(1.) For the first you instance in as a pure gospel-covenant made with Abraham, Gen. xii. 2, 3. I must confess, as you dismember the text, p. 229. by chusing out the second and third verses, and leaving out the first, which was the trial of Abraham's obedience, in forsaking his native country, and his father's house ; I say, give me but this li- berty to separate and disjoin one part of a covenant from the other, and it is easy to make any conditional covenant in the world to be- come absolute ; for take but the duty required, from the promise that is made, and that which was a conditional, presently becomes an abso- lute grant. Suppose, sir, that Abraham had refused to leave his dear native country, and dearest relations, as many do ; think you that the promised mercies had been his.^ I must plainly tell you, you assume a strange liberty in this matter, and make a great deal bolder with the scriptures than you ought : and the very same usage the other scrip- tures hath.
(2.) For when you cite your second covenant with Abraham, you only cite Gen. xvii. 2, 3. and thencallitan absolute gospel-covenant ; when indeed you make it so, by leaving out the first verse, which con- tains the condition or duty required on Abraham's part; for thus run the three first verses ;" And when Abraham was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abraham, and said unto him, I am the Al- mighty God ; walk thou before me, and be thou perfect, and I will make my covenant between me and thee," &c. Here an upright conversation before God is required of him, at God's entrance into this covenant with him ; but that is, and must be omitted, and cut off, to make the covenant look absolute, I am really grieved to see the scriptures thus dealt with to deserve a design !
If all the promises of the gospel be absolute and unconditional, requiring no restipulation from man, then they cannot properly and truly belong to the new covenant.
But they do properly and truly belong to the new covenant; therefore they are not all absolute and unconditional.
The sequel of the major is only liable to doubt or denial, namely. That the absoluteness of all the promises of the New Testament cuts off their relation to a covenant j but that it doth so, no man can deny.
352 A REPLY TO JIK. CARYL'S SOLEMN CALL.
that understands the difference between a covenant and an absolute promise. A covenant is a ni utual compact or agreement bet wixt parties, in which they bind each other to the performance of what they re- spectively promise ; so that there can be no other proper covenant where there is not a restipulation or re-obligation of one part, as well as a promise on the other; but an absolute promise binds only one party and leaves the other wholly free and unobliged to any thing in order to the enjoyment of the good promised. So then, if all the New Testament promises be unconditional and absolute, they are not part of a covenant, nor must that word be applied to them ; they are absolute promises, binding no man towhomthevare made to any duty, in order to the enjoyment of the mercies promised : But those per- sons that are under these absolute promises, must and shall enjoy the mercies of pardon and salvation, whether they repent or repent not, believe or believe not, obey or obey not. Now to what licentiousness this doctrine leads men, is obvious to every eye. Yet this absolute- ness of the covenant (as you improperly call it) is by you asserted, p. 229, 230. There is (say you) no condition at all, it is wholly free and absolute, as the covenant with Abraham, Gen. xii. 2, 3. Gen. xvii. 2, 3. Thank you, sir, for making them so ; for by cutting off the first verses, where the duty required on Abraham's part is contain- ed, you make them what God never intended them to be. And the same foul play is in Deut. xxx. where you separate the plain condi- tion contained in ver. 1, 2. from the promise, ver. 6. Or if the con- dition, ver. 1, 2. be not plain enough, but you will make it part of the promise, I hope that after, in ver. 10. is too plain to be denied. As to the other texts, more anon ; mean time see how you destroy the nature of a covenant.
Object. But say you, pag. 233. To impose new conditions, though never so mild, is a new covenant gfzcorks with some mercy, but not a covenant of grace, properly so called.
Sol. It is true, if those works or acts of ours, which God requires, be understood of meritorious works in our own strength and power to pei-form, it destroys the free grace of the covenant ; but this we utterly reject, and speak only of faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God, which receives all from God, and gives the entire glory to God ; Eph. ii. 5, 8.
Object. But you will say, If faith be the condHwn, and that faith be not of ourselves, then both the promise and the condition are on God's part (if you wall call faith a conditicyn) and so still on our part the covenant is absolute.
Sol. This is a mistake, and the mistake in this leads you into all the rest ; though faith (which we call the condition on our part) be the gift of God, and the power of believing be derived from God, yet the act of believing is properly our act, though the power by which we be- lieve be of God.? else it would follow, when we act any grace, as faith, repentance^ or obedience, that God believes, repents, and obeys in us,
A KEPLY to Mil. CARy's SOLEMIJ CALL. 353
and it is not we, but God that doth all these. This, I hope, you will not dare to assert ; they are truly our works, though wrought in God's strength ? Isa. xxvi. 12. *' Lord, thou hast wrought all our works in us ;" i. e. though they be our works, yet they are wrought in us by thy grace or strength.
As for Dr. Owen, it is plain from the place you cite in the doc- trine of justification, p. 156, he only excludes conditions, as we do, in respect of the dignity of the act, as is more plain in his treatise of redemption, p. 103, 104. in which he allows conditions in both the covenants^ and makes this the difference. That the Old required them, but the New effects them in all the fcederates.