The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII.
A Reply to Mr. Eyres Seventeenth Chapter. Concerning the Covenant wherein faith is promiſed and by vertue whereof it is given to us.
SECT. I.
HAving thus ſhewed that we receive not the Spirit before we beleeve,§. 1. it remains that we enquire, whether faith it ſelf be not given to us, by vertue of the Covenant made with us? for if we are in Covenant with God before faith be given us, it is every whit as much to Mr. Eyres purpoſe, to ſhew that we are in Covenant before we beleeve, as if he had proved that the Spirit is given us before we beleeve. For anſwer therefore to the queſtion, underſtand (Reader) that it may have a double ſenſe. 1. Whether the Covenant of grace, that is, the Goſpel, have any efficiency in converting the* …id. Dr. Ed. Reynold Sinful. of ſi… page 337▪ Mr. b…lk… o… the Coven…. p…t, 4. page 318. ſoul▪ and working it to beleeve? and in this ſenſe I readily grant that faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant. Or 2. Whether God have engaged himſelf by Covenant to any ſinner in the world to give him faith, ſo that if God ſhould not give him faith, he were unfaithful, and a breaker of his own Covenant? In this ſenſe is the queſtion to be underſtood, and my anſwer to it was: (a) Faith is not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us, but by vertue of the Covenant made with Chriſt; God hath promiſed Chriſt that ſinners ſhall beleeve on him, Iſa. 53. 10. and 55. 4, 5. Pſal. 2. 8. and 110. 3. Matth. 12. 21. Pſal. 89. 25, 26. &c. Hereupon Mr. Eyre diſputes largely, that faith is given to the Elect by vertue of the Covenant made with them: the ſenſe of which we have already explained, that the Elect are ſuppoſed to be in Covenant with God before they beleeve, and ſo God obliged to them by Covenant to give them faith. I deny it. See we what Mr. Eyre brings for proof of it.
Firſt, a ſimilitude at the end of his firſt ſection. If one promiſe§. 2. another, that in caſe he ſhall bear ſo many ſtripes, or perform any other condition, he will then take care of and provide for his children, doth not this promiſe made with the father, moſt properly belong to his children? The caſe is the ſame between Chriſt and us: He performed the condition, and we receive the benefits of the New Covenant.
Anſw. Whether the caſe be the ſame between Chriſt and us, is the proper debate of the next Argument: in the mean time this compariſon is not to our caſe, becauſe the Prom…ſe made to Chriſt, that Jews and Gentiles ſhal come into him by faith; is a promiſe that he ſhall have children ſpiritual; that he ſhall have a numerous ſeed, even like the ſtars of heaven for multitude. But as the promiſe made to Abraham concerning the multitudes of children which he ſhould have, was no promiſe to them that they ſhould becom children (which were promiſe to nothing, that it ſhould become ſomething) ſo the promiſe to Chriſt, that many Nations ſhall come unto him, and becom children to him in a ſpiritual ſenſe, is no promiſe to them, nor have they thereby any right given them to be made believers; but unto him, and in gratiam ſui, for his own honour and glory. Much leſſe doth ſuch a promiſe hinder, that that faith by which they become children unto Chriſt, may not be enjoyned them as the condition upon which they are to partake in Chriſt and bleſſedneſſe by him.
The ſerond and great Argument is this, If there be but one Covenant§. 3. of grace, which is made both with Chriſt and us, then faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us. But there is but one Covenant of grace made both with Chriſt and us. Ergo, Hence, a little before I am bid to ſhew that there are two diſtinct Covenants of grace, one made with Chriſt, and the other with us, or that there is any other Covenant made with the Elect, then that which is made with Chriſt, &c.
Anſw. Before we can give a diſtinct anſwer, to this we muſt firſt enquire how we may conceive of the forme and tenour of the Covenant of grace. The tenour of the Covenant of works is plain and intelligible, Do this and live; But (it ſeems) there is no Covenant of grace made with men at all (though ſome men are the intended objects of the bleſſings therein contained) but only with Chriſt: with whom we are to conceive the father ſtriking a Covenant to this ſenſe: If thou wilt make, or do thou make ſatisfaction for the ſins of the Elect, and I will give them grace and glory; where the condition is Chriſts death, or rather his ſatisfaction, (for his death, if it had not been ſatisfactory, had availed nothing) and the promiſe is, that the Elect ſhall have grace and glory. This being explained I do utterly deny, that there is but one Covenant of grace made both with Chriſt and us, which is Mr. Eyres Aſſumption.
And 1. I deſire Mr. Eyre to reflect a little upon his own principles,§. 4. and tell me, whether pardon of ſin be a bleſſing which God promiſeth in his Covenant to give, or the condition which Chriſt was to perform? The former out of queſtion, if Scripture may be Judge, Heb. 10. 16, 17. But whether Mr. Eyre will allow it, or how he can allow it I cannot tell. We have ſeen him before very peremptory in theſe two aſſertions. 1. That the imputation of our ſins to Chriſt, is formally the non-imputation of them unto us. 2. That Chriſts ſatisfaction was (formally) the payment of our debt, and ſo muſt needs diſcharge us ipſo facto, becauſe the diſcharge of the debt is formally the diſcharge of the debtour. How theſe principles claſh one with another we have ſhewed already, (for Gods act in puniſhing of Chriſt, is in nature before his bearing it, or ſatisfying by bearing it; as action is in nature before paſſion. If then Gods act in imputing our ſins to Chriſt, (that is, puniſhing them in him) be formally the non-imputing, (that is, the pardoning) them to us, then the death of Chriſt, as it was the payment of our debt, is not the thing that diſchargeth us: and if this, then not that:) But my buſineſs now is to infer, if Chriſts death be the payment of our debt, and ſo our formal diſcharge, then our diſcharge from ſin is the condition of the Covenant of grace, (as Mr. Eyre hath modelled it) not a promiſe upon the performance of the condition. The reaſon is plain, becauſe Chriſts ſatisfaction (which is the payment of our debt, and formally the diſcharge of the debtour) is the condition of the Covenant of grace (according to Mr. Eyre;) But that cannot be the forme or tenour of the Covenant of grace, which excludes the pardon of ſin from being promiſed therein. Ergo, that is not the forme which Mr. Eyre preſents us with. 2. If the words aforeſaid contain the ſubſtance and tenour of the Covenant of grace, then the ſaid Covenant doth not only not require and command faith and repentance as neceſſary meanes which we are bound to, for obtaining the promiſe of life and ſalvation; But whoſoever ſhall preach ſuch a neceſſity of faith and repentance, doth in ſo doing contradict the tenour of the Covenant of grace. The reaſon of the conſequence is plain, becauſe to the obtaining of a Promiſe made upon condition, nothing more is required then the performance of the condition. If then Chriſt hath fulfilled the condition of the Covenant of grace, nothing more can be enjoyned and required of us, to the obtaining of any bleſſing of the Covenant: and whoſoever ſhall yet preach a neceſſity of faith and repentance, as acts which we are bound to put forth that we may be ſaved, deſtroys the Covenant of grace. But both theſe are deſperate conſequences, which we ſhew thus. The Goſpel and the Covenant of grace are both one, Gal. 3. 8. compared with v. 15, 16. 2 Cor. 3. 6. with chap. 4. 3, 4. and Eph. 3. 6, 7. and Col. 1. 23 But the Goſpel obligeth all men to believe and repent (the elect as well as others) that they may be ſaved: and thus did the Apoſtles (the ſpecial Miniſters of the New Covenant) preach whereſoever they came, Mark 16. 15, 16. Luke 24. 47. Mark 1. 14, 15. Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19. and 20. 21. and 26. 20. Rom. 10. 6, 8, 9. Col. 1. 23, 28. &c. Ergo, the Covenant of grace requires faith and repentance, as neceſſary in point of duty that we may be ſaved; or elſe the Apoſtle's Miniſtry had deſtroyed the Covenant.
Hence thirdly, it will be impoſſible for any man to ſin againſt the§. 5. Goſpel or Covenant of grace, (as Mr. Eyre hath framed it) for none can ſin againſt the Covenant, but he that is a Covenanter, either de jure or de facto: I mean, either ſuch a one as actually is in Covenant, or elſe is bound to enter into Covenant. Now upon ſuppoſition that none are Covenanters but God and Chriſt, there can be no breach of the Covenant but on one of their parts. And conſequently, neither will it be any grace in God to preſerve the Elect from a final breaking of Covenant: ſuch being the conſtitution thereof, that it is impoſſible ex natura rei, that it ſhould be broken but by God or Chriſt: nor can any by unbelief or Apoſtaſie violate the covenant (ſeeing it hath no preceptive part) which is ſurely contrary to Scripture, Heb. 10. 29. He hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was ſanctified, an unholy thing. Hence 4ly. No man becomes worthy of puniſhment for breaking the covenant of grace through unbelief or Apoſtaſy (as the Apoſtle in the ſame place ſaith they do, and that moſt juſtly; and I ſhall farther ſhew when I come to it) Nor 5ly. Is ſalvation and eternal life given as a reward to them that keep the covenant of their God: (which is contrary to innumerable Scriptures) the reaſon is, becauſe the covenant promiſeth a reward to none, but unto them that fulfill the conditions of it. If Chriſt onelyonly fulfill the condition, then our grace and glory may be his reward: but glory is not the reward of our faith or obedience. Mr. Eyre will ſay, yes, becauſe glory follows our faith and obedience. But though I readily acknowledge that glory is called our reward onelyonly metaphorically, and one reaſon of the ſimilitude is that which Mr. Eyre mentions, becauſe glory follows our faith and obedience, as wages follows the work: yet is not that the onelyonly, or of it ſelf a ſufficient reaſon (as we have ſhewed before) nor are the Scriptures or our Divines wont to reſt in it. The Scriptures tell us that God will reward every man according to his works, See Rom. 2. 6, 7, 8. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Gal. 6. 7. Rev. 22. 12. &c. I acknowledge the ſenſe in which our Divines underſtand the words viz. that the phraſe, according to his works doth not ſignifie the proportion of deſert, but the ſuitableneſſe, and agreeableneſſe between works, and the reward which God gives: if the works be good, the reward ſhall be good: if evill, the reward ſhall be evill alſo. But this is as much as I need to ſhew, that eternall life is not called a reward meerely becauſe it follows faith and obedience. For if ſo, then a beleever quatenus a beleever, or a godly man quatenus a godly man is no nearer the reward, then if he had neither faith nor godlineſſe, upon any other ſcore but this, that theſe by Gods appointment are to go before the reward. And if God had appointed that all that ſhall be ſaved ſhould live to 20 or 30 years of age, their arrivall at ſuch an age, had been every whit as conducible to their reward, as now their faith and godlineſſe is ſuppoſed to be. Againe? Our Divines account it no aſcribing to the deſert ofSee Down…. o… Juſt…. l. 8. cap. 5. ſect. 1…. works, that God ſhould reward them that have the greateſt degrees of grace, with the greater degrees of glory. If this be ſo, then glory is not called a reward meerly becauſe it follows faith and Godlineſſe (for that it would do, whether thoſe graces were more or leſſe.) But wherein then (will it be ſaid) ſtands the difference between a reward of debt and of grace? between a reward properly ſo called, and a reward ſo called metaphorically? Surely amongſt other differences this is one, that God (dignatione ſuâ) of his own grace and vouchſafeing, is pleaſed to accept of our faith and imperfect obedience, ſo as to reward them with eternall life, not onelyonly above, but without all dignity and deſert in them. Whereas a reward properly ſo called, hath always reſpect to ſome work as its meritorious cauſe, from which alſo it hath its meaſure and proportion.
And whereas Mr. Eyre expects that I ſhould have ſhewed, that§. 6. there was one covenant of grace made with Chriſt, and another with us; it were ſtrange if it ſhould pertaine to me to prove any ſuch thing. I thought it had layn upon Mr. Eyre, not onelyonly to ſay, but to prove that the covenant of grace was made with Chriſt. It was alwayes very farre from my thoughts, that the covenant made with Chriſt, was the ſame with that which is made with ſinners: my reaſon is this. Thoſe covenants which agree not, neither in the perſons covenanting, nor in their preceptive part, nor in their promiſſory part, are not the ſame▪ The covenants with Chriſt and us diſagree in all theſe. Ergo they are not the ſame. The aſſumption we prove by part. 1. They agree not in the perſons covenanting. In the former the covenanters are God and Chriſt: in the latter God and men. One of theſe two things I gueſſe Mr. Eyre will ſay, either, 1. That though the whole covenant be not made with us, becauſe it is Chriſt▪ and not we which performed the condition of it: yet the promiſſary part of it pertaines wholly to us: becauſe it is our bleſſedneſſe which is promiſed therein. Anſw. That is, men are not the ſubjects or perſons that joyne themſelves in covenant with the Lord (as the Scriptures ſpeak, Jer. 50. 5.) but onelyonly the objects concerning whom God hath ſpoken that he will do them good, even as brute, or inanimate creatures may metaphorically be ſaid to be in covenant with God, when he promiſeth any bleſſing upon them for his ſervants ſake, as Hoſ. 2. v. 18. God promiſeth to make a Covenant for his people with the beaſts of the field (that they ſhall do them no hurt) and with the heavens and the earth, that they ſhall concurre to yeild them bleſſings, v. 21, 22. Or rather when God promiſeth, that the heavens and earth ſhall receive ſome farther perſection then they now have, for his childrens ſake, Rom 8. 21. In this caſe theſe creatures may (but improperly) be ſaid to be in covenant with God: and (but more improperly) that God hath made a covenant with them: and the Scripture ſomewhere ſpeaketh in a language very neere it. But God governs men in a way ſuitable to their natures, drawing them with the cords of men: bleſſing them, not as he bleſſeth the earth, and other inanimate or bruite creatures; but beſtowing bleſſedneſſe on them as the reward of ſome former act or actions of theirs: and ſo they are not onelyonly the objects for whom God covenanteth, but the ſubjects with whom. Now if the conſtitution of the Covenant of grace be ſuch that men are taken into it, mediante actione voluntarià, not without ſome voluntary act of their own intervening, then Gods declaring concerning them that he will bleſſe them, is not a ſufficient ground upon which he can be ſaid to have made the covenant of grace with them. But ſuch is the conſtitution of the covenant of grace that men are taken into it, not without ſome voluntary act of their own intervening. Ergo, the aſſumption is plaine from the words of Moſes, Deut. 29. 12, 13. That thou ſhouldeſt enter (or paſſe) into covenant with the Lord thy God—that he may be unto thee a God—as he hath ſworne unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Iſaack, and to Jacob; which to be the ſubſtance of the covenant of grace (excepting the additions and explications peculiar to the times of the goſpel) appeares. 1. In that it is for ſubſtance the ſame which was made with their fathers, Abraham, Iſaack, and Jacob, which not onelyonly the Scriptures witneſſe, but Mr. Eyre grants, to be, for ſubſtance, the covenant of grace. The promiſe to the fathers that they ſhould have a ſeed was peculiar to themſelves: but the other bleſſings promiſed, pertained to the ſeed as well as to the fathers: onelyonly the Lord requires of them to enter into, and keep his covenant (as their fathers did) that they might inherit the bleſſing of their fathers. 2. Becauſe the covenant here mentioned, is expreſſely diſtinguiſhed from the covenant of the law made with them in Horeb, v. 1. The words of the covenant made with Iſrael in the land of Moab, beſide the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. 3. Becauſe the Apoſtle calls this very covenant (excepting as above excepted, the additions of grace, and explications of promiſes, proper to the times of the Meſſiah) the righteouſneſſe which is of faith, and the word of faith which he and other Apoſtles preached, compare chap. 30. v. 11, 12, 13, 14. with Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9
Or elſe he may ſay, that we alſo performed the condition in Chriſt. But this I think he will not ſay, becauſe he ſo diſtributes the covenant of grace into parts, as to aſcribe to Chriſt the performance of the condition: to us, the receiving of the benefit.
Secondly, the covenant made with Chriſt, and that with us, agree§. 7. not in their preceptive part. Of him it was required that he ſhould make his ſoul an offering for ſin, and give his life a ranſome for many, Iſa. 53. 10. Heb. 10. 5. 7. Of us there is no ſuch thing required: but onelyonly that we beleeve as Abraham did: ſo ſhall we pertake in the bleſſings of his covenant, Rom. 4. 23, 24. Gal. 3. 6, 7, 9, 16, 22. Heb. 6. 12, 13, 14, 15. 3. The promiſes made to Chriſt in the covenant of redemption, are of a higher nature then thoſe made to us in the covenant of reconciliation; to wit, a name above every name, whether in heaven or earth: the inheritance of all nations: dominion from ſea to ſea. See Philip. 2. 9. Heb. 1. 4. and 2. 9. and the other places mentioned, §. 1. The moſt which is promiſed to us is a conformity in our meaſure unto him in glory.
SECT. 2.
Mr. Eyres ſecond Argument proceeds thus. If Chriſt merited§. 8. nothing for himſelf but onelyonly for the elect, then all the promiſes made to him do belong to them; But the firſt is true. Ergo.
Anſw. I deny the conſequence: becauſe though Chriſt merited nothing for himſelf, (it being unworthy to rank him amongſt ſuch mercinary ſervants, to whom nothing is due but for their labour: in which ſenſe are our Divines to be underſtood, when they deny him to have merited for himſelf) yet what he did and ſuffered was neceſſary for himſelf at leaſt as a condition, without which he had not obtained that advancement which now he hath (viz. power of ſending the Spirit, Act. 2. 33. dominion over Angels, in ſhort, all power, both in heaven and earth) as our Divines do liberally grant. Which promiſes are not made to us, but to Chriſt: though inſtrictneſſe of propriety he did not merit them. And therefore though I do not find that he is called his own mediatour, yet he was his own way unto the father, Joh. 14. 4, 6. forasmuch as not without the rending of his fleſh, and the ſhedding of his own blood, he entred into the holy place. Heb. 9. 11, 12. Mr. Eyre proves his conſequence in theſe words. Chriſt is the mediatour of the new covenant, Heb. 12. 24. Faith is beſtowed upon us, by virtue of that covenant whereof Chriſt is Mediatour. Now Chriſt is the Mediatour of the covenant made with us, not of a covenant made ſingly and particularly with himſelf: for a man is not properly a Mediatour for himſelf.
Anſw. Which words, if they had ſtood by themſelves as an argument directly proving the maine queſtion, viz. that faith is given us by virtue of the covenant made with us, they had been of more ſtrength then all that Mr. Eyre hath ſaid for it beſides. But as they now ſtand for a proof of the foreſaid conſequence; I cannot imagine into what forme to caſt them, though I have toyled my ſelf about it more then enough. Therefore leaving it to Mr. Eyre, to ſhew how they prove his conſequence; let us conſider them as an argument by themſelves, the forme whereof is this. What is given us by virtue of that covenant whereof Chriſt is Mediatour, is given us by that covenant which is made with us: the reaſon is, becauſe Chriſt is the Mediatour of the covenant made with us, not with himſelf. But faith is given us by virtue of that covenant whereof Chriſt is Mediatour. Erg…, I cannot gueſſe what ſtrength the argument looſeth in this forme, if it looſe any, Mr. Eyre muſt thank himſelf for ſpeaking no plainer: my anſwer to it is this, faith may be ſaid to be given by virtue of the covenant in a double reſpect. 1. Operatione & …fficacia foederis, by the operation and efficiency of the covenant working faith in the ſoul, by the power of the Spirit accompanying it. In this ſenſe I deny the propoſition, becauſe what is given us by the efficiency of the covenant, doth not ſuppoſe us to be in covenant before our receiving it: foraſmuch as the working of faith it ſelf, by which we are brought into covenant, is the effect of the covenant, or 2. Ex obligatione faederis. and ſo that is given by virtue of the covenant, which we by the covenant have a right to receive, and God by the ſame covenant hath obliged himſelf to us, to beſtow upon us. In this ſenſe (which onelyonly is proper to our Argument) I deny the aſſumption: becauſe there is no covenant whereof Chriſt is Mediatour, which gives any man a right to the receiving of faith, or makes it due to him that faith be given him: as I ſhall farther ſhew by and by, when I come to examine Mr. Eyres anſwer to my explication of Heb. 8. 10. And that faith is given us by the righteouſneſſe and merits of Chriſt, will never prove that therefore it is given us as unto a people in covenant with God. What? may not Chriſt merit faith, that thereby we might be eſtated in the covenant? though I will alſo tell Mr. Eyre, that the three places he mentions, viz. 2 Pet. 1. 1. Eph. 1. 3. Rom. 8. 32. to prove that we obtaine faith by the merits of Chriſt, would never convince me if I were contrary minded.
The third argument proceeds thus. If faith be given us by virtue§. 9 of that covenant, whereby juſtification, ſanctification, perſeverance and glory are beſtowed upon us, then faith is given us by virtue of that covenant which is made with us. But the firſt is true. Ergo ſo is the laſt. In the ſame covenant wherein God promiſeth to cleanſe us from our filthineſſe, to cauſe to walk in his ways, &c. he promiſeth to circumciſe our hearts, to make us beleeve, &c. Ezek. 36. 25. &c. Jer. 31. 34.
Anſw. I deny the aſſumption, if underſtood according to the foregoing diſtinction, of what is given by a covenant obligation. Till I ſee better proofe then any I meet with in Mr. Eyres book (which I beleeve I never ſhall) it will never enter into my heart, that God is as much bound to give faith to ſinners and rebells, as he is to give righteouſneſſe and ſalvation to beleevers. As for the proofe out of Ezek. 36. and Jer. 31. I deny that God doth give righteouſneſſe, or glory by virtue; that is, by the obligation of the covenant there mentioned. The reaſon (which ſhall be farther explained by and by) is, becauſe thoſe texts do not expreſſe the forme and tenor of the covenant of grace; but onelyonly the matter and particulars, wherein God would make the ſaid covenant, as adminiſtred in the days of Chriſt, to excell it ſelf in its adminiſtration before his coming. As for example, that it ſhall have greater efficacy in giving ability to fulfill it: and to conferre more excellent, ſpirituall and eternal bleſſings, to them that do fulfill it. But he that declares, that his purpoſe is to eſtabliſh and enact ſuch a covenant, by and according to which ſuch excellent bleſſings ſhall be given, doth not by ſuch a declaration oblige himſelf to give them: it is the covenant it ſelf enacted and eſtabliſhed, which enduceth the obligation. Wherefore the texts mentioned, do indeed declare that the effects of the new Covenant (that is of the Covenant in its new adminiſtration) ſhall be farre more excellent then of the old: but they do by no means declare that the ſaid Covenant ſhall produce theſe effects in one and the ſame way or manner. It produceth faith by its reall efficacy (as I may ſo call it) for it is the new Covenant which adminiſtreth that Spirit by which faith is wrought: and having thus brought ſouls within the bond, and made them to take hold of it ſelf, it produceth juſtification, perſeverance and ſalvation by its legall efficacy, inaſmuch as it makes theſe and all other bleſſings due to them that beleeve.
The fourth argument ſucceeds. Faith is given by virtue§. 10. of that Covenant which was made with Abraham and his ſeed. Ergo, it is given by virtue of the Covenant made with us.
Anſw. I deny the antecedent. The reaſon is, becauſe the ſeed of Abraham according to Scripture, are they that do beleeve. Rom. 4. 11 16. Gal. 3. 7, 9, 26, 29. If then the promiſe be made to them that are beleevers, the thing promiſed cannot be, that they ſhall be beleevers. And therefore Mr. Eyre, in the proofe of his antecedent, doth palpably contradict that which he would prove. The ſame Covenant (ſaith he) which God made with Abraham, is made with all the faithfull to the end of the world, and therefore they are called the children of Abraham, Gal. 3. 7, 29. A Covenant made with the faithfull is not, that they ſhall have faith.
And ſo we come to the laſt argument, which onelyonly was mentioned§. 11. by Mr. Eyre, and anſwered by me in my ſermon. If faith be given us by virtue of the Covenant made with the houſe of Iſrael, then is it given us by virtue of the Covenant made with us: for the houſe of Iſrael, is the whole company of Gods elect, who are therefore called Spiritual Iſrael. Rom. 9. 6. But faith or the Spirit which works faith, is promiſed in the Covenant made with the houſe of Iſrael. Jer. 31. 31. Heb. 8. 8, 9, &c.
Anſw. Though Rom. 9. 6. will by no means prove that the elect as ſuch, are Spiritual Iſrael (for the words may, and I think muſt be underſtood of beleevers as ſuch) yet I will have no quarrel here with Mr. Eyre about his interpretation. Nevertheleſſe I do ingenuouſly confeſs to him, I am very much puzled about one objection, which it concernes him as much as me to ſee well anſwered. Suppoſe then a man ſhould ſay, that by the houſe of Iſrael, is not meant the elect as ſuch, but beleevers: and that it is not faith which is here promiſed, but ſome greater meaſures of grace, which they that beleeve ſhould receive; above what were uſually communicated before the times of Chriſt: he m…ght thus argue from the words? Whatſoever bleſſings are promiſed in the Covenant recorded, Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. are ſuch as are peculiar to the days of the New-Teſtament. But the giving of faith, is not peculiar to the dayes of the New-Teſtament, (for ſince ſin entred into the world, there was no other way of ſalvation then b… faith: and therefore God gave faith in all ages to the elect.) The propoſition may not be queſtioned. For the time and ſeaſon of giving the bleſſings mentioned, Heb. 8. is expreſſely determined, v. 8. Behold the dayes come when I will make a new Covenant, &c. and v. 10. This is the Covenant which I will make after thoſe dayes, and in reference to theſe bleſſings in this Covenant called a better Covenant, and the promiſes thereof better, v. 6. All which prove that the bleſſings here mentioned are ſuch as were never given before. But as the pardon promiſed, v. 12. the knowledge of God, v. 11. Gods being a God to his people, v. 10. are all more perfect then ever before, though the ſubſtance of theſe bleſſings were alwayes the ſame: ſo, it is not the ſubſtance and being of faith which is here promiſed, but ſome more eminent degrees of grace, then ever were diſpenſed before theſe times of the New-Teſtament. Unleſſe Mr. Eyre can anſwer this argument better then I, the whole foundation of his diſcourſe ſinkes, and he doth but labour in vaine to prove from theſe Texts, that faith is given us as unto a people in Covenant with God before our receiving it.
Nevertheleſſe other reaſons preponderate with me to cleave to my§. 12. former interpretation: and therefore yeelding that faith it ſelf is promiſed in this Covenant, I deny Mr. Eyres aſſumption, underſtood in the ſenſe often mentioned. viz, That faith is given by the obligation of that Covenant, in which Iſrael is ſuppoſed to be before they beleeve. To the Texts mentioned for proofe, Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. I gave a double anſwer. 1. By retortion. That if Mr. Eyre urge the words of theſe Texts rigorouſly, they will prove more then he would have. This he hopes is no hurt. But as they ſay in Logick, that thoſe Syllogiſmes are fallacious which, though they conclude true, yet in the ſame forme will conclude falſe: ſo is that interpretation of Scripture to be ſuſpected, which though it may ſerve a mans purpoſe, will yet, if received carry him beyond his purpoſe to that which he will not grant. That which it proves more then I thought Mr. Eyre would have granted, I delivered in theſe words. It is manifeſt that this covenant containes a promiſe, of ſending Chriſt to dye for our ſins, Heb. 10. 14. 15, 16. So that we may as well inferre from hence that we are in Covenant with God before the death of the mediatour, as that we are in Covenant before we beleeve: and then his death ſhall ſerve not to obtaine all, or any of the bleſſings of the Covenant, but onelyonly (as the S…cinians) to declare and confirme to us, that we may beleeve, that God of his own good will, without expecting any ſatisfaction, will do all this good for us, &c.
Mr. Eyres firſt anſwer, is but a repetition of his argument now under debate: and is more particularly anſwered below. Two things he ſayes to it. 1. That it is not manifeſt that theſe texts containe a promiſe of ſending Chriſt to dye for us. The Apoſtle, Heb. 10. 15. mentions the Covenant, not to prove, that God would ſend his Son to dye: but that being come he hath offered up a perfect ſacrifice, v, 10, 12, 14.
Rep. The words are theſe, v. 14, 15. By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are ſanctified, whereof the Holy Ghoſt alſo is a witneſſe to us. And then quotes, or rather cites the words of Jeremy; Now if the Holy Ghoſt in that place of Jeremy do witneſſe; that Chriſt by offering himſelf, ſhould for ever perfect them that are ſanctified: then doth he alſo teſtifie, that Chriſt ſhould come at the time there mentioned, to be made a ſacrifice: and the coming of Chriſt, though it be not expreſſed, yet is included and underſtood, as promiſed in that Covenant. Yea, and all the promiſes or predictions of the glory of the Church in the New-Teſtament, above it ſelf under the old, do ſignally include the promiſe of Chriſt himſelf as the Author of that glory and perfection.
Secondly, He ownes it as an undenyable truth; that the new§. 13. Covenant was made with all the elect in Chriſt, before the foundations of the world were laid: it being the fixed and immutable will of God, concerning all thoſe good things which in time were beſtowed upon them. Therefore it is called an everlaſting Covenant, 2 Sam. 23. 5. As it ſhall have no end, ſo it had no beginning.
Rep. It is very ſtrange to me, that the New Covenant ſhould be now diſcovered to be older then the world: and that at no leſſe diſtance, then there is between time and eternity. And more ſtrange, that Mr. Eyre ſhould tell us gratis, that it is Gods immutable purpoſe, without ſo much as pretending the leaſt jot from Scripture; where either the Hebrew foreign or the Greek foreign which we are wont to render Covenant or Teſtament, may be taken in ſuch a ſignification: which appeare not, either in the Old or New-Teſtament (unleſſe where they are uſed Metonymically, or Metaphorically, or other wayes tropically) in any other ſenſe, then of a Law, or a Teſtament, or a Convention. And moſt ſtrange, that he ſhould alſo tell us gratis that it is called an everlaſting Covenant, 2 Sam. 23. 5. not onelyonly a parte poſt, but a parte ante, not onelyonly as hauing no end, but alſo as not having beginning: when the Hebrew word will by no means enforce it: and it is moſt certaine, that that Covenant made with David had a beginning, recorded, 2 Sam. 7. 16, 19. and all the places mentioned in the margine, as Gen. 17. 7. &c. Do alſo ſpeak of ſuch everlaſting Covenants, as we know were not without beginning. And whereas Mr. Eyre doth afterwards acknowledge, that notwithſtanding this Covenant be eternall; yet there are more eſpecially three periods of time, wherein God may be ſaid to make this Covenant with us. As 1. Immediately upon the fall of Adam. 2. At the death of Chriſt. 3. When God beſtowes on men the benefits of the Covenant. If we are properly in Covenant from eternity, there is no act of God in time by which we are brought into Covenant: nihil agit in ſimile, therefore theſe three periods of time, are but three degrees of manifeſtation that we are in Covenant. Accordingly, as I argued before in the matter of Juſtification, ſo now in the matter of the Covenant. If the Covenant of grace conſiſt eſſentially in Gods eternal purpoſe of bleſſing the elect, then is not the word Covenant (that Covenant I mean by which the elect are ſaved) taken properly in all the Scriptures: foraſmuch as it no where ſignifies the foreſaid purpoſe. A thing as incredible and abominable as the former.
But let us farther examine this undenyable truth. If the foreſaid§. 14. purpoſe of God be the Covenant of grace, then Chriſt did not obtaine by his death that God ſhould make a Covenant with the elect. But the conſequence is falſe (and Socinianiſme) Ergo ſo is the Antecedent.
Mr. Eyre anſwers. Though we do not ſay that Chriſt procured the Covenant (he might have added, and therein we agree with the Socinians) yet we ſay, the effects of the Covenant, or the mercies themſelves, were all of them obtained by the blood of Chriſt; as deliverance from the curſe, inherent holineſſe, &c.
Rep. Such a ſalve for the honour of Chriſts merits, I remember we had before in the matter of Juſtification. viz. That Chriſt merited the effects of Juſtification, not the act: even as he merited the effects of election, but not the act. As if the reaſon were the ſame between a particular univocall cauſe (ſuch as Juſtification is) determined to a particular kind of effect (which cauſes do alwayes produce their effects immediately, without the intervention of any other cauſe:) and an univerſal cauſe of ſeverall heterogeneous effects (ſuch as election is) and therefore produceth nothing but by the ſub-ſerviency of thoſe ſeverall kinds of cauſes▪ ordained to their ſeverall kinds of works; But the like diſtinction here, between the Covenant and its effects is of worſe conſequence if I miſtake not. Therefore againſt Mr. Eyres anſwer, I have theſe things to object. 1. It makes void the death of Chriſt: for if the elect, before the death of Chriſt, hauehave a foederall right to the bleſſings of the Covenant, then they are righteous before his death: (for to be righteous by righteouſneſſe imputed, and to have right to bleſſedneſſe are inſe parable.) But Chriſt is dead in vain if righteouſneſſe comes by any other way or cauſe then his death, Gal. 2. 21. 2. If the Elect are in Covenant before the death of the Mediatour, they muſt have the bleſſings of the Covenant whether he die or no; for every Covenant induceth an obligation in point of faithfulneſſe (at leaſt) upon the Covenanter to fulfill his Covenant. If then God have made a Covenant before the death of Chriſt with the Elect, what ſhould hinder their receiving theſe bleſſings without his death? Either God is unable to fulfill his covenant: (but he is Almighty,) or he is unfaithful, (but he is a God that keepeth covenant:) or our ſin hinders, (but he hath covenanted before the death of Chriſt, that ſin ſhall not hinder: for pardon of ſin is a ſpecial branch of the covenant.) Or finally he hath covenanted to give us theſe bleſſings through the death of Chriſt, and no otherwiſe. But then we are not in covenant before the conſideration of Chriſts death: and beſides, (which I moſt ſtick at) then the whole reaſon why God ſhould puniſh his deare and only Sonne ſo grievouſly is this, it was his pleaſure ſo to do. But ſurely he that doth not afflict men meerly becauſe he will, Lam. 3. 33. would much leſſe deal ſo with his Son. 3. Either Chriſt and his merits are part of the bleſſings of this covenant, or no. If they be, then it is falſe that Chriſt merits all the effects and bleſſings of the covenant: for he did not merit that himſelf might merit, or be by his death the meritorious cauſe of our bleſſings. If not, then the New-Covenant is never a whit better or more excellent then the Old. The firſt covenant was faulty, becauſe it could not bring ſinners to perfect happineſſe, Heb. 8. 7, 8, 9. and 7. 19. Rom. 8. 3. If the New-Covenant cannot give us the bleſſedneſſe it promiſeth, unleſſe Chriſt merit and bring forth the effects thereof, then is it altogether as impotent and unprofitable as the old: a faire advancement of the Covenant of Grace. 4. Nor can I conceive how this eternal Covenant can conſiſt with what Mr. Eyre hath hitherto been diſputing for, viz. That the New Covenant was made with Chriſt: he performed the conditions, and we receive the benefit. Chriſts death was either the condition of the Covenant, or of the effect of it. Not the former, if it conſiſt in Gods purpoſe; Mr. Eyre knows how our Divines diſguſt a conditional purpoſe in God. And how it ſhould be the condition of the effects, when it is not the condition of the Covenant it ſelf, I cannot reach. I know Mr. Eyre will tell me that there are no conditions of Gods purpoſe, and yet there may be and are conditions of the things purpoſed: But then that purpoſe is not a covenanr properly ſo called: Metaphorically, it may be, it may ſo be called: but then it is ſuch a Covenant as is neither made with man nor with Chriſt, but with God himſelf: being no more then his own reſolution within himſelf. And yet the foreſaid poſition, viz. That there are no conditions of Gods purpoſe, though there are cauſes of conditions of the things purpoſed, had need of a diſtinction too; for ſo farre forth as they are the effects of purpoſe, they have no other cauſe or condition: and ſo farre forth as they have other conditions or cauſes, they are not the effects of purpoſe. The exiſtence and order of the things purpoſed is from Gods purpoſe. For example, he did purpoſe that firſt he would give up his Sonne to death for us, then call us, then juſtifie us, then glorifie us, and had there been nothing elſe but Gods purpoſe, theſe foure had been the ſimple ſucceſſive effects of his purpoſe; but had not had the relation of cauſe and effect amongſt themſelves. That Chriſts death merits our ſalvation is not from Gods purpoſe, but from the convention between the Father and him. That faith is the condition of juſtification, and glorification is from the promiſe of grace made with us: That glorification is alſo a reward, is from the ſame promiſe: That it is not only a conſequent but an effect of our juſtification, ariſeth from the nature of that act, as being an adjudging unto glory: that it is an inheritance, is becauſe it is given by Teſtament. Wherefore all theſe purpoſed acts of God may be conſidered, either ſimply, ratione exiſtentiae, in reſpect of their exiſtence, and ſo they have no other cauſe but his purpoſe: or quoad modum eſſendi, according to that foreign habitude or relation which they have one to another in their execution, ariſing either from the nature of the things themſelves, or ſome Law, Covenant and conſtitution of God; and thus they are not the effects of his purpoſe. But I have been two long in my reply to this anſwer of Mr. Eyres: A word more to prove that Gods eternal purpoſe is not the New Covenant, and I paſſe on.
That Covenant which is of the ſame common nature with thoſe§. 15. Covenants that are wont to be made amongſt men, doth not conſiſt… Vide Leſſ. de Iuſt. & jur. lib. 2. cap. 13. D. 1. 5. Grot. dejure. Belli. lib. 2. cap. 11. 2. in the meer will or purpoſe of God. The New Covenant or Covenant of Grace is of the ſame common nature with thoſe that are wont to be made amongſt men. Ergo, the New Covenant doth not conſiſt in the purpoſe of Gods minde or will. The propoſition is certain. Becauſe, whether Mr. Eyre will allow Gods Covenant to be a Covenant properly ſo called, or will rather call it a promiſe, it is certain there are no Pacts, Conventions, Covenants, Stipulations, Reſtipulations, Teſtaments, Pollicitations, Promiſes or Contracts of any kinde made amongſt men which conſiſt in the internal purpoſe of the minde: and therefore if Gods Covenant or Promiſe be of the ſame common nature with theſe, neither can that conſiſt in his purpoſe. The aſſumption is ſuppoſed by the Apoſtle, Gal. 3. 15. Brethren, I ſpeak after the manner of men, though it be but a mans Covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man diſannulleth or addeth thereto, and ver. 17. And this I ſay, that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Chriſt, &c. Where the whole ſtrength of the argument lyes upon this ſuppoſition, that the covenant made with Abraham was a true formall Covenant or Promiſe, ſuch as uſually paſſeth between man and man. See to the ſame purpoſe, Heb. 9. 15, 16, 17. many more arguments I could adde if need were.
SECT. III.
The direct anſwer to the Argument, and the proof of it out of§. 16. Heb. 8. I thus delivered in my Sermon. In the Covenant as recorded in Heb. 8. There are three things of diſtinct conſideration, the confuſion of which (ſo it ſhould have been printed, not the concluſion; and ſo it is printed in the ſecond Edition of my Sermon) is the only ſupport of Mr. Eyres Argument. 1. There is the matter and bleſſings of the Covenant on Gods part: I will be their God and they ſhall be my people. 2. The bond and condition of it on our part: and that is faith, in thoſe words, I will put my Lawes in their mindes, &c. In theſe two things is the tenor and formality of the new Covenant; They that believe, the Lord will be their God, and they ſhall be his people. 3. There is alſo a promiſe and declaration that God will work this condition, by which men ſhall have an intereſt in this Covenant and a right and title to the bleſſings of it. I will put my Lawes into their mindes, that is, I will give them faith: which faith is not promiſed as an effect of the Covenant already made, but as a means by which we are brought into Covenant, and thereby inveſted in a right to all the bleſſings of it, &c.
That this is the true meaning of the text (Reader) thou ſhalt ſee proved below: In the mean time (according to my promiſe) take a farther Explication of the words which I ſhall ſet down in diſtinct propoſitions, that Mr. Eyre may ſee what little ground my words afford him of all his wonderments and paratragediations.
Prop. 1. The Old and New Covenant ſo called, ver. 8. and 13.§. 17. are not two Covenants oppoſed in their nature and ſubſtance: but one and the ſame Covenant of grace under an Old and New Adminiſtration. This many learned men have proved, and our Divines generally grant it, and Mr. Eyre himſelfe for one in this his ſeventeenth Chapter §. 2. and therefore I ſet it downe without farther proof.
Prop. 2. Therefore that which is called the New Covenant, and deſcribed, ver. 10, 11, 12. doth not containe the form and tenour of the Covenant of grace; but only the differences between the Old Covenant and the New, and the matter wherein the latter excells the former. And that the name of a Covenant is given to it, doth not alter the caſe: it being ſo frequent in Scripture to uſe the name of Covenant, when not the forme, but the matter or quality and efficacy of it is ſignified, 2 Cor. 3. 14. Rom. 9. 4. 1 King. 8. 21. Hoſ. 2. 18. Job 5. 23, &c.
Prop. 3. The differences between the Old Covenant on the one ſide, and the new on the other are thus ſtated in the text. The Old in generall is called faulty, ver. 7, 8. and the faultineſſe of it deſcribed in two particulars. 1. That it could not give ſtrength and ability to the people to fulfill it, and by conſequence, 2. That it could not make them bleſſed in the favour and enjoyment of God, ver. 9. They continued not in my Covenant, and I regarded them not, ſaith the Lord. In reſpect of which it is elſewhere called weak and unprofitable and unable to make any thing perfect, chap. 7. 18, 19. compare alſo Rom. 8. 3. and Gal. 3. 21. On the contrary, the New Covenant in general is called better, ver. 6. and its betterneſſe (beare with the Angliciſme) expreſſed in two oppoſite reſpects. 1. That it ſhould miniſter ability and ſtrength to keep Covenant. 2. And by conſequence perfect the people in the favour and enjoyment of God, ver. 10. I will put my Lawes into their minde.—And I will be to them a God, and they ſhall be to me a people. The former of which is farther illuſtrated, ver. 11. They ſhall all know me, &c. and the latter, ver. 12. I will be mercifull to their unrighteouſneſſe, &c. Hence the new Covenant is elſewhere called a miniſtration of the Spirit, Life and righteouſneſſe, 2 Cor. 3. 6, 8, 9.
Prop. 4. From what hath been ſaid it appeares, that the Apoſtle in this place is ſo far from denying the Covenant of Grace (formally ſo taken) to have any conditions, as that he doth plainly ſuppoſe the contrary. 1. In that he ſaith the New Covenant hath its Lawes as well as the Old, ver. 6. He is the Mediatour of a better Covenant eſtabliſhed upon better promiſes, foreign, enacted. The word implies that the New Covenant is alſo a Law requiring ſomething of us; that we may obtain the bleſſings of it: though it be enacted upon better promiſes: it being promiſed long before, that this Covenant ſhould make us perfect, and not the former. 2. Becauſe one great part of the perfection of this Covenant conſiſts in this, that it ſhould have vertue to enable us to keep it, or to preſerve us from breaking it, (as Iſrael brake the former) which were no perfection at all, if the ſaid Covenant had no condition in it which we were bound to keep. Let us now ſee what Mr. Eyre objects againſt my expoſition.
Firſt he denyes. That the whole matter, and all the benefits of§. 18. the Covenant on Gods part are confined to thoſe words, I will be their God, and they ſhall be my people, That promiſe being not put alone, but with other promiſes, denotes one particular bleſſing.
Rep. The contrary is evident from the oppoſition here made between the old Covenant and the New. For I will be their God (in the new Covenant) is directly oppoſed to, I regarded them not (in the old.) Therefore as Gods not regarding them, was not one particular evil, but containes all the miſeries which befell them for their breach of that Covenant: ſo on the contrary, I will be their God containes all the comfort and bleſſedneſſe which is given them by this. And indeed the moſt frequent ſenſe in which that phraſe (I will be their God) is uſed in Scripture, is to denote God to be a benefactor liberally giving whatſoever pertaines, adde foreign to the welfare and felicity of his people, Pſal. 144. 15. Exod. 3. 15. Rev. 21. 7. Jer. 7. 23. with Deut. 26. 3. and Exod. 19. 5. and Lev. 26. 12. Rev. 21. 3, 4. and other places innumerable. Nor can I find it ſo much as once in all the Scriptures, whether by it ſelf or joyned with other promiſes, where, with any ſhew of reaſon, it can be confined to one particular benefit. Nor doth Mr. Eyre pretend any Scripture for it, but his own word only. But what is that one particular bleſſing which it muſt denote?
Either (ſaith Mr. Eyre) the formal part of mans happineſs which conſiſts in the fruition and enjoyment of God.
Rep. But that cannot be the meaning here, becauſe then, God by the New Covenant is not the God of any while they live in this world, which though it be true in regard of the perfection and full enjoyment of thoſe bleſſings which God promiſeth, when he ſayes, I will be their God: yet in reſpect of all degrees of enjoyment it is falſe for in the New Covenant he promiſeth the pardon of ſin, Heb. 8. 12. which is a ſpeciall bleſſing contained in the ſaid words, I will be their God, Rom. 3. 29, 30.
Or 2. (ſaith he) It relates to the knowledge of our intereſt and propriety in him. Thus, I will be their God, is as much as, they ſhall know that I am their God, and that they are my people.
Rep. Nor can this be the meaning. 1. Either this knowledge reſults from the experience of Gods being their God: and then we are to ſeek, as much as before, what it is for God to be their God. Or from partaking in ſome other bleſſings, mentioned in this deſcription of the New Covenant: and then that grand promiſe, I will be their God, promiſeth juſt nothing upon the matter, for if the meaning be, ſuch and ſuch bleſſings will I give them, and thereby they ſhall know that I am their God: this promiſeth nothing; but only declares how excellent thoſe benefits ſhall be, ſuch as ſhall evidence plainly that God is their God: and thus the grand pro…iſe of grace will be made a nullity. 2. Mr. Eyre ſhould alſo have taken ſome paines to allay the harſhneſſe of his interpretation. I will be their God, that is, they ſhall know that I am their God. If I had taken this liberty of interpre…ing, he had accuſed me juſtly of chopping and changing the Word of God at pleaſure. 3. When God promiſeth to be their God, he promiſeth that which is contrary to his not regarding them; But his not regarding them was not meerly his not manifeſting himſelf to them to be their God: Ergo, his being their God is not meerly his making them to know that he is their God.
Or 3. (Saith he) I will be their God, &c. imports as much as I will protect them, and they ſhall worſhip me.
Rep. But what is that protection? If it impart our whole deliverance from all ſpirituall enemies and miſeries, and the beſtowing of all good which makes us happy; then it is the thing which I contend for. If of any particular deliverance or any one particular bleſſing, ſhew us what it is: and that I will be their God is taken ſo much as once (as many ſcores of times as it is uſed in Scripture) ſo reſtrainedly.
Next he denyes that in theſe words, I will put my Lawes in their§. 19. mindes, &c. is expreſſed the bond and condition of the Covenant on our part: for the words are a promiſe not a precept, and then tells me of Dr. Tw…ſſe, Dr. Preſton, Mr. Strong, Mr. Baxter, who all acknowledge that this Text expreſſeth an abſolute Covenant.
Rep. Indeed the words have not the forme of a precept: nor did any man ever dreame that they had (as I know of.) But they do declare that the New Covenant ſhall be ſo much better then the Old, as to enable us to fulfill the precept and condition of it, which the Old could not do: For as it was the faultineſſe and imperfection of the Old Covenant, that the people brake it: ſo is it the excellency of the new, that it ſhall enable them to fulfill it. The new covenant then hath a condition as well as the old: or elſe it hath no glory above the old in this reſpect, that it miniſtreth ſtrength to fulfill it. Is Mr. Eyre ſatisfied now? or will he ſhew me wherein any of the Authors mentioned contradict this: though I will not be bound to juſtifie all the expreſſions of every one of them. And when he addes in the words following (by way of ſcorne) That I may as well ſay, that the bond and condition of the covenant on our part, is expreſſed in that clauſe, I will be their God: which, one would have the condition of the covenant on our part▪ who that one is, I do not know: but I know one who may ſtand in ſteed of many hundreds, dTheſ. 4. pag. 109. ex Gen. 17. 1. Hoſ. 2. 16. 23.Dr. John Reyn…lds, who was accounted the ornament and wonder of his age for piety and learning; that doth ſo expound thoſe words: and that from one who is above all, even God himſelf: who doth plainly ſo ſenſe the words in ſome places, D…t. 26. 17, 18. Zech. 13. 9. Nevertheleſſe I did wave this interpretation in this place: and interpret both clauſes, I will be their God, and they ſhall be my people, as expreſſing one and the ſame thing, in reference to two tearmes, (as when it is ſaid, I wi…l be their father, and they ſhall be my children) becauſe whatſoever is eſſentiall to the taking of the Lord for our God. I conceive to be included in the words foregoing, I will write my Laws in their hearts, &c.
Whereas I ſaid, that faith is not promiſed as an effect of the Covenant,§. 20. already made: but as the means, by which we are brought into Covenant: this Mr. Eyre invades by many arguments. … (ſaith he) the ſame words cannot be formally both a precept and a promiſe. This is anſwered already. The words are a promiſe: but they ſuppoſe a precept what? Is it ſuch a ſtrang… thing in Scripture▪ that that ſhould be promiſed which is our duty to do? Ezek. 26, 27. God promiſeth to cauſe us to walk in his ſtatutes. Is it therefore no duty of ours to walk in his ſtatutes? In the ſame chapter, v. 26. he promiſeth to give a new heart and a new Spirit: yet are we elſewhere commanded to make as a new heart and a new Spirit, Ezek. 18. 31 God hath promiſed to circumciſe our hearts to love him, Deut. 30. 6. Yet is it our duty to circumciſe our hearts. Jer. 4. 4. And may not then faith be promiſed, and that as the condition or meanes by which we are brought into Covenant?
Mr. Eyre. 2. If the promiſe of faith be a part of the new Covenant; then faith it ſelf is an effect of the Covenant, or a benefit given by virtue of it; But the promiſe of faith, is part of the new Covenant; Ergo.
Rep. I deny the Aſſumption. The new Covenant worketh or begetteth faith, but it doth not promiſe it. Note therefore (Reader) that there is a great difference between what is promiſed concerning the new Covenant, and what the new Covenant promiſeth. Concerning the new Covenant, it was promiſed that it ſhould be effectual to quicken the ſoul, and cauſe it to beleeve: but it ſelf doth not promiſe to make us beleeve. If it did, foraſmuch as that can be no other then an abſolute promiſe, then God doth promiſe in the Old-Teſtament (namely Jer. 31. 31.) that he will promiſe faith in the New. But a promiſe to promiſe, and that to the very ſame perſons, concerning the ſame benefit, is ſo contrary to reaſon, and runs ſuch an infinite courſe of promiſing, without beginning or ending, that it may not be admitted. But how doth Mr. Eyre prove his Aſſumption? Thus. All the promiſes of God do belong either to the Covenaut of works, or to the Covenant of grace. The promiſe of faith is no part of the Covenant of works; Ergo, of the Covenant of grace.
Rep. I deny the propoſition. The promiſe of the Covenant of grace it ſelf, Of which Covenant is it a part? of the Covenant of works? or of the Covenant of grace? not of the former, for that promiſeth no good to ſinners. Not of the latter: for the Covenant it ſelf is the thing promiſed. If then the Covenant it ſelf may be promiſed, and yet that promiſe be no part of the Covenant: may it not alſo be promiſed to be in ſuch a manner or degree more or leſſe efficacious, and perfect, and yet that promiſe in like manner be no part of the ſaid Covenant?
Hence we anſwer the third argument. If the promiſe of faith be an effect of Chriſts death, then it is an effect of the Covenant already made: for all the effects of his death, are effects of the Covenant which was confirmed by his death.
Rep. I deny the conſequence with the proof of it. Not to queſtion againe whether Chriſt merited the Covenant: M. Eyre here acknowledgeth that he confirmed it in his death; But that which confirmes the Covenant, is no part of the Covenant: for the whole Covenant is the thing confirmed; Ergo all the effects of Chriſts death are not the effects of the Covenant which God hath made with us. Yea and the preaching of the Goſpell to all nations (Gentiles as well as Jews) that they thereby might be brought into Covenant, is an effect of the death of Chriſt, Eph. 2. 16, 17. Coloſ. 1. 20. But affording the means by which men may be brought into covenant, is not an effect of the covenant. In like manner, the promiſe of a better covenant, which God would make in the dayes of Chriſt (a covenant more able, and ſucceſſefull in all reſpects) may be very well yeelded to … the effect of the death of Chriſt: but it will by no means foll… that therefore that promiſe is alſo an effect of the Covenant promiſed.
4ly. Thus he ſpeaks. The Scripture no where affirmes that faith is promiſed as a means to bring us into covenant, or to inveſt us with a right and title thereunto.
Rep. Nor doth it any where ſay: that it is promiſed as a part of the Covenant already made with us. But it ſayes that in ſenſe which Mr. Eyre denyes, and that in this very place: ſuppoſing (which Mr. Eyre hath not hitherto denyed) that faith is included in thoſe words, I will put my laws into their minds, &c. For in theſe words (as we are forced often to note) is declared the ſucceſſe of the new covenant above the old, that it ſhould enable men to beleeve; that God may be their God, and they his people. But if it were not promiſed in this place, yet the conſtant voyce of the Goſpel is; beleeve and thou ſhalt be ſaved. Which words ſhew, that faith is the means by which we obtaine the bleſſings of the Covenant. What ſaith Mr. Eyre againſt it? Nothing but this: we may as well make Baptiſme, Sanctification, Perſeverance, &c. (to which the promiſe of ſalvation is ſometimes annexed) means to bring us into Covenant.
Rep. Alas! how frigidly? where is the Scripture that ſaith, Be baptized and thou ſhalt be ſaved? or where doth it ſay to men that are ſtrangers from the covenant, perſevere and you ſhall be ſaved? Indeed they that have already received Chriſt, are wont to be exhorted to holineſſe, and perſeverance in the faith, that they may not loſe or forfeit their right, Rev. 22. 14. and 21. 7. 2 John 8. Heb. 4. 1. &c. But our firſt entrance into covenant is never aſcribed to either of them. But Mr. Eyre ſhall have meaſure preſſed down and running over, I meane, many plaine teſtimonies of Scripture where faith is promiſed as a meanes to bring us into Covenant with God.