to Believing (as you truly say it was); then certainly, notwithstanding Christ's fulfilling the Law, and purchasing Heaven and Happiness for Men, something else must remain to be done, besides declaring this to them, to incline them to believe and accept it, or prescribing to them in what way they shall finally come to inherit Eternal Life. For besides those declarations and prescriptions you talk of, Faith it self must be wrought in the Souls of Men, or else Pardoning Mercy is not in order of Nature consequent unto believing, as you said it was: For all the external Declarations and Prescriptions in the World are not Faith it self, p. 260but only the means to beget it; which may, or may not, become effectual to that end.

Secondly, Whereas you say, that this (senseless notion) is consequent upon the Doctrine of all true Protestants, you therein grosly abuse them, and make all the true Protestants in the World guilty of worse than Arminian or Antinomian dotage. The Antinomian, indeed, makes our actual justification to be nothing else but the manifestation or declaration of our Justification from Eternity, or the time of Christ's death. And the Arminian tells us, That the Declaration of the Gospel to Men, is sufficient to bring them to Faith by the assisting Grace of the Spirit.▪ But your notion is worse than the very dregs of both, and yet you tack it as a just consequent to the Doctrine of all true Protestants.

Thirdly, You say,Reply. P. 104. That to affirm Faith and Repentance to be the Conditions of the New Covenant required of us in point of Duty, antecedent to the benefit of the Promise, doth necessarily suppose that Christ hath not done all for us, nor purchased a right to Life for any; but only made way that they may have it upon certain terms, or merited that we might merit. Here, p. 261Sir, you vilely abuse all those worthy Divines before mentioned, who have made Faith the Condition of the New Covenant, pinning upon them both Popery and Iudaism. Popery, yea, the dregs of Popery, in supposing their Doctrine necessarily implies that Christ hath merited that we might merit. And Iudaism to the height, in saying, their Doctrine necessarily supposes that Christ hath not purchased a right of Life to any. What can a Iew say more? Ah, Mr. C. can you read the words I have recited out of blessed Burroughs, Owen, Pemble, Perkins, Davenant, Downame, yea, the whole Assembly of Reverend and Holy Divines, with multitudes more (who have all with one mouth asserted Faith to be the Condition of the New Covenant required on Man's part, in point of Duty; and that Men must believe before they can be justified; which is the very same thing with what I say, That it is antecedent to the benefit of the Promise) and not tremble to think of the direful charges you here draw against them? The Lord forgive your rash presumption.

p. 262Fourthly, Whereas you say, Christ hath in our stead performed the Conditions of life, and that there remains nothing but a Promise,Sal…marsh, of Freegrace. p. 126, 127. &c. you therein speak at the highest dialect of Antinomianism; Hath not Christ by his Life and Death performed the Conditions of Life in our stead? yet you your self confess, that pardoning Mercy is in order of nature consequent to our believing; certainly then there is something more to be done beside the mere making, or being of a Promise: there must be the effect of the Promise in our hearts; yea, the effects of those absolute Promises of the first Grace, Ezek. 36. Ier. 32. Or else notwithstanding Christ's performance of Redemption on his part, we can neither be justified nor saved. For I don't think you intend to lay the Conditions of Repentance or believing upon Christ, who in the New Covenant hath laid them upon us, tho in the same Covenant he graciously undertakes to work them in us: and yet your words sound in that wild Antinomian Note.

But,Objection. I suppose, you take my Notion to be as self-repugnant as your own, when I say Faith is an antecedent Condition to Justification: because I also say, p. 263this Grace is also supernaturally wrought in us, and is not of our selves. This staggers you, and is the very stone you stumble at all along this Controversie: for in your sense, p. 34. every Condition is meritorious by condignity or congruity.

First, What do I say more in all this,Reply. than what those Worthies before-mentioned do expresly affirm? Doth not Dr. Owen (the man whom you deservedly value) make Conditions both in Adam's Covenant and the New, with this difference, that Adam's Covenant required them, but the New Covenant effects them in all the Foederates? Sir, We take it for no contradiction to assert, That the planting of the Principle, and the assisting and exciting of the Acts of Faith, are the proper Works of the Spirit of God, and are also contained in the absolute Promises of the New Covenant, Ezek. 36. 26, 27. Ier. 32. 39, 40. And yet Faith, notwithstanding this, is truly and properly our work and duty; and that upon our believing, or not believing, we have, or have not, an actual interest in Christ, Righteousness, and Life. For though the Author of Faith be the Spirit of God, yet believing is properly our Act, and an Act required of us by a p. 264plain Command, 1 Iohn 3. 23. This is the Command of God, That ye believe. And if its being wrought in God's strength makes it cease to be our Work, I would fain know what Exposition you would give of that place, Phil. 2. 12, 13. Work out your own Salvation, &c. for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do. And as this Faith is truly and properly our work, though wrought in God's strength (for it is not God, but we, that do believe) so it is wrought in us by him (by your own confession) before the application of pardoning Mercy, which is consequent in order of nature thereunto: and therefore hath the true nature of an antecedent Condition, which is that I contend for; and did you but understand your own words, you would not contend against.

Oh,Object. 2. but say you, p. 34. every Condition is meritorious, either by way of congruity or condignity.

This is your ignorance of the nature of a Condition,Reply. with which I find you as unacquainted as with the nature of a Covenant. A Condition, whilst unperformed, only suspends the act of the Law or Testament: it being the will of the Testator, Legislator, or Donor, that p. 265his Law or Testament should act or effect, when the Condition is performed, and not before: but it is not essential to a Condition, to be a meritorious or impulsive cause moving him to bestow the benefit for the sake thereof. A man freely gives another out of his love and bounty such an Estate or Sum of Money, which he shall enjoy if he live to such a year, or day; and not before: is this quando dies veniet, this appointed time the meritorious or impulsive cause of the gift? surely no man will say it: but that it is a causa sine quâ non, or a Condition suspending the enjoyment of the gift, no man will deny that knows what the nature of a Condition is. An act meritorious by way of Congruity, is that to which a reward is not due out of strict justice, but out of decency, or some kind of meetness. Merit of condignity is a voluntary action, for which a reward is due to a man out of justice, and cannot be denied him without injustice. Our Faith is truly the Condition of the New Covenant, and yet we detest the meritoriousness of it in either sense.

But you object my words to me in my Method of Grace, Object. 3.where I assert the impossibility of believing without the efficacy p. 266of supernatural Grace, p. 102, 103.

Sir, I own the words you quote,Reply. and am bold to challenge the most envious Eye that shall read those lines, to shew me the least repugnancy betwixt what I said there, and what I have said in my Vindiciae Legis, &c. p. 9. of the Prolegomena, and p. 61. of that Book. You shew your good-will to make an advantagious thrust; but your Weapon is too short, and can draw no blood. But leaving these weak and impertinent Cavils, let us come to your Solution of my Arguments, p. 98. by which I proved the Conditionality of the New Covenant. My first Argument was this.

If we cannot be justified or saved till we believe,Argument 1 and are justified when we believe; Then Faith is the Condition on which those consequent Benefits are suspended, &c.

The sum of your Answer (without denying,Answer. distinguishing, or limiting one Proposition) is this, That, here Faith is properly put into the room of perfect Obedience, and is to do what perfect Obedience was to do under the Law: whereas (say you) Faith is only appointed as an Instrument to receive and p. 267apply the Righteousness of Christ, which is the alone matter of our Justification before God; and Faith it self is not our Righteousness, as it would be if it were a Condition, p. 105, 106.

Not to note the weakness and impertinence of this Answer,Reply. I shall only take notice of what you here allow, and grant, That Faith is appointed as an Instrument to receive and apply the Righteousness of Christ, which is the alone matter of our Iustification before God. Whence I infer three Conclusions.

First, That we cannot be justified before God till we believe, except you can prove, that the unaccepted and unapplied Righteousness of Christ doth actually justify our persons before God.

Secondly, That the justification of our persons before God, is, and must be suspended (as by a non-performed Condition) untill we actually believe. Which two Conclusions yield up your Cause to my Argument, which you here seem to oppose.

Thirdly, That hereby you perfectly renounce and destroy your Antinomian Fancy before-mentioned, That if Christ have fulfilled the Law, and purchased Heaven for men, nothing can remain but p. 268to declare this to them, &c. for it seems by this, they must receive and apply Christ's Righteousness by Faith, or they cannot be justified (you say not declaratively in their own Consciences, but) before God. And thus instead of answering, you have confirmed and yielded my first Argument, and only oppose your own Mistakes, not the sense or force of my Arguments, in all that you say to it, or the Scriptures produced to prove it.

To my second Argument, Argument 2.recited p. 94. where I argued from God's Covenant with Abraham, and proved it to be conditional; and yet by you acknowledged to be a pure Gospel-covenant: all that you say, is, That you have dispatched that before, in your Discourse about the Covenant of Circumcision, and therefore will say nothing to it here.

In saying nothing to it here,Reply. you have said as much as you did before in the place you refer to; and therefore finding nothing said here or there, I conclude you can say nothing to it at all.

My third Argument was this.Argument 3. If all the Promises of the Gospel be absolute and unconditional, then they do not properly belong to the New Covenant. That cannot properly and strictly be a Covenant p. 269which is not a mutual Compact, and in which there is no restipulation, nor reobligation: 'tis a naked Promise, not a Covenant.

To this you answer three things.Answer. p. 113, 114. In the first branch of your Answer you impudently beg the Question, by saying, That you have proved already in your Replies to my former Arguments, that the New Covenant is wholly free and absolute. Upon this absurd Petitio Principii you make bold to invert my Argument thus in your second Reply. If all the Promises of the Gospel be wholly absolute and unconditional, they do properly and truly belong to the New Covenant: But so they are. Therefore, &c. Oh rare Disputant! In the last place, in opposition to the Sequel of my Major Proposition, you tell me you will oppose the Judgment of Dr. Owen on Heb. 8. 10. where he saith, That a Covenant properly is a Compact or Agreement on certain terms stipulated by two or more Parties, &c. and that the word foreign there used, it signifies a Covenant improperly, &c.

If you call this an opposition to the Sequel of my Major, Reply.either your Brains or mine do want Hellebore. Doth he not p. 270say the very same thing I do, that there must be a restipulation in … proper Covenant? And as for the word foreign, which (he saith) signifieth a Covenant improperly, but prop…rly is a Testamentary Disposition, I fully concur with him therein. But I hope a Testamentary Disposition may have a Condition in it; to be sure such a one as I assert Faith here to be, which is the free gift of God; and in this sense I shewed you before where the Doctor yields Faith to be the Condition of the New Covenant.

My fourth Argument was this.Argument 4. If all the Promises of the New Covenant be absolute and unconditional, and have no respect nor relation to any grace wrought in us, or 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 it is an evidence of our Justification, &c.

Your Answer is,Answer. p. 120. That at this rate I may prove quidlibet à quolibet: for it doth not follow, that, because the New Covenant is absolute, 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 Sanctification as an evidence of our Justification.

p. 271If I had a mind to learn the art of proving quidlibet à quolibet, Reply.and make my self ridiculous to others by such foolish attempts, I know no Book in the World fitter to instruct me therein, than yours. Certainly you have the knack of it, and gave us an instance of it but now, in confuting the Sequel of my Major by an Aldegation out of Dr. Owen, which expresly confirms and establishes it. But to the Point, I would willingly know how it is possible for Sanctification to be a true and certain mark and sign of Justification, when (according to the Antinomian Principle, which you here too much comprobate and espouse) a man may be justified 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 sign must be proper to, and inseparable from that which it signifies. Now if that be true which you said before, That after Christ's fulfilling of the Law in his own person, &c. nothing can remain but to declare this to men to incline them to believe and accept it, and to prescribe 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 Prescriptions p. 272of the Gospel, which are things without us, can remain to be marks and signs of Justification to us: and consequently all those to whom those Declarations and Prescriptions are made and given, have therein the marks and evidences of their Justification. But I am truly weary of such stuff. I am sure the Apostle places Vocation before Iustification, Rom. 8. 30. Whom he called, them he justified. And without an immediate Testimony from Heaven, I know not how to evidence and prove my Justification, but from, and by my faith, and other parts of Sanctification; whereby I apprehended and applied the Righteousness of Christ: if you can prove it from the Declarations and Prescriptions of the Gospel, I cannot.

My Fifth and last Argument ran thus.Argument 5. 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's duty in entring Covenant with God, to deliberate the terms, count the cost, or give his consent by word, or writing, to the terms of this Covenant: for where there are no terms at all (as in absolute Promises there are none) there can be p. 273none to deliberate. But I shewed you, this is man's duty, from clear and undeniable Scriptures, &c.

You say by way of answer hereunto,Answer. p. 122, 123. that, you must tell me, that the Scriptures do make a plain distinction betwixt the New and Everlasting Covenant which God hath been pleased to make with Sinners in Jesus Christ; and the return of that sincere and dutiful obedience which he requires of us, by way of answer thereunto. (2.) You say, there are many things, which tho promised in the Covenant, and wrought in us by the Grace of God; are yet duties indispensably required of us in order to the participation of the full end of the Covenant in glory: and in respect hereof, we are indeed to deliberate the terms, count the cost, and give up our selves solemnly to him with sincere resolutions, &c. But then you thought I had understood there had been a vast difference betwixt God's Covenant with us, and our Covenant with God, citing Ezek. 16. 59, 60, 61. where God promiseth to give them their Sisters for Daughters, but not by their Covenant. And with this you compare Psal. 89. My Covenant p. 274will I not break; where (you say) we find a plain distinction betwixt God's Covenant with them, and their duty to God. And lastly, you say, p. 105. that the want of a due observation of this plain Scripture-distinction, betwixt God's free and absolute Covenant made with Sinners in Christ, 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 co…found together that which the Scriptures do so plainly distinguish.

To your first Answer, I say:Reply. It is true, the Scriptures do distinguish betwixt Covenant, and Covenant; that of Works, and that of Grace. It also distinguishes the same Covenant of Grace for substance, according to its various administrations, into the Old, and New Covenant. It also distinguishes betwixt the promissory part of the same Covenant of Grace, and the restipulatory part; not as of two opposite Covenants, (as you distinguish them, Gen. 17.) but as the just and necessary parts of one and the same Covenant. It also distinguishes betwixt Vows made by Men to God in p. 275some particular Cases, 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 desire me to cast mine eye upon Ezek. 16. and Psal. 89. I have done so, and that impartially; and do assure you, I admire why you produce them against my Argument. That in Ezek. speaks of the enlargement of the Church by the accession of the Gentiles to it; and the sense of those words seems to me to be this; That this enlargement of the Church is a gracious addition, or something beyond what God had ever done in his former dispensations of the Covenant to that People. And for Psal. 89. I know not what you meant 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 Covenant-p…ople with a Rod.

To your second Answer, That we are to deliberate the terms, and count the cost, with respect to those duties, which are in order to the participation of the full end of the Covenant in glory: by which, I suppose, you mean Self-denial, Perseverance, p. 276&c. I have no Controversy 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 Christ by justifying Faith, but under some preparatory works towards Faith? And whether at the very time of their closing with Christ, there be not a consent of the Will unto those terms required of them? If you say there be (as by the places I alledged it evidently appears there are) then you yield the point I contend for. If you say they are not before, or at the time of believing, to consider any terms, or give their consent to them by word or writing; such an Answer would fly in the very face of those Scriptures I produced: for then a man may be in covenant without his own consent: he that deliberates not, consents not; non consentit, qui non sentit. And therefore you durst not speak it out (for which modesty I commend you) and so leave me with half an answer, 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 p. 277which concludes your Answer, 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 Baptism of Infants: at least, I shall 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 such a Thrasonical Conclusion, such a vain and fulsome Boast?

I find that with like confidence he hath also attempted a Reply to Mr. Ioseph Whiston, a Reverend, Learned, and Aged Divine, who hath accurately and successfully defended God's Covenant with Abraham, against Mr. Cox; and doubt not, if Mr. Cary, and his Party, have but confidence enough to expose it to the publick view, and to adventure the Cause of Infant-baptism upon it, the World will quickly see an end of this long-continued and unhappy Controversy, which hath vexed the Church of God, and alienated the Affections of good Men: and that the Wisdom of Providence hath permitted and over-ruled this last Attempt, to the singular advantage of the Truths of God, and tranquillity of good Men, whose concernment (at this time especially) p. 278is rather to strengthen their Faith, and heighten their Encouragements from God's gracious Covenant, than to undermine it, when all things beside it are shaking and tottering round about them.

And now, Sir, for a Coronis to all those things that have been controverted betwixt us about the Covenants of God, and the right of Believers Infants to Baptism resulting from one of them, which I have asserted and argued against you in my first Answer, and you have silently and wholly pass'd over in your Reply, hoping to destroy them all at once, by proving God's Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. to be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works; I judge it necessary, as matters now lie between us, to give the Reader the grounds and reasons of my Faith and Practice with respect unto the Ordinance of Infant Baptism, and that as succinctly and clearly as I can, in the following Theses; which being laid together by an unprejudiced and considerative Reader, will, I think, amount to more than a strong probability, That it is the will of God, that the Infant-seed of Believers ought now to be baptized.

p. 279But here I must remind the Reader,P. …1, 62. and beg him to review what I have said before in th… third Cause of Errors, That to arrive to satisfaction in this point, requires a due and serious search of the whole Word of God, with a sedate, rational, and impartial mind; comparing one thing with another, though they lie scattered at a distance in the Scriptures; some in the Old Testament, and some in the New. Bring but these things to an interview, as we do in discovering the change of the Sabbath, and we may arrive unto a due satisfaction of the Will of God herein. This, I confess, calls for strength of mind, great sedulity, attention and impartiality; and yet what man would think all this too much, if it were but to clear his Childrens 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 strenuous Defenders of Infants Baptism; but to keep only to the Arguments drawn from God's Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. which is the Scripture mainly controverted betwixt us: You affirming boldly and dangerously, that Covenant to be no other than an Adam's Covenant of Works; and I p. 280justly denying and abhorring your Position upon the grounds and reasons before given, which you neither have, nor ever will be able to destroy. Now that the Reader, who hath neither time, nor ability, to reade the Larger, and more elaborate Treatises on this Subject, may foreign, in one short view, see the deduction of Believers Infants right to Baptism from this Gospel-covenant of God with Abraham, I shall gather the substance of what I contend for, and lay it as clearly as I can before the Eyes of my Reader in the following Theses; which being distinctly considered as to the evident truth of each, and then rationally compared one with the other, he will see how each fortifies other, and how all together do strongly confirm this Conclusion, That the Infants of Believers under the Gospel, as they naturally descend from Abraham's Spiritual Seed, are therefore Partakers at least of the External Privileges of the visible Church, and therefore ought now to be baptized.