former you call a covenant of grace, the latter a covenant of works. And p. 81. you affirm, that after God had entered the covenant of grace with Abraham, verfes 2, 4. that Abraham himfelf was required to be circumcited by the comPage 81. mand of God, as a token of the covenant of works. And then, after fome unbecoming fcoffs for mifplacing, ver. 7, 8. where ver. 9, io. fhould be; as also, of Gen. xii. for Gen. xvii. (whether by the fcribe, my self, or the prefs, I cannot fay but in each place fufficient light is given to let you right in the fcope, and argument of my discourse) you tell us, That how harfb and unlikely joever it may feem to man's carnal reason, that the latter, to wit, the covenant of works made with Abraham, ver. 9, 10. must needs make void the covenant of grace made with him, verf. 2. 4. yet the apoftle gives a quite contrary refolution of it, Gal. iii. 17. And after all, p. 79. in return to my argument, That the circumcifion of Abraham, and his feed, ver. 9, 10. could not poffibly be a condition of Adam's covenant of works from the nature of the act: because Paul himfelf circumcifed Timothy, Acts xvi. 1, 2, 3. and afferts it to be a part of his liberty, Gal. ii. 3, 4. which could never be, if in the very nature of the act it had bound Timothy to keep the law for juftification; and had been contrary to the whole scope of the apostle's doctrine: but it became an obligation only from the intention of the agent. All that you fay to this, p. 95. is, That as for Paul's compliance with the Jews, however the cafe ftood in that refpect, that is certain, That the bleffed apoftle would never have expreffed himself with that vehemency he doth, Gal. v. 2, 3. if this had been only the fenfe of the Jewish teachers, or that circumcifion in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole law; ⚫ and that this is only my corrupt glofs upon the text'

Reply. If there be but one covenant made betwixt God and Abraham, in that 17th of Genefis, and you make two, not only numerically, but specifically distinct, yea, opposite covenants of it, then you boldly cut God's covenant with Abraham in two, and are guilty of an infufferable abuse of the covenant of God: But the former is true; therefore fo is the latter. You fay, p. 223, 224. of your call, That at the fecond and fourth veries • God made a covenant with Abraham himself alone, but at ver. · 7. he makes the covenant of circumcifion betwixt himself and • Abraham, and his natural feed alfo; and faith, ver. 7. ` And, or, according to the old tranflation, moreover; as proceeding to speak of another covenant than what he had been before <infifting on.'

Now I would foberly afk, (1.) What vouchers you have a mongft expofitors for this your rafh and daring affertion? I find not a man that hath trode this path before you, and I hope node will be hardy enough to follow: you certainly stand alone, and it is pity but you fhould. (2.) Where do you find the juft parts of the new covenant in the 2d and fourth verfes ? Is it not altogether promiffory, on God's part, without any reftipulation on Abraham's? For you have excluded ver. 1, 7. 10. from that which you call God's covenant of grace with him, And then for your covenant of works, ver. 7, 8, 9, 10. you make this to be the promiffory part of that covenant," to be a God

unto thee, and to thy feed after thee;" and again, ver. 8. I will be their God. Was ever fuch a promife as this found in a covenant of works? Tell me whatever God faid more in the new covenant, than he faith here? O bleffed covenant of works, if this be fuch! (3.) Tell me whether you can fatisfy your own confciencce with the answers you have given to my firft argument against your paradoxical, yea, heterodoxical exposition ? I told you, That if ver. 7, 8, 9, 10. contain another covenant, viz. of works, entered by God with Abraham, and his feed, it muft needs make void the former covenant, ver. 2, 4. for wherever the covenant of works takes place, the covenant of grace gives place; they cannot confift, as I have abundantly prov ed before. Do you verily think those words of the apostle, Gal. iii. 17. which you bring as a foundation to fupport your fingular, and finful expofition, viz. And this I fay, That the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Chrift, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot difannul, that it should make the promise of none effect; do you think (fay) that, in that, or any other text, the apoftie opposes the two covenants made (as you fancy) with Abraham, Gen. xvii. Or doth he not there fpeak of God's covenant with Abraham, as diftinguished from the law made 430 years afterward? (4) Have you fatisfied your own judgment, and confcience, in the reply you make to that unanswerable objection from Paul's circumcifing of Timothy, Acts xvi. 2, 3 where you have the plain matter of fact before you, that he was circumcifed by Paul; and this fact of his juftified as a part of the liberty he had in Chrift, Gal. ii. 3, 4.* from whence it evidently appears,

*He is bound not fimply and abfolutely from the nature of the work itself, (viz. Circumcifion,) but in regard of the intention of him who performs it; and fuch an opinion being fupported, &c. Poal on the place.

That circumcifion, in its own nature, did not fimply, and abfolutely oblige men to the keeping of Moles's law for righteous Defs, but only for the intention, or opinion of the perfon. And though you call this my corrupt glofs upon the text, therein you grofly abute me: the glofs is neither corrupt, nor my own; but the unanimous judgment of all found expofitors of the text, as you might fee, were you capable of feeing it, in a collection of their judgments upon that text, Gal. v. 2, 3, 4. in Mr. Pool's Synopfis. And though Eftius thinks the act of circumcifion might be obligatory to the Gentiles, to whom the law was not given; yet it was not fo to the Jews that believed, and fuch was Timothy. But why do I refer you to the judgmat of commentators? The very reason of it may convince you. For,

If the very act of circumcifion did, in its own nature, oblige all on whom it paffed, to keep the whole law for their righteoufnefs, then Paul fo obliged Timothy, and all others on whom he paffed it, to keep the law for their righteousness.

But Paul did not oblige Timothy, or any other on whom he paffed it, by the very act of circumcifion fo to keep the law.

Therefore the very act of circumcifion, in its own nature, did not oblige all on whom it paffed, to keep the whole law for righteoufnels.

You may ponder this argument at your leifure, and not think to refute it at fo cheap a rate, as by calling it a corrupt glofs of my own. And thus I hope I have fufficiently fortified, and confirmed my third argument, to prove Abraham's covenant to be a covenant of grace. My fourth was this:

Argum. 4. That which in its direct, and primary end, teacheth man the corruption of his nature by fin, and the mortification of fin by the Spirit of Chrift, cannot be a condition of the Covenant of works.

But fo did circuncifion in the very direct, and primary end of it; therefore, &c.

Your reply to this, is, That when I have fubftantially proved that the Sinai covenant, as it contained the paffover, facrifices, types, and appendages, under which were veiled many fpiritual myfteries relating to Chrift, and mortification of fin by his grace, and Spirit, to be no covenant of works, but a gofpel-covenant; you will then grant, with me, that the prefent argument is convincing' p. 66. 67. of your reply. Reply. Sir, I take you for an honeft man, and every honeft man will be as good as his word; either I have fully proved against you, that the Sinai law (taken in that latitude you here

exprefs it) is not an Adam's covenant of works, or I have not. If I have not, doubtless you have referved your more pertinent, and strong replies in your own breast, and trust not to those weak, and filly ones, which you fee here baffled, and have only ferved to involve you in greater abfurdities than before. But if you have brought forth all your ftrength (as in fuch a defperate strait no man can imagine but you would) then I have fully proved the point against you; and if I have, I expect you to be ingenuous, and candid, in making good your word, that you will then grant, with me, that this argument is convincing, to the end for which it was defigned. And fo I hope we have fully iffued the controverfy between us, relating to God's covenant with Abraham. You have, indeed, four arguments, p. 59, 60, 61, 62. of your Reply, to prove Abraham's covenant a covenant of works, of the fame nature with Adam's covenant. (1.) Because as life was implicitely promised to Adam upon his obedience, and death explicitely threatened in cafe of his difobedience, which made, that properly a covenant of works; fo it was in the covenant of circumcifion, Gen. xvii. 7, 8.compared with ver. 10, 14.

Reply. This argument, or reafon, can never conclude; because as God never required of Abraham, and his children, perfonal, perfect, and perpetual obedience to the whole law for life, as he did of Adam; fo the death, or cutting off, fpoken of here, feems to be another thing from that threatened to Adam. Circumcifion (as I told you before) was appointed to be the difcriminating fign betwixt Adam's feed, and the Heathen world; and the wilful neglect thereof is here threatened with the cutting off by civil, or ecclefiaftical excommunication from the commonwealth and church of Ifrael, as Luther, Calvin, Paraeus, Mufculus, &c. expound; not by the death of body and foul, as was threatened to Adam, without place for repentance, or hope of mercy.

(2.) You fay Abraham's covenant could not be a covenant of faith, because faith was not reckoned to Abraham for righteoufnefs in circumcifion, but in uncircumcifion, Rom. iv. 9, 10.

Reply. This is weak reafoning; circumcifion could not belong to a gofpel-covenant, because Abraham was a believer before he was circumcifed. You may as well deny the Lord's Supper to be the feal of a gofpel-covenant, because the partakers of it are believers before they partake of it. Belide, you cannot deny but it fealed the righteousness of faith to Abraham : And I defired you before, to prove that a feal of the covenant of works is capable of being applied to fuch an use and service,

which you have not done, nor ever will be able to do; but politicly flided by it.

(3.) You fay it cannot be a covenant of grace, because it is contra-diftinguished to the righteoufnels of faith, Rom. iv. 13.

Reply. The law in that place is put ftrictly for the pure law of nature, and metaleptically fignifies the works of the law, which is a far different thing from the law, taken in that latitude wherein you take it. And, is not this a pretty argument, that because the promise to Abraham, and his feed, was not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith: therefore the covenant God made with Abraham, and his feed, Gen. xvii. cannot be a gracious, but a legal covenant? This promife, mentioned Rom. iv. 13. was made to Abraham long before the law was given by Moles; and free grace, not Abraham's legal righ teousness, was the impulfive caufe moving God to make that promise to Abraham, and to his feed: and their enjoyment of the mercies promiled, was not to be through the law, but through the righteoufaefs of faith. By what rule of art this fcripture is alledged to prove God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. to be a covenant of works, I am utterly to seek: if it be only because circumcifion was added to it, that's answered over and over before, and you neither have, nor can reply to it.

(4.) Laftly, It cannot (fay you) be a covenant of grace, because it is reprefented to us, in fcripture, as a bondage-covenant, Acts xv. 10. &c. Gal. v. 1. .

Reply. It is time, I fee, to make an end; your discourfe rods low, and dreggy. Do you think it is one and the fame thing to say, That the ceremonial law was a yoke of bondage to them that were under it, and to fay it was an Adam's covenant? Are thefe two parallel diftinctions in your logic? Alas! Sir, there is a wide difference; the difficulty, variety, and chargeableness of thofe ceremonies, made them, indeed, burthenlome and tiresome to that people; but they did not make the covenant, to which they were annexed, to become an Adam's covenant of works: for in the very next breath, ver. 11. the apostle will tell you, they were faved; yea, and tells us, that we shall be faved, even as they. So that either they that were under this yoke, were faved by faith in the way of tree grace, as we now are; or we must be faved in the way of legal obedience, as they were. Take which you please, for one of them you must take. We Shall be faved, even as they, Acts xv. 10, 11.. If you can make no ftronger oppolition to my arguments, than fuch as you have here made, your caufe is loft, though your confidence, and obftinacy, remain: it were eafy for me to