and to make his authority the greater to deceive 6. Whether he offends not here and elsewhere against the rule of the Apostle who enjoyneth upon all to take heed of high thoughts of themselves and to be wise to sobriety Rom. 12. 3. i. e. not to mount above their reach and measure And what shall be accounted a wisedom without and against sobriety if not that which intrudeth it self into the things of God which it hath pleased him not to reveal pretending an ability with the key of secular learning to unlock the Cabinet of â—ods Counsells to which the most glorious Angels never dared to approach The Christian Spirit is the meek and modest Spirit where the Scripture is not the instructor contents it self to be ignorant concluding with Tertullian Quis revelabit Tert. lib. de Anima fere in Principio quod Deus texit unde sciseitandum est unde ignorare tutissimum est Praestat per Deum nescire quia non Revelaverit quam per hominem scire quia ipse presumpserit i. e. Who shall reveal what God hath covered whence in such case shall we make enquiry â—ea hence to be ignorant is most fafe It is better not to know by the will of God because he hath not revealed it than to seem to know by man because he hath presumed 7. Whether he doth not cross another precept of the Apostle 1 Tim. 6. 20. peculiarly appropriated to all Ministers under the name and person of Timothy O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust avoyding prophane and vain bablings and oppositions of science falsly so called He cannot none can deny the thing committed to Timothies trust to be the Gospel in its verity purity and simplicity This therefore he is charged to keep to make it his business to preserve it alive and inviolated within him to keep and hold himself closely to it without deviating to any other studies as helpfull to salvation Therefore to avoid vain bablings and oppositions of science falsly so called Neither will Mr. Baxter deny and all Commentators affirm the thing to be avoyded here to be sophisticall and philosophical disputes which if intermixed with the Doctrine of the Gospel are here termed prophane and vain babling which hath the name and opinion of science or wisdom in the opinion of men but is falsly so called and reputed Doth not Mr. Baxter here see himself set aside by the Holy Ghost for a prophane and vain babler and his learning and wisdom exploded as shady and false having nothing of substance and truth in it 8. Whether he doth not by this way of disputing as much as in him is uncanonize and make void the word For if he hold with the Apostle that the holy Scripture is sufficient and able to make men wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus 2 Tim. 3. 15. why doth he not stick to it what els doth his so oft and foul digressions from it to fetch ayd from his sophistry but argue that he holds the Scripture to be invalid to save and that there is either an equall or greater power in his sophistry to make men wise and perfect to salvation 9. Whether it doth not bewray his Cause to be naught that he knows it to be naught therfore seeks to bear it up with such slights feats as a good Cause needeth not When we see a house propped up on every side at every end with posts stakes and pillars who concludes not surely it is a ruinous and rotten building that needs so many supporters It is not for the maintenance of the Aphorism or Doctrine which Mr. Baxter doth here pretendedly explicate that he doth tye knots and unty them bind and loose with such a hurry of questions and distinctions This doctrine stands firm enough upon its own bottom Conscious he is therefore of a rotten building which he means in the following part of this Treatise to erect and therefore furnisheth himself with so many posts and stakes to under-prop it It is well observed by Mr. Pemble out of Erasmus Malè res agitur ubi opus est tot remedijs It is a certain Pemb. of Justis Sect. 2. Cap. 1 p. 37. sign of an untrue opinion when it must be bolstered up with so many distinctions And if the Cause be naught and the defender know it yet persists to defend it then are the Cause and the man both alike 10. Whether this kind of Argumentation doth not declare Mr. Baxter to be of another spirit from Christ and his Apostles Christ came into the world to preach the Gospel to the poor Lu. 4. 18. to give sight to the blind that they which see not might see Joh. 9. 39. And Paul discended low nurslike with flattering speech unto the weak as to babes in Christ feeding them with milk and not with meat untill they became capable to digest it 1 Cor. 2. 1. 4 3. 1 2. likewise also the rest of the Apostles But this man soareth on high unto the upmost region of the Airy element above the kenn and reach of weak Christians such as he acknowledgeth them for the greatest part to be for whose sake chiefly he wrote this speaking not to the comprehension of any save of such windy ones as himself at least to the delight of no other so elevated seems he with the vain-glory of his own excellencies And do not these contrary operations somwhat argue a contrary spirit moving him I mean contrary to that which moved in Christ and his Apostles 11. Whether it tends not to the quenching of the comfort and hazzarding of the salvation of weak Christians 1 to the quenching of their comfort For when from the pure word of God not sophisticated with the intermixture of mans wisedom and inventions they have attained to believe and joy in believing and living by faith in Christ rejoyce in the grace and light of Gods countenance shining upon them thorow him meeting with Mr. Baxters work and finding therein so holy so incomparable a man for learning and piety scattering so many doubts and puzling questions about the very beginning foundation of our redemption that himself cannot answer himself otherwise than by conjectures peradventure it may be thus and it may be it is so The poor souls are apt to fall foul upon themselves for that they have been so audacious to believe any thing seeing now so many doubts and uncertainties and to account all their former joyes in Christ to be a delusion and being unable to make out the mystery of their redemption to themselves in his sophisticall way they lye down and sink under the burthen of their sorrow as hopeless It tends to the hazzarding of their salvation also For while he goes about to make them philosophicall Christians Popish and Socinian Christians to live not by faith but by sense not by the word of Gods mouth but by reason so far only to believe as they see reasons
by Christs repenting beleeving c. his satisfying of Gods justice by his expiatory sacrifice for the failings of our Faith and Repentance at they held not up to the Lawes perfection I dislike it no less then Mr. B. But can we conjecture that Mr. Saltmarsh himself was not the first that disliked it and all the rest both good and bad of what he wrote in that Tractate I have been told by some of his godly acquaintance that the man had a naturall impotency of crazines in his brain And the whirlwind of imaginations wherewith he was carried to a hasty taking up of opinions and no les hasty hurling away of them again the much of the top and the little of the bottom of wit the flashes of nimblenes and the want of solidity and depth which he shewed in his writings his inconsistency with himself with others with the Scriptures his exâ—reme mutability and roving from Tropick to Tropick without settledness any where do in great measure prove the report to be true And if so he is to be pittied though his infirmities are not to be patronized However this extravagancy of his into so loos and careless expressions doth neither justifie Mr. B. Tenents nor ought to â—rejudice the Truth from which Mr. B. or any other hath erred Neither doth Mr. B. captiousnes so null my charity as to enteâ—â—ain the least conjecture that ever Master Saltmarsh meant or thought that Christ had sinne to repent of or beleeved to obtein the pardon thereof Here now wee finde Master Baxter returning from his irefull pursuit of his imaginary not reall Antinomians and of a dead mans Ghost that could neither see nor hear him And when hee reviews what he had written hee sees it neither holpen nor amended by his hot words spent upon the wind He had affirmed that there is a two-fold Righteousnesse necessary to our Justification one the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed to us the other a personall Righteousnesse or Righteousnesse of our owne inherent in our selves And to this our own Righteousnesse had attributed an equall power with the Righteousnesse of Christ to our Justification if not a power above and superiour to it This assertion of his he perceives to savour so much of humane arrogance and to use his own words to be a self-exalting horrid Doctrine of so high a nature and so contradictory to the whole Tenor of the Gospel that a short affected brawl with No-bodies and dead men cannot turn away the hatred which all that know and love the Lord Jesus must needs conceive against it Hee is therefore in a streight cure it he cannot revoke it he will not Therefore in stead of a better shift he posteth to the Monks Jesuits borrows their either Cowl or Cloak to cover the deformity of it And good reason have they to stead him for it is their cause in his hand viz. Justification by our own personal Righteousness that hath streightened him Let us now see what he brings from them to us to make their assertion from his pen tolerable B. Thes 21. 115. Not that wee can perform these conditions without Grace for without Christ we can doe nothing But that he enableth us to perform them our selves and doth not himself repent beleeve love Christ obey the Gospel for us as he did satisfie the Law for us B. Explication This prevention of an objection I adde because some think it is a self-ascribing and derogating from Christ to affirm our selves to bee but the Actors of those duties though we professe to doe it onely by the strength of Grace But that it is Christ that repenteth and beleeveth not we is language somewhat strange to those that have been used to the language of Scripture or Reason Though I know there is a sort of sublime Platonick Plotinian Divines sprung up of late among us who think all things to bee but one c. We find in Scripture that as Christ hath his Mystery so hath Antichrist his Mystery also And that this latter is a Mystery of iniquity 2 Thess 2. 7. and Mystery Babylon the great c. And it is somewhat mysterious and strange that the materials of this Babel-building will not hold and close together without Babel slime to cement it Mr. Baxter would fain have fortified and fastened together the gaping chinks of this Babel with his owne morter But it will not hold therefore is he forced ever and anon to make use of the proper slime which the former Builders have left for them that come after to repair so doth hee in this place None of his own sHifts and tricks could hide the menstruousness and monstrousness of his Doctrine this Pall from Rome doth it no less perfectly then the Fig-leaf Aprons covered the nakedness and filthiness of our first Progenitors from the eye of God It sounded before so dreadfully as it was enough to make the ears of a true Christian to tingle at the hearing that Our own righteousnesse must goe foot by foot with Christs righteousnesse to our Justification but that which Mr. Baxter brings here from Rome takes off the ghastlyness and makes all smooth and himself in what he hath said no less amiable then he that had the Lambs horns but the voice of the Dragon Rev. 13. 11. How should it bee otherwise when all the glory is ascribed to Gods Grace and to the Spirit and Power of Christ so saith he Wee are justified in part by our own righteousnes indeed yet Not that we performe in this Righteousnesse which he termeth these conditions without Grace for without Christ wee can doe nothing but hee enableth us to perform them c. And in the Explication This prevention of an objection I adde because some thinke it a self-ascribing and derogating from Christ to affirm our selves to bee the Actors of these duties though we professe to doe it only by the strength of Grace Now when Mr. Baxter hath thus sayd and professed what reason can there be given why he should not bee thought as honest and innocent as the proudest Popish Prelates Jesuits and Friars that in answer to this objection which Mr. Baxter preventeth here have said and professed the same thing over and over many hundred times In stead of them all which even to name with their words abbreviated would fil a volumne I shall mention some few only First the Popish glosse thus speaketh Opera nostra quatenus nostra Glosa ordinaria in cap. 6. ad Rom. ver 23. sunt vim nullam Justificandi obtinent quatenus verò non à nobis sunt sed in nobis à Deo facta sunt per Gratiam Justificationem promerentur i. e. Our works as farre as they are ours have no power to justifie but as farre as they are not from us but wrought of God by Grace in us so they deserve justification In the same manner our English Jesuit Campian is recorded in the dispute which hee had with some of our English
to melt out his mercy in justifying us How then was he in Christ reconciling the world to himself before all such actuall intercession and prayers 2 Cor. 5. 19. 6. The like might I say of his objective and occasionall causes that objects and occasions have their being and qualifications from Gods either directive or promissive providence that they may serve to his eternall and absolute volsitions and purposes not that they work any new thing in the will and purposes of God for then like the Masse-priests should they be the creators of their Creator 4. To his second Question Why he cals Christs satisfaction both the Meritorious cause and the Causa sine qua non If he had not I should not have made it a question But because he delighteth both to put the question and to answer it I shall not permit his answer wholly to passe without a short reply B. Pag. 215. That it is the Meritorious cause I know few but Socinians that will deny He must needs mean few Baxterians that are not also Socinians i. e. few of them that with him deny justification to be an eternall immanent act in God For Mr. Baxter himself whether he be or be not a Socinian will and must grant that if justification be and as far as it is an eternall immanent act in God Christs satisfaction neither is nor can be the Meritorious cause thereof But as we look to the justification as in time applyed and declared to the soul and conscience which Mr. Baxter calleth the justification of the new Covenant and the Scriptures justification by faith of this justification I will not contend with him but Christs satisfaction though no where in the word totidem verbis so termed yet may enough properly be termed the Meritorious cause But why he will also have it called the Causa sine qua non a blinde man may easily see his reason what else doth he drive at but to put it in the same order of Causality with faith and good works which also in the whole sequele of this Treatise is with him the Causa sine qua non and consequently to make Christs sufferings and mans qualifications collaterall causes of Justification Hereunto pertaineth his extolling the cause sine qua non and exalting the praise thereof above other causes Pag. 216 217. not so much to attribute it to Christs satisfaction as preparatively to deifie and equalize with Christ the meritorious perfection of mans righteousnesse which he is bringing in as a rivall of Christ for the honor of justification and herein he will rather turn Cynick then leave the praise of man in his justification any one inch beneath the praise of Christ For hereunto pertaines his Quare me non laudas qui dignus sum ut accipiam Plus enim est meruisse quam dedisse beneficium If God be to be praised for giving justification why not I that am worthy to receive it for it is more honourable to have deserved then to have given a Benefit How well this agreeth with that which he hath in and under his 24 26 27. Theses I leave the Reader to consider and how fully he speaks it out in the following doctrine of this book we shall see more fully afterward Yea when he here puts Christs satisfaction in the same kind of causality with faith and works which he here cals the Causa sine qua non elsewhere the conditions of justification and Thesis 62. pronounceth faith to be the principall and works the lesse principall condition what place doth he leave for Christs satisfaction but to be a footstool to our faith and works Ob. Yes he reserves the entire praise of merit still to Christs satisfaction alone Answ Not so for though in words he sometimes asserteth Christs satisfaction to be the merit of our justification yet he makes the worthinesse of our own righteousnesse to be that which makes both Christs merit and justification merited to be ours and so we out-merit Christ deserving not only justification but Christ the meriter and the merit of Christ to be made ours In this he is worse then the Papists They give the praise of our mâ—rit to Christ he hath merited saith they a power â—o our works to merit This man contrariwise that neither Christs merits nor justification the fruit of it becomes ours untill we by our merits and worthinesse have put our selves into the possession of it so according to the Papists the efficacy of mans merits depends upon Christs merits according to Mr. Baxter the efficacy of Christs merits as to this or that justifyed person depends upon a mans own merits as in the fore quoted Thesis he manifesteth himself Let all men judge whether his ambition bends not to be more then an approver even an eminent improver of Popery 5. To his third question somewhat also In the Thesis where he gives us the order of the causes of justification to set up his own not Gods justification he saith B. Materiall cause properly it hath none if you will improperly call Christs satisfaction the remote matter I contend not And in the explication pa. 214. against what he had said in the Thesis he supposeth it will be questioned B. 3. Why he makes not Christs righteousnesse the Materiall cause And pag. 217. He thus answers the question B. Christs righteousnesse cannot be the materiall cause of an act which hath no matter If any will call Christs righteousnesse the matter of our righteousnesse though yet they speak unproperly yet far neerer the truth then to call it the matter of our justification We have here as elsewhere a Momus among the Gods a curious and carping Critick against not only Ecclesiasticall but Canonicall writings also no farther owning what they speak then as they speak it in a dialecticall dialect so setting Aristotle above Christ and weighing all the sentences of the Gospell in the scales of Logicall terms and maxims and Socinus-like submitting all the truths of the Gospell to reason yea to the rules of Aristotles logick or reason Justification is an act saith he and there is no matter of an act ergo it hath no materiall cause Christ therefore and his Apostles yea all the Doctors of the Church that speak after the Scriptures are dunces delivering a vain Theologie not truely Theologicall because not after the Peripateticks precepts totally Logicall But what law of Medes and Persians can binde the holy Ghost never to mention justification but strictly under the consideraration of an act Will Mr. Baxter deny it sometimes to be used in a passive sense Or what he saith of faith Thesis 62. may it not more truly be affirmed of justification That as a whole Country oft takes it name from the chief City so may all the privileges and benefits of the Gospell from justification so that when it is named all the rest are implyed and named under it The thing in question I acknowledge Mr. Baxter granting what he grants is
He tells us he knows no one word in St. Paul or the Bible that hath any strong appearance of contradiction to his Doctrine To which I answer 1 That wee look not to appearances whether they be weak or strong But if there be not strong Contradictions in the doctrine of the Apostle and of the Gospel to his there is no cause of dissenting from him 2 Who more blind and ignorant than hee that will not know and see 3 No marvail if hee see not while hee looks thorow the spectacles of Naturall reason and sophisticall reasonings whereas spirituall things cannot be discerned but spiritually 1 Cor. 2. 14. 4 Let him examine whether the words of Christ be not verified upon him For judgment I am come into the world that they which see not might see and they which see might be made blind Joh. 9. 39. But blessed be God who hath hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes Mat. 11. 25. 5 If he see not know not his wilful ignorance and blindnesse must not be made the rule of other mens Faith and Judgment nor prejudice their happiness in seeing and knowing It is somewhat a lofty language he hnoweth not What then Therefore either there is no such thing or no man can know it or it is a fancy in any other to believe it Not Mr. Br. but Christ is our ipse dixit wee draw the Treasures of wisedom and knowledg from Christ not from Mr. Br. 2 Hee acknowledgeth that other men at least seem to know what he denies himself to know Scriptures that have if not a strong yet some appearance of Contradiction to him and quotes the Scriptures which he saith are usually quoted viz. Rom. 3. 28 c. Here 1 I demand of him who they are that quote and against whom they quote those Scriptures That they which quote them are the Protestant Churches and writers and that they are the Papists against whom they are so usually quoted he must needs confess because he can produce none but Protestants that do none but Papists against whom they do alledg these Scripures For although the Arminians do enough declare themselves in their writings that they hold in common with the Papists Justification by works yet I could never find that they would suffer this Tenet to be brought to a dispute but being charged therewith they have with sacred protestations adjurations denyed any such thought in their hearts and so never permitted these or any other Scriptures to be quoted against them about this question still declining the dispute It must be therefore the Papists against whom Mr. Br. saith these Scriptures have been usually quoted And this speaks out to us in many respects what the frame of this mans spirit is 1 The integrity and ingenuity of his Conscience that having but 2 pages backward verbally renounced the Papists and all concurrence of his doctrine with theirs he useth only a short digression to smooth the face end spit in the mouth of Socinus and then forthwith makes a bridg of St Paul to return and make peace and confirm a league with the Papists as it were stroking the shavelings and telling them Notwithstanding all that I have said I doubt not but ye well perceive therein the equivocations and mentall reservations which I have learned from you Still my horses are your horses my charrets your charrets I am as yee are and your Adversaries my Adversaries Mark ye well how finely I shall here divert from you the Scripture darts which the Hereticks fling at you This all may see to be the sum of his words or at least implyed therein 2 His consistency with himself that what ere-while he denyed here he affirms viz. that he is not only Popish in this point but also a patron of the Popish Cause And thus also while he endeavors to purge his doctrine from all contradiction of Scripture he becomes a Contradictor of himself 3 His honesty in explaining his meaning at last whom he pointed at throughout his Treatise under the name of ignorant Antinomians viz. all that have quoted those Scriptures against justification by works 4 His good will to the Protestant Religion and to the doctrine of grace that rather than these shall stand he will say and unsay joyn with and borrow from Papists Socinians Arminians and why not the Turkish Alcaron also or whatsoever prodigies of Doctors that send men to blessednesse by the merit of their owne works 5. His matchles worth arising out of all these for which such a confluence of Divines from all parts of England is made to him even such as were ere-while Zelots against Popery Socinianism and Arminianism untill they had fatted themselves with the spoyls of the friends thereof Hath not the Lord cause to visit upon these men the breach of his Covenant whereof they professe themselves at this day transcendently zealous Is not this one principall branch thereof Let others dream waking of the further exaltation of the present Ministry of this Land I see no ground of expecting any Change but to the abasing thereof though my self must take a share in such an abasement With such plausibility every where is this man and every seducer received in their sowing the worst errors if they will but pretend a zeal against supposed Antinomians And so generally is the doctrine of grace slighted I undertake to defend against all Opponents that Mr. Br hath no one assertion in his whole Book about Justification by works nor more than one if one proof or argument to confirm such an assertion nay scarce any word phrase or Apex which hee hath not received from the Papists Socinians or at the best from the Arminians I acknowledg in some places he runs more in the Arminian than Popish method and dialect when they speak more to the extolling of mans righteousness and annihilating of Gods grace But in no one particle is he better then they I appeal not only to the Learned but also to the rationall among the Readers of his Book when they looked upon its Title Aphorisms of Justification whether they expected not that the truth of the Gospel and doctrine of the Protestant Churches should have been stoutly defended by so Scholastick a man against Papists Arminians c. But when contrariwise they find him undertaking no Combat against them but all for them and making none other his Aversaries but Protestants sometimes under sometimes without the nick-name of Antinomians Is it not a strange piece of incredulity when hee so plainly discovereth himself not to believe him to whom he is a Friend and to whom an Adversary And a gross delusion to lick up as honey from the dirt of Mr. Brs. shoos what they detest as poyson from the lips of Bellarmin Socinus and Arminius But I incurr blame by digressing therefore return to the matter 2 I except against his quotations as done partially and unfaithfully to beget in his weak and credulous Reader
the Author wisheth all Grace and perfections in the LORD JESUS Madam IT abides I know in fresh remembrance with you by whom and with what transcendent praises both of the Worke its Author the Aphorisms in this ensuing Tractate examined were commended to your perusall to be an Enchiridion or Manual still in your hand or rather a Pectorall and Antidote next your heart to defend it against errors and inward Anguish But so abundantly hath God enriched you with the knowledg of and zeale for that pretious Mistery of Christ that you quickly saw the Misterie of iniquity that lurked in it therefore cast it aside as unprofitable yea noxious Yet afterward finding some of the Ministers with whom you had acquaintance deceived by it you intreated me to take it and give you my judgment of the worke and my exceptions against some Mistakes in it And as the deceit was â—urther propagated so you urged me to increase my exceptions and now at length that which was not purposed at first is come forth to publique view an Answer to Mr. Brs Aphorisms Alas that wee are brought forth in such an Age wherein the defence of Christs cause is left to fools and carkasses of men the Learned and potent declinâ—ng the service that in the midst of our Civill or rather uncivil broyls one against another there should be found such as fall foule with the Grace of God and Merits of Christ also that to preach the Gospel of Christ purely after the example and precepts of Paul and Luther should render a man in the opinion of so many an Heretick but to follow Arminius and Bellarmine gets applause that we are forced to see men violent and using force to subvert not to enter into the Kingdom of Christ If this â—reatise shall by the assistance of Gods mercy be in any degree helpfull to cure this Malady they that finde or see the benefit are bound to praise God for you that by you as a speciall instrument instigating it came to see the Light Whatsoever weakness there is in it will redound to the shame of the Author not at all reflect upon you whose desire it was could you have attained it to have had the best Patron employed in the defence of the best Cause I expect that Mr. Br. will come forth and that speedily with a vehement Reply But whatsoever he saith I shall follow the precept of the Apostle Tit. 3. 10 11. He hath had a first and two hundred of Admonitions as they report which come from him which he laies as heaps of sand not answering any of them how should I follow the Apostles precept in not rejecting in having any thing more to do with him The present Worke had no other relation to him but as to the undeceiving of the simple which had received infection from him But if my beloved and Reverend Brother in the work of the Lord which commended to you Mr. Brs Aphorisms and hath made it long his work to propagate it through many Counties yea undertaken in the Western Counties to be the defâ—nder of all that Mr. Br hath written in that Book the performance whereof is by many Ministers there expected will take it up as his task to Apologize for him and affirm the Apology as in his name so to be his owne I shall in despight of all infirmities of mind and body so long as breath lasteth by Gods assistance Anti-apologize for Christ and that not in such an expression of words as I have used to M. Br whom I look upon as an Impostor but in such a spirit of meekness and Reverence as is meet to be used towards so pious and learned a Divine who cannot dares not against the light of his conscience hold any Truth of God in unrighteousness The Lord give unto you to keep your station firm in the Light and heat of the Sun of Righteousness that the splendor thereof may more and more shine into your understanding and the heat thereof more inflame your affections to the pure Gospel of Christ that you may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height And to know the love of Christ which surpasseth all knowledg and be filled with all the fulness of God This is the request of From my Lodging Decemb. 24. 1653. MADAM Your humble servant and daily Remembrancer at the throne of Grace J C THE PREFACE TO THE READER Courteous Reader IF thou knowest me as well as I know my selfe thou wilt also wonder as much as my self to see me appeare in Print specially in so Momentous a Cause and that against so formidable an Antagonist But the ground of our wondering may somewhat differ That which affects thee may be that a man of so despicable parts should dare to brandish a weapon though the Lords against so great incomparable a Champion as flesh and blood accounts him But the thing which affects me is that the Heroick Worthies of our Land hide their heads and Come not forth to helpe the Lord against the mighty Jud. 5. 23 but leave the defence of Christs cause to contemptible and unqualified persons for such a performance In excuse of my selfe against the imputation of rashnesse and presumption I can say Mr. Baxters Aphorisms had been extant full three yeares before I put pen to paper to except against him A strong expectation still possessed me of seeing something come forth against him from an abler hand When my expectation failed and I found his Tractate of all other that have come forth these many yeares most perillous and pernicious as destroying the very foundation of a Christians hope and comfort at length I thought it fit to do my endeavour for the undeceiving of some private Friends either taken or in danger to be taken in his snares not ceasing still to expect the publication of some work by others openly to vindicate the grace of God from his injurious warring against it At length having finished what I thought fit to be communicated privately to some friends and not with-holding the view thereof from any that craved it I suffered it to sleep many moneths in hope still to see a more learned answer to his worke What should I do more May not I justly say with David when all the armed Worthies of Israel either fled or at least shunned the encounter was there not a cause to stand forth for lack of better weapons with a sling and a smooth stone trusting in the name of the God of Israel whose grace this man had defied When the wise and prudent the high Priests Scribes and Pharisees oppugned the grace of God in giving Christ to be the justifier of Publicans Harlots and Sinners the spirit of Christ enlarged the hearts of the illiterate and vulgar to sing their Hosannahs and out of the mouths of babes and sucklings ordained praise to himselfe Nay if these should hold their peace the very stones should cry out
saith nothing Yet because this still leaveth sub judice litem and certain Conclusions cannot be inferred upon premisses left uncertain I should answer secondly That the Curse pronounced and inflicted upon Adam related to him not as a private but publike person For so he fell and so was he sentenced As comprehending the Elect he had the blessing of the seed of the woman but as representing those that perish so he had the Curse But touching those things which he and the other godly do suffer the learned Sadeel Adver sus humanas satisfactiones answereth this Popish Argument here proposed by Mr. Baxter out of Augustine Posset aliquis dicere saith Augustine Si propter peccatum Deus dixerit homini In sudore vultus tui edes panem tuum spinas tribulos proseret tibi terra c. Cur fideles post peccatorum remissionem eosdem dolores patiuntur Respondemus saith Austin Ante remissionem esse supplicia peccatorum post remissionem esse certamina exercitationesque justorum i. e. Some one may say If for sin God said to man In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat thy bread and the earth shall bring forth to thee bryars and thorns c. Why do the beleevers after the remission of sinns suffer these sorrowes We answer saith Austin Before remission these are punishments of sinns after remission they are tryalls and exercises of the Righteous Whereunto Sadeel addeth Non sequitur si mors vitae praesentis aerumnae per se sunt peccati poenae quippe propter peccatum in mundum ingressae eas esse proptereà peccatorum paenas ipsis etiam fidelibus quibus peccata sunt propter Christum condonata i. e. It followeth not if death and the sorrows of the present life be in themselves the punishments of sinn because they entred into the world for or by means of sinn that they are therefore punishments of sinn to the very faithfull also to whom their sinns are forgiven for Christs sake But to do him a pleasure should we give him his Argument forgiving the unsoundnes of it what doth he conclude Thus much that the suspending of the rigorous execution of the sentence of the Law is the most observable immediate effect of Christs death that the redeemed of the Lord partake of By suspending the rigorous execution of the Law he means that he doth forbear an hour or a day or some short time to destroy their lives and cast their souls into hell But so that every moment they must stand in expectation of it and that to their greater torment at last as their sinns during the time of the suspension is increased Whosoever now of Gods redeemed ones receives comfort by this doctrine will I doubt not give his verdit for Mr. Baxter having so nobly and divinely resolved this question that He is a Divine indeed He tells us there be other effects of Christs death c. But he is not at leisure now to communicate them But if they have no more sweet and marrow than this let him keep them to himself we will not be inquisitive after them P. 68. B. To the second Quâ—stion The Elect before Conversion do stand in the same relation to the Law and Curse as other men though they be differenced in Gods Decree Eph. 2. 3 12. Very short yet not so sweet as short He saith it but he proves it not For the Scripture which he brings for proof doth onely declare what the Elect are by nature before conversion not what they are before God in relation to his Covenant of Grace But Mr. Baxter purposeth to speak more largely hereunto in another place which will give me occasion to enlarge my answer At present he is in travell with his answer to the third question and cannot be at rest untill he be delivered of so beautifull a Monster and thus it comes from him Bax. To the third question I confess we have here a knotty question The common judgment is that Christ hath taken away the whole Curse though not the suffering by bearing it himself and now they are onely Afflictions of Love and not punishments I do not contradict this Doctrine through affectation of singularity the Lord knoweth but through constraint of judgment and that upon these grounds following 1 It is undeniable that Christs taking the Curs upon himself did not wholly prevent the execution upon the offender Ge. 3. 7 8 10 15 16 17 18 19. 2 It is evident from the event seeing we feel part of the Curs fulfilled on us we eat in labor and sweat the earth doth bring forth thorns and brayars women bring forth their children in sorrow our native pravity is the Curs upon our souls we are sick weary full of fears sorrows and shame and at last we dye and turn to dust 3 The Scripture tells us that we all dye in Adam even that death from which we must at the Resurrection be raised by Christ 1 Co. 15. 21 22. And that death is the wages of sin Ro. 6. 23. and that the sickness and weakness and death of the godly is caused by their sins 1 Co. 11. 30 31. And if so then doubtles they are in execution of the Law though not in full rigour 4 It is manifest that our sufferings are in their own nature evils to us and the sanctifying of them to us taketh not away their naturall evil but onely produceth by it as by an occasion a greater good Doubtles so farr as it is an effect of sinn it is evill and the effect of the Law also 5 They are ascribed to Gods anger as the moderating of them is ascribed to his lâ—ve Psa 30. 5. and a thousand places more 6 They are called punishments in scripture and therefore we may call them so Lev. 26 41 43. Lam. 3. 39. 4. 6 22. Ezras 9. 13. Hos 4. 9. 12. 2. Lev. 26. 18 24. 7 The very nature of affliction is to be a loving punishment a naturall evil sanctified and so to be mixt of evil and good as it proceeds from mixt causes Therefore to say that Christ hath taken away the Curs and evill but not the sufferings is a contradiction becaus so farr as it is suffering it is to us evill and the execution of the Curs What Reason can be given why God should not do us all that good without our sufferings which now he doth by them if there were not sin and wrath and law in them Sure he could better us by easier means 8 All those Scriptures and Reasons that are brought to the contrary do prove no more but this that our afflictions are not the Rigorous execution of the Law that they are not wholly or chiefly in wrath but as the common love of God to the wicked is mixt with hatred in their sufferings and the hatred prevaileth above the love so the sufferings of the godly proceed from a mixture of Love and Anger and so have in them a mixture
to be cast out of Gods favour and overwhelmed with his wrath and fury Not that it is so really For God hath forgiven their sinns Therefore after his forgiving to retain wrath and anger may be ascribed to malicious men whom we shall hear saying I will forgive but never forget him But in no wise to the most righteous God who so forgiveth the sinns of beleevers as that he will never more remember them To the sixth I will not fall into a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strife and dispute about words and names Let Mr. Baxter agree with us in the matter and we will not stick to close with him in the name and words Let him deny all malignity and curse in the sufferings of the godly and to do him a pleasure we will call them punishments as he doth After that God had new named Jaakob calling him Israel he remained ever after indifferently called either Jaakob or Israel still the new name made it not a sin to make use of the old also So though the sufferings of the Saints which under the Law were usually termed punishments and judgments are now under the Gospel as it were baptized with new names which more set forth their nature such as are Chastisements and Tryalls yet is it no sin to use the old as well as the new names still for we see the penmen of the New Testament to have done it before us To the Seventh Mr. Baxter is here returned again to his evils and either I understand not what his meaning is or if I do understand him I find a pack of little sence and much arrogance a compound of absurdities and presumptions Absurdities in the Argument it self arrogance and presumption in that which he speaketh for the confirmation thereof First we have his absurd non-sense The very nature of affliction saith he is to be a loving punishment a naturall evill sanctified and so to be mixed of evill and good as it proceedeth from mixt causes Let him that can make sense and truth here meet together I cannot By evil I must needs conjecture he means the evill not of sin but of punishment For the evill of sin as sin cannot be mixt of evill and good being altogether evill By affliction ever since I understood words I have concluded to be meant any vexation trouble sorrow anguish or torment that a man hath inflicted upon him by God or the Creature If this be not affliction I never knew affliction If it be so it is a meer absurdity to affirm every affliction to be a loving punishment a naturall evill sanctified mixed of evill and good c. Pharaoh afflicted Israel and the Devill afflicted Job did either Pharaoh or the Devill mean or act love in afflicting or sanctifie the evill which they inflicted or had the evill which they inflicted either love or good in its own nature who but a man in a dream will affirm any of this gear It cannot be pronounced and concluded that the afflictions which are from the Creature as from the Creature to have such qualifications as Mr. Baxter ascribeth to them either from their own nature or from the will and infusion of the Creature inflicting them And no less absurd is it to attribute such qualifications to affliction universally as it proceeds from God either immediately or mediately by the Creature The torment of the reprobate men and Devils in Hell must be granted to be an affliction and that it is God which afflicts them To conclude hence because it is an affliction an affliction from God it is a loving punishment a sanctified evill mixt of good and evill as proceeding from mixt Causes is such an absurdity that although Mr. Baxter in words affirm it * Abhorret a sensu comuni ut benefiat ei a quo poenae sumuntur Cham. Panstr T. 3. l. 23. Cap. 6. Parag. 11. Monstrum judicij c. id ibid. Paragr 30. yet would he be as loath as any of the opposite opinion to try it If he had said Chastisements are in their own nature so qualified we should have born with it but he shunneth that word as a rock upon which he might have dashed the Curse against believers wherewith as with a treasure he hath laden the Barque of his disputation in this place From such false and absurd premisses therefore to inferr this Conclusion Therefore to say that Christ hath taken away the Curse and evill but not the suffering is a meer contradiction becaus so far as it is a suffering it is evill to us and the execution of the Curse is as fallacious as the premisses absurd Fallacious many ways 1 in jumbling in the execution of the Curs which was neither expressed nor implyed in the premisses 2 In couniting together evill and the curse as equipollent terms which are oft disparates No man besides Mr. Baxter will conclude every evill of suffering to be the Curse Christ mourned for the sins of Jerusalem Mat. 23. 37. Lu. 19. 42. Paul had continuall heavinesse and sorrow in heart for the unbelief of Israel Rom. 9. 2. Jeremy had his soul weeping in secret and his eyes running down with teares for the sin and afflictions of his people Jer. 13. 17. This mourning heavines and weeping were sufferings made impression of evill I mean with Mr. Baxter the evill of pain and sorrow upon them yet were not these sufferings the execution of the Curse upon them 3 In an implyed insinuation that we deny all evill of pain in the sufferings of believers so making them as stocks and stones insensible or as glorified persons impassible Which none ever held though Mr. Baxter would lay it as an absurdity upon all that dissent from him to make the truth which they maintein odious Now Mr. Baxter is not a Child he sees well enough these absurdities and fallacies and doth not either thorow ignorance or inadvertency commit them His use of them therefore doth insinuate to us two things 1 His abasing opinion of others in the superlative confidence that he hath of and in himself If he thought not almost all others to be meer Terrae filios Clods of clay in comparison of himself he would not thus shake out upon his very absurdities and grossest fallacies to be treasured up by us as Oracles becaus his 2 His suspending of conscience that while he pretends unto truth yet takes the reines by any absurd false tricks utterly to subvert it As for his arrogance against God in the Conclusion What reason can be given c. ut supra No marvell if he take the chaire to himself alone from thence to judge of all other Divines when we finde him here as it were usurping the throne of Heaven thence to sentence and censure the wisedome of God in his proceedings In answer to him I shall use no other but Mr. Pembles words against the like arrogance of the Papists Such Questions saith he are vain and curious prosecuted by idle and unthankfull men
was by paying the full value 3 Though by this dispensation our freedom may be as full as upon a repeal yet the alteration is not made in the Law but in our estate and relation to the Law 4 So farr is the Law dispensed with to all as to suspend the rigorous execution for a time and a liberation or discharge conditionall procured and granted them But an absolute discharge is granted to none in this life For even when we do perform the condition yet still the discharge remains conditionall till we have quite finished our performance For it is not one instantaneous act of beleeving which shall quite discharge us but a continued faith No longer are we discharged than we are beleevers And where the condition is not performed the law is still in force and shall be executed upon the offender himself I speak nothing in all this of the directive use of the morall Law to beleevers but how farr the Law is yet in force even as it is a Covenant of works because an utter repeal of it in this sense is so commonly but inconsiderately asserted That it is no further overthrown no not to beleevers then is here explained I now come to prove Here we see the off-spring of the precedent mountainous and swelling distinctions Exit ridiculus mus In the three first Conclusions a meer tattle about the repealing and abrogating or dispensing and relaxing of the Law and of its dispensation in a totality and absolutenes or in a respectivenes to persons circumstances and degrees of execution c. which is as proper to the thing that he drives at as swines flesh and a peacock strangled with all his glittering feathers to the satisfying of a Jewes hungry appetite Surely either Mr. Br. had forgotten or thought we had forgotten that he had before vented this Mysticall learning of his own and Grotius his brain or doubted that it was not finely enough set out there therefore that he might have the full praise of so curious and spiderthreeded a speculation brings it in here again in somewhat a new and more specious a dress Let him rest contented we acknowledge it all very trim If he beleeve us not let him set it as a philactery upon his garment It will tend so much to the strengthening of it as of the cause he hath in hand For the question is not whether the Law be repealed or but dispensed with But whether it be in force to beleevers as a Covenant of works with which the three first positions meddle not The word abrogating some orthodox Divines I confess do use but not in a sense equipollent with the word repeal meaning thereby onely a nullity of the lawes domination over beleevers The alteration not being in the Law as we acknowledge with Mr. Br. but in our estate and relation to it The law reigneth over all that are under it But the Saints are not Inst lib. 3. cap. 19. sect 2. under the Law saith the Apostle But as Calvin saith in Christ above it But his fullnes and plainnes in his fourth Conclusion maketh some recompence for all his Amphibologies all his dark doubtfull locutions in that which went before Here we acknowledge his ingenuity He so speaks as that an English man may understand him Here he tells us what he meant before of nulling repealing c. of the Law to beleevers that it is not so nulled abrogated repealed relaxed or dispensed with but that all their life time they are still under the Law as a Covenant of works And why could not this be spoken without so great a preparative of sophisticall equivocations and distinctions It pleased him surely to act the Alderman that deckt himself with all his robes and rich furniture to go into his stable and cutt off his horses tayl But it shall satisfie us that after some suspension he at last discovers to us his meaning Let us examine it and first we shall finde set forth in two positions two so soul-ravishing priviledges purchased by the Lord Christ for the Elect Saints that whosoever of them will rest satisfied with them may gird himself fast and depart without them 1 That they have so large a discharge from the rigor of the Law for a while as any of the worst reprobates 2 That they have no more discharge from the Lawes curse than the worst of reprobates Must we not account him a Saint that hath a fastidious stomack or sore mouth that cannot relish these dainties The former Conclusion he reacheth to us in these words So farr is the Law dispensed with to all as to suspend the rigorous execution of it for a time and a liberation and discharge conditionall procured and granted them Jam sumus ergo pares In this the sons of God are in as good a case as the reprobates and somwhat before the Devills The latter Conclusion in these words But an absolute discharge is granted to no man in this life Jam sumus ergo pares Yet have we as large cause of exulting and joy in the Holy Ghost as the reprobates that as farr as we can discern we are no neerer to hell than the children of hell whose inheritance is in hell forever To prove the latter assertion that none are that beleevers are not absolutely discharged from the law as a Covenant of works in this life he borroweth matter from Pelagians Papists Socinians Arminians and the whole rabble of professed enemies to the grace of God in Christ manifesteth Scotus like ignotum per ignotius carries us into a dungeon of darknes to discern Colors which we could not judge of in the light to his minde brings seven other Devills many other heresies worse than the first at least so bad as the first to strengthen the first Clavum clavo not extorquet but torquet figit beats in other wedges not to loose the first but to fasten all Having gotten in the paw of the beast beats and beetles in many of his hornes after to wedge fast all The Popish errors which he brings as an addition to confirm that beleevers are during life under the law are these 1 That they which are in Christ have not their sinns fully pardoned neither are themselves wholly justified in this world 2ly That whosoever shall be justified in the world to come must procure it by his own willing running persevering in this world 3 That they which are in Christ may fall away and be damned 4 That no man while he lives can be certain of his salvation 5 To this he addeth one worse than any Popish or Socinian heresie as proper to himself and from himself alone viz. That all beleevers notwithstanding Christs satisfaction for them notwithstanding their persevering faith in him yet must be at last damned forever Some of these errors are in express words asserted the rest by necessary Consequence implyed in this short dispute of Mr. B The first he expresly affirmeth Even when we do perform
signifie But that he means to extoll them he doth enough plainly give us to understand When he saith that the purchase did not Onely serve to advance the value and efficacy of that grain of pepper his meaning must be at least that Christ dyed and by his death hath purchased to the pepper-corn of mans righteousness a value and efficacy in part though not Onely to Justifie us so that our righteousness must go Cheek by Cheek with the righteousness of Christ to Justification Now as if Usury as it Consisteth in taking increase be unlawfull a penny of a hundred pounds taken by way of increase is no less in substance Usury and unlawfull than the taking of Tenn pounds of the hundred so if the adding of our righteousness to the righteousness of Christ for our justification be an unlawfull exalting of our own and depressing of Christs righteousness then to bring our own righteousness with the righteousness of Christ in the least part to justifie is as truly an unlawfull depression of Christs righteousness and advancing of our own as if we brought it in the highest degree wholly and alone to justifie us and so by his account Christ dyed to make man though not the Onely yet in part a saviour of himself And herein to follow his doctrine is the ready way to be a self-destroyer Christ is become of none effect to you whosoever of you are justified by the Law ye are faln from grace said the Apostle to a people that did extoll but in part and not Onely their own righteousness to justification Though it be not Onely poyson which a man eateth yet it there be poyson in it it brings death after iâ— If we magnifie one grain of our own pepper to that height that we make it a part of that righteousness by which to stand at Gods tribunall this one grain will sink us down to hell so hot a poyson is Mr. Brs pepper-corn I shall joyn that which followes in the similitude viz. Bax. But thus A personall Rent must be payd for the testification of his homage He was never Redeemed to be Independent and his own Landlord and Master The olde Rent he cannot pay his new Landlords clemency is such that he hath resolved this grain shall serve the turn With that which is homogeneous to it in the application Bax. Two things are considerable in this debt of righteousness The value and the personall performance or interest The value of Christs satisfaction is imputed to us in stead of the value of a perfect Obedience of our own performing and the volue of our Faith is not so imputed But because there must be some personall performance of homage therefore the personall performance of Faith shall be imputed to us for a sufficient personall payment as if we had payd the full Rent because Christ whom we beleeve in hath payd it and he will take this for satisfactory homage so it is in point of personall performance and not of value that faith is imputed It is not denyed but a personall testification of homage is required We were not Redeemed to be independent or our own Landlords and Masters to serve our selves and walk after our own thoughts No Ye are not your own for ye are bought with a price saith the Apostle Therefore glorifie God in your body and in your Spirit which are Gods 1 Cor. 6. 20. And again He hath given himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purifie to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works We must live and dye to him that dyed for us in testification of our homage But the thing in question is not whether this homage is to be done but whether when it is performed it be a Cause or an effect of our redemption and justification Whether we are to perform all duty that we may be redeemed and justified or because we are redeemed and justified Whether the relation of the persons go before the relative duties or the relative duties before the relation of the persons Reason tells us that filiall obedience doth alway presuppose the relation of a Son and where there is no Childe there can be expected no Childlike obedience First free and then free service And to this tenor runs the vote and voyce of the Gospel We are delivered out of the hands of our enemies that we may serve him without fear in holines and righteousness before him all the dayes of our life Luk. 1. 74 75. Not that we shall be delivered out of c. because we have so served him all the dayes of our life That we are married to Christ that we should bring forth fruit unto God Rom. 7. 4. Not that we are married to Christ because we have brought forth fruit unto God That he dyed for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him that dyed for them 2 Cor. 5. 15. Not that we must live to Christ that we may live by Christ and obtein life by his death If any man be in Christ he is a new creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. Not that he must be a new creature to the end that he may be in Christ Mr. Br shakes the whole frame of the Gospel into a topsie-turnie and might as rationally make our glorification the Condition of our sanctification as sanctification the Condition of our Justification and Adoption As for the distinction which he puts in the application between the value and the performance of Faith i. e. in his sense of sanctification making the value of Christs satisfaction to be imputed in stead of the value of a perfect obedience and the personall performance of Faith to be imputed onely in stead of the personall performance of the Law and so our inchoat sanctification for that he means by the performing of faith is imputed to us in place of performing all perfect righteousness unto justification some pretty witty men may be taken with it as a pretty witty fancy But whosoever Loveth the Lord Jesus up to a due jealousie for his honour Cannot but have his heart full of trembling to see the sacred word and mysteries of Christ to be made the play-game of an audacious and frothy wit and eluded yea vilified and enervate with such absurd and windy distinctions that have no footing in the word of God Himself using this distinction with a purpose not to teach but to Cheat the simple For pag. 141. he doth in express words affirm the worthines or value which he doth here ascribe to Christs satisfaction to lye in our performance or works Either he must be destitute of all natural and moral operations of Conscience or an Anti-Hannibal that hath sworn unreconcileable warrs not for God against Rome but for Rome against Christ that in so holy a busines can so frequently and fearlesly act the wanton I shall conclude therefore in the words which Mr. Pemble hath against the brethren of Mr. Br in this point
us with the leaven of the Papists He saw these 2 Theses which I have examined together viz. Perfection Merits of works if they should come together one in the neck of another without any Calm betwixt them would make so terrible a sound as would be enough to waken and startle all that were but sleeping and not dead for fear the Pope or the Devill had been come to assault them Therfore to keep all quiet he interposeth this Thesis and its explication in which he pulls the ears of our Divines for saying that God doth justifie first our persons and then our duties and actions pag. 134. deinceps in the explication telling us it is a doctrine of dangerous consequence many wayes and except we will take it in his that is in the Popish sense it smells rankly of Popery setts up Justification by works from the very thought whereof he starts startles away as affrighted Notable dissimulation not of a learner but of one learned in the Trade Clodius accusat Maechos Catilina Cethegum He that affirms our Righteousness equall with the righteousnes of Christ to justification that entitles it a perfect righteousnes a meritorious righteousnes is the first man in all the world that fears of the advancing of Justification by works by them whom he hateth for oppugning it If there were that which he calls danger in this phrase or doctrine of setting up such a justification would not himself be the first man to kisse it to eat it up to promote it What is it that makes him to disrelish the phrase so extremely is it not that it inverts his order in Justification that he would have the works to justifie the man when contrariwise this doctrine makes the justification of the person to be the ground of the acceptance of his obedience Is it not the very depth of Satan from which he is moved to guise disguise himself to act Satans part with all guile and subtlety to betray the Saints of Christ and the truth of Christ to damning Popery and yet here and there to transform himself into an Angel of Light a Minister of Righteousnes to blinde the eyes of the simple that they may not espy him untill they be taken in his snare and lost for ever As for the doctrine or phrase it self he knowes our Divines mean this onely when they say God doth justifie first our persons and then our duties actioÌ„s viz. That God having first justified their persons from all the guilt that was upon them doth thenceforth also justifie them in refâ—rence to all the duties which thorow Christ the Mediator they shall perform unto God not imputing to them the imperfections thereof so that they may rest Confident of Gods accepting both the performers and the performance in and through Christ the beloved In this respect and not as Conditions of the New Covenant as Mr. Br dreameth doth the Gospel teach our works to be accepted of God There is yet one link of the Popish Chain wanting without which it will be unperfect and unusefull If it were granted that there is 1 a personall righteousnes of Gods own appointment necessary to justification 2 That this righteousness consisteth in ouâ— own Faith and sanctification or good works 3 That it is a perfect and 4 a Meritorious Righteousness yet all this cannot be effectâ—all either to save or deceive us unless it be a righteousnes also possible for us to perform Thaâ— he may not be wanting therefore to the Popish Cause in any one branch of Popish doctrine he addeth this also Thesis 27 in these words pag. 141. Bax As it was possible for Adam to have fullfilled the Law of Works by that power which he received by Nature so is it possible for us to perform the Conditions of the New Covenant by the power which we receive from the Grace of Christ To which he adds in the Explication pag 142 c. Bax This possibility is to be understood not in Relation to the strength of the Agent But in the Relative sense the Conditions of the New Covenant are possible to them that have the assistance of Grace So that strength which was in Adam to fullfill was a power which he received by Nature But the strength by which we perform is the power which we receive from the grace of Christ If any should have asked him what that grace of Christ is the man was very Coy he could but he would not tell whether it were a Pauline or a Pâ—lagian Grace a grace equally extended both to the Elect and the Reprobats or a grace peculiar to the Elect a grace that comes no further than the ear or a grace operating upon the heart also c. He had other fish to fry and had not the leizure to stay câ—ack these nutts now He bids us to turn over many volumes and specially Parkers Theses to search if possibly we can finde what Mr. Brs judgment would be many years after in this poynt But it is easie to perceive the mans meaning by his gaping in many passages of this book We should have had all this in rank and file in his much promised Tractate of Vniversall Redemption by which as by a second famous atchievement he meant to endear himself to his holy Father but that unluckily there is one of his own spirit step into his Holinesses Parlour to present him with this gift and so anticipated this favour which Mr. Br would have had entire to himself so that now the expected advantage being lost he not using to open his Commodities to sale a day before the Fayr we might possibly for a couple of Capons obtein to know his meaning herein In the mean while it must needs be his intent in reserving to himself what he meant by grace to puâ— upon us a kind of impossibility to say readily yea or nay to his asserted pâ—ssibility of performing the Conditions of the New Covenant by a power which he leaves us uncertain of knowing what it is As for the two fold opposition which he puts in his Thesis 1. between the conditions of the Old Covenant New 2. Between the power which Adam had by nature and the power which we have by the Grace of Christ there is nothing but a windy sound of words therein to deceive his reader into an opinion that he hath some honest and sound meaning in what is here posited or said For neither doth he make any real difference between the conditions of these two Covenants but makes our own Righteousnesse consisting in faith and works to be the substance of the conditions of both Covenants onely he puts a supposed difference in the measure of them One an imaginary perfection of sincerity in doeing them answering to what the New Covenant requireth the other an absolute and gradual perfection in doing them without the least particle omitted or committed besides or against the rigorous exaction of the Old Covenant And this
Christ hath purchased onely and we receive onely an universal conditional Justification 3. Upon as good grounds as Mr. Baxter doth in the ensuing part of this Treatise argue from salvation or glorification to justification might I also argue from justification to salvation that if justification be universally conditionall so is salvation or glorification also that if one then both run upon these terms dum bene se gesserit if he beleeve and obey he shall be justifyed and glorifyed if not neither shall be his protion And when any is justifyed and glorifyed his perseverance in that state depends upon his freewill runs upon the same condition still so long justifyed and glorifyed as he is willing and obedient if he cease to obey he shall be unjustifyed and unglorifyed again And thus all the fruits of Christs death shall be rolled to nothing and Christ righteosunesse and glory shall be a conditionall and mutable righteousnesse and glory to day in splendor to morrow in darknesse and himself become a conditionall Saviour a conditionall King at one time compleat and sitting among his golden Candlesticks in the midst of his glorious Temple at another unchristed unkinged a head without a body and members a Saviour of nobodies a King without subjects some not at all submitting to his golden scepter the rest that have submitted revolting from him some from the kingdome of grace some from the kingdome of glory as Adam from Paradise the Angels from heaven so that he shall be left alone and his sufferings and merits lose all their fruit by means of this conditionall justification There is I confesse no weight in this Argument as to the truly Orthodox But it holds as firme to Mr. Baxter as his Arguments can hold to us about conditionall justification in Christs justification If he object that the Saints in the kingdome of glory shall be so confirmed that they shall not fall away I shall answer so are the Saints also in the kingdome of grace and are as absolutely fixed therein upon the truth love and power of God in Christ as the triumphant Saints in the kingdome of glory I doubt not to prove the one as soundly as he can prove the other I cease further to enlarge my self in Arguments to this purpose That which I have said being as I before mentioned spoken not so much to prove an absolute and to shew the vanity of a conditionall justification by Christ as to make way to that which comes after to be handled From the 45 then I passe to the 55 Thesis of Mr. Baxter because whatsoever there is in the interposed positions worthy of examination either hath been or will come to be considered in a place more convenient Only by the way we shall take a short view of what he hath in and under the 54 Thesis it runnes thus pag. 209. B. Remissian Justification and Reconciliation do but restore the offender into the same state of freedome and favour that he fell from but adoption and marriage union with Christ do advance him far higher Here Mr. Baxter gives me occasion to put up some Quaeries to him 1. Whether remission justification and reconciliation are equipollent termes signifying one and the same thing in substance or so many distinct things differing each from other as well in sense as in sound If differing things wherein doth the difference consist he answers in the explication B. The freedome from obligation to punishment is called Remission the freedome from accusation and condemnation is called Justification and the freedome from enmity and displeasure is called Reconciliation These are all at once but he saith not all one Excellently distinguished as he that divided the word malt into four parts But doth not every of these words imply all those freedomes doth not remission free as well from accusation condemnation and enmity as from obligation to punishment And doth not reconciliation free from obligation to punishment and from condemnation as well as from enmity and displeasure And doth not justification likewise do all as well as one I know no absurdity to assert that the same freedome is in divers respects but in the same sense as Amesius well expresseth called by all Ames Med. lib. 1. cap. 27. §. 22. these names As the state of sin from which we are freed is considered as a state of subjection to punishment or vengeance so this freedome is called Remission As the same state is considered as enmity against God so is it called Reconciliation As the same state is considered as a state of sin and condemnation so the same freedome from it is called Justification and this also so that justification is all these remission all and reconciliation all and neither any thing effectually if it be not all All together make up one act of God by his Gospell and may as I conceive more properly be called Gods act or acts in their active sense then concomitant consequents of one and the same act of God Besides if he take them for three differing things I would aske him whether there be any mysterie in the order wherein he placeth them Whether first we have remission of sins then justificaon from condemnation and then at last reconciliation I speak of priority and posteriority in order notin time for so he saith they are concomitants and at once If some such mystery I would be enformed whether by reconciliation he mean the reconciling of our love to God or of Gods love to us if the former how can our love as he teacheth be a condition of justification if in order it be not before but after justification if the latter then it seems Gods love is not the cause of our justification seeing it doth in order follow it but that our love to God is the cause and ground of it Or if he put these three as Synonyma's for one and the same thing why doth he then so curiously distinguish and as it were give to them their severall differencing forms as we find him to do 2 Whether he take them for the same or divers things I enquire whether they be antecedents or consequents of our union with Christ If antecedents whether it be possible for a man to be justifyed in the way of the new Covenant for of this justification Mr. Baxter speaketh being yet out of Christ or how is he then justifyed by faith charity and good works except it be by a legall faith charity and works and if legall how are these then our Gospell righteousnesse or have they Gospell righteousnesse which are not in Christ Or if consequents of our union with Christ whether then they do not presuppose our union with Christ and if so whether the justifyed in Christ are not advanced to a far higher state of freedome and honour by their being found righteous in Christ then they lost by being found sinners in Adam and whether their union with Christ be not the common foundation both of justification and
adoption Or lastly is his meaning that our union with Christ is the foundation not only of remission justification and reconciliation which do restore the offender into the same state of freedome and favor which we had lost and faln from but also of Adoption and of a far higher advancement then that from which he fell herein I shall not dissent from him But why then doth he so transpose his words as to make the stream of Gods operations to run backward if not to make mans qualifications the ground of his union with Christ his faith and good works by which he is justifyed to be if not the cause yet the antecedent of this union and not this union to be the cause or antecedent of his both justification and holinesse So much I thought fit to interpose here that this Thesis of Mr. Baxter might not serve as a bridge to carry over the reader captive unto some fallacious untruths in the after-part of this his Tractate contained Hence now let us passe to the 55 Thesis which hath not a totall disagreement with the former that have been examined in this Chapter but a dependence upon them B. Thesis 55. p. 211. Before it be committed it is no sin and where there is no sin the penalty is not due and where it is not due it cannot properly be forgiven therefore sin is not forgiven before it be committed though the grounds of certain remission be laid before The strength and evidence of this reasoning will the better appear if we lay by it another to the same tune and upon the same terms It cannot be denyed to be as good an argumentation as this if I should thus argue Before it be committed it is no sin and where there is no sin there is no penalty due and where it is not due it cannot properly be required therefore the sins that have been committed since the death of Christ had not their penalty born by Christ before they were committed and consequently Gods justice remains unsatisfyed for the sins of all that have been committed since the death of Christ and every offender is to bear the condemnation of them in his own bosome though the grounds of certain remission were laid before in God except another Christ be sent from heaven to bear or the same Christ again to bear the penalty of the sins after they are committed Whether this argumentation doth not carry in it as great if not greater likelihood of reason then Mr. Baxters I leave to every rationall man to judge And thus when a proud lust possesseth us to reason from our own brain and not from Gods word we easily reason our selves into hell Neither do I see how Mr. Baxter according to this reasoning can ever look to be justifyed or saved except by one of these two wayes either by asserting his own righteousnesse which hitherto with his fellowes he hath made but a collaterall with the righteousnesse of Christ to justifie and save to be at a pinch all-sufficient and effectuall to perfect the work without Christ as it is with partners in a Trade and buying and selling of wares what one doth both do and what bargain one makes both must stand to it Or else by canonizing the Popish masse to offer therein Christ often unto God as a sacrifice for the expiation and forgivenesse of his sins when he hath committed them sith Christs offering himself was in no wise the bearing of the penalty or satisfying of Gods justice for his or our sins because not then committed But let us see whether in any sense the reasoning of Mr. Baxter here may be made good or taken up as tolerable Not to mention here Gods forgiving of sins as an act immanent in God from eternity For this would but make Mr. Baxter startle he is no more patient to hear this voice then was Caligula at the voice of Thunder his bloud riseth at it as do theirs at the sight of a Cat whose natures have an antipathy to that poor creature that never meant them hurt Let us consider forgivenesse and pardon in tearms and wayes as himself granteth a possibility of giving and receiving it And First in foro conscientiae at the bar of God in the conscience of man to which he most limiteth and contracteth remission and justification May not the offender apprehend and apply to himself the pardon of his future as well as of his past and present sins through the Lord Christ in some sense 1. In respect of the seed of all the sins which he shall through infirmity commit in the time to come of his life I mean his corrupt nature or originall defilement and sin from which as from their naturall source all their acts of sin spring every true beleever is and may apprehend himself pardoned this the very Papists acknowledge denying originall sin and defectivenesse to have any mortality of sin in it because the guilt thereof is purged from the soul by the bloud of Christ at his very first admission and entrance into Christ as they say In this respect I doubt not but Mr. Baxter will confesse that all their after acts of sin are remitted in their seed and womb to beleevers before they be committed 2. In respect of Gods not imputing them to the person that shall offend so the sins not yet committed are forgiven to every elect person God hath laid on Christs score all the sins of the elect committed or to be committed and satisfyed his justice for them upon Christ who in their names hath paid the penalty of all therefore their consciences are discharged neither sins past nor sins to come shall be any more imputed to them There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus Rom. 8. 1. There is dayly new sinning why not also subjection to condemnation because the person being in Christ though subject to a necessity of sinning yet through the justification of his person is exempted from the further imputation of sin so committed unto condemnation He that beleeveth hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation Joh. 5. 24. He comes dayly into the acting of new sins how is it that he comes not into a subjection and obligation to condemnation by those sins but because they were forgiven to the offender before therefore not imputed to him when committed It is one chief priviledge of the new Covenant Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more Now where remission of these is there is no more offering for sin Jer. 31. 38. c. Heb. 10. 17 18. speaks the holy Ghost here only of sin past and not of those to come that they which are within the new Covenant have remission of them then 1. The same person hath some sins forgiven and some not forgiven by Christ that which is past is remitted that which is to come is retained 2. Then the priviledge is no priviledge if only sins past are not remembred but sins to come are
instrumentall cause also But this Mr. Baxter will answer anon and I shall wait on him to hear how satisfactory his answer is 2. Whether in his answer to the Question as he puts it when he makes a mans lease or deed of gift and a Kings pardon to have their force from the hand and seal annexed to it is it not much more implyed that the grant of the Gospell without hand and seal put to it is not a sufficient instrument to the justifying of any man For the grant of the Gospell is made to the world indefinitely but when faith as the impression of Gods hand upon the soul and the Spirit witnessing and sealing to the conscience thou art the person to whom the justification generally proposed in the Gospell doth particularly belong and so are applyed by God as true accessary evidences to the grant of the Gospell to terminate justification upon the soul of man can Mr. Baxter deny these being acts of God distinct from the word of promise to be instrumentall to justification as properly and fully as the said promise and grant 3. To his Procatarctick causes which in the Thesis he giveth viz. so far as God may be said to be moved by any thing out of himself speaking after the manner of men saith he I aske 1 Whether God may be moved in his will by any thing out of himself If so whether then something out of God do not give magis minus increase and diminution to God For every change of Gods will is a change of God himself and what shall it avail any to be justifyed by a mutable God that to day will justifie to morrow unjustifie againe being apt to take impression of change from things without him yea if a God mutable then in truth no God but one of the Pagans Idols or Puppets Or how little doth his additionall cause help him to speake after the manner of mâ—n he ought not to speak a lie for God to please men much lesse to lie against God to fashion himself to the manners of men foolish or wicked men If he say God cannot be moved by any thing out of himself how can he excuse himself from being a slanderer of the most high God by devising and asserting here 4. causes out of God moving him to justifie us having before wilfully suppressed in darknesse the riches of Gods grace within himself alsufficient without any auxiliary strength from the creature to move him How preposterous is he herein to the order of nature making the fruit to bear the tree and not the tree the fruit What lesse doth he in making Christs satisfaction and intercession the sinners supplication and desire of supply and the opportunity or advantage for the glorifying of his justice and mercie the causes of Gods will and gracious willings when contrariwise Gods gracious will is the cause of all these 2 Whether he jears at the invaluable means of our salvation or else that he thinks himself matching cocks for the game that he counterpoiseth the highest perfections of Christs mediatorship with mans vanity how unsufferable is it to see him putting into the one scale a precious pearl into the other a peppercorn or cherry stone To match Christs intercession with the sinners supplication To make the feeblenesse of man a collaterall and concause in the same order and degree of efficacy to justification with the vertue of Christ glorifyed It is to be acknowledged that the nothingnesse of the one is of as full validity as the omnipotency if I may so terme it of the other to beget new love new purposes new acts in Gods will This is that which God himself cannot do not because it is a work above his power but beneath his nature and perfection to work or to be capable of the working of any new impressions or changes in his will Neverthelesse this excuseth not Mr. Baxters vilifying of Christ in mating his intercession with the sinners supplication as if the former were a star of the same magnitude with the latter like that profane fellow that twisted together Religion and Cheese 3 Not to trifle away time upon every trifling word of Mr. Baxter I demand of him why seeing in the Explication pa. 215. he acknowledgeth that Procatarcticall or outwardly impulsive causes have properly no place with God he doth yet in his Thesis here fetch about again his four impulsive causes to marke them with severall names in their foreheads in Aristotles print is it not a testimony under his own hand that he will rather play and dance about God as if he were a meer may-pole then lose the ostentation of one least peece of his wit and art 4 Though I mean not to contend about the meritorious causality of Christs satisfaction because in this he hath as well many orthodox writers as Papists speaking in the same tone with him neverthelesse I should deny his assertion unlesse he he will grant me these 4. or 5. suppositions 1. That so far as justification is an act eternall and immamanent in God Christs satisfaction is not the meritorious cause of it 2. If in some other respect it be the meritorious cause that God doth therein merit from himself For the satisfaction made to him is of his own proper money himselfe paid the price in delivering his Sonne for our sinnes the body which Christ offered for us was given him by the Father to offer in our behalf 3. That this merit must in no wise hinder but that the entire benefit of justification must come to us freely without money and without price 4. That it is but unproperly termed merit even then when it respecteth the discharge which God giveth into a mans conscience it being so called metaphorically as our state in sin is considered as a state of debt which when Christ our surety hath paid for us he hath so far merited only as the payment of our debt may be said to deserve that we should receive a full acquittance from the debt In which Mr. Baxter goeth yet further that it was so paid that the Creditour might have chosen to accept it for satisfaction much more to have given us a full acquittance and discharge So that in relation to him and his principles it is lesse properly merit then to another 5. That Christs satisfaction is more properly to be called Gods foundation of this our new relation of justifyed persons upon which he hath inabled himself to justifie us in mercie without any seeming diminution of his justice and truth These things granted me I dismisse Mr. Baxter with his meriâ—orlous cause 5 When he cals Christs intercâ—ssion and the sinners supplication the morall perswading cause c. I demand whether there were such a totall deficiency or so great a scarcity of morall reason in God that it needed a begetting or quickning by perswasions from without him or whether he were so flinty aâ— that without strong perswasive reasons he could not be induced
accounts it for ours c. and so before he pronounceth us he maketh us righteous Let us be rude with the Apostle as long as we stand fixed in the doctrine of grace with the Apostles That Mr. Baxter speaks more Logically after the Sophisters and captivates himself to their learned errours however he may applaud himself therein we conceive it to deserve more pity then envie 6. To his fourth Question I shall speak but little because I understand him but little Neither have I that edge upon my dull brain to discern whether in his acutenesse he doth more contradict others or himself or what other least cause he hath to contradict granting what he grants save â—â—ly the spirit of contradiction The formall cause of justification in his Thesis we have thus B. The formall cause is the acquitting of the sinner from the accusation and condemnation of the law or the disabling the law to accuse or condemn him The question that he conceiveth will be put to him here to answer is B. Why he makes not the imputation of Christs righteousnesse the formall cause To this he answers p. 218. B. That imputation is not the forme is undeniable The forme gives the name especially to actions that have no matter Imputation and Justification denote distinct acts and how then can imputing be the form of justifying c. Here before I can understand the depths of Mr. Baxter I must be resolved by him in some Queries 1. Whether justification hath its being before it hath its form For the form doth more unexceptively give the being then the name and is in order of nature before the thing formed or named 2. If not Whether then there were ever a justifyed man after the tenour of the new Covenant upon earth or ever shall be such For if the acquitting of the sinner from the accusation and condemnation of the Law or the disabling of the Law to accuse or condemn be the form of justification then is justification unformed and without being according to Mr. Baxter untill the day of Judgment Untill then he binds all hand and foot under the threatnings and curse of the Law as we have seen in and under his 9 11 12 13. Thesis and how long after he doth not yet certifie us so that if this be the form of justification then after his principles there neither is nor shall be either justification or any justifyed person as long as the world lasteth either in heaven or upon earth Except Mr. Baxter will say the law is so dealt with by Christ as Cnipperdoling was by John a Leyden of the highest magistrate and judge made tormentor or hangman deposed from being any longer a righteous Accuser Judge or Condemner of guilty persons and made an Executioner and Tormentor of them whom no Law accuseth or condemneth 3. Whether the Law accuseth or condemneth of any thing else but of sin And if not Whether Gods acquitting the sinner from the Lawes accusation and condemnation be not his acquitting the sinner from all sin that might expose him to the Lawes accusing and condemning This Mr. Baxter must grant except he will say a man may be acquitted from the Lawes yet left unto the Devils accusation and condemnation as he seems before to hint But this is no other acquitting but from the frying-pan into the fire from a just accuser and Judge into the tyranny of an unjust slanderer and destroyer Such a justification with its form we decline as damnation it selfe if Mr. Baxter can with his Sophistry charm the Devill let him grapple with him 4. Whether the imputation of righteousnesse and the not imputing of sin be not the same thing neither an act distinct from the other but each connoting and implying the other For so he answers the question denying imputation to be the form viz. imputation of righteousnesse without the adject terme of diminution the righteousnesse of Christ knowing well that some of the most considerate of the Antipapisticall Divines place the form of justification in the imputation of righteousness not in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse viz. which he hath done These two Quaeâ—ies he must grant us except he will sinke from his own principles and contradict himself 5. Whether then there be any difference between Mr. Baxters form of justification and that form which he impugneth Whether the acquitting of the sinner from the Law from sin which exposeth to the Lawes accusation and condemnation be not the same thing in substance with Gods imputing of righteousnesse and not imputing of sin to him What hath the one of these save words alone more or lesse in it then the other They must be Mr. Baxters Lynces eyes that are busied in the speculation of Democritus his Atomes and Platoes Ideas that can discern the difference my blunt fancie is uncapable and uncomprehensive of it B. I believe saith Mr. Baxter that this imputing doth in order of nature goe before justifying And doth not the form in order of nature go before the thing formed how else doth the form give it its ultimum esse This more proves then denies imputation to be the form B. And that the righteousnesse so imputed is the proper ground whence we are denominated legally righteous and why the Law cannot condemn us This also makes more for us then for him He tels us before that the forme gives the name Now to be Legally righteous in Mr. Baxters phrase is to be righteous in the righteousnesse of Christs satisfaction He that is so is justifyed in title of Law as Mr. Baxter termes it and here treats of it if then it give denomination of legally righteous it gives the name of justification in title of Law except he will say that a man is legally righteous in Christ before Gods gracious act makes him such if so then is imputation the form of justification because it gives it its name He concludes well B. It is a vain thing to quarrell about the Logicall names of the causes of justification if we agree in the matter Yet see I no other ground that Mr. Baxter hath to take up this quarrell against the whole stream of Protestant Divines in refusing and oppugning the form of justification which they give but to quarrell about names and words The form which he substituteth in place of theirs being the same with theirs in substance and differing only in Logicall not Theologicall names and words Unlesse some will say there is a reall as well as a nominall difference between the disabling of the Law to accuse of sin and Gods not imputing sin i. e. between the Lawes acquitting and Gods acquitting from sin between the Lawes not imputing unrighteousnesse and Gods imputing righteousnesse which is all one as if I should put a difference between the pardon that disables the Law of the Land from accusing and condemning of a malefactor and a pardon which acquits him from the offence which the same Law had power to accuse him of
he hath out of Schiblers Mâ—taphysicks sound enough I acknowledge as Schibler proposeth it in Thesi but fallacious and misapplyed by this man to his Hypothesis Yet what ever it be though not the least portion of Gods word in it let us examine the strength of it It is the principall efficient of the act or effect that worketh by the instrument saith he but man is not the principall efficient therefore worketh not in this businesse by instruments or instrumentall helps I answer 1. not only in resevence to this but to that which also followeth in his Argumentation We are to distinguish between instruments that they are of two kinds effective or receptive Effective so is a knife the instrument of cutting Receptive so is the hand the instrument of receiving Mr. Baxters Arguments are applyed to the former only not at all to the latter For 1. Of an Effective instument it may be said the knife cuts and the Man cuts likewise But a Receptive instrument hath a double relation 1. To the giver 2. To the receiver As if a rich man give a great treasure to a poor man he receiveth it in his hand the receptive instrument of the poor mans inriching is his hand Now if a man should argue as Mr. Baxter doth the hand if it be an instrument it is an instrument either of the giver or receiver not of the receiver for he doth not inrich himself he is not the principall agent inriching not of the giver for he doth not receive any riches but the act of the hand is to receive therefore the instrument of neither nor at all an instrument Who sees not the vanity of such an Argument Yet such is this paralogism of Mr. Baxter I say therefore that the Canons of an instrument which he citeth out of Aquinas and Schibler hold only of effective not of receptive instruments Yet as faith is Gods effective instrument to justifie man and not himself as Mr. Baxter trifleth so these Canons hold of it also in the sense before specifyed 2. I deny the Assumption or Minor he proves it thus Man doth not justifie himself This is an equivocation and besides the question None ever made man the causa prima of his justification none I mean of all those whom Mr. Baxters disputes against Himself indeed and his followers asserting the perfection and merit of mans righteousnesse consisting in faith and good works and affirming that this righteousnesse of man and in man doth give him title to the righteousnesse which is by Christ cannot well be cleared from making man the first tause of his justification But we speak nothing tending to this purpose and in no other sense do we say that man acteth to his justification but by this apprehending and applying to himself the justification of God And in this respect man is not only the principall but also the sole efficient of apprehending or receiving Christ to justification and faith his alone receptive instrument therein by the instrumentall subsurviency of his faith in receiving Christ We make it not mans instrument of Christs satisfaction or of Gods acceptation or of his declaring but only of our applying it to our soules That it is not Gods instrument he hath these reasons to prove B. 2. Not of God for 1. It is not God that beleeveth though it 's true he is the first cause of all actions A meer bull with which he jeers and scoffes not only at all the Protestant Divines but also at Christ and his Apostles as poor sorry animals and asses unworthy to be answered with reasons but with absurd non-sense 1. Faith in one was never used or ordained to be an instrument of justifying another much lesse faith in God to justifie man 2. He can conclude nothing else hence but this God beleeveth not therefore God is not justifyed or discharged from condemnation by the new Covenant 3. He doth in the Magisteriall confidence of his heart implicitely accuse Christ his Apostles and faithfull Teachers in his Church to hold that God is the instrument of our justification that the Principall agent and the instrument are the same thing that the instrument must be in the Agent or cannot be his instrument so that faith must be Gâ—d himself for whatsoever is in God is God himself the immanent acts of God are Gods acting These are all but slanderings of the Lords servants to make odious the doctrine which they deliver 4. We make faith in man not in God Gods effective instrument which he infundendo creat creando infundit and having wrought it in the soul he doth put it also in acting thereby to evidence to man his justification As some great and munificent Lord having laid up a great treasure for one of his poorest and most abject servant in some secret place tels him first what he hath done bestowes it fully and freely upon him but the servant not finding it is never the richer because he hath not the possession of it At length the Lord lights a torch guides his servant to the secret place and by the light of the torch shewes him the treasure which before in the minde and purpose of the doner was wholly his bids him to see and possesse Here the torch is that Lords instrument by which he discovered to his servant the treasure and evidenced him to be indeed enriched So and much more compleatly is faith Gods instrument by which he justifies us to our selves i. e. declareth and evidenceth us to be just and justifyed B. 2. Man is the causa secunda between God and the action and so man should be still said to justifie himself Either I understand him not or he speaks words without matter or words that are nothing to the matter in hand He is speaking of justification as of a transient act of God upon man in time This act of God we acknowledge no other but Gods declaring and evidencing man to himself justifyed Gods manifestation or pronouncing his justification to his conscience How man in this act of God should be the causa secunda between God in the action he explaines not and I perceive not That man is the causa secunda between God in the application of justification so manifested I deny not But in this doth man no more justifie himself then is above expressed Or because it is faith in man which we pronounce to be Gods instrument of justifying is therefore man causa secunda or a self-justifyer nay faith even in man is Gods Creature and the same nothing of mans essence Not of our sâ—lves it is the gift of God Ephes 2. 8. May not God lay up his own instruments where it pleaseth his will and wisdome for his own use or ceaseth it to be Gods instrument or in Gods hand when it is laid up in the heart of man for his good Obj. But faith acts not in man without man as the second cause acting it and by such acting his faith man should justifie
would have passed currantly We cannot so suppose for one absurd supposition being granted a thousand more will follow after Mr. Baxter begins too low in his suppositions Let him here advance a stair higher with us and suppose first a truth before he supposeth that which is false and unpossible in respect of that truth that must necessarily be presupposed viz. That God before his Covenanting with man had decreed within himself Salva Justitia without obscuring at all his Justice to make known on the vessels of mercy i. e. in justifying and saving miserable sinners whom he had before prepared to glory the riches of his glory i. e. the praise of the glory of grace Rom. 9. 23. Ephes 1. 6. that himself and his free grace should be all and man nothing to his justification and salvation and to the end that his justice might appear still in all its lustre had taken full satisfaction from his own Son here to manifest the freenesse of his grace the all to our happinesse residing in his meer mercy and the nothing in our selves I see not what other condition or means besides faith God could have put out of which mans proud heart would not have arrogated something to himself to have swoln therewith and so the glory of Gods grace should have been obscured Or doth Mr. Baxter see farther then the Apostle He tels us It is of Faith that it might be by Grace Rom. 4. 16. If by other means it might have been and yet by grace there would be a notable flaw in the Apostles arguing which limits it to faith that it might be of grace To the same purpose are those many Scriptures in which he affirms it to be by faith that all mans boasting may be excluded implying that if it had not been only by faith there would have been something of man in it clowding the glory of Gods grace and giving to man occasion of boasting that there is something of his own to his justification and so to glory partly in himself and not wholly in the Lord. So Mr. Baxters arguing If God had put some other condition no doubt it would have justified is one and the same with this If God had acted against his own purpose and betrayed the glory of his Grace no doubt it had been betrayed But the former supposition is no lesse absurd then the latter And almost so much at the full Mr. Baxter either to toll on his Reader into more snares which afterward he layeth by his magnificent elogies of Gods grace or from the throws and checks of an accusing conscience speaketh in the following part of this Section Yet so that he cannot cease from the interweaving of mans works with Gods grace unto Justification which because he doth more fully and grossely in the following part of this Tractate I shall here forbear to anticipate what there is to be said by way of answer to him The next Position is of neer cognation with this his words are these B. Thesis 58. The ground of this is because Christs righteousnesse doth not justifie us properly and formally because we beleeve or receive it but because it is ours in Law by divine donation or imputation This is plain in it self and in that which is said before How this is plain in that which is said before we have before examined how it is plain in it self we are here to examine To omit how after Mr. Baxters Principles the righteousnesse of Christ can be said to be ours by divine donation and imputation when he holds it no otherwise by Gods donation ours then the wilde Goose is his his if he can catch her and as long as he can hold her so his as it is every ones else as well as his if they can take and hold her For she is the worlds Goose and proper to no one before one hath taken her and no longer that ones then while he holds her if he let her go she is the worlds Goose again If Mr. Baxters righteousnesse be stablished upon such a law donation and imputation let it be his not mine I shall not contend with him for a share in it because the Lord offers me a righteousnesse of a better Covenant established upon better promises Heb. 8. 6. But to let this passe When M. Baxter saith the ground of this is what meaneth he by this That no doubt that went before in the former Position But in it are many things and which of them is plain upon this ground in his meaning I cannot easily judge because to my understanding no one of them is upon this ground plain Nay upon this ground no man living is justified in this world For it is not ours saith he by beleeving and receiving it but by divine donation And this donation he will not have to be confirmed untill all the conditions be compleated and that is not untill the world be ended But to give my best conjecture of his meaning I think he will be understood that the two last clauses of his former Thesis are plain upon this ground viz. 1. That Faith doth justifie properly as a condition c. 2. Improperly as it doth receive Christ The ground saith he is this because c. Here by the way we may take notice of the mans subtilty and sophistry in shifting from one tearm of Art to another Thes 57. he tels us that faith doth properly justifie thus and improperly thus but in the Explication he foysteth in the word formally and formall pag. 230 231. and here Thes 58. puts both together properly and formally as if there were no other proper cause and reason but the formall cause and reason of a thing and that every proper cause were the formall cause And thus whatsoeverr Scripture saith illiterately Christ himself after Mr. Baxters proper language should not be a proper cause of our justification And who sees not the end of this his project If he be put to it he layes a ground for the diverting of the whole dispute from the Scriptures unto Philosophy Logick and the Metaphysicks where there may be a cavill about the nature of the formall cause so long untill both sides be out of breath and in the end both parties be as wise to Justification as in the beginning This is the calamity of the Church in these times that they which hold themselves the chief Doctors and eminent lights thereof darken every sacred truth with the mist of humane Learning cast upon it in stead of clearing it to the comprehension of Gods babes and sucklings No marvel then if the justice of God hath stirred up among us so many Earth-born and Earth-bred Meteors persons of no learning Ranters and Enthusiasts I mean like Balaams Asse to rebuke the madnesse of these Prophets And doubtlesse either by these or some other the Lord will prevail against them if they shall not cease to pervert with Elymas the plain ways of God Now to the matter it self about which
passed thorough after men are dead With hundreds more of the same kind and worth wherein it seems Mr. Baxter here would imitate them to ingratiate himself into their favour As for the residue of Mr. Baxters quotations in this place they are for the most part if not all urged in another place to prove works the condition of our glorification and future salvation and untill then I forbear to answer them But lest any in the interim should stand doubting at any of the Scritures hâ—re quoted promising either love or life or grace or glory to men thus and thus qualifyed and conceive that such qualifications are the ground and condition together with faith to in right us in that which is promised I think it fit to premonish by the way what all Protestant writers have â—maintained and cleared against the Papists that the ground of our right in such selicities promised is not the qualifications or works of the person but the new relation of the person so qualifyed his union with Christ justification and adoption before God Such promises not being made to all but to the Saints in Christ so doing I shall clear it up to you by a similitude Isaac promiseth his son Esau his blessing but bids him go a hunting and bring him venison and then in eating it he will blesse him what was that which enrighted Esau to the blessing that was the ground or condition upon which Isaac would blesse him the venison caught and dressed nothing lesse for if a 1000. others should have presented him with a 1000. pieces of venison at severall times all dressed and fitted to his appetite the blessing should have been reserved entire for Esau and they all have been sent away empty as appeareth by his dealing with Jacob presenting his made venison how agreeing so ever the dish was to the palate of the old Patriark yet he will examine thorowly who it is whether his very son Esau that brings it before he gives the blessing It was not then the venison but the sonrship yea primo-geniture of Esau that was the ground and condition of Isaacs promise to blesse him So is it also to his justifyed and adopted ones in Christ that the Lord saith Aske and ye shall have seek and ye shall finde knock and it shall be opened to you Run and ye shall obtain Overcome and ye shall be crowned Love and I will love you Be mercifull and I will be mercifull to you Humble your selves and I will lift you up and a thousand more such promises of grace as far as they hold forth spirituall and saving blessings they are the Childrens bread dispensations of God within his own family no stranger hath part in it or right to it Let the world those that are not beloved aske seek knock run fight c. the Lord may possibly out of the goodnesse of his providence infinitenesse of his wisdome and bounty of his nature reward with corporall and temporall good things their carnall and temporall endeavours but untill by the spirit of adoption they are through faith united to Christ they have no right by the new Covenant to make claim to the spirituall and saving blessings promised neither are they any otherwise to be ratifyed to any but as they were beloved of God in Christ before there were any such qualifications and motions in them as Mr. Baxter cals conditions as hath been before declared Yea suppose that Esau could not have brought the venison to his Father had been hindered or drawn aside from seeking it or seeking could not find it or finding could not have taken and brought it should the promise and purpose of Isaac to blesse him for this cause have failed He performed not the condition he shall therefore be bereaved of the blessing Nothing lesse for the generall and fundamentall ground and condition the relation of a son of the first-born son stood still fixed unto which the good will of the Father and the blessing in the Fathers purpose was entailed In like manner though a child of God fail in some of the works and qualifications which Mr. Baxter cals conditions of the new Covenant yet this makes not the promise of the Covenant or the beneficence of the Covenanter promising to be void because these are grounded so far as they are grounded out of God upon Christ our union unto Christ and new relation to God in Christ All which I doubt not shall be made manifest in its own place only what hath been said I thought fit to be said by the way for the prevention of doubts and perplexities that might ingage the weak reader before we come thither I should here have put an end to what I had to say to his first Argument drawn from Scriptures having spoken to all that in this place are quoted saving those which he brings again elsewhere for which place I have put off my examination of them But that p. 310. he comes with a new supply Lest therefore I should make another work of it there or minister occasion to any of saying that where his Argument is most fortifyed there I shun and shrink from answering I shall examine here also what force such of those Scriptures as have not been here quoted and examined have to prove justification by works and so much the rather because he tels us there that the assertion is evident from these following Scriptures B. Mat. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be justifyed and by thy words thou shalt be condemned Justification and Condemnation seem here by our Saviours testimony to depend upon the sinfull and blamelesse use of our tongues Ergo upon works We may grant all in our Saviours sense without advantaging Mr. Baxters cause or endammaging our own For the Lord Christ here directeth his words to those Legall Jewish Pharisaicall Justiciaries who stuck fast to the righteousnesse of the Law for justification and in zeal thereof blasphemed as in the precedent part of the Chapter upon which this dependeth is to be seen Christ and his Gospell This blasphemy Christ here reproveth and smiteth with a weapon fetcht out of their own Armory Even your own law forbids such evill words and blasphemies holding forth Justification and Condemnation not only upon condition of good and evill works but words also so that there is nothing spoken of the justification of the New but of the Old Covenant only A reprehension and commination pat to them to whom it was denounced the threat of the Law to them that refused the Gospell and were and would be under the Law But this is nothing to the justification of the new Covenant that followes the rule of the Gospell The next Scripture not contained and examined in the former sardle of quotations is B. 1 Joh. 1. 9 If we confesse our sins God is faithfull to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from our iniquities Here confession another work seems to be a condition of forgivenesse and justification
1 c. some name James the son of Alpheus the Brother of Christ and one of the 12 Apostles others James sirnamed Oblias or the Just of whom Jâ—sephus writeth the Author of it adhuc sub judice lis est Or that the matter method and if I may so speak spirit of this Epistle sounds not in one harmony with the rest parts or books of the new Testament but rather after the writings of the books under the old Covenant or after such as stuck still to the old Covenant as Philo Judaeus and others all which Mr. Baxter better knows to have been by many objected then I know how satisfactorily to answer it By these and other reasons some have expunged it from the Catalogue of Scriptures which are of divine inspiration and have reduced it into the kind and number of writings that are usually termed Ecclesiasticall in a good sense not disagreeing any where from the Canon yet not of that dignity as to be accepted as a part of the Canon it self I shall leave these things to be disputed by others and examine the testimonies which Mr. Baxter hence alleageth what and how far it makes for him as the authority of the holy Ghost himselfe Here it is remarkable that Mr. Baxter who followes the Jesuits every foot and inch in the interpreting of this and all other Scriptures from which he would with them set up justification by works like a man made all of zeal perks up to terrifie us from an interpretation contradictory to the text and from using apparent violence to it implying that all the Protestant Churches and Saints which have stood in the defence of the faith of Christ against the Papists now almost 200. years have dealt thus sacrilegiously in robbing this Text of its due sense And the Fryers and Jesuites alone good men have stood up as the fast friends of Christ to maintain this truth of Christ and the spirit and meaning of this Scripture against the violation of the sacrilegious hands of these hereticall Protestants And that himself is now at last stirred up by the Spirit that hath wrought so powerfully upon the Jesuits to vindicate and set forth the true meaning of this Text with the same fidelity and sincerity which they his Masters have used before him Therefore to excite all men to gaze on his ingenuity and sincerity and to admire him as the one alone man among Protestants raised up to undeceive all the Churches that have so long strayed from the holy mother Church he thus like wisedome it self uttereth his voice B. Pag. 297. I dare not teach the holy Ghost to speak nor force the Scripture nor raise an exposition so far from the plain importance of the words without apparent necessity but here is not the least necessity there being not the least inconvenience that I know of in affirming justification by works in the fore explained sense i. e. in the sense which Mr. Baxters sense and reason without any help of Scripture hath devised Men seldome are bold with Scripture in forcing it but they are first bold with conscience in forcing it as one M. Baxter who with onespell hath forced all the large and divine disputes of Paul about justification into a cherristone and hurld it at the feet of his St. Sense there to do homage or to be trampled into the dirt After this his protestation of his integrity zeal and tendernesse of conscience in interpreting Scriptures and the impression which he feels or feigns in his soul which the heretick Protestants have made by not expounding this Scripture in the same words which the Jesuits do Let us see with what tendernesse and fear himself in the next words speaketh of it B If it were but some one phrase dissonant from the ordinary language of Scripture I should not doubt but it must be reduced to the rest But when it is the very scope of a Chapter in plain and frequent expressions no whit dissonant from any other Scripture I think he that may so wrest it as to make it unsay what it saith may as well make him a Creed of his own let the Scriptuee say what it will to the contrary What is this but with the Papists to make the Scripture a nose of wax If St. James speak it so over and over that justification is by works and not by faith only I will see more cause before I deny it or say he means a working faith He that in all this can see one least spark of that professed sincerity which he protesteth in himself and requires in others worthier then himself let him make it out I can see nothing else but fraud doublenesse and falshood 1 When he sayeth that it is the very scope of a Chapter and not only some one phrase that here holds forth justification by works before God it is the same which he hath from Bellarmine Bel. lib. 1. de justif cap. 15. Scopus Jacobi saith he fuit demonstrare fidem veram atque Catholicam ad salutem sine operibus non sufficere c. i. e. The scope of James in his Chapter was to shew that a true and Catholick faith is not sufficient without works to salvation and with as much truth and fidelity doth this man speak it as did the other from whom he learned it This being no more the scope of this Chapter or of James in it then to deny the salvation which is by Christ and to set on men to seek it by the Law 2 That this phrase of justification by works in Mr. Baxters sense is no whit dissonant from any other Scripture whether he means difference in sound or difference in substance is as very a paradox as if he had said that contradictories are not dissonaÌ„t For if this doctrine after Mr. Baxters sense must stand as true doctrine and for the Gospell of Christ then must we cast away almost if not altogether all the other Scriptures of the new Testament as hereticall and limit our selves to this alone and to Mr. Baxters glosse in it to learn true righteousnesse and the way to life For how vain empty and audacious his annihilating of Pauls doctrine about justification with one breath is we shall see in its proper place and finde that he destroyes the genuine scope and meaning of that Apostle in many of his Epistles to sacrifice all to his imaginary scope of James in some few words here delivered 3 When he tels us of wresting and making a Creed c. he proclaims to the World that all the Protestant Churches which have constantly defended justification by faith without works i. e. by Christ Jesus apprehended by faith without concurrence of works c. have wrested and violated the Scripture set up a Creed of their own in despight of the Scriptures speaking to the contrary For what he cunningly and seemingly fastens upon one Mr. Pemble he layes to the charge of all the Protestant Churches there being not one
justified by works will it follow for all this that justification and salvation have the same conditions on our part The reasoning is one and the same in reason as if I should thus argue Having 1. slandered the Scriptures and said they say what I say I should further proceed Therefore are we created that we may be saved neither is there any way to salvation but by creation It would be as derogatory to the grace of God to be created by our own working as to be saved by our own working Therfore though Glorification be adding of a greater happinesse than we had by Creation and so Creation is not enough therto yet on our part they have the same conditions The reasoning after the Principles of true Protestants would not in its conclusion though in its premises seem altogether absurd Because they affirm the absolute will and good pleasure of God without any conditions on mans part in Mr. Baxters sense of Conditions to be the alone cause both of his creating and saving us But after Mr. Baxters Principles it would bee both absurd and odious for so our good works must bee the condition of our Creation because they are so of our salvation that we must be created by ouâ— sincere obedience bâ—bâ—cause by it we are saved and that our sincere obedience must go before our Creation because they so do before our salvation and so when we have perseveringly obeyed without a being we shall at length bee created and have a being They that are taken with such Arguments I doubt are in the number of them that are made to be taken 2 Pet. 2. 12. And who can hold that which will away Mr. Baxter saw the wall gaping and ready to fall before hee had finished it therfore hastens to plaister and dawb it thus B. Yet heer I say still our full Justification because as I have shewed i. e. said our first possession of it is upon our meer Faith or contract with Christ But I think our glorification will be acknowledged to have the same conditions with our finall justification at the bar of Christ and why not to our entire continued justification upon earth These are but words comparing that which is reall with that which is but imaginary We still deny such a full and finall justification at the bar of Christ compleating that which was but unperfect conditionall and reversible heer upon earth All that hee hath said to prove it hath been examined and found insufficient We look for proof indeed and meet with nothing but words They that are once possessed of it by faith are fully and finally possessed of it His peremptory and bold conclusion is now come even upon his own grounds to I think and why had hee not kept his thoughts to himself untill he had known reason enough for rationall men to have concluded with him yet upon this thought he addeth and why not to our entire continued justification upon earth To which we need say no more in answer but this because wee must not build any Article of our Faith upon the thoughts of men but upon the word of God To the objection which hee supposeth some may make and to which he answereth before it be made against him I say no more but let him answer our reall not imagined objections and such we shall so long defend untill by the light of the word wee finde them unworthy of defence The Scripture which hee brings to prove the perseverâ—nce of Faith to be the condition of our persevering justification runs thus Heb. 3. 14. We are made partakers of Christ if wee hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast to the end Here perseverance is made a declaration and evidence of the truth of our Faith and of our participation of or Communion with Christ at present not a condition either of our justification or the perseverance therof By this it shal be evidenced that ye are truly in Christ and justâ—fied by him if ye persevere for thâ—se that fall away wâ—re but seemingly never truly in Christ They that are his in truth continue so to the end Like that v 6. We are the house of Christ if we hold fast our confidence to the end compared with 1 Jo. 2. 19. They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would without doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us So the perseverance or not persevering of these would manifest who had been who had not been truly pertakers of Christ and the house of his habitation not the condition of their persevering justification for then should it be for a time at least the condition of the perseverance of their justification who were never truly pertakers of Christ and consequently in Mr. Brs. phrase had never a beginning of justification Hitherto of what Mr. Baxter hath said to confirme the Proposition Hence he descendeth to prove the Assumption That Obedience is an undoubted condition of our salvation That wee may not here beat the winde we do first understand his obedience to be the obedience of good workes else is it the same with Faith as I have shewed and that of Faith in Scripture sense and not in Mr. Baxters large unscripturall and uncircumscriptive definition So much also many of the Scripture testimonies which hee alleadgeth here elswhere which I shal reduce to this place declare Yea himself in many places before hath set to his hand that it is his meaning 2. We understand him here by Salvation to mean that which he a little before calls glorification and not simply the salvation which is one and the same with Iustification But 3. We except against him that whereas without ceasing he beats our eares even into deafnesse with that Roman Rampant Exotick word CONDITION scarce uttering a sentence which he doth not blesse or curse with it though hee know the holy Scripture hath upon this Argument not the least mention of it that wee might thence learn that it is but borrowed from the Papists and improved much by the Arminians with whose common language through his familiarity with both parties hee is more acquainted than we can be who have no trafficque with them yet he will not fully make knowne to us the meaning of the word whether the signification thereof be boundlesse or within what limits it is bounded whether it comprehends under it all the necessary Antecdents of glorification or no if so whether it comprehends not under it as well much disobedience as obedience and works of the Divel as of God as the Cansas sine quibus non we shall obtaine salvation by Christ Or whether by Conditions we must understand onely Duties and if so whether those alone which go before or else also those that accompany and follow justification and glorification And withall whether those duties as morall or as spirituall because his Divinity
animosity as the ingenuity of Scaliger which caused him when he heard that one had busied himselfe about the correcting of the errors in his writings to cry out Ego meos corrigam errores I my selfe will be the corrector of my owne errors The same taske may this Author justly challenge to himselfe if living to be himselfe the defender of his owne writings Perhaps he is doing it perhaps he hath done it I shall therefore in my uncertainty what is done onely with such brevity seeke to disabuse the doubting readers of both that I shall in no wise prevent the Authors fuller vindicating of his owne or rather Gods cause in his hand Let us then attend to Mr Baxters accusations particularized Append. pag. 100. and so onward It was questioned as may be seen pag. 99. why he excepted against the Book called the Marrow of Modern Divinity he answers there because it is guilty of this hainous doctrine This he begins now pag. 100 to shew in particulars alleaging first the words of that booke thus B M. M. pag. 174. he meanes 179 Qu. Would you not have beleevers to eschew evill and do good for feare of Hell or for hope of Heaven Answ No indeed I would not have any beleever to doe the one or the other for so farr as they doe so their obedience is but slavish c. To which end he alleageth Lu. 1. 74. 75. Having thus alleaged the Author he thus endeavours to accuse and confute him B But that speaks of freedom from feare of our enemies such as Christ forbids Lu. 12. 5. where yet he commandeth the fearing of God and consequently even that feare of enemies is forbidden as they stand in opposition to God and not as his instruments in subordination Or if it be even a feare of God that is there meant yet it cannot be all feare of him and his displeasure So farr as we are in danger of sin and suffering we must fear it and so far as our assurance is still unperfect a jealousie of our owne hearts and a dreadfull Reverence of God also are necessary But not the legall terrors of the former bondage such as arise from the apprebension of sin unpardoned and of God as being our enemy Who ever heard any doctrine more unanswerably proved to bee hainous If any man question by what Arguments he can easily answer himselfe by this â—hat Mr. Baxter trying and finding himselfe unable to do it at length grants it to be sound and good Thus are they driven oft-times to wound themselves who draw the Sword against the Truth The Author of that booke proveth that beleevers or the redeemed of Christ are no longer to serve for feare of Hâ—ll by the testimony of the H. G. Lu. 1. 74. 75. That we being delivered out of the hands of our enemies might serve him without fear in holinesse and righteousnesse c. Mr. Baxter to evade the force of this Scripture first contendeth that by enemies are here to be understood not spirituall but mortall enemies wicked men and their persecutions Now may not a blind man perceive this to bee a shifting not an answer of this Scripture 1. The grouÌ„d of this not fearing is here layd to be our deliveraÌ„ce cut of their hands whom else we should feare And will Mr Baxter say that Christ came to deliver his elect from the persecutions of men and not from sin death hell which were our most formidable enemies This were to make Christs kingdome to be of this world and to joyn with the carnall Iewes that expected such a carnall Christ and câ—rnall kingdome that might be eminent in the world 2. Or hath he actually purchased to us such a deliverance doth not experience declare the contrary 3. Or must we so long suspend our serving of God in Righteousnesse and Holiness untill we be actually delivered from all feare and danger of mens persecutions For so runs the Text as well in the originall as in our translation that the deliverance is layd as the ground of the service and that put in our possession before this can be put in execution at least without feare 4. Is not deliverance heere the same thing with the salvation mentioned ver 77 which Iohn was to preach but that was salvation and so is this deliverance by the remission of sins and consequently we must serve who are in Christ without feare of vengeance and Hell He sees that with this evasion he cannot decline the edge of this Scripture therefore takes up the right interpretation of it at last thus Or if it be even a feare of God that is there meant c. Why had he not spoken full to the point in question and said the feare of Hell This minsing will nothing help him All that he saith against it in this sense is but such as is wont to proceed from the extravagancy of an astonished and self confounded man For who ever said that a beleever must cast off all feare of God and not be possessed still with a filiall feare to displease him Or that as farr as he is in danger of sin and suffering he must not feare it to shun it Or that so farr as our assurance is still unperfect or perfect a jealousy of our own harts and a dreadfull Reverence of God are not necessary But what is all this to the serving of God for feare of Hell How doth he daub with untempered morter At length he determines the question But not the legall terrors of our former bondage such as arise from the apprehension of sin unpardoned and of Gods beeing our enemy I need to say no more but where then is the feare of Hell in a beleever doeth it arise from the apprehension of the pardon of his sin and of God reconciled to him in Christ what can be said more weakly to confute or more strongly to confirme that which he cals a hainous doctrine Is Mr. Baxter an adversary or an accessary to him whom he pronouâ—ceth the Author of this wicked intolerable damnable doctrine Himself speaks more to confirm it than the person whom he opposeth But how according to his principles the terrors of our former bondage as he describes it are in this life removed neyther can I see nor he make out without contradicting himselfe B. In the 180. page Hee denieth the plaine sense of the Text Mat. 10. 28. Enough Magisterially if it were true what he objecteth to say only and not to demonstrate the truth of what hee objecteth But if false who perceiveth not the censorious spirit of the Objector That it is false appeareth evidently for how doth hee deny the plain sense which denieth no sense at all of the Text but onely declares what he thinks to bee the more principall scope of Christ in that Text than other And in this the context will evince that hee speaketh the truth B. In the 155. page He maketh this the difference betweene the two Covenants One sayth Doe this and
works are required to it viz. The fear of God hope in his mercy Love Repentance a desire to receive the Sacraments a purpose to lead a new life and keep the Commandements under this lâ—st speciall they comprize all good works whatsoever Nay so far are both parties from this Faith that Faith onely justifieth that Both teach we are justified by Works only For 5 We are justified by the Act of Faith which is a work and a Law so that if we are not justified by works Faith it self must be excluded from justifying Though we are not justified by any works i. e. by any works of the Law yet by a work of the Gospel such as Faith is we may be justified 6 Our Adversaries i. e. the Protestants consent together in this that good works are not necessary to salvation otherwise than by the necessity of their presence but that they have not any relation to salvation as merits or causes or conditions thereof c. We contrariwise say that good works are necessary to a righteous man unto salvation by way of causality or efficiency because they effect or work salvation 7 When the Apostle saith we are justified by Faith and not by Works there is to be understood a Synecdoche in the words of Paul that when he saith we are justified by Faith hee meaneth not without works but by Faith and works together so that Faith is put for Faith works of Faith 8 The good works of justified men which effect their Justification are absolutely just and in their Mode or manner perfect 9 So the perfection of our righteousnes and Justification is not from Faith but from works For Faith doth but begin Justification and afterward it hath assumed to it self Hope and Charity it doth by these perfect it 10 Good works merit without all doubt yet not by any intrinsecall vertue and worth in themselves but by vertue of Gods promise A promise made with a condition of work brings to pass that he which performs the work is said to have merited the thing promised and may challenge the reward as his debt in Law 11 The Hereticks teach that it is unpossible for a righteous man to fullfill Gods Law The Catholicks teach that it is absolutely possible for a righteous man to fullfill it by the help of Gods Grace and Spirit of Faith and Charity infused into them in their Justification 12 The contrary doctrine which denyeth Justification by works and the Merit of works is a pernicious doctrine an enemy to all good endeavours good works invites all to a licentiousness of sinning and to transgress without fear or shame what evil will he fear or what good will he not despise who thinks faith alone sufficient to righteousness 13 Though a man hath received the infusion of grace and the Spirit of Faith and Charity and is now justified yet he is under the penalty and curse of the Law still For Christ hath given and God hath taken satisfaction onely for the fault but not for the punishment so that when God hath fully pardoned the fault he may and will inflict the punishment upon the offender 14 Yea this punishment remains upon the Justified both inlife and death and after death in Purgatory 15 For the Righteous or Justified man is so under the obligation of Gods Law that except he shall fullfill it he shall not be saved 16 Because our Justification being still conditionall even after we are Justified may be somtimes lost somtimes reteined now had and then lost and after recovered yea and lost again as we do hinder or not hinder the Grace of God 17 No man can be assured of his eternall Election that he is ordeined of God to life or of his perseverance in grace to the end and consequently not of his salvation For the Scripture in express words teacheth that Salvation depends of the condition of works But no man can certainly conclude that he shall do much less persevere to do all that Christ hath Commanded 18 It cannot be that the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us in that sense that by it we may be called and be formally righteous although it be true that Christs merits be imputed to us because God hath made them ours by donation and we may offer them to God the Father for our sinns because Christ hath taken upon him the burthen of making satisfaction for us and of reconciling us to God the Father yet the denomination of righteous persons is from the intrinsecall righteousnes in themselves 19 Though we are justified by the works which the Law commandeth yet are we not justified by them as they are works of the Law but as they are Evangelicall and works of the Gospel done in the strength of Christ and by the power of renewing grace powred upon the Elect by Christ under the Gospel 20 Love or Charity is the form of Justifying Faith so that when faith doth Justifie it justifieth by charity as its form which gives it its life and motion so that if Faith justifieth love justifieth either in an equality with it or more than it 21 Justifying Faith consisteth in the Assent of the judgement to all things which are written in the word of God No other faith is required of any But an implicit Faith is sufficient in the Laity and ignorant which are not acquainted with the Scriptures in whom it is enough to beleeve as the Church beleeveth i. e. as their Clergy teacheth and beleeveth though they do not explicitly and in particulars know what the Church beleeveth BAXTER JVstification is two-fold either in Trident. Conc. Sess 6. c. 6 7 8. Tilet in Apol p. 237. in defeÌ„s Trid. Conc. adversus ChemnitiuÌ„ part 1. title of Law or in sentence of Judgment In this later having out-runn the Papists to meet with them again he looks back to the former and makes it two-fold thus Justification in title of Law is to be considered either in its first point possession or in its after continuance and accomplishment The later he makes entire consequently in the way of opposition there used the former to be put in part Aph. p. 302. 311. The first point and possession of Justification I acknowledg to be by faith alone without either the concomitancy or co-operation of works Iidem Ibid. for they cannot be performed in an instant But the continuance and accomplishment of Justification is not without the joynt procurement of obedience Aphor. p. 302. The righteousness of the New Covenant i. e. in his sense faith and works is the only condition of our interest in and enjoyment of Bel. l. 1. de purg cap 14 Sect. 4. Ratio 4. Bell. lib. 4. de Just c. 2. the Old i. e. of the righteousness of Christ to justification Both these righteousnesses are absolutely necessary to salvation Aph. Thes 17. 19. 60. and from thence every where untill the very end of his Book The bare Act of beleeving is