slaves future service is not a condition but a consequent of his present redemption But let us see now whether Mr. Baxter with this paint of that which he cals right Reason do fight against God or Man doth resist the placits of men or else the holy Ghost himself He required before that all might be tryed by Scriptures Let us now bring his doctrine to the touch-stone I shall not repeat all or any of the Scriptures before alleadged or that might be further alleadged against him One arrow out of that holy quiver one Scripture out of the whole body of Gospell doctrine shall suffice to smite to the heart to death it self all that he goeth about here with fine flourishes of wit to establish Eph. 2. 8 9 10. thus speaks the holy Ghost By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God Not of works lest any man should boast For ye are Gods workmanship created in Christ Jesus to good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them That the word Saved is an equipollent here with Justifyed if there should be any that will deny yet Mr. Baxter will and must affirme unlesse he will beat in pieces one of the chief pillars of the fabrick erected in this book and overthrow what he hath built In this truth he must joyn with us though in other he estrange himself from us The same Act of God being called justifying as it dischargeth us from the state of our misery as considered to be a state of sin and saving as it delivereth us from it under the consideration of it as a state of condemnation and vengeance Mr. Baxter will grant cannot but grant this And then there will naturally drop from this Scrtpture these following positions 1 That the justification or salvation of the Covenant of grace is by faith 2 That it is not of works but by faith in opposition to works 3 That the very works which flow from our union to Christ and to which we are new created in Christ Jesus even those which Mr. Baxter calleth the righteousnesse of the Gospell are excluded from bearing any part with faith in our justification 4 That the not justification by works doth in no wise hinder the beleevers performing of them for they are created in Christ Jesus their hearts are new wrought by the Spirit to a holy delight in them 5 That God hath not ordained them to justifie but for the new created and justifyed in Christ to walk in them 6 That to teach otherwise of works the very works of Sanctification is to depresse Gods grace and to extoll mans boasting and vain-glory 7 Even these gospell works and righteousnesse are excluded from having any part in justifying not only as collaterals with the satisfaction of Christ but also as collaterals with faith i. e. from bearing a part either in causality or conditionality with faith to justifie I challenge Mr. Baxter and all his Legall and Anti-evangelicall disciples here to deny any one of these positions to spring naturally from this Text. And if the the holy Ghost here speak all this then by it all that Mr. Baxter speaketh throughout this whole Tractate for justification by works is by the breath of Gods mouth blown to the curse as in many things I shall by Gods help shew afterward At the present what he speaketh of works comprehended in faith to justification is here shaken off as a Sophisticall phantasticall Antiscripturall dream the holy Ghost here by the positing of faith in expresse words rejecting works Gospell works all that Mr. Baxter makes a part with faith in that which he cals Evangelicall righteousnesse from all and any copartnership with faith in saving or justifying so excludes all as that he denyeth that justification by grace can any more stand if the best Gospell works of the best Saints are put in any cooperation with faith in the promoting of it All the rest that he hath in the explication pa. 240. and thence to pa. 243. is wholly besides the question which is not whether works and duties be reducible to faith or in what respect every particular qualification and duty standeth to it But whether reduced or not reduced it doth by Gods appointment help with saith to justify us before God This we have found to be an usuall feat of Mr. Baxter where his assertions are confident and peremptory but his proofs of them light and shadie to devise in such case some witty passage wherewith to divert the considerations of his reader from the shame and nakednesse of his foregoing Arguments And this most probably was his drift and craft here having given us but words in stead of Arguments to prove that works are comprehended and implied in faith in all such Scriptures as attribute justification to faith only that the emptinesse and nothingnesse of his argumentation to make this good may not appear to the reader he tols him a way to attend to a subtle and plausible dispute of the relation that every good endowment and work hath particularly to faith In which discourse of his we will not examine how many things are true and how many false for if they were all true they are nothing to the thing in question viz. whether in the severall relations that Mr. Baxter makes them to stand to faith or in any other they help with faith to justification and that so as that when all these with faith cojustifie we may be yet said to be justifyed by faith alone When he hath spoken all by meer affirming without confirming he thus indeed at last concludeth pa. 243. B. So then when you invite a man to your house it is not necessary to bid him come in at the door or bring his head or arms or legs or cloaths with him though these are necessary because all these are necessarily implyed Even so when we are said to be justifyed by faith only or when it is promised that he which beleeveth shall be saved all these forementioned duties are implyed and included How ecliptick is falshood but sincerity open and full No man invites another to his house but to some end either to taste of some dainties or hear some good tidings or see some excellent work or for some other end He should have named the end and we would grant him all thus that as much as the door head legs armes clothes of the invited do partake with the mouth in the act of tasting or with the eye in seeing or the ear in hearing so much when we are invited to Christ do other duties and workes partake with faith in receiving him to justification A third argument if indeed it be not one and the same in substance and differ only in words from the former he draweth from a wide wilde vast confused and incircumscriptive definition of faith begotten of his own brain and now first as an overgrown monster born into the world and baptized
VVhether the inherent Righteousness of Beleevers be perfect Part 1. p. 181 to the 186. Whether Faith as our Righteousness Justifie Part 1. p. 366-368 S. What to judge of some passages that fell from Mr. Saltmarsh his pen. Part 1. p. 138. Salvation twofold the state of Grace and of Glory Part 2. p. 104 105. In the former sense it is the same with Justification ibid. p. 105. Whether in the latter sense it runs upon the same Conditions with Justification ibid. p. 105 Mr. Brs arguing for the affirmative proved fallacious and invalid ibid. p. 102 oth e 1 12. The Scriptures which he alledged to prove works the condition of Salvation found incompetent and invalid to prove it ibid. p. 116. to the 123. As soundly may we argue from Justification to Salvation that it is universally conditionall as convertibly p. 1. p. 331. Satisfaction vid. death Schoolmens Learning and studies described Pref. p. 37 38. Mr. Br. pretends to admit the Scripture as Judge in the Controversie of Justification by works but fallaciously Pa. 2. p. 7 8. What Scriptures he produceth to prove Justification by works pa. 2. p. 25 c. These all collected by the Papists to his hands ibid. These severall Scriptures examined whether they make for him ibid. p. 25. to the 48. His calumny that the Protestants wrest and implyedly that the Papists truly expound the Scriptures ib. p 9 85 86 87 89. Whether and in what respects God doth see or not see sinn in his pâ—ople Part. 1. p. 70. to 72. Signes vid. Evidences Similies prove not but illustrate what is proved Part 2. p 172. Sincerity what it is Part 1 p. 210. Whether the Gospel requires Perfection or sincerity onely ibid. p. 208. to the 217. Part 1. p. 270. Reasons ministring doubts of Mr. Baxters much applauded sincerity Pref. p. 5. to the 9. Mr. Brs oft excusing himself from affectation of Singularity true yet examined upon what grounds it is true and that he doth it Part 1. p. 331. Whether and how far Mr. Brs doctrine is tainted with or free from Socinianism part 2. p. 229. to the 234. Mr. Brs Sophistry and the evils thereof discovered p. 1. p. 8. to 21. 284. to 281. Sophisticall distinction how pernicious part 1. p. 180 189 278 382. How incoherent with the mind of Christ ib. p. 350. Whether to affirm that Christ Suffered the idem for us denies pardon and free grace part 1. 229 230. T Tertullians judgment of secular intermixed with Divine learning in Gospel matters pref p. 34 35. The Testimonies of those eminent writers whom Mr. Br. citeth as Patrons of his opinion manifested to be against him not for him part 2. p. 197-208 W Word alone competent to determine in Gospel matters pref p. 16 18. to 21. Works and duties co-ordinate with Faith to justifie according to Mr. Br. part 2. p. 4. what duties and works these are ib. p. 5. In what consideration and sense he makes them to justifie ibid. How far we are justified by them before men viz. Charity Mr. Brs and the Papists arguing from St. James for justification by works examined and refelled part 2. p. 184 to 102. His arrogant ascribing to works under his Causa sine qua non or condition part 2. p. 274-276 VVhether when we are said to be justified by Faith works be comprized in faith part 2. p. 281. to 284. How apt mans nature is to put it self under the Covenant of works part 2. p. 285 286. Mr. Brs untoward question answered whether if God had ordeined any work or vertue to justifie it should not have done it part 1. p. 379. c. In what sense our Divines say God justifieth first the person then his actions pa. 1. p. 193 194. Covenant of works see Law More of works see Life and Live Grace and Justification In what sense and respects the Scripture calleth the Saints worthy part 1 p. 187 188. FINIS
is a difference made up of a mans dreaming fancy without any least footing that it hath in or sustentation by the Word of God which utterly shakes off all mans righteousness works and qualifications in either and both senses from having any thing to do in the businesse of justification under the New Covenant as hath been in part already and shall be in its due place if God will more fully demonstrated afterward Nor doth he mean 2 things by Adams power by nature and our power by Grace Nature there and grace here to him are one the same For was not the power which Adam had to stand a power received by Grace what a malignant eye hath he so extremely to envie the raies of Gods Grace when they lustre and by their brightness discover the dimnesse and invalidity of mans nature He will own no longer Peter Lombard himselfe to be the Magister if he affirm as hee doth affirm that the power which Adam had to fulfill the conditions of the Old Covenant was not by grace but by nature or what means he by the grace of Christ now doth he under this word point out any other power than every man hath or may have that is no more Christified or Spirituallized now than Adam was then yea than he was immediately after his fall This book of his in many parcels of it doth not obscurely insinuate thus much of him and if we judge amisse it is his fault in writing so ambiguously and refusing to explain his own meaning that ministreth cause and evidence enough so to judge But as to the thing it selfe here posited by Master Baxter wee utterly deny that God hath ever given or any where promised to give unto the best of men in the state of sinfull infiâ—mity such a measure of Grace as might put him into a possibility by the power which he hath received to performe either a righteousnesse effectual and sufficient to justification or a righteousnesse perfect and Meritorious or a righteousnes which as righteousnes and by a worthinesse in it selfe can give him right and title to the righteousness of Christ to justifie him And these are the things which Mr. Baxter here either with the grace or without and against the grace of God contendeth for but neither hath nor ever will have the grace of God from the Word of God to prove and demonstrate though he bangle and bungle never so much with his loose shifts of Sophistry to give out an appearance to them that are more delighted with appearance then with substance as if he had done it CHAP. XVIII Arg. An examination of Mr. Baxters Doctrine about the nature and use of the Moral Law upon what grounds and in what sense and degrees the righteousnesse thereof is required under the Gospel what relation it hath to the Covenants and each of them His Paradox of sincere not perfect obedience required under the New Covenant and his extravagancies about all the rest of these particulars discovered THe three following Theses viz. the 28 29 and the 30th I purposely pretermit without examination not that there is nothing in them which deserveth exception against it but because whatsoever therein calls for examination by the touchstone of the Word is either not controverted between us and the Papists about the point of Justification or else hath been said and answered before or thirdly will offer it self againe more properly to bee answered in the following part of this Tractate where we shall find Mr. Baxter speaking it out more fully then he hath done here in these Theses and their explications To the 31 Thesis pag. 154. as it is considered in and by it self I have nothing to object but to the Explication thereof pag. 155. deinceps I have somewhat to say yet not altogether by way of exception against it but partly also for the substration of some grounds to answer him in things which in the following part of this Treatise hee hath to deliver accordingly as he layes down here for delivering them His words therefore I first transcribe beginning at pag. 155. B. That the Morall Law is yet in force I will not stand to prove because so many have written of it already See Mr. Anthony Burgesses Lectures But to what ends and in what sense the Gospel continueth that Law and commandeth perfect obedience thereto is a question not very easie 1. Whether Christ did first repeal that Law and then re-establish it to sâ—me other ends So some think 2. Or whether he hath at all made the Morall Law the preceptive part of the New Covenant and so whether the New Covenant doth at all command us perfect obedience or onely sincere 3. Whether the Moral Law be continued onely as the precepts of the Old Covenant and so used by the New Covenant meerly for a directive Rule To the first I answer 1. That it is not repealed at all I have proved already even concerning the Covenant of Workes it self and others enough have proved at large of the Moral Law 2 Yet that Christ useth it for other ends and for the advancement of his Kingdom I grant What is here meant by the Morall Law must bee first understood before there can be any well-grounded consenting or dissenting in judgements about the force in which it yet standeth Both the word Law and the word Moral have their ambiguity and are used in divers senses 1. The word Law is taken sometimes onely for a rule or guide or directive to give us light to discern between truth and falshood good and evill lawfull and unlawfull to which also may be added a power therein to command duty and to prohibit what is contrary to duty Sometimes it is taken in a larger sense also comprehending all these things in it and withall a promise of reward to the performers and commination of penalty to its transgressors Here I conceive Mr. Baxter taketh the word Law in the former sense onely because pag. 156. in answer to the first question he distinguisheth and puts a difference between the Covenant of Works and the Morall Law so plainly as if he did totidem verbis tell us that hee understands by the Morall Law the rule and precepts of Holynesse and Righteousnesse as considered apart from the pactionary Adjunct of life and death going with it 2. The word Morall also hath its divers senses sometimes Divines take it in a larger sense for all whatsoever pertaines to manners and then by the Morall Law they understand all the Commandements or Rules which God giveth for the regulating of our manners in reference to the qualifications of the mind and the outward operations also Whether those Commandements bee either of naturall or of positive right written in mans heart at his creation or had their first posituâ—e in time from the word and lips of God Sometimes in a stricter sense for that which doth eminently above other things concern the life and manners And then by the Moral
justifyed if we beleeve our safety being as loose and uncertain then as before depending still upon the residence and abode of faith in us as before it did upon the possibility of its future ingeneration into us and acting in us and that we are no longer justifyed then while we beleeve and obey so that by beleeving and unbeleeving obeying and rebelling we may be justifyed and unjustifyed again a thousand times before we die and how often after himself expresses not I need not mention more these two differences are enough to declare that although here he speak in the same tone with some of our Divines yet his judgement no more agrees with theirs then the Pope with Luther and Calvine Elymas with Paul Simon Maguâ— with Peter or the Scribes and Pharisees with Christ In stead of speaking what might be further expected I shall onely content my self here to lay open some of the many monstrous absurdities and mischiefs that follow this doctrine 1. It proclaims mutability in God and alteration in his minde and will as swift and sudden as in mutable and sinfull man For if God justifie and unjustifie forgive and unforgive love and hate as oft as belief and unbelief obedience and disobedience do nod and succeed either after other in man through infirmity then is there no more stedfastnesse and consistency with himself in God then in man but rather God is swayed hither and thither in willing and nilling love and hatred by influx from man as the Sea by the influx of the Moon then man by influx from God Mr. Baxter sees this absurdity as well as his fellows the Arminians and goes about here and there by the Arminians Sophisms for lack of better to wipe off the stain telling us that the change is in man the object and not in God God hates Paul unbeleeving and persecuting but loves him beleeving and obeying the change is here in the object not in God No more then the Sun is changed by the variety of the Creatures which it enlightneth and warmeth or the glasse by the variety of faces which it represents or the eye by the variety of colours which it beholdeth pag. 174. But Aethiopem dealbat If God love to salvation and hate to damnation one and the same person and love succeeds into the place of hatred and hatred into the place of love and God that erewhile willed the salvation anon willeth the damnation and after that again the salvation of the same man c. as this kinde of Anti-Gospellers assert this is one and the same mutablenesse in God whether it proceed from a principle of inconstancy within or from the mutation of the object without him It denies not the Chameleons that change their colour from white to black and black to white to be mutable because these changes befall them from outward objects the divers coloured Carpets on which they are laid Or if he shall object as do the Arminians Here is no shew of change in God for God changeth not his purpose of saving because he had never but a conditionall purpose and will to save viz. if man will beleeve and obey and this conditionall intent remains in God still together with a conditionall intent to hate and damn him if he perform not the conditions I should answer him in the words of our Divines in answer to the Arminians and Mr. Baxter knows them to be beaten with shame out of this plea therefore to decline the strokes I finde him not yet adventuring to make use of this obiection 2. It denies in effect and substance the justification and remission of any man in this life for to forgive upon such a condition as no man hath power in himself to perform is but a verball not a reall forgivenesse And Mr. Baxter will not let out one gry or iote from his lips that shall give hope to the sinner yea to the believer of any dram of grace and power that the Lord will minister to the Elect more then to the reprobates for the supportation of their Faith and from themselves they have all propensivenesse to fall and no strength to stand In this respect therefore he makes the state of beleevers worse then the state of unbeleevers For Miserrimum est fuisse beatos To have had Faith yea Christ in hand and Heaven in hope and then to fall from all makes their case more miserable in the losse of it then it would have been if they had never had any thing in hand or in hope It utterly destroyeth all joy in beleeving all peace of Conscience all consolation in the holy Ghost while it sets the beleever in the arms of Christs love and participation of his merits and benefits as Dionysius placed Damocles at his table with all sumptuous provisions before him Musick attendance and whatsoever else was Majestical or delightful to cheer him but with a sharp sword hanging by a single hair over his head threatning him No other after Mr. Baxter is the state of a beleever in all his most spiritual enlargements and comforts in Christ there is but a single hair between him and hell fire Death is in the pot of all his contentments Fear of imminent vengeance gives him not leave to taste one of the sweet morsels upon or crums that fall from Gods table And this is a Gospel from hell contrary to the everlasting Gospel which Christ brought from heaven giving a joy that none shall take from beleevers Joh 16. 22. The foundation thereof the love of God in Christ remaining immutable impregnable I am perswaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities c. shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord Rom 8. 38 39. 4. Whereas there are three acts considerable about our Justification 1. Christs giving 2. Gods accepting the satisfaction given for us and 3. Gods justifying or declaring and evidencing us justified in and to our consciences for this satisfaction so given and accepted I would here demand of which of these Faith is a Condition If he say of Christs giving satisfaction this is a contradiction for Christ gave satisfaction before we beleeved or lived so that Faith which came after could not be the Condition of an Act that went before except he will say that Christ must so oft dye as sinners attain to beleeve If of Gods acceptance then more is ascribed to our faith then to Christs death for our justification and faith shall be more then collateral with the sacrifice of Christ to our salvation the sufficiency of satisfaction remaining only in Christs bloud but the efficacy thereof arising from mans faith yea and so Christ should have paid our debts and spilt his bloud for us at the feet of the Father without knowing whether he would accept it or no and so whether there should be the least fruit of his death for the justification of the beleevers before his death is but conditionall
also concurreth with it to blesse it even it alone to this end Here to determine peremptorily whether of these acts of God his qualifying of faith for or his commanding it to this use is more and lesse direct or proper to the end or whether they are coordinates thereunto I fear may proceed more from a headie rashnesse then from the modesty of Christian wisdome especially because I take justifying faith to be more then a naturall or morall virtue which Mr. Baxter possibly will deny viz. an infused habit qualifyed by God himself that infuseth it with this peculiar property to cleave unto Christ and receive him But by the way it shall not be impertinent to shew in some particulars what mentall Reservations Mr. Baxter hath in his words not easily appearing to a cursory reader 1. When he saith B. Faith justifyeth as it is the fulfilling of the condition of the new Covenant His meaning is that it only so far justifyeth as it fulfilleth the condition But throughout our whole life according to his principles we are but fulfilling have not fulfilled the condition of the new Covenant therefore throughout our whole life we are but in justifying not justifyed And then consequently if it be true what most of our Divines conclude that in the next life there shall be no use of faith because vinon and fruition are proper to that state beleevers shall not be justifyed at all because the condition was never fulfilled 2. When he saith B. Because God hath commanded no other means nor promised justification to any other therefore it is that faith is the only condition and so only thus justifyeth The reader that doth but catch here a little and there a little of his doctrine would think him by what he here findeth no lesse Orthodox in the point of Justification then Luther or Paul himself that he explodes all works all inherent righteousnesse from bearing the least part with faith unto justification whereas contrariwise he speaks not here of the faith of Gods stamping but of his own coining of a faith that brings in all good works that is it self all good works to justification attributes no more to faith then he doth to any other part of our inherent righteousnesse nor any thing to faith it self as usefull to justifie but as it is our whole inherent righteousnesse or at least a part of it as partly by that which hath been but principally by that part of his treatise which remains to be examined appeareth The rest of this Section I let passe without examination I come now to the fift and last Section of his Explication pag. 230. B. 5. That faiths receiving Christ and his righteousnesse is the remote and secondary and not the formall reason why it justifyeth appeareth thus We finde verifyed in Mr. Baxter that of the Poet Dolus an virtus quis in hoste requirat having professed open warre against the doctrine of all the Protestant Churches yea of the Gospell of Christ he manageth it more by stratagems then by valour We finde him here perverting in stead of rightly stating the question thereby to get advantage to answer what he will and to what he pleaseth The question controverted between us and the Papists first and in these latter times the Arminians also is not whether Gods instituting of faith in Christ or else the acting of faith so instituted be the one the formall and the other the remote reason why it justifyeth But whether faith so instituted of God to be the mean or instrument of our Justification doth justifie by vertue received from Christ its object or else by its own vertue as it is a good work or as it is an act of righteousnesse performed in obedience to Gods commandement That which they maintain is that faith justifyeth by vertue of its object Christ denying the Papists work and the Arminians act If Mr. Baxter did labour more for truth then for victory we should not finde in him so much fraud and so little of sincerity It is not Christs but Antichrists kingdome that is maintained by the pillarage of shifts and sophisms Let him not astonish the poor Saints of Christ with words that they cannot understand obscuring the truth with needlesse terms of art his poor flock of Kederminster for whom he affirmes himself to have compiled this work are in all probability as well acquainted with the formall and remote reason why faith justifyeth as they are with Hocus Pocus his Liegerdemain In this point let him either confute the assertion of our Divines or maintain the adversaries assertion here he doth neither directly but beats the aire and makes a great noise to little purpose Yet let us see how well he proveth his own assertion B. Suppose Christ had done all that he did for sinners and they had beleeved in him thereupon without any Covenant promising Justification by this Faith would this Faith have justified them By what Law or whence will they plead their Justification at the Bar of God This supposition is not full there must be another supposition antecedaneous to this supposition A true supposition that will shew the invalidity of this feigned one Suppose that upon a foregoing Covenant between the Father and him Christ hath done all this for his elect whom he knoweth by name and so Christ in their names hath given and God hath taken full satisfaction for all their offences and hereupon Christ hath received in their behalf a full acquittance and discharge Who now shall lay any thing to their charge It is God that justifieth Rom. 8. 33. under this supposition they are for ever freed from pleading at Gods Bar They have there an Advocate to plead for them Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the Propitiation for our sins 1 Joh. 2. 1 2. Sits at the right hand of God with the effectuall Oratory of his pretious bloud making intercession for us Rom. 8. 34. so the supposition of Mr. Baxter extends no further then this if without any Covenant promise of Justification by Faith in Christ could they by beleeving in him have had the beeing and comfort of Justification within their own souls Unlesse God had by some other way ratified and sealed this benefit to them I acknowledge they could not yet had their justification been still nothing the lesse firm before God in Christ But now by the promise of the New Covenant through Faith they have the sweetnesse and joy thereof in themselves also B. But suppose Christ having done all that he did for us that he should in framing the New Covenant have put in any other condition and said whosoever loveth God shall by vertue of my satisfaction be justified would not this love have justified No doubt of it I conclude then thus The receiving of Christ is as the silver of this coin the Gospel promise is as the Kings stamp which maketh it curraut for justifying If God had seen it meet to have stamped any thing else it
and continued untill the full execution thereof That very pactional Justification which is by Faith being nothing but the execution of the decree of God from eternity For besides our eternal Justification in Christ before mentioned we acknowledge also an eternall decree in God to declare and evidence his Elect justified in their own consciences i. e. in time to send forth his Spirit into them and by his Spirit to work Faith in them and so to draw them unto Christ and by the evidence of Faith and evidence of the Spirit to declare themselves to themselves to be justified and pardoned for ever As for that of the respect of the Adjunct to its Subject wee leave to Master Baxter and his friends the Arminians They indeed make Pardon and Justification to bear the nature of Adjuncts yea separable Adjuncts and Accidents of God which may adesse vel abesse sine destructione subjecti that God may hate one day even to damn and love the next day to save and the third day convert this love into hatred againe and so consequently change more frequently then the Moon and yet be Gâ—d still Such shall we find Mr. Baxters doctrine suckt out by kissing from the lips of the Arminians But I forbear to speak further of it here reserving it for its proper place 4. As to the instances which he giveth to make questionable whether Imanent Acts are eternall viz. For God to know that the world doth now exist that such a man is sanctified or just c. Gods foreknowledge is not a knowing that such a thing is which is not but that such a thing will be which is not I answer that foreknowledge doth still imply and connote knowledge though knowledge doth not so imply foreknowledge He that perfectly in every respect foreknew an Ecclipse in every point of its time measure c. knew it also perfectly and could as fully and perfectly contemplate and speak of it in its fruition as presence future and present it was and is one to him Much more in God who hath created time for the measure of his creatures not his own being and motion Past present and future are much to us whose existence duration and motions are spanned and spinned out by moments But to God who is eternall dwels in eternity is eternity not circumscribed with place or time there is nothing former or latter no succession of present to past of future to present but all at once and at one view apparent to his eye or knowledge So that albeit he speakes oft in Scriptures to our capacitie of succession of times as if he together with us did act within the bounds thereof else if he should speake stil in reference to things of old and things hereafter to us as the eternall I AM not I was or I will bee our weakness would be beneath the comprehension of what he saith Yet these circumstances of time doe adde nothing to take nothing from nor properly square with him that is above time without the precincts of time comprehends time and temporary things within himself and is not comprehended or touched by them The now existence of the world the now sanctification of such a man are nâ—w and new in the knowledge of the Creature not the Creator Or let Mr. Baxter deny the world in that form state extent fulness c. in which it doth now exist or the now either sanctified or just man or the measure and nature of his Justification to have been from all eternity as apparent to Gods knowledge as it is in this now or present time of us his creatures 5. The comparisons or similitudes which hee bringeth of the Sun the glass the eye though they may have some appearance of freeing God from change in taking new notions into his knowledge in time which notwithstanding is but an appearance yet is there nothing in them from which to argue to the acts in general which are immanent in God These do but set forth the respect of natural causes and their natural effects either to other therefore are in a capacity to illustrate onely those acts that flow naturally and therewithall necessarily from God Not those that proceed from the liberty and freedom of his will which Master Baxter call Morall Acts and Morall Causes For of these there can be no Cause assigned but the free will of God And if they serve not Master Baxters turn in this respect they become utterly unusefull to him in the point of Justification Yet to this end doth he drive that God doth justifie and unjustifie pardon and unpardon change his will from love to hatred and from hatred to love to will the salvation of the same man at one time and his damnation at another without any change of his will or in himself The absurdity and impossibility whereof we shall afterward shew when Master Baxter in his following Theses gives me cause to do it So much of what he saith by way of answer to the Major or more properly what he saith to leave it unanswered For after all he concludes But grant that all Gods immanent Acts are Eternall And this is as much as if he had said All that hath been said is of no force to refell it Therefore I grant it As for his answer to the Minor That Remission and Iustification are immanent Acts in God though he speak much yet is it nothing to the pupose First he tells us that most Divines will deny it and tell you that they are transient Acts which is true An irrefragable Argument most will say it Ergo it is true True because most Will say it though hitherto possible they have never said it And how knowes he they Will say it â—eradventure he puts so much confidence in his following dispute that he accounts all will be captivated by it into his opinion Oâ— if he mean the most Divines have said it hee questionlesse means partly the Jesuiticall Divines for so Bellarmine indeed with others of the same School asserts or else more primarily the Arminian Divines speaking in this point what they have learned of Socinus who is as great with them as was Simon Magus with the Samaritans Yet even these also though they someâ—imes deny yet do they also sometimes when it may make for their advantage affirme Justification to be an immanent Act in God 2. Who is there that sees not his sophistry in shifting from him this proposition in stead of answering it Doctor Twisseâ— his proposition is Justification is an immanent Act in God To subvert this Master Baxter bestirrs himself to prove a seemingly but not really contradictory proposition viz. That Justification is a Transient Act of God A fallacy which in the Schools is called Ignoratio Elenchi And the reasoning of Master Baxter here is as proper and powerful as if Master Baxter should affirm that Apollo was above a hundred years old and I to overthrow his conclusion should assert and prove that Apollo
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
kept in Gods memory to impute them every moment as fast as they are committed For one of these last milstones tyed to the neck of the poor offender sinks him into hell as surely as if all that are removed had their weight returned upon him with that one to sink him 3. If God hath remitted and justifyed a beleever from the sins which he hath committed and not from the sins which he foreknoweth they will commit but imputeth or will impute them then is the same person both justifyed and unjustifyed at the same time and God at the same time both loveth the same person to eternall life and hateth him to eternall condemnation which were no lesse absurdity then to attribute two contrary wils acting in God at once and so the same person be declared in his own conscience at the same time both in the state of life and in the state of death of life in respect of the sins past forgiven through Christ of death in regard of the sins to come not yet forgiven Secondly In Christ or as Mr. Baxter terms it Thesis 43. in Christs own justification either all sins are forgiven to the elect or none at all When having done their Law and paid their debt Christ appeared in the most holy place in the heaven at Gods mercy seat to mediate with his bloud for them he either received acquitance from and forgivenesse of all the sins which his elect in after times should commit and so in Christ their sins to come were forgiven or else no sin was forgiven for as yet they were not in being therefore neither were their sins yet committed But he received then in their names a full acquitance and forgivenesse of their sins as hath been before shewed therefore of their sins before they were committed and they were forgiven before they had offended Hence some of our Divines thus reason if since Christs satisfaction any sins be imputed any more to the elect they must be such as Christ hath or hath not expiated with his bloud and made satisfaction for to Gods justice if such as Christ hath expiated then notwithstanding that God imputes the sin yet the person to whom he imputes it is in grace and favour with God and the full penalty of his sin while imputed is paid to God but this were injustice not incident to God to impute a debt which is fully paid him If such as Christ hath not satisfyed for then the faith of an elect person obtains at Gods hands forgivenesse or the not imputing of such sins for which Christ hath not satisfyed Gods justice and so there shall be here remission without the shedding of bloud and justification out of Christ or faith and Gospell obedience shall be the price and ransome of their soules All which is most absurd Therefore the sins of the elect yet uncommitted are in Christ as fully forgiven as those that are already committed Thirdly If Mr. Baxters meaning be when he saith the sin is not forgiven before it be committed that the beleever hath not a singular apprehension of the forgivenesse of every singular sin before it be committed and that God hath not declared to his conscience the forgivenesse of every singular offence i. e. this evill which at this and that evill which in that hour of his life he shall drop into I acknowledge in this sense neither are any of our sins future forgiven nor many of our sins past For who in this case knoweth not only how oft he shall erre but also how oft and wherein he hath erred in this respect the generall pardon sealed in Christ bloud to us though it mention not every singular errour of our lives contained under the generall is alsufficient for us But perhaps Mr. Baxters meaning is that Christ hath not purchased to the elect a plenary and absolute forgivenesse but hath conditionally dyed for all if they shall beleeve and obey and upon this condition runs the hope of pardon as to the sins which they shall commit unto their lives end their renewed sins being dayly pardoned upon the continuance and dayly renewing of their obedience and so this Thesis runs in the same channell with the 43 44 45. Positions and for this cause I have annexed it to them Neither do I speak any thing to this Position in this sense here because it is prevented by what hath been already said in the examination of what he hath said there And too much hath been said both to those and this Position in which nothing but Magisteriall assertions without proofs are to be found CHAP. XXIV Arg. Mr. Baxters new Modell of the causes of Justification examined and first his dispute about the efficients and the materiall and formall causes thereof MR. Baxter in his 56. Thesis disputeth very Logically though but little Theologically of the causes of justification and because he thinks them all Athenians whom he hath a lust to corrupt viz. such as spend their time in nothing else but in telling or hearing some new thing Act. 17. 21. therefore looking aside from that which all the soundest i. e. with him the Antinomian Divines have said upon this Argument and disdaining it with a squint eye as too rustick and not enough pretty and dialecticall himself presents me with a new case and order of causes from the forge of his fancie viz. some sole and some sociall some single and some double some proper and some improper causes some causes that are causes and some causes that are no causes without further particularizing take him thus in his own words B. Thesis 56. By what hath been said it is apparent that justification in title may be ascribed to severall causes 1. The principall efficient cause is God 2. The instrumentall is the promise or grant of the new Covenant 3. The Prâ—catartick cause so far as God may be said to be moved by any thing out of himself speaking after the manner of men is fourfold 1 And chiefly the satisfaction of Christ 2 The intercession of Christ and supplication of the sinner 3 The necessity of the sinner 4 The opportunity and advantage for the glorifying of his justice and mercie The first of these is the meritorious cause the second the morall perswading cause the third is the objective and the fourth is the occasion 2. Materiall cause properly it hath none if you will improperly call Christs satisfaction the remote matter I contend not 3. The formall cause is acquiting of the sinner from the accusation and condemnation of the Law or the disabling the Law to accuse or condemn him 4. The finall cause is the glory of God and of the Mediator and the deliverance of the sinner 5. The Causa sine qua non is both Christs satisfaction and the faith of the justifyed It must be granted that he is not a man of delicacies hath a dull eye and dry brain whosoever is not enamoured with so fair a shew of causes like a cup-bord
And at such arguing Agelastus that laught only once when he saw his horse eat Thistles would be tickled into a second laughter And no more weight is there in his former reason Because faith is the principall condition and the other lesse principall And as a whole County c. Here 1 I would demand in what respect according to Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter can make faith the more principall and the rest qualifications and duties the lesse principall conditions Not in respect of their nature for if one be all are spirituall and Divine Nor in respect of priority in time for if not all yet many of the rest are of the same age and birth with faith Nor in respect of durance for many of them survive faith as justifying Nor in its instrumentality to justification for he denyeth any such thing to be in faith Nor in office for in it he confounds all together Nor in the amplitude of its object for herein love as in other things requires the preeminency Nor in order of operation for he makes many of them Antecedents to faith Nor in the perfection of its effect for he affirmes the rest to perfect what faith hath but begun In what respect then is faith the more principall Mr. Baxter shewes not because according to his principles it is beyond my principles to conceive that he can shew Yet he saith it because it serves his turn here to say it degrading faith at one place and enthroning it in another at his pleasure for his own ends 2 But if it be the principall condition c. what will follow hence for Mr. Baxters advantage This he makes to follow That as the whole Country hath oft its name from the chief city so may the rest duties from faith why doth he not speak plain it may be saith he but is it so where doth the Scripture give this name to faith it self much lesse to other duties in faith implyed Neither is the question about the name but the offices of all these It is rare that the Country takes its name from the chief City yet this is not in question but whether the whole Country partake of the priviledges and charter of the chief City This may indeed be where potentates that have the absolute Lordship of both grant to both the same priviledges Yet then the priviledges and dignities of the chief City are not its alone being common to the whole Country with it 3 But to the very thing in hand without painting and dawbing When the Lord hath rejected Mizpah Shiloh Dan Bethel and all other the Cities and Country of Israel saving Jerusalem alone there to vouchsafe his presence and to be sought unto it is then a rejection of God to set up Gods name and worship elsewhere saving at and equalize any other place with Jerusalem the Metropolis Hence is that complaint of God Israel hath forsaken Hos 8. 14. his maker and buildeth temples So when God hath consecrated faith alone and qualifyed it for the receiving of Christ to justification having rejected all our own righteousnesse and works from being priviledged together with it to this office and worke it is no lesse then a forsaking of God and of Christ to performe the most holy duties or to produce the most Celestiall qualifications in the least part to justifie us 4 All that Mr. Baxter dares to conclude hence is that works and duties may be not that they are conditions of justification But how from these reasons he will bring about that these all are the conditions or condition and yet faith the alone condition if he had so many eyes as Argus to guide him and so many hands as Briareus to work with by that guidance he shall be never able to effect Yet in the explication pa. 239. Mr. Baxter to charme his overly reader into a delusion pretends a proof of this Thesis by two similitudes which I forbear to transcribe because they are not worthy of so much labour For First Similies do illustrate not prove He should first have proved and then illustrated Secondly They are not adequate or fitted to the question speak only to a part of and not to the whole Thesis conclude at the best only that faith may in some case imply many other duties but in no wise that when faith is said to justifie other duties are implyed under the word faith as justifying together with it much lesse that all other duties justifie yet faith alone justifyeth If he would reason by them home to his position he must reason to this Tenour In the former suppose a King or State give to me by commission the government of such an eminent City or Castle but with this proviso and upon these articles that I disband the Army by which before I laid siege to it remove from me all my Regiments quit my self of all my Souldiers and so enter into the possession and government and all the honour and profits thereof by my self alone and one Counsellour to serve and assist me in the managing of the said government If now by vertue of this Commission I enter not having disbanded the said Army but carry it in with me some under a pretense of guarding my person others as my individuall adherents from whom I cannot be separated others to retain the Citizens within the bounds of due loyalty to me and the rest under a pretext of propagating the dominion of that power that hath so invested me with the government No man will doubt but I enter as a Traytor not as a loyall Trustee to the power which hath deputed me Who will not laugh at it as a sophisticall or rather ridiculous plea when he hears me maintaining that I entred with that one Counseller alone for all the rest are implyed in him some as his right some as his left hand some his parents some his children some his friends some his servants c. and so I have but him alone in having so many thousands with him So the new Covenant gives me Christ with justification and blessednesse in him with this Commission and proviso that I disband my own strength and righteousnesse the whole Army of my works by which before I laid siege to it to make all mine by my own winning and to enter into possession with faith alone apprehending all from the hand of free grace Shall I not be a Traytor if I carry the whole Army of works to take and hold possession for me though I make never so golden a pretext of faith only to which all these are reducible The same is the tenour of the redemption of the galley slave if you will not run from the Scripture in stead of following it in making comparisons But unto it I shall have a more proper place to speak afterward when we come to Mr. Baxters great adored Argument of receiving Christ as our Lord as well as Saviour or if there be not occasion offered there in the interim the
what to be certain of It were more tolerable and excusable for me to leave the grounds of one single man giving his private interpretation of this Scripture despised unexamined and unanswered than for him so to deale with all the Churches of Christ But I will not be a follower of him that followes not Christ in lowliness and his Precept in selfe-deniall His dispute here is two fold 1 to prove that Iames speaks not of the declaration of our justification before men 2. To prove that he speaks of our justification before God when he mentioneth justification by works To the former all that he saith is Sophisticall and Fallacious For if wee grant that by the World hee meanes the whole generation of men both good and evill which yet can hardly bee drawne from his dispute which to make our assertion odious would make it out as relating only to the wicked of the world that these must be the alone Judges Notwithstanding his whole Argumentation is a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a waving the question with a false assumption that by Justification before men we meant a raising of a Tribunall upon earth in opposition to Gods in heaven there to set up men to be judges and to passe sentence of justification and remission of sinnes one upon another according to the evidence of every ones works The falshood wherof hee proves by the illegality of such a judicature and incompetency of the judges and evidence for it And what is this but a Devill of his own raysing and laying again For what one rationall man in any of the Reformed Churches ever dreamed of such a justification All that wee understand heerby is but a declaration and discovery of the tree by its fruits of the state of a man before God that he hath justified or not justified him according as we see the fruits of justification i. e. the works of sanctification following or not following the profession of faith And all this not by a judiciall sentence given for or against any nor by the judgement of infallible faith or knowledge but in the judgement of charity alone which hopeth all things beleeveth all things thinketh no evill except by strong evidence it bee drawn to it 1. Co. 13. 5. 7. In fighting against this doctrine Mr. Baxter fighteth against Christ against the Holy Ghost the Author of it not onely heer but elsewhere also By their fruits ye shall know them saith our Saviour Mat. 7. 16. By this shall all men know that ye are my Disciples if yee love one another Io 13. 35. that the World may know that thou hast loved them Io 17. 28. He that is of God heareth us he that is not of God heareth us not hereby know we the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error 1. Io 4. 6. Let your light so shine forth before others that they seeing your good workes may glorifie your Father which is in Heaven Ma 5. 16. I magnifie my office if by any meanes I may provoke my bretheren c. and save some of them Ro. 11. 14. By your orderly carriage c. the unbeleever shall be convinced fall downe worship God and report that God is in you of a truth 1. Cor. 14. 24. 25. That he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed having nothing evill to say of you Tit. 2. 8. Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles that whereas they speake evill of you they may by your good works which they see glorifie God 1 Pet. 2. 12. Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of God to blaspheme 2. Sam. 12. 14. God hath begun and will perfect in you the good worke as it is meet for me to judge of you because c. Phil. 1. 6 7. I am perswaded of you things that accompany salvation because of your works and labours of love c. Heb. 6. 9 10. Wee give thanks to God for you c. since we heard of your Faith in Christ Jesus and love to all the Saints for the hope which is laid up for you in Heaven Col. 1. 3 4 5 To the Saints which are at Rome Corinth c. and hundreds of the like Scriptures which testifie the declaration such a declaration of the Faith Saintship Justification and salvation of others by the evidence of their works that we ought that it is a sinne in men by the judgement of Charity not to acquiesce therein And on the contrary part testifying the want of such an evidence to be an occasion given to all men to reject our Faith and justification in the profession thereof as spurious and vaine Against all these Mr. Baxter excepreth pronouncing that mans judgement herein is illegall incompetent and the evidence insufficient therefore to make use of any judgement or discerning in this kind is usurpative Doth he herein fight against men or against God Suppose that the event in any thing prove contrary to our judgement yet is there not sin in such judgement while we follow Christs Rule and to be deceived by Charity rightly ordered if it may be called a deceivednesse yet is it no sinfull deceivednesse What hee produceth from the Apostle Vnto me it is a small thing to be judged of you or of mans judgement c. 1 Cor. 4. 3. is nothing subservient to his turne For the Apostle there speaketh of their unjust Censures of him besides and against Christs Rule the Rule of Charity from which while they erred their judgement was not to be regarded and in relation to the future judgement which followes not mans but Christs owne knowledge of us Thus have we found one part of his arguing vaine and wide from the scope in going about to prove that James his Justification by works is not to be taken for the declaring of us to men to be truly justified His second dispute is to prove that this Justification by Works is to be understood of our justifying by works at Gods Tribunall His Reasons to prove it are partly in his words before transcribed partly in a new supply thereunto added The first Reason in the former is B. 1. It is such as Salvation dependeth on ver 14. Brevis esse laboro Obscurus fio No mans immoderate prolixity and tediousness hath ever so much troubled mee as this mans pretended affectation of conciseness and brevity By it when hee speakes nothing he gets the advantage to bee thought of fooles that he speaketh great and mysticall things Were it not that I regard such as are too apt to run after his whistle though they know not his tune I should rather kick at such Delphicke mystericall passages of his than take them up to looke on them If James here take not justifying and saving for the same thing then to use Mr. Baxters words I am not certaine what to be certaine off So that when he saith it is such a justification as salvation dependeth on it is one as if hee
these two distinguishing Attributes here the thing in question requires them not But his rotten Cause will receive no appearance of support by this Argument without them Againe as to the rest of his Argument why doth hee assume and conclude otherwise than he proposed The Proposition speaks of a Full Iustification and an Everlasting Salvation but the assumption of a Salvation only and the conclusion of a Iustification only without their Attributes of Everlastingnesse and Fullnesse Doth he not know the falaciousnesse of such Arguings why then doth he use it Is it because he is wholly made of it and cannot shun it or because his Cause is such that it cannot stand without it that to use plaine dealing will discover the deformity of it or for the congruity which such a kind of Argumentation hath with the cause fallaciousnesse with falshood Let him either propose what he assumeth and concludeth or else assume and conclude as he proposeth And then he must argue one of the two wayes either first thus Our Full Justification and our Everlasting Salvation have the same Conditions on our part But sincere obedience is without all doubt a condition of our Everlasting Salvation Therefore also of our full Justification Here the arguing is regular but it is about immaginary things such as neither the word nor the Churches of Christ are acquainted with Wee deny that in Mr. Baxters sence there is any Full Justification as opposite to a maimed true Iustification or any Everlasting Salvation in his sence as opposite to a true spirituall salvation that is temporary and transitory So that his Arguing is the same as if he should argue from Jupiters thunder to Jupiters lightning or from Bellerophons horse to Bellerophons saddle when all these were Fictions had their being only in immagination not in reality Or secondly thus Our Justification and our salvation have the same conditions on our part But sincere obedience is without doubt a condition of our salvation Therefore also of our justification Heere I distinguish the word salvation that it is taken in Scriptures when by it is meant the everlasting salvation of the whole man by Christ sometimes for the state of grace which wee attaine here sometimes for the state of glory above In the former sense we finde it 2. Cor. 6. 2. Now is the day of salvation Luk. 19. 9. This day salvation is come to this house So Acts 28. 28. Rom. 11. 11. Heb. 6 9. and in other places In which sense we are said to be saved when we effectually receive the word of Christ and Christ Jesus to whom that word directeth for Salvation 1 Cor. 1 18. To us that are saved Ephes 2. 5 8. By Grace ye are saved So 1 Cor. 15. 2. 2 Cor. 2. 15. 2 Tim. 1. 9 Tit. 3. 5. and elsewhere In all which iâ— is said wee are not that we shal be saved that Christ hath not that he will save us And the same is further confirmed in the word life where Believers are said to have life 1 Io. 5 12. Everlasting eternall life Io. 3. 36 and 5. 24. and 6. 6 47 54. to bee passed from death to life Jo. 5. 24. All which proveth a life eternall life and everlasting salvation in this world that cannot be lost but shall have its coronation in glory above In this sense wee grant the Proposition so far as we have before granted any condition of justification But we utterly deny the assumption And what Mr. Br. saith sincere obedience is without all doubt a condition of Salvation we affirme to be all the doubt the whole thing in question If it be granted of salvation in this sense it must be granted of justification also Because justification and salvation in this sense are not 2 things but one the same It being cal'd justification as we are freed delivered from the state of misery considered as a state of sin and salvation as we are delivered from the same misery considered as a state of wrath and condemnation To say therfore that our justification and salvation have the same condition is all one as to say our justification and our justification or our salvation and our salvation have the same conditions and wee might as well assume and conclude hence Obedience is a condition of our salvation Ergo of our salvation also as of our salvation Ergo of our justification also In the latter sense if Mr. Baxter take salvation for our future glorification then we utterly deny the consequent of the proposition It is false that he saith justification and salvation have the same conditions For what is a consequent of justification is an antecedent of salvation And obedience in Mr. Baxters sence cannot be a condition without the position whereof God doth not justifie because it followes justification and goeth not before it And in this sense I have oft spoken before to the minor and shal have occasion to speak again But let us see how he goeth about to prove his major proposition B. Explic. p. 311. The Antecedent is manifest in that Scripture maketh faith a condition of both Justification and Salvation and so it doth obedience also as is before explained How far any thing of this is true there hath been given an Examination before to his Explanations before B Therefore are we justified that we may be saved Wee grant more in aright sense viz that in being Justified we are saved But what of this B. It would be as derogatory to Christs righteousnesse if we be saved by works as if we be justified by works Therefore we reject both And let Mr. Baxter look to himselfe for maintaining both B. Neither is there any way to the former but by the latter The greater is his sin that teacheth such a way to justification as bars up the way to salvation making it impervious and unpassable to Gods people B. That which a man is justified by he is saved by This is Christs mediation or Christ the mediator for there is salvation in no other nor any other name given us under Heaven by which we may be saved Act. 4. 12. By the righteousness of this One Grace came upon all to justification of life So we are saved by Christ and not by Condititions B. Though Glorification bee an adding of a greater happinesse then we lost and so justification is not enough thereto yet on our part they have the same Conditions This must be because hee will have it to bee the result of all his dispute But he only saith it but proves it not All that he layeth as the foundation of this Conclusion excepting that which in other words is the conclusion it selfe doth not infer it For it being granted what he saith but sheweth not that the Scripture saith it that we are therefore justified that we may be saved that there is no other way to Salvation but by justification and that it be as derogatory to Christs righteousness to be saved as to be
praises of the man yet this act of his meriteth it not no not from Mr. B. For as far as he transcribes him p. 182. Mr. Ball no further foâ—lowes Grotius then to Gods relaxing of the Law to take satisfaction from Christ in our steed But if he had also asserted that after satisfaction actually taken they which in Christ have satisfied are yet all their life-time under the Curse of the Law to bear it in their own persons would Mr. B. have hidden it Yet this is the thing in question between Mr. B. and the Protestants whether after the giving and receiving of satisfaction for our breaches of the Law the Curs of the Law be either nulled or els onely in part relaxed as to our bearing it Yea if he â—e as Mâ— B. stiles him then have we the testimony of so great learned and holy a Divine as almost England ever bred against Mr. B. himself not being able to deny any one almost that England ever bred which hath written more directly and contrarily to Mr. B. then this man in his Tractate of Faith about Justification If elswhere he contradicts himself I shall oppose Ball against Ball yea Ball in afflictions when he lived by Faith and had nothing else but Christ apprehended by Faith to support his troubled soul to Ball nâ—w raised to a prosperous state in the world and whâ— seeing the Court infected with Popery Socinianism and Arminianism and no other bridge to prefermâ—nt so effectuall as some shew of bending at least to these wayes might possibly as far as Conscience would permit him make use of the language there held most authentick I say of the language for I cannot condemn his doctrine alledged in his three following Testimonies it taken in a good sense But his ambiguities of words seem to speak him out to have had a levell to somewhat els besides the supporting of the truth and yet his Conscience seems to hold him bound from saying any thing manifestly against the truth Mr. B. may possibly tickle himself with his words but his matter duly pondered gives him a sting sufficient to perswade him to forbear laughter Let the unbiassed judicious Reader add consideration to his reading and then judge The rest of the testimonies which he hath here cited and quoted I let passe as altogether besides the questions which Mr. B. hath set in agitation between himself and all the Protestant-Churches And thus at length have his Arguments been examined which he brings to confirm his Justification by works He hath many things tending to the confirmation of some other Paradoxes scattered in his Aphorisms beginning at p. 123. of his Appendix and ending at p. 164. but because those things are handled by way of disputation against others and Mr. B. as a challenger doth call out there by name Mr. Owen and Maccovius to a Duell with himself each after other exposing them to the world as base and silly Animals in what they have said except they come forth into open field to make it good It shall be both impertinent and uncivil in me to meddle in a business to which others and the same far more worthy and able are called as to their peculiar task I should not be excused by any herein from being one that loveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be busie in another mans office specially seeing I know not what these challenged have done or are doing in the defence of themselves and the doctrine which they have asserted Were it that their reputation alone and not a truth of Christ which they had undertaken to defend were here clouded by Mr. B. I should think it no fault in them to pass it by in contemptuous silence but seeing Mr. B. endeavours upon their ruines to erect his mounts against the City of the living God to destroy it or at least spoyle it of its principall immunities denying the full justification of the Lords redeemed ones in this world holding them under the curs and wrath of God both in their life and death I perceive not how they can be silent without betraying the truth of God which they once undertook to defend Since this was written I understand Mr. Owen hath fully vindicated himself and learnedly defended all that Mr. B. had laid on his score Thus far to his Arguments that he hath brought to prove Justification by works I find no more nor in these have I hidden any thing but set them forth in their fullest strength CHAP. XV. Mr. Baxters Plea to prove his Doctrine free from Popery examined and refuted I Come now to the most accurate finest and chiefest part of Mr. Brs. Art his Alcumistry by which hee turneth the basest metals into gold darkness into light death into life deformity into beauty and hell into heaven it self All this he with strong endeavours labours to accomplish while with strong confidence hee goes about to vindicate his doctrine from all error all infection of Popery Socinianism Pharisaism and to render it the same with the doctrine of Paul and of Christ guiltless of all derogation to the praise of Gods grace Christs merits or the Saints comfort Yea to set it forth in such a splendor that although hee hath hitherto described such a grace of God as by his donation was no more appropriated and peculiarized to Peter then to Judas to the cursed in hell than to the Saints in heaven and such a Christ as reigneth Tyrant-like in the Kingdom of grace chaining up his own all his own subjects and friends under the curse of the Law to bear the horrors and torments of it in soul and body all their life yea after death as long as the world shall continue though he hath taken away from the Saints after their self-denyall repentance building themselves by their most holy Faith upon Christ the Rock after their renovation and sanctification by the Spirit all hope and possibility of attaining any assurance of Gods unchangeable love to them or of their sinns irrevocably pardoned or of their perseverance in the state of Grace or of their indefeazable right to glory or of their exemption from the curse and wrath of God while they live or of the rest and freedom of their souls after death either from the flames of Hell or of Purgatory as long as the world standeth After hee hath taught that no man shall have any part in Christ and his benefits which procureth it not by his own righteousness his own perfect righteousness in suo genere yea by the merits of his righteousness After that he hath proclaimed that his Gospel brings no better tidings of joy than these Yet at length hee comes to varnish over such a Grace such a Christ such a Gospel such a state of believers who are all of his own faigning with such paints and fine colours as by them to enamour all men to embrace these as the only true and appetible Grace Christ Gospel and state of beleevers That this Doctrine
through the Redemption which is in Jesus Christ and by their very receiving of him should obtein power to become the sonns of God notwithstanding all their former pollutions without all prejacent qualifications in them to purchase so great a Redemption Such was the doctrine preached to them and in the embracing and professing of this Doctrine and their Faith in Christ the alone redeemer they were first admitted into Christ gathered into Churches and so continued a while stablished in this truth with the joy of the Holy Ghost abounding in them The persons against whom he disputeth were chiefly if not onely the False Apostles of the Circumcision who also professed the Faith of Christ and preached it not the unbeleeving Jewes for these should not have had any such audience from the Churches But such as went out from the Apostles and the Church that was at Hierusalem to preach Christ Act. 15. 24. Such as came from James Gal. 2. 12. Such as boasted themselves to be of Câ—phas to hold forth the doctrine of Peter 1 Cor. 1. 12. Such as preached Christ of envie strife and contenâ—iâ—n not sincerely but under the luâ—e of so holy a name to take the advantage to deceive Phil. 1. 15 16. Who not labouring to gather Disciples to Christ out of infidelity as the Apostles had done entred into the severâ—ll Churches before stablished by the Apostles troubling them with words subverting their souls teaching them that they must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses els they could not be saved Act. 15. 1. 24. And these were of the Sect of the Pharisees which beleeved Act. 15. 5. Emissaries out of those Many thousands or rather Myriads of the Jewes at Hierusalem which beleeved yet were all zealous of the Law Act. 21. 20. Had the Apostles dispute been against such as had apostatizâ—d from the profession of Christ and against such unbeleevers as had seduced them from trusling on Christs imputed to rest upon their own inherent righteousness for justification iâ— had not been besides the purpose to have it his question as Mr. Br saith whether it be Christs righteousness or our own righteousness that we must plead against the accusations of the Law But seeing both the seduced and seducers with whom he dealeth were such as professed faith in Christ as their justifier and Saviour and questioned onely whether Faith alone or els their righteousness works also together with Faith were required to inright them to Christs righteousnes and salvation it had been impertinent if not ridiculous to have made it his question what the proper righteousnes is by which we are justified For this had been to decline and not to prosecute the question between him and them They would have granted him all that he concluded without the least dammage to their Cause Therefore his question was principally By what means we come to partake of the righteousness of Christ to Justification 2 Let the Apostle himself give his Testimony what his principall question was For he better knew his own minde than Mr. Br or my self And first in his Epistle to the Romans having for an introduction to the question in the three first Chapters proved both the Jewes with all their legall and the Gentiles with all their naturall righteousness and unrighteousness to be under sin guilt and condemnation he no sooner in the third Chapter begins to speak of the mean of their recovery Christ Jesus but he annexeth also by what means we come to have right in him In both which he no less Contradicteth Mr. Br than if he had seen before what Mr. Br hath written so many ages after Or the former he affirmeth that we are justified as by Christ so by the Redemption which is in Jesus Christ as he was set forth to be a propitiation or expiatory sacrifice for our sinns Rom. 3. 24 25. Not as Mr. Br before so stoutly Contended as he is our Lord i. e. in his sense our Lawgiver Of the latter that it is faith alone that makes this redemption and Propitiation ours to Justification namely Faith in his bloud Faith without the deeds of the Law Faith which excludeth without works which include boasting ver 25 27 28. And this faith in the death of Christ without works without deeds cannot include in it Morall works and righteousness unto Justification as Mr. Br would extort from it elsewhere by making Christ as our Lord and Lawgiver the object of Justifying Faith At length he Concludeth ver 30. that both in them which have some seeming and plausible qualification of righteousness and works and in them that have it not it is not that righteousness of their own but Faith which Justifieth And that this Faith is no less effectuall to the justifying of them that unto that very day have been ungodly than of them which from their very birth have seemed to be holy to the Lord. So much is Comprehended in those words of the Apostle It is one God which Justifieth the Circumcision by faith and the un-circumcision through Faith In these words is included the whole State of Pauls question The Apostle writing to the Church that was at Rome Consisting of beleeving Jewes and Gentiles endeavours to heal the divisions Close the breaches and settle a sweet union and Communion between them This he applyeth himself unto first in that great and fundamentall point of Christianitie viz. Justification by Christ in which they dissented Both Jewes and Gentiles acknowledged Justification and salvation to be by Christ alone but in this they differed The Jewes Confined this salvation by Christ to themselves alone that to them onely he was promised that they alone were qualified and in a capacity to receive him and the benefits that are by him That he came to be the Saviour of his own hallowed people that had waited for him not of the common and unclean Pagans that were aliens from the Common wealth of Israel and strangers from the Covenant of promise To this purpose they boasted of their Naturall Faederal and personall righteousness and holines qualifying them for the Justification which is by Christ of all which the Gentiles were destitute Their naturall Righteousness and holiness that they were Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles the seed of Abraham the holy stock to whom and whose seed the promise was made Their Faederall holines That they alone of all nations were in Covenant with God and did bear the badge and seal of the Covenant Circumcision in their Flesh by which they were distinguishd from all other people as holy to God when all other Nations under the Sunne were an abhomination in his sight Their Legall holiness that they had the Law Word and Oracles of God Committed to them all other Nations being left without Law without God and without hope in the world Their personall and Actuall righteousness that in reference to this holy Law of God they had walked exactly kept it from their youth
or else be free and absolute and in what sense it may be granted to be Conditional pa. 1. p. 108. to 118. The numerousnesse and withall unprofitablenesse of the Conditions which Mr. Br. assigneth part 2. p. 31 32. His vain ascribing to Conditions part 2. p. 26 83 108 109 c. 272 273. His Reasons to prove it examined part 1. p. 353 to 356. The hurtfullness of the contrary doctrine which Mr. Br mainteineth part 1. p. 351-353 His dispute to prove it still after we are in Christ to remain Conditional par 1. p. 292. to 308. VVhat the judgment of the Protestant Divines in this point is part 2. p. 17 to 22. 204 205. The promulgation offer of it may be granted Conditionall but once in being and possession it is absolute part 1. p. 355 356. The rashnesse of some Ministers in closing with Mr. Br. in this his Popish Arminian doctrine pa. 2. p. 22 23 25 237. Whether the Covenant of Grace were originally made between the Father and the Son and what the Covenant was and upon what terms so made p 1. p. 99. to 107. What relation all the other Covenants made in time between God and man had to this ibid. Mr Br. after the Papists distinguisheth between the Commands and Counsels of the word part 1. p. 213 214. The doctrine of Justification by Faith alone not a soul Cozening doctrine p 2. p. 173 c. Beleevers not under the Curse as the Curse or revenging punishment for sin part 1. largely discussed from p. 24. to p. 61. The Question stated ib. p. 32. c. The Reasons brought by the Protestant Writers to prove the Negative against the Papists ib. p. 33. to 37. Mr. Brs Arguments for the Affirmative ib. p. 29-31 His Arguments answered ib. p. 38. to 49. How many wayes popish and pernicious this his doctrine is ib. p. 49. to 62. D Darkening in stead of cleering Truths common to Mr. Br. with the Papists part 1. p. 5 9 10. The Death and blood of Christ onely expiatory and satisfactory to Justification part 2. p. 64 65 67. to 70. VVhether Justification admit of Degrees or magis minus part 1. p. 286. to 291. VVhether the Devil shall manage the accusation of men in the day of Judgement part 1. p. 281. Distinctions in Divine matters not grounded upon the word viz. Arts Sophistry Doctrines not to be judged of after the personall splendour of their Authors pref p. 4 5. Doe viz. Life and Live E VVhether it be Easie to perswade men to embrace Justification by Faith but difficult by works part 2. p. 181. to 184. Sanctification a sure Evidence of Justification so convertibly pa. 2. 176. to 178. In what respects good works do so Evidence ib. F Faith without works not competent to justifie according to Mr. Br. part 2. p. 4. How farre he followeth the Papists in the doctrine of implicit Faith part 1. p 1 2 3 c. His doctrine herein directly pointed against the Protestants ib. p. 4. We must not admit doctrine of Faith upon the authority of our Teachers ib. p. 6. The evils attending the doing thereof ib. p. 7 8. Mr. Brs wild and irregular definition of Faith to prove justification by works discovered to be ridiculous pa. 2. p. 56. c. The doctrine of the Protestants about Faith and works part 2. p. 174. c. What Mr. Br. meaneth by Faith or his To credere part 2. p. 71. c. How different Mr. Brs sense is from some of the Protestant writers that with him call Faith the Condition of justification part 1. p. 349 350. Forgiving of others not a Condition of Gods justifying and forgiving us part 2. p. 31 33 c. to the 37. Mr. Brs Fraud in hiding all that the protestants have written against his popish doctrines part 2. p. 17 18. 128 129. G The Genius of men when conspiring is apt to draw each other into truth or error pref p. 10 11. By what means the Gospel was so much and so suddenly propagated at the begining of the Reformation by Luther pref p. 39 40. How the further propagation of it was stopped ib. p. 40 41. Gospel Comforts are Antidotes against sin and carnall liberty not fomenters of it par 2. p. 162 163 167 168. Mr. Brs Reasons to prove his doctrines not to be legall and against the Gospel examined part 2. p. 266. to p. 276. Whether or in what respects Christ hath or hath not satisfied for sins against the Gospel as for sins against the Law p. 1. p. 219-227 Whether works as holpen by Grace justifie part 1. p. 139. to 143. Mr. Br. the papists vainly make this their common plea to excuse their arrogance in ascribing justification to works ib. p. 175 176 H Whether beleevers ought to serve for fear of Hell part 2. p. 155-157 Hiding viz. Fraud I What the judgment of many learned protestant Divines hath been and is about justification as an Immanent and eternal act in God part 1. p. 231. to 238. What Scriptures they bring to prove the affirmative ib. p. 238. to 247. Mr. Brs dispute against them examined ib. p. 248-262 Faith the Instrument of justification p. 1. p. 330. And the some both Gods and mans Instrument and in what sense each is such ib. p. 332 334 336 to 341. Mans Instrument 334-336 342-348 Mr. Brs cavils against this doctrine answered ib. p. 358. to 361. 364. to 368. 370. Whether believers as well as the reprobates shall be judged for according to their works in the last day largely discussed against Mr. Br. p. 2. p. 124-136 Whether the Scriptures which speak in the future tense of justifying do denote the day of Judgment p. 1. p 278-280 Judgment viz. Devil 282. The State of the question between Mr. Br and the Protestants about Justification by works Part 2. p. 4 5 6. Justification by works denyed ibid. c. Scriptures produced to prove that Workes have no part with Faith in justifying ibid. p. 10. to 17. The Scriptures cited by Mr. Br to prove the contrary assertion examined ibid. Chap. 3. VVhether according to his own principles he rightly calleth Faith the more and works the less principall Condition of Justification ibid. p. 49. 51 278 279. And if so whether this proveth that when we are said to be justified by Faith onely we are said to be justified by works also and yet justified by Faith alone ibid. Or whether the Reducibleness of all works to faith in some kinde prove it ibid. p. 49 50 52 53-56 278 279. Justification considerable in 3 respects 1 in God 2 in Christ 3 in our own persons and how in every of these Part 1. p. 89 -91. Mr. Brs distinction of justification and pardon into Title of Law and sentence of Judgement Constitutive and Declarative virtuall and Actuall examined and proved unscripturall and vain and his reasons to prove a Justification in the day of Judgement answered