fill more paper than I have written on this fubject, with names of principal note in the church of God, who, with one voice, decry your groundless pofition, and conftantly affirm, That the law, in the complex sense you take it, as it comprehends the ceremonial rites, and ordinances, whereunto circumcifion pertains, is, and can be no other than the covenant of grace, tho' more obfcurely administered. But because Latin authors are of little ufe to you, and among English ones, the judgment of Dr. Crifp*, I fuppofe, will be inftar emnium with you; I will recite it faithfully, out of his fermon upon the two covenants, where he makes the old and new covenant, to be, indeed, two distinct covenants of grace, (for which I fee no reason at all) but proves the former to be fo in these words:

It is granted of all men, that in the covenant of works "there is no remission of fin, there is no notice of Chrift; but the whole business, or employment of the priests of the old law, was altogether about remiffion of fins, and the exhibiting and holding forth of Christ in their fashion unto the people. In the 15th of Numbers, ver. 28. (I will give you but one inftance) there you fhall plainly fee, that the adminiftration of that priefly office had remiffion of fins, as the main end of that adminiftration. If a foul fin through ignorance, he fall bring a fhe-goat unto the priest, and he shall make an atonement for the foul that finneth ignorantly, and it shall be forgiven him: See, the main end is adminiftring forgivenness of • fios.

And that Chrift was the main fubject of that their miniftry, is plain; because the apostle faith, in the verfe before my text, ⚫ that all that administration was but a fhadow of Christ, and a figure, for the prefent, to reprefent him, as he doth exprefs in the 9th chapter of this epiftle. And the truth is, the usual general gofpel that all the Jews had, was in their facrifices, and priestly observations.-

So that it is plain, the administration of their covenant was ⚫ an administration of grace, and abfolutely distinct from the administration of the covenant of works.' And what can be faid more abfolutely, and directly contradictory to your pofition, than this is? And yet again, p. 250. fpeaking to that fcripture, Heb. viii. 8. where the apoftle diftinguishes of a ⚫ better, and a faulty, of first, and fecond, he faith, (finding) fault with them) "The days come, when I will make a new covenant with the houfe of Ifrael, and with the house of Ju

*Vol, II. Serm. 2, pag, 237, 248, 250.

dah; not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;" and (as Jeremiah adds it, for the apof⚫tle takes all this out of Jer. xxxi. 31. (although I was an hufband to them; and, in the clo.e of all, your fins and iniquities, • will I remember no more.Here are two covenants, a new • covenant, and the covenant be made with their fathers. Some may think it was the covenant of works at the promulgation of the moral law; but mark well that expreffion of Jeremiah, and you shall fee it was the covenant of grace. "For (faith he) not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, although I was an husband unto them." How can God be • confidered as a husband to a people under the covenant of works • which was broken by man in innocency, and fo became disannulled, or impoffible, by the breach of it? The covenant of works run thus: Curfed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law; and in the day thou finneft, thou shalt die the death. Man had finned before God took him by the hand, to lead him out of the land of Egypt, and fin had separated man from God: How then can • God be called an husband in the covenant of works? The cove• nant, therefore, was not a covenant of works, but such a cove⚫nant as the Lord became an husband in, and that must be a covenant of grace,' &c.

How the doctor makes good his two distinct covenants of grace, I fee not, nor expect ever to fee proved, and is not my prefent concernment to enquire; but once it is evident, by what he hath here faid, that the ceremonial law, whereof circumcifion is a branch, can be no other than the covenant of grace. And nothing is more common, among our divines, than to prove, not only the Sinai law, but God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. to be the covenant of grace, by this medium, That God having entered into a covenant of grace with Abraham before, would never bring him under a covenant of works afterwards, which muft nullify, and void the former. And, befides, fuch a covenant of works as you make this, was never heard of in the world, wherein God promises to be a God to Abraham, and his feed, in their generations, upon the rigo rous, and impoffible terms of Adam's covenant.

By this time, I prefume, you must feel the force of those arguments produced against your vain and groundless noti on; and how little you are able to deliver your thefis from them, but the more you struggle, the more ftill you are entangled. Go which way you will, your abfurdities follow you,

as your fhadow,haeret lateri lethalis arunde. Leaving, therefore, all your abfurdities upon you, till God thall give you more illumination and ingenuity to difcern and acknowledge them, I fhall pafs on to the examination of your third pofition, which led you into thefe other grofs miftakes; and if God fhall convince you of your error in this point, I hope it may prove a means of recovering you out of the reft; which, in love to your foul, I heartily defire.

3. Your third pofition is, That God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. can be no other than the covenant of works, because circumcifio was the condition of it: Por (lay you) the new covenant is altogether abfolute and unconditional.

Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant.

This question, Whether the covenant of grace be conditional, or abfolute, was moved (as a learned mau obferves) in the former age, by occafion of the controverfy about juftification, betwixt the Proteftants and Papifts. Among the Proteftants, fome denied, and others affirmed the conditionality of the gospel-covenant: Thofe that denied it, did fo for fear of mingling law and gospel, Chrift's righteousness and man's, as the Papifts had wickedly done before. Those that affirmned it, did fo out of fear, alfo; left the neceffity of faith and holinefs, being relaxed, Libertinifm fhould be that way introduced. But if the question were duely stated, and the fenfe of its terms agreed upon, the gofpel-covenant may be affirmed to be conditional, to fecure the people of God from Libertinifm, without the leaft diminution of the righteousness of Chrift, or clouding the free grace of God.

I did, in my first answer to your call, endeavour to prevent the needlefs trouble you have here given yourself, by a fuccinct ftate of the question; telling you the controverfy 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 fuch conditions as were in Adam's covenant, namely, perfect, perfonal, and perpetual obedience, under the penalty of the curfe, 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 promifed? 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 affisting grace of God, to perform any fuch work or duty as we call a condition? These things, I told you, were to be excluded out of this controverfy. But the only question betwixt us, is,

VOL. IV.

Qq

Whether in the new covenant, Jome act of ours (though it have m merit in it, nor can be done in our own fingle firength) be not required to be performed by us antecedently to a bieffing, or privilege, confequent by virtue of a promife: and whether fuck an act or duty, being of a fufpending nature to the blessing pro mifed, it have not the true, and proper nature of a gospel-condi tion?

In your reply (contrary to all rule and reafon) you include, and chiefly argue against the very particulars by me there excluded; and icarcely (if at all) touch the true queftion, as it was ftated, and by you ought, accordingly, to have been confidered. I might therefore juftly think myfel difcharged from any further concernment with you about it; for if you will include what I plainly exclude, you argue not against mine, but another man's position, which I am not concerned to defend. You here difpute again ftmeritorious conditions, which I explode, and abhor, as much as your felf. You fay, p. 34. of your reply, that a condition plainly implies fomething of merit, by way of con dignity, or congruity; which is falle, and turns the quef tion from me to Papifts. And were it not more for the clearing up of fo great a point, for the inftruction and fatisfaction of others, than any hope you give me of convincing you, I should not have touched this queftion again, unless I had found your replies more diftinct and pertinent. But find. ing the point in controversy of great weight, I will once more tell you,

1. What the word [condition] fignifies.

2. In what fenfe it is by us ufed in this controverfy.

3. Establish my arguments for the conditionality of the new

Covenant.

1. And first, we grant. That neither our word [condition], Bor your term [abfolute], are either of them found in fcripture, with refpect to God's covenanting with man; fo that we con tend not about the fignification of a fcripture term. But though the word conditional be not there, yet the thing being found there, that brings the word conditional into use in this controverfy. For we know not how to expreís thofe facred particles, Ei, öti, dav pin, póvov, ouda` oux, &c. if, if not, unless, but if, except, only, and the like, which are frequently ufed to limit and reftrain the grants and pivileges of the new covenant, Rom..x. 9. Matth. xviii. 3. Mark. v. 36. Mark xi. 26. Rom. iv. 24. I fay, we know not how to exprefs the true fenfe and force of these particles in this conroverfy, by any other word, fo fit and full as the word conditional is. Now this word condition being

さい

a law term, is varioufly ufed among the Jurifts; and the various ufe of the word, occafions that confufion which is found in this controverfy. He, therefore, that fhall clearly diftinguish the various fenfes and ufes of the word, is moft likely to labour with fuccefs in this controverfy. I fhall, therefore, briefly note the principal fenfes and ufes of the term, and fhew in what sense we here take it. Of conditions, there be two forts, 1. Antecedent.

2. Confequent conditions.

As to the latter, namely, confequent conditions, you yourfelf acknowledge, p. 100. That in the outward difpenfation 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.'"

So then the covenant is acknowledged to be confequently conditional*, which is no more than to fay with the apostle, "Without holiness no man fhall fee God;" or that, If any "man draw back, his foul fhall have no pleasure in him," &c. Our controverfy therefore is not about confequent conditions, laid by God upon believers, after they are in Chrift and the covenant; the covenant, fo confidered, a pofteriori, will not be denied to be conditional. The only queftion is about antecedent conditions, and of thefe we are here to confider,

1. Such as refpect the first sanction of the covenant in Christ. 2. Such as refpect the application of the benefits of the covenant unto men t.

As to the firft fanction of the covenant in Chrift, we freely acknowledge it hath no previous condition on man's part, but depends purely and only upon the grace of God, and merit of, Chrift: So that our queftion proceeds about fuch antecedent conditions only, as refpect the application of the benefits of the

Q92

*If the promises of the covenant concerning the end, as diftinct from the means of falvation, are the promifes meant, then no body can deny that these are conditional, because they always are made on condition of faith and repentance. Turretine.

+ If the covenant is viewed in refpect of its being first set on foot, and established in Chrift, it has no previous condition, but is found ed only on God's free favour and Chrift's merit; but if it is viewed' as to the acceptance and application in the believer, it has for its condition faith, which unites a man to Chrift, and fo inftates him in the fellowship and joint participation of the covenant. Turret, Vol: 2. p. 203.