Pacification Touching the Doctrinal Dissent, Part 2
PART II.
I Have done here with the Arbitration which I count Mr. W. and Mr. Lobb appointed me, that is, as to this particular matter, and as for any other Points between them, they are not my Province: Only ſo far as the Middle Doctrine of Juſtification, which I maintain is concerned, I cannot but take notice how one word, and that foreign, uſed but once in one place, is the ground almoſt of all their Diſſention. It is the word Surety, Heb. 7.22. This word hath been ſo ſtrained, or rather groſly taken, not only by the Antinomian but our Divines ordinarily, as if Chriſt were ſuch a Surety for us in the Covenant of Works, as bound with us in the ſame Bond (ſo coarſe is their Speech,) inſomuch as when he performed the Duty, and ſuffered the Penalty in our behalf, they reckon it done in our Perſons, ſo that God looks on the Believer (in Law ſenſe) as having perfectly obeyed and ſuffered in his Surety, and conſequently that he receiving this Righteouſneſs (or making it his) by Faith, does ſtand juſtified in that Righteouſneſs of Chriſt by the Law of Works. If Mr. Lobb, or any Brother, (it is all alike who they be) hath uſed words to this Senſe, they muſt be rectified. Mr. W. is not to come to them, but they to Mr. W. They do heinouſly err (ſays Mr. Baxter) and ſubvert the Goſpel, who ſays that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is ſo imputed to us, as that God reputeth Chriſt to have been perfectly Holy, and ſuffered, though not in our Natural yet in the Legal or Civil Perſon of the Sinner, or Believer, as their strict and proper Repreſenter, and ſo to have our ſelves fulfilled all Righteouſneſs in him, or by him, and thereby be Juſtified. There are more words by way of Aggravation which I fill up with [and thereby be Juſtified] becauſe they tend only to ſhew what the allowing ſo much at the beginning does draw after it.
This Doctrine I have ſaid is coarſe, I add, and grounded on a Miſtake, which I have inculcated in my Book of Juſtification. Divines indeed ordinarily, Papiſts and Proteſtants, ſuppoſing that it is by the Law, the Law of Works, that we ſhall be Judged, do fall out, and muſt fall out one againſt, and one with another: But let them reflect, and underſtand aright, that it is not the Law of Works, but the Law of Grace, or Law of Faith, not the Law but the Goſpel (Rom. 1.16. James 2.12. before noted) is and ſhall be the Rule of Judgment (when the Law is indeed the Rule of Living,) they muſt end the Quarrel between moſt of them. Upon this*Hence Contarenus, though a Papiſt and a Cardinal, who defines alſo Juſtificari to be juſtum fieri, & propterea juſtum haberi, hath yet theſe words. Ego prorſus exiſtimo piè & Chriſtianè dici, quod debeamus niti juſtitia Chriſti nobis donata, non autem gratia nobis inhaerente. Haec enim juſtitia noſtra eſt inchoata & imperfecta, quae tueri nos non poteſt quin in multis offendamus. Idcirco in conſpectu Dei non poſſumus ob hanc juſtitiam noſtram haberi juſti & boni: Sed juſtitia Chriſti nobis donata eſt perfecta quae omnino placet oculis Dei. Haec ergo ſola certa & ſtabili nitendum eſt, & ob eam ſolam credere nos juſtificari coram Deo, id eſt juſtos haberi, & dici juſtos. Cont. de Juſtificatione. account, when the Proteſtant judges that we muſt have a Righteouſneſs that anſwers the Law (as his,) or elſe he cannot at all be juſtified, he does make Chriſt ſuch a Surety, and deviſe ſuch a Commutation of Perſons as ſuits to that Conception: But he that is clear, as to the Rule by which we ſhall be judged, will be contented with ſuch a Suretiſhip and Commutation only, as the Scripture (I was upon ſaying as Mr. W.) does allow him.
For Chriſt's Suretiſhip in the firſt place, I do not fancy ſo much to be made of it even as Mr. W. does. That he was a Surety on God's part, and then on our part— and I know not what. The true and faithful God I hope has no need of any Surety on his part to make His good, I count that but idle he ſays to excuſe it: And if Chriſt was a ſtrict proper (in humane ſenſe proper) Surety of the new Covenant on our part to make Ours good, then muſt all of us be ſaved, becauſe the Goſpel Covenant (I hold) is Univerſal, and not made with the Elect only. That which I conceive then, as to Chriſt's Suretiſhip, is, that he was to do, and did, all that was to be done for Satisfaction to God in our behalf, for procuring the Goſpel-Covenant for the loſt World. This I apprehend to be the main of the buſineſs. There is one Mediator (which is the common Appellation of the ſame import as Surety) between God and Man, the Man Chriſt Jeſus, who gave himſelf a Ranſome for all to be teſtified in due time. 2 Tim. 2.5, 6. Chriſt was a Surety, but a Surety in the Scripture Senſe, not in an Arbitrary Senſe. Chriſt was a Surety, not in an Antinomian Senſe, but in a Senſe which muſt be agreeable to every thing elſe that is ſaid of him in Scripture. This is ſafe, and this is true, and here I will ſtand by Mr. W. But whether Chriſt's Suretiſhip is to be made commenſurate with his Prieſthood, to make good his, or any others Notion of it, I queſtion. It is no where ſaid we have a Surety (though a High Prieſt and Interceſſor) now in Heaven.
As for the Commutation in the next place then of Perſons, I acknowledge ſuch a one accordingly, as is neceſſary to the Impetration of our Redemption, but I underſtand none ſo as to go into the Application. Chriſt took on him our Fleſh, made Satisfaction in our ſtead, and procured an Act of Grace or Pardon for all: But there is no Commutation I know as to particular Perſons in the Point of Juſtification. If Chriſt made an exchange of his Righteouſneſs with Peter for his Sins, any otherwiſe than as to the Impetration of Pardon on condition that concerns all alike, then Chriſt's Righteouſneſs muſt now be Peter's, and James and John could never have it. In Chriſt's uniting himſelf to us, by his taking our Nature, Obeying, Suffering, ſatisfying God's Juſtice, I acknowledge a Commutation, even ſuch, to wit, that our Sins were ſo imputed to him, as that he died for them, and in our ſtead, (underſtanding the Phraſes aright) and his Righteouſneſs ſo imputed, as to be the Cauſe that upon our believing we enjoy the Benefit: But in Chriſt's uniting us to him, by giving his Spirit to work in us that Condition whereby we have our Right to the Benefit, there is nothing done by him in our ſtead, nothing by us in his, no new, no other, no father Imputation. The Fruit of his Purchaſe (Pardon and Salvation by a Law of Grace) cannot be formaliter his, and if that the communicates to us be not his, how is there a Commutation? Of this Sacrifice and Righteouſneſs it ſelf we are uncapable: Of the Effect or Fruits Chriſt is uncapable. What he hath not, he cannot communicate; what he hath, we cannot receive. It is true, he hath receive poteſtatem conferendi, and in that reſpect, eminenter, may be ſaid to receive for us his own Benefits; but for us then muſt be only bono noſtro, if it were loco noſtro, our ſelves could not have them. The Puniſhment we deſerved Chriſt bare loco noſtro, therefore we are not to bear it: The Benefits Chriſt purchaſed we have, therefore loco noſtro he could not receive them. There is, there can be, no Subſtitution of Perſon in our partaking the Benefits purchaſed, as there was, there muſt be, in the purchaſing them for us. There is a Chapter on this Head in my Book, called, Peaceable Diſquiſitions, I refer thither for farther Explication.
With Mr. W. I believe (ſpeaking ſtrictly) that Chriſt was no Surety of the Covenant of Works, ſo as to enter into the ſame Bond before or after (it were but trifling to make a Diſpute of that) it was forfeited: And that his Reaſons for it are good, his fourth eſpecially, as to the ill Conſequences following upon it. Againſt Mr. W. I apprehend Chriſt to be no Surety neither, of the Covenant of Grace in a ſtrict proper Senſe (as I ſay alſo in my Sheet) becauſe the buſineſs of this Suretiſhip I ſaid now, does lye mainly in obtaining for us this Covenant (as Moſes dealt in his Mediatorſhip,) and not in the undertaking on God's part (which needs not) and on our part, that it ſhould be kept. In this ſenſe do I underſtand the Prophet, when God ſays, he will give Chriſt for a Covenant of the People, that is, to mediate this Covenant, to procure it. The word Surety, I ſay again, muſt be taken in ſuch a Senſe (and not any other) which agrees with every thing elſe ſaid of Chriſt in the Scripture, or with the whole Doctrine of the Goſpel beſides: And that Doctrine is falſe (I count) which confines the Goſpel-Covenant to the Elect. Not that he undertook that all he mediated for, ſhould do all that is their Duty, ſays the throughly Underſtanding Mr. Baxter, in his Paraphraſe on the place.
As for Mr. W. I will take leave to ſay, he is to me a conſiderable Man, eſpecially as to his Talent, Elocution; which yet, unleſs his Judgment alſo be Good, Staid and Unpaſſionate, as it appears, may prove to him a Temptation. There is nothing I diſtruſt him ſo much in, as in his Diſtinctions, which I cannot but ſuſpect ſometimes (through his Facility of words,) to be made rather in diverſe Expreſſions, than in the reality of the things he would diſtinguiſh. I am afraid leaſt he ſhould hereby come to yield more in our main Cauſe, than we can again recover. This appears more particularly in theſe two Points, wherein I am more particularly concerned, the Conditionality of the Covenant, and the Buſineſs of Juſtification.
It is to be known and acknowledged, there are ſeveral places in the Old Teſtament, which ſpeak of God's Circumciſing the Heart, giving a new one, putting his Fear into it, ſo as they that have this Promiſe fulfilled to them, ſhall enter into Covenant with God in Sincerity, and never again depart from him: Upon which account it is called an Everlaſting Covenant, and a ſecond Covenant in Oppoſition to the first that the Iſraelites brake, as it is in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews. In theſe places then we have a Promiſe (for they are all I ſuppoſe in the account of moſt one and the ſame Promiſe) which is an Abſolute Promiſe, that is, to give that which hath no Condition required of us for the obtaining it, the firſt Grace, the new Heart, Faith and Repentance, in order to our Salvation. Now the Promiſe being Abſolute, and called the Covenant, [This is my Covenant I will make with the Houſe of Iſrael after thoſe days, ſaith the Lord: I will put my Laws into their Minds, and write them in their Hearts: And I will be to them a God, and they ſhall be to me a People,] the Antinomian does apprehend it to be the Covenant of Grace, and that the Covenant of Grace therefore is not Conditional, for there is no Condition in this Promiſe, and if that we call the Condition, is on God's part given, and not required as a Condition to be performed on our parts, the Covenant is without Condition.
Here now the Orthodox Calviniſt, who is neither Arminian or Antinomian, are of two ſorts, one whoſe Genius carries them ſo much againſt Arminianiſm, that they come as near as they can to the Antinomian: And the other whoſe Genius leads them ſo far from Antinomianiſm, that they come as near as they can to the Arminian; but either of them carefully avoiding the Danger of both Errors. Under the firſt ſort I muſt rank Mr. Cole and Mr. Mather, and ſuch as will ſay here (with Mr. Rutherford) that this Promiſe is part of the Covenant of Grace (not the whole Covenant,) and that this Promiſe of Faith, or the firſt Grace, being part of the Covenant-Bleſſings, and the Fruit of Chriſt's Purchaſe for the Elect, the Covenant in this reſpect is without any Antecedent Condition: But the firſt Grace being given in order to obtain farther Bleſſings, that firſt Grace (I ſuppoſe in their account) is a Conſequent Condition (in regard to the Connexion between them) to thoſe Benefits, and ſo ſave they themſelves from Antinomianiſm. Under the Latter ſort, I had thought I might have ranked Mr. W. with my ſelf, but I will name one more worthy than we, for his moſt acute and ſtrong parts, Mr. Woodbridge, who does deny this Promiſe to be part of the Covenant of Grace made with Fallen Man: But that it is either an indefinite Promiſe, which God will make good on whom he pleaſes in their uſe of means, or a Promiſe in regard to the Elect, not made to them, but made to Chriſt in the Covenant of Redemption (if we may frame ſuch a thing in God's Decrees) as it is diſtinguiſhed from that made with Man, or Goſpel-Covenant, which requires Faith and Repentance (wrought in us by God's firſt Grace) as the Condition, and upon that Condition, and that as performed by us (though through that Grace) does grant us Remiſſion and Eternal Life. And this firſt Grace God gives to this end, that his Elect may in their time enter this Covenant, and ſo have the benefits of it.
I ſignified this to Mr. W. in my Sheet, but he (in his) is ſo full of himſelf, as he will take his Friends by the halves. I never wrote (ſays he) that Faith and Repentance are not Covenant-Bleſſings: But Mr. Lobb I perceive thought, and ſo do I, that this is conſonant to what he ſhould write. No Man can have any Benefit of the Covenant that is not in Covenant. That which is given of God to his Elect, as pre-requiſite to enter Covenant, is given them before they are in Covenant, and therefore is not any of the Benefits of it. This is what I meant, and I for my part therefore do ſay, that Faith and Repentance are the Conditions and not the Benefits of the Goſpel-Covenant. For if they be granted Bleſſings thereof, then is there no Condition to its Benefits, and ſo the Covenant is not Conditional according to the ſenſe of thoſe that oppoſe us. The Benefits of the Covenant are God's part to perform, and if Faith and Repentance were part of thoſe Benefits, it were well indeed for us, for then muſt all within the Church be ſaved: The Miniſter does on God's part declare the Covenant in his Preaching the Word, and Seals it in delivery of the Sacraments, and that to every one: If every one therefore hath not this Faith and Repentance given him, either this Faith and Repentance is not indeed one of the Benefits, or God is not Faithful in Covenant (this Univerſal Goſpel-Covenant) which cannot be argued, but with a reverential Averſation.
He hath one thing a little higher to the ſame effect. Sir, you omit one part of the Objection, that I ſhould ſay the Conditions are Legal. I never called them ſo: I give five Inſtances of the difference between the Condition of the Covenant of Works, and Grace. Here is our Cauſe yielding ſtill, but I muſt beg his Pardon, for he ſays in this he knows not what. The Inſtances he mentions are nothing to the purpoſe: And as he ſaid before, he never wrote that Faith and Repentance are not Benefits of the Covenant, when he ſhould have wrote ſo: So he ſays here, he never called them Legal Conditions, when he needed not ſcruple it. Mr. Lobb put in the word Legal in oppoſition only to Teſtamentary; and when he grants a Teſtamentary Condition, he does, I count, under a more ſoft word, ingenuouſly grant us our Point. It is in Mr. Lobb's Peaceable Enquiry, which Mr. W. it ſeems knows not. To Mr. Lobb then I ſay, If I have an Eſtate given me by Will or Teſtament upon a certain Condition, I muſt perform that Condition, or elſe I cannot have that Eſtate though it be Gift: But the Condition being performed, it gives me Right to that Eſtate by that Teſtament, and the Law will make it good. It is ſo as to a Promiſe, and as to the Covenant. The Performance gives us Right by (not its own Merit, but vertue of) that Promiſe, that Covenant. This I affirm (ſays Mr. W. himſelf) the Promiſe conveighs the Title as ſoon as the Terms of the Grant are anſwered, Goſpel Truth, p. 61. That thing which being performed gives Right to the Benefit, is a true legal Condition in Mr. Lobb's ſenſe. There is nothing elſe to be underſtood by it. Legal is not oppoſed here to Evangelical but to Not rightful. As I ſaid therefore but now, that Faith and Repentance are not the Benefits, but the Conditions of the Goſpel-Covenant: So ſay I they are Antecedent legal (Evangelically legal, legal in the ſenſe of Mr. Lobb's ſeeming denial thereof) Conditions of thoſe Benefits. And this I did not omit, as Mr. W. thinks, but did de induſtria own it in my Sheet in theſe words. If we do not make Faith ſuch a Condition as Antecedes the Benefits, and that being performed gives right to them, that we may not mince the matter (whereby I meant the aforeſaid diſtinction) it is but trifling to maintain that the Covenant hath any Conditions. If we confeſs our Sins, God is Juſt and Faithful to forgive them. They have right to the Tree of Life that keep his Commandments.
To return then now to the new Heart, promiſed in the Prophets to the Houſe of Iſrael, when the days come that they may enter this Covenant ſo as to break it no more, I have one thing to offer here to publick conſideration. Our Divines interpret theſe Texts to belong to the Elect, to them only, all the Elect, (with whom this Covenant is made from Eternity in Chriſt, ſay ſome, ſuppoſing This, and the Covenant of Redemption to be one.) Now it is to me a queſtion whether they be not quite out, becauſe it is manifeſt in all the places in the Prophets, and that to the Hebrews, that this Promiſe and Covenant to be made, is peculiar ſtill to the Jews, and that confined to a certain time (Behold the days come, ſaith the Lord) which is expreſſed over and over after their ſcattering and recollection. Let us look the Scripture. The firſt Text that we have, wherein this Abſolute Promiſe is to be found, is in Deut. 30.6. And the Lord thy God will circumciſe thine heart, and the heart of thy Seed. Well, but when will the Lord do this? They were almoſt all uncircumciſed in Heart at preſent, and continued ſo during their Judges, their Kings, and Prophets. Look therefore to the Verſes before, and Moſes is Prophecying of their State hereafter, that they would Sin and God would ſcatter them, and then gather them after from all Nations, and bring them to the Land which their Fathers poſſeſſed (ſpeaking this before they came into Poſſeſſion) and in that State it is he promiſes this Circumciſion of their Heart, ſo as they ſhall love him with the whole of it, and live, and fall no more from him.
Let us come from Moſes to the Prophets, ſee Ezek. 11.19, 20. I will give them one heart, and put a new Spirit in them, and I will take away the ſtony heart that they may walk in my Ordinances, and they ſhall be my People, and I will be their God. Here is the Promiſe, but to whom? Why all the whole Houſe of Iſrael wholly are they, v. 15. Even the ſcattered afar off among the Countries, v. 16. And when is it to be fulfilled? I will gather you from the People, and aſſemble you out of the Countries where you have been ſcattered, and I will give you the Land of Iſrael, v. 17. Likewiſe in Chap. 36. v. 22. to 28. Say to the Houſe of Iſrael, O Houſe of Iſrael, I will take you from among the Heathen, and gather you from all Countries, and will bring you to your own Land. Then will I ſprinkle clean water on you, and a new Spirit, and take away the heart of stone, and cauſe you to walk in my Statutes, and ye ſhall be my People, and I will be your God. From Ezekiel let us go to Jeremiah, Jer. 32.37. I will gather them, (the Children of Iſrael and Judah, v. 30.) out of all Countries wither I have driven them in my Anger, and bring them again to this place; I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever. And I will make an everlaſting Covenant with them, and they ſhall not depart from me. In Hoſ. 2. And it ſhall be at that day thou ſhalt call me Iſhi, v. 16. And in that day I will make a Covenant, v. 18. And I will betroth thee for ever, v. 19. And it ſhall come to paſs in that day I will hear, v. 21. Well! and when is that day? Look Jer. 16.14, 15. Behold, the dayes come, ſaith the Lord, that it ſhall no more be ſaid, the Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Iſrael out of Egypt: But the Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Iſrael from the Land of the North, and from all Lands whether he had driven them: And I will bring them again into their Land that I gave their Fathers. Thus much is apparent, that whenſoever this new Heart and new Covenant is promiſed, it is peculiar to the Jews upon a Reſtauration. Let us look laſtly then into the Hebrews, which cites another Text out of Jeremiah, Heb. 8 8. Finding fault with them (in regard to the firſt Covenant) he ſaith, Behold the days come, ſaith the Lord, when I will make a new Covenant with the Houſe of Iſrael, and the Houſe of Judah: Not according to that I made with their Fathers in the day that I lead them out of Egypt, becauſe they continued not in it, and I regarded them not. And ſo goes on to what I have cited in the beginning, and more follows to the end.
Here is a Covenant we ſee made with the Jews, which they brake, and God caſts them off; and here is another which he promiſes to be made with them, that they ſhall keep, and he will caſt them off no more; and this time it ſhall be made with them, is when he ſhall gather them from all parts of the World where they are ſcattered, and bring them to their Land again, as it is in all the places here mentioned. At that time, In that day, he will give them this new Heart to enter this new Covenant (this ſecond Covenant, and with them, not the ſecond with Mankind, which was with us in Adam Fallen) after thoſe days, ſaith the Lord. And when was that day? Is it paſt? Was it not immediately after the Captivity out of Babylon? I judge not, for the Jews that returned then, were thoſe of Judah only, not the ſcattered of the whole Houſe of Iſrael; and theſe alſo in ſome time grew as bad as their Forefathers, filling up their meaſure, as Chriſt ſpeaks, inſomuch as they came to Crucifie the Lord of Life himſelf; and there is no Seaſon yet, wherein ſuch a Heart hath been given them, as in theſe Texts is promiſed, that they ſhould ſo Covenant, as to break it no more. This is certain, that ſince their Sin in Crucifying Chriſt, they have been driven from Jewry and diſperſed the World over; and the Promiſe then of gathering them out of all Nations, and giving them this new Heart, thus to Covenant a new (or a ſecond time) with the Lord, is in all likelihood not yet, nor to be accompliſhed, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, as Chriſt tells, Luke 21.24. And St. Paul Comments it, Until the fulneſs of the Gentiles be come, Rom. 11.25.
That there is a time of Calling the Jews, is not only an ancient Opinion of Juſtin Martyr, and many of thoſe Fathers that were Millenaries, but of our Orthodox Divines; and it was much upon the Hearts of thoſe called Puritans in their time, it being built on thoſe two Texts now mentioned: And indeed there are twenty and twenty places in the Prophets, that ſpeak of a glorious State of the Jews to come, that none can ſay have yet their Accompliſhment. And if this Opinion of a time to come of Calling the Jews be good, then may we well believe that that will be the time when theſe Texts, and Promiſe ſtood upon, will be fulfilled. When the Converſion of the Gentiles is brought in to the full of what God has determined (to whom a thouſand years is but as one day) then ſhall be the gathering of the ſcattered. And as it is into the Jews Olive the Gentiles are ingrafted, the Jews ſhall return to that Olive themſelves, and both become the Church of Chriſt: So that All Iſrael ſhall be ſaved, ſays the Apoſtle, citing for it that of Iſaiah, There ſhall come out of Sion a Deliverer, and ſhall turn away Ungodlineſs from Jacob: For this is my Covenant unto them, when I ſhall take away their ſins, Rom. 11.26. Note it, the Covenant, called the new Covenant in the Hebrews, is to be made with Jacob, that is, his Poſterity, at this time when this Prophecy is accompliſhed, and that is plainly at the calling of the Jews.
Now then from what is ſaid I argue, and by virtue of all theſe Scriptures forecited, I do deny that the firſt Grace, Faith and Repentance, or the new Heart, is a Promiſe of the Covenant of Grace made with Mankind, or with the Elect in Chriſt, becauſe it is a Promiſe only to the Jews, and to come, and that at ſuch a time, when hereafter God ſhall gather them into his Church from among the Nations.
It may be objected, That the very mentioning the Prophecy of Jeremiah by the Author to the Hebrews, does prove it to be applied to his times (it does prove it indeed not to be in any time before, and ſo not at their return from Babylon) and that the mentioning that Covenant, does prove it to be meant of the Goſpel-Covenant: But I deny it. The mentioning of a Promiſe made only to the Jews, is no proof of it to be made to all the Elect; and the mention of a Covenant to be made with them after thoſe days, is no proof that it is meant of a Covenant made with us at the preſent day. He does not ſay as Chriſt did, when he opened the Book at a place prophecying of him, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your Ears, for the day is not yet come, the day of God's making this ſecond Covenant with the Jews (for I muſt inculcate that it is a ſecond as to them) only the Author cites the Prophecy in reſpect to his matter in hand, which is, that the Jewiſh Diſpenſation, their Prieſthood and Covenant, was already ceaſed, the Promiſe of a new to come, ſhewing its intended Aboliſhment. Which arguing is good, and becoming Sacred Scripture, though the time be to come. For there's nothing here argued but at preſent is true, notwithſtanding the peculiarity of this Prophecy is yet to be made good. The Covenant of Grace in the Subſtance of it, is one and the ſame ſince Adam's Fall to this day, and to this time yet to be accompliſhed: But the diverſe Adminiſtrations of it were to be at ſeveral Seaſons. It was in the Promiſe only till Chriſt, and then he ratified it by his Blood, and promulgated it by his Apoſtles, which all ſtands good very conſiſtently with another Adminiſtration (as to them) upon the Jews Vocation.
I know now there are twenty Queſtions might be raiſed here by way of Objection, or for the ſake of Elucidation, which I was a little thinking upon, but I will leave them every one to others Meditations. If what I have ſtarted be good, there is an end of all Difficulty in regard to the Conditionality of the Goſpel-Covenant, and what I or others have anſwered to thoſe Texts may be ſpared: For there is nothing conſiderable but from theſe Texts that is againſt us. I conclude, If it be good, there is ſome body or other, at ſome time or other, will make it good: If it be not good, I will be at my liberty to ſtand where I do, and disbelieve it again as well as any other.