Aphorismes of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of the covenants, satisfaction, righteousnesse, faith, works, &c. : published especially for the use of the church of Kederminster in Worcestershire / by their unworthy teacher Ri. Baxter.

THESIS XXX.

THere is no sin prohibited in the Gospel which is not a breach of some Precept in the Deca∣logue: 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 Co∣venant extendeth to all sin that then was, or after should be forbidden. God still reserved the preroga∣tive, of adding to his Laws, without altering the Co∣venant 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 men∣tion each particular duty in the Go∣spel, yet doth it command obedience to all that are or shall be specified; and expres∣seth 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 Un∣belief 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 suffi∣cient generall Rule for duty; but it doth not enumerate all the particular instituted spe∣cies. Yet here, the Gospell revealing these institutions, is not only the new Covenant it self; but the doctrine of Christ, which is an ad∣junct 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 ap∣pears 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 onely 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 Cove∣nant did not specifie each duty and sin: yet it doth condemn the sin when it is so speci∣fied. 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 impossi∣ble. 2. Unbelief, in respect of pardon and re∣covery, 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 be∣stoweth 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 diso∣beyeth, 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: Whe∣reupon the Land and Tenant and Lease are all delivered up to him, and he becomes Land∣lord. He findeth the Tenant (upon his forfei∣ture) 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 inter∣posed. 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 for∣mer 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 Cove∣nants.