Justification Without Conditions, Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Exposition of the New Covenant, (mentioned Jere. 31.33. and in other places) is further examined.
THe Tenor of the New Covenant, in the Prophet (whose words are punctually cited by the Apostle, Heb. 8.) runs thus, This is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people; and, &c. But now Mr. W. renders it thus, [This is the Covenant which I will make with the House of Israel; when I shall write my Laws in their hearts, I will be their God, &c. or, This is the Covenant, which I will make, saith the Lord, that giveth his Laws into their mindes, and writeth them in their hearts, &c.] I know not what can be called wresting of the Scripture, if this be not: If men may take the liberty, to chop and change, to adde or diminish from the Word, at their pleasure, nothing can certainly be concluded thence; nay, the Scripture might be made a shelter for the foulest Errors. It savors not of a spirit, that trembles at the Word, and believes that threatning, Revel. 22.18. to make so bold with the Oracles of God. The word [when] is neither in, nor agreeable to the Hebrew, or Greek Text, though he would make his Reader believe, that it is in both. The Verbs in the first clause, are not in the Present, but Future tense, as in the rest which follow. Besides his Paraphrase, chargeth the Holy Ghost, with a gross tautalogy, if not a flat contradiction. The time of making this Covenant is signified in these words, [After those days] which undoubtedly ought to be referred unto the days of the Messiah, in opposition to the times before, when the Grace of this Covenant was not so clearly revealed; so that it was needless he should adde [When I put my Laws, &c.] And if God makes not his Covenant with Spiritual Israel, till he writes his Laws in their hearts, then the former clause [After those dayes] must either stand for nothing, or else imply a falshood. In a word, The unsoundness of this gloss, doth appear from hence, that these words are not onelyonly here, but in many other places, mentioned as a distinct promise of the New Covenant, and not as a bare connotation of the time, or a Periphrasis of the person, that makes the Covenant, as Mr. W. carries it. See Deut. 30.6. Ezek. 36.26, 27. Jere. 32.38, 39. where that promise, which Mr. W. calls, The matter or substance of the Covenant on Gods part, is put first, and the other which he calls the Condition, is made as it were, the Consequence of the former.
§. 2. The Scriptures he hath brought to countenance his new found interpretation of the Covenant, will by no means shelter it; as Jere. 24.7. I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord, and they shall be my people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto me with their whole heart. [Where (says he) the condition on the peoples part of the Lords being their God, is, their returning with their whole heart.] The affirmation is not so clear, as not to need a proof; that promise, I will give them a heart to know me, is (as hath been shewed,) one principal blessing of the New Covenant, the immediate effect whereof is, Mens returning unto God with their whole heart. Now to call their returning unto God, the condition of Gods being their God, is as unhappy a mistake, as his, That set the Cart before the horse. Could they have returned to God, unless God had returned to them *1 John 4.10, 19.? Are not Faith and Repentance, the fruits of our Reconciliation, by the blood of Christ? God having given us his Son, hath with him given us all things else, Rom. 8.32. Mr. …alvin calls this blessing, of Gods being our God, Causam & principium omnium bonorum, i. e. The cause and fountain of all other blessings; and particularly, of the renewing of our hearts, and our returning unto God. Now the consequences and Effects of a Blessing, are not the Conditions of it.
§. 3. His next Allegation from Heb. 10.14, &c. hath the fate, to fall as short of the mark, as the former did. For the Apostles scope there, is not to shew in what order and method, the benefits of the Covenant are bestowed upon us, but that there needs no other Sacrifice for sin, besides the Sacrifice which Christ hath offered; which he proves, because God in that Covenant, which he promised to make with his people in the times of the New Testament, declares, That he will not onelyonly give them a new heart, but their sins and iniquities shall not be remembred any more. Now where there is no more remembrance of sin, there needs no more Sacrifice for sin; so that the words expressed, are sufficient to compleat the sense without understanding of [then he saith] or [then it followeth] which Mr. W. hath added in the close of the sixteenth Verse. We may take them as they lie, from Verse the fifteenth. Whereof (to wit, of Christs perfect Sacrifice, mentioned Vers. 14.) the Holy Ghost is a witness to us; for after he, i. e. the Holy Ghost, had said before, This is the Covenant that I will make with them, Pareus. Ion. s. D…. k…o….after those dayes, (to wit, of the Old Testament, which are now expired) The Lord saith, (viz. The Holy Ghost, who is the Lord Jehovah, and with the Father, and Son, the Author of the New Covenant.) I will put my Laws into their hearts, and in their mindes will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more: So that I say, there is no need that either of those clauses [Then he saith, &c.] should be foisted in between the 16 and 17 Verses. It seems to me, That the Copulative [And] is set as a bar, to keep it forth, shewing that the words in the 17 Verse, ought to follow immediately upon the sixteenth. I grant that the promise of Remission, is one of the most special, and noble Blessings, contained in that general promise, I will be their God; yet it doth not follow, that Regeneration or Inherent holiness is required or promised, as the means or qualification, to obtain this Blessing. Pareus his Note upon the place is very sound, That the Apostle here, doth ground the promise of remission of sins,Vid. Calv in loc. upon that perfect oblation which Christ hath offered, and not upon works of Sanctification, which (according to Mr. Woodbridges Doctrine) is the immediate principle, from whence it follows.
§. 4. His next Assertion [That in the New Covenant, the giving of the first Grace, is always promised, not as a part of the Covenant, but as a means and qualification on mans part, for his entrance into Covenant,] is justly obnoxious unto more then one Exception.
1. The work of Conversion, or the renewing of our hearts, i… unfitly called The first Grace; For (1) to speak properly, the first Grace, is that, which is Grace indeed bDow…h of Justif. l 3. c. 2., to wit, the Everlasting Love, Favor, and Good-pleasure of God towards his people; for this is the rise and fountain of all those mercies, which we receive in time, yea, of Christ himself, John 3.16. Or (2) if by Grace, we understand the Fruits and Effects of this Grace, then certainly the precedenc… or priority must be given unto Jesus Christ, for whose sake all other blessings are bestowed upon us, Ephes. 1.3. Or else (3) if by Grace we understand the Fruits and Effects of Christs death, or the benefits which are freely given us for his sake, even in this sense, Inherent Sanctification is unduly put in the first place, which is a consequent, both of Justification and Adoption, Gal. 4.5, 6. Though it be promised in that place of Jeremy, before Remission of sin…, yet in other places it is put after it; as Ezek. 36.25, 26. Jere. 32.38, 39. The Reason why this promise is sometimes put first, may probably be, because the Grace of Sanctification is most apt to affect our senses, we do apprehend and perceive it, before we come to know our Justification.
§. 5. 2. It is utterly false, That the giving of a new heart, is not promised as a part of the Covenant; but as a means on mans part, for his entrance into Covenant: For (1) the Scripture no where affirms it; and it is weakly concluded hence, because it is sometimes mentioned, first in the recital of the Covenant, which is all he hath to pretend for this notion, seeing that in other places, the promise of Sanctification, follows that of Justification; from whence he may as well conclude, that Justification is promised not as a part of the Covenant, but as a means to intitle us unto Sanctification; so that not onelyonly, the promise of Faith, but of Remission also shall be excluded from being a part of the Covenant. (2) The promise of a new heart, includes not onelyonly the first act of Faith and Repentance, but the continuance and increase of these Gifts; so that either he must say, that all the Promises of Sanctification, which are included therein, are no part of the Covenant; or that the same promise is both a means to bring us into Covenant; and a part of the Covenant, i. e. it is a part, and no part. I must confess, that I never yet met with that man, who had the forehead to deny, that the promise of Faith, and Repentance, is a part of the New Covenant. (3) It seems to me an undeniable truth, that the promises of Sanctification, as well as of Justification, are parts of the Covenant, considering (1) that they have the same ground and foundation, to wit, the merit and purchase of Jesus Christ; Christ hath merited Faith and Repentance, no less then remission of sins. Now whatsoever Christ hath purchased, the Covenant promiseth: All the effects of his death, are equally parts of the New Covenant. (2) Both these promises have the same end and design, viz. The glory of God. Faith and Repentance, are not promised onelyonly subserviently for our benefit, but ultimately for the praise of his glory, Tit. 2.14. 1 Thes. 4.3. (3) They are promised in the same manner, as distinct, and not as subordinate benefits; he doth not say, I will write my Laws in their hearts, that I may pardon their sins and iniquities. But, I will write my Laws, &c. and their sins and iniquities, I will remember no more.
§. 6. 3. It sounds harshly, That God promiseth Faith, as a means on our part, to bring us into Covenant; for if God doth promise to bestow Faith, it cannot properly be called a means on our part, it were a means on our part, if we performed it our selves, and by our own strength, as the condition required of. Adam, should have been. For the removing of this rub, I shall make it to appear; that in the New Covenant, there is no condition required on our part, to give us a right, and title to the blessings of it: But before we proceed, we will give the Reader a brief account of those other Scriptures which Mr. W. hath alledged to prove, That Faith is promised, not as a part of the Covenant, but as a means on our part, to obtain the remission of sins: All which I finde have the same misfortune as the rest, not to be able to bring forth the conclusion, which his fancy hath begotten on them.
That in Ezek▪ 36.25, 26▪ 27, 28. makes quite against him; for there the Lord first promiseth to justifie us, in those phrases of pouring out clean water upon us, and of cleansing us from all our filthinesses, Verse 25▪ …nd then to renew, or sanctifie us, Vers. 26, 27. So that there is no colour to infer from hence, that Sanctification, or any part thereof, is promised as a means to intitie us to Justification.
§. 7. The other two Texts, are much to the same purpose, scil. Ezek. 11.19, 20. and chap. 27.23, 24, 26, 27. where the Lord after he had promised unto his people many particular blessings (as that he would give them a new heart, take away their stony heart, make them walk in his Statutes and Ordinances, that they should no more defile themselves with Idols, that David, i. e. Christ, should be their King and Shepherd, that his Tabernacle should be with them▪ i. e. He would dwell in them, and walk in them, 2 Cor. 6.16.) He tells them, That he will be their God, and they shall be his people; from whence Mr. W. would gather, That God promiseth Faith, not as a part of the Covenant, but as a means to bring us into Covenant, that God may be our God. How rational this Deduction is, let the Re…der judge, for if that promise, I will be their God, must be taken exclusively; so that the promises preceding, are no part of the Covenant, then the promises of Justification, Sanctification, Perseverance, &c. must be excluded from being parts of the Covenant. If he sayes, that it onelyonly excludes Faith, I would ask quô jure, what reason is there▪ that it should exclude Faith, more then the other promises preceding? If it includes the rest, why not this? But to draw to a conclusion, we say, that this promise, I will be their God, and they shall be my people, may be taken, either (1) more generally, as comprehending all good things whatsoever, as if the Lord after the enumeration of many particular benefits, had summed up all in this. I will be their God, q. d. They may expect as much good from me, as the living God can bestow upon his people, even this that hath been mentioned, and all things else; and in this sence the promise of Faith, or the Spirit which works Faith, is included in it; or (2) it may be taken more restrictively, as noting some particular benefit and priviledge distinct from the rest, as that they shall worship him, and he will protect and provide for them; or else, that they shall not onelyonly have an interest in God, but that they shall know it, and live in the comfort of it.
§. 8. In the next place, Mr. W. offers me his service, to new mold my Argument, and to cast it into a better form, as thus, They concerning whom God hath promised, that he will give them Faith, they are in Covenant before they believe; but concerning the Elect, God hath promised that he will give them Faith, Ergo. But pace tanti viri, I shall not accept his courtesie, if he hath any minde to it, as I have framed it, the Law is open, he may try his skill; onelyonly he may be pleased to remember, that these Texts, Jere. 31.8. Heb. 8. were not brought to prove that we are in Covenant before we believe; but that the Spirit which works Faith, is given by vertue of the Covenant made with us: As for that Argument which from these Texts he hath advanced against us, together with the Auxiliaries, which he hath placed in the rear, I shall presently attend their motion, having first given in my evidence, to the cause depending, That the New Covenant is not conditional, and that in it, God doth not require any restipulation from us, to intitle us to the blessings of it: The contrary Assertion, I conceive, is the foreign of his whole discourse: For if there be no condition, or restipulation required in the New Covenant, there will be no need, to make Faith the mears of our entrance into Covenant, nor any absurdity in saying that our Justification in the sight of God precedes Faith.