Goodwill Towards Men, Part 1 · Section 20 – Section 22
Sect. 20.
PROP. XX. This is the direct and dreadful consequence, the sad and woful effect of Man's sin and breach of Covenant, that thence forward he can lay no claim to the promise, but immediately falleth under the curse and threatning annexed to it.
THe condition of the Covenant of works being nothing less than perfect obedience, one sin violates it on mans part, as well as a Thousand. Thus by one Act of disobedience man quite forfeited all his right and title to all good and happiness, which he had in present possession, or hoped for in regard of Gods promise, by one act of disobedience he brought himself under the curse. That according to the Tenor of this Covenant, after once he had sinned, he could no more expect any good at Gods hands for ever. And thus by sin man ruined himself, cast himself out of Gods favour, of a friend made himself an enemy, became subject to Divine wrath and vengeance, to all the miseries of this life, to death spiritual, and temporal, and eternal.
Here I may speak something to the Question, How far the Covenant of works is abrogated?
Ans. Here I fear not to assert, that we are all still bound to what the Covenant required; that is, to obey perfectly, though we are not bound up to it; that is, so bound up as to fall under the Sentence of Death unavoidably, and to have no hope of happiness, if we do not obey perfectly. I say we are not thus bound up to it; because there is a new Covenant set on foot. But that in some sence it is still in force, we must all grant, as roundly and confidently as some assert the repealing, and nulling of it.
1. As concerning the preceptive part, what God required of Man in that Covenant; it was no other than the Law of his Creation. As we are Men, as we are reasonable creatures, it is our indispensible duty to obey God in all things. I say by the Law of Creation we are bound to obey God in all things; and that Law continues to oblige us, so long as we are creatures.
Some tell us believers are freed not only from the condemning, Mar. of Mal. die. p. 148.but from the commanding power of the Covenant of works. Now I would ask such, Is it not every Man's duty still to obey God in all things? If so, then by what Law? Doth the Law of Faith insist upon perfect obedience? Or is not this the demand of the Law of works? Though we are not bound to keep the Law of God in all things necessitate medii, as the condition of life, yet we are bound necessitate praecepti, so that we sin whensoever we transgress it in any thing: And either believers are under the commanding power of the Law, requiring perfect Obedience, (though Christ hath power again, according to his superadded Law of Grace, to suspend and take off the Penalty) or they do not sin, in not yielding perfect obedience, and so need no pardon. Where there is no Law, there is no transgression; and where is no transgression, there needeth no pardon. So Christ should not have procured pardon for the sins of believers, but rather this priviledge of exemption from the strict Obligation of the Law, that what are sins in others, are no sins in believers. If it be said, the Law requiring perfect obedience is still in force, but only as it is in the hand of Christ. I answer, it did not cease to be Gods Law, in becoming the Law of Christ.
But thus you must say, the preseptive part of the Covenant of works (being the Law of Man's Creation) is still in force. It being eternally the bounden duty of a Creature to obey its Maker in all things.
2. As to the minatory part as it threatned death to every sin, determined and declared the punishment due to sin and sinners. (And a threatning as a threatning, doth no more, doth not necessarily predict the event) we must say this is still in force, or deny that sin now deserves legally what God threatned unto Adam. It is a very gross mistake for any to think that the sins of believers do not deserve hell and wrath. The reatus simplex, a dueness of punishment to sin, is ever inseperable from sin. And so by the Old Original Law, that punishment is due to the person of the sinner Only here steps in a Remediant Law, a Law of Grace, that sayes, if thou art a true believer, if thou art one that truly repents, the punishment is not to be inflicted upon thee; for Christ hath satisfyed, and his satisfaction God hath accepted for thee; But I pray mark it, if the old Original Law be not in force, to charge guilt upon us, we have no need of a discharge in, and from the Gospel, what need of a discharge from that, which no Law can charge us with? so we must say, a believer hath no sins to be pardoned. For a pardon does necessarily and essentially import a dissolving of the Obligation to punishment. Now there can be no Obligation to punishment, where the penal Law is no more in force: And where there can be no Obligation to punishment, there cannot be properly any dissolving of that Obligation; and so properly there can be no pardon.
Thus you see to what issue the matter is brought, if we should deny the old Law in force, as threatning death to every sin, scil. consequently we deny that there can be such a thing as pardon.
3. As to the promissory part of the Covenant of works, or Law of Innocency, that cannot be said to be abrogated, but only ceaseth, cessante capacitate subditi, since the fall Man is no capable subject. For a Man to be a sinner, and yet to be capable of claiming life and happiness by the Law of Innoceucy, is indeed a plain contradiction. Such a Law, or Covenant, when once the condition becomes naturally impossible (as learned Mr. Baxter somewhere noteth) transit in Sententiam, it ceaseth to promise in this case, and instead of that, passeth Sentence upon men. Yet cannot sinners blame God, that righteousness and life come not this way, as if the failure was in his promise. No, it is in themselves, their not answering the condition; when Christ (a capable subject) came, the Law of innocency justified him, and so it would justifie us, supposing we were, and did all, which the Law requireth. So much seemeth to be implyed in that speech of our Saviour to one that desired to justifie himself, (saying, what shall I do to inherit Eternal life, whereupon, Christ to give him enough, referreth him to the Law, [This do, (obey perfectly) and thou shalt live.] Luk. 10.25.28. not that any man ever did, or ever can attain to life and happiness by the works of the Law. Certainly, the Romanists are quite mistaken in the scope of our Saviour's speech here, who cry out, Hear, O ye Lutherans, the Lord Christ saith not, Crede & vives: sed, fac hoc, Not [believe, and live] but [do this, and live.] Daring wretches, that to stablish their own proud Opinions, would have Jesus Christ to contradict himself. Rather the design of our Saviour's speech was to convince a man of his own inability, to save himself. And yet this seemeth to be implyed in it, that if there was any one in the world, Lex non falso salutem promittit suis cultoribus, si quis plene observet quicquid. Mandat. Coelo.every way such as the Law of God requireth to be, suppose such an one as is failing and deficient in nothing, and then [Do this, and live] would entitle him to life and happiness, such an one should attain to happiness without Christ, or pardoning grace, in as much as he had no need of a pardon. But seeing it is naturally impossible, that sinners (and we are all sinners) should ever attain to the condition of the Covenant of works, which is full conformity and perfect Obedience to Gods will, therefore that promise is indeed ceased as to us.
But to think that Man's sin could abrogate the Covenant, that God had made, is very unreasonable. As if a man could satisfie and discharge a Bond by forfeiture. As if a subject by breaking the Law, could make himself lawless. He may thereby deprive himself of the benefit & protection of the Law, it's true, but cannot exempt himself from the Duty of Subjection to it. Again, to think that God would abrogate it, and take Man's failing in his duty, as a ground of excusing him from his duty, is as unreasonable. Then might one not have said, Noli ergo imperare, now give up the Government of the world.
Again, to think that Christ would give himself, and improve his interest for the abrogation of it, would be an unworthy reflection on him. As if in his office and undertaking, as Mediator, he had not carried equally, indifferently consulting the Interests of both parties, with the like real tenderness. As if he had not been as true to his Father's honour, in preserving his right in, and authority over his creatures, as to his peoples safety; but did too partially incline to us, though the offending party.
It was enough for the securing of the salvation, and happiness of his redeemed ones, that he procured a new Law of Grace written in his own blood, [That all that believe in him should be justified, and saved,] notwithstanding the old Original Law continued still in force.
Nay, I tell you Christians, this does advance and set forth the free Grace of God, and exalt the praise and merits of your Redeemer; that for his sake, your sincere, though weak, imperfect obedience is accepted, from whom yet perfect Obedience is is as due to God, as from any; and that for his sake your sins are pardoned, which are as properly sins, and as truly deserve hell and wrath as the sins of any.
Thus I say, there is no reason to think, the first Original Law is made void by the after remediant Law. For both may stand in force together; as that strict Law given to the Common-wealth of the Jews, for putting Transgressors to death; to which was superadded this Law of Grace, that in such and such cases the Law-giver, the Rector did admit of a Commutation, that upon offering a Beast in Sacrifice, the Transgressor's life should be spared (though forfeited by the Law) Lev. 5.17, 18. So this Original Law, whosoever stands indebted to another, shall satisfie his Creditor, or be liable to an arrest, and to be cast into Prison, remains in force; notwithstanding we suppose such a relieving Law as this made afterwards, That if any person in Debt, shall serve in the Wars, &c. while they are so imployed for the publick, they shall be protected from any arrest. These instances may help to clear the Question I am upon, especially the former.
Many think, that because the Law of works serves not to the same use and end, for which it was given to Man in the state of Integrity, therefore it must needs be abrogated, that we are no more obliged by it. Not considering that the reason why righteousness and life cannot come by the Law, is not any weakness in the Law, but our weakness and incapacity to fulfil it. The Law of Ceremonies indeed cannot justifie, because of its weakness. (For it is not possible, that the blood of Bulls and Goats, should take away sins, Heb. 10.4.) But the Law of righteousness, which I am speaking of, were it not for Man's weakness, would justifie. Therefore that we cannot be justifyed by the Law of works now, let us not lay the fault on the Law, but on our selves.
Truely, I cannot but wonder at some, that would have this a Question of great difficulty, but of little moment whether the Law of works, given to Adam, continue in force to all Mankind; methinks it is of very great moment, so that if we suppose the abrogation of it, we give the Antinomian no little Advantage. And methinks it is very plain, that it must continue to bind Man (obedience to God in all things being no more than he is for ever obliged to, as he is a creature) though for non-performance of such obedience as that Law requires, God is not bound to Man by that Law.
I conclude therefore the Law of works is still in force, that none of us can say, If we obey God sincerely, we pay him all we owe, he requires no more; we cannot say that our sins do not legally deserve Eternal death; but only that though the Law of God looks upon us as sinners, and condemns our sins, as well as the first sin of Adam, yet this we may plead against the Execution of the sentence, and condemnation of the Law. There is also a new Law of Grace, an Act of General Indempnity and Oblivion which Christ hath procured, which God hath passed, that frees us from the curse and penalty of our sins, if we repent, believe, obey the Gospel, i. e. if we lay hold on the Grace offered to us, with an unfeigned desire and resolution to live and be, as this Grace that bringeth Salvation teacheth us.
Sect. 21.
PROP. XXI. When God threatned man, [that in the day he sinned, or disobeyed, he should surely dye, or dying he should dye,] this will not prove the full execution of the threatning, was immediately to attend Man's first transgression; but that Death, and all miseries included in it, were immediately due by Law.
THat he should be punishable. Illud [morieris] non significat. Actum moriendi sed debitum. As we must not understand the prohibition [Thou shalt not eat] as a prediction or declaration, as touching matter of event. But the meaning is, thou mayest not eat, it shall not be lawful for thee; so neither are we to understand the threatning, [in the day thou eatest, dying, thou shalt dye] as a prediction of what should immediately come to pass. Nec enim statim mortuus Adamus est, Whittak. de Peccat. Orig. p. 39.sed statim tamen reus mortis factus, & morte dignissimus. When Solomon threatned Shimei, 1 Kings 2.37. [on the day thou goest out, thou shalt surely dye] the meaning is, thy life shall be accounted forfeited.
Though I grant, as soon as Man had sinned, he became mortal, and began to dye, yet the threatning, as a threatning, does not foretell certain matter of event; but only declare what punishment was due. And suppose the Death threatned here, was to have been immediately inflicted, as soon as our first Parents had sinned, then there had been no natural generation. Then the guilt and punishment had no way reached his Posterity; because so he should have had no posterity.
Here you may observe a great difference between a threatning and a promise; he who hath a promise made to him, may lay claim to the thing promised; he hath a right by vertue of the promise. Men sometimes sue upon a promise, and Justice gives them the thing in kind, or value, the promise being proved; one is bound to do, as he promiseth, not alwayes to do as he threatneth. There may be reason to relax the punishment, that was threatned. A Rector that hath power in his Laws to set down and determine what punishment shall be due to the Transgressors; he hath also power above the Law in some cases to respite, or take off the punishment; otherwise there could be no such thing as Pardon. No Rector can be said to pardon an offender, but when he remits the punishment legally due.
Yet I grant, it becomes not the Wisdom of a Governour to relax his Laws (supposing them good and Just) to remit the penalty lightly, or without good consideration; for so the Law would soon lose its Authority; Men would be imboldened to transgress, the end of Government would not be carried on. It is a clear case, that God the righteous Governour of the world, would not remit the penalty without a most valuable consideration; as Christ must dye in our stead.
And one thing further must be granted, that sometimes threatnings do not only declare meritum paenae in peccante, & jus puniendi in comminante, a desert of punishment in him that offends, and a right of punishing in him that commandeth and threatneth; but also the irrevocable decree, & purpose of the Rector to inflict the said punishment. Thus God threatned Eli & his house, Ahab & his house; thus the sin & blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is threatned; and so all that continue finally impenitent and unbelieving are threatned: Such threatnings are not a meer Sanction of the precept, but a signification, or Revelation of Gods purpose, shewing not only what he justly may, but what peremptorily he will inflict.
Sect. 22.
PROP. XXII. The Penalty threatned in the Covenant of works, was neither fully executed (for then all Mankind had been utterly ruined) nor absolutely remitted (for then none were liable to Death and Condemnation by that Covenant.) but relaxed.
THe Penalty taken off in some part from Man in general; whence it is, that sinners, such as are under the Covenant of works, have some lineaments (as it were) of God's Image, some remainder, or remembrances of it still, and some common mercies. And the penalty more fully taken off from believers. And that upon most wise, and weighty Reasons, the satisfaction of Christ being a sufficient Motive, and the manifestation of Gods rich and free Grace, a glorious end of his so doing.
Now whether the Reprival of sinners be a fruit of Christ's satisfaction, and whether they owe all their common mercies to Christ's Mediatory undertaking, I will not take upon me to determine; But that any of the Sons and Daughters of Adam are pardoned and discharged, that believers are justified and saved, this must needs be ascribed unto Jesus Christ, the second Adam, and his meritorious satisfaction.