Treatise what before he did but hint and whisper in a kind of darkenesse now he preacheth on the top of the house proclaiming it as the sole Soul-saving doctrine canonizing as Saints the Papists for the constant holding forth of it and Anathematizing all the Protestants Churches as Apostaticall for departing from it as by examining what followes in this his Tractate will appear For the avoiding of confusion and prevention of a voluminous prolixity into which I see my self already carried by following him Thesis after Thesis being necessitated thereby as he speaks so to examine and answer the same things often in many places I shall endeavour to reduce unto some few heads the sum of what he saith upon this Question examining that which is to the purpose and leaving the rest that is inconsideraable or impertinent to it 1 Then I shall endeavour to draw out from him the state of the Question what he holdeth and how he holds it forth to us 2 I shall examine his Arguments and Reasons by which he endeavoureth to confirme his assertion or assertions 3 I shall also examine what force there is in the Reasons which he bringeth to clear himself and his doctrine from being derogatory to the grace of God and full efficacy of Christs mediation or from all tainture of Popery Socinianism or other heresies Within this Triangle I conceive the whole fabrick of his doctrine of workes to be comprehended and in examining of these fully nothing to be left unexamined that may make for his purpose 1 The state of the Question or his assertions which he maintaineth I shall as neer as may fitly be done transcribe from him in his own words thus 1 The bare act of beleeving is not the only condition of the new Covenant but severall other duties also are part of this condition viz. of Justification For this is his meaning and if he be not so understood he is understood besides his meaning and in what he saith he saith nothing His Tractate contains Aphorisms of Justification only And the conditions of the new Covenant which tend to Illumination Sanctification Glorification c. must not be confounded with those of Justification if it were granted him that the Gospell dispenseth all or any of these upon conditions In this sense therefore he must he will be understood Thes 60. pa. 235. 2 That these duties coordinate with Faith to our Justification as conditions thereof are Repentance praying for pardon forgiving others love hearing the word consideration conviction godly sorrow knowledge of Christ assent to the truth of the Gospell subjection consent acceptance cordiall covenanting self-resigning esteeming and preferring Christ before all loving him above all sincerity perseverance affiance sincere obedience and works of love serious painfull and constant use of Gods ordinances hearing praying meditating in a word all good works i. e. all the works of Righteousnesse holinesse mercy c. which the Law requireth yet with this proviso that all these legall workes must be called not our Legall but our Gospell Righteousnesse Thes 60. p. 235 236. p. 240 241 242. Thes 73 74 p. 289. 290 291 292. 3 That the non-performance of any one of these doth hinder but it is not one or many but a concurrence of all these together in one that sufficeth to condition us unto Justification Thes 61. So that when the promise of life is made in Scripture to our beleeving in Christ or to any other inseparable concomitant of Faith you must understand it Caeteris paribus viz. that your knowledge repentance obedience good workes c. are not an inch behind your faith or in sensu composito that it is a compounded Faith hath all other vertues not only included in it but also actuated and cooperating with it for justification or else you must be shaken off unjustified yea though all the rest be in act and but one out of act Thes 61. and its Explication He saith not this indeed totidem verbis word by word But let him deny the least particle of all this to be his meaning he shall by such a denyall extremely wound if not wholly subvert his cause and yeeld it to us 4 It is not the habit of these vertues as infused from above into us but the act or work of them as set in operation by us that justifieth For so saith he of Faith it self much more implieth it of the other vertues that it is the act of faith alone as it is our act or work that justifyeth aâ—d consequentially that we are justifyed wholly by works viz. as the alone condition or causa sine qua non 5 That some of these justifying vertues or works are antecedaneous to or fore-going preparatives of some integrall parts some proper essentiall formall acts some differentiall and essentiall parts some modifications some in separable products some both parts and necessary consequents and subservient acts some necessary continuing and exercising means and lastly some separable adjuncts of Faith yet tending to the well being thereof and thus having adorned faith like the Cornish Chough with the feathers of all the best birds he sends it to scar aloft with these plumes to heaven for justification which without this borrowed help of it self it was not in a capacity to do pa. 240 241 242. In these particulars I take the whole sum of his doctrine about this Question to be comprehended He addeth indeed some lenitives here and there to mitigate and make tolerable the asperity and harshnesse of these his assertions which we shall examine among the reasons that he brings to manifest his doctrine not to be derogatory from the glory of Gods grace c. as being more proper to that then this place All the forementioned particulars may be summed up in this one That all the acts or works of all morall vertues and of all insuâ—ed Habits if he grant any such are required coordinately with faith to make up the conditio upon which we shall and without which we cannot be justifyed In opposition to this all the Protestant Churches do and still have maintained that Faith alone and the same not as it is in the consideration of a habit or vertue or as an act of ours but by way of a means or instrument as hath been before explained justifyeth without any concurrence of works with it in the act and office of justifying This assertion he endeavours to destroy and establish his own with many Arguments which we shall examine severally either after other CHAP. II. Mr. Baxters preface to his first Argument drawn from Scriptures to prove Justification by works examined and the Scriptures which the Protestant writers bring against it and Mr. Baxter would have stifled in darknesse here brought to light together with the opinion of the most eminent Protestant writers upon this Subject HIS first argument is drawn from Scriptures unto which he thus prefaceth B. 235. I desire no more of those that deny this but that
here in defining or describing righteousness denying it a positive and reall being herein puffing off all the Classicall Philosophers and Divines Philosophers for Aristotle affirmeth that all Philosophers call Righteousnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such an habit by which men are apt to practise just things and by which they act and will just things And to them he gives also his assent calling it further 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely a virtue but a perfect virtue citing and approving that Proverbial verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That all or every vertue is complexively or comprehensively in Righteousness Yea the most perfect virtue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again it is saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most excellent of virtues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a part of virtue but virtue in the whole So speakes he of Righteousness in the general and as in the next Chapters he distributes it into its specials he makes virtue the general of those several Righteousnesses In the same manner the choicest of all the learned and Orthodox Divines that I have met with make Righteousness thus taken in its largest sense to sound and to bee one and the same thing with virtue it self Some call it bonitatem probitatem integritatem goodnesse honesty and integrity others rectitudinem virtutis the uprightnesse or rectitude of Virtue defining its specials by Virtue when they assign the next and immediate genus by habitus when they assign the remote genus And are not Virtues and either naturall morall or infused Habits Positive and Reall Beings Must all other Philosophers and Divines vanish to nothing when Mr. Baxter comes with his Denominations Modifications or rather Noddifications Neverthelesse though we deny to him that Righteousnesse is but a bare Denomination or dead notion yet we grant to him that true righteousness both of Mens Actions and persons must relate to some rule What will follow hence B. This Rule when it is the law of Man and our actions suit thereto we are then Righteous before men True and yet latet anguis in herba under this truth there lurketh a fraudulent falshood Mr. Baxter hath his restrictions to promote but not to prevent a falshood The thing that he pretends to prove is That men are called Righteous in Scripture in reference to the New Covenant onely There he finds the word onely to make a falshood Here he cannot find it will not finde it for if it bee brought in place it will reprove him of falshood to all men Is it for mens actions suiting to the Lawes of men onely that they are called in Scripture righteous before men He would be so understood for if it be not onely for this if at all for their outward and appearing conformity to the Law of God they are called Righteous before or in the account of men his conclusion is destroyed by this prop which he brings to sustain it And yet he dares not to say onely for this they are called Righteous before men For he knoweth whole streames of Scriptures would bee brought â—o confute so bold an assertion But he proceedeth B. When this Rule is Gods Law it is either that of Workes or that of Grace In relation to the former there is none righteous no not one c. ut supra This and that which followeth is all sophisticall fallacious and catching First the distinction which he here maketh of the Law of God that it is either the Law of Works or Law of Grace is somewhat a strange phrase to chaste ears that desire to hear Scripture Doctrines delivered in Scripture termes that oppose Grace to the Law and are not wont to call it a Law Secondly it is contrary to Mr. Baxters doctrine and Gospel for howsoever he in words talketh of a two-fold Covenant of Works and of Grace to beguile such as desire to be beguiled yet really hee labours to bring all under a Covenant of Works making mans own righteousnesse the condition of both so altering the name but retaining the nature and power of the first Covenant still as I have before evinced from his disputes and himself will in the following part of his book discover more fully 3. There is an ambiguity in the word Rule he manifesteth not how farre his meaning therein in reference to the Law extendeth whether for a direction onely what is good and what is evill wherewith God will be served and what is it that offendeth him teaching us to perform the one and to shun the other Or whether also for a direction how far in what degrees the good is to be done and the evill shunned that we may bee justified and saved thereby Though we may without much difficulty smell his meaning herein yet because he reserveth it for another place clearly to expresse himselfe we also will reserve it for the same place to make him a full answer 4. He playeth his usuall game of equivocation in telling us that In relation to the former there is none righteous no not one This is not that which is concluded and nothing ought to be in the conclusion which is not also in the premises The conclusion as we have seen is that none is called righteous c. The proof here is that none is righteous These phrases much differ A man may be called righteous in reference to the rule of the Law though he be not absolutely righteous in every particular thereof to Justification and himself acknowledgeth that in many respects the Scripture calleth men righteous in reference to the Law of Works who notwithstanding shall never be justified by the Law of Works as a little before in this Explication we have seen Concerning the Righteousnesse which is by the Law I was blamelesse saith the Apostle Phil. 3. 6. And I have lived in all good Conscience unto this day Act. 23. 1. Lo even while Paul was yet a Saul a hater a persecuter of the Gospel Righteousnesse yet he is termed and called Righteous blamelesly Righteous conscientiously righteous in relation to the Law of Works Or when Judah saith of Tamar She is or Saul of David Thou art more righteous then I and Solomon of Joab Two men more righteous then himself Gen. 38. 26. 1 Sam. 24. 17. 1 Kings 2. 32. Were these here called Righteous in reference to the righteousness of the Gospell and not of the Law Or when the Lord by his Prophet calls them righteous which turned from their righteousnesse and perished in and for their wickednesse Ezek. 3. 20 21. and 18. 20 24 26. and 33. 12 13 18. was it an Evangelical or a legal Righteousnesse that gave them the denomination of Righteous persons When Isaiah calls all his all the peoples Righteousnes menstruous or filthy Raggeâ— and Paul his Righteousnesse Dung Isa 64. 6. Phi. 3. 9. yet both such as gave them the denomination of Righteous men Mr. Baxter himself will not say that these were the righteousness of the New Covenant I could
Wherefore puts he the soul for the man but to cheat in stead of informing his reader If any say faith is the instrument of the soul he speaks by a Synecdoche putting the part the chief essentiall part of man for the whole man after the common use of the Scriptures and why may not the severall faculties of the soul be as well mans instruments as the severall members of the body It is not unproper to call the eye the instrument by which man seeth or his ear the instrument of hearing or the the tongue of speaking or the hand of working c. and why should it be then unproper to call the faculties of the soul the instruments of man to act those offices by each faculty to which each faculty is appropriated Or when faith is infused into the soul doth it disinstrument the faculties thereof that they become no more instrumentall to man in their places Nay it makes them instrumentall to work henceforth upon spirituall as before upon naturall and morall objects And this also answereth his second reason why the habit of faith cannot fitly be called our instrument because saith he the holinesse of the faculties is not their instrument I grant it but this is not the question That which he was to disprove is that faith makes not the faculties of the soul into which it is infused instrumentall to the applying of Christ to justification The Compasse is the Mariners instrument by which to steer his ship yet would it be nothing instrumentall to this purpose were it not touched with the Loadstone that points it to the North-pole so are the will and understanding instrumentall to the receiving of Christ and justification in and by him not by any innate power in themselves but as they are touched and pointed directly by faith to the bloud of Christ for justification as to the doctrine of Christ for illumination and to the Spirit of Christ for sanctification And for this cause we call not so much the faculty of the soul the instrument as faith because faith makes it instrumentall to justification The power and disposition which it hath to this act being not naturall from it self but supernaturall from faith infused into it and working on it In stead of answering in order to every particle of what he addeth it shall suffice to discover his Sophistry by which he seeketh to elude a sacred truth of the Gospell in all that he saith upon this Argument and this will be enough in answer to all that he saith yea manifest him unworthy of an answer As before he first maketh all the instrumentality or causality whether proper or improper of faith to consist in the act of faith or faith actuated as if the Chirurgeons instruments were not his instruments while they lie by him but then only while he actually useth them in the severall offices to which they are appointed and faith were no longer an instrument if an instrument of justification then while it is actually receiving Christ and so the same man should be justifyed and unjustifyed oft in the same day in the same hour being no longer justifyed then while faith is in the act of applying Christ And 2. In contracting the whole man yea Christian into a soul as if we did make such a faculty of the soul the souls and not the mans instrument to receive Christ which himself knoweth to be the meaning of no one of them against whom he fighteth but a slanderous and subtle trick of his own devising to make their doctrine seem absurd in an alien sense which in their own sense he can in no wise confute So 3. Here he further sophisticateth and perverteth their doctrine in contracting the whole man not only into a soul which he had done before but into some one or two faculties of the soul into which faith is infused and inherent as in its subject as if they taught that faith is the instrument of a faculty and not mans instrument The holinesse of the faculties is not their i. e. the faculties instrument saith he but themselves rectifyed The absurdities therefore which he infers as consequents of such an assertion are the consequents of his slander not of their doctrine None ever taught faith to be the instrument of a faculty or instrumentall to justifie a facultie but mans instrument and nstrumentall to justifie man 4. In supposing it as a thing granted that faith in the soul or faculties of the soul is nothing but the holinesse of such faculties or their being rectifyed and not a being distinct so distinct as may be called their instrument a doctrine well agreeing with his principles who makes sanctification the condition of justification and no further attributes any thing to faith but as it is a part of our sanctification Pag. 195. n. 5 6. and thorowout this whole Treatise but altogether denied by the Protestant Churches which ascribe not to faith any instrrumentality to justification as it is a part of our holinesse and rectitude but as by a supernaturall virtue which it infuseth into the soul to carry it out to Christ to God in Christ for remission and reconciliation Otherwise godlinesse hope love meeknesse and all other the fruits of the Spirit should justifie us equally with faith because the holinesse and rectitude of the soul consisteth no lesse in these then in faith And this is the thing in question if we grant it all is granted which the worst of Jesuites seeks or Mr. Baxter in this whole book contends for so that to make the whole thing in question a known and granted conclusion from which he will prove a particle in question is too grosse and un Baxterlike a Sophism he is wont to spin finer webs what make such course threads in his fingers And why saith he Not so distinct is faith a being distinct from the faculty in which it is Even this that it is a being distinct from the essence of man speaks it capable of an instrumentality to mans justification especially God having appointed and fitted it to that end much more of being an instrument in generall for mans use which is all that Mr. Baxter should have denyed when he denies it to be the faculties instrument 5. In reiterating the soul for the whole man and annexing captious words to it Who ever called habits or dispositions the souls instruments Thus he playes the Sophister to make the instrumentality of faith ridiculous as if we affirmed it instrumentall to justification quatenus as it is and only in this respect because it is a habit or disposition of the soul when contrariwise we ascribe this power and office to it as it is a virtue or gift of grace endewed with this property from the author of it to cleave to Christ and draw forth the soul with it to Christ for justification as hath been before expressed and in this office it hath no other habit power or disposition of the soul naturall or infused
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 actions the godly are called Righteous in Scripture and their faith and duties are said to pleas God viz. at they are related to the Covenant of grace i. e. as they are coÌ„ditions procuring our Justification by Christ as well as in regard of the imputed Righteousnes which he addeth but as a cypher bringing no proof for it but all seemingly for the former Aphor. Thes 18 19 20 22 and its explication p. 119. c. We are justified by works commanded This is the generall vote of all Popish writers none excepted in the Law yet as they make up not our Legall but our Evangelicall Righteousness not as they are done upon legall terms but as they are conditions of the New Covenant This is the chief substaÌ„ce of Mr Brs whole book and it is a poorer shift to elude the doctrine of Paul than is that of the Papists Love is an essentiall part of Justifying Faith not properly a fruit of of it Aph. p 266. When Faith therefore The common Tenet of Papists not love is said to justifie it is said so to work in its essentiall work of accepting by Love pa. 268. That both are necessary to salvation are concurrent in apprehending Christ is doubtless p. 271. Love doth truly receive Christ c. p. 224. The people are to understand that for them to take upon trust from their Teachers what they cannot yet reach to see in its own evidence is less absurd and more necessary that many This also is a known Tenet among the Papists do imagin Epistle to the reader in the last page save two These may suffice for a Taste by which the reader may judge whether Mr. Brs and the Papists Barrells are filled with the same Herring or not Should I proceed to Compare also his and their equivocations ambiguities mentall reservations together with their purposed and not unwary Contradictions when to say and deny the same thing in severall places as may severally make for their advantage But specially if I should go on to Compare them how they bring the same arguments to prove their severall assertions and the same distinctions and other shifts of Sophistry to elude the Scriptures and reasons which make against them I should procedere ad infinitum almost begin but finde no end In alleaging the words of the severall Authors something here and there hath perhaps been abbreviated some words standing as cyphers without waight in reference to the questions Controverted interserted to make up some orderly Connexion of the following with the foregoing particular cited But no where have I wittingly Committed any such alteration of the words as to alter in one Title the sense of the Writer as will be evident to all that will but take the pains to examine the citations with their authentique or books from which they are cited Neither is there any one thing alleaged in which the two parties Cohere but what hath been still Controverted between the Papists and Protestants Else would it be easie to produce a thousand particulars wherein the Pope and Luther themselves speak one and the same thing without opposition or difference If any where when Mr. Br and the Papists speak the same words yet Mr. Br means not punctually the same thing with the Papists in every such allegation I undertake to manifest that he is worse and delivers more self-exalting Grace-depressing doctrine than they Yet all this is too little to set forth the frame of Mr. Brs spirit he may take himself injured and left too obscure if he be but matched with the Papists and have no pre-eminence granted him before and above them in exalting mans righteousnes and nullifying the Grace of God in Christ That we may not rob him of the praise to which his ambition seems to aspire we will grant to him that the Papists are but the Pigmies and he the Giant that in the battell between Michael and the Dragon he hath superexcelled more deserved the Scarlet Hat Miter Crosier yea Triple Crown it sâ—lf than they that have and wear them if not by his Art yet at least by his daring boldnes in his undertakings This service therefore I shall do him to manifest not onely his equality with but also his exâ—perancy above many of the famous Champions of Rome That many of the brave Cardinals Bishops Jesuits and Fryars of the Church of Rome are Protestants in the poynt of Justification as compared with Mr. Br and that he sheweth himself in many particularâ— about this doctrine a Papist of a deeper dye than the more modest Papists yea than some of the most Jesuitized and Trentified Rabbi's among them This shall be the business of the next Chapter CHAP. XVII A comparing of Mr. Baxters Doctrine with the Doctrine of some of the more Modest and other more Trentified and Jesuitized Papists in which he is found more Antichristian than they Papists 1 IT is to be noted that the Scripture attributeth this imputation of Righteousness to no other thing but Faith 2 Faith hath not of it self any efficacy as it is our act to forgive and reconcile but all its vertue proceeds from its object namely Christ whose vertue and merit God hath disposed to apply to the sinner unto Justification by Faith on him 3 If it be enquired how the Law of Faith is distinguished by Paul against the Law of works even of morall works when Faith also is comprehended under the genus or kind of works for to beleeve is our work The solution is that to beleeve in him that justifieth the ungodly leaneth upon the Righteousnes of another to wit of God through Christ but other works do lean upon their own Righteousness every work is in or after it self good and makes him good that hath it 4 If Faith as it is a certain Act and of it self should procure Righteousness then were not Righteousness given freely God hath not used works to justifie as he hath used Faith that men should not boast attributing Righteousness to the vertue or merit of works 5 Faith is not counted to us for Righteousness as if it self were made our Righteousness but because it brings a Righteousness on man before God not as it is an act of man then Grace should be of works for to beleeve is a kind of work but of Gods will as he hath willed that Righteousness should be given to man by Faith and the vertue of Christ upon whom man beleeveth should be communicated to the beleever This is to count or impute Faith to Righteousness before God 6 Whereas we attain a twofold Righteousness by Faith an inherent Righteousness c. by which we become pertakers of Gods nature and the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us c. It remains to be enquired upon which of these we ought to lean or trust and to account our selves justified before God My judgment is that we are to rest to rest I say as upon a stable
what becomes of them all so that this one may come to maturity and prosper because his fancy hath made it his own as it were though as it is much to be feared to the perverting if not totall loss of himself and others He having ascribed perfection and merit to it already as fully as any of the most professed Papists See how he flaunts and glories in this imaginary peece of Huperephaneous learning in the 20 21 22. pages of his Appendix as if he had not received it from men but Mahomet-like from a celestial Dove or by the Angel Gabriâ—l from heaven insulting not over the Antinomians but over their adversaries also as he terms them i. e. all the Orthodox Divines of all the Reformed Churches scarce abstaining from cursing their ignorance in this phantasticall mystery so revealed to him when contrariwise himself hath received the substance of it if indeed there were a new substance in it from the Papists and himself hath but licked it Bear-like into a form of words best pleasing his own imagination The vanity of it will in its due place be discovered CHAP. XX. Arg. Besides other lesser things first the chief thing about which this Chapter is occupant is to discover the judgement of Protestant VVriters about Justification as an eternal and immanent Act in God and how far it is grounded upon Scripture Thes 36. pag. 166. B. The pardoning of sinne is a gracious Act of God discharging the offender by the Gospel promise or grant from the obligation to punishment upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ accepted by the sinner and pleaded with God I mean not here to fall upon a dispute with Mr. Baxter whether according to Mr. Baxter himself the pardoning of sinne through Christ and Justification through Christ be not one and the same thing And whether he himself doth not pag. 208. acknowledge so much Indeed pag. 186 he saith that Pardon of sin and justification in law are not punctually and precisely all one Yet addeth that the difference is very small lying chiefly in this that the terminus à quo of Remission is the obligation to punishment but the terminus of Justification or the evill that it formaâ—ly and directly frees us from is the Laws accusation and condemnation Here saith he though the difference be very narrow yet a plain difference there is How plain Can the blind man see it Yea as well as he that hath both his eyes for it is respective rather then reall But how doth the difference lye in the different termini à quibus Remission of sins and Justification free us because Mr. Baxter a more curious cummin-cutter in Logical disputes then he that Aristotle in his Ethicks speaks of was in dividing of secular goods hath thus cloven the hair into two even rafters and so hath himself layd the difference giving the one rafter for remission of sins and the other to Justification and bidden each to rest satisfied with his own and neither to intrench upon the others part I confess my self to have been so gross witted untill Mr. Baxter doth here teach us so finely to distinguish that I was apt to have argued in this case somewhat like to Mr. Baxter pag. 208. when it seems his spectacles were off and his considering cap not on and so could not see and conclude punctually where to beaâ— the wedges into the hair to cleave it exactly As there he cannot close with Mr. Burgess That Justification besides the pardon of sin doth connote a State that the subject is put into viz. a state of favour being reconciled with God Because remission it self doth connote the state of favour For if the losse of Gods favour be a part of the punishment and all the punishment be remitted then the favour which was lost must needs be thereby restored So neither should I have easily closed with another putting Mr. Baxters plain difference pag. 186 between Remission and Justification in their said terminis that the one delivers from obligation to punishment the other from the Laws accusation and condemnation Because freedom from obligation to punishment doth connote freedome from the Laws accusation and condemnation and freedome from the Laws accusation and condemnation connotes freedome from obligation to punishment and so doth Remission of sinnes and Justification i. e. Justification in Romane and Justification in Secretary hand have the same terminus à quo viz. The Laws accusation and condemnation and obligation to punishment and consequently that they are one and the same thing But let Mr. Baxter pass in this particle without further interruption It is not for that he sees a difference but that hee thinkes it will somewhat advantage him in attaining the ends to which he driveth to make an imaginary difference between pardoning of sinne and Justification in terminis Therefore doth he so acutely distinguish And I shall leave him to solace himself in his distinction without saying any more to it 2. Neither doe I account it worthy of any deep examination what in the Explication of the first words of the Definition that it is an Act of God hee doth pag. 168. trifle about the difference which he maketh between Christs Acceptance Pardon and Kingdome and Gods Acceptance Pardon and Kingdome We grant unto him that as of the two Temples that Marcellus built at Rome one dedicated to Virtue the other to Honour that to Honour had no door to it but out of the Temple of Virtue So neither is there any other entrance into the Kingdome of Glory but thorough the Kingdome of Grace But to put a difference between Christs and Gods Acceptance Pardon and Kingdom as if the one were upon Earth the other not untill we are translated hence into Heaven and so we must be in Heaven first and bee forgiven afterwards or as if Christs acceptance c. were not Gods or the Fathers Acceptance Pardon and Kingdom is a meerly imaginary dreame of one that listeth to dream waking pat indeed to Mr. Baxters purpose of setting up his two-fold or rather manifold Justifications but wholly thwarting and crossing the Scriptures which affirme Not that Christ as Mediator reconciled the world to himself but that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself not imputing their trespasses to them 2. Cor. 5. 19. And that where Christ forgiveth there God not will hereafter forgive but already hath forgiven all our trespasses for Christs sake Eph. 4. 32. Col. 2. 13. And more often call the Kingdom of Grace here the Kingdome of God then the Kingdome of Christ And that the great Absolution at last in the day of Judgement shall be given by Christ and not by the Father in person and the same not in Heaven but before the Ascension of the Saints into Heaven as is evident by all the Scriptures of the New Testament which describe the Judgement day Neither doth the Scripture tell us of any ultimate perfecting pardon beyond or after this if ever
or between the not accusing or condemning of a man and the not imputing any thing to him to his accusation and condemnation CHAP. XXV Arg. of the Causa sine qua non or the condition or the instrumentall cause and whether faith be the instrument And in what sense it is so The absurdities wherewith Mr. Baxter chargeth this doctrine removed and those that follow his doctrine in part particularized TO the first Question we must apply our selves somewhat more fully because in answer to the former Questions Mr. Baxter seems to me to have aimed chiefly to the ostentation of his wit and Logicall both acutenesse and profoundnesse to make himself thereby admired and formidable But in answering this and the next he collects in one all his subtilty and Sophistry â—o beguile and deceive if it were possible the very Elect. And indeed if he carry these two Questions in captivity to his own sense and purpose he shall thereby make at least a seeming way by which to introduce all his Popish soul-subverting errours about justification which follow and hang as at the tayle of these Questions His words in the Thesis are B. The Causa sine qua non is both Christs satisfaction and the faith of the justifyed As much as he thought would be objected against his putting Christs satisfaction in the same place and degree of causality as a collaterall with faith he hath spoken to in his answer to the second Question and the firmnesse of this his answer hath been there examined But what concernes faith that which he thinks he shall be opposed in he formes into two Questions Explication pa. 214. 1. Why he makes it not the Instrumentall cause 2. Why he makes it the Causa sine qua non The former which is his 5. Question he applies himself to answer pa. 219. in these words B. To the fift Question perhaps I shall be blamed as singular from all men in denying faith to be the instrument of our justification But affectation of singularity leads me not to it 1. If faith be an instrument it is the instrument of God or man Not of man for man is not the principall efficient he doth not justifie himself 2. Not of God for 1. It is not God that beleeveth though it 's true he is the first cause of all actions 2. Man is the causa secunda between God and the action and so still man should be said to justifie himself 3. For as Aquinas the action of the principall cause and of the instrument is one action and who dares say that faith is so Gods instrument 4. The instrument must have influx tâ— the producing of the effect of the principall cause by a proper causality and who dare say that faith hath such an influx into our justification Here I know not whether we have more of the subtle serpent or of the roaring Lyon 1. He useth his winding Sophistry to intangle 2. His daring threats to them that being not intangled will be so bold as to contradict him Let us examine what efficacy there is in either or both these and first in his Sophistry To insinuate or as the Apostle saith to creep into the hearts of his Readers to deceive them he tels us Perhaps he may be blamed as singular from all men in denying faith to be the instrument of justification It seems he doubted that some of his Readers for lack of acquaintance with many Authours upon this subject would not or could not take notice that it is a new doctrine which he here delivereth and so he should be robbed of the glory of his new invention That the praise thereof might therefore wholly redound to him he tels them he is the first of men that ever saw and taught Faith not to be the instrument of justification that herein he is singular from all men Bâ—t had he not rubbed his forehead that with open face he thus vindicateth to himself that which he hath received from the Priests and Jesuites Let him name himself singular and abhorrent from all Protestants yea from Christ and his Apostles not from all men he is singular and alone in this and most his assertions from the Orthodox from whom but holds it in common with the whole herd of Antichrist to whom he is fallen Doth not Bellarmine deny that faith can truly be said to justifie us except it doth obtain and in some sort merit Justification from God Do not all his brethren with one voice shake off the instrumentall causality of justification and make it as a perfect quality or good work to merit it A two fold subtlety yea falshood is there to be found therefore in this his insinuation 1. That he affirmes himself singular in this point to catch after an usurped praise to himself as if he had seen what none in the world before him had seen 2. In pretending it to be a new doctrine thereby to draw disciples after him in a time wherein the ears of men itch after new in disdain of sound and true doctrines But further to insinuate he tels us that affectation of singularity leads him not to it We beleeve him without oath or protestation It is not the desire of them that are of his hair to trudge single but accompanied with a whole Brigade of disciple under their conducting and seducing unto Rome But let us come to his Arguments B. If faith be an instrument it is the instrument of God or Man But of neither of these Ergo not at all an instrument His Proposition or Major we grant him And it were enough and full to that which can be expected to refell his reasons which he brings for the proof of the minor Yet because my drift is not so much to answer him as to stablish some weak and unwary Christians against his impostures I shall endeavour first to confirm what he denyeth and seeks to shiver and then to examine the strength of reason which he brings against us When he saith in the Minor that faith is the instrument neither of God nor Man in justification What if I should undertake to prove and defend it to be the instrument of both He speaketh here of Justification as taken Passively declared to and termined upon the conscience For if we should mention justification as taken meerly Actively for that internall eternall and immanent act in God not transient upon an extraneous subject but hid in God before the world was or any justifyed or unjustifyed persons began to live or be Mr. Baxter would be ready to deal with us as did the Jewes with Steven Act. 7. 57. stop his ears and cry out against us with a loud voice Blasphemy blasphemy Yet in this sense we acknowledge that saith is neither Gods nor Mans instument of justification But in that sense which alone Mr. Baxter here taketh justification for that gracious act of God by which he dischargeth for Christs sake the sinner from condemnation by vertue of the new
his sophistry hath bin occupant In these two Positions viz and 57 58. Mr. Baxters aym is at two assertions of the Protestants to smite them through viz. the instrumentality of Faith and the vertue which it deriveth from Christs it object to justifie and to set up his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere or act of beleeving under the name of a condition of the New Covenant without any respect of instrumentality that it hath to apprehend Christ or any vertue that it receives from Christ apprehended to justifie This he doth in the last words of the 57. Thesis telling us that faith can be said only in a remote and improper sense as it receiveth Christ to justifie where by receiving he shaketh and shifts off the instrumentality of faith and by Christ the vertue of faiths object into a remote and darke corner as not working at all or very obscurely in our justification But his act of beleeving he exalteth as the proper and formall reason of faiths justifying This he illustrateth in the Explication pa. 230. Suppose Christ had put some other condition of the new Covenant as Love Patience Temperance Mercy c. that could not be instruments of receiving Christ nor have Christ their object to draw vertue from him should not either of these notwithstanding though neither instruments nor in a capacity to have Christ their object from which to have drawn vertue by their own act have justifyed So faith being the condition of the new Covenant doth by its act justifie So argued he under Thes 57. But doubting of the validity of his reasons there either to weaken ours or to stablish his own assertion he addes this Thesis more fully to confirm what he had there endevoured The ground of this is saith he because and because as is before expressed I answer there is no sufficient ground laid for the confuting of ours or the strengthning of his tenent For be it that Christs righteousnesse be ours by divine donation or imputation how doth he build his opinion upon this ground that the act of faith as being the condition c. doth properly justifie He must shew his meaning in words at length and not in figures before he shall win us to build with him straw and stubble upon the ground that is good and fitted to bear a good structure But very remarkably doth he here dispute in opposing Gods donation or giving or our beleeving or receiving of Christs righteousnesse as if they could not both consist together in justifying us at least properly Then it seems we are properly justifyed by the donation of Christ without his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or act of faith Yea then are we properly and formally justifyed in Christ before we yet beleeved For he will not denie that Gods donation of Christ at least in his sense is before our receiving him And thus with one breath he will throw down all that before with so much labour he hath built But let us see how from this ground he batters our assertions and what force there is in his battery If we look to the Prothesis of his Thesis alone the argument in substance runs to this Tenour Faith doth not justifie us either as an instrument or by vertue of Christ or Christs righteousnesse its object because it doth not justifie us as an instrument or by vertue of its object Who can shake his buildings that founds them on such firme ground That this is the force of his reasoning is evident to them that observe him that by the word receiving he excludes the instrumentality and by Christ excludes the object of faith from any proper acting to justifie us as I said before But we will annex the Antithesis to his Prothesis and so fill up his Thesis and then see what strength there is in the whole to his advantage or our disadvantage What he must prove in his and refute on our part hath been already declared Only in the forecited Prothesis he begs the conclusion that he should have proved Therefore we must lay his whole argument from the donation or imputation alone yet will we put his Argument fully thus If Christs righteousnesse doth not properly justifie us because we beleeve or receive it but because it is ours in Law by Gods imputation or donation then faith doth not justifie as an instrument or by vertue of Christ its object but as it is an act containing the condition of the Covenant But the former is true therefore the latter also I deny the assumption as to the former member thereof the beleeving and receiving c. And Mr. Baxter brings not so much as a gry to prove it And as to the latter member Gods donation c. I deny the consequent of the Major Though Christs righteousnesse justifie us properly because it is ours in Law by Gods donation or imputation yet it followes not that either faith as an act or condition doth so of it self justifie or that it doth not justifie as an instrument and by vertue of its object or as some say its correlate or as others by the communion that it puts us into with Christ this I prove thus not from terms of art but from the authority and testimonies of the most high God 1. From the relation between the brazen Serpent the Type and Christ Jesus the Antitype Joh. 3. 14. The brazen Serpent was of Gods donation to Israel so also was the Soveraigne power that was infused into it to heal but the eyes of the wounded Israelites must be directed unto and fixed upon the Serpent for cure and then vertue issued from it to heal So was the son of man lifted up with vertue in him to heal Christ with this vertue is of Gods donation yet this donation hinders not but that our faith as an instrument must be directed to and fixed upon him alone for justification and so that justifying vertue or righteousnesse in him comes from him upon us to justification It is no more the act of faith that of it self because a condition if indeed a condition doth it then the act of the eye cured the wounded without vertue drawn by it from its object 2. From the cure of the woman which had the bloudy issue Marke 5. 25. it will not be denyed that the vertue by which she was healed was of divine donation yet it was brought home to her not by the instrumentall service of her hand touching Christs garment for the multitude touched his garments and thronged him yet had no benefit by it verse 31. But her faith apprehending Christ himself so said the Lord Thy faith hath made thee whole verse 34. yet not the act of faith as a condition but faith as an instrument by which the poor woman drew vertue from Christ its object Jesus perceived that vertue had gone out of him verse 34. So it was not the vertue of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or act of beleeving but of Christ beleeved
imforming and giving life and vertue to it an act apprehending Christ as its object in whom all its vertue lyeth the cloud or darknesse in which Christ dwelleth as God was formerly in a cloud or darknesse upon mount Sinai and in the Temple or as all our Divines say the hand by which we receive Christ made of God righteousnesse to us and in us Gal. 3. 27. 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2 Cor. 5. 21. That the life of justification consisteth not in works at all nor in faith considered in a sense divided from Christ but in Christ our life living in us so that the life which we live is by the faith of the Son of God by the recumbency of our souls by faith upon the Son of God which is our life and that this is to live by faith Gal. 2. 20. Col. 3. 4. Gal. 3. 11. That Christ with all his righteousnesse to remission and salvation is given us freely of God not sold as by Judas to his enemies and so made ours without money without price without fine or rent In the Covenant of grace there is nothing smelling of a Simoniacall contract it is wholly of Gods giving not in the least particle of our purchasing Isa 9. 6. Joh. 3. 16. Isa 55. 1. That the life and justification which are by the second Adam descend to us in the same manner with the sin and condemnation from the first Adam But these descended by our naturall union and communion with the first Adam not by our imitation of him For death reigned from Adam over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam Therefore also righteousnesse and justification descend to us by the union and communion which we have with the second Adam Christ Jesus and not from our imitation of him and configuration to him for when we were yet enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son Not but that every one to whom the sin and condemnation of Adam once descended are thenceforth imitators of and configured to Adam or that they to whomsoever the righteousnesse and justification of Christ have descended do not thenceforth become imitators of and are configured to the image of Christ but that these imitations and configurations do follow and not goe before such union and communion declaring not producing the sin and condemnation which are from Adam or the righteousnesse and justification which are from the Lord Christ Rom. 5. 11. 19. And this is a sound Argument which the Apostle bringeth to prove that works can in no respect justifie or save For we are Gods workmanship saith he created in Christ Jesus to good works which God hath ordained before that we should walk in them Ephes 2. 9 10. where we may take notice that good works are Gods end in saving or justifying us from sin But the means do alway in order of nature go before and not follow the end in execution I mean though not in intention That we are first in Christ the justifyer and in possession of the justification that is by him and then being new created in Christ to the image of God are inabled to do good works That God hath ordained before that we should walk in them being saved or justifyed not that we should be saved or justifyed by them That the righteousnesse of God by which we are justifyed is from faith to faith not begun by faith and ended in works which according to the Apostle is a beginning in the spirit and a seeking to be perfected by the flesh Rom. 1. 17. Gal. 3. 3. Should I proceed so far as the Scriptures as a leading thread would guide me for the confirmation of justification without works I should be taken as exorbitant For the rest I shall refer the reader to such writers as have handled the point of justification against the Papists or to the disputations of the Apostle himself against the false Apostles who taught the same doctrine with Mr. Baxter though not expresly in the same words They taught that we cannot be saved by Christ by faith in Christ alone except we be circumcised and keep the Law or do the works which the Law commandeth Act. 15. 1 24. Mr. Baxter teacheth in this his 60. Thesis that B. The bare act of beleeving is not the onely condition of the New Covenant but severall other duties also are parts of that condition If we take together with his words that which in the precedent Chapter we have manifested to be his meaning in these words and that by the bare act of beleeving he understands faith without and in opposition to works for himself knoweth that it is his Pontificall-Arminian-Socinian not our Protestant Evangelicall doctrine which holds out justification by beleeving as either a bare or a cloathed act or work then he teacheth the same doctrine for which the Apostle anathematized the false Apostles and arch-church-troublers in his time Gal. 1. 7 8 9. 5. 12. And what the Apostle hath against them is against Mr. Baxter their own son I will not say in the faith but in perverting the faith and Gospell For neither did they deny faith but Mr. Baxters bare faith faith without works to be effectuall to justification Against this assertion common to him and them if there were no other Scriptures contradicting but what I have alleaged no arguments brought by our Divines to subvert it and to establish the contrary doctrine but what have been here expressed and implied al which are scarce a drop of their ful bucket yet doth Mr. Baxter declare any finglenesse of heart or sincere aime to advance the glory and truth of God in suppressing all this and all the rest in silence so to beguile his more Logicall then Theologicall readers whom he knowes to be more acquainted with Sophistry then Divinity with exotick scriblings then Canonicall Scriptures with an opinion that the stream of Scriptures runne all to his Mill and that we have nothing from the Word favouring our cause Neither let any object that our Churches do only deny the merit of works not the necessity of them as a condition to justification Herein I shall have a fit place to speak afterward as to Mr. Baxter and as it is his plea to lenifie his self-arrogating assertion In the interim to manifest the simplicity of our gudgeons that are apt to swallow the most portentous errours if offered to them involved in fine terms of logicall notions among whom some that erewhile did prosecute with bel book and candle some to death some to banishment some to sequestrations whom they thought but to smell a little of the perfumes of the purple whore These very same men now having inriched themselves with the spoyles of them whom by their outcries they erewhile pursued are mad to drench themselves with the very dregs of the cup of fornication which is in the hand of the whore and kisse the lips of Mr. Baxter which hath blessed with plausible words the doctrine
all the justified by Faith are sanctified if it be sanctification indeede it may be made an evidence of justification 6 Yet neither all seeming peace and quietnesse of conscience or joy in expectation of salvation or hope that is made the ground of this joy and such other like seeming effects of Justification are alway sure evidences to a man that he is justified because not alway fruits or parts of sanctification they may proceed from another and baser principle viz. from the deceitfulnesse of their heart or self-love and self-advancing or from the spirit of slumber upon the conscience or from ignorance of Gods way and method of bringing many Children to glory Nor are all seeming holiness honesty meeknesse temperance patience and other like vertues either in their habite as they really affect the heart or in their act as they are with an ardent zeale for God brought forth into practice sure evidences of sanctification by Christ because these also may proceed from other and baser principles and not from the Spirit of Christ as from the abiding prints of the Law of Nature written in the heart or from the power and suggestions of a convinced and awaked conscience or from strong impressions made into the soule by a morall and vertuous education or other like sub-celestiall and unspirituall principles So that our certaine and known union to Christ and our justification and sanctification sensibly thence flowing may be properly and unfailingly made our sound evidence of the spirituall life and acceptablenesse of our vertues and works But these in themselves in no wise certaine evidences and demonstrations to us of our justification and sanctification by Christ Sanctification is one thing and a zealous endeavour to be in all things conformed to the will of God is or may be another The former is only from the Spirit of Christ and wrought only in them which are in Christ The later may proceed from morall principles and is incident even to them also that are aliens from Christ 7 Neverthelesse even these vertues and good works do so farr evidence that from the Negation of these a man is certainely denyed to be in Christ or to be justified or sanctified by the faith of Christ I mean that whosoever can allow himself in the habituall practice of any known sin or rejection of any known duty that man may know himself and be known of others to be an Alien from Christ Because whosoever is in Christ is a new Creature all things are become new not only in respect of his relation but of his manners and conversation also and in whomsoever the Spirit of Sanctification dwelleth it dwels in a state of reign not of bondage Withall these vertues and good works when they are found to flow from our union to Christ and the love of God shed abroad in our hearts through Christ and upon examination a man can truly say that he hath ceased to hew from any other Qâ—arrie or to dip from any other Fountain than from Christ that from his Spirit alone hee daily sucketh life as the branch from the root to bring forth fruit and from the sacrifice of Christs death a sweet odour to make himself and his fruit acceptable then they serve as good seconds to prove to his soul that he is justified and sanctified But so that his being in Christ must first prove his fruit to be good before his fruit can have any power to evidence him to be in Christ and the evidence of both his justification and sanctification consisteth not so much in the qualifications which he hath attained or works which he doth and hath done as in his continuall waiting upon Chrih from him alone to receive what hee ought to be and to do in all wel-pleasing before God and the love of God in Christ enabling to obedience 8 That although Sanctification and the fruits thereof do each in its own degree as aforesaid more or lesse evidence our Justification yet have they no concausality with Faith to the producing of it All that are in Christ are Saints in Christ yet their sanctity goes not before their being in Christ but is an immediate fruit thereof The forgiveness of sin and Adoption doth in order go before their doing of acceptable service to God and unacceptable service cannot justifie 9 The grace of God which bringeth salvation and justification teacheth men to deny ungodlinesse c. and to live soberly c. Cals upon all to stretch forth their Faith to apprehend to themselves in Christ both the imputed and the inherent righteousness so far is it from breathing a soul-cozening or a soul-corrupting faith Therefore is the justifying Faith called by the Holy Ghost a most holy Faith Jude 20. A soule purifying Faith Act. 15. 9. A sanctifying Faith Act. 26. 18. Implying its efficacy as well to sanctifie as to justifie and that there is no true sanctification but that which is instrumentally obtained or at least received by Faith Lastly that one chief end of our Justification is that we bring forth acceptable fruit to God here inchoate hereafter in perfect obedience to God and conformity with him And the Justifier doth and will attain his end in justifying therefore brings none to glory but such as have all vertues and good works at least in their root and seed while they are here and if after their effectuall calling they live to have time and opportunity do not unfeigâ—edly endeavour universally to declare the same in their practice So that to dream of any glorified man in heaven that was not actually a Saint upon earth is a dream from hell not from heaven All these things might have been largely proved both from the Scriptures and our Protestant Writers but that I esteem them all to be so known to be the consenting asserteons of all our Churches and by them so fully confirmed by the word that I should but abuse time to take it up in particularizing what is in this Case so generally written and read I have been the more large in expressing the doctrine of the Protestant Churches upon this Argument to wipe off the stain which Mr. Br. hath learned of the Papists to lay upon it in this and the former quere which are wholly framed to beguile the weaker sort having nothing in them to stagger the Judicious And now I leave it both to the strong and weak to judge whether the Accuser of the Brethren himself can possibly expresse more impudence and falshood in slandering the Churches of Christ than this man hath done or if he had not bound himself to speak after the Jesuits and Monks whatsoever they traducingly say whether there be any colour of reason for him to have layd upon us these two accusations To hold my self to that which I am now examining what is there in this Faith and Doctrine thereof which I have described deserving to be called a soul-cozening Faith And when he addeth That Faith which is by many
out to be children of the Devill though they brake not out in them into every particular Act as in the Devill The utmost that M. Br. can from such premisses conclude is that though in many things els it be yet in this one his Doctrine is not aspersed with Socinianism 2. I think it will not be objected by any to M. Br. that he is ambitious in all things to be a Socinian but in such only wherein the Socinians are most subtle Sophisters than the Jesuites and doe bring more shew of sophisticated reason to exalt Popery than the Papists themselves and with greater plausibility and craft do pervert the truth and simplicity of the Gospel more extolling mans pride and more nullifying Gods grace than any of the Champions of the Pope had either the wit or the audacity to do untill these had taught them If then in the before-mentioned point hee holds not with Socinus no marvell for then should he have relinquished the Papists I do not think that his wits do run in Pilgrimage to Racovia upon any other grounds but in love to Rome and in abhorrence of free Jerusalem Gal. 4. 26. 3. Hee should have cleered if hee could his Doctrine from other peeces of Socinianism which he knows it guilty of would be objected against him As 1. His To Credere or Act of believing justifying a sinner 2. All other works of obedience as our Acts or works justifying in an equality and in the same manner with Faith without mentioning any vertue that they have from the death of Christ to this end as the Papists teach but rather that Christ fetcheth vertue from these to justifie 3 His doctrine of Gods dispensing with and relaxing of his Law To which I might add in the 4 th place his canonizing and almost deifying Reason and that without any adject of renewed or spirituallized even of naturall and sophisticall reason to which he doth so frequently in his book almost sacrifice as to the sole and sufficient Judg of the Scriptures and guide unto salvation These things he cannot deny to be originally from Socinus though probably brought home to him by other dirty Channels and not dipt from the spring or rather puddle it self It is but a vain piece of his sophistry to defend himself where none will accuse and to hide himself in the dark where ke knows he should meet with opposition and accusation 4 He professeth himself to be but yet a puny in the School of Secinus hath read but little of their doctrine yet is much sowred with the Leaven thereof when hee hath more fully tryed the quaintnes depth of their sophistry in which his soul delighteth more than in the plainnes foolishnes of the Gospel who knoweth whether he may not following such a guide as reasō at length also sup up with pleasure what now he casteth off with defiance the Apost speaks somthing that may put us in fear of it 2 Tim. 3. 13. 5 Even this error of Socinus against which in speciall he protesteth his abhorrence he doth in generall maintain with as strong a Front as any of the Socinians They say that Christ offereth salvation to all but it is every particular mans particular faith and obedience their actuall believing and obeying following his precepts and treading in his steps to the end that in the end makes him to be actually and effectually a Saviour to them And this is the sum and full dimension of Mr. Brs. doctrine Only they make Christ the Prophet chiefly but this man Christ as Priest and King to be the Saviour In this they both agree that except we by our own righteousness become self-Saviours we shall have no salvation by him What else he hath in this Section for the vindicating yea magnifying of his doctrine hath been oft spoken to already and will a little after be examined again where hee useth the Tantundem though not literally the Idem of these words to apologize for his doctrine against other crimes imputable to it CHAP. XIX Mr. Baxters first Reason examined by which he endeavours to evince his Doctrine not to be repugnant to Pauls viz. that Pauls question in his Epistles and his question in his Aphorisms are not one but divers Pauls question what is that proper Righteousness by which we are justified from the laws malediction which the Apostle concludeth to be Christs satisfaction only But Mr. Brs. and St. Iames his question what is the condition of this Justification by Christs Righteousnes whether Faith alone or works also WEe have examined what he hath to say for the vindicating of his Doctrine from Popery and Socinianism we expected also that hee should in the next place have shewed or at least pretended some distance between him and the Arminians But it seems he glories in it as his Crown to be reputed one of their part Therefore leaving this he undertakes a greater Task an Herculean Labour in his third dispute of this kind viz. to cleer his doctrine from all opposition to Paul and the Scriptures This is a work indeed which if hee discharge honourably and full up to what he promiseth all will grant him the Lawrell above all the Angelical and Seraphical Divines that have in any age made use of ink and paper It is the sole thing that we long after for satisfaction Let him bless us with sound demonstrations to prove it wee shall all run after him And though some madd men may term us Papists Socinians Arminians or whatsoever else we shal gladly bear it to become his Disciples All what else he hath said would be superfluous to every conscientious man This alone would win him But how poorly and Pigmie-like this supposed Giant dischargeth this bold adventure let his owne words declare B. p. 307 c. Lastly let us see whether S. Paul or any other Scripture do contract I thinke it should be printed do contradict this And for my part I know no one word in the Bible that hath any strong appearance of contradiction to it The usuall places quoted are these Rom. 3. 28. 4. 2 3 14 15 16. Gal. 2. 16. 3. 21 22. Eph. 2. 8 9. Phil. 3. 8 9. In all which and in all other the like places you shall easily perceive 1 That the Apostles dispute is upon this question what is the Righteousness which we must plead against the accusation of the Law or by which we are justified as by the proper Righteousness of that Law And this he well concludeth is neither works nor Faith but the Righteousness which is by Faith that is Christs Righteousnes But now St. James his question is what is the condition of our Justification by this Righteousness of Christ whether Faith onely or works also This is the first part of this his Dispute Let us examine what force it hath to the end for which he useth it whether it reconciles Paul to Mr Br. or shew they never contradicted one the other 1
the shoulders of faith to officiate with it to justification he teacheth us to reject the grace of God and to exact at Gods hands both the righteousnesse of Christ and the end of it our salvation as a debt and due in justice The Apostle puts no medium here either between faith and works or between grace and debt where workes peep up with faith to justifie in any degree faith is destroyed grace rejected works alone stand pleading for justification and salvation at the barre of Gods justice from thence alone God heareth the plea of works in vain is it to plead them at the throne of grace there nothing else but the plea of faith in Christ is heard and excepted ver 4 5. 3 In describing the righteousnesse of justification to be a righteousnesse without works a blessednesse consisting in the covering forgiving and not imputing of sin ver 6 7 8. so that to obtrude works with faith into the office of justifying is to subvert Gods justification and erect our own i. e. our own condemnation 4. Ver. 16. From all his precedent reasoning the Apostle concludeth Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace and left this should be taken for a justification peculiar to Abraham and not common to all beleevers he addeth that the promise might be sure to all the seed c. which is of the faith of Abraham as before he had said that he might be the father of all them that beleeve that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also even to them which walke in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham ver 11 12. And again afterwards ver 23. It was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve in him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead ver 24. In all which places though faith and beleeving alone are named yet are they named in opposition to and with an exclusion of works as the attentive reader of that chapter will easily perceive Not to fill up the paper with any other series or body of disputation which the Scriptures plentifully afford for the confirmation of our doctrine I shall only annex some scattered testimonies thereof compleatly proving the same The whole stream of the Gospell runs this way We that are Jewes by nature in covenant with God and not sinners of the Gentiles Knowing that a man is not justifyed by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have beleeved in Jesus Christ that we might be justifyed by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law c. Gal. 2. 15 16. By the position of faith works are here deposed By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of our selves it is the gift of God Not of works lest any man should boast Ephes 2. 8 9. Not of works but of him that calleth Rom. 9. 11. Not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy Rom. 9. 16. Not by works of righteousnesse which we have done but according to his mercy Tit. 3. 5. This is the work of God that which is in stead of all works and effectual to justification without all works to beleeve in him whom he hath sent Joh. 6. 29. They which are of faith are the children of Abraham and blessed with our father Abraham for as many as are of the works of the Law are cursed Gal. 3. 7 9 10. Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved Act. 16. 31. Not by the Law of works for it is written The just shall live by faith Gal. 3. 11. If by grace then it is no more of works else grace should be no more grace if of works then it is no more grace else should work be no more work Rom. 11. 6. Hence is the opposition which the holy Ghost every where maketh between Gods righteousnesse and our righteousnesse Rom. 10. 3. The righteousnesse of faith and the righteousnesse of works Rom. 9. 30 31 32. Phil. 3. 9 10. and the consenting harmony of Scriptures that so oppose Law and Gospell faith and works Gods grace and mans righteousnesse Moses and Christ the righteousnesse which is by promise and that which consists in doing Gods imputation and our qualifications so that if the one be admitted the other must be excluded from justification Unto which if I should add all of the the rest Testimonies and examples of Scripture together with the Arguments which our Divines bring thence I should to use Mr. Baxters phrase be necessitated to transcribe almost all the Scripture that relateth to the New Covenant The conclusion therefore of our Divines is not only that works have not but also that they connot have any place in or to our Justification because righteousnesse and life are meerly and wholly by promise even by the free and absolute promise made to Abraham which was without all conditions annexed Gal. 3. 8 16 17. 18. therefore without works freely conferred on the children of the promise That they are by inheritance therefore descend freely upon them that are sons by saith Gal. 3. 18. Heb. 9. 15. Rom. 4. 13 114 16. and not attained by works That in respect of the righteousnesse of works Paul knew nothing by himselfe wherein he was not perfectly sincere and sincerely perfect yet deems not himself to be thereby justifyed for the Lord is his judge and justifyer whose justifications are free 1 Cor. 4. 4. That if justification were in any part by works then had man somewhat at least whereof to glory before God but he hath nothing whereof to glory therefore c. Rom. 4. 2. That it is by imputation wholly therefore cannot be from any inherent good in our selves Rom. 4. 3 4. That if flowes wholly from faiths object or correlate not at all from any vertue of faith as a qualification inherent in us much lesse therefore from any other qualification or work of ours whatsoever To which I might add their many other reasons proving that works cannot justifie That it is by promise as I said which is still opposed to works Gal. 3. 17 18 22. even by that promise that was made to Abraham which was free absolute and without all condition of works that Gospel promise In thee all Nations of the earth shall be blessed A promise admitting only them that are of faith to blessednesse but rejecting them that are of works to the curse Gal. 3. 7 8 9 10. Yea by the same absolute and unconditionall promise or covenant oft renewed Jer. 31. 31 -34. 32. 40. That this promise is made Yea and Amen ratifyed and effectuallized in Christ Jesus 2 Cor. 1 20. Not in works no nor in faith as the Papists work or Arminians act and deed or otherwise then as it is as Luther describes it Allegorically Luth. in Gal. Ca. 2. v. 16. the matter whereof Christ is the form