Benjamin Keach’s (1640–1704) Notes Related to Matthew 23:37

THE COMPASSION OF CHRIST TO SINNERS UNDER THE SIMILITUDE OF A HEN

“How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a Hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Matt. 23:37.

The Lord Jesus shows by these words his great compassion and affection to the Jews, who refused the offers of his love and infinite favour.

Three things are considerable in the text.
1. Christ’s grace and good intention to them, “How often would I have gathered thy children together,” &c.
2. The way or manner which he took in order to the accomplishing his gracious design and purpose touching them,—“As a Hen gathereth her chickens under her wings.”
3. The Jews’ obstinacy; “Ye would not.”
The Lord condescends very low in making this simile of a Hen; the nature and property of which creature take as follows, so far as it will hold parallel to the case in hand.

SIMILE.
PARALLEL.

I. Nullum enim animal circa pullos suos tanta compassione movetur, &c., saith Bernard [Bern. de pass. Dom. cap. v.], “There is no creature that is moved with so much compassion towards her young ones, as the Hen.”
I. The Lord Jesus was moved with the greatest compassion imaginable towards the poor Jews and Jerusalem, which he was first sent to, and came to seek and to save. This is signified abundantly by that wonderful passion, that seized upon his Spirit, when he came near the city, and by his expressions in the text, &c., it is said, “He wept over it,” &c., and cried out with a mournful voice, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” &c., Matt. 23:37, Luke 19:41, 42.

II. The Hen is observed to fly in the very face of such ravenous birds as strive to destroy her chickens; she strives to save and defend them with all her might, though with the utmost hazard of her life.
II. The Lord Jesus Christ to save and defend the offspring of Israel, and the poor sinners of the Gentiles, did not refuse to encounter with the greatest of their enemies: he resisted the devil, who sought to make a prey of them, &c., Matt. 4:6, 8. No enemy that strove to devour us, but Christ endeavoured to defend us from him.

III. Such is the Hen’s care of, and affection towards her chickens, that she for their sakes is made weak in all her members, and brought to extreme faintness. Hoc genus animantis magnum affectum in filios habet, ita ut eorum infirmitate affecta, &c., (saith Austin) “this creature shows great affection towards her young ones, that being affected with their weakness, she also is made weak.”
III. Christ, that he might save poor perishing sinners, by taking man’s nature upon him, was made weak in the same sense, as it is said he became poor: such was the greatness of his love and affection towards us, that “he bare our sickness, and carried our sorrows,” Isa. 53:4. To what extremity of faintness was he brought, when “he sweat as it were great drops of blood!” And when the ponderous cross was laid upon him, as they led him to Golgotha, it is said, “He fainted,” Luke 22:44. “He was touched with the feelings of our infirmities, being made like to us in all things, sin only excepted,” Heb. 4:15.

IV. The Hen clucks often, and with a mournful voice, as it were, calls her chickens to her, when she perceives they are in danger by the kite, or any other enemy, to be destroyed.
IV. Christ calls to poor helpless and impenitent sinners very often, with a mournful voice, and tears in his eyes, “O that thou hadst known, in this thy day, the things that belong to thy peace; but now they are hid from thine eyes! O Jerusalem, Jerusalem!” why, what is the matter? An enemy is at hand, ruin is at the door; “Why will you die, O house of Israel?” Ezek. 18:31. Now it is to England, yea, to London: O that they would once hear Christ’s call before it is too late, and the things that concern their peace be hid from their eyes! &c.

V. The Hen stands ready prepared to receive her chickens under her wings, to defend them against all violence that may happen to them.
V. The Lord Jesus stands with his arms and heart open, ready to receive all true penitent sinners, that come unto him; “I have spread out my hands all the day long,” &c. Isa. 65:2. “Come unto me all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” &c. Matt. 11:28, 29.

VI. The Hen is very desirous to gather all her chickens together, and cover them with her wings; she would not have one of them wanting.
VI. The Lord Jesus hath such bowels of pity and compassion to sinful mankind, that he would have none of them perish, “But come to the knowledge of the truth, and be saved,” 1 Tim. 2:2, 3, 4. How desirous is he to get them all under his wings of grace and protection; “Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die, O house of Israel? turn and live, saith the Lord,” Ezek. 18:31, 32. “How often would I have gathered thy children together!” &c.

VII. The Hen gathers her chickens to her; and that they may have food as well as nourishment and shelter, she looks about and scratches to get them meat.
VII. The Lord Jesus calls to sinners, that they may have the bread of life. “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,” Isa. 55:1. “Eat ye that which is good; yea, the bread that never perisheth,” John 6:27. Christ gives bread that never perisheth.

VIII. The Hen succours, refreshes, and makes lively such chickens that are weak and hang down their wings, and can scarce go; she soon recovers them when she gets them under her wings.
VIII. All sin-sick and diseased souls that are weak and hang down their heads, or their wings, and go drooping all the day, as it were, half-dead, no sooner are they got under the wings of Christ, but he graciously succours and refreshes them, making them brisk and very lively.

IX. The Hen, it is observed, if she find any crumbs, corn, or any other good thing, she gives it to her chickens, though she want it herself: she spares out of her own mouth, and puts it into theirs.
IX. Christ out of his infinite bowels to his people, finding no other meat was so good and excellent for them, gave them food from heaven, even his own body, “My flesh is meat indeed,” &c., John 6:55.

SIMILE.
DISPARITY.
I. The Hen cannot save and defend her chickens under her wings, When she hath gathered them to her, being a poor, weak, inconsiderable creature.
I. The Lord Christ is strong and able to save, hide, and defend all his people that come to him, under his wings, being the most high, omnipotent, eternal Jehovah: “The Father and I am one:” “He thought it no robbery to be equal with God,” Phil. 2:6, 7.

II. The Hen, when her chickens are grown up, cares not for them; she will (it is noted) rather strike at them, and beat them from her.
II. Our blessed Saviour will never cease to take care of, and provide for his poor children; his eye is as well upon the oldest and strongest Christians as upon the weakest and youngest: “Cast all your care upon him, for he careth for you,” &c.

III. The Hen loses oftentimes her chickens; the kite gets them away from her, and makes a prey of them.
III. The Lord Jesus Christ cannot, will not lose one of them that the Father hath given him, “Those that thou hast given me I have lost none, but the son of perdition,” &c. John 17:12, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish,” &c. John 10:28.

IV. A Hen soon forgets her chickens, which she hath bred and brought up.
IV. Christ never can, nor will forget his saints, “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, she may, but I will not forget thee,” Isa. 49:15, 16.

INFERENCES

I. What great encouragement doth this similitude afford to all, yea to the vilest of sinners? O what compassion is there in Christ’s heart towards you, how willing is he to gather you to himself!
II. It also informs us of that great blindness and horrid obstinacy which is in the hearts of wicked men; “How often would I have gathered Israel, and they would not be gathered! I would, but ye would not!” how dare sinners then to charge their eternal overthrow, perishing, and ruin upon the Lord Jesus Christ? “Know, O sinner, thy destruction is of thyself,” Hos. 13:9.
III. It also truly informs us, that all safety and salvation is in the Lord Jesus Christ. Under his wings we must get if we would be secure from the enemy of our souls, and be delivered from eternal danger: “Unto him shall the gathering of the people be,” Gen. 49:10.
IV. Of what amazing nature was the great condescension of the blessed Jesus, who made himself of no reputation! became weak, poor, and sensible of our infirmities, touching the flesh, that we might be strong, rich, and partake of his perfections, and glorious fulness, Phil. 2:7.
V. Here is also very much comfort to all true believers, whoever they be, that are gathered by the word and Spirit unto Christ: he will succour, guide, revive, and defend them for ever. He infinitely out-doth the Hen; his bowels exceed the bowels of the tenderest mother to her sucking child. He is strong enough also, as well as tender, not only willing but able. Fear not Satan, “he hath swallowed up death in victory.” The kite hath (as one observes) as it were an aching tooth at the chickens, fain would he make a prey of them: so would the devil of believers. Christ knows how to preserve them, by gathering them all under his wings. Soul, fear not, if thou art under the protection of the Lord Jesus Christ, thou art in safety from all temporal aud spiritual dangers.
VI. If Christ be so tender and compassionate unto sinners, and seeks to gather them unto him; who will pity them if they perish at last and are damned, when all is from their own vile, stubborn, and wilful obstinacy?
VII. If the Lord Jesus Christ be so tender of, and kind to his saints which he hath gathered to himself, and sheltered under his wings; then let this doctrine teach Christians in an especial manner to be kind one to another, and tender one of another, and to do their utmost endeavour to defend one another in this evil day, from the common enemy both of body and soul.
VIII. This may serve for seasonable reproof to all those, who profess the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hope for preservation by him, and shelter under his wings, yet, instead of endeavouring to the utmost to help one another, revile, backbite, and persecute one another, for small and circumstantial differences in profession, and thereby give the common enemy advantage over them both, “A divided house cannot stand,” Mark 3:25.

Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1856), 458–60.

Bio:
Wiki

Benjamin Keach (1640–1704) on Abusing Offers of Love and Preparation for Death

And that I might enforce this word upon you, let me lay before you a few Motives and awakening Considerations.

First, Consider what a great favour and mercy it is that God hath let you and I live so long. Others are long ago cut down and sent to the grave; he hath not [willed that] it may be given [to] many half of those days which thou hast had: Look upon this as a mercy indeed, considering thy life was forfeited before thou wert born.

Sirs we came into the World with the Sentence of death upon us; and if Jehovah had cut us down in our sins many years ago, it would have been but a piece of Justice. And what is the end of God in sparing of us, but that we might be fitted for the place whither we are going. Oh how unwilling is God to strike the fatal blow, to cut men down before they are prepared for death. He is not willing they should perish, and that is the reason of his patience, longsuffering, and forbearance, sinners lay it to heart.

Secondly, Consider what dreadful provocations you and I have given him to take us away, and command death in his name to arrest us. Have we not grieved, burdened, yea even wearied him with our iniquities? Nay, have we not pierced him? May he not cry out, as  being pressed as a Cart is pressed that is full of sheaves, Amos 2.13. Is it not a sad and most lamentable thing, thus to deal with a loving and gracious God?

Thirdly, How often hath the Lord called you, and yet you have rebelled? Hath not he stretched out his hand all the day long, and yet you have not hearkened; but have rejected his counsel and cast his word and reproofs behind you; yea, and often resisted his Holy Spirit in the common motions and workings thereof? Have you not many of you refused his Grace, Son, and divers sweet and precious Calls and Offers of Love. And certain I am, you have had many of these in this place. Nay, how many warnings have you had of the near approach of death? Nay, awakening summons to prepare for the grave, as you would answer it before the dreadful Judge of Heaven and Earth; by my dear Brother that is fallen asleep [John Norcot]; whom we shall hear no more? Oh what pains did he take with some of you, that so you might be ready? Have not you and I notwithstanding all this hearkened to a base deceitful heart, and enticing and tempting Devil? Have you stouted it out against all Pains and Endeavours used for Spiritual awakenings, and are you yet alive? Then consider how much this calls upon you to be ready to die. Will any dare, that are sensible of the worth of their Immortal Souls, neglect this concern any longer?

4. Consider, That the abuse of Mercy and Goodness will greatly aggravate thy misery in the day of wrath: Oh remember what it is to sin against Light, Love, and Patience. Shall the goodness of God, that should lead to repentance, encourage and harden thee in thy iniquity? How dost thou think to escape the Judgement of God? Or despisest thou, as saith the Apostle, the riches of his goodness, forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance; but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds, Rom. 2:4-6. Sentence is past against a sinner, but because it is not speedily executed, therefore the hearts of men are fully set within them to do wickedly, Eccl. 8.11. Christ knocks at the door and yet sinners will not hear. Christ may speak of sinners as God speaks of Israel of old, My people will have none of me, Psal. 81. 11. Oh what have you to answer for abused mercy and favour! What will you do hearafter, when Christ, who waits upon you now to save you, will then turn his face from you in the day of your calamity, and plead against you to condemn you? see Prov. 1. 28.

Benjamin Keach, A Summons to the Grave. Or, The Necessity of a Timely Preparation for Death (London: Printed for Ben. Harris at the Stationers Arms in Sweethings Rents, near the Royal Exchange, 1676), 23–27.

Bio:

Wiki

Benjamin Keach (1640–1704) on Christ’s Offer of Love

6. But here is sad News to such who slight this Salvation, and refuse Jesus Christ, great will their Condemnation be: The Men of Nineveh shall rise up in judgment with this Generation, and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold a greater than Jonas is here. The greatness of this Saviour who preaches the Gospel to you, and is come to save you, will aggravate your Condemnation. What was Jonas to Jesus Christ? Also our Saviour saith, The Queen of the South shall rise up in Judgment with this Generation, and shall condemn it; for she came from the uttermost Parts of the Earth to hear the Wisdom of Solomon; and behold a greater than Solomon is here. Solomon was a mighty King, and for Wisdom exceeded all that went before him. But alas, what was Solomon to Jesus Christ, who is the Wisdom of God itself, and the express Image of the Father's Person, and the Brightness of his Glory? O know you, Sinners, this Day, that Jesus Christ, this glorious King, and Prince of the Kings of the Earth, this mighty Saviour is come to your Doors: Behold, I stand at the Door and knock: Will you not open the Door, nor cry to him to help you to open to him, to enable you to believe in him? What do you say, shall the Son of God stand at your Doors, and you not so much as ask, Who is there? Who is at my Door? Shall Christ be kept out of your Hearts, and stand at your Doors, whilst Sin commands the chiefest Room, and has absolute Power over you, and rules in you? How will you be able to look this Blessed Saviour in the Face another Day? Is he come through a Sea of Blood to offer his Love to you, and to espouse you unto himself for ever, and will not you be persuaded to break your League with the old Lovers, who will at last stab you at the very Heart, and betray your Souls into the Hands of Divine Wrath? Nay, they have done it already: What are your Lovers bur your Lusts, your Pride, your Earthly-mindedness, your sinful Pleasures, Profits and Honours? O resolve to desert them, they otherwise will damn your Souls for ever, and expose you to the Torments of Hell-Fire: And to deliver you from them, and from that wrath which is due to you for them, (I mean, for your Sins) is Christ come, and this great Saviour is offered to you. The Lord help every oneof you to consider of this, and to lay it to Heart.

Benjamin Keach, A Golden Mine Opened: Or, The Glory of God's Rich Grace Displayed in the Mediator to Believers: And His Direful Wrath Against Impenitent Sinners. Containing the Substance of Near Forty Sermons Upon Several Subjects (London: Printed, and sold by the Author at his House in Horse lie-down, and William Marshall at the Bible in Newgate-street, 1694), 386–387.

Christ loves all men with a love of pity, but he loveth his Elect with a love of Complacency.

Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (London: Printed by John Richardson and John Darby for Enoch Prosser, 1682), 3:18.

XII. A good and wise Householder loves his household with a natural and paternal love.

XII. God loved all his creation; when he looked upon it, and saw all to be good, he could do no otherwise, angels, men, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and all inanimate things. The church he loves on new terms: “The Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and believed that I came forth from God.”

Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1856), 292.

I. A man that intends or is disposed to marry, is not contented (or thinketh it not convenient) how happy soever he is otherwise, in the enjoyment of all outward good things in his father’s house.
I. Jesus Christ, notwithstanding all the glory he had with the Father, being the joy and excellencies and perfection, dwelling in the fruition of eternal bliss, yet thought upon a spouse, and judged it meet to enter into a marriage-relation, Prov. 8:31.

II. An obedient and wise son takes advice, and consults with his father, being fully resolved to change his condition, and enter into a contract of love, and marriage-union; and then fixes upon a Particular object.
II. Jesus Christ took counsel with the Father about that glorious design of love and good-will he bore to mankind; and hence he is said to be “delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” Acts 2:23. It was no less than the great result of the blessed Trinity, that the Lord Jesus the second Person, should espouse sinners to himself: “I proceeded,” saith he, “and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me,” John 8:42. He fixed not his choice the fallen angels, but on the offspring of fallen man, who were given unto him by the Father.

III. When a man hath fixed upon an object that he intends to espouse unto himself, he contrives the way and method of his proceeding, in making known his mind, and to bring about his design; and many times will choose to send messengers, to treat with the person about the business, and discover his affections, before he goes himself in person.
III. Jesus Christ hath fixed his eye upon lost and perishing man, agreed with the Father upon the way and method of proceeding, what he must do and become, in order to the accomplishment of this glorious enterprise: and accordingly the father was pleased, out of his abundant grace, in a fit season, to make known his eternal counsel, and proposed Jesus Christ, the seed of the woman, to the sinner, as an object of love; and not only so, but also before he came himself, he sent his messengers, the prophets, “rising up early, and sending them,” to offer terms of love and friendship, and reveal his purpose to them, 2 Chron. 36:15.

IV. After this, a lover usually (his heart being enflamed with love and ardent affection to the person, though she being in another country, very far off) takes a journey resolving to give her a visit; and in order thereunto he suits himself in a fit garb and clothing, that so he might every way render himself a person acceptable, and meet, likely, and capable of winning and enjoying of her.
IV. Jesus Christ after this, such was the greatness of his love, and strength of his affection, resolved to take a journey to give poor sinners a most gracious visit; the journey he took was long, as far as it is from heaven to earth. And that he might accomplish his blessed purpose, he fits himself with a garb accordingly, laying aside his heavenly robes, he clothed himself with our flesh, or did assume a man’s nature, that so he might every way become a meet object for the sinner, and likely to come and enjoy him at last.

V. If the person or suitor be a prince, and known, commonly at his arrival, he is much congratulated and welcomed, by the nobility, and persons of honour.
V. When the Lord Jesus came into the world, the angels of God, who had knowledge of him, in an heavenly way of congratulation, magnified the Most High: “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good will toward men,” Luke 2:13, 14. But how ungratefully was he welcomed and entertained by the generality of mankind, for whose sake he came into the world?

VI. A lover, when he goes to visit a person he intends to espouse unto himself, usually sends his friend, or takes him along with him, to signify, not what only what and who he is, but also his intention and purpose in coming.
VI. The Lord Jesus, when he came into this world, to espouse poor sinners in a spiritual way, sent John the Baptist to prepare the way before him, and make ready a people for him, who bore witness of his Majesty, and declared the excellency of his Person, as also his gracious intention: “He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear,” (in another place, unloose, Matt. 3:11, John 1:27.) “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” “Ye yourselves bear witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I am sent before him.” He that hath the bride is the Bridegroom; but the friend of the Bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the Bridegrooms voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled,” John 3:28, 29.

VII. A man propounds questions to the person he loves, to discover whethe she be pre-engaged to any other; and if he perceives she is entangled through great folly, and in danger to be utterly undone thereby, he strives to undeceive her, and save her from ruin.
VII. Jesus Christ propounds questions in his word to poor sinners, thereby to discover how it is with their souls, showing the danger of being in love with sin, or to rely upon their own righteousness, or to have their affections inordinately set upon things of this world: he strives to deceive them. “Why do you not understand my speech?”—“He that committeth sin, is the servant of sin,” saith he. “Unless a man deny himself, and take up his cross, he cannot be my disciple. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me,” &c. “Unless ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins,” John 3:24, “Jesus answered, and said unto them, suppose ye that those Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you nay, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish,” Luke 13:2, 3.

VIII. A Lover makes offers of love unto the person he has fixed his eye upon, and uses divers arguments, to persuade her to yield or consent unto his request.
VIII. Jesus Christ offers his love unto sinners, showing how willing he is to embrace them in the arms of his mercy. He commends his favour and good will to sinners many ways: first, by his taking our nature upon him, and coming into the world. Secondly, by those hard things he met with in this life for our sakes. Thirdly, by shedding of his blood. Fourthly, he commends his love by the continual motions of his Spirit upon our hearts, and by those inward checks of conscience, besides those blessed offers and tenders of grace, which dropped from his gracious lips: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,” Job 7:17. “Look unto me, and be saved, all ye ends of the earth,” Isa. 45:22. “Come to me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” Matt. 11:21. “Behold I stand at the door, and knock: If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in unto him, and sup with him, and he with me,” Rev. 3:20.

IX. A true Lover respects his intended bride, more than wealth, beauty, &c. It is not the portion, but the person, his eye is principally set upon.
IX. Jesus Christ loves poor sinners, not for any thing he sees in them, not for beauty, riches, &c., for naturally mankind hath nothing that may render them any way desirable in Christ’s eye; he might see enough in them to loath them, but nothing to love them.

X. Such a person sues hard, uses weighty arguments to prevail, and will not quickly take a denial.
X. Jesus Christ sues hard, is very importutate, uses many powerful and weighty arguments to prevail with sinners to accept of the terms of grace, and join in an holy contract of love with him. 1. One is taken from the dignity of his Person, being the root and offspring of David; David’s Lord, as well as David’s Son. “I (saith he) and my Father are one.” 2. From that early love and good will he bore to them! “When there were no depths, was I brought forth: when he gave the sea his decree,—Then was I by him, as one brought up with him, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him: rejoicing in the habitable parts of the earth, and my delights were with the sons of men,” Prov. 8:24, 29, 30, 31. And in another place, “I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee,” Jer. 31. 3. From the intention or purpose of his coming so long a journey;” I am come that ye may have life,”—“Not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance:”—“Come to seek and to save that which was lost.” 4. His great abasement and condescension. 5. From his suffering: “I lay down my life for my sheep.” Can there be a greater argument than this? 6. He argues with sinners from the consideration of their own misery, and that absolute necessity there is of closing with him, and the blessed effects of it: “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,” John 3:36.

XI. A faithful suitor waits long, and hath much patience, before he will desist or give over his suit, and yet thinks nothing too much that he suffers or does endure for her sake; as appears concerning Jacob, who served seven years for Rachael: “And they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her,’ ” Gen. 29:20.
XI. Jesus Christ waits long, and hath much patience, before he doth desist from his suit, and leave sinners to perish in their iniquities. How long did infinite patience wait upon the old world? was it not one hundred and twenty years? and forty years upon Israel in the wilderness: “I have (saith he) spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people.” Isa. 65:2. But if he prevails at last, he thinks nothing too much that he has suffered for sinners. He waits at the door of his spouse, “until his head is wet with dew, and his locks with the drops of the night,” Cant. 5:2, yet does he not think all too much.

XII. One that intends to make a person his bride and only consort, expresses great love; his love is sometimes much more than he can well express; it is very strong, as strong as death; “Many waters cannot quench it, nor can the floods drown it.” There is an unsatisfied desire in the person, until the object beloved be enjoyed.
XII. Jesus Christ doth express and manifest great love to sinners, which he intends to take into covenant relation with himself. His love, like the Nile, overflows all banks and bounds; his grace is without limits, beyond the love of Jonathan to David. What doth the Gospel show or express more plainly, than the strength of Christ’s love to sinners? Christ expressed such love as never any other had, in laying down his life for his enemies, for such as were rebels to him and his Father. There is “depth, height, length and breadth, in it, it passeth knowledge,” Eph. 3:19.

XIII. Such an one is generally concerned and grieved at the unkindnesses of his friend, and ungrateful repulses, and many times from hence doth withdraw himself, and carry it as a stranger.
XIII. Jesus Christ is greatly troubled at the ungrateful repulses he meets with from sinners; which appears, 1. By his being grieved; “He was grieved because of the hardness of their hearts,” When he drew near to Jerusalem, he wept over it, perceiving how basely they had slighted and rejected him. 2. By condoling and bewailing their miserable state and obstinacy: Israel will have none of me. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings? and ye would not,” Matt. 23:37. By hiding of his face, and bringing afflictions upon them: “I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offences, and seek my face: In their afflictions they will seek me early,” Hos. 5:15.

XIV. A Suitor nevertheless (such is the nature of his affection) knows not how to give her up; he therefore sends letters, thereby further expressing the ardency of his desire, and how loath he to take his final farewell.
XIV. Jesus Christ notwithstanding all the unkindnesses of sinners, hath afforded them his word, wherein is expressed his good will and desire to them; nay, and more than this, sends many a kind message to them by the sweet motions of his Spirit, to awaken their consciences, before he leaves them finally: thus he strove with the old world, Gen. 6:3.

XV. Moreover, besides all this, he sends faithful messengers to her, as spokesmen, to answer her objections, that so (if it be possible) he might bring her at last to a compliance: who use also many arguments in order thereunto. Thus Abraham’s servant acted, when he went to take a wife for Isaac, Gen. 24:35, 36, 37.
XV. Jesus Christ sends his faithful ministers, who are as spokesmen for their Master: “I have (saith Paul) espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ,” 2 Cor. 11:2. “I have espoused you;” the meaning is, I have been employed as an instrument sent and commissioned by the Lord Jesus to do it. Many arguments they use to bring poor sinners to accept of the offers of grace, and receive Jesus Christ; as, 1. They, like Abraham’s servant, set forth the greatness and riches of their Master: “The Lord (saith he) hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great; he hath given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, &c., and Sarah my master’s wife bare a son to my master when she was old, and to him he hath given all that he hath,” Gen. 24:35. God is very great, all things in heaven and earth are his, “The cattle upon a thousand hills;” and saith the servant of God, he hath given unto Christ all that he hath. “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” Christ is very rich, the heir of all things, Matt. 11:27, John 13:3, Heb. 1:2. 2. They set not out the greatness and riches of Christ, but his excellent beauty also: “Thou art fairer than the children of man,” Psal. 45:2, 3. The power of Christ. 4. His wisdom. 5. His love and rich bounty. 6. They set before sinners, what the promises are if they receive him, and what glory they shall be raised to. 7. The woefulness of their present state, and what it will be in the end, if they do refuse him: “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men,” 2 Cor. 5:11.

Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1856), 323–326.

Bio:
Wiki

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.

Benjamin Keach (1640–1704) on Common Grace

V. Some Men's natural Blindness hath been by the just judgment of God upon them for their sin. So God in a way of judgment Blinds the eyes of some Men, after common illuminations. He is said to Blind their eyes, and harden their hearts, that is, he denies them his grace, and withdraws those common influences of it from them, suffering Satan to take full power of them, leaving them to their own hearts' lusts, and so consequently to final impenitency, Isa. xliv. 18, Rom. xi. 8.

Benjamin Keach, Tropologia; A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors, in Four Books (London: William Hill Collingridge City Press, 1858), 804.

In the above quote, Keach associates "grace" with "common" measures of illumination and restraining power, even given to those who go into final impenitency.

Thirdly, Sin and Satan rob, or deprive men of union, and communion with God, and of the true grace of God, by which this union and communion with God, and Christ is attained; persuading them common grace, is saving grace, and legal conversion is evangelical conversion, and outward reformation true regeneration, &c.

Ibid., 895.

We have already seen in the first quote that Keach calls general restraints and general illuminations "grace," so this next quote is not denying that such things are in fact a manifestation of grace when he goes on to speak of a "true grace." By "true grace," he means a grace that brings about true conversion, and not a seeming conversion leading to self-deception because it's merely an "outward reformation" devoid of a real inner transformation. In this second quote, he sounds like the puritan Thomas Brooks. For some of his statements on common grace, see Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1990), 155–156. It can also be read online HERE.

Benjamin Keach (1640–1704) on God's Sincere Offers

Keach went to the 1689 General Assembly and subscribed the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

II. The Gospel is glorious in respect of the tenders and offers made therein to the sons of men.

Quest. What is tendered?
Answ. Repentance is tendered, pardon is tendered, peace is tendered, bread and water of life is tendered, perfect righteousness is tendered, adoption is tendered, glorious liberty is tendered; in short, God is offered, he makes a tender of himself. Christ is tendered with all his benefits, who is the Pearl of great price, worth millions; yea, more than ten thousand worlds; a marriage with Christ is tendered, the Spirit is tendered with all the blessings of it, a kingdom is offered in the Gospel, a crown is offered, a crown of endless glory, a crown that fadeth not away, eternal life is tendered.
Quest. Who is it that makes these tenders and offers in the Gospel?
Answ. The great God, he that has them to bestow, and a right to give them.
Quest. Whom are they offered to?
Answ. To such that were his enemies, rebels even the worst of sinners; in word, whoever will, he that hath a will to receive them may have them, Rev. xxii. 17.
Quest. Upon what terms are they offered?
Answ. Freely offered, without money and without price, though a man, as to righteousness, hath nothing of worth nor beauty in him, being in himself but a lump of sin and filthiness, yet lie may have these things, they are offered unto such, Isa. lv. 1, 2, 3.

They are sincerely and faithfully offered; God doth not mock men and women, offer them such things as these, and yet never intend to bestow them upon them; if they have a heart and a mind to them, my life for theirs they enjoy all these and many more like glorious good things. Nay, and more than this, they have been often tendered with much affection and in bowels of compassion, God bewails, and Christ bewails, the state of such who refuse them. O! then what fools are mortals to slight and reject these tenders!

Benjamin Keach, Tropologia; A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors, in Four Books (London: William Hill Collingridge City Press, 1858), 555–556.

This first quote may be problematic, since Keach seems to suggest that the offer is made to sensible sinners, i.e. to such as "were" God's enemies and have a "will" to receive it. The textual reference to Isaiah makes it interesting. Nevertheless, his ending statements clarify the fact that God affectionately offers the gospel to such as refuse the offer, and bewails their state of rejection. The following quotes will elaborate on God's compassionate offer made to all.

XI. God is said to stretch forth his Arms, when he calls upon rebellious sinners, showing how willing he is, upon their repentance, to pardon, and forgive them, Isa. lxv. 2.

Ibid., 302. [note the text reference carefully]

God is willing to pardon all "sinners," but will only do so if they repent.

2. And this is one great part of a Minister's embassy, he is sent to let sinners know what goodwill the God of heaven and earth bears to them, and that he is desirous to bestow his own dear Son, the heir of all things, in marriage upon them; what favor and grace is this! Can sinners be so sottish, foolish, and ungrateful, as not readily to receive and embrace this offer?

Ibid., 852.

By "sinners," he clearly means to include the sottish, foolish and ungrateful who do not receive and embrace the offer, i.e., the reprobates. I think it's safe to conclude that Keach believed in well-meant offers, since God is "desirous" and "willing" to bestow the blessings of Christ on sinners, even those who are sottishly and ungratefully not receiving the offer. This helps to establish, at least in the case of Keach, how the 1689 Confessional material on gracious offers was interpreted.

Bio:  
Wiki