The controversy betwixt us in this point, is not whether circunici- sion were an ordinance of God, annexed by him to his covenant with Abraham ? Nor (2.) Whether Abraham's ordinary and extraordina- ry seed ought to be, and actually were signed by it? Nor, (-S.) Whe- ther it were a seal of the righteousness of faith to any individual per- son, for he allows it to be so to Abraham ? Nor (4.) Whether it per- tained to the ceremonial law, and so must cease at the death of Christ? J3ut the difference betwixt us is, Whether (1.) It was a seal of the covenant to none but Abraham ? And (2.) W^hether in the very na- ture of the act-, or only from the intention of the agent, it did oblige men to keep the whole law, as Adam was obliged to keep it in inno- cency ? (.'^5.) Whether it were utterly abolished at the death of Christ, as a condition of the covenant of works ? or being a sign of the same covenant of grace we are now under, it be not succeeded by the new gospel-sign, which is baptism? Mr. Cary affirms, that it was in itself a condition of the covenant of works, and being annexed to God's cove- nant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. it made that a true Adam's covenant of works also. This I utterly deny, and say, Abraham's covenant was a true covenant of grace. (2.) That circumcision was a seal of righteousness of faith, and therefore could not possibly belong to the covenant of works. (3.) That as it was applied both to the ordinary and extraordinary infant-seed of Abraham, during that administra- tion of the covenant, so it is the will of Christ that baptism should take its place under the gospel, and be applied now to the infant-seed of all Abraham's spiritual children. These are the things wherein we differ about the second position. And lastly, as to the
That neither Moses"" law, Exod. xx. nor God's covenant with Abra- ham. Gen. xvii. can be any other than an Adam^s covenant ofworks^ because they have each of them conditions in them on man s part ; but the gospel-CQvenanthath none at all, but is altogether free andabsolute.
The controversy here betwixt us is not (1.) Whether the gospel- covenant requires no duties at all of them that are under it ? Nor (2.) Whether it required any such conditions as were in Adam's co- venant, namely, perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience, under the severest penalty of a curse, and admitiing no place of repentance ? Nor, (3.) Whether any condition required by it on oz^?*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, ^\4t"hout the preventing as well as the assisting grace of God, to perform any such work or duty as we call a condition 9 In these things we have no controversy ; but the only question betwixt us is,
Whether in the new covenant some act of ours (though it have no merit in it, nor. can be done in our own single strength) be not re- quired to be performed by us, antecedently to a blessing or privilege consequent by virtue of a promise ? And whether such an act of duty, being of a suspending nature to the blessing promised, it have not the true and proper nature o^ a gospel-condition ? This I affirm, and he positively denies.
These three ^o.577io?i* being confuted, and the contrary well con- firmed, viz. that the law at Sinai was not set up by God as an Adam's covenant, to open the old way of righteousness and life by works; but was added to the promise, as subservient to Christ in its design and use, and consequently can never be a pure Adam's covenant of works. And, secondly^
That Abraham's covenant, Gen. xvii. is the very same covenant of grace we are now under ; and, (9,dlij,) That circumcision in the na- ture of the act did not oblige all men to keep the whole law for righ- teousness. And (3f%,)
That the neiv covenant is not absolutely and wholly unconditional, though notwithstanding a most free and gracious covenant; the pil- lars on which Mr. Gary sets his new structure sink under it, and the building falls into ruins.
I have not here taken i\Ir. Gary's two Syllogisms, proving Abra- ham's coc;^?ia?z^ to hQ2i covenant of works, because I find myself therein prevented by that ingenious and learned man, Mr. Whiston, in his late answer to Mr. Grantham. Neither have I particularly spoken to his twenty-three arguments to prove the Sinai law to be a pure Adam's co- venant, hQQ,?LU?>Q frustrajit per 2:)lura, qiiod fieri, 'potest per paucior a : I have overthrown them all together at one blow, by evincing every argument to have four terms in it, and so proves nothing. But I have spoken to all those scriptures which concern our four jyo.yi^iow^, andfully vindicated them from the injurious senses to which Mr. Gary (following Mi\ Tombes) had wrested them.
These things premised, I shall only further add, that if Mr. Gary shall attempt a reply to my answer, and free his own theses from the gross absurdities with which I have loaded them, he must plainly and substantially^ prove against me,
(1.) That the Sinai law, according to its true scope and end, was promulgated by God for man's justification and happiness in the way of personal obedience ; and that the Jews, that did accordingly endeavour after righteousness by the works of the law, did not mis- take its true end and meaning ; or if they did, and thereby made it what God never intended it to be, a covenant of works to themselves, that the Sinai law ought rather to be denominated from their mistake
A EEPLY TO MR. CARy's SOLEMN CALL. 327
and abuse of it, than from its primary and proper use, and God's design in its promulgation.
(2.) He must prove against me, with the Uke evidence of truth, that circumcision discovered no more of man's native corruption, nor any more of his remedy by Christ; nor sealed to any person whatsoever the righteousness of faith, than Adam's covenant in paradise did ; and that it did in its own nature oblige all upon whom it passed, to the same terms of obedience that Adam's covenant obliged him. And,
(3.) That there is not to be found in the new covenant any such act or duty of ours, as hath been described and limited above ; which is of a suspending nature to the benefits therein granted. x\nd,
(4.) That the respective expositions he gives of the several texts to be explained and vindicated, are more congruous to the scope and grammar than mine are, and more agreeable to the current sense of orthodox' expositors ; and then he shall be sure to receive an answer- able return from me, else it is but labour lost to write again.
Mr. PHILIP GARY'S Solemn Call, &c.