The Covenant Sealed, Section 6
SECT. VI. Ʋnbelief and Impenitence in profeſſed Chriſtians are violations of the Covenant of Grace.
THe next you enter upon is, a Query, How far unbelief and impenitence in profeſſed Chriſtians are violations of the new Covenant: Oppoſing your ſelf againſt that Poſition of mine, Chap. 33. Pag. 245. [The men in impenitency and unbelief, that lie in ſin, and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Chriſt, live in a continuall breach of Covenant] Here you confeſſe that I cite no words of yours, and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended againſt you. To which I ſay, that it is intended againſt all that deny what in the Poſition is aſſerted; which you ſeem to do, Aphor. Theſ. 34. Pag. 163 Where you ſay, That the Covenant of grace is not properly ſaid be violated, or its conditions broken, except they be finally broken. But before I enter upon the thing it ſelf,Men in finall unbelief and impenitency in Covenant with God. a give me leave to aſſume thus much out of your own mouth; That men in finall unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God; This is clear; They that break Covenant, and render themſelves properly guilty of the violation of if, are in Covenant. The breach of promiſe preſuppoſes making of a promiſe, and b…each of Covenant preſuppoſes entrance into Covenant, Jer. 34.18. The Lord threatneth thoſe that traſgreſſed his Covenant, and had not performed the words of Covenant: And thoſe that thus tranſgreſſed Covenant, did likewiſe, as wee ſee there, enter into Covenant: But theſe as you affirm, break Covenant, and render themſelves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it: Therefore it follows, that they are in Covenant. And, as the Covenant is, that they tranſgreſſe; ſuch the Covenant is, that they enter; They do not enter one Covenant, and tranſgreſſe another; They tranſgreſſe a reall, and not equivocall, halfe-erring Covenant: It is therefore a reall, and not an equivocall, halfe-erring Covenant that they enter. And as this clearly follows from hence; ſo that from you proſition that immediatly goes before it, [That Chriſts paſſive obedience and merit was only to ſatisfie for the violation of the Covenant of works, but no at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace] it clearly follows,Univerſall Redemption overthown. That there is no univerſall Redemption by Chriſts Death or ſatisfaction. If Chriſt died not for ſatisfaction of their ſin, that ſtand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace, then he died not for the ſins of all: This is clear. But, according to you, he died not to make ſatisfaction for their ſin, that thus ſtand guilty; Therefore he died not for the ſins of all. Yea it will follow, that he dyed for the leſſer part only, of thoſe that make profeſſion of his name: Seeing the greater part die in impenitency, and unbelief. Yea, it will follow, that he dyed for the Elect only; For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect: All others die in impenitency and unbelief. I do not here go about to diſpute the thing, but only obſerve, that all that Amyraldus hath gone about to ſet up, concerning univerſall Redemption, with ſuch high applauſe of yours, is by this poſition utterly overthrown. For the aſſertion which in the place mentioned I have laid down, that [impenitence and unbelief in profeſſed Chriſtians is a breach of Covenant] I need ſay no more, then that which I have ſpoke, there having been nothing replyed to that which I have ſaid. My argument in the place quoted,Arguments evincing that impenitence and unbelief in profeſſed Chriſtians are violation of Covenant. in brief was this; [They that engage in Covenant to believe in Chriſt, and forſake their ſin, break Covenant by a life in unbelief, and ſin: But all profeſſed Chriſtians engaged by Covenant to believe in Chriſt, and to forſake their ſin: Therefore all profeſſed Chriſtians, by unbelief and ſin break Covenant] I only here add, If unbelief and impenitence be not breaches or violations of Covenant properly ſo called, then finall unbelief and impenitence is no breach or violation of Covenant properly ſo called. This is clear. Finall perſeverance in unbelief and impenitence is no more, then a continuance of the ſame poſture or ſtate of Soul Godward, in which they before ſtood, in impenitence and unbelief; As Perſeverance in Faith and Repentance, is the continuance of Faith and Repentance.Explicatory diſtinctions examined. If then finall unbelief and impenitence be a breach of the Covenant of grace, then all unbelief and impenitence, denominating a man, an unbelieving and impenitent perſon, is a breach of Covenant likewiſe. For the clearing of your meaning, which is all that you do in this queſtion, you diſtinguiſh, firſt of the Word [Covenant:] Secondly, of the word, [Violation.] You ſay, The word [Covenant] is ſometimes taken for Gods Law made to his creature, containing precepts, promiſes, and threatnings: Sometimes for man's promiſe to G…d. [Violation,] You ſay, is taken, either rigidly for one that in judgement is eſteemed a non-performer of the condition, or laxly, for one that in judgement is found a true performer of the condition, but did neglect, or refuſe the performance for a time. You apply both theſe diſtinctions: Taking the word Covenant in the latter ſenſe, you ſay that you have affirmed, that man breaks many a Covenant with God: yea even the Baptiſmal vow it ſelf, is ſo broken, till men do truly repent, and believe. To which I reply, That it is no other then the Baptiſmall vow, or Covenant, that we are to enquire into. Baptiſme is, as Circumciſion was, a ſeal of the Covenant: In Baptiſme then we engage to the terms of the Covenant, and till we repent and believe, by your own confeſſion, we break this Covenant. But taking the word [Covenant] ſay you, in the former ſenſe, i. e. for Gods precepts, promiſes and threatnings, and [Ʋiolation] in the latter ſenſe, for one that in Judgment (that is at the day of Judgment) is eſteemed a non performer of the conditions, ſo, you ſay, None violate the Covenant but finall Ʋnbelievers and impenitent, that is, (as you explaine it) No other are the proper ſubject of its peremptory curſe or threatning. But Good Sir, reflect upon this explanation of yours, and in a more ſerious way, yet conſider of it. To help your ſelf out; you refer mans violation of Covenant, not to his own promiſe or engagement, in which he ſtands in duty tyed, but to Gods engagements, containing his promiſes and threatnings, and to violate Gods promiſe or threatning, (which you here implye to be done by Covenant-breakers) ſcarce carries ſenſe with it. We may incur his threatning, or miſſe of his promiſe; but we do not violate either his promiſe or threatning. Violation of Gods precept is diſobedience, of which Pharaoh, a man never in Covenant, was guilty, but no violation or breach of Covenant, where there is no voluntary engagement. Our engagement is neceſſity to make it up into a Covenant, and our violation of our engagements, to make it a breach of Covenant. Was ever any charged with breach of Covenant, in breaking not his own, but the condition of the other Conanting party? Jſrael was under a Law to let their Hebrew. Servants go free, the ſeaventh year, Exod. 21.2. In Zedekiah's time, they ſerv'd themſelves of them beyond that terme. Here was the tranſgreſſion of a Law, but no breach of any particular Covenant. But when they entred Covenant with God to do that which Law required, and ratified it by cutting a Calfe in twaine, paſſing through the parts of it; and again, ſerved themſelves of them; here was a breach of Covenant.
So that the violation that you ſpeak of (if you may call it a violation) is no Covenant-violation. Every man that breaks a Covenant, breaks his own; and not anothers part, in the Covenant.
And whereas you will have that to be a violation of Covenant, laxly, and not rigidly taken,Impenitent perſons in the moſt ſtrict and proper ſenſe are Covenant-breakers. wh…n one doth negl…ct or refuſe the performance for the time, but in judgment (that is in the day of Judgment) is found a true performer of the conditions; to me it is very ſtrange, upon a ſeverall account. Firſt, I ſuppoſe you mean his own conditions to which he ſtandes engaged, which for a time he thus neglect…, and not Gods; And you ſo ſpoile all that before you ſpake of Covenant-violations, reſpective to promiſes and threatnings. Secondly, Such a one, in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, is a man guilty of breach of Covenant during ſuch time of his neglect or refuſall. Was not that younger Son of his Father, mentioned Luk. 15. properly and in the moſt rigid ſenſe, a prodigal, when he waſt…d his ſubſtance with ritotous living, notwithſtanding that he was after reclaimed to a more frugall courſe? And was not ſhee alſo that was a ſinner in the City, Luk. 7. truly a ſinner, or only in a laxe ſenſe, becauſe ſhe afterwards repented? Was not the penitent Thief, as truly, and in as rigid a ſenſe, a Thief, when he ſtole, as he that ſtole and repented not? And ſo he that lives in breach of promiſe with God, is as truly a breaker of Covenant, notwithſtanding following Repentance, as thoſe that live and die impenitent. I know therefore, no other way of explanation of your ſelf to your Readers ſatisfaction, but to ſay, that the Covenant of grace is not finally violated unleſſe the conditions be finally broke. Who ever doubted, but when a ſinner repents, the doom which is paſſed againſt him for ſin, is reverſt? And that Paul a perſecutor, not in a laxe, but in rigid ſenſe, afterwards building the faith that he deſtroyed, ſhall not appear in Judgment as a perſecutor. And ſo he that is, as truly and in no laxe ſenſe, a Covenant-breaker, being by grace brought in to keep Covenant in the day of Judgment ſhall be reputed and eſteemed a man faithful in Covenant.