John Flavel’s (1630–1691) Reply to Baptist Hyper-Calvinism from Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis and the Issue of Conditions

This section in Flavel’s work is quoted in order to deal with sound senses of “conditions.” See further information at the bottom.

A Reply to Baptist Hypercalvinism
an excerpt from
Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis, or, A Reply to Mr. Philip Cary’s Solemn Call

By: John Flavel
(1630–1691)

(Excerpt)

Come we next to consider that opinion of yours, which led you into these other gross mistakes and absurdities, and that is this, that the covenant of grace is absolute; and whatever covenant is not so, but hath any condition upon our part, must needs for that reason be a covenant of works. See page 229. It is observable (say you) that as the covenants mentioned Gen. 2. Exod. 20. &c were all conditional, and therefore legal covenants, requiring strict and perfect obedience, as the condition propounded, in order to the enjoyment of the mercies contained in them, which are all therefore done away in Christ; so on the other hand we see, that the covenant God made with Abraham, Gen. 12:2, 3 and Gen. 17:2, 3 and Gen. 22:16–18 was wholly free and absolute, and therefore purely evangelical, &c. We will review these things anon, and see if you truly represent the matter; but in order to it, let me tell you,

First, What we mean by a gospel-condition. Secondly, Prove that there are such in the gospel-covenant. Thirdly, Shew you the absurdity of your opinion against it.

(1.) What we mean by a condition in the gospel-covenant. By a condition of the covenant, we do not mean in the strictest rigid sense of the word, such a restipulation to God from man of perfect obedience in his own person, at all times, so as the least failure therein forfeits all the mercies of the covenant; that is rather the condition of Adam’s covenant of works, than of the evangelical covenant: nor do we assert any meritorious condition, that in the nature of an impulsive cause shall bring man into the covenant and its privileges, or continue him in when brought in. This we renounce as well as you: but our question is about such a condition as is neither in the nature of an act perfect in every degree, nor meritorious in the least of the benefit conferred, nor yet done in our own strength. But plainly and briefly, our question is, Whether there be not something as an act required of us in point of duty, to a blessing consequent by virtue of a promise? Such a thing, whatever it be, hath the nature of a condition, inasmuch as it is antecedent to the benefit of the promise; and the mercy or benefit granted, is suspended until it be performed. The question is not, whether there be any intrinsical worth or value in the thing so required, to oblige the disposer to make or perform the grant or promise, but merely that it be antecedent to the enjoyment of the benefit; and that the disposer of the benefit do suspend the benefit until it be performed? Thus an act or duty of ours, which has nothing at all of merit in it, or answerable value to the benefit it relates to, may be in a proper sense a condition of the said benefit. “For what is a condition in the true notion of it, but (1) the suspension of a grant until something future be done?” “Or, (2) as others to the same purpose, The adding of words to a grant, for the future, of a suspending quality, according to which the disposer will have the benefit he disposeth to be regulated?” This properly is a condition, though there be nothing of equivalent value or merit in the thing required.

And such your brethren, in their narrative, page 14 do acknowledge faith to be, when they assert none can be actually reconciled, justified, or adopted, till they are really, implanted into Jesus Christ by faith; and so, by virtue of this their union with him, have these fundamental benefits actually conveyed unto them; which contains the proper notion of the condition we contend for.

And such a condition of salvation we assert faith to be in the new covenant grant; that is to say, the grant of salvation by God in the gospel-covenant is suspended from all men, till they believe, and is due by promise, not merit, to them as soon as they do truly believe. The notes or signs of a condition given by civilians, or moralists, are such as these, If, if not, unless, but if, except, only, and the like. When these are added in the promise of a blessing or benefit for the future, they make that promise conditional; and your grammar (according to which you must speak, if you speak properly and strictly) will tell you, that Si, sin, modo, dum, dummodo, are all conditional particles; and it is evident, that these conditional particles are frequently inserted in the grants of the blessings and privileges of the New Testament. As for example; Mark 11:23, ει δυνασαι πιςευσαι, “If thou canst believe.” Acts 8:37, ει πιστεύεις εξ όλης της καρδίας, “If thou believest with thy whole heart thou mayest,” &c. Rom. 10:9, οτι εαν, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth, and believe with thy heart,” &c. “thou shall be saved.” Matt. 18:3, εαν μη, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Mark 5:36, μονον, “Only believe.” Mark 11:26, ει δε υμεις ουκ αφιετε, “But if ye forgive not,” &c. with multitudes more, which are all conditional particles inserted in the grants of benefits.

(2.) Having shewn you what the nature of a condition is, I shall, I hope, make it plain to you, that faith is such a condition in the gospel-grant of our salvation; for we find the benefit suspended till this act of faith be performed; John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” And most plainly, Rom. 10:9, having shewn before what the condition of legal righteousness was, he tells us there what the gospel-condition of salvation is; “The righteousness which is of faith, speaketh on this wise; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” I ask you, sir, whether it be possible to put words into a frame more lively expressive of a condition than these are? Do but compare Mark 16:16, “He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned:” Do but compare, I say, that scripture-phrase with the words of Jacob’s sons, which all allow to be conditional, Gen. 43:4, 5, “If thou wilt send our brother with us, we will go down; but if thou wilt not send him, we will not go down;” and judge whether the one be not as conditional as the other: more particularly,

If we cannot be justified or saved till we believe, then faith is the condition on which those consequent benefits are suspended.

But we cannot be justified or saved till we believe; Ergo.

The sequel of the major is evident; for, as we said before, a condition is the suspension of a grant till something future be done. The minor is plain in scripture; Rom. 4:24, “Now it was not written for his sake alone, that righteousness was imputed to him; but for our sakes also, to whom it shall be imputed if we believe.” οις μέλλει λογιζεσθαι, Quibus futurim est ut imputetur, to whom it shall come to pass, that it shall be imputed, if we believe: And Acts 10:43, “Whosoever believeth on him, shall receive remission of sins.” John 3:36, “He that believeth not, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him;” with multitudes more. Now, sir, lay seriously before your eyes such scriptures as these, that promise salvation to believers, and threaten damnation to all unbelievers, as Mark 16:16 doth, and then give a plain and clear answer to this question; either the positive part of that text promises salvation absolutely to men, whether they believe or believe not, and consequently unbelievers shall be saved as well as believers; and the negative part threatens damnation absolutely to sinners, as sinners; and consequently all sinners shall be damned, whether they believe or not: or else, if you allow neither to be absolute, but that none can be saved till they believe, nor any damned when they do believe; is not that a conditional promise and threatening?

If God’s covenant with Abraham, Gen. 12:2, 3 and that Gen. 17:2, 3 were (as you say) pure gospel-covenants of grace, and yet in both some things are required as duties on Abraham’s part, to make him partaker of the benefits of the promises; then the covenant of grace is not absolute, but conditional.

But so it was in both these covenants; Ergo.

The minor only requires proof; for which let us have recourse to the places, and see whether it be so or not.

(1.) For the first you instance in as a pure gospel-covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 12:2, 3. I must confess, as you dismember the text, p. 229, by choosing out the second and third verses, and leaving out the first, which was the trial of Abraham’s obedience, in forsaking his native country, and his father’s house; I say, give me but this liberty to separate and disjoin one part of a covenant from the other, and it is easy to make any conditional covenant in the world to become absolute; for take but the duty required, from the promise that is made, and that which was a conditional, presently becomes an absolute grant. Suppose, sir, that Abraham had refused to leave his dear native country, and dearest relations, as many do; think you that the promised mercies had been his? I must plainly tell you, you assume a strange liberty in this matter, and make a great deal bolder with the scriptures than you ought: and the very same usage the other scriptures hath.

(2.) For when you cite your second covenant with Abraham, you only cite Gen. 17:2, 3 and then call it an absolute gospel-covenant; when indeed you make it so, by leaving out the first verse, which contains the condition or duty required on Abraham’s part; for thus run the three first verses, “And when Abraham was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abraham, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk thou before me, and be thou perfect, and I will make my covenant between me and thee,” &c. Here an upright conversation before God is required of him, at God’s entrance into this covenant with him; but that is, and must be omitted, and cut off, to make the covenant look absolute, I am really grieved to see the scriptures thus dealt with to serve a design!

Argument III.

If all the promises of the gospel be absolute and unconditional, requiring no restipulation from man, then they cannot properly and truly belong to the new covenant.

But they do properly and truly belong to the new covenant; therefore they are not all absolute and unconditional.

The sequel of the major is only liable to doubt or denial, namely, That the absoluteness of all the promises of the New Testament cuts off their relation to a covenant; but that it doth so, no man can deny, that understands the difference between a covenant and an absolute promise. A covenant is a mutual compact or agreement betwixt parties, in which they bind each other to the performance of what they respectively promise; so that there can be no other proper covenant where there is not a restipulation or re-obligation of one part, as well as a promise on the other; but an absolute promise binds only one party and leaves the other wholly free and unobliged to any thing in order to the enjoyment of the good promised. So then, if all the New Testament promises be unconditional and absolute, they are not part of a covenant, nor must that word be applied to them; they are absolute promises, binding no man to whom they are made to any duty, in order to the enjoyment of the mercies promised: But those persons that are under these absolute promises, must and shall enjoy the mercies of pardon and salvation, whether they repent or repent not, believe or believe not, obey or obey not. Now to what licentiousness this doctrine leads men, is obvious to every eye. Yet this absoluteness of the covenant (as you improperly call it) is by you asserted, p. 229, 230. There is (say you) no condition at all, it is wholly free and absolute, as the covenant with Abraham, Gen. 12:2, 3. Gen. 17:2, 3. Thank you, sir, for making them so; for by cutting off the first verses, where the duty required on Abraham’s part is contained, you make them what God never intended them to be. And the same foul play is in Deut. 30, where you separate the plain condition contained in verses 1, 2, from the promise, verse 6. Or if the condition, verses 1, 2 be not plain enough, but you will make it part of the promise, I hope that after, in verse 10 is too plain to be denied. As to the other texts, more anon; mean time see how you destroy the nature of a covenant.

Objection. But say you, page 233. To impose new conditions, though never so mild, is a new covenant of works with some mercy, but not a covenant of grace, properly so called.

Solution. It is true, if those works or acts of ours, which God requires, be understood of meritorious works in our own strength and power to perform, it destroys the free grace of the covenant; but this we utterly reject, and speak only of faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God, which receives all from God, and gives the entire glory to God; Eph. 2:5, 8.

Objection. But you will say, If faith be the condition, and that faith be not of ourselves, then both the promise and the condition are on God’s part (if you will call faith a condition) and so still on our part the covenant is absolute.

Solution. This is a mistake, and the mistake in this leads you into all the rest; though faith (which we call the condition on our part) be the gift of God, and the power of believing be derived from God, yet the act of believing is properly our act, though the power by which we believe be of God; else it would follow, when we act any grace, as faith, repentance, or obedience, that God believes, repents, and obeys in us, and it is not we, but God that doth all these. This, I hope, you will not dare to assert; they are truly our works, though wrought in God’s strength? Isa. 26:12. “Lord, thou hast wrought all our works in us;” i.e., though they be our works, yet they are wrought in us by thy grace or strength.

As for Dr. [John] Owen, it is plain from the place you cite in the doctrine of justification, p. 156, he only excludes conditions, as we do, in respect of the dignity of the act, as is more plain in his treatise of redemption, p. 103, 104, in which he allows conditions in both the covenants, and makes this the difference, That the Old required them, but the New effects them in all the fœderates.

I know no orthodox divine in the world, that presumes to thrust in any work of man’s into the covenant of grace, as a condition, which, in the Arminian sense, he may or may not perform, according to the power and pleasure of his own free will, without the preventing or determining grace of God; which preventing grace is contained in those promises, Ezek. 36:25–27, &c. Nor yet that there is any meritorious worth, either of condignity or congruity in the Popish sense, in the very justifying act of faith, for the which God justifies and saves us. But we say, That though God, in the way of preventing grace, works faith in us, and when it is so wrought, we need his assisting grace to act it, yet neither his assisting nor preventing grace makes the act of faith no more to be our act; it is we that believe still though in God’s strength, and that upon our believing, or not believing, we have or have not the benefits of God’s promises; which is the very proper notion of a condition.

Argument IV.

If all the promises of the new covenant be absolute and unconditional, having no respect nor relation, to any grace wrought in us, nor duty done by us, then the trial of our interest in Christ, by marks and signs of grace, is not our duty, nor can we take comfort in sanctification, as an evidence of our justification.

But it is a Christian’s duty to try his interest in Christ by marks and signs; and he may take comfort in sanctification, as an evidence of justification. Ergo.

The sequel of the major is undeniably clear: so that can never be a sign or evidence of an interest in Christ, which that interest may be without; yea, and as Dr. [Tobias] Crispe asserts, according to his Antinomian principles, ‘Christ is ours (saith he) before we have gracious qualifications; every true mark and sign must be inseparable from that it signifies.’ Now, if the works of the Spirit in us be not so, but an interest in Christ may be where these are not, then they are no proper marks or signs; and if they are not, it cannot be our duty to make use of them as such, and consequently if we should, they can yield us no comfort.

The minor is plain in scripture; 1 John 2:3, “Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” The meaning is, we perceive and discern ourselves to be sincere believers, and consequently that Christ is our propitiation, when obedience to his commands is become habitual and easy to us; So 1 John 3:19, “Hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him;” i.e., by our sincere cordial love to Christ and his members, as verse 18, this shall demonstrate to us, that we are the children of truth; and again, 1 John 3:15, “We know that we are passed from death to life; because we love the brethren:” With multitudes more to the same purpose, which plainly teach Christians to fetch the evidences of their justification out of their sanctification, and to prove their interest in Christ, by the works of his Spirit found in their own hearts.

And this is not only a Christian’s liberty, but his commanded duty to bring his interest in Christ to this touchstone and test; 2 Cor. 13:5, “Examine yourselves, prove yourselves,” &c. 2 Pet. 1:10, “Give all diligence to make your calling and election sure,” i.e., your election by your calling. No man can make his election sure a priori, nor can any make it surer than it is in se; therefore it is only capable of being made sure to us a posteriori; arguing from the work of sanctification in us, to God’s eternal choice of us.

And as the saints in all ages have taken this course, so they have taken great and lawful comfort in the use of these marks and signs of grace; 2 Kings 20:3.; 2 Cor. 1:12.

I am sensible how vehemently the Antinomian party, Dr. [Tobias] Crispe, Mr. [William] Eyre, and some others, do oppugn [oppose] this truth, representing it as legal and impracticable (for they are for the absolute and unconditional nature of the new covenant, as well as you); but by your espousing their principle, you have even run Anabaptism into Antinomianism; and must, by this principle of yours, renounce all marks and trials of an interest in Christ, by any work of the Spirit wrought in us. You must only stick to the immediate sealings of the Spirit; which, if such a thing be at all, it is but rare and extraordinary.

I will not deny but there may be an immediate testimony of the Spirit; but sure I am his mediate testimony by his graces in us, is his usual way of sealing believers. We do not affirm any of these his works to be meritorious causes of our justification; or that, considered abstractly from the Spirit, they can of themselves seal, or evidence our interest in Christ. Neither do we affirm, that any of them are complete and perfect works; but this we say, that they being true and sincere, though imperfect graces, they are our usual and standing evidences, to make out our interest in Christ by. And I hope you, and the whole Antinomian party, will find it hard, yea, and impossible, to remove the saints from that comfortable and scriptural way of examining their interest in Christ, by the graces of his Spirit in them; as the saints, who are gone to heaven before them, have done in all generations.

Argument V.

If the covenant of grace be altogether absolute and unconditional, requiring nothing to be done on our part, to entitle us [to come into possession of the right] to its benefits; then it cannot be man's duty in entering covenant with God, to deliberate the terms, count the cost, or give his consent by word or writing, explicitly to the terms of this covenant.

But it is man’s duty in entering Covenant with God, to deliberate the terms, and count the cost; Luke 14:26–34. and explicitly to give his consent thereunto, either by word or writing: Ergo.

The sequel of the major is self-evident: For where there are no terms or conditions required on our part, there can be none to deliberate, or give our consent to; and so a man may be in a covenant without his own consent.

The minor is undeniable in the text cited: If you say, These are duties, but not conditions; I reply, they are such duties, without the performance of which we can have no benefit by Christ and the new covenant, Luke 14:33. And such duties have the true suspending nature of conditions in them. If you say they are only subsequent duties, but not antecedent or concomitant acts, the 28th verse directly opposes you: Let him first sit down and count the cost. And for those overt-acts, whereby we explicitly declare our consent to the terms of the covenant, at our first entering into the bond of it, I hope you will not say, that it is a legal covenant too; Isa. 44:3, 4, “I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off-spring; and they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water-courses; One shall say, I am the Lord’s, and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord,” &c. A plain allusion to soldiers, when they list themselves under a captain, or general.

What remains now to reply to these arguments, but either that the places by me cited and argued upon, do not intend the new covenant, under which we are; or that this new covenant hath its conditions, and is not altogether absolute, as you have asserted it to be.

John Flavel, “Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis: Or, A Reply to Mr. Philip Cary’s Solemn Call,” in The Whole Works of the Rev. Mr. John Flavel, 6 vols. (London: Printed for J. Mathews, 1799), 6:348–355.

John Flavel, “Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis: Or, A Reply to Mr. Philip Cary’s Solemn Call,” in The Whole Works of the Rev. Mr. John Flavel, 6 vols. (London: Printed for W. Baynes and Son, 1820), 6:348–356.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

For a Reformed Presbyterian overview of the debate that started with Philip Cary and Richard Burthogge, and then also involved John Flavel and Benjamin Keach, see Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (RHB, 2012), 729–41. The acknowledgments in the introduction (p. iv) state that Ted Van Raalte co-wrote this chapter (p. 45) with Mark Jones. For a Reformed Baptist reply to this chapter, see Samuel Renihan, “‘Dolphins In The Woods’: A Critique Of Mark Jones And Ted Van Raalte’s Presentation Of Particular Baptist Covenant Theology,” Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies 2 (2015): 62–89. The following is the section from Renihan’s article that involves the issue of conditions.

The Conditionality Of The Covenant Of Grace
While reading Cary and Flavel’s debate as presented in A Puritan Theology, it becomes clear that conditionality was at the heart of the debate. Cary’s insistence on the freedom of the benefits of the covenant of grace led him to the point of denying any conditionality, at least initially. And Flavel, focusing in on this extreme by Cary, used it as the recurring point of argumentation on nearly every issue. As Jones and Van Raalte point out, Cary clarified—or modified—his position to say that faith was a “necessary means in order to receiving” forgiveness of sins.³⁴ This concession should be enough to demonstrate that the debate became quite semantic in some unnecessary ways.³⁵ Notwithstanding, Cary’s dislike for the term “condition” relative to the covenant of grace should not be universally attributed to the Particular Baptists.

There is diversity but general agreement in the way that the Baptists approached the idea of conditionality in the covenant of grace in the seventeenth century. But before entering into their statements it is important to remember that how you approach this issue often determines how you answer it. Herman Witsius has a very helpful discussion of the covenant of grace strictly (or narrowly) considered in which he asserts that from the narrow angle of pure promises there can be no conditions whatsoever in the covenant. Witsius then continues to give a careful and excellent explanation of the sense in which faith is a condition of the covenant of grace.³⁶ It is the narrow and strict sense of the covenant of grace that most of the Particular Baptists have in mind when they approach this issue, thus they tend toward emphasizing the unconditionality of the covenant of grace. They are usually dealing with Paul’s contrast of faith and works in Romans and Galatians, affirming their mutual exclusivity in terms of salvation. However, most also acknowledge the necessity and place of faith as a “condition” for appropriating salvation. A few examples, arranged chronologically, will prove the point.

Thomas Kilcop said, “A condition required thereto is one thing, and a cause thereof is another. . . . Though faith be not a conditional cause of, yet it is so requisite to salvation.”³⁷

Thomas Patient said:

It is true, the promise of salvation and remission of Sins, is held out with a condition to the world. . . . But we are not to think, that this grace of Faith and Repentance, are any Qualifications that persons are to attain by their own abilities unto which the Gospel is tendred.³⁸

Later he adds, “But in the new covenant, the Lord undertakes to work the condition, and to give the salvation tendred upon that condition.”³⁹

Daniel King said:

The Covenant is absolute, free without condition: Nay, the conditions of the promise are absolutely promised in the Covenant: so that they all, promises and conditions both, have their rise from the Covenant. And therefore by virtue of the Covenant we have faith given, which is the condition to salvation.⁴⁰

Robert Purnell, after asserting that the covenant of grace is unconditional in the sense that it does not demand righteousness in us but grants righteousness to us in Christ, answers the following objection, “Some say that this Covenant is conditionall, no otherwise, then in respect of Gods order and method, in bestowing the blessings of it upon us.” Purnell replied, “In this sense it may be granted (it is so) still keeping close to this, that not in a proper, but in an improper sense, the Covenant may be said to be conditionall.”⁴¹

Edward Hutchinson referred to the covenant of grace as “the Covenant of Eternal life and salvation, which was made with all the elect in Christ upon the condition of faith.”⁴²

Benjamin Keach, drawing from Isaac Chauncy, distinguished between “fœderal” conditions (or procuring conditions) and conditions of “connexion.” He assigned faith to the latter set of conditions, acknowledging its necessity in terms of sequence and instrumentality but denying any merit or obtaining of blessings thereby.⁴³

Lastly, and breaking the chronological order, Nehemiah Coxe provides an instance of careful and knowledgeable distinctions on this point. In his work on the covenants, he acknowledged that covenants are “to be considered, either simply as proposed by God, or as Man enters thereinto by Restipulation.”⁴⁴ Later, while describing man’s restipulation in a covenant, Coxe adds:

If the Covenant be of Works, the Restipulation must be, by doing the things required in it, even by fulfilling its condition in a perfect obedience to the Law of it. . . . But if it be a Covenant of free and soveraign Grace, the Restipulation required, is an humble receiving, or hearty believing of those gratuitous Promises on which the Covenant is established.⁴⁵

Coxe understands that covenants involve restipulation, and that different kinds of covenants correlate to different kinds of responses on man’s part. Thus, if Coxe were to approach the question from God’s monopleuristic proposal of the covenant, it could be called absolute. And if he were to approach the question from the dipleuristic restipulation of the covenant partner, it could be called conditional.

At least one example can be found of a Particular Baptist who explicitly denied faith to be the condition of the covenant of grace.⁴⁶

Samuel Richardson said, “If man had been to performe any of the conditions of this Covenant, it had not been a covenant of grace, but a covenant of works. . . . Nor were the covenant of grace free and absolute, if it were conditionall, for that covenant is not absolute, which depends, upon any condition to be by us performed.”⁴⁷ Later he adds, “This shews they mistake who conceive the covenant is made with man, or that teach faith to be a condition of the covenant.”⁴⁸ But he was opposed by his own brothers. Robert Purnell said, “And surely mistaken is Mr. Samuel Richardson, that saith…that there is no means to be used by man to get an interest in this Covenant.”⁴⁹ Richardson’s statements took place in the context of a sinner pleading for help in obtaining salvation. So Purnell addressed that same sinner, saying, “1. Break your Covenant with your old sins. . . . 2. Come with an humble submission to…the will of God. . . . 3. Come before God in the name of a Mediator. . . . 4. By faith look at the gracious invitations of God.”⁵⁰ Despite their differences, both men understood that only God could enable the sinner to perform these actions.

These examples serve to prove that Cary’s strongest statements about the unconditionality of the covenant of grace should be read in the larger context of Particular Baptist covenant theology. Within that context, Cary’s statements cannot and should not be used to present the Particular Baptists as denying that faith is a necessary prerequisite and “condition” of the covenant of grace. They did confess this in their confession of faith, after all.⁵¹ Nor should his statements be taken to indicate that the Particular Baptists did not understand the single and double aspect of a covenant. Rather, these statements should be taken generally in the context of contrasting the demands of the covenant of works with the promises of the covenant of grace, taken in its narrow sense.

As Jones and Van Raalte conclude their chronicle of Flavel and Cary’s debate, they state that Flavel’s nuance and precision on this point, and others, place him “well within the broad Reformed tradition.”⁵² The inference is that Cary’s struggle to handle the tension of the conditionality of the covenant of grace, and his apparent tip of the scales towards an extreme, place him without the broad Reformed tradition, or at least on its fringes. The examples provided should remedy this inference and offer a more complete perspective of the Particular Baptists.
_______________
34 Philip Cary, A Just Reply to Mr. John Flavell’s Arguments (London: Printed for J. Harris, 1690), 34.
35 Cf. Obadiah Sedgwick, The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant (London: Edward Mottershed, 1661), 182. “I know there is a great dispute How any condition can be allowed in a Covenant of Grace…But I humbly conceive that there is no need of such heat . . . if parties would but patiently hear one another, and calmly consider the matter.” Italics original.
36 Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God & Man, vol. 1 (Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Foundation, 1990), 286–91.
37 Thomas Kilcop, Ancient and Durable Gospel (London: Printed by H.H., 1648), 100.
38 Patient, The Doctrine of Baptism, 35.
39 Patient, The Doctrine of Baptism, 35.
40 Daniel King, A Way to Sion Sought out and Found (London: Printed by Christopher Higgins, 1656), 16.
41 Robert Purnell, A Little Cabinet Richly Stored with all sorts of Heavenly Varieties, and Soul-reviving Influences (London: Printed by R. W., 1657), 33–34.
42 Hutchinson, A Treatise Concerning the Covenant, 93.
43 Benjamin Keach, The Display of Glorious Grace: Or, The Covenant of Peace, Opened. (London: Printed by S. Bridge, 1698), 185–87. Jonathan Arnold provides a helpful discussion of Keach’s covenant theology in general, and his views on conditionality in particular in Jonathan W. Arnold, The Reformed Theology of Benjamin Keach (1640–1704) (Oxford: Regent’s Park College, 2013), 153–56.
44 Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants, 4.
45 Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants, 9. Italics original.
46 Cf. Anon, Truth Vindicated in Several Branches thereof (London, Printed for the Author, 1695), 25–27. This anonymous author, presumed to be a Particular Baptist based on his arguments, is another instance of asserting the unconditionality of the covenant of grace. He does so because he collapses the covenant of redemption into the new covenant, saying that all has been accomplished for us. He does qualify that God requires duties of his people, but they are not conditions. This seems to represent a more extreme position like that of Samuel Richardson. It should be noted, however, that the author is once again talking in the context of contrasting the promises of the covenant of grace with the demands of the covenant of works.
47 Samuel Richardson, Divine Consolations (London: Printed by M. Simmons, 1649), 224.
48 Richardson, Divine Consolations, 227.
49 Purnell, A Little Cabinet, 43.
50 Purnell, A Little Cabinet, 44. Cf. Samuel Richardson, The Saints Desire; Or A Cordiall for a fainting soule (London. Printed by M. Simmons, 1647), 45–48.
51 Anon., A Confession of Faith Put Forth by the Elders and Brethren of Many Congregations of Christians (Baptized Upon Profession of their Faith) in London and the Country (London: n.p., 1677), 27, (2LCF 7.3).
52 Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 739.

Samuel Renihan, “‘Dolphins In The Woods’: A Critique Of Mark Jones And Ted Van Raalte’s Presentation Of Particular Baptist Covenant Theology,” Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies 2 (2015): 77–82.

Later in the discussion, Cary himself seems to have moved closer to Flavel’s position on conditions, according to Van Raalte and Jones. They write, “Cary now [after some initial interaction with Flavel] seems to move toward Flavel by at least speaking of conditions. He introduces a distinction between procuring pardon and receiving it. Faith is required as a condition for the latter but not the former. If it belonged to the former, the condition would be meritorious, but under the latter term, faith is only a means or instrument. Cary cites Ames’s approval of conditions in the ‘Kingdom of Grace’ as ‘Concomitants or Effects.’” See Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 737–38; italics original.

Benjamin Keach was also later involved in the above debate. Regarding his view on conditions, Arnold wrote:

Respective Conditions

As with almost every other theologian who discussed these matters, Keach understood the first covenant to be entirely conditional. This covenant ‘was made upon mutual Restipulation between God and [Adam]’¹⁷⁴ with the requirement of perfect obedience.¹⁷⁵ Keach was no stranger to the common paraphrase of this covenant which demonstrated its conditional quality: do this and live. Attempting to classify the second covenant, however, involved a much more complex discussion, especially because Keach rejected the three-covenant system. Those who held to a Covenant of Grace as distinct from a Covenant of Redemption, traditionally saw the latter as being between God the Father and God the Son and being unconditional, or assured. The former, on the other hand, was seen as being based on the condition of faith (which usually included obedience to God’s Law).¹⁷⁶ Much like the Baptist, Thomas Collier, Keach found himself needing to walk a fine theological line, distancing himself from those who held to conditional redemption—which Keach saw as heresy—while at the same time remaining true to the biblical account which linked salvation with faith. Unlike Collier, who was later labeled a heretic by the London Association for, among other things, his Amyrauldian soteriology, Keach ably balanced these doctrines, enabling him to remain an active and influential participant among the London Particular Baptists.¹⁷⁷

Keach avoided the easy out of simply declaring the second covenant to be an unconditional promise.¹⁷⁸ Rather, he presented the complex idea of a ‘twofold, or a mixt Covenant’. On the one hand, the Covenant of Grace referred to Christ’s work, and, as such, ‘it was a Conditional Covenant’ based ‘wholly upon the account of his own Desert, or Merits’.¹⁷⁹ On the other hand, when speaking of humanity’s role in the Covenant of Grace, Keach claimed ‘it is wholly in a way of Free Grace and Favour’, ‘an absolute Covenant as to us’.¹⁸⁰

Complicating the idea of a ‘mixt covenant’, Keach also presented a complex understanding of conditions which he divided into two groups: foederal conditions defined as intitling conditions or procuring conditions¹⁸¹ and conditions of connexion, also called foederalia relata,¹⁸² referring to necessary coincidentals, a concept for which he was admittedly indebted to Isaac Chauncy.¹⁸³ According to this view, the works which Christ performed to bring about the terms of peace—both as Mediator and Surety—served to fulfill the foederal conditions required by the Covenant of Grace. Following the Westminster Assembly, Keach accepted the idea that this covenant included other conditions. However, any conditions other than those laid on the shoulders of the mediator and surety were merely conditions of connexion which necessarily occurred when the covenant was fulfilled but did not cause that fulfillment.¹⁸⁴

As an example, Keach argued that the Covenant of Grace included creation as a condition, because no one could possibly participate in the covenant without being created. However, only those who held to universal redemption could argue that creation causes a person to participate in the covenant, and Keach (and the vast majority even of his opponents) definitely did not fall into that camp. Other conditions of connexion included the hearing of the Word—because the normal method God used to announce the covenant was the preaching of the Word, living in holiness, and the giving of the Spirit. All of these conditions of connexion come to the human participant by an act of free grace, being the fruit—not the cause—of the covenant, contained in the promises of the Covenant of Grace. Significantly, Keach also included faith as a condition of connexion:

Tho we have not Christ without Faith, so we have not Faith without Christ, and both are promised and given freely, and Faith it self is not a purchasing and procuring Condition of the Blessings promised, but one of the Blessings of the Covenant, and free and absolute Promises of God ... one is not the foederal Condition of another, but both come in as the Gift of Grace.¹⁸⁵

This understanding of the covenantal conditions allowed Keach to maintain the necessity of faith, etc. while at the same time continue to hold to his monergistic soteriology where ‘Election to everlasting life is an absolute act of God’s soveraign Grace, without any respect had to our foreseen Faith’.¹⁸⁶
_______________
174 Keach, The display of glorious grace, 178.
175 Keach, The everlasting covenant, 29.
176 Keach, The everlasting covenant, 30. See Rutherford, The covenant of life opened, 309; Williams, Gospel-truth stated, 53. In contrast, see Chauncy, Neonomianism unmask'd, 120.
177 Keach, The ax laid to the root, To the Reader, ii. Cf. Thomas Collier, A discourse of the true gospel blessedness in the New Covenant, or, The distinction of the two Covenants, new and old, first and second with the doing away of the first, and the establishment of the second (London: H. Hills for the author, 1659), 27. It is important to note that by the time Keach came into his influential position among the London Particular Baptists, Collier had fallen into disrepute in Particular Baptist circles. Thus, his works held little influence among the London Particular Baptists. Though Collier’s covenantal scheme was similar to Keach’s, it was not as fully developed. For instance, Collier did not discuss the federalist notion of a prelapsarian covenant. See Collier, A discourse of the true gospel blessedness, 6. Nor did Keach cite Collier on the covenant in any of his works.
178 This intricacy in Keach’s thought was completely overlooked by J. Barry Vaughn who simply stated that ‘[For Keach, t]he new covenant is absolute...’ Vaughn, ‘Public Worship and Practical Theology’, 64. Riker provided a much more nuanced reading of this detail of Keach’s theology. See Riker, ‘A Catholic Reformed Theologian’, 123. 179 Keach, The display of glorious grace, 172.
180 Keach, The display of glorious grace, 172, 178. In the margin next to the second quotation, Keach acknowledged his insistence upon the absolute nature of this covenant. ‘I repeat this often because I would have it fastened on the mind of the Reader.’ The Westminster Assembly also presented the Covenant of Grace as a ‘mixt covenant’. See the discussion above in the section entitled Westminster Assembly: the Cementing of Federal Theology, 136-7. Also see Westminster Confession and Catechisms, LC 82. Isaac Chauncy presented an almost identical view of the ‘mixt covenant’ and was a source for Keach’s system. See Chauncy, Neonomianism unmask'd, 113ff.
181 Keach, The display of glorious grace, 186-87.
182 Keach, The everlasting covenant, 35.
183 Keach followed Dr. C[hauncy?]’s discussion in Logick. See Keach, The display of glorious grace, 186. Also see Chauncy, Neonomianism unmask'd, 116-17. Owen presented a similar discussion, though he did not use the same terminology. See Owen, The doctrine of justification by faith, 143.
184 Westminster Confession and Catechisms, LC 81-82.
185 Keach, Gospel mysteries unveil'd, I:192.
186 Keach, Gospel mysteries unveil'd, II:240. For a fuller discussion of Keach’s soteriology, see Chapter VI.

Jonathan W. Arnold, “The Reformed Theology of Benjamin Keach,” (PhD diss., Univesity of Oxford, 2009), 163–66; italics original.