as it is used in the passage of Scripture now referred to, is not so removed from the idea of containing conditions, as is sometimes supposed. a Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich, in a little tract, entitled, "The Covenant of Grace, and Baptism the token of it,' in which he has very ably proved the obligation of Infant Baptism, has yet, in the course of his reasoning, fallen into some confusion, for want of distinguishing properly between a promise and a covenant. He considers the word covenant as having two senses, namely, as "signifying a free, unconditional donation and assurance of blessings from God," and as an "agreement or mutual engagement between parties, upon certain conditions, which settles affairs upon a new foundation." It is evident, however, that, according to the usual acceptation of words, the first of these senses, which he gives to the word covenant, belongs to the word gift, and promise of gift. This sense of the word he assigns to the covenant made with Noah, which we have now been considering, as also to that made with Abraham. It has, however, appeared, from what I have said, that the declaration made to Noah so far comprehended in it what was of the nature of a condition, as to render it more properly a covenant, than a simple gift, or the promise of a gift. With respect to the covenant made with Abraham, it may be considered as consisting of two parts; the first, a promise, that the covenant of grace, which, in fact, had been made before, should be manifested to mankind through his race; the second, that his posterity should be put into possession of the land of Canaan. The only condition of this covenant, required on the part of Abraham, was circumcision; for, of this covenant circumcision was both the condition and the token. Both these promises have been fulfilled; but many effects of their fulfilment were left to be dependent on future conditions; conditions which were not necessary to be specified at the time the promise. was made. Thus, though the possession of the land of Canaan, promised to the posterity of Abraham, is called an everlasting possession, it was certainly intended to be dependent on the behaviour of his posterity. This will In his preface, the author, whom Mr. Overton, in seeming derision and contempt, calls "Taylor the Socinian," modestly says, "I am not fit to be set up for a standard; I am not fond of gaining followers; I am not worthy to have any; follow Christ." It is pity, that Mr. Overton, with his supposed orthodoxy, has not more than he appears to have of the same spirit. Vol. VI. Churchm. Mag. March, 1804. be be evident to any one, who shall peruse the 8th and 28th chapters of Deuteronomy, and the 23d chapter of Joshua. The grant of the land of Canaan to the posterity of Abraham was so far from being unconditional, that, by their neglect in observing the conditions, on which it was conceded to them, they actually forfeited the possession of it; nor (though the consideration of this is a sepa→ rate question) do I find any reason for believing that the possession of it will ever be restored to them. Their being put into possession, was in consequence of the promise made to Abraham. This is often expressly declared. "Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word, which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Deut. ix. 5. Their continuance in possession depended on their observance of those laws, which God gave them by the hand of Moses. In proportion to their observance of them, they enjoyed the blessing of that possession; their disobe- . dience being repeatedly punished by temporary dispos session; and when, by the rejection of the promised Messiah, in whom was to be accomplished the other part of the promise made to Abraham, they had filled up the measure of their iniquities, they were punished by a total and final dispossession. In like manner, though the Covenant of Grace (which, agreeably to the promise made to Abraham, was manifested to mankind through his race) has been granted to us for the sake of Christ, the blessings of that covenant are to be obtained only in consequence of observing its conditions. Dr. Taylor has a critical note on Gal. iii. 17. which, if he had attended to the distinction now made, he would have seen to be unnecessary, as well as unfounded. He Bays, "In this verse, dann the covenant, and mayysha the promise, are synonymous." Little good is ever to be expected to arise from straining the words of the inspired writers from their natural meaning, in order to make them agree with our pre-conceived opinions. In the present case, there is not only no necessity of considering the covenant and a promise of the covenant to mean the same thing, but an evident impropriety in doing so. The Covenant of Grace, as I have said, was not made with Abraham. It was made long before, and was made through through Christ with the human race, of which Adam was the representative. It was, indeed, as the Apostle says, confirmed to Abraham, and rendered peculiarly grateful to him by the promise, that, "in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed." Strictly speaking, the covenant made with Abraham was, that, on the condition of circumcision, his posterity should be put into possession of the land of Canaan. It may, indeed, be said, that, in its spiritual meaning, it comprehended more than this; for that the land of Canaan, the reward of this covenant, was a type of the heavenly inheritance, which is the promised reward of the Covenant of Grace. This is true; and the consideration of this leads to another argument in favour of my principal position. In fact, it is an argument made use of by St. Paul. It is clear, that the resemblance is not to be confined to the reward, but must be extended to the means of attaining to it. As, with respect to individuals, obedience to the law of Moses was the condition of inheriting the land of Canaan; so is obedience to the law of Christ, or the precepts of the Gospel, the condition of inheriting the kingdom of heaven. Though the promise to Abraham and his posterity was expressed generally; yet we know, that, on account of their disobedience, God was displeased with many of them, and overthrew them in the wilderness. See 1. Corin. x. 1, 5. In like manner, though the " means of grace, and the hope of glory," are furnished and held out to all of us; yet, unless we observe the conditions of the christian covenant, we shall fail of attaining to its final and everlasting rewards. shall That the Church of England considers the Christian. Religion as a covenant, will be evident to every one, who peruse the Office of Baptism, and the Catechism; in both which the promise on the part of God, and the conditions on the part of man, are clearly and distinctly stated. In the Office of Baptism, the promise, which is made on the part of God by Christ is, that he will receive the person to be baptised, release him of his sins, sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, and give him the kingdom of heaven, and everlasting life. This is called in the catechism, a "state of salvation," and is particularly expressed by the baptized persons being made "a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." In the same Office of Baptism, U 2 the the promise made on the part of the person baptized is, that he will renounce the devil, and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy word, and obediently keep his commandments." This, in the catechism, is expressed so nearly in the same manner, that it is unnecessary to repeat it. In the case of those who are adults at the time of their baptism, the Church requires, besides the promise of observing those things, which are the condition of continuing in the Christian covenant, that they should actually possess the qualifications of entering into it, i. e. repentance and faith; for, in the exhortation preceding the act of baptism, the persons who are about to be baptised, are spoken of as "truly repenting, and coming unto God by faith." Since, then, the Christian religion is a covenant, in the strict and proper sense of the word; that is, since it implies a promise on the part of God, on the condition of certain performances on our part, it becomes a matter of the greatest importance, that we diligently inquire what those performances are, and that we make it our constant endeavour faithfully to submit to them; for we cannot reasonably expect to be partakers of the benefit of any covenant, of which, we are not careful on our part, to observe the conditions. While we entertain sentiments of the highest gratitude towards our Saviour, on account of whose merits alone God was graciously pleased to enter into this covenant with us, let us take heed, that we do not, by our own fault or negligence, frustrate the benevolent intention of it, and hinder ourselves from participating in its unspeakable blessings. Rempstone, Feb. 11, 1804. E. PEARSON. Postscript to the Rev. SPENCER COBBOLD. I do not see, that it is necessary for me to say more, by way of rejoinder to Mr. Cobbold's reply (besides acknowledging the politeness of his expressions) than that he is not, I think, justified in supposing me to consider the 17th Article merely as a definition of predestination, and as having no adequate object in view. My words are, "It (the 17th Article) only states, by way of definition, that such is the meaning of predestination and election; that, if it (predestination) be true, the process of it must be such as is described in the Article; and that the consideration of it, where it is believed to be true, whether true true in itself or not, is beneficial to godly persons, a and perpicious to those of a contrary character.' I referred, for a further explication of my sentiments on the subject, to my "Second Letter to Overton;" but it appears to me, that what I have now cited, since it adverts both to the use and abuse of the Article, sufficiently points out an object of it, and an object well deserving the attention of the compilers. This agrees, (though Mr. Cobbold does not seem to think so) with the opinion of Dr. Hey, who (Norris, Lect. end of vol. III.) says, "It seems clear to me, that our Church did not, at the time of the separation from the Church of Rome, properly intend to lay down any doctrine of predestination; but only to declare against abuses actually prevailing." See also vol. IV. p. 24. where the same sentiment is repeated. ON A FALSE INTERPRETATION OF E. P. TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S IN GENTLEMEN, MAGAZINE. a cursory glance over the pages of Aikin's Annual Review, I lately met with an interpretation of a passage of Scripture, which was both revolting to my feelings, (prejudices I suppose I must call them) and, in my opinion, derogatory, though doubtless unintentionally, from the dignity of our Saviour. The passage, conta ning the interpretation alluded to, is to be met with in his Review of "Nisbett's Triumphs of Christianity," p. 141. I am obliged to transcribe the whole; but, as it involves a subject of great importance, I trust you will not object to the room, which it will occupy in your valuable repository. It is as follows:-" Whenever the same word," says Dr. Edwards, "is used in the same sentence, or in different sentences not far distant from each other, we ought to interpret it precisely in the same sense, unless either that sense should involve a contradiction of ideas, or the writer expressly informs us, that he repeats the word in a fresh acceptation. Now Mr. Nisbett cannot fail to know that the original word is the same in the* 25th and 26th verses, though in the former it is translated |
