Vindiciæ legis & fœderis

This is so plain and clear, that no• can doubt or deny it, that understand the nature of the two Covenants. A• now Sir, what course do you take […] avoid this Argument? such a one sure, […] ⟨p. 49⟩no Man that ever I met with took before you; and that's this, you boldly cut Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. into two parts, and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace; which is the promissory part, to the ninth Verse, and the Restipulation (as you call it) Page 205. •o be as pure a Covenant of Works. What hard shift will some Men make •o maintain their Opinion! You say truly Page 205. that at the seventh and •ighth Verses was their Restipulation, why •hen do you say, Page 224. that at Verse •he seventh, he proceeds to speak of another Covenant than what he had been •eaking of before? Does the Promise •nd the Restipulation make two Covenants, or are they just and necessary parts •f one and the same Covenant? You also tell us, that the Covenant Gen. 17. […], 2, 3, 4. was a plain Transcript of overall free Promises of the Gospel, under •e denomination of a Covenant. But •hy then don't you take the Restipula•on, verse 7, 8, 9, 10. to be a part of […]? Oh, no, there is something required […] Abraham's and his Posterities part, •ey must be circumcised, and that spoils •l. Why, but Sir, if the requiring of ⟨p. 50⟩Circumcision alters the case so greatly, as to make it a quite contrary Covenant, how comes it to pass, that in the Covenant to Abraham, he himself was first required to be circumcised? Why this is the reason, here is somewhat required on their part as a Condition, and a Condition quite alters the nature of the Covenant. Very well, but tell me then, why you say, Page 223. and in many other places, that the Covenant made with Abraham in