The Covenant Sealed, Section 7
SECT. VII. Faith and Repentance are mans conditions, and not Gods, in the proper conditionall Covenant.
THE next in order in which I am ſpoken unto, is, that which Sect. 55. Pag. 108. you fall upon, Entituling it, [Whether Faith, and Repentance be Gods works?] Where having repeated words of mine out of Chap. 15. Pag. 101. of the Treatiſe of the Covenant, ſomewhat largely, but very brokenly, you are pleaſed to ſay, Mr. Bls. buſineſſe here is to refute the anſwer that I gave to that objection. The objection was thus put by one, that excepted againſt your Aphoriſmes. [How make you Faith and Repentance, to be the conditions of the Covenant on our part, ſeeing the beſtowing of them is part of the condition on Gods part? Can they be Gods conditions and ours too?] To which I anſwered (which in part you tranſcribe) [In caſe theſe two cannot ſtand together, that they ſhould be conditions, both Gods and ours, we may anſwer by way of retortion: And am I ſure we have the better end of the ſtaffe, that they are our conditions; they are conditions on our part, therefore they cannot be Gods: That they are ours is made known of God, as by the beame of the Sun in his word. And I ſhall not ſtand to diſtinguiſh of an abſolute and conditionall Covenant, and ſo making the whole in the abſolute Covenant to be Gods, and in the conditionall, this part to be ours (which I know not whether exactly underſtood the Scripture will bear) but in plain termes, deny them to be the Gods conditions, and affirme them to be ours] In all which I can confidently ſpeak that I never had it in my thoughts to oppoſe you; yea, I aſſuredly expected, that how many adverſaries ſoever I ſhould find, yet I ſhould have had you here, on my party.Grounds on which the Author was confident that Mr. Br. herein was on his party. My confidence herein was upon theſe grounds. 1. In that you have ſhewed your ſelf ſo well pleaſed with that which I had ſpoke in my anſwer to Mr. Tombs, for explanation of that text of Jeremiah after quoted; as may be ſeen Pag. 224. of your Treatiſe of Infant-Baptiſme: and I am ſure there is nothing here to croſſe any thing that I had ſpoken there; Shewing your ſelf then ſo far my friend, I could not imagine, that perſiſting in the ſame, I ſhould have had you to be my Adverſary. 2. In that you had plainly enough (to my underſtanding) declared your ſelf againſt any ſuch thing as abſolute promiſes, Aphor. Pag. 8, 9. in theſe words: Thoſe promiſes of taking the hard heart out of us, and giving us hearts of fleſh, &c. are generally taken to be abſolute promiſes; and after ſome more words, you infer, Therefore theſe abſolute promiſes are but meere gratious predictions, what God will do for his Elect, the comfort whereof can be received by no man, till the benefit be received, and they be to him fulfilled: Therefore as all meer predictions, ſo alſo theſe promiſes, do fall under the will of purpoſe, and not of precept. And Commenting on thoſe … words of the Prophet, as applyed by the Apoſtle, Heb. 8. you ſ…y, Appen. Pag. 42. Whether the Apoſtle mention it as an abſolute promiſe is a great doubt; and having yeelded ſo far as to ſay, I think you may call it an abſolute promiſe, you caution this freedome of calling it ſo, very largely, Pag. 43. And then you make all up in theſe words, So that I conclude, that it is moſt properly, but a prophe…ie what God will do, de eventu…; as it hath reference to the parties on whom it ſhall be fulfilled; and ſo is the revealing part of Gods purpoſing will, and belongeth not at all to his preceptive or legiſlative will, by which he doth govern, and will judge the world. And that Gods Covenant and promiſes properly ſo called belong to his preceptive and legiſlative will, whereby he governes the world, and not to his purpoſing will, (according to you) is manifeſt. 3. You have appeared at large & with much zeal for the conditionality of the Covenant on mans part, and that it is not made alone with Chriſt, but Chriſtians; with conditions impoſ…d on them, but not on him. And how this can be, when thoſe are Gods conditions and not m ns, I cannot ſee. If Faith and Repentance be Gods conditions and not mans. Where is there any conditions on mans part remaining? 4. Summing up your anſwer to your Queriſts 6. and 7. queſtion, you ſay, Now I hope you can hence anſwer to both your own demands. To the ſeaventh, You ſee there is a Covenant abſolute, and a Covenant conditionall; but the laſt is the proper Goſpel-Covenant. To the ſixth, You ſee that in the abſolute Covenant or proph…c…e, he promiſeth Faith and Repentance (in promimiſing his Spirit and a new heart) to the Elect, who are, we know not who. And in the conditionall proper Covenant, he requireth the ſame Faith and Repentance of us, if we will be ſaved: So that they are Gods part which he hath diſcovered that he will performe in one Covenant, and they are made our conditions in another. And you very well know, that I ſpeak of the conditionall, proper Covenant, or elſe why do I contend for conditions in it? and in this Covenant of which we ſpeak, you ſay, they are required of us, and are our conditions. And for the other Covenant, where you ſay that they are Gods part, which he hath diſcovered that he will performe, ſee how full I come up to you, Chap. 9. Pag. 64. of my Treatiſe, where I ſay, [I ſuppoſe they may be more fitly called, the declaration or indication of Gods work in the conditions to which he ingageth, and of the neceſſary concurrence of the power of his grace, in that which he requireth]. So that, had you had no more mind to have been upon contradiction of me, then I of you, we had here ſhaken hands together, and not lift up o…r hands one againſt the other. You ſay, Section 38. pag. 37. that you are uncertain whether my 33. Chapt. be againſt you, becauſe I recite no words of yours, though it be indeed full againſt your opinion. Here, I think, I recite no words of yours, neither did I, as I thought, oppoſe any opinion of yours; Yet you ſay, my buſineſs is to confute your anſwer. You ſay, A brief reply may ſatiſfie this confutation, And I ſay, [No r ply] would have been more fit for [no confutation.] You acquaint me how you explain'd your ſelf, plainly ſhewing that the thing called [God's condition] was not preciſely the ſame with that called [ours.] Ours was, Believing and repenting, God is, The beſtowing of theſe, as the queſtion expreſſed. Anſw. I think you ſhould have made the difference far more wide. O…r conditions in this conditional proper Covenant, are faith and repentance, to theſe we are called (as you ſay,) if we will be juſtified and ſaved. God's conditions in this conditionall proper Covenant, are thoſe to which he engages himſelf, viz. rewards, in caſe of Covenant-keeping, and puniſhments, in caſe of Covenant-breaking; One he promiſes, the other he threats: and theſe we expect, or fear, according as we anſwer in Covenant-keeping, or fail, through breach of it Herein I explained my ſelf, Chap. 5. pag. 21. and this ſure was your mind, when you wrote your Aphoriſmes, where you ſay, Faith and Repentance are Gods part, that he will perform in one Covenant, and made our conditions in another. The beſtowing of them, then, is no condition of God in that Covenant where they are conditions required from us. You ſay in a Parentheſis (if I underſtand you) that our action of believing is called Gods condition by the Queriſt, though improperly, yet in a language very common in Mr. Bl's Treatiſe. I deſire inſtances to make this appear, that it is thus common in my Treatiſe. You ſay, Thus much being premiſed, I reply more particularly, 1. I will yet ſay, that God hath ſuch an abſolute promiſe as well as a conditionall, till you give me be…ter reaſons of your deniall, or your queſtioning whether Scripture will bear it. Anſw. It ſeems you perceive that I do not plainly deny it;Arguments offered againſt an abſolute Covenant. I have reaſons ſo far preponderating at leaſt, that I dare not aſſert it; I ſhall adventure upon one that makes towards a denial. Meer gracious predictions, or prophecies de eventu, what God will do, are no abſolute promiſes, how generally ſoever ſo taken. This I think is plain. There is a difference betwixt a meer prediction and a promiſe, or a prophecie de eventu, what God will do, and a promiſe. But theſe that are generlly taken to be abſolute promiſes, are, (according to you) meer gracious perdictions what God will do, Aphor. pag. 9. Prophecies de eventu, what God will do, Append. pag. 44. Ergo. I ſhall adventure to ſecond it with another. Promiſes properly ſo called, have ſome determinate object, to whom they are made, and who may receive conſolation from them. This appears, Heb. 6.17, 18. But in theſe abſolute promiſes generally ſo called, there is no determinate object to whom they are made, or that poſſibly can receive conſolation from them. This is plain. They are made (as you ſay) to the Elect and being made to them, they are made, (as you further ſay) to, we know not who, and ſo none can receive conſolation from them. No man can aforehand ſay, (as you obſerve,) that he ſhall have a new and ſoft heart, becauſe God hath promiſed it: For he cannot know that it is promis'd to him; Therefore theſe are no promiſes properly ſo called. You adde, I ſhall yet ſay, that the giving of our faith and Repentance is the matter of that abſolute promiſe. Anſw. That it is the matter of that, which you have called [Gods prediction, or prophecie de eventu, what ſhall fall out,] and now do call an [abſolute promiſe,] I do eaſily grant: And ſo, according to your ſelf, it is not the matter of the conditionall proper Covenant of which we ſpeak, which is enough for me againſt you in the thing in queſtion. You further ſay, my argument to the contrary, hath little in it to compell you to a change. Anſw. My argument, it ſeems found you changed: I cannot ſee you the ſame here, as, at leaſt I thought, I ſaw you in your Aphoriſms. Your Major, (ſay you) is, Whoſe acts they are, his conditions they are. In your reply, you ſeem to grant it, underſtood negatively, but affirmatively, (you ſay) the propoſition holds not univerſally, but put not in your exception. But afterwards you put in an …xc…ption, as underſtood negatively; Nor negatively do's it hold, (ſay you,) ſpeaking de actione quâ eſt quid donandum. Anſw. I think it holds nothing leſs then if there be quid agendum, as well is quid dandum, in caſe the action be matter of duty. You ſay further, to your Minor, I could better anſwer, if I could find it. Expecting, (ſay you,) that it ſhould have been this, But our faith and Repentance are not Gods acts; And obſerving that I ſay, That this riſes not to make them formally Gods acts, and not ours, leaving out all that, to which the Relative [This] refers, you know beſt for what reaſon. Your Reader may ſuſpect, That it is to perſwade, that I deny, (which ſeems your great deſign here) that God hath any hand in it. I was cenſured before for giving too m…ch to the Spirit of God, in the work of Sanctification; when I would have the denomination to be given to him, and not to man in that work: And here I am brought in, as aſcribing nothing to Gods Spirit, becauſe I ſeem to ſay, that Faith and Repentance are mans acts and not Gods: Where you further except againſt me, as over cautelous in ſpeaking the two propoſitions copulatively. It is enough, you ſay, to prove them Gods conditions, and ours, if they be Gods actions and ours; Which will be, I think, a diſproof (if it be once made good) of that which in your anſwer to your Queriſts, you have ſaid; where you ſay, That they are Gods part that he hath diſcovered that he will perform in one Covenant, and they are made our conditions in another. They are not then Gods conditions and ours in the ſame Covenant: I am well enough content, that you make them God's conditions, and not ours, in the improper unconditionate Covenant, ſo that you will grant, that they are our conditions and not Gods, in the proper conditionate Covenant, of which we now ſpeak. When I ſay that this riſes not to make them formally Gods acts, and not ours, You ſay the word [formally] may do much to help me out; And I ſay it is well that I have ſome help that way, for I fear your great deſign here is to hedge me in; or elſe you had not oppoſed me, where my buſineſs is not to oppoſe, but to defend you, And here you come in with an objection to purpoſe. It is hard to know whether your [formally] reſpect a natural, or moral form; Where we have Logick niceties enow: But to let theſe paſs: I think no man but your ſelf, would have mentioned nature, or morality here. My meaning is only, that, formali modo loquendi, they have their denomination from man, and not from God. You further obſerve, that I ſay, They are our acts, &c. God believes not, &c. Yielding that to believe is our act; you object, that to move us effectually to believe, as a ſuperior cauſe, is not our work, but Gods. Anſw. Sure you do not think, that ever I thought, that the work of a ſuperior cauſe above man, is the work of man: And you may plainly ſee, that I ſpeak as much, in words that you leave out, for God's more ſuperior cauſality in this work, as you do. You ſay, Let it be ſo, to believe, is our work, and our condition; It follows not, that it is not Gods. But me thinks this neceſſarily follows. I never heard, that in any bargain, the condition of the one party, was the condition of the other. And your Reader will think, that you have here much forgot your ſelf, having in this very page ſaid, The condition is his that performeth it, not his that impoſeth it; And I am ſure that God impoſeth, and we perform the conditions of Faith and Repentance, therefore they are not his conditions but ours. You ſay, There are ſufficient reaſons why God is ſaid not to believe, though he cauſe us to believe. If you pleaſe to produce theſe reaſons, I ſhall he artily thank you. I have ſaid plainly enough, that God cauſes us to believe, & den…'d that he is properly ſaid to believe. Your reaſons then muſt needs be acceptable. You tell me of Praedeterminants and their Adverſaries, Jeſuites, Arminians: All of which acknowledge God to be the cauſe of u…acts: And I acknowledge the ſame, and ſo far there is a …aire and …i…ndly accord. B…t you ſay, I adventure a ſtep farher, and ſay, that faith and repentance are mans work, and not Gods. To which y…u reply, 1. What meane you then to yeeld afterward, that God worketh all our works in us? Thoſe which he worketh are ſure his work. Anſw. What need you to aske that queſtion, when I there explaine mine own meaning? Your …r…u…ent à conjugatis, [What God worketh, is his work] muſt have its due limits, or elſe you will run into many abſurdities. God works our motion from place to place, and yet he himſelf does not move. The text it ſelf by me quoted, gives an anſwer. Having aſſerted that God works them, the denomin…tion is ſtill given to man: God work… all our works in u…: when he has wrought them they are yet ſaid to be ours. I freely ſubſcribe to that of E…ius upon the words, Deus omne bonum, ac totum, ab initio bonae voluntatis, uſque ad conſummationem boni operis, in nobis effic…citer operatur, ordine, ſc. cauſalitatis. You …dde, I never met with any Orthodox Divine, but would yeeld that Faith is a work of Gods Spirit, and the Spirits work is doubtle…s Gods work: Farther telling me, If you go the Common way of he Praedeterminants, you muſt acknowledge that God is the Phyſicall Efficient, Praede…ermining, Principall, Immediate cauſe of every act of every creature, and therefore doubtleſſe, of our Faith; and that both immediatione virtutis & ſuppoſiti; So that it is more properly his act then ours. Here you furniſh me with an anſwer. Though in the higheſt way of Praedeterminants, I ſhould aſcribe all in every act to God, yet they are not Gods works or acts in a rigid proper ſenſe, but by a Metonymie of the cauſe. He works them, becauſe he work us for the acting of them, and ſo I explained my ſelf, We are his workmanſhip, fitted and prepared for good works. Chriſt was the principall efficient when he raiſed Lazarus; yet it was Lazarus and not Chriſt that did riſe. Concerning acts of this nature, that we are upon, I believe, that Quod voluntas agit, liberè agit, interim ex naturâ non eſt libera ad bonum, ſed per gratiam liberata: libera in radice, non in termino. Homo denuò natus vult & perficit quod eſt bonum; Deus autem operatur & velle & perficere ordine ſc. cauſalitatis. You profeſſe your ſelf of Bp. Davenants mind, who ſaith, As for the predetermination of mens wills, it is a controverſie between the Dominicans and Jeſuits, with whoſe Metaphyſicall ſpeculations, our Proteſtant Divines love not to torture their brains, or at leaſt ſhould not. Declaring your ſelf, that you take it to be a poynt beyond the knowledge of any man, which way God works on the will in theſe reſpects: I much marvaile then that you will ſo much trouble your Reader about it. You tell us, that if you muſt incline to any way, it would be rather to Durandus, for ſtronger reaſons then you find in Ludovicus à Dola, who yet (you ſay) hath more then you have ſeen well anſwered. And yet perhaps à Dola, in caſe he had ſeen your arguments, would have judged his as ſtrong as yours, Notwithſtanding your great abilities to give anſwer to them, when all others that you have ſeene, have been wanting. So farr as I have looked into the Author, I ſee him a man of much modeſty, and one in whome reaſon is not wanting, though I will not undertake to declare either with, or againſt him. When I ſay [Our dexterity for holy duties is from the frame into which grace puts us, and ſo ſtill the work is ours, though power for action is vouchſafed of God] You reply, Both velle and perficere are the gift of God, and not only, poſſe velle, & perficere. To which I ſay I had thought, that Power for action, had included that wnich you ſay, and not denyed it, namely a powerfull inclination of the will to the work. Thy people ſhall be willing in the day of thy power, Pſal. 110.3. The will is ſtill mans, when grace has wrought him up to it. I had thought there had been no ſuch danger in Paules words, Phil. 4.13. I can do all things through Chriſt that ſtrengtheneth me. You conclude, that I have not confuted your anſwer, namely to your Quaeriſts queſtion, when indeed I never intended it, and if I would now go about it, I need not, finding it (as I think) done to my hand. You give in your reaſon, 1. That I have not diſproved the abſolute promiſe of the firſt ſpeciall Grace. Anſw. You ſay no more of this, in your reply to your Queriſt, that I can find, but Whether the Apoſtle mention it as an abſolute promiſe, is a great doubt, and that you think we may call it an abſolute promiſe; when you had ſaid before, that they are meer gratious predictions. 2. Theſe ſuppoſed promiſes, as you ſay in your anſwer, are not within the proper conditionall Covenant, and therefore I had nothing to do with it. 2. You further ſay, that I have not diſproved God to be the Author of our faith, ſo as that it is his work. Anſw. I do not find that in all your anſwer, and you moſt unfairely make the title of this Section, to be [Whether Faith and Repentance are Gods works] My buſinſſe was againſt your Queriſt, affirming them to be Gods conditions not ours. 3. You ſay, If I had; yet Believing, which is our work is not the ſame with giving faith, or moving us to believe, which is Gods work. Anſw. This I confeſſe; You did not affirme it before, that, I know, and I yeeld it now. The former is ours, viz. to believe, the latter, Gods, viz. to give Faith, or move us to believe. A mighty proofe ſure that your anſwer is not confuted if it had been intended, becauſe I have gainſayed, what your anſwer never aſſerted. For that wich I intended not againſt you, but as I thought, for you, That Faith and Repentance are our conditions, and not Gods, I thus further argue.
Arguments evincing, that Faith and Repentance are our conditions and not Gods, in the proper conditionall Covenant.Thoſe conditions that are not mentioned in the proper conditionall Covenant, as from God, but req…ired of God from us, are not Gods conditions, but ours, in that Covenant. This is cleare; Being there expreſly required of us, and not ſo much as mentioned, as from God; they cannot be his engagement, but ours to performe. But Faith and Repentance are not mentioned as from God, in the proper conditionall Covenant, but required of God from us. This propoſition is your own in your anſwer, as we have heard before, pag. 45, 46. Therefore Faith and Repentance are not God's conditions in the proper conditionall Covenant, but ours.
2. The conditions of a Covenant are his that performeth, and not his that impoſeth. This Propoſition is your own in this Section, and clear in reaſon. But we perform, and God impoſeth Faith and Repentance. This is of two parts; Firſt, that they are performed by us, This you confeſs, where you yield that they are our acts. For the ſecond, that they are impoſed on us, none can deny, See 1 John 3.23. Act. 17.30. They are therefore our conditions, and not God's, in this Covenant.
3. Covenant-conditions are theirs, that are charg'd with falſhood in caſe of failing in them, and non-performance of them. This is plain in all Covenants: To make conditions, and to fail in them, is to be falſe to them. But in caſe of failing in Faith and Repentance, man is charged and not God. God fails not but man deals falſly. Therefore they are mans conditions, and not Gods.
4. Covenant-conditions are theirs, who upon failing in them, and not performance of them, ſuffer as Covenant-breakers. This is clear. Iſrael covenanted to diſmiſs their Hebrew ſervants, and diſmiſſed them not: And Iſrael ſuffered for it, Jer. 34. But upon failing in Faith and Repentance, God ſuffers not, ſo much as in his name. He is not charged with mens unbelief and impenitence: Men themſelves ſuffer. Therefore Faith and Repentance are mans conditions, not God's. So that though I have not refuted your anſwer, which never was in my eye, yet I have anſwered your Queriſt's demand, and made it good, that Faith and Repentance are mans conditions, and not God's, in the Goſpel-covenant.