Aphorisms of Justification, Thesis 30 – Thesis 35
THESIS XXX.
THere is no sin prohibited in the Gospel which is not a breach of some Precept in the Decalogue: and which is not threatned by the Covenant of Works, as offending against, and so falling under the Iustice thereof. For the threatening of that Covenant extendeth to all sin that then was, or after should be forbidden. God still reserved the prerogative, of adding to his Laws, without altering the Covenant terms; else every new Precept would imply a new Covenant: And so there should be a multitude of Covenants.
EXPLICATION.
1. THough the Decalogue doth not mention each particular duty in the Gospel, yet doth it command obedience to all that are or shall be specified; and expresseth the genus of every particular duty. And though it were not a duty from the generall precept, till it was specified in the Gospel, yet when it once is a duty, the neglect of it is a sin against the Decalogue. For instance; The Law saith, Thou shalt take the Lord for thy God, and consequently beleeve all that he saith to be true; and obey him in all that he shall particularly command you: The Gospel revealeth (what it is that is to be beleeved, and saith, This is the work of God, that ye beleeve in him whom the Father hath sent. Ioh. 6. 28, 29. The affirmative part of the second Commandment is, Thou shalt worship God according to his own institution: The Gospell specifieth some of this instituted Worship, viz. Sacraments, &c. So that the neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandment: And Unbelief is a breach of the first. This may help you to answer that question, Whether the Law without the Gospell be a sufficient Rule of Life? Answ. As the Lords Prayer is a sufficient Rule of Prayer: It is sufficient in its own kinde, or to its own purposes: It is a sufficient generall Rule for duty; but it doth not enumerate all the particular instituted species. Yet here, the Gospell revealing these institutions, is not only the new Covenant it self; but the doctrine of Christ, which is an adjunct of that Covenant also.
2. That every sin against the precepts of the Gospell and decalogue, are also sins against the Covenant of Works, and condemned by it, will appear thus. 1. The threatening of that Covenant is against all sin, as well as one, (though none but eating the forbidden fruit be named:) But these are sins; and therefore threatned by that Covenant. The major appears by the recitall afterwards; Cursed is he that doth not al things written. 2. I have proved before, that the old Covenant is not repealed, but onelyonly relaxed to Beleevers upon Christs satisfaction; And then it must needs be in force against every sin. 3. The penalty in that Covenant is still executed against such sins. So that every sin against the Gospel is a breach of the Conditions of the Law of Works: But every sin against that Law, is not a breach of the Conditions of the Gospel. And it hinders not this, That the Morall Law by Moses, and the Gospel by Christ, were delivered since the Covenant with Adam. For though that Covenant did not specifie each duty and sin: yet it doth condemn the sin when it is so specified. But the great Objection is this: How can Unbelief be a breach of the Covenant of Works, when the very duty of beleeving for pardon is inconsistent with the Tenor of that Covenant, which knoweth no pardon? Ans. 1. Pardon of sin is not so contradictory to the truth of that Covenant, but that they may consist upon satisfaction made. Though it is true, that the Covenant it self doth give no hopes of it; yet it doth not make it impossible. 2. Unbelief, in respect of pardon and recovery, is a Sin against the Covenant of Works, not formaliter, but eminenter. 3. Not also as it is the neglect of a duty, with such and such ends and uses, but as it is the neglect of duty in the generall considered; and so as it is a sin in generall, and not as it is a sin consisting in such or such an act or omission. The form of the sin lieth in its pravity or deviation from the Rule: So far Unbelief is condemned by the Law: The substrate act is but the matter, (improperly so called.)
The review of the comparison before lay'd down will explain this to you: A Prince bestoweth a Lordship upon a Slave, and maketh him a Lease of it, the tenor where of is, That he shall perform exact obedience to all that is commanded him; and when he fails of this, he shall forfeit his Lease: The Tenant disobeyeth, and maketh the forfeiture; The Son of this Prince interposeth, and buyeth the Lordship, and satisfieth for all the damage that came by the Tenants disobedience: Whereupon the Land and Tenant and Lease are all delivered up to him, and he becomes Landlord. He findeth the Tenant (upon his forfeiture) dispossessed of the choycest rooms of the house, and chief benefits of the Land, and confined to a ruinous corner; and was to have been deprived of all, had not he thus interposed. Whereupon he maketh him a new Lea…e in this Tenor, That if in acknowledgment of the favour of his Redemption, he will but pay a pepper corn, he shall be restored to his former possession, and much more.
In this case now the non-payment of the pepper corn, is a breach of both Leases: Of the old, because though he had forfeited his title to the benefits of it, yet he could not disanull the duty of it, which was obedience during his life: especially when the penalty was not fully executed on him, but he was permitted still to enjoy some of the benefits. So that as it is an act of disobedience in generall, his non-payment is a further forfeiture of his old Lease: But as it is the non-payment of a pepper-corn required of him in stead of his former Rent, so it is a breach of his new Lease only. Even so is Unbelief a violation of both Covenants.
THESIS XXXI.
THe Gospell doth establish, and not repeall the Morall Law, and so is perfect obedience commanded, and every sin forbidden, now, as exactly as under the Covenant of Works: But this is but an adjunct of the new Covenant and not a proper part of it: Neither is it on the same terms, or to the same ends, as in the first Covenant.
EXPLICATION.
THat the Morall Law is yet in force, I will not stand to prove, because so many have written of it already. See Mr. Anthony Burgesses Lectures: But to what ends, and in what sence the Gospell continueth that Law, and commandeth perfect obedience thereto, is a Question not very easie.
1. Whether Christ did first repeall that Law, and then re-establish it to other ends? So some think.
2. Or whether he hath at all made the Morall Law to be the preceptive part of the new Covenant? And so whether the new Covenant do at all command us perfect obedience? or only sincere?
3. Or whether the Morall Law be continued only as the precepts of the old Covenant, and so used by the new Covenant, meerly for a directive Rule?
To the first I answer; 1. That it is not repealed at all I have proved already, even concerning the Covenant of Works it self; and others enough have proved at large of the Morall Law. 2. Yet that Christ useth it to other ends, & for the advantage of his Kingdom, I grant.
To the other second Question, I answer; 1. That the Morall Law, as it is the perceptive part of the Covenant of works, is but delivered over into the hands of Christ, and so continued in the sence before expressed, seems plain to me.
2. That the same Morall Law doth therefore so continue to command even believers and that the perfect obeying of it is therefore their duty, and the not obeying their sin, deserving the death threatened in that Covenant.
3. That Jesus Christ hath further made use of the same Morall Law, for a direction to his Subjects, whereby they may know his Will. That whereas your sincere subjection and obedience to Christ, is part of the condition of the new Covenant; that we may know what his Will is, which we must endeavour to obey, and what Rule our actions must be sincerely fitted to, and guided by, he hath therefore left us this Morall Law as part of this direction, having added a more particular enumeration of some duties in his Gospel. That as when the old Covenant said, Thou shalt obey perfectly; the Morall Law did Partly tell them, wherein they should obey: So when the new Covenant saith, Thou shalt obey sincerely; the Morall Law doth tell us, wherein, or what we must endeavour to do.
4. But that the Morall Law, without respect to either Covenant, should command us perfect obedience; or that Christ, as the Mediator of the new Covenant, should command us not only sincere, but also perfect obedience to the Morall Law, and so hath made it a proper part of his Gospel, not only as a Directory and Instruction, but also as a Command: I am not yet convinced, (though I will not contend with any that think otherwise,) my Reason is, because I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to perform. If it were to convince us of our disability and sin, that is the work of the Law, and the continuing of it upon the old terms, as is before explained, is sufficient to that.
But I judge this Question to be of greater difficult then moment.
THESIS XXXII.
IF there be any particular sins against the new Covenant, which are not also against the old; or if any sins be considerable in any of their respects, as against the Gospel only, then Christs death was not to satisfie for any such sins so considered: For where no death is threatened, there none is explicitely due, nor should be executed; and where it is not so due to the sinner, nor should have been executed on him, there it could not be required of Christ, nor executed on him: But the Gospel threateneth not death to any sin, but final unbelief and rebellion, (and for that Christ never dyed, as I shall shew anon,) therefore Christ died not for any sin as against the Gospell, nor suffered that which is no where threatened.
EXPLICATION.
A Sin may be said to be against the Gospel, 1. As Christ and his Gospel are the object of it; 2. Or as it breaketh the conditions of the Gospel: In the latter sence only I here take it. To prove the point in hand, there needs no more then the Argument mentioned: For to all that unbelief, and other sins of the godly, which are forgiven, the Gospel doth no where threaten death; and therefore Christ could not bear it, as to satisfie the Gospel-threatening. Though I confess I have been long in this point of another judgment, while I considered not the Tenor of the Covenants distinctly; some further proof you shall have in the next conclusion. Read Heb. 9. 15.
THESIS XXXIII.
AS the Active Obedience of Christ was not the Righteousness of the second Covenant, or the performing of it. Conditions, but of the first, properly called a Legall Righteousness; so also his Passive Obedience and Merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of Works, but not at all for the violation of the Coven…nt of Grace for that there is no satisfaction made, and there remaineth no sacrifice.
EXPLICATION.
THat Christ did not fulfill the conditions of the new Covenant for us: I have proved already: That he hath not satisfied for its violation, I think to the considerate will need no proof: If you think otherwise, consider, 1. Christ is said to be made under the Law, & to have born the curse of the Law, & to have freed us from the curse of it, but no where is this affirmed of him in respect of the Gospel. 2. There be terms by him propounded upon which men must partake of the benefits of his Satisfaction; but these terms are onelyonly conditions of the new Covenant, therefore he never satisfied for the non-performance of those conditions. 3. If he did, upon what conditions is that satisfaction enjoyed by us? 4. But the Question is out of doubt, because that every man that performeth not the Gospel-conditions, doth bear the punishment himself in eternall fire, and therefore Christ did not bear it: So that as it was not so grievous a death which was threatened in the first Covenant, as that is which is threatened in the second; so it was not so grievous a kind of death which Christ did bear, as that is which finall unbelievers shall bear, (except as …he accumulation of sins of so many might increase it,) Therefore when we say, That Christ suffered in his Soul the pains of hell, or that which is equall; we must not mean the pains which is threatned in the Gospell, and the damned unbelievers must endure; but only of that death which the Law of Works did threaten. Wo therefore to the rebellious unbelieving world, that must bear this second death themselves: For of how much soever punishment shall they be thought worthy, who tread under foot the blood of the Covenant? Heb. 10. 29.
THESIS. XXXIV.
THe Covenant of Grace is not properly said to be violated, or its conditions broken, except they be finally broken: For the violation consisteth in non performance of the conditions, and if they are performed at last, they are truly performed, & if performed, then the Covenant is not so violated, as that the offendor should fall under the threatening thereof.
EXPLICATION.
I Deny not but the new Covenant may be said to be neglected, and sinned against, and the Command of Christ broken by our long standing out in unbelief, though we come home at last. But the Covenant conditions are not broken, when ever the precept of the Gospel is transgressed, or the Covenant neglected, except it be finall. The Condition is, Who ever believeth shall be saved, not limitting it to a particular season. Though both the precept of Christ, & common Reason requireth that we be speedy in the performance, because we have no promise that the day of Grace shall continue, and because our neglect will increase our disability, and our frequent resisting Will grieve the Spirit: So that the new Covenant doth not threaten death to every particular act of disobedience or unbelief, nor to any but what is finall, though the precept require that we believe immediately, and every degree of unbelief be forbidden.
THESIS XXXV.
YEt the sins of Beleevers against the Gospel Precepts have need of pardon, and are properly said to be pardoned, in reference to their deserved punishment; 1. Both because the punishment, which naturally and implicitely is due to them, is not so much as threatened in this gentle Covenant, and so becomes not explicitely due, or in point of Law. 2. But specially because the old Covenant condemning all sin, is yet unrepealed, which would be executed on us, even for our sins against GRACE, did not the efficacy of CHRISTS Satisfaction dayly interpose, which makes us therefore have continuall need of that Satisfaction.
EXPLICATION.
THis is layd down to prevent the Objection which might arise from the fore-going Doctrine: For many are ready to ask, If Christ dyed not for sin as it is against the Gospell-Covenant, then how are such sins pardoned to Beleevers? I answer, in the fore-expressed way: For certainly the Gospel cannot be said to remit the punishment which it never threatened, (further then as it is only implicitely due;) And that which it doth threaten it doth never remit.