Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace, Text (1 of 2)

Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace · Text (1 of 2)

p. 1THE COVENANT OF GRACE, Not ABSOLUTE, but CONDITIONAL, Modeſtly aſſerted.

WHether the Covenant of grace be conditional or abſolute, is, ſaithaaVind. Ley Lect. 26. pag. 249. Mr. Burges, a very troubleſome queſtion. So indeede it proves in places where it is vented. It troubles the faith of ſome, the lives of others, and the peace of very many.

New England hath felt the troubles it occaſioned; And many places in old England are now ſuffering. I could therefore from my heart have wiſhed that either none at all had broached it in theſe parts, or if it muſt have beene publiſhed, ſome other, rather then you, my deareſt Friend and Reverend Brother, might have beene the Author of that, meerly out of the great reſpect and entire affection I beare unto you. But ſeeing you have not only ſet it on foote, but when a modeſt defence was made of the contrary Doctrine, without any either bitter invective againſt your tenent, or ſo much as reply unto your Arguments; you in divers Sermons renewed the quarrel, replied unto the Arguments of the contrary ſide; not ſparing to aſperſe them in too open a manner.

I thought it my duty I owe to truth, oppugned by, notwithſtanding my love unto you, to let you know, both wherein your Reply appears unſatisfactory unto me, and p. 2wherein offenſive. Of the latter in the firſt place, which is as followes.

Firſt, in the whole ſeries of your diſcourſe, you ſeemed to me to rank thoſe of our Divines, who hold the covenant of grace to have conditions, in the ſame file, with Arminians, as if both had maintained the ſame conditionate redemption or ſalvability; wherein, whether you dealt fairly, I refer it to your conſcience to conſider. Now, though I do not doubt, but that you know full well already how farre we differ from them: yet ſhall I ſet downe the difference in ſome particulars, and then endeavour to ſatisfie your Arguments, ſo farre as they ſeeme to reflect upon our Tenents. The Salvability or potentiall and conditionate redemption maintained by the Arminians, may (I conceive) be reduced to theſe four particulars.

1. That Chriſt in dying, intended not the ſalvation of any particular perſons.

2. That the end of his death was not to bring ſome actually to ſalvation, but only that God thereby might have power (his juſtice being ſatisfied) to give remiſſion of ſins to ſinful man, on what conditions he pleaſed. So that Chriſt might have had his end, though never a man had been actually ſaved.

3. That this is the will of God, that none ſhould enjoy remiſſion of ſins, but on condition of faith.

4. That Chriſt hath purchaſed faith and regeneration for none, but remiſſion and reconciliation for all, which they ſhall actually partake of, who do believe. Nor is there neede of infuſing any ſpiritual vitall, principle into the hearts of men to enable them to believe, they may doe it of themſelves.

The third excepted, which of theſe poſitions is maintained by any of thoſe our Divines that hold conditions to be in the new Covenant? Nay, they all maintaine that Chriſt in dying, intended the actual ſalvation of particular perſons, viz. of all thoſe whom God from all eternity had choſen. That for all thoſe Chriſt hath obtained the actuall application of ſalvation to them, as well p. 3as the purchaſe of it for them; which actual enjoyment of ſalvation, being according to Gods appointment to be obtained in a way of faith, or upon condition of faith, by or through faith, as the Scripture ſpeaks. They further averre, that the Lord Jeſus Chriſt by his death, hath alſo obtaind at God the Fathers hands, that the bleſſed Spirit ſhould in time work this faith in the hearts of his choſen, that ſo through faith they might come actually to partake of all the benefits which he hath purchaſed for them.

So then, Arminians maintain conditions to be performed by us of our own power: Such ours diſclaim, maintaining that it is God that worketh in us both to wil and to do. Arminians maintain conditions ſo as if the efficacie of Chriſts death were pendulous thereon; This alſo ours diſavow, maintaining that Chriſt hath purchaſed both ſalvation to be given upon condition, and ability alſo to be given to perform that condition.

bbAmes coron. artic. 1. c. 1. § 4Arminians maintaine conditions preceding Gods very electing us to ſalvation. But ours maintaine conditions antecedent of actual ſalvation indeed, but conſequent in regard of Election.

The difference between our Divines and the Arminians about conditions being thus great, as hath beene ſhewed, I think it would have been fair dealing in you to have ſevered them, & not have crowded them together into one and the ſame refutation, as if they had mantained one and the ſame thing. Do you not think the friends of Pemble, Preſton, Ames, Perkins, Ball, &c. would take it ill to have them refuted under the title of Arminians, and for maintaining Arminian Salvability (a notion more abhorring to their ſpirits then to your owne, and which ſome of them have expreſly written againſt?) yet do they all hold conditions in the Covenant. And you refute all ſuch, who hold ſo, under that head and title. I challenge you to ſhew me any one of ours, that in pleading for conditions in the Covenant, doth in the leaſt degree aſſert that conditionate Redemption or Arminian Salvability.

Before you come to our Arguments, you tell us, that p. 4though you are againſt conditions, yet you hold that God hath his order and method in conferring of his benefits. And that in regard of this order one benefit may depend upon an other, &c. And that none are ſaved but ſuch as do repent and believe.

I was heartily glad to heare ſo much from you: for this is the maine I contend for, That God gives faith, and then ſalvation; And that ſalvation depends on faith, and therfore in order of nature followes faith. And here I would argue ex conceſſis. Thoſe benefits which according to that method and order of conferring that the Lord hath ſet down to himſelfe, muſt goe before other, and on which others do depend; Thoſe (I ſay) are required in us, before the other which do depend on them, and follow them, can be obtained by us.

But faith and repentance are benefits which according to this method of God are given before Salvation, and on which ſalvation doth depend.

And therefore faith and repentance are actually required in us, before we can actually partake of Remiſſion, Reconciliation. Juſtification, and other benefits and branches of Salvation purchaſed by Chriſt.

It this were granted, that they are required, and that to the obtaining of Salvation (which muſt needs be granted, the benefit of Salvation not only following them, but alſo depending on them as you confeſſe) let them be required, as conditions, or as ſomething elſe in Gods method and order; I would not ſtrive about termes. But I feate that you had here your reſerve, and that you underſtand this priority of one benefit before an other, and this dependance of one benefit upon an other, either in reference to the manifeſtation of ſalvation, or the perfection of that, and not in reference to the beginning and being of them; for ſo much ſome following paſſages hint out unto us; of which we ſhall ſpeak more when we come unto them. Not long after, you challenge Malice it ſelfe to ſhew, if it can, any one of your ſide that maintains ſalvation without repentance and faith.

p. 5And here Sir, if I ſhould produce ſome that doe aſſert it, ſhould I not very prittely get me the odious name of malicious? Wel, the Lord give us to hate the affect and fact as much as we doe the name. Truth is truth, and muſt be diſcovered. And I would to God there were not too many expreſſions vented both in Pulpits and Preſſes, too much tending this way.

I find in Mr. Saltmarſh, Free grace. p. 102. Do not the promiſes belong to ſinners as ſinners? And p. 104. The promiſes of Chriſt are held forth to ſinners, as ſinners; not as repenting ſinners, or humble ſinners. p. 105. Whatever promiſe hath a condition in it, is ours in Chriſt, who only is the conditioned perſon for all promiſes. p. 84. So as we are to believe our repentance true in him, who hath repented for us. p. 126 All the conditions were on Chriſts part, none on ours. So p. 153 In the new Covenant God gives himſelf freely in Chriſt, undertaking all both with the Father and the Soule, nothing being required on mans part. Occaſional word: That thoſe Miniſters who preſſe repentance and faith, do overheate the wine of the Goſpel with conditions and qualifications, ſo the poore ſoules cannot taſte it. So alſo in Doctor Criſpe, I meet with many ſuch like, or the ſame paſſages, as in his Chriſt alone exalted. vol. 1. p. 120. Christ belongs to ſinners as ſinners. p. 211. He receiveth ſinners as ſinners. p. 164. All the tie lies on Gods part to do every thing that is mentioned in the Covenant. p. 73. Haſt thou but a mind to Chriſt, come and taſte of the water of life freely; there is nothing looked for from thee to take thy portion in this Christ. And in his ſecond Volume, p. 420 We are juſtified without works not only without the concurrence of them to juſtification, but even without the being of them, and preſence in the perſon to be juſtified. I might name many more, but theſe may ſuffice; and I pray conſider ſeriouſly whether from moſt, if not all thoſe aſſertions doth not follow by natural and neceſſary conſequence that monſtrous concluſion now enquired of, viz. that wee may be ſaved without faith and repentance. Or, that faith and repantance are not neceſſary to ſalvation. Truly they ſpeak ſo fully to this particular, in my apprehenſion, that p. 6all that I can ſee left you to ſave your ſelfe is, not to own theſe men for men of your ſide, which I ſhould be heartily glad to heare. But conſider one paſſage more frequent, as in theſe Authors, ſo in your owne Sermon; This, That the Covenant of free grace is as free as that with Noah. Now concerning that we know, that men are partakers of the benefits promiſed in it, though they neither know nor believe any ſuch Covenant. And if this of ſalvation be as free, wil it not thence follow, that men may be ſaved in it though they never believe it, or ſo much as know it? To me it ſeems to follow without any conſtraint at all, as I ſhall labour to manifeſt by reducing it to an Argument, which I forme thus.

By vertue of the Covenant with Noah, men are ſure to be ſaved from an univerſal deluge, though they neither know nor believe ſuch a Covenant.

Therefore if the new Covenant be as free as that with Noah, a man may be ſaved in it, though he neither know it, nor can believe it: More of this particular you may read in Mr. Gataker againſt Saltmarſh, both in the former Treatiſe pag. 25. and in the Rejoynder pag. 11, 13, 88. where he clearly ſheweth this very inference to be unconſtrained, and makes good the charge now in debate againſt Mr. Saltmarſh: which Reverend Author, if you had any reference unto in that unſavory and noiſome paſſage in your Sermon, I challenge malice it ſelf, I muſt needs tell you, you were exceedingly to blame.

Come wee to your Arguments, whereby you labour to prove, that no conditions are annexed to the purchaſes of Chriſts death in regard of application. Your firſt was from thoſe places of Scripture, which declare the all ſufficiency of Chriſts death, and the perfection of that in regard of impetration, as Heb. 10. 14 and 1, 3, 9, 12 Unto which may be added your ſecond head of Scriptures, viz. thoſe which hold out unto us Gods acceptation of this price and acquieſence in it: as, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaſed, &c.

p. 7Now theſe doe prove, that the price paid by Chriſt was perfect and ſufficient; yea, that it did fully impetrate, merit and purchaſe at the Fathers hands, the perfect and complete redemption of his Elect; So that God lookes for nothing more to be done, or ſuffered towards the making up of the price, but reſts fully ſatisfied with the ſufferings of his Son. But they are of no force at all to take off any requiſite neceſſary to the application of this purchaſe, be it qualification, condition, inſtruments or agent: for inſtance, If I ſhould on your ground argue, Jeſus Chriſt hath by himſelfe purged our ſins, and perfected &c. Therefore there is no neede the Goſpel ſhould be preached unto men, or that the ſpirit of grace be ſent unto them to regenerate them; I doubt not, but you would deny my inference, as well you might. So where you reaſon, Chriſt by dying hath paid a perfect price, which was alſo accepted of God the Father. Ergo, there are no conditions annexed to the purchaſe of his death; you muſt give me leave to deny your Argument. And the reaſon is, becauſe they are not annexed as any part of the price, to make up it complete: But only as the way and manner in which, the means and inſtrument by which, the terms and condition on which, and according to which God doth give, and man receives ſalvation purchaſed: Notwithſtanding that, Chriſt hath thus perfectly purchaſed it, yet himſelf doth tell me, that unleſſe I repent, I ſhall periſh, Luk. 13. 3, 5. And If I believe not, I ſhall be damned, Mark. 16. 16. As for that maxime you cited in the proſecution of your Argument,Impetration is the foundation of application. Impetratio eſt fundamentum applicationis, it makes for us, and not at all againſt us. For if it be fundamentum, the foundation, then it is not ipſa applicatio, the application it ſelf, which is the monſter your ſide doe hug and ſuckle. It makes indeed againſt Arminian ſalvability; for which end it is uſed by our Authours, viz. to ſhew that though impetration and application may be diſtinguiſhed, yet they cannot be ſeparate or divided in their object. But that for whomſoever Chriſt doth impetrate, to him the benefits impetrated muſt be applyed; for application (ſay p. 8they) is the end of impetration, and impetration the foundation of application. So that the Arminian doctrine of conditions to be performed by mans owne power, which make the iſſue of Chriſts death to be uncertaine and pendulous on mans free will, is wholly razed thereby: but our doctrine of conditions purchaſed for us by the death of Chriſt, and to be wrought in us by the Spirit of Chriſt are no way ſhaken. The purchaſes of Chriſts death may be ſurely applied to them for whom they are purchaſed, though they be applyed conditionally.

Nor is that other maxime of any more ſtrength, poſitâ cauſâ totali ſequitur effectus, the totall cauſe being put, the effect followeth; for if you ſpeak of mans actual ſalvation, or the application of ſalvation unto man, you cannot ſay that Chriſts death is the total cauſe of it. The whole and ſole meritorious cauſe it is; But I hope Gods grace is the impulſive cauſe, Chriſts ſpirit the efficient cauſe, and faith the inſtrumental cauſe. And, bonum eſt ex integris cauſis, Good doth ariſe from all cauſes entire. Now though an inſtrument be the meaneſt of cauſes, yet is it neceſſary in the way of an inſtrument, nor can the effect be in act before it be uſed.

Your third head contained ſuch Scriptures as ſpeake of Chriſt and ſalvation, as of a gift, a free gift: In purſuance of which you delivered, Chriſt is given, freely given of God. And if by grace, then not of works. And what can be laid on the creature that is not a worke. If but a Roſe, not free. To be freely and by condition, is an abſolute and flat contradiction.

For anſwer, the Covenant with Adam, in a paſſage before, you aver to be conditional; And in a paſſage following, you ſeeme to intimate, that it is free, by ſaying that he could not have merited, had he kept the condition. It ſeems then that to be free, and yet to be conditional, as flat a contradiction as it is, you your ſelfe have admitted in the Covenant with Adam.

Did you ſeriouſly conſider what you ſpake when you ſaid, if but to pay a roſe, the tenure is not free? Certainly p. 9my Country men in Gloceſter-ſhire account that a very free tenure, nor think I them therein miſtaken. And if ſome Gentlemen ſhould beſtow on you an hundred pound a year, on condition you ſhould be more liberal to the poor to the expence, not of a roſe or two, or a penny or two, but (it may be) ten or twenty pound a yeare, which unleſſe you conſtantly exhibite, you were to loſe the principal. If for all this condition you ſhould not ſay that this were a free gift, I ſhould account you fowly unthankful. If my memory faile not, our ancient godly Divines uſe thoſe ſimilitudes of a Roſe or pepper corne, to ſet out the condition, not of faith, but of good works, which they maintaine to be required under the Goſpel as a conſequent condition. By which expreſſion of theirs, they do, (as you ſay) deſtroy the freeneſſe of grace. But your bare ſaying ſo doth not prove it. The truth is, the Arminians and Papiſts were more beholding to you for ſome paſſages in your Sermons, then our ancient godly Proteſtant Divines.

But come wee to your Argument, which if not taken out of Doctor Criſpe, is yet certainly the ſame with his, vol. 1. p. 64. & p. 179. By gift, and on condition, is a flat contradiction.

But take heed that you and the Doctor make not the Scriptures to ſpeake abſolute and flat contradiction, which ſay, wee are ſaved by grace through faith. Eph. 2. 8. And therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace. Rom. 4. 16. And being juſtified freely by his grace through faith in his blood. Rom. 3. 23, 24. And in the very place cited by you and the Doctor, Rom 11. 6. If by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwiſe grace is no more grace. But if it be by works, it is no more of grace, otherwiſe works are no more works; where it followes, what then? Iſrael hath not obtained what he ſeeketh for. And if you ask, wherefore? the Apoſtle will tell you Rom. 9 32. Becauſe they ſought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. So likewiſe, Where is boaſting then? it is excluded. By what Law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. Rom 3. 27. p. 10And to him that worketh not but believeth, Rom. 4. 5. The Scriptures joyn faith and free grace; yea they tell us, that freeneſſe of grace is upheld by that requiſite or condition of faith. But you call it a flat contradiction. The Scriptures oppoſe faith and works. But you ſay, What can be laid upon the creature, that is not a work? You would beare men in hand that we teach contradictions. But I am ſure theſe paſſages of yours contradict the Scripture.

Again, did not Chriſt lay repentance and faith upon the creature, when he ſaid, repent and believe the Goſpel? Matth 4. 17. Mark 1. 15. yea, doth he not lay it on them upon paine of damnation, when he doubles it Luke 13. 35. except ye repent ye ſhall periſh? Did not the Apoſtles lay ſomething on the creature, when they thus anſwered their troubled converts, who in anguiſh of ſpirit came with theſe queries to them, men and brethren what ſhal we doe? Acts …. 37. And Sirs, what ſhall I do to be ſaved? ch. 16. 20. I ſay, when they thus anſwered them, repent and believe on the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and be converted; Did they not require ſomething of them, and lay ſomething on them? And did Chriſt or his Apoſtles (think you) preach any thing contradictory to free grace, or free gift? I hope, whatever contradictions you pinne on our Sermons, you will take heed what you faſten on the ſayings of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, whoſe doctrine we muſt take leave to believe and follow, how contradictory ſoever it be deemed in the world. Do not ſay here, that Chriſt did not require them, nor his Diſciples preſſe them, as conditions, or as a worke (which is the Doctors evaſion) for you your ſelfe know that we diſclaime faith as a worke, as much as you. Wee maintaine not any worthineſſe, excellency or merit in faith. I deſire you to ſhew me if you can, in any of ours, that faith doth juſtifie as a work done by us or for any worthineſſe or excellency that is in it. I am ſure that I can ſhew you the contrary, and you may alſo ſee it if you be pleaſed to peruſe Mr. Gatakers rejoynder to Saltmarſh. p. 51. 53. This is that we maintaine, that faith is ſo required of God, that if we have it, we ſhall have ſalvation; p. 11and if we have it not, we cannot have ſalvation, and that not only in knowledge, but in the being of it: not only the evidence, declaration, and manifeſtation of that (which is the Doctors opinion. p. 168. and I feare is alſo yours) but not the receipt, benefit, or being of it, and that becauſe it is required to the very obtaining of it, not in any meritorious, but in an inſtrumentall way.

Now do not the Apoſtles averre as much when they anſwer this quaerie, what ſhall I do to be ſaved? thus, repent and believe &c. do they not in theſe anſwers lay repentance and faith on the creature as things required of God in them that would be ſaved, and that towards the obtaining of their ſalvation, not the evidencing or manifeſting it only to themſelves. And when the Apoſtle ſaith, the Jewes came ſhort of righteouſneſſe which the Gentiles attained unto, becauſe they ſought it not by faith as the Gentiles did Rom. 9. 31. Doth he ſpeak of the manifesto of Righteouſneſſe, and not rather of righteouſneſſe and juſtification it ſelfe, the being of it? Certainly the Jewes fel ſhort, not only of the aſſurance, but of the eſſence and being of righteouſneſſe, and that becauſe they ſought it not by faith. So that faith is required of God from the creature ſo, and laid on the creature ſo, that by it the creature muſt ſeek everlaſting righteouſneſſe, the being of it, or he ſhall for ever goe without it.

But for the thing it ſelfe, that a gift may be free, and yet conditional, is no ſuch contradictory propoſition, but that both parts may be true, well ſtand together, and uphold rather then deſtroy each other; you might have ſeen in our Authors, if you had beene pleaſed to look in to them, or to have called to mind what I perſwade my ſelf you have formerly read in them.ccCamero in Pſ. 68. inter Arg Solut. Med. ultPs 68 Camero would have informed you that all conditions do not deſtroy free grace, Sed eae quae poſſunt habere rationem meriti, but only ſuch as are meritorious.

And DoctorddPrideaux Ser… Draught of the brook. And Perk. Ref. Cath. of Merit. Prideaux, That to a meritorious worke, foure things are required, which are all of them wating in our conditions.

p. 12Firſt, it muſt wholly and entirely proceede from the undertaker. The perſon that will merit, muſt doe it of himſelfe, out of his owne ſtrength and power: So was the condition of works to have been performed. Man had ſtrength conveyed to him in created nature, and was to have kept the condition by this his ſtrength. But thus it is not in the conditions of the Goſpel: we receive ſtrength from grace, to performe the conditions of grace. God who requires them of us, works them in us; he gives to repent, he gives us to believe: which I think is the Crowne of free grace, that gives us a crowne upon our bare receiving it, and gives us alſo withall a hand to take it.

Secondly, It muſt be a mans owne, no way due or belonging to the perſon of whom we me merit Suppoſe a tenant be three or foure years rent behind with his Landlord, to the value (it may be) of one hundred pound, or two hundred pound; and having nothing to pay, ſhould be freely forgiven by his Landlord, only on this condition, that he carefully pay his rent for time to come. Shall this perſon ſay, the gift was not free becauſe upon this condition? Why the condition is due unto the Landlord, whether he forgive what is paſt or no, and therefore, can no way detract from the freeneſſe of the gift. So is our faith due, our repentance is due (the fall, and the recovery by Chriſt ſuppoſed) to God from us, whether he forgive and juſtifie upon them or no. And therefore the freneſſe of the gift of righteouſneſſe is no way impaired by the requirement of them. When we have done all wee are commanded, we muſt ſay we are unprofitable ſervants, Luk. 17. 10. unprofitable ſaitheePanſtr. Cathol. tom. 3. l. 14. c. 16. & 21. ad 25. Chamier to our ſelves, we have not earned ſo much as thanks for our ſelves; and that becauſe we have done no more then whats our duty. ffIbid. 9. 38.Oppoſita ſunt ſolvere debitum et mereri: To pay or diſcharge a debt, and to merit or deſerve, are oppoſite.

Thirdly, It muſt be ſome way profitable or advantageous to the perſon of whom we merit.

p. 13Now this alſo failes: for, can a man be profitable to God, as a wiſe man is profitable to himſelfe? Is it any gaine or pleaſure to him, that thou makeſt thy waies perfect? Job 22. 2. & 35. 4, 5. What profit is it to the Sunne, that wee receive its light into our houſes? or to the ſpring, that we drinke of its water? God is no way indamaged by our impenitency, nor advantaged by our returne in to him; All the emolument accrues to us our ſelves. And therefore though he require our return unto him, and beliefe on him, if we will be ſaved by him, yet is his gift of ſalvation nevertheleſſe free, becauſe he is no way the gainer by the things required Nay, the conditions required by him are matter of further charge and expence unto him, he being the worker and donor of them, as was ſhewed in the firſt particular. Suppoſe that ſome rich perſon ſhould adopt a poore mans child to be his heire, upon condition that the child be ſent home unto him, to live with him, and to be trained and bred up in learning by him. Shall the young man ſay, it is not free? becauſe it is upon condition, he leaves his fathers cottage for it, he goes to ſchool for it &c? Alas, what profit are either of theſe to his forſter father? Nay, rather they are matter of further charge to him; For by reaſon of theſe, he is at coſt for his food, apparel, ſchooling, and other neceſſaries to his breeding and education: So when the Lord who chuſeth amongſt his enemies thoſe whom he adopts to be heirs of ſalvation, doth require of them, that they repent of their ſin, beleeve on his Sonne, leave off all their vaine wayes, and learne to be like himſelf who is their father: Theſe heires of grace cannot ſay that their inheritance is not freely given, becauſe it is given on theſe termes and conditions: for the things required are no way profitable to God who doth require them; but rather matter of further coſt and charge unto him, who ſends his word, his meſſengers, his graces, his ſpirit for the working of them.

4. It muſt be ſome way proportionable to the reward we p. 14expect for it, which alſo failes in our conditions; for what proportion is there between our repentance and remiſſion, between our faith and juſtification. As the Apoſtle, our light afflictions, 12 Cor. 4. 17.which are but for a moment, work forth unto us an exceeding, and eternal weight of glory. So may we alſo ſay of our repentance and faith. If the Landlord ſhould ſay to his Tenant (one hundred or two hundred pound indebted to him) Theſe ſummes you owe, and I do not ſee where you have a penny to pay, I might uſe extremity towards you, caſt you into priſon, and there let you rot; but I will not deale ſo ſeverely with you. Do but make an ingenuous acknowledgment of what you owe, and that you will be beholding to me, and I will freely remit it. Shall this perſon ſay, he was not freely forgiven, becauſe it was on this condition, his acknowledgment? Alas, what proportion is there betweene the debt and the acknowledgment? Thus God ſeemes to ſpeak to us in the matter of repentance.hhJer. 3. 13.Jer 3:13 Only acknowledg thine iniquities.

The ſumme of all is, That a man gives freely, which he gives on condition, when withal he gives ability to perform the condition; elſe ſalvation given for, and through Chriſt would not be free.

But ſuch are the conditions we pleade for, as our duties, ſo Gods gifts and graces: and therefore the gift of ſalvation, notwithſtanding them, is free.

Againe, That we give on condition, the condition being the parties duty to whom we give, is free, elſe the portions that parents give dutiful children would not be free gift.

But ſuch are the conditions maintained by us; ſuch as we owe of duty to God, whether he give or no; he giveth therefore freely, though he require them.

3. That we give on conditions, the conditions being no way beneficial to us who give, no way equivalent to the thing we give, nor any way cauſal of our giving, we give moſt freely.

But ſuch alſo are the conditions defended by us, as hath p. 15beene made apparent, they no way benefit the Lord at all, they are infinitely diſproportionable to the gift of ſalvation he beſtowes, nor do they any way move him to beſtow ſalvation; but rather his will and purpoſe to beſtow ſalvation, moves him to beſtow them, that by receipt of them, his people might be fitted for the ſalvation he intends them.

And therefore notwithſtanding that they are required, the gift of ſalvation is moſt free.

Thus have we done with your Argument, from the freeneſſe of grace (which, that it may well ſtand with our conditions, I hope is well cleared) as alſo with your Arguments taken from ſcripture. We come now to thoſe you fetch from Reaſon The firſt of which was taken from the intent of Chriſt in dying, which the Scriptures hold out to be the ſalvation of thoſe for whom he died. Now (ſay you) if he died conditionally, it will follow that he willed not their ſalvation at all, but their damnation, as much or more then their ſalvation; for he wills their ſalvation if they believe, otherwiſe their damnation: and it is natural to them not to believe.

This and all that followes in the Argument, may make againſt the Arminians, who hold that Chriſt hath purchaſed ſalvation for us, but not faith, and that he died for us conditionally (i. e.) that we ſhould be ſaved if we did believe but did no way procure for us, that we ſhould believe; and accordingly it is uſed by our Authors, though in other terms, to deſtroy the Arminians conditionality; as you may ſee inii… Owen. But conditional redemption, in which the conditions are purchaſed, as wel as the ſalvation (which is that we maintain) it no way oppugneth. Put caſe an outlandiſh man ſhould procure for his Sonne ſome inheritance in our Country to be enjoyed by him upon his infranchiſement; you cannot ſay he intended his Sons non-enjoyment of it as much as enjoyment, becauſe of the condition of his Infranchiſement, if that the Infranchiſement be procured by the father as wel as the inheritance. The purchaſers intent (I hope is) ful and firme. Notwithſtanding p. 16the conditionality of the purchaſe, when the condition is purchaſed, as well as the thing. So when we maintaine that Chriſt hath procured ſalvation for us, to be enjoyed conditionally, if wee doe believe. You cannot inferre thence, that he intended our damnation as much as ſalvation, becauſe we have no power to believe; for wee maintaine alſo, that Chriſt hath purchaſed for us, that wee ſhall believe.

Sir, Arminians ſay, That Chriſt died for us that we might be ſaved if wee doe believe;kk… p. 112. we, that Chriſt died for us, that we ſhould believe, and believing, have life through his name.

Dare you ſay that Chriſt died for any ſo abſolutely, as that they ſhould be ſaved whether they did believe or no? I hope you will not, though your parallelling the new Covenant with that with Noah doth naturally yeild ſuch an inference, as hath already beene ſhewed.

Your ſecond Argument was the ſame with one you uſed in your former ſermons, where you aſſerted the abſoluteneſſe of the new Covenant, viz. That this conditionality infers a liberty of will.

But Sir, that thoſe who plead for conditions are no way maintainers or abettors of free will, their writings ſufficiently declare.

llGataker Rejoynd. p. 31.You make men believe that we preach not repentance as the grace of God by his Spirit, wrought in our hearts in and for Chriſt, which is moſt untrue; and who of us denies faith to be the gift of God, or that God out of his love to us in Chriſt, freely worketh it in us, that therby we may be enabled to receive Chriſt. That we are not only halfe dead, but quite dead, and can do nothing that is good until the ſpirit quicken us; cannot goe to Chriſt til God the Father draweth us: cannot believe on Chriſt nor repent of ſin until the Lord give it unto us, and enable us thereto, is a doctrine I have long agoe learned from their Sermons, and often meete with in their writings. And as for the inference, he which chargeth the Patronage of free will on that kind of preaching, that holds out life and ſalvation upon condition of faith and repentance, p. 17let him looke to it how he will quit Chriſt and his Apoſtles from that charge, whoſe Sermons are full of counſels, commands and calls, that require men to repent and believe, if ever they would be ſaved. Sir, conditions to be performed by us of our owne ſtrength and power, which the Arminians maintaine, argue a power in mans will indeede. But conditions purchaſed by Chriſt for us, and to be wrought by his Spirit in us, which we maintain; Inferre no power of free wil at all.

Your third Argument was taken from election. That from this conditional redemption would follow, that men are elected but conditionally, ſo that Gods election ſhould be undetermined and uneffectual, and the will of God ſhould be made ſubordinate to the will of the creature.

Sir, God may be ſaid to elect conditionally two wayes.

1. So as that the condition be conſidered as anteceding his election, moving him to will ſalvation to ſuch a perſon. This conditionality indeed ſubordinates the will of the Creator to the creature, and cauſeth election to be undetermined and ineffectual. But ſuch kind of conditions, we oppugne as Arminian.

Or 2. ſo, as that the condition preceede indeed the actual enjoyment of the benefits to which men are elected, but followes election it ſelf. And this conſideration of conditions of election we propugne, as no way evacuating either the efficacy or determinateneſſe of Gods election, nor yet in any wiſe ſubjecting the wil of God to the will of man therein. Hear what Dr. Ames ſaith to this very thing. mmFidem ponī ut conditionem ſalutem quidem antecedentem; ſed electionem ipſam conſequentem nunquam à noſtris negatum fuit; ſummā verò cum religione conſtanter traeditum. Cor. de Elect. c. 1. §. 4. p. 7.It never was denied by our Divines, that faith was maintained as a condition antecedent indeed to ſalvation, but conſequent unto, or following election it ſelf; (i. e.) but hath been conſtantly religiouſly maintained. No Sir, our doctrine concerning conditions, doth no way deſtroy the certainty of election. But on the contrary, the doctrine of election doth confirme this our Tenent of Conditional Redemption. For ſo as God from all eternity purpoſed ſalvation unto us, and elected us thereto: So did Chriſt purchaſe it, and ſo is it p. 18actually to be applied. But Godnn2 Theſ. 2. 11.2 Thess 2:11 hath from the beginning choſen us to ſalvation through ſanctification of the ſpirit, and beliefe of the truth. And heretofore Chriſt did purchaſe it to be obtained that way, and that way it is actually to be enjoyed. So that till we be brought over, to the beliefe of the truth and ſome degree of Sanctification; we cannot be ſaid actually to partake of any part of the ſalvation purpoſed or purchaſed. That God elects for faith foreſeene, we uterly deny; but that he electeth through or by it, i.e. ſalvation to be obtained through or by it, we religiouſly maintain.

Your fourth Argument runnes thus, If the purchaſes of Chriſts death have any condition annexed to them in regard of application, then theſe conditions ſhare with Chriſt in the buſineſſe of ſalvation. It is the ſame with another of your Arguments uſed in your former lectures, and neere of kinne to that of Doctor Criſpe, vol. 1. p. 168. Then Chriſt juſtifieth not alone. Is faith Chriſt himſelfe? if not, then Chriſt muſt have a partner to juſtifie.

But the ſequel both in yours and the Doctors Argument is notoriouſly falſe; and that becauſe conditions are not required in the ſame way of cauſality that Chriſts righteouſneſs is. For that is required as a meritorious cauſe, purchaſing and procuring mans peace; faith is an inſtrument apprehending it, and Chriſt the cauſe of it; repentance as a way leading to it, or qualification fitting a perſon for it. Now when an effect depends on divers cauſes of a different kind, the neceſſity of the one, argues not the inſufficiency of the other; but the one may be ſufficient in its kind, though the other be required. The wounded perſon muſt apply the plaiſter to the wound, if he wil have it heale him. The diſeaſed perſon muſt drink the potion, muſt travel to the bath, and bathe himſelfe therein, if he will have either the potion to purge him, or the bath to cure him: Yet would it be great weakneſſe in either of theſe, to ſay, that the plaiſter, the potion, the bath were not ſufficient, becauſe they were required to goe unto the one, to take and apply the other; for their taking, p. 19going, drinking, applying, are not required in the ſame ſanatory and medicinal way as the bath, the plaiſter, or the portion are; but only in an inſtrumental way, to bring theſe home to him, that ſo they might worke upon him. So, nor is my repentance and faith required in any ſatisfactory or meritorious way, to ſatisfie Gods juſtice together with Chriſt, or merit remiſſion for me; no, Chriſt doth that alone, they are only required to fit me for Chriſt, and bring me to Chriſt. Did we aſcribe any merit or worthineſſe to our conditions, then you might ſay indeed that we made them partners with Chriſt; but we abhorre this as much as you. Faith, ſaith Mr.ooRejoynder p. 47. Gataker, affords not the leaſt mite towards the making up of that price, wherewith our debt is to be diſcharged.

That this anſwer would be made unto your Argument, you your ſelfe foreſaw; and therefore to Anticipate it. You ſay, — But ſome diſtinguiſh betweene Conditions, and meritorious Conditions, &c. Unto which you reply, That this is a moſt weake evaſion, for Papiſts themſelves aſcribe no merit to the preparations they plead for; and cite for it Conc. Trid. Seſs. 6. c. 8.

And here Sir, is a ſecond calumnie. For as before you ranked us with Arminians, ſo here you would inſinuate that we joyne hands with Papiſts in maintaining of this conditional redemption. But as I hope I have vindicated it from the charge of Arminianiſme; ſo I doubt not alſo to cleare it from this of Papiſme.

Is it enough, my good friend, to make a thing evil, to ſay that Papiſts hold ſo? Why did you cite Aeſtius and Leſſius, both Papiſts, among the Champions of your opinion? Papiſts agree with us, and wee with them in many things. Nor call we that Popiſh where they are ſound, and agree with us, but that only wherein they being erroneous we diſſent from them, and proteſt againſt them. Now whether or no Papiſts maintaine any meritoriouſneſſe in the preparations they defend, ſure I am, that Proteſtant Authors chiefly oppoſe this meritoriouſneſſe of them, as I ſhall prove unto you.

p. 20Firſt then, conſider that what Chemnitius replie, to that very place and paſſage of the Counſel that you cite, If I have not miſt your quotation. His words are theſe.

ppSi igitur haec eſſet mens et ſententia Synodi, quod ſimpliciter vellet monſtrare illum, de quo jam diximus, modum et ordinem, quo juxta Scripturae traditionem Deus utitur quando homines vult deducere ad juſtificationem; et ſi illa quae Scriptura tradit procedere, tribuerent non viribus liberi arbitrii, ſed gratiae Dei, et operationi Sp. Sancti, nec in illis praeparationibus conſtituerem meritum aut dignitatem, propter quam juſtificemur: facilè poſſet de vocabulo praeparationis, dextrè juxta Scripturam intellecto, conveniri. Exam. part 1 p. 172.If therefore this were the minde and judgment of the Synod, that it would ſimply ſhew that manner and order which God doth uſe according to the Doctrine of the Scripture, when he intends to bring men to juſtification; and if they would not attribute thoſe things which the Scripture teacheth do go before it, to the ſtrength of free will, but to the grace of God, and operation of his Holy Spirit, nor place any merit or worth in thoſe preparations for which wee may be juſtified; we might eaſily be agreed concerning the word preparation, rightly underſtood according to the Scripture.

Out of which of Chemnitius, I obſerve three things. (1) That however in that Seſſion they did daube over the matter, yet they did hold a dignity, worth, and merit of congruity to be in theſe preparations, which the ſame Chemnitius doth afterwards prove at large, ſpending three or foure leaves therein. (2) That Chemnitius held ſomething, ſome worke wrought by the Spirit in man to precede his juſtification, or his reception of juſtification; for in the following paragraph, thus he ſpeaks.

qqFalſum eſt igitur quod in 9 canone nobis tribuunt, quaſi docemus nullum plane motum voluntatis divinitus donatum et excitatum, praeced ere acceptionem juſtificationis: Omnino enim docemus poenitentiam et contritionem praecedere. Non dicimus, praecedere tanquam meritum, quod ſuâ dignitate cooperatur ad juſtificationem conſequendam, ſed ſicut ſenſus morbi aut dolor vulneris non eſt meritum ſanationis, ſed urget et impellit ad deſiderandum, quaerendum, et ſucipiendum medicum.It is therefore falſe, which in the ninth Canon they attribute to us, as if we taught that not any motion of the will given by God, and excited by him, doth goe before our receiving of juſtification: for we doe altogether teach that repentance and contrition doe goe before. Wee doe not ſay, that they goe before as a merit, which by p. 21its worth doth cooperate to the obtaining of juſtification; but as the ſenſe of ſickneſſe or griefe of a wound, is not any merit of the cure, but doth raiſe and ſtirre up to deſire, ſeeke out and welcome the Phyſician. For the whole hath no neede of the Phſitian, but they that are ſick, as Chriſt ſaith.

And in this ſenſe, thoſe things (as the Scripture ſaith) do go before.

3. That he could eaſily have agreed with thoſe Tridentine Fathers about preparations (the word preparation being rightly underſtood, and according to Scripture expreſſions;) if they would not have aſcribed them to the ſtrength of free wil, nor have put the worth and merit of juſtification upon them. By this (I think) it is plaine, that they were meritorious preparations that Chemnitius did oppoſe in his writings againſt the Papiſts. And truly I wonder, that you ſhould cavil at that diſtinction I gave between a condition and a meritorious cauſe: And more, that, you ſhould ſay that Papiſts aſcribe no merit to conditions, and preparations. You know the queſtion concerning the conditional promiſes of the Goſpel is handled under that concerning the neceſſity of works, where our Writers grant a neceſſity of preſence, but not of efficiencie, which Bellarmine contends for. Now I pray, what doe they underſtand by that efficiency, but a meritorious efficiency? or, what other then that can be aſcribed unto works? yea, that our Authours underſtand merit by that efficiency, they deny. Adde to Chemnitius, Chamier, and conſider two paſſages in him.

rrAt Evangelium non promittit ſalutem abſque ulla conditione legis obſervandae; neque id noſtrumquiſquam docuit: modò ne conditio pro merito ſumatur. tom. 3. l. 15. c. 2. § 9. nam et fidei conditio non eſt antecedens ſed conſequens, quia nullum fidei meritum attenditur, ſive fides non eſt cauſa ſalutis.But the Goſpel doth not promiſe ſalvation without any condition of obſerving the law, nor did ever any of ours teach that: ſo that he do not take the word condition for merit. And in ch. 5. Sect. 11. For the condition of faith is not antecedent, but conſequent, becauſe there is no merit of faith conſidered, or faith is not the cauſe of ſalvation. To theſe joyne Doctor Ames, who ſaith.

p. 22ſſNon negamus bona opera ullam relationem habere ad ſalutem; habent enim relationem adjuncti conſequentis, et effecti ad ſalutem (ut loquuntur) adeptam; et adjuncti antecedentis, ac diſponentis ad ſalutem adipiſcendam; atque etiam argumenti confirmantis, fiduciam ac ſpem ſalutis: ſed negamus ulla opera noſtra cauſam eſſe poſſe meritoriam juſtificationis ac ſalutis. Bel. ener. tom 4. lib. 6 cap 6.We doe not deny that good works have any relation to ſalvation; for they have the relation of an adjunct conſequent, and of the effect to ſalvation obtained (as they ſpeake;) and of an adjunct antecedent, and diſpoſing to ſalvation to be obtained; and alſo of an Argument confirming our aſſurance and hope of ſalvation: But we deny that any works of ours can be a meritorious cauſe of juſtification and ſalvation. And in the Chapter before, ssPromiſſiones cum conditione obedientiae ut cauſae juris quod habemus ad rem promiſſam, ſunt propriae legis: ſed promiſſiones cum conditione obedientiae, ut adjuncti aut effecti rei promiſſae, vel dona…ionis ejus, locum ſuum habent in benigniſſimae gratiae regno, ubi meritis noſtris nullus habetur locus. cap. 5. §. 2.Promiſes with a condition of obedience as the cauſes of that right which we have to the thing promiſed, are proper to the law; but promiſes with condition of obedience, as of the adjunct or effect of the thing promiſed, or the donation of it, have place in the moſt bountifull kingdome of grace, where there is no place found for our merits.

Biſhop Davenant ſhall be the next, who averring repentance, faith and love to be neceſſary to juſtification, adds by way of explication, and in oppoſition to the Popiſh ſenſe of neceſſity,

ttHaec et hujuſmodi opera cordis interna ſunt omnibus juſtificatis neceſſaria: non quod contineant in ſe efficaciam ſeu meritum juſtificationis, ſed quod juxta ordinationem divinam vel requirentur ut conditiones praeviae ſeu concurrentes, ſicuti poenitere et credere; vel ut effecta à fide juſtificante neceſſariò manartia, ut amare Deum, diligere proximum. De juſt. act. cap. 30. Q. 1. Argum. 1.Theſe and the like inward works of the heart are neceſſary to all that are juſtified: not becauſe they conteine in themſelves that efficacy or merit of juſtification; but becauſe according to Gods ordination either they are required as conditions precedaneous to, or concurrent with juſtification, as to repent, and to believe; or elſe as effects neceſſarily flowing from juſtifying faith, as to love God, to love our neighbour. And in his next Chapter, ſtating this queſtion, whether good works may be ſaid to be neceſſary to juſtification and ſalvation? he ſets downe in his firſt and ſecond concluſions, that in controverſies with Papiſts, and Sermons to vulgar people, wee p. 23ſhould not uſe ſuch expreſſions without due explication of them, and that becauſe both Papiſts and people wil be ready to underſtand them neceſſarily as meritorious cauſes of ſalvation. Shewing by example of the Ancient Fathers how careful they have beene to forbeare ſome forms of ſpeech, by reaſon of the corrupt ſenſe of hereticks: to which purpoſe he alledgeth that of Hierom; that which may well be ſpoken, is not ſometimes to be ſpoken by reaſon of the Ambiguity.

Nevertheleſſe in his fifth, ſixth and ſeventh Concluſions he maintains, that they are neceſſary thereto, though not as meritorious cauſes, yet as previous and concurrent conditions. Let Mr. Perkins be the firſt wee name for this particular; who in his Reformed Catholick, beſides the head of Merit, (which wholly makes for us, and ſhewes ſufficiently the Papiſts to be Patrons of merit) in that of Repentance, ſpeaking of the differences between us and Papiſts, therein ſaith, The fourth abuſe is touching the effect and efficacy of Repentance; for they make it a meritorious cauſe of remiſſion of ſin, and of life everlaſting, flat againſt the Word of God. And a little after: They aſcribe to their contrition the merit of congruity, which cannot ſtand with the ſufficient merit of Chriſt. We for our parts hold, that God requires contrition at our hands, not to merit remiſſion of ſins, but that we may acknowledge our owne unworthineſſe, be humbled in the fight of God, and diſtruſt all our own merits; and further, that we may make more account of the benefit of Christ, wherby we are received into the favour of God, and more carefully ſhun ſin for time to come. But we acknowledge no contrition at all to be meritorious ſave that of Chriſt. I might adde to theſe, learned uuIn Pſal. 68 in ſolut. arg. med. ult.Ps 68Camero, and repeate that which I cited out of him before, it being the very diſtinction which you call a moſt weake evaſion; and the defence of which, we are now upon. As alſo renowned vvTract. of Juſtif. Sect. 2. c. 1. Per modum cauſae efficientis & meritoriae, impetrando, promerendo; & ſuo modo inchoando juſtificationem.Pemble, who ſpends a whole Chapter in refuting that opinion of Bellarmine, and the Romaniſts; viz. That faith juſtifies us as an efficient and meritorious cauſe obtaining, deſerving, and in its kinde beginning juſtification. But I ſhall content p. 24my ſelf with the recitall of two more, who handle the very Queſtion now in controverſie, Whether the Promiſes of the Goſpel be abſolute or conditional? And determine that they are abſolute, not conditionall. The firſt of theſe is Broachman, who ſaith, wwNon controvertitur an promiſſiones Evangelicae ut ſint fructuoſae & ſalutares, requirant fidem: Nocum eſt illud Chriſti, Mar ult 6. Johan. 1. 16. Nec in controverſiam vocatur, An promiſſiones Evangelicae ita gratuitae ſint & abſolutae, ut abſolvant hominem à dolore ſerio ob peccata, et ab omni ſtudio b…norum operum? Infans enim ſit oportet in Scriptu…is, cui non innotuerae bae Spiritus ſancti aſſertiones: Rom. 6. 1, 2. & 8. 1. Tit. 4. 10. Genuinus autem quaeſt: onis ſtatus eſt, An Evangelium propter ullam noſtram dignitatem, intentionem, opus, me itum, ullámve in nobis diſpoſitionem, promi…tat nobis gratiam, miſericordiam, remiſſionem peccatorum, & vitam aeternam; an ve ò per & propter Jeſum Chriſtum fide apprehenſum? Syſt. tom 2. art. de Evang. c. 2.Rom 6:1Rom 6:2Rom 8:1It is not controverted, Whether the promiſes of the Goſpel, that they may be fruitfull and ſaving, do require faith: Neither is it called into controverſie, Whether the promiſes of the Goſpel be ſo free and abſolute, that they diſcharge a man from a ſerious ſorrow for ſins, and from all ſtudy of good works? For he muſt be an infant in Scripture, that is not acquainted with theſe aſſertions of the holy Spirit. But the true ſtate of the queſtion is, whether the Goſpel for any our worth, intention, work, merit, or any diſpoſition in us, doth promiſe to us grace, mercy, remiſsion of ſinnes and eternal life; or rather for and through Jeſus Chriſt apprehended by faith. And againe, in anſwer to Bellarmines fifth objection, which was, that the promiſes of the Goſpel doe alwayes require the condition of Faith: Thus hee ſaith; which wee grant. And further averrs, that this condition of faith will ſtand with his Aſſertion of abſolute promiſes: For ſaith he, We warned you in the beginning, that it is not controverted, Whether the promiſes of the Gospel doe require faith, which wee willingly grant:xxAn in gratuita remiſſione peccatorum, requiratur conditio fidei, ut aliquod opus noſtrum, aut aliqua in nobis diſpoſitio; cui ut cau…ae efficienti, adjutanti, aut cooperanti, aſcribatur gra…uita remiſſio peccatorum; quod rotundè negamus But whether in the free remiſsion of ſins, the condition of Faith be required as any work of ours, or certain diſpoſition in us; to which, as to an efficient, helping, or cooperating cauſe, the free remiſsion of ſins may be aſcribed; which we do roundly deny.

The other is Mr.yyVind. Leg. Lect. 26. p. 249. Burges, who aſſerts the ſame out of Broachman, as I p. 25conceive. By theſe Citations I hope it will more then ſufficiently appear to an eye not ſtrangely poſſeſt with prejudice,

1. That the diſtinction between a Condition and a meritorious Cauſe, is no ſlender and weak Evaſion, but a maine and fundamental Diſtinction in this Controverſie, ſuch as on which the very hinges of the Controverſie doth turn.

2. That your ſaying. That Papiſt aſcribe not any meritoriouſneſſe to conditions, &c. is moſt falſe, if there be any truth in theſe Proteſtants collections; yea, that it doth aſperſe theſe reverend Proteſtant Authours fore-named, who oppoſe the Papiſt in the very particular.

3. That thoſe of our Divines who maintain conditional promiſes in the Covenant, whilſt withal they exclude all claim of dignity, worth, merit, or any ſuch cauſality from theſe conditions, do not joyne with Papiſts, as you would make the people believe, but with Proteſtants againſt Papiſts; and differ not one hairs breadth from thoſe who aver the Covenant to be abſolute, not conditional: for by the Conditions which they deny, they underſtand meritorious Conditions.

4. That in rejecting this diſtinction between a Condition and a meritorious Cauſe, and aſſerting the Covenant to be without, not only meritorious conditions, but all other alſo: you oppoſe all Orthodox Divines that ever I met with, not only thoſe that hold the Covenant to be conditional, but thoſe alſo who in terminis aver the abſoluteneſs of it, (for by the conditions they reject, they underſtand meritorious ones, as hath been ſhewed) and joyn with Mr. Saltmarſh, Dr. Criſp, and ſuch other whom the Othodox, not out of malice, but for diſtinction ſake, and for the due deſert of ſome of their Tenents do call Antinomians.

But let us ſee what further ſtrength you bring to the battering of this diſtinction: for your charge of Popery will not hold. You add therefore farther; Did Adams p. 26doing merit life? None will ſay it. Yet the Grace of God is more ſhewed in the latter then in the firſt Covenant. Therefore in it no conditions at all.

Sir, The Apoſtle ſaith, To him that worketh the reward is reckoned, A Reward of is Juſtic. Ball. …ov. p. 25.not of grace, but of debt, Rom. 4. 4. I know ſome hold the Covenant with Adam, wherein works were injoyned, to be a Covenant of Grace. I have heard Mr. Symonds of Holland deliver that in a Sermon at Rederith, and thereupon divide the Covenant of Grace into the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Faith. Certainly, had Adam kept the condition of the firſt Covenant, he had done no more then his Duty; nor had he profited God at all; beſides, there would have been ſmall or no proportion between that his Work and the reward; all which are required to merit proper. So that in ſome ſenſe that may be called a Covenant of Grace. Nevertheleſſe in the latter Covenant of Faith, the grace of God is ſo far more fully, richly, and gloriouſly manifeſted, then in that of Works, as that it obtaineth the title of the Covenant of Grace. The Apoſtle ſaith, it was by Faith, that it might be by Grace, Rom. 4. 16. And the Scripture being ſo plain for it, I ought to believe it, though I could not make it out to others, wherein it was freer, nor yet apprehend it my ſelf.

But my good friend, the buſineſſe is not ſo difficult but that it may be, and hath been already diſpatch'd by ſome of our ſide, and the freeneſſe of the latter above the former, notwithſtanding the conditionality of both, at large diſcovered. And that not by excluding faith, or the condition of faith from the latter (as you would have it) for that would interfere with that of the Apoſtle now cited, By Faith, that it might be of Grace; where Faith is taken in, not left out to make out the freeneſſe. Nor yet only becauſe faith is given of God, and ſo ability to keep the latter Covenant is given, which is ſomething. For though that ſtrength Adam had to keep the firſt Covenant was freely beſtowed on him by God in his Creation, yet when God was pleaſed to enter into a Covenant with p. 27him, he had it in him, and was to work in his own ſtrength and power. Whereas in the New Covenant God finds man in an impotent, weak, and dead condition, and graciouſly promiſeth to work in him ability to do what he requireth: This (I ſay) is ſomething that ſerves to ſhew the freeneſſe of Divine Grace in the new Covenant; for the Apoſtle ſaith expreſly, Epheſ. 2. 8. We are ſaved by Grace through faith, and that not of our ſelves, it is the gift of God; where the giving of the thing required, to wit, Faith, is introduced by the Apoſtle to ſhew the freeneſs of Grace.

But the ſuperabundancy of Grace in the latter Covenant appears moſtly in this, that in the former, the matter of mans Juſtification had been ſomething of his own, his own exact and perfect obedience to the Law of God; but in the latter, the matter of it is an others, the perfect Righteouſneſs of Chriſt. In the one, man runs into himſelfe for the price of his life and happineſs: But in the other, faith carries him out of himſelf unto another, the Lord Jeſus Chriſt for all. In the one, the condition it ſelf and the keeping of it, was to have been the matter of mans Righteouſneſs, the ground of his Juſtification. In the other, it is only the Inſtrument and Mean. In the one, the condition it ſelf (Works) procured life, in and of themſelves, without any reference to any other; but in the other, Faith is looked on, not as a Work, but as an Inſtrument; nor doth it ſave for any excellency, worth, or vertue that is in it; but only becauſe it layes hold on Chriſt. I cannot better expreſſe my ſelf then in Mr. Gatakers words, Rejoynder. p. 46, 47. In the one, Works are conſidered, as in themſelves performed by the Parties to be juſtified and live. In the other, Faith is conſidered and required, not as a work barely done by us, but us an Inſtrument whereby Chriſt is apprehended, in whom is found, and by whom that is done, whereby Gods Juſtice is ſatisfied, and life eternal meritoriouſly procured for us; ſo that they differ as much as theſe two Propoſitions. 1. Pay your debt of a thouſand pounds and be free. 2. Rely on ſuch a friends ſatisfaction p. 28made for it, and be as free as if you had made full payment and ſatisfaction your ſelf. All this and more you may find in that reverend Divine, your contempt of whom, and all other not of your way, ſads the hearts of your friends, and makes them fear that which they are loath to ſuſpect concerning you.

You proceed, and tell us that though it be not meritorious,Conditio Antecedens eſt effectiva. yet if it be Antecedent, it muſt be Effective; For an Antecedent condition is effective.

Sir, By your own maintaining faith to be an inſtrument in the work of our ſalvation (which I think is more then a condition, though no more I believe then truth) you muſt of neceſſity grant it both a precedency and efficiency therein; for inſtruments are alwayes reckoned to the efficient cauſe, and in order of nature precede the effect. And thus I conceive that faith is effective in the work of our ſalvation, as an inſtrument receiving Chriſt, not as a condition. Conditions are not effective, but inſtruments are. As for that ofzzTom. 3. l. 5. c. 5. §. 2. Chamier, that a condition▪ Antecedent is effective; I conceive he means meritorious, the paſſage cited out of him already leading me to that conjecture: For (ſaith he) the aaibid. §. 16Condition of faith is not Antecedent, but conſequent, becauſe no merit of faith is conſidered, or faith is not the Cauſe of Salvation. Now that Conditions are meritorious, yea or ſo much as impulſive, is altogether denied by the Aſſertors of conditions, who allow no cauſality at all to them. It reſts on you to prove that the Antecedency of a condition doth infer its cauſality: For though Chamier aver it, yet I ſee no ground for that his aſſertion, eſpecially in ſuch conditions, as thoſe we maintain in the New Covenant.

Your firſt Argument runs thus: If Conditions be annexed, &c. Then no man can be ſure of the benefits purchaſed whiles he lives; for the conditions muſt be performed, &c. To which we may add two Arguments of your former Sermons, the firſt the very ſame with this: If ſalvation were on condition, then none could be ſure of ſalvation, for none can be ſure to hold out in performance of the Condition. The p. 29other, If any condition be required, then none can be ſaved, for none can perform the condition. Adam could not abſtain from one tree when he was in the ſtate of Innocency. Much leſſe.—

Firſt, Sir, your inſtance of Adam, we conceive it unſound. That he did not abſtain, we finde by woful experience; but that he could not, we deny. Recepit poſſe ſi vellet, non autem velle ut poſſet, ſaith a Father. Adam had power to have abſtained if he would, only his will was not confirmed in good; whereupon it came to paſſe that he freely fell.

Secondly, Your weapon may be turned againſt your ſelf: For whereas you hold, That none are ſaved but ſuch as believe, it may be objected unto you out of your own Argument, Then none can be ſaved, for none can believe; or, Then none can be ſure of Salvation, becauſe none can bee ſure to hold out in believing.

Thirdly, It ſeemes to me directly to croſſe the Apoſtle, who tells us, That it was of faith, that the Promiſe might be ſure to all the Seed, Rom. 4. 16.

Fourthly, Whereas you ſay, That if Conditions be required, then none can be ſure, becauſe none can bee ſure to hold out; Do you not ſeem to intimate that ſalvation is ſure to the Elect, whether they hold out in the faith or not? which is the Monſter Arminians would father upon our Tenents.

For anſwer therefore to your Argument, the main of it may wound an Arminian, who holds falling from grace: but as for thoſe who hold no ſuch uncomfortable Doctrine, it no way toucheth them. We ſay with David, 2 Sam. 23. 5. Although my houſe be not ſo with God, yet he hath made with me an everlaſting Covenant ordered in all things and ſure. For he hath promiſed to circumciſe our hearts, to write his Lawes in our hearts, to give us a new heart, and then through grace, after our recovery, we may do that which in our ſick, dead, and corrupt p. 30eſtate we could not do; namely, keep the condition in an Evangelical way, wherein though exact perfectneſſe be required, yet is repentance admitted, and ſincerity accepted.

Again, he hath promiſed to put his fear in our hearts, that we may not depart from him, Jer. 32. 40. And we are confident that he who hath begun a good work in us, will perform it to the day of Chriſt, Phil. 1. 6. Qui operatur ut accedamus, idem operatur ne diſcedamus. We anſwer therefore the main of your Argument, even as wee anſwer the Arminians, That though in regard of our own ſtrength, which is weak, we may fear, yet in regard of Gods manutenency we are ſure. Who will keep us, not without, but by and through the Means he hath appointed us, even faith; by which, as he brings us into a ſtate of Salvation, ſo through the ſame he will keep us by his Almighty power unto ſalvation, 1 Pet. 1. 5. We are as ſure of perſeverance in obſervation of the condition as of Salvation; holding both of God by like tenure of free promiſe.

Salvation, you ſee then, may be obteined, notwithſtanding the conditions required, becauſe God hath promiſed to give ability to perform them, and to perſevere in the performance of them. This you foreſaw would be replied, and therefore anticipate it by ſaying, But God hath promiſed to give faith. To which you rejoyne, I demand, Whether that Promiſe be abſolute or conditional? And anon, There is no reaſon why one Promiſe ſhould be more abſolute then another.

But 1. Sir, Whether abſolute or conditional, a Promiſe it is, and ſuch as doth aſſure the ſoul of the condition on which ſalvation is given. So that Salvation is ſure, notwithſtanding the conditionality of the Covenant, and the ſinewes of your Argument are cut in two.

2. For your Quaerie, Whether it be conditional or abſolute? I conceive it abſolute. Chriſt procured Salvation for us to be beſtowed conditionally, if we do believe; but faith p. 31it ſelf hath he abſolutely procured without preſcribing of any condition; Quum promiſſiones de perſeverantia obſolutas eſſe negant, ſed conditionatas tantum, &c. Ameſ. Cor. p. 389.ſo that it is equivalent to an abſolute purchaſe in reſpect of the event and iſſue. Owen Univerſal Redemp. l. 3. c. 1. & 2. For my part, I cannot imagine how any condition (I mean Antecedent condition, for a Conſequent condition they may admit of) can be annexed to thoſe Promiſes, I will write my Lawes in their hearts, and I will put my fear into their hearts, and I will take the ſtony heart out of their bodies. &c. unleſſe free wil be granted. And therefore I conceive thoſe promiſes to be abſolute in regard of Antecedent conditions. Now whereas you ſay, There is no reaſon why one Promiſe ſhould be more abſolute then another; the will of the Covenant Maker to have it ſo, is it ſelf a ſufficient Reaſon. Is it not the will of God to give Chriſt abſolutely, & then ſalvation for Chriſts ſake to them that do believe in him? Shall I ſay here, That there is no reaſon why one gift ſhould be more abſolute then another? He who worketh all things according to the counſel of his own will, hath infinite reaſon both for his will and working. In the mean while, Sir, your Reaſon from the certainty of Salvation, is (I think) ſufficiently diſcovered to have nothing of force againſt Proteſtant conditional Redemption.

Your laſt Argument was taken from the Analogy or Reſemblance betwixt Chriſt and Adam; As by the one, ſin is conveyed; ſo by the other Righteouſneſſe: but by the one ſin and death are conveyed without Condition; Ergo.

I doubt not Sir, but that you will remember the old rules; viz. 1. That ſimilitudes run not on all four. 2. Nor are Argumentative. I might as well argue hence, That all mankind are redeemed by Chriſt, becauſe they were all deſtroyed by Adam: Or that all were not corrupted by Adam, as Peter Martyr on the place tels me, Ambroſe and Origen did hence hold, becauſe all are not repaired by Chriſt: Or with Bellarmine, That Adam conveyed inherent ſin to his poſterity whereby they periſh, and therefore the Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt conveyed for our recovery p. 32muſt be inherent. We ſhould many wayes clip the truth of God, if we ſhould every way make theſe lines run parallel. Hear Peter Martyr to the very point, This Analogy holds true only in the general: In Cap. 5. ad Rom. v 14. In illa verba Qui eſt typus ſu uri.Rom 5:14but in reſpect of the particular, and the kinds, there is great difference. Adam conveyes ſin by Propagation to his Poſterity: But Chriſt conveyed Righteouſneſs by faith.

After this you had a paſſage concerning actual Righteouſneſſe and actual Reconciliation, to this purpoſe: Ʋnleſſe men will grant that Chriſt purchaſed a ſalvability, the ſalvation purchaſed muſt be actual; for Inter actum & potentiam non datur medium.

Sir, I know none of ours that deny, that Chriſt purchaſed actual ſalvation for thoſe for whom he dyed; i.e. That in time they ſhould be actually ſaved in that way and method agreed on between the Father and the Son. The thing we deny is, That the ſalvation purchaſed, is actually theirs for whom its purchaſed before they come actually to believe. You muſt give us leave to diſtinguiſh between the Purchaſe and the Poſſeſſion: the Grant or Donation of a Benefit, and the actual exhibition and reception of it. The child may have an Inheritance purchaſed for him, and bequeathed to him before he is born, but he muſt be born before he can enjoy it. Abraham had the grant and Donation of Canaan, long before his had the actual poſſeſſion of it. Hear we Dr. Ames in this particular;ccDonatam igitur & gratiam & ſalutem omnes & ſinguli habent; quamvis rei donatae poſſeſſionem non habent ante fidem. Cor. p. 126, 127. All and each have grace and ſalvation given, though they have not the poſſeſſion of the thing given before faith.

Now unto theſe Arguments let us add one or two more out of your former Sermons about the abſoluteneſs of the Covenant; many of which having fallen in with thoſe already diſcuſſed, and not above one or two remaining.

The firſt, If any thing were required on our part, then beaſting could not be excluded. This alſo Dr. Criſp vol. 10. p. 71. If any thing were done on our parts to partake of Chriſt, we might have wherein to boaſt, Rom. 4. 2.

p. 33But I pray conſider ſeriouſly how croſſe this your Argument is to the very Text: For did not Abraham, the party ſpoken of there, do ſomething for his part to partake of Chriſt, when he believed? yet was he excluded from boaſting. And doth not the Law of Fath, the Goſpel, require faith on mans part, that Righteouſneſſe may be imputed? why elſe is it called a Law? Yet the Apoſtle ſaith expreſly, that by this Law boaſting is excluded, Rom. 3. 27. If indeed we could do any thing in a meritorious way, we might boaſt, not otherwiſe. The begger I hope, hath little to boaſt of, and yet doth he both crave and receive his Almes. The ſinner hath leſſe: for as that he doth can no way merit, no more then the beggers craving and receiving; ſo nor can he do that, untill the Lord inable him. God muſt give him both a mouth and a hand, before he can ſpeak for Chriſt to take him. Yet both he muſt have, before he can receive, the Lord having ſet down to himſelf (as you your ſelf acknowledg) ſuch a method and way of giving.

The other which ſeems to be of more ſtrength, and I think the ſtrongeſt you bring, is this, If the Promiſe of Salvation were upon condition of believing, then men ſhould believe before they be juſtified, contrary to Rom. 4. 5. where it is ſaid, God juſtifies the ungodly. Now no where in Scripture Believers are called ungodly; The ſame almoſt totidem verbis you may read in the Doctor, vol. 1. p. 170, 171.

Now for anſwer unto ths, I deſire you to conſider, what the Papiſts ſay concerning this Juſtification of the wicked. That whereſoever in Scripture God is ſaid to juſtifie the ungodly, it muſt be underſtood that he alſo makes the ungodly juſt and righteous; for otherwiſe the judgment of God would not be according to truth, and the Lord ſhould do that himſelf which he forbids his creature to do, and abhors in his creature when ever he doth it, Exod. 23. 7. Iſaiah 5. 23. Deuter. 25. 1. Prov. 17. 15. And leſt you ſhould think light of it,Fas eſt ab hoſto doceri. becauſe it comes from them, though it is right to learn even from an enemy; hear what the learned Pemble ſaith of this p. 34very rule cited by him.§ 1. c. 3. of Juſtific. We embrace this rule (ſaith he) and the reaſon of it, acknowledging that where ever there is Juſtification, there muſt be Juſtice ſome way or other in the party Juſtified▪ The God of truth ſhould otherwiſe call darkneſſe light, and evil good. And therefore both that Author, as alſo Paraeus and Chamier, tells us, that the Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to this ungodly perſon is the ground of this gracious ſentence of God, whereby he doth abſolve, acquit, and juſtifie him. So that the perſon, though he be ungodly and unrighteous in himſelf, and ſo unjuſtifiable, yet is he godly, juſt, and righteous in Chriſt and through the Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to him juſtifiable. Let this then be agreed on; i.e. 1. That the ground of this gracious ſentence of God, whereby he juſtifies the ungodly muſt be ſome kind of Righteouſneſſe. And 2. That it is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to the ſinner. The Quaerie then will be, Whether this Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt be imputed to the ſinner before he doth believe, or not till he believeth? Now I think the Scriptures are very clear for the latter, that Righteouſneſſe is not imputed to the ſinner til he doth believe: that very Text it ſelf confirmes it, To him that believeth on him that juſtifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for Righteouſneſſe. It is to him that believeth that Righteouſneſſe is imputed; and again, His faith is counted, &c. Take faith how you will, it muſt come into the imputation, the imputation is not without it. So again, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteouſneſſe, ver. 3. When was it ſo accounted? Certainly when he believed: It was whileſt he was in uncircumciſion indeed, but not whileſt he was in unbelief: He received Circumciſion (ſaith the Apoſtle) the Seal of the Righteouſneſs of faith, which yet he had being uncircumciſed. As he had Righteouſneſſe then, ſo had he faith too, for it was a Righteouſneſſe of faith. And as it was imputed unto him upon believing, ſo ſhall it be imputed unto us if we believe on him who raiſed up Jeſus, verſ. 24. Hence it is called the Righteouſneſs of faith, for that it comes to p. 35be ours through faith. Faith takes it, receives it, puts it on. The Righteouſneſſe of God by Faith, Phil. 3. 9.

We anſwer then that place in the Romans thus,

1. An ungodly perſon may be taken either for one who is wicked,We grant that God doth juſtifie an ungodly perſon but in ſenſu diviſo, not in ſenſu compoſito; ſo as he makes the lame to leap, the blind to ſee Iſai. 33. 6. Mat. 11. 5. By order of Nature he is firſt a believer, and then is juſtified. Rutherford Survey of Antin. p. 110Isa 33:6Matt 11:5 and goes impenitently on in his wickedneſs, never once looking after Chriſt; a ſinner continuing in his impenitency and unbelief. Now ſuch an ungodly perſon God doth not juſtifie; for it is againſt both his truth and juſtice.

2. It may be taken for one that is ungodly and unjuſtifiable in himſelf; but yet believing on Chriſt, is through him and his ſatisfaction Juſt, and ſo juſtifiable. Such an ungodly perſon God doth Juſtifie; and thus Ames, Paraeus, Biſhop Downam, and thoſe other Divines I have in their deſcriptions of Juſtification, make not a ſinner ſimply, but a believing ſinner to be the ſubject of Juſtification, or the perſon to be juſtified.

Now whereas you ſay, That no where in Scripture a Believer is called ungodly. I conceive it falſe, He is called ſo there: For who is the ungodly perſon ſpoken of there, but Abraham? and he was juſtified (as hath been ſhewed) when he did believe. Beſides, God the object of faith Juſtifying, who is deſcribed there to be the Juſtifier of the ungodly is ſaid in ver. 26. of the foregoing Chapter, to be the Juſtifier of him that believeth in Jeſus. I beſeech you tell me, doth not the Apoſtle ſpeak of one and the ſame Juſtification in both places? Doth he not in both places deſcribe one and the ſame perſon, the perſon that is juſtified? Him then whom he calls a Believer on Chriſt in one place, the ſame he calls an ungodly perſon in the other; and whom he cals an ungodly perſon in this, in that he ſtiles the ſame a believing perſon. Certainly, ſeeing (as it is Chap. 3. verſ. 30) that it is one God that juſtifies both the Circumciſion by faith, and the uncircumciſion through faith, i.e. All that are juſtified, both Jew and Gentile, circumciſed or uncircumciſed, by or through one and the ſame mean of faith. It muſt needs be that the ungodly perſon ſpoken of in the next Chapter, is ſuch an p. 36ungodly perſon, as hath faith, and doth believe; or elſe God ſhould juſtifie ſome without faith, to which the former place doth aver the contrary. That place in the Romanes then concerning Gods juſtifying the ungodly, will not bear the Poſition you ground upon it; viz. That ſinners are juſtified before they do believe; or that we do not believe, that we may be juſtified, as the Doctor expreſſeth it, an aſſertion as rotten as the foundation on which it is built; and expreſly contrary to the Apoſtle, who tells us, Galat. 2. 16. that hee had believed on Chriſt, that ſo he might be juſtified by the Faith of Chriſt.

Thus have I given you an account of ſome, and thoſe of the main of your Arguments, both wherein they have not ſatisfied me concerning the Tenent you endeavoured to maintain, and wherein alſo they have offended me, whilſt they wounded that I hold for truth through the ſides of Popery and Arminianiſm. I ſhall now ſhew you ſome grounds of my belief on the contrary: firſt taking leave in a word to ſtate the Queſtion, and to ſet downe how, and what I hold concerning it

Firſt then, I diſtinguiſh between both a condition and a meritorious cauſe, as alſo between it and an impulſive cauſe. By condition, I underſtand neither any thing meriting Juſtification at Gods hands in the leaſt degree, nor yet any thing moving the Lord to Juſtifie or beſtow Salvation on us.

Secondly, By Conditions I underſtand the reſtipulation or repromiſſion in a Covenant, the termes and Articles of Agreement in a Covenant betweene equals, and the thing commanded or required in a Covenant betweene Superiors and Inferiors, ſuch as is the Covenant between God and man.

Thirdly, Whereas there are conditions, yet I aſſert them not in any rigid and legal, but in an Evangelical way. Not ſo, as if they were not ſtrictly and in a rigid exactneſſe perfectly kept, there were no hope of Salvation; but ſo, as if that they be not in ſome meaſure ſincerely p. 37obſerved, there is ſure damnation. Mr. Ball will tell you, thatccNew Cov. p. 26. whereas in the Covenant of Nature, perfect obedience is exacted, ſo that if there be the leaſt failing in any jot or tittle, and that but once, a man can never be juſtied thereby, nor can the breach be made up by any repentance. In the Covenant of Grace, perfect obedience is indeed required, yet ſo as Repentance is admitted, and ſincerity accepted. Conditions in this Evangelical way I plead for, and conceive, That God in the New Covenant doth not promiſe life and ſalvation abſolutely unto his choſen, whether they believe and repent or no: but doth require from, and command them to repent and believe, if they will be partakers of the benefits purchaſed by his Son, and promiſed by himſelf in that his Covenant: which that they may do, he himſelf of his own grace, and for his own Sons ſake beſtowes faith and repentance on them. Nor have they a right to any actual enjoyment of theſe benefits untill they do actually repent and believe.

The Grounds of my perſwaſion in this particular follow.

1. That Covenant, wherein is a mutual ſtipulation, is conditional. But ſuch is the new Covenant; therefore that is conditional. As on Gods part life and ſalvation are promiſed, ſo on mans repentance, and faith, and perſeverance therein are required, and to be promiſed. Mar 1. 15. Chap. 6. 12. Acts 2 38. chap. 3. 19. chap. 20. 21. John 6. 28, 29. chap. 3. 15, 16. John 8. 24. Rom. 10 6, 7, 8, 9 John 8. 31. Chap. 15 5, 6, 7, 10. Heb. 3. 6. Chap. 10, 38. He cannot ſee wood for trees, that doth not take notice of theſe Evangelical commands, wherein performance of Goſpel conditions, and perſeverance in that performance are required, they every where ſo abundantly occur. Chooſe we out one of the places named, and a little inſiſt on it; that Rom. 10 9. the rather for that in your anſwer to Mr. S. you make ſome reply thereto. How (ſay you) do you prove, that Rom. 10 9. is ſet down the forme and tenure of the New Covenant? I deny it; The Apoſtles intent is. &c.

p. 38Sir, It is clear, as Calvin notes, that the Apoſtle here oppoſeth the Righteouſneſſe of faith to the Righteouſneſſe of Works. It is alſo clear, that in deſcribing the Righteouſneſſe of Works he ſetteth downe the very tenor and form of that Covenant, The man that doth them ſhall live by them, ver. 5. And in oppoſition thereunto, delivers this to be the ſpeech of the Righteouſneſſe of Faith, If thou confeſſeſt with thy mouth, and believeſt with thine heart, &c. If then it be granted, which cannot be denyed, that in theſe words, The man that doth them ſhal live by them, the tenor of the Covenant of Works is contained; it muſt needs follow by the rule of oppoſition, that in theſe words, If thou confeſſeſt and believeſt, &c. the tenor of the Covenant of Grace is alſo contained. Beſides, when the Apoſtle ſaith, The Word is nigh thee, &c. That is the Word of faith which we preach, That if thou confeſſe, &c. What (I pray you) doth he mean by the Word of Faith, but the Goſpel? or what elſe did the Apoſtle preach but the Goſpel? The ſum of which he ſaith to be this, If thou confeſſe, if thou believe. &c.

Sir, That Word or Goſpel which the Apoſtle preached, wherein he held out the Righteouſneſſe of faith, and which he ſet in oppoſition againſt the Covenant of Works; That ſame muſt needs be the Covenant of Grace. But ſuch is the word here; the tenor whereof he ſaith is, If thou confeſſe, &c. Ergo, It is the Covenant of Grace. And whereas you ſay, That the Apoſtles intent there is to ſhew Gods order and method in fulfilling the promiſes of the Covenant, and to deſcribe thoſe whom he will bring to Glory: though it make nothing againſt us; for if that were his intent, he might have his intent, and deſcribe both the one and the other, in ſetting down the Covenant. (The conditions which lead to annexed promiſes, holding out Gods method unto us, and the counterpane of the Covenant or Conditions engraven on the heart, being the beſt character of a perſon to be glorified.) Though (I ſay) this makes nothing againſt us; yet if you conſider the ſenſe of the Apoſtles diſcourſe, both in the latter end p. 39of the the foregoing Chapter, and in this; or if you pleaſe to conſult with Junius Parallels, where he hath affLib. 2. Par. 16.2 Chr 16 whole Parallel about this place; you ſhal find that the Apoſtles intent and ſcope is otherwiſe then you ſay; namely, to prove unto the Jew, even out of Moſes, that the end of the Law was not that they might be juſtified thereby, but that by the impoſſibility of keeping it, they might be driven to ſeek Juſtification from Chriſt by faith in another Covenant; which Covenant of faith Moſes (though obſcurely) did intimate unto them in thoſe expreſſions, Say not in thy heart, &c. The Word is nigh thee. By which he meant no other then that Word of Faith, Goſpel, or Covenant of Grace which the Apoſtle preached; the ſum whereof was, That if thou confeſſe and believe, thou ſhalt be ſaved.

Come we to ſome other Texts formerly alledged to prove a ſtipulation in the Covenant of Grace, and replied unto by you in your Sermon. That out of Gen. 17. touching the Covenant with Abraham was one. To which you ſay, If any condition were required, then that of Circumciſion, which ought alſo to be performed by all under the Goſpel; ſo we ſhould obtrude Judaiſm upon Chriſtians.

Firſt, (My good friend) Are intimations of preaching Judaiſme, Papiſme, and Arminianiſm no calumnies? Conſider (I pray you) how you beſmear the adverſaries of your Opinion to bring an odium upon them.

Secondly, What you reply, ſerves only, ad faciendum populum, there being no manner of Anſwer made unto the Argument. For whether Circumciſion belong to us or no, it was required of Abraham and his Seed; and the ſoul that refuſed to take it, is ſaid to break the Covenant, and was to be cut off, ver. 14. So that the Argument remaines firme againſt you; yea, not at all replyed unto; which is this; The Covenant with Abraham was the Covenant of free grace: But in the Covenant with Abraham there was a Condition required of the federates, Abraham and his Seed: Therefore in the Covenant p. 40of free grace, there is a Condition required of the Federates.

Thirdly, As for that you ſay, We diſtinguiſh between the external Signe of the Covenant, and the ſubſtance of it. The one is alterable, the other remaines ſtil the ſame. Now Circumciſion was but the external Sign of Abrahams part. The things or duties God did eſpecially require of Abraham, were faith and ſincere obedience, Rom. 4 3. Gen. 17. 1. Now theſe belong to Chriſtians, as much as to Jewes, and to preſſe them on Chriſtians is no Judaiſm.

ggCircumciſio erat ſignum obligatorium foederatorum, ſeu reſtipulationis Abrahami, obligans eum & poſtoros ad fidem & obedientiam foederis Deo praeſtandam. Peraeus in Gen. 17. 11. Who adds, that both Sacraments, Circumciſion and Baptiſm, do agree, as in other ends, ſo in this, Quod utroque fit obligatio ſolennis ad fidem & obedientiam oederis Deo praeſtandam. Ibid.Gen 17:11Circumciſion was a Sign obligatory to thoſe which were in Covenant; or a token of the reſtipulation of Abraham, obliging him and his poſterity to faith and obedience of the Covenant to be performed to God. ſaith Paraeus.

Fourthly, I conceive that mandate from the external ſigne of Circumciſion to reach to us Chriſtians. Though not in the letter, yet in the Analogy, and by vertue of it Chriſtians ſtand to be baptized themſelves; alſo to bring their ſeed to partake of that Sacrament, which as the Apoſtle teacheth us, is our Chriſtian Circumciſion; and he that wilfully refuſeth may be ſaid to break the Covenant, as well as he that formerly refuſed Circumciſion. The ſame Covenant which gave a Commandment or Word of Reſtipulation for that Circumciſion of Abraham and his Seed, giveth the ſame commandment or Word of Juſtification for Baptiſm of Believers and our ſeed, ſaith hhGrounds and Ends of Infant Baptiſm p. 38.Mr. C…tton of New England.

The next places of Scripture to prove a ſtipulation were Heb. 8. 10. Heb. 2. 23. To which you reply by Interrogation: Is there any condition on mans part intimated here? Doth not God promiſe to do all? Doth he ſay, If you will be my people?

1. Sir, what you me an by that expreſſion, Doth not p. 41God promiſe to do all? I wiſt not, Mr. Saltmarſh ſaith, It is enough for us to believe that Chriſt hath repented for us, believed for us. But I hope you are not ſo far gone. If you by it underſtand Gods gracious inabling of his creature to perform the conditions he himſelfe requireth, I readily joyne with you. It is he gives us to repent and to believe, as hath been ſaid already. But then I hope you will diſtinguiſh between, Gods gift and mans duty; though the Ability be given of God, the Exerciſe of it, or work is mans. It is man himſelf that believeth and repenteth, though he receive ability from the Lord for both.

2. We anſwer your Demand, Is there any condition on mans part? Yes, that there is; namely this, They ſhall be my people. Can they be his people without dutiful ſubjection and obedience to him? Here is this then, that God requires of them, that if they would have him to be a God to them, to pardon them, defend them, ſave them, &c. then they ſhould take him for their God, depend on him, ſubmit to him, obey, worſhip, and ſerve him, and carry themſelves towards him as become his people:iiHoſ. 2. 23.Hos 2:23 They ſhall ſay, Thou art my God: Upon which Paraeus gloſſeth,kkDicere Dei eſt efficere; dicam ego, i. e. efficiam populum meum. Dicere noſtrum eſt fides & obedientia noſtra. God ſaith, we are his people, making us to be his people. Our faith and our obedience is our ſaying, The Lord is our God. Nor is it material that God doth not formally condition with them, ſaying, If you will be my people, &c. The reſtipulation required, is no whit the leſſe firm, when in the next Chapter the Prophet ſaith, llChap 3. 3.Only thou ſhalt abide for me many dayes; and not, if thou wilt abide for me: it was nevertheleſſe a conjugal Compact. The cauſe of this kinde of expreſſion may be either 1. for brevities ſake: or ſecondly, as Mr. Ball notes, God enters into Covenant with man, not as his equall, but as his Superiour or Soveraign, appointing man his conditions in form of commands, which it's mans duty to accept of and obey: Or 3. Which I ſhould rather chuſe, to intimate thereby his gracious purpoſe of giving ability to perfom the Conditions, I will put my Lawes in p. 42their hearts. They ſhall be my people; i e. I will not only require of them, that they know my Lawes, and obey me as becomes my people; but by my Grace, I wil cauſe it to be wrought within them. Whether way you take it, either for Gods command injoyning them to be his people; or for his promiſe to make them his people, it is not much material; this ſtill remaines either way, that they were to be his people. And this we have, even from the moſt abſolute Promiſes, thoſe of taking the ſtony heart away, giving a heart of fleſh, a new heart, circumciſing the heart, writing the Law on the heart; which admit not, as I conceive, any antecedent condition, yet do they clearly ſhew that theſe things are required. This new heart is required, the writing the Law on the heart is required, and ſo of the reſt: God doth require them in his people, and without men have them, they cannot be the people of God, nor expect ſalvation from God.

Theſe things (Sir) perſwade me, notwithſtanding all that you have hitherto replied, to adhere ſtill to what I have formerly conceived and delivered concerning theſe Texts; viz. That they do hold out a ſtipulation in the Covenant, and then it will be conditional. Now becauſe this work is ſwollen bigger by the one half already then (when I ſet pen to paper) I intended it ſhould have been, I ſhall briefly add ſome more Arguments, and draw toward a cloſe: And becauſe we are upon ſtipulations in the Covenant, add we an Argument or two of that nature.

1. That Covenant which is mandatory as well as promiſſory, and contains a Law as well as a promiſe, that Covenant hath a ſtipulation which they muſt ſubſcribe to, who will be federates and Covenanters therein; for whenever the Lord annexeth a command unto a Promiſe, the Promiſe is not abſolute but conditional: there is ſomething required in the command of him who will enjoy the benefit of the Promiſe. Now the New Covenant is of this nature; it is not a meer Promiſe (as ſome would p. 43have it) but a Law as well as a Promiſe, and therefore called by the Apoſtle, The Law of faith, Rom. 3. 27. Lex fidei doctrina fidei. quae fidem exagit, per quam ſine operibus expectatur à Deo juſtitia. Alio nomine lex Evangelii. Par. & Mart. in loc.The Law of faith is that Doctrine which doth require faith to the obtaining of that Righteouſneſſe which is freely imputed, ſaith Paraeus. That is the Law of Works which teacheth that Righteouſneſſe is to be obtained by Works but the Law of faith teacheth, it is to be hoped for from the mercy of God alone, ſaith Martyr. The Doctrine teaching Righteouſneſs by faith, is that which the Word of the Goſpel doth bind us to if we will be ſaved, ſaith Bernard in his Theſaur. The Condition which offereth and promiſeth Salvation, is this Condition, If wee believe. Wilſon in his Dictionary on the words.

2. That Covenant which man is forbidden to break, commanded to keep, and wherein man is tyed and bound unto God; that Covenant muſt needs have conditions and reſtipulations on mans part; for it is in regard of the things required from man, that man is ſaid to break or keep, or be bound by the Covenant. But ſuch is the New Covenant. Abrahams was ſuch, My Covenant ſhalt thou keep, Gen. 17. 9. Davids was ſuch (though you averred the contrary in your Sermon) Pſal. 132. 12. If thy children will keep my Covenant. Such was Iſraels, Ezek. 20. 37. I will make you to paſſe under the rod, and bring you into the bond of the Covenant: and what Covenant doth he mean but that mentioned, Ezek. 36. 26. and Hoſ. 2.? The places conſidered ſeem to me to hold out one and the ſame. Such is alſo that adminiſtration of it under which we are. The Romans werennRom. 6. 20.Rom 6:20 free from righteouſneſs, before they believed on Chriſt, and entred into Covenant with him; but after they were baptized into Chriſt they wereooVer. 18, 19, 20 Servants unto Righteouſneſſe. The ſtile of Gods people formerly was, they were Covenant keepers, Pſal. 25. 10. Pſal. 103. 17. And is it not as proper to them now, as it was then? May not the people of God under the Goſpel be guilty of breach of Covenant, and that not only in regard of their Covenants with men, nor yet in regard of thoſe neceſſary engagements which p. 44occaſionally they make unto the Lord, but in regard of their Baptiſm,See Dr. Preſton N. Coven. p. 458 459. 500. &c. and that ſolemne Covenant between God and them, which Baptiſm doth ſeal. I have not quite forgotten Mr. Perkins Catechiſm, which I learned when I was a child, where I was taught in the fift Principle expounded, to anſwer this Queſtion, How comes it to paſſe that many after their Baptiſm for a long time feel not the effect and fruit of it, and ſome never? Thus anſwered, The fault is not in God who keeps his Covenant, but the fault is in themſelves, in that they do not keep the condition of the Covenant, to receive Chriſt by faith, and repent of all their ſins. And a little after, How if a man never keep the Condition to which he bound himſelf in Baptiſm? Anſwer, His damnation ſhall be greater, becauſe he breaks his Vow made unto God. Mr. Perkins you ſee, teacheth Conditions in the New Covenant, in regard of which it may be kept or broken by us Chriſtians.

3 This brings to my mind another Argument; That Covenant wherein a Promiſe is required of the federates, which Promiſe they do alſo ſeal to God in receiving of the Covenant Seal, that Covenant hath a reſtipulation; But ſuch is the new Covenant. For the confirmation of the Minor, I deſire you to conſider how in the Primitive times growne perſons were required to profeſſe their repentance and faith in Chriſt before they were admitted unto Baptiſm. Repent (ſaith Peter, Acts 2) and be baptized: Whence alſo it is called the Baptiſm of Repentance; Mark 1. 4. Acts 19. 4. And John is ſaid to Baptiſe men unto repentance, Mat. 3. 11. So when the Eunuch deſired Baptiſm of Philip. Acts 8. 36, 37. ſaying, What doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip replyes, That if he believed with all his heart, he might; whereupon followed both his confeſſion of Faith and Baptiſm. The Baptiſt alſo requires thoſe whom he baptized to bring forth fruits worthy amendment of life. From which places Zanchy and Piſcator collect, that faith and Repentance and new obedience, were required of all thoſe grownperſons who were baptized, they were to make profeſſion of their repentance p. 45and faith, and to make Promiſe of new Obedience. Take Piſcators note upon Matth. 3.ppBaptiſmus nulli adulto conferendus eſt, niſi priu… ediderit confeſſionem peccatorum & fidei in Chriſtum; ac praterea primiſſionem ſanctae vitae. in Mat 3. Obſ. ex ver. 6, 8, 10.Matt 3 Baptiſm is to be adminiſtred to no perſon that is of years, unleſſe he ſhall firſt of all make a confeſſion of ſins, and of faith in Chriſt, and withal a Promiſe of leading a holy life. Theſe Profeſſions were afterward for the eaſe of the party to be baptized, turned into Interrogations and Anſwers: The Miniſter demanding of the party to be baptized, Doſt thou believe in God? the party was wont to anſwer, I do believe. The Miniſter again inquiring. Doſt thou renounce the Divel? &c. he replyed, I do renounce. Which Anſwer when Infants could not make of themſelves, they had Parents and Sponſors who made it for them. Thus was there a formal ſtipulation required of growne perſons at their firſt admiſſion into Covenant and the adminiſtration of the ſeal of the Covenant to him.

Farther, As before baptiſm, growne perſons did thus profeſſe and promiſe, ſo by being baptized did they ſeal. For this Seal of Baptiſm, as it is Gods ſeal to us aſſuring us of remiſſion and other benefits promiſed in the Covenant: ſo is it alſo the Chriſtians Seal unto God, whereby he ſeals the promiſe of Repentance, Faith and new Obedience: Hence are they ſaid to be baptized into Chriſt; into his Death, into the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt.

Baptizari in nomen alicujus eſt illi conſecrari ad cultum, ut quis ab illo tanquam ſuo Domino denominatur ciuſque ſervitio ſe totum ad…rcat. Piſin Marth. 28 v. 19.To be baptized into any ones name is, to be conſecrated to his Worſhip; ſo that he is named from him as from his Lord, and that he dedicate himſelf wholly to his ſervice, ſaith Piſcator. And learned Zanchie having at large expreſſed the ſame in ſeveral particulars, doth briefely ſum up all, rrEſt teſſ…a & nota qua ſicut differimus ab iis omnibus Gentibus, ſic etiam proteſtamur velle differre, & cum ſolo populo Dei communionem … bere, ac foederis quod ſancitum eſt in Chriſto inter Deum & nos conditiones ſervare velle. In cap. 5 ad Epheſ. de Bapt. cap. 3. Theſ. 37.Baptiſm is a note and mark whereby we do proteſt that we will obſerve the Conditions of that Covenant which in Chriſt is eſtabliſhed between God and us. Baptiſm is (ſaith Biſhop Davenant) AſſBaptiſmus eſt pactum purioris cum Deo, curandum itaque ut quod ſemel geſtum eſt in baptiſmo Sacram entaliter ſemper in vita peregatur veraciter, Dav. in Coloſ. 2. v. 1 2. Cor. 2.Col 2:12 Cor 2 Covenant made with God of p. 46loading a more holy life, therefore we muſt take care that what was once Sacramentally done in Baptiſm, may be performed truly throughout our whole life.ssQuemadmodum milites jurant in nomen Imperatoris, atque ita illi obſtring untur, ut poſtea non liceat eis verſa…i in caſtris hoſtium, quod ſi ſecus fecerint ſit Capital: ita nos in baptiſmo obſtring imur Chriſto, ju…amuſque nos poſtea nunquam defecturos ad Diabolum. Martyr in Rom 6. 3.Rom 6:3 As Souldiers (ſaith Martyr) ſwear in the name of the General, and are ſo bound to him, that it is not lawful for them afterwards to be converſant in the enemies tents, if they do, the offence is capital: So by Baptiſm we are obliged unto Chriſt, and we ſwear that we will not afterwards at any time revolt to the Divel. So alſo Paraeus,ttNotum eſt ex catecheſis nos baptizari in nomine Sacrae Sanctae Trinitatis tanquam unius Dei, quia in fidem, cultum, obedientiam Dei nomine aſtringimur, & nos haec ipſa Deo reſtipulamur. Baptizamur in mortem Chriſti dupliciter: Primùm reſpectu Dei, quatenus is beneficia mortis Chriſti baptiſmi ſignaculo nobis donat & obſignat: Deinde quantum ad nos, reſtipulando fidem tantorum beneficiorum Chriſti, & mortificationem peccati virture mortis Chriſti, ne nobis dominetur. Paraeus in loc. It is known from the Catechiſme, That we are baptized in the name of the Trinity, becauſe we are bound in the name of God to faith in, to Worſhip and obedience of God; and we do alſo promiſe again theſe things unto God. We are baptized into the death of Chriſt in a double reſpect; firſt, in reſpect of God, in as much as he doth by the Seal of Baptiſm, give and ſeal to us the benefits of the death of Chriſt. Secondly in reſpect of our ſelves, by promiſing again faith to believe theſe ſo great benefits of Chriſt, and the mortifying of ſin by the power of the death of Chriſt, that it reign not over us any more. With theſe forementioned doth alſo Mr. Byfield concur, who tels us, that Baptiſm is a uuByfield in Col. … v. 12.Bond that tyeth us to the deſires and endeavours after the beginning and finiſhing of our death to ſin and Spiritual life, according to theſe Authors ſenſe of the places forenamed. Baptiſme ſealeth our promiſe of Repentance, Faith, and new Obedience to God, as well as his promiſe of remiſſion unto us. It is our pledge, our Covenantmony, and military oath, whereby we do tye and bind our ſelves to the ſervice of the Moſt High; which I cannot poſſibly conceive how it ſhould be ſuch, if there were no reſtipulation, or repromiſſion in the Covenant, as you maintain.

p. 47Thus much at preſent concerning Reſtipulation in the Covenant; paſſe we on to ſome other Arguments: and becauſe I remember you told me, that I had in my Sermons a number of Citations out of the Old Teſtament, you ſhall hear ſome more of the Arguments I uſed then, for ſome of them I have ſet down already.

To what hath been ſaid add then, Gods mercies are to be obtained in Gods way, that way and manner which God hath from all eternity pitched on therein to bring men to the enjoyment of theſe mercies: But God hath from all eternity purpoſed to give Remiſſion, Juſtification, Adoption, &c. as through Chriſt (for he hath predeſtinated us to the Adoption of children, through Jeſus Chriſt, Epheſ. 1. 5, 7.) ſo through faith in Chriſt▪ and in a way of repentance, Rom. 3. 25, 28. chap. 8. 28. Acts 13. 38, 39, 48. chap. 5 31. chap. 11. 18. Therefore till men actually repent and believe, they cannot actually partake of remiſſion, Adoption, Juſtification, and thoſe other benefits and purchaſes of Chriſts paſſion.

Againe, thoſe mercies which the Prophets and Apoſtles propoſe and promiſe unto men, not abſolutely, but on termes of Repentance and Faith: they are not abſolutely, but upon performance of the propoſed termes to be expected; but the faithful meſſengers of God, both in the Old and New Teſtament, do both proffer and promiſe remiſſion in this manner.