The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
A grand Objection againſt this doctrine anſwered.
HEre an objection of weight; A grand objection againſt the conditionality of the Covenant of Grace anſwered.by reaſon of the difficulty of ſome Scripture-Texts, on which it is grounded, is to be taken into conſideration, It is true (ſaith one) that in covevenants uſually there is a mutual contract, and there are mutual performances, to which perſons are engaged thereby. But for the thing it is certaine, that however the words of foedus pactum, in Latine, foreign in Greek, covenant in Engliſh be uſed, the Hebrew Berith, and the Greek foreign, uſed in the Old and New Teſtament, do not alwayes import a mutual contract and mutual performances. God is ſaid to eſtabliſh a Covenant with all living, Gen. 9. 9, 10. between whom and God, there neither is, nor can be a mutual contract and performance. And the term rendred covenant, is not only rendred Testament; but alſo the holy Writers do illuſtrate the New covenant, rather by the metaphor of a Teſtament, then of a covenant, 1 Corinth. 11. 25. Gal. 3. 15. Heb. 9. 16, 17. and where the Promiſes are ſet down without any reciprocal contract or duty expreſt, Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12. and 10. 16, 17. Rom. 11. 26, 27.
This argument, is againſt all being of covenants, as well as the conditionality of them, as indeed, if conditions be denied, all being of a covenant is deſtroyed, and therefore it might have been well brought in, where the covenant it ſelf was aſſerted, as militating againſt the very being of it. But it cannot conveniently be held out in both places, and therefore it muſt be conſidered here, and for anſwer, let us firſt take what is granted, that uſually in covenants there is a mutual contract, and that theſe words, Latine, and Greek, be uſed to imply ſuch covenants, in which there are mutual contracts, and mutual performances, and to which perſons are engaged on both ſides; and then let us examine what is affirmed concerning thoſe two words, Berith and foreign, for the contrary.
And for the firſt, who does not know, that the word is ſometimes uſed for a covenant improperly ſo called? A bare command, Jer. 34. 13. A bare Seal, Gen. 17. 10. is (as we have heard) called a covenant. And, ſo a bare promiſe here in the place quoted is called a covenant likewiſe; Not that beaſts and birds can covenant, but they ſhall be as ſecure from the judgement there mentioned, as though there had paſt a mutual contract in the ſtrongeſt engagements, Eliphaz ſhewing the priviledges of the godly, ſaith; Job 5. 23. They ſhall be in league with the ſtones of the field, the ſame word is in both places; ſhall we now ſay, that a league or covenant is no act of reaſon, becauſe man is in league and covenant with ſtones, which are unreaſonable creatures? or rather ſhall we ſay with Maſter Caryl in his Expoſition, To be in League with ſtones is an improper and alluſive ſpeech, ſtones are not capable of the formalities of a League? So we ſay, for God to make a covenant with unreaſonable creatures, with beaſts, birds, and creeping things, is an improper and alluſive ſpeech likewiſe. Birds, Beaſts, and creeping things are in an incapacity of covenant. Gomarus handling that queſtion of Univerſal Redemption in his Comment on Gal. 1. (a Patron of the Lutherans, as he calls him, diſputing for it from the form of the covenant of Grace as that Diſputant ſtiles it, Gen. 3. 17. where the ſeed of the woman is promiſed to break the Serpents head,*Antecedens falſâ …ititur hypotheſi, qu…ſi verbis illis formula foederis gratiae contineretur.—Contrà verò foedus propriè obligation… dua…um partium certis utrinque conditionibus complecti certum eſt, qualem hoc loco extare probare non poteſt: ideoque nec foedus propriè eſt.) denies that thoſe words containe the forme of a covenant; becauſe it is certain (as he ſayes) that a Covenant properly ſo called, containes an obligation of two parties, with conditions on both ſides; which cannot be proved (ſaith he) in thoſe words, and therefore it is not a covenant properly ſo called. From which learned hand we ſee 1. That a covenant properly ſo called is of two parties. 2. That both parts have their conditions. 3. That there is a covenant between God and man properly ſo called, in which God and man are both obliged. 4. That no Scripture-expreſſion holds out this covenant▪ that holds not out theſe conditions.
This is the proper acception for which we contend, and improper acceptions as they do not hold forth the nature of a covenant, ſo we confeſſe they do not imply mutual contracts, or mutual performances. So that the Argument is brought to this, A covenant ſometimes in an improper ſenſe is ſaid to be made with thoſe that cannot make mutual contracts; therefore a covenant is no mutal contract, nor hath any mutual engagements. We might as well argue, that becauſe a ſtone is called a witneſſe, Joſh. 24. 27. a heap of ſtones is ſo called, Gen. 31. 48. (which have neither eyes, nor ears, to ſee or hear, what is done or ſaid, nor yet a tongue to utter it) therefore there is no uſe of eyes, or ears, or of a tongue, in any one that is brought for a witneſſe. As the Hebrew word Berith is improperly uſed, or at leaſt uſed in a ſenſe, more large then to denote a covenant, whereſoever it doth not hold out an agreement of two parties with engagements on both hands. So the word foreign, whenſoever it is uſed in that ſenſe, ſeemes to be taken improperly, Seeing in its received ſignification (according to good Interpreters) it doth denote not a covenant, but a mans laſt Will and Teſtament, which never is of force, but by the death of the Teſtator, Heb. 9. 16, 17. which is not true of a Covenanter, his death is not required to make the covenant valid. aTeſtamentum Grace foreign ſumitur, 1. Propriè, pro ſuprema animi ſeu voluntatis noſtrae … de eo, quod poſt mortem noſtram fieri cupimus, ſic Teſtamentum morte teſtatoris ratum eſt, nondum enim valet cum … teſtator. 2 Impropriè, pr… paectione … foederè, quod viventes inter ſeiuire ſolent.So Ravanellus, Teſtament (ſaith he) in Greek foreign is taken, 1. Properly, for the declaration of a mans Will concerning that which he would have done after his death, and is ratified by the death of the Teſtator; for it is not of force while the Testator liveth, Heb. 9. 16, 17. 2. Improperly, for a covenant, which living men enter among themſelves. Rivet, alſo Exercit. 103. in Gen. ſpeaking of thoſe words of the Apoſtle, Gal. 4. 24. Theſe are two Teſtaments.bNomen Teſtamenti, ſumi non debet i… proprie …, pro eo quod fit ab … ſed pro foedere, …, ut bene animadvertis Pererius. Teſtament there (he ſaith) is not to be taken, in a proper ſignification for that which is done by a dying man, and ratified by his death, but, for a covenant-agreement, or order as Pererius hath well obſerved. Alſted in his Lexicon Theologicum having ſpoken to the ſenſe in which tranſlatours of the Bible ſometimes uſe it, as the ſame with foreign, reſolves, cAliquid dandum eſt conſuetudini. Teſtamentum propriè juſtam voluntatis …, de eo, quod quis poſt mortem de … ſuis fieri velit, Graeci propriè foreign vocant.We muſt yeeld ſomewhat to custome. After ſaith. Teſtament properly ſignifies a juſt declaration of a mans Will, concerning that which he would have done with his goods after his death. The Greeks properly call it foreign. Eſtius is very dQuamvi… enim foreign, ſi vocis e…ymo… attendas, non plus sonet quàm diſpoſitionem & apud authores Graecos, Baeudaeo teſte in commentariis Gracae linguae, ſignificet in genere pactum, conventum, pollicitationem: conſta… tamen vulgarem & … ejus ſignificationem eſſe, quâ denotes idem quòd apud Latinos Teſtamentum, id eſt, voluntatis decretum, de co quod quis poſt mortem ſua…fier… velit.full, ſetting out the Original denotation of the word, together with the received ſignification of it. For though foreign (ſaith he) if you look to the Etymologie of the word, holds out no more then a diſpoſing, and with Greek Authours (as Budaeus witneſſeth in his Comme…t on the Greek tongue), ſignifies in general a covenant-agreement or promiſe; yet the common and moſt received ſignification is the ſame, as Teſtamentum in the Latine, which is the declaration of a mans Will concerning that whith he would have done after his death. The Apoſtles Application of a Teſtament properly ſo called to the covenant of God, Heb. 9. 16, 17. hath troubled many Interpreters. Eraſmus on this acount queſtions the Authors skill in the Hebrew tongue, and Cajetan calls into queſtion the authority of the Epiſtle. Moſt conclude from hence, that the Original of the Epiſtle was Greek, in that there is not Hebrew words to hold out ſuch expreſſions, and the Syriack tranſlator was put to it, to keep the Greek word, and put it into a Syriack Character. For the clearing of this doubt, it is not enough to ſay, that theſe words are ſometimes promi…uouſly uſed. Berith for a Teſtament, foreign for a Covenant, as Camerarius notes out of Ariſtophanes, a Greek Poet, as Rivet obſerves, Seeing the Apoſtle applies a [Teſtament] in the proper received ſenſe to that which ſignifies a mutual agreement. For the ſalving of which Eſtius reckons up ſeveral opinions which he rejects, ſome of which, others of good note follow, and afterwards acquaints the Reader with his own thoughts, in words drawn out to ſuch a length, that I ſhall refer the Reader (if he pleaſe) to the Authour himſelf. Dixon on the words, ſaith, The Articles of the covenant alſo evince it to be a Teſtament, and the promiſer bound to make his word good, and ſo to die. For Jer. 31. The Lord Chriſt promiſeth to reconcile his people to God, to take away their ſinnes, and to be their God. Juſtice required ſatisfaction of them before they could be reconciled, ſatisfaction they could not make themſelves, therefore he who promiſed to make the reconciliation with God, was found to make the ſatisfaction for them to God: and if ſatisfaction for them, then to under-lie the curſe of the Law for them, and ſo to die.eFoedus N. T. & foedus eſt, (quia eſt mutuum inter Deum, & homines ſalutis promiſſae, & obedientiae fidei ab hominibus debitae pactum) & ſimul Teſtamentum eſt; quia hoc foedus promiſſa filii Dei morte, & per eam haereditate creleſti à Deo ſancitum eſt: adeo ut non i…merio ut foedus Teſtamentarium, & Teſtamentum foederis ob concurſum utriuſque queat appellari. Indè conſtat ſimpliciter quidem eſſe foedus, ratione pacti mutui Dei & fidelium, ſed ſecundùm quid eſſe Teſtamentum, ratione modi, partis ac potioris in foedere nempe promiſſionis gratiae, quâ Deus nobis promittit ſe fore Deum noſtrum propitium & vitam aeternam daturum tanquam haeredita…em, merito obedicntiae mortis Filii ſui. Gomarus ſays, The covenant of the New Teſtament, is both a covenant and a Teſtament. It is a covenant becauſe it is an agreement between God and man concerning ſalvation promiſed, and faith owing by man: And a Teſtament, becauſe it is eſtabliſhed upon the promiſed death of the Son of God, and an heavenly inheritance by it, ſo that it may not unworthily be called a Teſtamentary covenant, or a Teſtament-covenant, by reaſon of the concurrence of both in one. And after concludes, Simply it is a covenant by reaſon of the mutual agreement between God and beleevers; Reſpectively a Teſtament, by reaſon of the way, and manner of the chief and moſt eminent part in the covenant, that is the promiſe of grace, whereby God promiſeth to be our God propitious to us, and to give us everlaſting life, as an inheritance by the death of his Son.
fCircumſcriptionem hujus nominis ex typis at que umbraculis legis demonſtrat paulò pùſt, ver. 15. & ſequentibus Apoſtolus. Cùm omnino ſtatuit, Dei gratiam eo luculentiorem heminibus explicatam eſſe: quòd ſuis non foedus, ſed Teſtamentum dederit: Quia foedus conditiones mutuas fuiſſet habiturum, quas ſi altera pars non praeſtet, foedus eſt irritum: Teſtamentum verò, liberalitatis & gratiae citra ullam conditionem inſtrumentum eſt, ex quo hoeredes vocantur & inſtituu…tur citra contemplationem ullius officii quod ab ipſis proficiſci poſſit▪Junius in his parallels undertaking to give ſatisfaction, hath a remedy (with me) worſe then the diſeaſe, though learned Mr. Grayle endeavours his Vindication. After a large diſcourſe in what latitude the word Berith is taken: The Apoſtle (he ſaith) ſhewes the limitation of it out of the Types and ſhadows of the Law in the fifteenth, and following verſes when he ſhews that the grace of God, was herein more eminent and conſpicuous, in that he gave unto his, not a covenant, but a Teſtament, giving in his reaſons; becauſe a covenant must have contained mutual conditions, which if either part did not performe, the covenant were void; but a Testament is an inſtrument of liberality and bounty, by which men are called and made heirs without eying of any duty that is to be done by them. Here by the way we ſee that in caſe it be a covenant (according to him) it hath mutual conditions, and therefore he is (together with Ravanellus, Gomarus, Vrſinus before quoted, to whom may be added Peter Martyr on Judg. 2. giving the like definition) wholly againſt thoſe who make this inference; That it cannot be proved to be of the general nature of covenants, that there ſhould be ſuch a convertibility, as that both muſt ſeal or contract or perform. But for his poſition that God hath not given a covenant to his people, I wonder how it ſlipt from him; Such unwary expreſſions (in a ſeeming tendency to advance grace from pious perſons) have made way for ſtrange ſuperſtructions. He might have ſaid, that thoſe Types and Shadows of the Law, did argue it to be more then a bare and common covenant, being ratified by blood, which led to the blood of the Mediatour. And ſo Rivet (as I underſtand him) anſwers,gNon hoc voluit Paulus in Epiſtola ad Hebraeos, cap. 9. ex ſimplici vocis ſignificatione arguere, ſed ex ipſius foederis circumſtantiis. Paul in his Epiſtle to the Hebr. (ſaith he) chap. 9. doth not argue from the ſimple ſignification of the word, but from the circumſtances of the covenant. But his denying it to be a covenant, is that which I muſt oppoſe. He is large indeed to ſhew in what latitude the word Berith in ſome Old Teſtament Texts is uſed, as alſo the Latine word Foedus in prophane Authors; All of which, ſhews no more but that the word in the exact denotation and largeſt ſenſe of it imports no more then an ordination or diſpoſition, yet that hinders not, but that as, Interpreters generally render it, ſo, the received and accuſtomed uſe of it, is, to hold out a covenant, bargaine, or agreement. As the word foreign, in its largeſt ſenſe, comprizes any Aſſembly, even for civil uſes, Acts 19. 39. yea, rude congregated routs, verſe 41. yet in the generally received ſenſe, it is taken for holy Aſſemblies; So, it is with Berith; the word may admit of a large ſenſe, but the received ſenſe is with more reſtriction. The Jews had their covenants, man with man, Abraham with Abimelech, Gen. 21. 72. Iſaac with Abimelech, Gen. 26. 28. Laban with Jacob, Gen. 31. 44. And this was the word whereby they did expreſſe their covenants, And as, the word Church is ſometimes uſed improperly, for Church Members that make not up a whole Church, The Church in Aquila and Priſcilla's houſe, Rom. 16. 5. Sometimes for Church-officers, Matth. 18. 17. Tell it to the Church, who could not be the whole Church whereof infants are a part, or (as all muſt confeſſe) women, who yet are no competent judges: ſo, there are improper acceptions of the word covenant, when the proper ſenſe is that, which hath been held out, which is a mutual compact or agreement on terms and Propoſitions. The learned obſerve that foreign properly anſwers to the word Berith; Ravanellus obſerves out of Hierome, that Aquila and Symmachus, did ſo tranſlate it; and Rivet on Geneſ. Exercit. 135. ſaith,hQuod Lxx. & Theodotio foreign dixerunt Symmachus foreign, hoc eſt pactum, vel foedus vertit, quae eſt propria ſignificatio Hebraicae vocis Berith. Quae vox non legitur in V. T… pro diſpoſitione Teſtamentariâ. That which the Septuagint and Theodotio call foreign, that, Symmachus tranſlates foreign, pactum, foedus, which (ſaith he) is the proper ſignification of the Hebrew word Berith, which word is not read in the Old Teſtament, for the ordering of a mans Will or Testament. Now it is not denyed, but the word foedus and pactum in Latine, foreign in Greek, covenant in Engliſh, do ſignifie mutual contracts, in which there are mutual performances; and ſo the Hebrew word Berith in like manner; this being according to the learned the genuine ſignification of it. And if this were not the received ſignification of it, how did the Objection before mentioned ever come into any mans head, that the Apoſtle did bewray ignorance in the Scripture-uſe of the word, in applying it to a mans Will or Teſtament, and what needed ſo much pains for his defence in it? Hierome on thoſe words, Gal 3. 17. This I ſay, that the Teſtament confirmed of God, ſaith, If any compare the Hebrew volumes and other Editions with the tranſlation of the Septuagint, he ſhall find, that, where Testament is written, it doth not ſignifie a Teſtament, but a Covenant, which in the Hebrew tongue is called Berith. And in caſe Gods whole diſpenſations and Goſpel-communications (as Junius would have it) be a Teſtament onelyonly, and no covenant; why is the world ſo abuſed with the word foedus, pactum in Latine, covenant in Engliſh? By which all men underſtand that which we call a covenant, no man underſtands a Teſtament; why do we ſay covenant of Works, covenant of grace, if the former onelyonly were a covenant properly, and the other a Teſtament? as though we ſhould cal, an Eagle, and a Lion both by the common name of a bird, perſwading that a Lion were a bird, as well as an Eagle? yet if it were a Teſtament properly ſo called, it would not overthrow the conditionality, as Mr. Grayl out of Swynborn ſhews. Teſtaments have their conditions, How comes it to paſs that Scripture holds out ſo frequently that ſimilitude of a marriage, Iſ. 54. 5. Hoſ. 2. 19. 2 Cor. 11. 2. Eph. 5. 32. to ſet out this tranſaction? A marriage contract is not a mans Teſtament: hath a wife barely a Legacie, and doth ſhe enter no covenant with her husband? How comes it to paſſe that turning aſide from God, after other lovers, is called in Scripture by the name of whoredomes, adulteries, which is the breach of a marriage-covenant? and how is ſin againſt God, called a dealing falſely with God? we cannot deale falſely in the covenant, if it be not a covenant, but a Teſtament; men may carry themſelves unthankfully, but falſehood argues an engagement. How is it that we finde, in Old and New Teſtament-Scriptures, mutuall engagements, between God and his people; of God to them, of them to him, in caſe God hath vouchſafed them a Legacie by Teſtament, in the death of his Son, and left them out of covenant? And how is that, without Covenant, without Chriſt, without God, without Hope, with the Apoſtle are one and the ſame, when yet all people that have hope in Chriſt are out of covenant? There be that ſay, The holy Writers do illuſtrate the New covenant, rather by the Metaphor of a Teſtament, then a covenant. Theſe ſeeme to make it neither a Covenant nor a Teſtament. Every one knows that a Metaphor is a figure, whereby a word is carried out of its proper ſignification into ſome other that carries reſemblance with it. In caſe there be a metaphor in that expreſſion, then it is not proper, but borrowed; But as I beleeve that Abraham ſpake not by a Metaphor to God, when he ſaid, Gen. 18. 25. Shall not the Judge of all the world do right? God abſolving and and condemning the ſons of men, giving rewards, and inflicting penalties, is a Judge properly ſo called; ſo I do not think that God ſpake in any Metaphor to Abraham, when in the chapter before, Gen. 17. 7. he ſaith, I will eſtabliſh my covenant between me and thee, and thy ſeed after thee. God is a Judge of all the earth, properly ſo called, and he hath entred a covenant with his people, properly ſo called likewiſe. It is true, that we underſtand, that relation of God to his people, more clearly by the Analogy that it bears to Judges, that are ſet up among men, for abſolution of the innocent, & condemning of the guilty, And ſo we are holpen in our underſtandings of the covenant of God entred with his people, by Analogy with the covenants, that are among men; but, in neither of both of theſe, is the word taken out of its proper ſenſe, and applyed to any other, that it will not properly bear. I finde indeed an eminent Divine affirming, That a covenant is not ſo properly ſaid, to be with God and man, as between man and man, not denying the duty, which man owes to God, nor the engagement by which he is obliged, but freely yeelding both; and ſticking only at the conſent on mans part, which among men (he ſayes) is requiſite, and doth mutually concur to make the covenant valid. But neither in the covenant of nature, or grace, is this conſent anteceding the validity of the covenant required in man. This I confeſſe I am not able to reach. Nothing with me is more plain, then that, conſent is pre-required in both theſe covenants: Adam, I confeſſe, (as it is objected) was bound to conſent, yea, I will yeeld more, that it is no more poſſible to conceive Adam to deny conſent, then the Sunne to be without light; ſeeing in his natural motion he was carried in that way of full conformity to God, that the Sun may as well be dark, as Adam averſe from the will or tender of God; yet if we could conceive a dark Sunne; it could not be a light to rule the day; ſo if we could conceive Adam denying conſent to God, in the tender of covenant, Adam had not been in covenant. For fallen man it is clear; what held the Phariſees out of the New covenant, but their non-conſent? rejecting the counſel of God againſt themſelves, Luk 7. 30. as alſo thoſe Jews, Act. 13. who contradicting and blaſpheming, judged themſelves unworthy of eternal life.
The covenant was tendered to all thoſe Gentile Nations, and Cities where the Goſpel was preached, and all were bound to yeeld aſſent, but where there was aſſent of faith, there the covenant was entered; where aſſent is denied, there they remained, ſtrangers from the covenants of promiſe; in the ſame way of Gentiliſme, as though the Goſpel had never been tendered, or the Name of Chriſt held forth. So that theſe things conſidered, I doubt not but I have made it appear, That there is a mutual contract, and mutual performances to which perſons are engaged, not only uſually in covenants, but in all covenants. And that it is of the general nature of covenants, that there ſhould be ſuch a convertibility, as that both muſt, if not ſeal, (ſome contracts are without ſeals) yet contract, or performe, and where a ſeal is vouchſafed, must accept of it: and that the definition of the covenant in the general is vindicated, That God hath entred a covenant properly ſo called, with man, with fallen man, in which there is a contract of this nature, and engagements to mutual performances, God condeſcending to it of grace, and man obliged to it by duty, yet accepting voluntarily. Which (as the former) might be confirmed by the authority of Divines of eminency. Mr. Ball ſpeaking of the covenant of God in the general entred with man, ſaith, It may be thus deſcribed. A mutual compact or agreement betwixt God and man, whereby God promiſeth all good things, ſpecially eternal happineſſe unto man, upon juſt, equal, and favourable conditions: and man doth promiſe to walk before God in all acceptable, free, and willing obedience, expecting all good from God, and happineſſe in God, according to his promiſe, for the praiſe and glory of his great Name. And Vrſin in his Catechiſme, page 91. defining a covenant in the general nature of it as before, he ſaith, it is iFoedus Dei eſt mutua pactio inter Deum & homines, quâ Deus confirmat hominibus ſe futurum eis propitium, remiſſurum peccata, donaturum juſtitiam novam, Spiritum Sanctum, & vitam aeternam per & propter Filium Mediatorem; viciſſim homines ſe obligant Deo ad fidem & poenetentiam, hoc eſt, ad recepiendum verâ fide hoc tantum beneficium, & ad praeſtandam Deo veram obedientiam.A mutual agreement between God and man, whereby God confirmes to man that he will be merciful, forgive their ſinnes, give them a new righteouſneſſe, his holy Spirit and everlaſting life, in and by his ſon the Mediatour: In like manner men tie themſelves to God for faith and repentance, that is, by a lively faith to receive this mercy alone, and to yeeld true obedience to God. And Lucas Trelcatius in loco de foedere thus defines it. kFoedus eſt pactum Dei cum homine, de foelicitate aeterna, certâ conditione ci communicanda ad Dei gloriam. Pactum cùm dicimus, intelligimus mutuam Dei & hominis obligationem, ex ſtipulatione intervenientem, ut utrimque reddatur quod promiſſum eſt. Duae ergo ſunt partes foederis. 1. Promiſſio Dei de vita aeterna. 2. Obligatio hominis ad obſervationem conditionis a Deo praeſcriptae. Prima eſt libera; ſecunda eſt neceſſaria.The covenant is an agreement to God with man, concerning eternal happineſſe to be communicated to man, upon a certain condition, to the glory of God. And then explaining himſelf he ſays, When we ſay an agreement, we underſtand a mutual obligation of God and man, by a ſtipulation intervening, that what is promiſed on both parts, may be performed. And farther ſaith, There are two parties of the covenant. 1. The promiſe of God concerning everlaſting life. 2. The obligation of man for performance of the condition preſcribed of God; the first is free, the ſecond is neceſſary. And in concluſion, ſuch a bottome I believe is laid in the Introduction, that will bear the whole fabrick that follows after. Junius and Gomarus, are as oppoſite as may be, one to the other in this diſpute about the covenant, as may be ſeen in the Appendix to the firſt chapter: But they both agree in this, that every covenant of neceſſity is to have mutual engagements and performances. Gomarus denies that the promiſe, Gen. 3. 15. containes the covenant of grace, becauſe no conditions are there mentioned. And Junius to avoid conditions, denies that there is any ſuch thing as a covenant between God and man, for if it were a covenant, he ſayes it muſt have conditions. Therefore according to them both, if we grant a covenant, we muſt grant conditions, and the full nature of the covenant, is in no Scripture laid down, where we have not theſe engagements, or conditions, laid down likewiſe. Some think to reconcile all this by the various acception of the word. Sometimes it is ſouſed in Scripture, that the free promiſe of God is thereby ſignified, and the reſtipulation of our duty withit, God requiring man to engage by covenant to that which he might require, did there no promiſe intervene; yet ſometimes in Scripture, covenant doth ſignifie the abſolute promiſe of God, without any reſtipulation, and of this kinde is that covenant in which God promiſeth to give to his elect faith and perſeverance, to which promiſe there cannot be conceived any condition to be annexed, which is not comprehended in the promiſe it ſelf. So Learned Camero de triplici foedere, Theſ. 1. 2. For this abſolute covenant here ſpoke to, I deſire the Reader to obſerve what the ſame learned Authour hath farther in his third Theſis. This diſtinction of the Covenant, doth depend upon the diſtinction of the love of God; for there is a love of God to the Creature, from whence every thing that is good in the creature hath wholly flowed; and there is the acquieſcent love of God in the creature, and this the creature hath received, not for any thing from it ſelf, but from God, as it was loved with that firſt love of God: that love, for better underſtanding, we call Gods primary or antecedent; this Gods ſecondary or conſequent love: from that we ſay, doth depend both the paction, and fulfilling of the abſolute covenant, from this depends the fulfilling of that covenant; to which is annexed a restipulation, not ſo the paction, for that we ſay depends on the firſt love. This antecedent love is wont to be called Amor benevolentiae, which can be no more then a purpoſe or reſolution in God for good to man. The ſecond is wont to be called Amor complacentiae, a love of delight, or content. How the former can be a covenant, or any covenant properly ſo called depend upon it, as preceding the latter, I do not ſee.
Firſt, this goes before the giving of Chriſt; the gift of Chriſt is an effect of it, Joh. 3. 16. Now God covenants not with man, without the Mediator as Camero himſelf acknowledges; and therefore this that precedes, can be no covenant made.
Secondly, a covenant plainly argues an agreement, at leaſt in tender from one, and profeſſed acceptation from the other party. A covenant of parties at a diſtance, either party holding his diſtance, reſpective to that where the diſtance is held, is the greateſt abſurdity. Now in this abſolute covenant (as it is called) there is not ſo much as a tender from God, much leſſe an acceptance from man, and ſo, as yet a diſtance held, and therefore no covenant or agreement.
Thirdly, this ſuppoſed abſolute covenant, Jer. 31, 33. Heb. 8. 10. hath mercies of two ſorts; graces, priviledges; And though men contend that the promiſe of grace is abſolute, ſeeing there is nothing pre-required of us, for the writing of this Law in our hearts, yet the priviledge of remiſſion of ſins hath its conditions, Act. 10. 43. Act. 13. 38, 39. Act. 3. 19.
Fourthly, none can claim any intereſt in, or take any comfort from, this abſolute covenant, depending on the antecedent love of God, preceding the conditional covenant, depending on the conſequent love of God: before he hath entered the ſecond which is conditional, and performed the conditions, and knows that he hath performed them. This is clear, it is made, all ſay, with the Elect; now none can claime his intereſt till he knows his Election, which is made ſure only, by our ſaith, and new obedience, by the knowledge that we have of our faith and new obedience. But it is enough to me that a covenant comprizing a reſtipulation of our duty, is here confeſt, which is the Goſpel way to ſalvation, without which, the acquieſcent love of God is not attained. As to that Text, Heb. 8. 10. the Reader may ſee more elſewhere.