Mr. Baxter's APHORISMS EXORIZED AND ANTHORIZED. OR An Examination of and Answer to a Book written by Mr. Ri: Baxter Teacher of the Church at Kederminster in Worcester-shire, entitled, Aphorisms of Justification. TOGETHER WITH A vindication of Justification by mere Grace, from all the Popish and Arminian Sophisms, by which that Author labours to ground it upon Man's Works and Righteousness. By JOHN CRANDON an unworthy Minister of the Gospel of CHRIST at Fawley in Hantshire. Ipse fecit nos, & non ipsi nos. Ipsi nos justos & salvos fecit & non ipsi nos. August. de verbis Apostoli. Serm. 11. God forbidden that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Gal. 6. 14. Imprimatur, Joseph Caryl. Jan: 3. 1654. LONDON; Printed by M. S. and are to be sold by T: Brewster at the three Bibles in Paul's Churchyard: And L: Chapman at the Crown in Popes-head Alley. 1654. ALthough it be matter of a very sorrowful resentment to see Theological wars renewed among Brethren, yet it is a duty to contend earnestly for the faith, which was once delivered to the Saints. And although I hearty wish that in these contentions all personal reflections were laid aside, and opinions only dealt with; which latter consideration (However this Author, I doubt not hath satisfied his own Conscience, and labours much to satisfy his Readers about it) hath a little checked my thoughts in giving an explicit testimony to the work; yet the doctrinal points therein maintained and vindicated, The present freedom of believers from the Curse of the Law, and their free justification by Faith without works, yea without Faith as it is a work through the alone satisfaction of Jesus Christ, are of such moment and so fundamental in religion for the comfort of poor souls, that I cannot but judge any essay tending to the clearing of them, much more this large and elaborate discourse, profitable for the Church of God, and worthy of the public View. The 3d of the 11th month 1653. Joseph Caryl. The Printer to the Reader. Courteous Reader; BY Reason of sickness and many infirmities of Body, disabling the Author oft from Revising the Sheets as they came from the Press, during the whole time that the Book was in printing; The work comes not to thy view without many mistakes in Printing: The most considerable of them I have here collected to be amended with thy Pen before thou beginnest to read; The rest confisting mostly in mispointing and mis-spelling, I leave to thy judgement & candour to Rectify in Reading the Tractate. M. S. Errata. Preface. PAge 4. line 1. it is not distinguished by the Italic Character which are Mr. Brs, and which the Author's words, the quoted place of Mr. Br. will show it. Pag. 10. line 26. for [Catalogus] read [Catalogus] p. 14. l. 7. for [Tenet] r. Tenets. p. 17. l. 19 r. intrinsical. p. 20. l. 8. r. Communing. p. 33. l. 38. to the word [Logic] add [and the Metaphysics] p. 35. l. 2. r. puritate, and l. 11 r. Doctrinae. p. 36. l. 39 r. for. Part 1. Arg. of Cham 1. for [doctrine] r. doctrines. p. 4. l. 5. r. imagine. p. 12. l. 38. r. person. p. 19 l. 11. r. stuttering. p. 26. l. 35. for [nor] r. not. p. 29. l. 9 for [sins] r. sin. p. 39 l. 7. for [and] r. in. p. 45. l. 35. add [us.] p. 64. l. 40. for [Covenants] r. commandments: p. 76. l. 3. for [piece] r. pierce. p. 101. l. 13. r. controvertible. p. 140. l. 23. deal in. p. 227. l. 40. for [for] r. to. p. 235. l. 13. for [united] r. merited. p. 256. l. 1. for [the] r. their. p. 257. for [fruition] r. futurition. p. 264. l. 3. for [innocent] r. nocent. p. 314. l. 33. for [me] r. us. p. 330. l. 1. for [first] r. fifth. p. 331. l. 30. for [vindicate●h.] r. vendicateth. Part 2. P. 7. l. 19 for [make] r. made. p. 8. l. 2. for [the] r. this. & l. 24. for [spitted] r. spittled. & l. 34. for [him] r. the Reader. p. 5. l. ult. for [latter] r. letter. p. 11. l. 26. deal not. p. 18. l. 26. add [them] p. 39 l. 32. r. scripture. p. 49. l. 26. for [as] r. or. & l. 30. deal to. p. 51. r. operation. p. 54. l. 37. deal the. p. 76. l. 27. for [so to] r. to so. p. 81. l. 9 for [hear] r. here. & l. 36. for [affection] r. affectation. p. 87. for [in] r. upon. p. 97. for [Mortuum] r. mortuam. p. 139. l. 2. for [is] r. is not. p. 140. l. 33. for [controvertibly] r. convertibly. p. 203. l. ult. to [Protestant's] add that use the word Condition, in Justification, & salvation. p. 206. l. 8. for [given] r. giveth. p. 313. for [and] r. the. p. 240. l. 9 deal there. & l. 32. for [if] r. of. p. 241. l. 22. for [their] r. them. p. 244. l. 17. for [have] r. have made. p. 212. l. 10. deal end. p. 313. l. 12. for [and] r. he. p. 361. l. 6. r. Restriction. p. 381. l. 28. for [O] r. so. p. 395. l. 35. for [Gratia] r. Gratiae ibid. for paraeum] r. parum. p. 382. l. 32. deal and. TO THE REVEREND, THE FAITHFUL AND Pious MINISTERS of the Lord Christ within this Nation. Much honoured and highly Beloved. IT might be Construed self-arrogance, that so despicable a person in parts, newly broken out of the black Cloud of Obscurity, should (not only publish to the world, but withal) tender so rough-hewen a work to the special view & scrutiny of them whom Christ hath made and named the Lights of the world. But this imputation will appear undeserved, to as many as shall consider that what is here presented to so great a fulgor of judgement and learning, comes with a request not of Patronage alone, but of Correction also. Of Patronage where it defends the Truth in the Truth: of Correction where it halteth into the defence of error in steed of the Truth, or of the Truth but not in the Truth. The work itself will sufficiently speak me out not fit to be registered inter Doctos, yet hath it been still my study not to commit any thing by which I should deserve to be pronounced indocilis, untractable to learn where the Lord holds forth a faithful Teacher. It is the height of my ambition and pathetical heartiness of my humble request, not so much to all of you Collectively (which is unattainable) as to every of you divisively, who in these slippery times (Honoured Worthies) stand fast in the truth of Christ, to be recalled by you into the way from which you shall find me any where straying: but so that by the Authority of the Word you lead me into it, that I may gladly be a follower of such a leader. As to the Book to which this answereth, whatsoever Fate this shall have in men's judgements, surely that must have a stinch with all the judicious and orthodox. Neither could it so long have stood unshaken, had he not cunningly prepossessed the minds of his Readers with Affection and prejudice, the two worst Clouds which oft bemist the judgement of them that are both pious and prudent, that in seeing they do not, because they would not perceive the truth for a season. The Affections of many he attracted to himself by professing himself a zealous Presbyterian. This pretext made not a few to look over and beyond his Contagious doctrine, to behold and regard the person of the man for his unanimity with them in discipline. This vizard is at length so fallen from his Face▪ that the most do and all may see him under this profession, to have been but as the Anabaptized Jesuit, taking his station there from whence he thought to have most advantage to promote his Popish doctrines, Concluding that under that name his Fraud would not be so easily espied. And is there now any which seethe not he would be Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, for any Government, for no Government, helping him to drive home to the head his soul-subverting doctrines into the hearts of men? Prejudice against the sacred Truth which he oppugneth, he fomented by aspersing the whole Doctrine of the Gospel and the reformed Churches of Christ with the black brand of Antinonianism, reserving only the Papists and Arminians, whom he followeth, free of it. How much he hath prevailed in souring with the leaven of Scribes and Pharisees which is hypocrisy, the vulgar sort not only of the people, but of the Ministers also, with this gross imposture, would be incredible, if experience did not manifest it. Therefore finding this Feat so sovereign to the attainment of his ends, assoon as he heard of exceptions in the Press against his Aphorisms, his first endeavours have been to fill with prejudice the minds of men against the both work and Author thereof, dispersing thorough this City by his Printer that it is the Hantshire Antinomian that excepteth so against him. How irrational and malicious this his indictment against me is, may appear hence, that I dwell in one of the obscurest nooks of this English little world, so unknown as he is famous, that he could not so much as hear of my name, saving by some one of his Circumforaneous Legates (which having their Provinces assigned either of one or more Counties, are still Circling and Compassing them, first to disperse this his Mystery of iniquity with such accurateness, that there may be no one that hath the repute of a pious Gentleman or Minister a stranger to it; and then by their frequent visitations to examine how the Baxterian Faith thrives in each person, and to hold them fixed to it) These returning once in six or seven Months out of their Circuits to their Grand Master may possibly speak in things which they know not, what they think may be plausible to him. It hath not been unknown (I acknowledge) to some of these that I disrelished his doctrine, and did hinder the embracing of it: But might not this my dissenting be as properly termed Treason as Antinonianism? Yet because I understand that these sparks of false▪ fire have no sooner fallen than taken in some, I am forced to Apologise somewhat (and that with the more Confidence because to you that have the eyes of your understanding most clear rightly to Censure or judge) that prejudice may be no hindrance to the truth. What I shall speak herein must relate partly to myself, partly to Mr. Br. and partly to the doctrine itself which he hath drawn into Controversy Condemning it of Antinomism. 1 What I shall speak of myself shall not be with an heart and a heart, the one open to let out what it listeth, the other reserved to retain in secrecy what is not for advantage to the ends sought after: but in plainness and simplicity I shall deliver the whole and naked truth of my judgement as before the Lord my Judge and Justifier. Neither is there need of hiding and Tergiversation, for I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: It is the power of God to salvation etc. And as sweet to me as the salvation which it bringeth. I therefore profess myself clear from all that is rightly Called, and hath been judged by the reformed Churches and their Champion's Antinonianism, i. e. oppositeness to the Law. These things I acknowledge myself to hold and teach: 1 That Believers are not under the Curse of the Law as the Curse. 2 Nor are the Afflictions which befall them so the Curse of the Law, or revenging punishments for sin, but the fruits of the tender Love of a good and provident Father working for good to them. 3 That they are not under the Law as a Covenant of works. If these things be Antinonism I acknowledge myself an Antinomian: yet such as only the blindness madness and malice of men possibly may account so, but that I have the Apostles and all the Protestant Churches and Writers (without any exception) under the same aspersion with me, having all stoutly maintained all these as Gospel-truths against the false Apostles, Papists, and Arminians, in their several generations, without the Contradiction of any except Papists and Arminians, to whom Mr. Br. not without some fellows, hath lately Apostatised. 4 Yet I still grant the preaching of the Law, and that in its full perfection and all its terrors, useful to shake in pieces all the carnal Confidences and self righteousness of man, that despairing of safety in himself, he may be forced to seek it out of himself from mere Mercy, in another which is Christ the Saviour. 5. That the Law is still a perfect rule and directive of all moral righteousness and obedience both to believers and unbelievers, so that in both all variation from it is sin, but Conformity to it is regularity and obedience. In respect of my judgement therefore about the Law, I question not my discharge from the imputation of Antinomism among the truly wise and orthodox, except to be a Christian be Antinonianism. 2 As to Mr. Br, it is evident that he asperseth the innocent with the Fault whereof himself is guilty. He denies Christ to require under the Gospel, the perfect holiness and righteousness which the Law commandeth, and Consequently that it is not either our duty to perform it, or our sin to fail in it, or that the Law is an adequate and Competent rule of moral obedience, Because it Commands more than it is our duty to perform. He saith not Christ requires it not in order to this end, but simply and absolutely he requires it not. If this be not Antinomianism Part. 1. p. 213. etc. then Islebius himself hath been unjustly Charged with it. 3 As to the matter yet remaining Charged by Mr. Br. and others with Antinomianism, it may be reduced principally to four heads. 1 Justification as an Immanent Act in God; As actually Completed in the redemption which is by Christ & in Christ; (both these before we believe:) 3 The absoluteness and irrespectiveness of it, freely without Conditions: 4 Christ's satisfying for man's sins against the Gospel as well as against the Law. Though I have spoken of all these enough, of each in its proper place within this Tractate, yet somewhat for the fuller Clearing of my meaning may be said here also. The first and second I shall for brevity join in one as of no small Cognation. As far as I hold and have declared myself to hold them; 1 I have also manifested in due place, how they are or seem at least to be grounded upon the Scriptures; 2 They are expressly and boldly asserted by many of the most Conspicuous Divines in piety and Learning, that any of the Protestant Churches have enjoyed ever since the Reformation. 3. And that without the Contradiction or exception of any Church or Orthodox Writer for well nigh a hundred years, made against it: A great and probable Argument that it was the Common Judgement of all the Churches. 4. Mr. Rhaeterfordt in his Exercit. Apolog. holds it forth not as the private opinion of some particular men, but as the Common Judgement of all the Churches. And the Remonstrants take it as such: For so I remember they oft argue in their Apol. and elsewhere, Justificatio est purus putus Actus in Deo immanens etc. not that they express what Arminius his judgement and theirs after him is in this point: but that from this as a conclusion which they knew common to, and would not be denied by any Protestant, their Argument would stand firm against them. Neither know I any one of the Protestants that hath written against them, excepting against it. 5 I never read any (to make me descent in judgement from these Worthies) that hath given his reasons against it save Mr. Br. alone: and he handles the question, like a man spoilt with Philosophy and vain deceit (as the Apostle termeth the use of exotic learning in purely Gospel matters) after the traditions of men and Rudiments of the world, not after Christ; Col. 2. 8. And his nakedness in such his arguing is enough discovered by a learned Writer whose worth I shall still honour, but have not so much as an Ambition ever to match. * Mr. Kendal. He tells us indeed that Dr Downham hath written against it as delivered by Mr. Pemble. But I could not get the book to see his reasons, nor know I any thing which he hath written but as I have heard from others. Besides I have been told that some of the late Reverend Synod, disrelished the doctrine, but cannot find that any one of them hath published his reasons for such a disrelish. And Charity will not permit me to harbour the lightest imagination that any of those grave Divines culled and selected out of the whole Nation for their eminency in godliness and learning, should without any means used for information and conviction, exercise a Tyranny over the Consciences of their lesser brethren to force them into an implicit Faith to believe as themselves believe: specially when doing it they shall put out that which they think at least to be the light of the word in their conscience, and in consenting with them without hearing a reason, they shall descent from others (whom their Modesty will confess to be of no less deservings in the Church) who have given their reasons. Yet still I hold, 1 that those Scriptures which treat of Justification by Faith do all relate to the transient justification which no man partakes of till he believeth. 2 That no man is personally justified, but only in Christ the public person, till he be by Faith united to Christ. That righteousness and life so descend to us from the second Adam, as sin and condemnation from the first. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all to condemnation: so by the Righteousness of one the free gift came upon all to Justification of life, Rom. 5. 18, 19 In Adam the public person we were all represented, he was all, and we all considered in him, God saw us in all our individual pers●ns in him, though we through Adam saw it not: so that A●am sinning we all sinned in him and became dead in law and guilty of condemnation before God, as if we had been then being and actually sinning. Nevertheless as to our selves we were not personally sinners and guilty, until we had a personal being in and from Adam. So in Christ satisfying God's justce for sin, the Elect were all represented as in a public person, satisfying in him & by him, and so all in him and by him justified and absolved in all their individuals from sin and condemnation before God: Nevertheless we are not personally so justified, until we have a personal being and new being in Christ and from Christ. 3. That this Transient Justification is a justifying or being justified before God passed at God's Tribunal set up in man's Conscience, from which he pronounceth absolution to a poor sinner denying himself and resting upon Christ alone for Mercy. So that now, and never until now he hath boldness to pierce by Faith into the Holiest, and plead his righteousness before him that sitteth on the Mercy-seat. Thus our justification which was before in God and in Christ, is not at all derogatory to the justification which is by Faith: but only prevents that this latter may not be derogatory to the praise of God's Grace and Christ's merits, which have completed all without our subserviency for us: and thus God is all, seen to be all, and our boasting excluded. This hitherto is my judgement until I shall be better instructed— Tu si quid novisti rectius istis, Candidus imperti. And at length if it shall be granted to be an error, yet it cannot be Antinomism, being a deviation not from the doctrine of the Law but of the Gospel. It was not the judgement but malice of Mr. Br that gave it this brand of ignominy. 3 To the free absolute and unconditional Justification, I need not to Apologise for myself at all. It is to the truly pious of the Ministry to whom my words are directed, who (among other) have given this evidence of your godliness, that ye have not forsaken your first Faith by declining to Popery or Arminianism, what others judge of me is to me a small thing (saith the Apostle of such) I weigh it not. But ye no doubt teach that the very promulgation of Justification runs upon no other condition but Faith alone, and upon Faith, not as a quality or virtue, but instrumental to apply the righteousness of Christ to Justification, that works and the universal conditional Justification which Mr. Br. hath learned of his Masters, are to be excluded. In this your doctrine is one and the same in sense and substance with theirs that affirm Justification to be unconditional. And it is indifferent to me to deliver the same truth in their words or yours: Only I find that they make use of both the former and this Conclusion, as strong Fortresses against Popery and Arminianism, which causeth Mr. Br. with so much impetuousness and impotency to use his Mounts and Mines against them. Neither can I see any ground of objecting that either of these two doctrines can in any respect dull the affections to good works, sigh it is confessed that they have no coofficiating with Faith to Justification. 4 To Christ's satisfying for sins against the Gospel as well as against the Law, I doubt not but ye see both the nicety and falsity of Mr. Brs' Negation thereof. The chief Doctrines of the Gospel are Grace and Gratitude, Justification and Sanctification. If Christ hath not satisfied for our long unbelief and contempt of the word of Faith before we believe, and of the infirmities of our Sanctification and Thankfulness when we have believed; or that there are sins against the New which are not sins against the Old Testament also; or that the Lord Jesus is not the Mediator of the New Testament but of the Old only; or that in any of these it should be Antinomianism to descent from Mr. Br: These all are so gross Paradoxes that your gravity and wisdom cannot without Nauseousness smell them: plainly enough declaring indeed that whatsoever standeth in his way of Babel building he will curse it (though never so sacred) and fright them that are as feeble as fearful, with his scar crow of Antinomianism, though he make himself never so ridiculous thereby to the intelligent and prudent. I have no more to say upon this subject, and what I have said hath been before him that being omniscient knoweth that I have spoken singly the whole truth, and nothing but the Truth. Neither can all the strength of my jealousy suspect any least or greatest thing besides these wherewith either Mr. Br. or any of his Disciples c●n charge me as with Antinomianism, so that I do with some confident boldness appeal to your judgement whether I deserve from them this imputation. Indeed such soul-reviving comforts have flown in upon me from the Grace of God in Christ, that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth will speak, and I can scarce Preach any other thing than Christ and him Crucified; yet in holding forth a wounded, I hold not forth a maimed Christ to the people, but Christ with all his benefits, in particular to Sanctification no less then to Justification. If it be Antinomianism so to reduce all to Christ, and derive all from him, I must undergo the world's condemnation for Christ's sake that hath justified and will at length receive me. One thing more I have to add, and I shall be no further tedious. It may be a Charge against me that I am too plain, broad and unsparing in my words against Mr. Br. throughout this Tractate. That which I have to say for myself is, 1 That it ariseth not so much from my own temper, as from the occasion thereof given by Mr. Br. I am ready for Christ's sake to become the footstool of the meek, but where I find a self▪ exalting, I cannot cry Abreoh. When I see Mr. Br. usurping the Chair to pass sentence and censure upon all the Divines that have written, these are learned, those unstudied Divines, to exalt and degrade better men than himself as they are more either concurrent with or abhorrent from his Bellarmin and Arminius: I cannot, I dare not use words that might strengthen but rather vilify the self▪ confidence and arrogance of the man. So when the Wolf comes in sheep's clothing to devour, when under the profession of a Protestant and Presbyterian Divine, he vends his Popish and Arminian under the name of Protestant Tenets, dissembling his confederacy with the enemies thereof, Si natura negat facit indignatio versum. The view of such hypocrisy is enough to make a sheep a Satirist. Had I been to deal with a Papist or Arminian, that had discovered themselves unmasked, I should have spoken in another Dialect. 2 It sprang from other mens yea Ministers too much admiration and almost adoration of him, when from all parts there was such Concourse in a way of Pilgrimage to him, to bless him or be blessed by him, and the admirers returned to the deceiving of others, with no less applaus and triumph, than the Turks from visiting the shrine of their Mahomet at Mecha; It was requisite to discover whether he were a God or an Idol to whom such honour was presented. 3 I have herein Christ and his Apostles my leaders, from whom though we seldom hear a course word against any other sort of men, yea of sinners, yet when they speak against Impostors and Heretics, specially such as bring their own works and righteousness to Justification, they so speak as if they were made up of bitterness and invectives. Ye hypocrites, soured with the leaven, and whose doctrine is the doctrine of hypocrisy, Mat. 16. 3. 6. 12. Ye Serpents, a Generation of Vipers, how can ye escape the judgement of Hell, Mat. 23. 33. woe unto you, woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye shut up the Kingdom of God against men, ye neither go in yourselves, nor suffer them that would to enter, etc. Mat. 23. 14, 15, etc. Children of hell, blind guides, fools and blind, whited Sepulchers, ver. 15, 16, 17, 27. The Publicans are justified rather than you, enter into the Kingdom before you, Lu. 18. 14. Ma. 21. 31. More joy is in Heaven for one sinner repenting, than 99 such, etc. Lu. 15. 7. False brethren, Gal. 2. 4. Subverters of souls, Acts 15. 24. Grievous Wolves, not sparing the flock, Acts 20. 29. False Apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ, Satan's Ministers transformed into Ministers of Righteousness, as Satan transformed himself into an Angel of light, 2 Cor. 11. 13, 14, 15. Dogs, evil workers, the Concision, Phil. 3. 2. Let them be accursed, Gal. 1. 8. I would they were cut off, Gal. 5. 12. with many other the like passages. It savours not of the spirit and zeal of Christ and his Apostles, not to speak home to this kind of men above the rest. But if I have not fully proved Mr: Brs principles and doctrines to be the same in substance with these false Apostles, as elsewhere in this Treatise, so specially Part 2. Chap 19 I acknowledge myself not to understand either Saint Paul or Mr. Br. My Request now shall be such as hath equity in it, that as far as ye find this Tractate Orthodox and Consonant to sound Doctrine, ye will be pleased to grant it and the Author of it your Patronage, and prayers for a blessing upon it, and where ye see it otherwise, to vouchsafe to its Author your Admonition, not suffering him to stray, whom charity binds you to reduce into the way. This is desired as from all so from every of you, by From my Lodging in Aldersgate▪ street, Decemb. 24. 1653. your Humbly devoted Servant in the Lord Jesus. JOHN CRANDON. To the truly Virtuous and Religious Lady, Margaret Hildesley of Hinton, in the County of South-Hampton, the Author wisheth all Grace and perfections in the LORD JESUS. Madam, IT abides (I know) in fresh remembrance with you, by whom, and with what transcendent praises both of the Work & its Author the Aphorisms in this ensuing Tractate examined, were commended to your perusal, to be an Enchiridion or Manual still in your hand, or rather a pectoral and Antidote next, your heart to defend it against errors and inward Anguish. But so abundantly hath God enriched you with the knowledge of, and zeal for that precious Mystery of Christ, that you quickly saw the Mystery of iniquity that lurked in it, therefore cast it aside as unprofitable, yea noxious. Yet afterward finding some of the Ministers with whom you had acquaintance, deceived by it, you entreated me to take it, and give you my judgement of the work, and my exceptions against some Mistakes in it. And as the deceit was ●urther propagated, so you urged me to increase my exceptions, and now at length that which was not purposed at first is come forth to public view, an Answer to Mr. Brs Aphorisms. Alas that we are brought forth in such an Age, wherein the defence of Christ's cause is left to fools and carcases of men, the Learned and potent declining the service; that in the midst of our Civil, or rather uncivil broils one against another, there should be found such as fall foul with the Grace of God and Merits of Christ also: that to preach the Gospel of Christ purely, after the example and precepts of Paul and Luther should render a man in the opinion of so many, an Heretic; but to follow Arminius and Bellarmine, gets applause: that we are forced to see men violent and using force to subvert, not to enter into the Kingdom of Christ. If this treatise shall by the assistance of God's mercy, be in any degree helpful to cure this Malady, they that find or see the benefit, are bound to praise God for you, that by you as a special instrument instigating, it came to see the Light. Whatsoever weakness there is in it, will redound to the shame of the Author, not at all reflect upon you, whose desire it was (could you have attained it) to have had the best Patron employed in the defence of the best Cause. I expect that Mr. Br. will come forth, and that speedily with a vehement Reply. But whatsoever he saith, I shall follow the precept of the Apostle, Tit. 3. 10, 11. He hath had a first, and two hundred of Admonitions (as they report which come from him) which he lays as heaps of sand, not answering any of them, how should I follow the Apostles precept in not rejecting, in having any thing more to do with him. The present Work had no other relation to him, but as to the undeceiving of the simple which had received infection from him. But if my beloved and Reverend Brother in the work of the Lord, which commended to you Mr. Brs Aphorisms, and hath made it long his work to propagate it through many Counties, yea undertaken in the Western Counties to be the defender of all that Mr. Br hath written in that Book (the performance whereof is by many Ministers there expected) will take it up as his task to Apologise for him, and affirm the Apology (as in his name) so to be his own; I shall in despite of all infirmities of mind and body, so long as breath lasteth, by God's assistance Anti-apologize for Christ, and that not in such an expression of words as I have used to M. Br (whom I look upon as an Impostor) but in such a spirit of meekness and Reverence, as is meet to be used towards so pious and learned a Divine, who cannot, dares not against the light of his conscience hold any Truth of God in unrighteousness. The Lord give unto you to keep your station firm in the Light and heat of the Sun of Righteousness, that the splendour thereof may more and more shine into your understanding, and the heat thereof more inflame your affections to the pure Gospel of Christ, that you may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height: And to know the love of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, and be filled with all the fullness of God. This is the request of From my Lodging, Decemb. 24. 1653. MADAM Your humble servant and daily Remembrancer at the throne of Grace, I: C: THE PREFACE TO THE READER. Courteous Reader, IF thou knowest me as well as I know myself, thou wilt also wonder as much as myself, to see me appear in Print, specially in so Momentous a Cause, and that against so formidable an Antagonist. But the ground of our wondering may somewhat differ. That which affects thee may be, that a man of so despicable parts should dare to brandish a weapon (though the Lords) against so great & incomparable a Champion, as flesh and blood accounts him. But the thing which affects me is, that the Heroic Worthies of our Land hid their heads, and Come not forth to help the Lord against the mighty, Jud. 5. 23, but leave the defence of Christ's cause to contemptible and unqualified persons for such a performance. In excuse of myself against the imputation of rashness and presumption, I can say, Mr. Baxters' Aphorisms had been extant full three years, before I put pen to paper to except against him. A strong expectation still possessed me of seeing something come forth against him from an abler hand. When my expectation failed, and I found his Tractate of all other that have come forth these many years, most perilous, and pernicious, as destroying the very foundation of a Christians hope and comfort, at length I thought it fit to do my endeavour for the undeceiving of some private Friends either taken, or in danger to be taken in his snares, not ceasing still to expect the publication of some work by others, openly to vindicate the grace of God from his injurious warring against it. At length, having finished what I thought fit to be communicated privately to some friends, and not withholding the view thereof from any that craved it; I suffered it to sleep many months, in hope still to see a more learned answer to his work. What should I do more? May not I justly say with David, when all the armed Worthies of Israel either fled, or at least shunned the encounter, was there not a cause to stand forth (for lack of better weapons) with a sling and a smooth stone, trusting in the name of the God of Israel, whose grace this man had defied? When the wise and prudent, the high Priests, Scribes and Pharisees oppugned the grace of God in giving Christ to be the justifier of Publicans, Harlots, and Sinners, the spirit of Christ enlarged the hearts of the illiterate and vulgar to sing their hosannah's, and out of the mouths of babes and sucklings ordained praise to himself: Nay, if these should hold their peace, the very stones should cry out, saith our Saviour. When the case is like it at present, and the Angelici Doctores are silent, it is the fit season for Christ to animate the very Terrae filios, to speak in the defence of his grace. I held myself the unfittest of many (if not of all) to come upon this stage; yet not so unfit, but if none else would, I took myself obliged to ascend it. Yea such is the power of Truth, this Truth of Truths, this great and cardinal truth here controverted, that I fear not by the word, and in the Spirit of the Lord Jesus, to enter the Lists with all men and Devils that shall oppugn it; so vain a shadow is all the wisdom and sophistry of men, and depths of Satan, when opposed to the Gospel of Christ which is the power and wisdom of God. It will next be objected, that this Tractate of mine comes forth into public view more raw, rugged, incompendious, and unpolished, than befits the Majesty of the Doctrine whereof it treateth. I do not, I cannot deny it. I saw what should have been done more, but was not in a capacity to do it. That which I can say for myself is, 1. That it was written for private use, without any purpose to make it common, until I came to the latter part, and almost the end of it. 2. My acquaintance knoweth how many, and how long interruptions of sickness I had in the writing thereof, that I was but Canis ad Nilum, did all by snatches, which much hindered the right composure of the whole, and connexion of its parts. 3. I could not find one man about us that vel prece vel pretio, was fit and willing to transcribe one Copy thereof, neither was in strength of body to do it myself: So that what was first done, in the same Crasso filo in which it was first done, without any abreviations, alterations, or polishings, is now presented to the Printer to be made use of: My judgement telling me that rather a course piece, than nothing at all should appear against Mr. Baxter, at least to invite others that excel in abilities of mind and body, to come after with a more exact Treatise. If all this excuse not, and that the Velle be not fit Apology to take off the crime of Non Posse, I am contented to lie under Censure: yet with this comfort, that the less of man, the more of God is to be found in these fruits of my Labours; All that is therein being grounded upon the sure word of God, whose plainness hath more excellency in it then all man's accurateness. It remains, that before I descend to give my particular exceptions against the Doctrine of this Tractate of Mr. Baxter, something be premised. 1. Of the Author, 2. Of the work in general, 3. Of my intention in excepting against it. The mistake of the two former more deluding some unwary persons (as I have observed) then all his arguments of themselves could do. 1. Then of the Author. I can speak nothing of him from my own acquaintance with him. For, Albus an after, homo sit nescio, I was never so happy or unhappy to see his face, therefore must speak of him partly as he hath been represented and described by others, partly as he makes out himself. 1. Touching his learning, as he hath been magnified by others, such he manifesteth himself. He that shall peruse this one Tractate of his, must be forced to cry out, Quantus, quantus, nil nisi sapientia est, a deep and mere Philosopher (I say not Philosophaster) yea Grammaticus Rhetor Geometres, etc. In all partt of humane learning a Cathedral Doctor: But his Masterpiece is Sophistry, in this way of the worlds sublimated Divinity; he is not behind the Angelical and Seraphical Doctors, Thomas and Scotus, and their followers. As for that lower and meaner region of Learning, viz. Scripture, and more specially Gospel-knowledg, himself tells us that his standing and understanding is mounted above that mentioned, Job 8. 9 That for lack of other work, and through the defect or absence of better Books, he once read the Scripture six days together, in Append. pag. 110, 111. which time he sucked much more out of the Word, than ever God breathed into it, which he confesseth he could not have done of himself, without the help of other Books which he had formerly read, i. e. without the glosses of the Schoolmen and Jesuits, which know so much of Christ, as their Master Aristotle could teach them. And that this man understands the Scriptures no less completely than the worst of them in a Catholic sense, we shall find I doubt not, when we come to examine the Texts which he brings to prove his Catholic Justification. 2. As for his piety, strictness, mortification, holiness, zeal, etc. in respect whereof some have even canonised him for a matchless and supereminent Saint (as I have understood by many in the Western parts, before I ever saw any of his works) I should say enough in saying over what Dr. Twiss. hath written in his Answer to the Preface and Prefacer unto Arminius his Anti-perkinsinianism, where the Prefacer in the same manner exalteth the parts and virtues of Arminius, thereby to make way into the hearts of men to receive his Doctrine. The Dr. acquitting himself first of any dislike that he hath of the piety of children in advancing their Father's praise, and affirming his desire herein to proceed no further then to lay down a caution, that the truth may receive no damage by the superlative praise of any man; answers, That although there might be opposed against Arminius that dissent from him in judgement, even the whole cloud of Protestant Divines, the very lights of the Church, that in parts and virtues were no way behind Arminius, if not his superiors; yet he will not do it, because neither hath God commanded, nor is it safe for us to make the splendour of men's persons, but the infallible word of the most High, our rule to judge of Doctrines, and try the opinions of men. But I add secondly, That it hath been usual to Satan in all ages to employ whited Sepulchers, beautiful without, to broach and defend Heresies in the Church. He wants not his depths, is not ignorant that men of vicious lives are unfit to deceive and pervert consciences. Therefore when themselves will deceive, he puts off his Devil's face, and transforms himself into an Angel of Light: No marvel then if he teach his Ministers, when they are about to seduce, to transform themselves into Apostles of Christ, and Ministers of Righteousness, 2 Cor. 11. 13.— 15. Where hath there ever been more appearance of holiness (and men cannot search the heart) then in the Scribes and Pharisees? Then in the Monks and Friars? then among the Socinians, yea among the very Turks? Shall then the outward varnish of their seeming virtues, befool us to drink down their damning doctrines? 3 Though Paul or an Angel from Heaven preach unto you another Gospel, let him be accursed, Gal. 1. 8. saith the Holy Ghost; but whether Mr Baxter doth in this Treatise bring us another Gospel, his Doctrine in the Examination thereof will manifest. 4 I would that this his Treatise did speak him out to be so strictly and tenderly conscientious as his friends proclaim him; I should then either in person have made recourse to him, to communicate my thoughts to him, or written in another tone, in the spirit of meekness to him, to have received fuller satisfaction from him, if my impotency could not have ministered some information to him. But we shall find in what he writes, many things that may work in us a jealousy of the sincerity of a sanctified Conscience in him. I shall here mention some generals, leaving the rest until we come to except against the particulars. One thing that occasioneth this jealousy, is the want of ingenuity, truth and simplicity in his Assertions. For one instance hereof we need not step further than to the title of the work, where he affirms it to be published especially for the use of the Church of Kederminster in Worcestershire. Can any man that hath but glanced an eye on the surface of humane literature, think him to mean as he speaketh? Either we must conclude that he hath the very spirit of all Philosophical and Metaphysical learning, which he breathes forth as effectually upon his Disciples, as Knipperdoling did the Holy Ghost upon his Anabaptists; or else his Church for the greatest number of its members is not in a capacity of understanding him. That his Church by his presidency in it, is on a sudden become a Najoth in Ramah, every Saul that comes near it doth philosophari, if not prophetare, so that ex ejus Ludo tanquam ex equo Trojano innumeri principes exiêre (Paul's Princes, I mean Princes in secular wisdom and learning, 1 Cor. 2. 6. 8.) else if his people have no such inspiration above other Churches, surely the most of them stagger at the first word in the title of the Book, understand not the tenth part of his sacred subtle distinctions, but in most things that he saith he is to them a Barbarian, and they to him. Nay Mr Baxter is not a novice, he knows where and for what mouths to chew his morsels, and to whom to give them to be chewed. It was especially for the nimble wits and logical Teachers of the Churches, that this broth was boiled (as I shall show more fully afterward) that having misled the leaders, he might by them misled their flocks also. 2 And as little ingenuity and truth is there in him, where he quoteth some whom he (against his stomach) calls Orthodox Divines, and from some locutions and fragments of their sentences, concludes them to be of his Judgement; when he knows their Doctrine about Justification, to be so diametrically opposite to his, as hell to heaven, and Antichrist to Christ: so that if they be Orthodox, himself must needs be Hetorodox. This he well knows, but his ingenuity and single-heartednes hides it, and pretends the contrary. 3 Is not his face Ferry-man-like one way, and his motion another, when the whole tenor of what he writes is not to set up any new opinion, but to erect again, and put life into that cursed Heresy of the Papists, Justification by Works; yet to hid his purpose from them that see not, or will not see, he sometimes solemnly professeth before God, that it is no affectation of singularity that drew him to this Judgement; at other times falls foul with the Papists, telling us that no advantage is to be given to the Papists in this Doctrine of Justification, when himself all the while is ploughing their field, and strengthening their hands to the offence of all the truly wise and godly: what hypocrisy, sembling and dissembling is this? Why doth he acquit himself of that which no man chargeth upon him? What understanding Reader of him can harbour one thought of his bending to singularity/ It is plain to every eye that is open, that he walks not solitary, but hath thronged himself into the communion of the Holy Mother Church, and fellowship of all her Saint Popish Schoolmen, Monks, Friars, and Jesuits. That his study is to lay an odium implicitly and in the dark upon us, I mean not only all the Orthodox Divines, but also all the Reformed Churches that have been, or now are, that they are all guilty of singularity, separation and Apostasy, in departing from the Romish Synagogue in the Doctrine of Justification; therefore hath he spread his nets to catch as many as he can, to carry them back into Babylon again. Let Mr Baxter have (as he hath) a confident and swelling opinion of his own abilities, but let him not so abuse all others, as if starlike their light must be totally dazzled at the approach of his supposed sunbeams. Wretched England, if all her Seers are become blind, and none can discern Christ from Antichrist, even in his mystery. Nay let him know that there are many which see and detest what he hath written, no less then if it had been sent by the Pope's own Legate, to beguile. Ingenuity, truth, and sincerity would have acted another way. Mr Baxter if he had been seasoned therewith, would have plainly acknowledged, that he had examined the Controversy between us and the Papists, about Justification; that as far as his comprehension can reach, he finds them in the truth, and us erroneous: and then should have alleged the Scriptures and other Arguments which they produce for the establishing of their Tenants, and the Exceptions which in the Reformed Churches have been made against such Arguments; and shown the invalidity of those Exceptions, in no wise answering or weakening the Popish Reasons, by means whereof his judgement and conscience force him to side with them, and not with us. Thus candour and conscience would have wrought upon him; for he cannot deny, but that both he closeth with them in the same conclusions, and that all the Scriptures, Arguments and distinctions (scarce any excepted) which he brings for the promoting of such Conclusions, are taken from the Papists, and have been answered over and over a hundred times, by our Divines. Therefore to set forth his Assertions as new, and to annex his Reasons for the confirmation thereof, as now first heard of, argues intolerable impudence in his daubing and dissembling. To have dealt thus candidly and conscientiously, would have excited many learned and holy men to a lovely conference with him, which now contemn him as a seducer, and seduced; but if this had been done, where should the crooked Serpent, and working of Satan, and Deceivablenasse of unrighteousness, which still accompany that Man of sin, and those that bear his mark, have appeared? 2 Thess. 2. 9, 10. 4 And his doubleness and liegerdemain is no less exercised, in that throughout his Treatise, he is ever and anon sparkling his firebrands against the Antinomians, thereby secretly instilling into his unwary Readers, that it is against them this his work mainly leveleth; when contrariwise under this name and mask, his War is against all the Orthodox Churches and Divines that are or have been since the Reformation. These all with him are Antinomians, as himself sometimes when they stand in his way and stir his passion, doth somewhat inconsiderately speak out, telling us that he means that Antinomianism, whereof Dr. Twiss and Mr. Pemble bear up the pillars, pag. 73. and consequently whereof Luther, Calvin, and the rest Divines and Martyrs employed in the Reformation have re-edified the walls, yea Paul and Christ himself have laid the foundation. But this craft he learned (as the rest) from his Masters the Monks and Jesuits, who when they set themselves to batter the truth of Christ, cry out in their Pulpits and Writings against the Huguenots, Lutherans, Heretics, laying such slanders on the truth and them which teach or hold it, that they may stir an Odium in the people, among whom there are some so ignorant, that dwelling at a distance from the Protestants, and having never seen any of them, they think them not to be men (having heard so much evil of them) but some Monsters and Devils flown lately out of the bottomless pit, to trouble and deceive the world. Therefore are filled with such prejudice against their Doctrine, that if they were told these Heretics say Christ is the Son of God and Saviour of the world, they would (in hatred of the supposed Heretics) be ready to reject both Christ and salvation, lest they should seem to hold with them. Mr. Baxter needs not the incitation of any spurr to follow, having such Leaders, and the opportunity also served to his ends. He hath taken full notice, that in these last years among the greatest, i. e. the vulgar part of our Ministers, the name of Antinomianism hath been the worst abomination, and that they have so inveigled their credulous congregations with the fear and hatred of it, that any Pharisaical, Monkish, or Jesuitical spirits, that would but cry aloud and lift up their voice against Antinomians, found welcome not only to their persons, but to the whole galleymaufry of formalities, moralities, wood, hay, and stubble that they scattered among the people. When contrariwise, if any should but often name Christ and Grace in his Sermon, all were of him, turned their heels in stead of their faces towards him and his Doctrine, though never so precious and wholesome, fearing some tincture therein of Antinomianism. This advantage therefore hath he taken to batter the Doctrine of the Gospel, under the name of Antinomism, knowing that if Christ himself should again descend from heaven to preach it in his own person, he should under this vizard, find contempt of himself and his Doctrine among the vulgar. I acknowledge every divine truth to be so sacred and precious, that we ought to defend and redeem it from oppression with our very blood. Whatsoever therefore of errors against the truth the Antinomians (truly so called) have broached, we ought with all our strength to resist and reject. And hereof I shall have occasion to speak more fully afterward. In the interim I may lay down safely and truly these two assertions. 1. That Mr. baxter's principal aim is by this odious term to fright weak and inconsiderate persons from the truth of Christ. 2. That all that catalogue of errors which Sleidan in his Commentaries ascribeth to the Antinomians of Germany about 100 years since; and a●l the tenants of those that among us are or have been Antinomians indeed (as far as in my acquaintance with them I could ever gather from them) contain not a molehill in comparison of that mountain of evil and mischief, that by this Treatise Mr. Baxter would hurl upon us. A second thing which ministers occasion to us to doubt of this man's spiritual conscientiousness, is his profaning and vilifying of holy things. We find him oft in this prostrating religion, conscience, and the word of God itself, to the censure and sentence of reason, yea of natural and carnal reason: and that, those very things which reason cannot comprehend, even things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart, but are revealed only by the word and spirit, 1 Cor. 2. 9, etc. These are the mysteries of the Gospel, Justification, Adoption, etc. when Mr. Baxter at some times cannot possibly evade such Scriptures as discover his errors, with what vehemency doth he forthwith lay hold on them to sacrifice them to sense and reason, yea to that which is worse than sense and reason? Flectere si nequeat superos, Acheronta movebit, when heaven is against him, he appeals to hell to speak for him, summoning together not only the Jesuits, but the very Ghosts of the most cursed Heretics by their authority to settle his conscience, and subject the word to it. I● not here wanting that trembling at God's word, which is required and found in the Saints? He doth rarely indeed mention the Authors whom he followeth as his Masters, but that is of craft, that he might not cast an Odium upon his Doctrine, he thinks it more fit to offer it as some sacred thing spun out of his own brain, that there might be the less suspicion of it. But that it is drawn out of those channels which I have mentioned, I shall be ready to show in particulars, if any doubting shall demand it of me. Neither let it offend, that in gross and coarse terms I speak the truth of the Author. It is wholly against the bent of my disposition so to do, were it not that it is the very foundation of all our hopes that is by him battered, and that the profuse commendation which some have given of the man, to draw Disciples to him, did not force me to speak unsparingly (while truly) to undeceive some of my friends, that through credulity either are or might be seduced. Thus far of the man as he hath been represented by others, I shall say something of him also as he renders himself to us by this Treatise. I cannot, I will not think him one that is wilfully apostatised. But finding him a man of excellent both natural and acquired parts, of a very rational brain, delighted more in depths than in shallows, in the logical deep and serious, than in the lighter, and superficiary parts of learning. I conceive him to have been carried out by his own Genius to the reading of the deepest Scholastic writers, with the purpose that Virgil once applied himself to the reading of Ennius, though not with the same success. The purpose of both probably was to fetch out ê stercore gemmam, a jewel out of the dunghill. But this man meeting with learning perfectly agreeing with his natural Genius, became impotent to obtain his purpose; for being delighted with the dunghill, he hath made it his sphere and element; the depth of rationality which he found in his Authors, hath drawn and captivated him to their most cursed opinions: so that we find him in stead of a Gemm, bringing forth a Cockatrice-egg, which if it be not destroyed in the shell, will ruin himself and many others. It is an infirmity that hath made impression in points less momentous, upon some persons of great note in the Church. I shall mention one Hierom in stead of the rest. In his works as they are set forth by Erasmus, Tom. 1. there is a Book entitled, Catalogos Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum; in which Hierom mentioning Tertullian, and not being able to deny his falling into Montanism, he thus at least minceth his fault. Invidia & contumeliis Clericorum Romanae Ecclesiae ad Montani dogma delapsus est (saith he) i e. through the envy and reproaches which he suffered from the Clergy of Rome, he declined to the opinion of Montanus. Erasmus in his Scholia upon these words thus writeth, favit Hieronimus ingenio Tertulliani, etc. i. e. See how Hierom favoured Tertullia's wit, almost excusing him for falling into the faction of the Montanists, laying the fault upon the envy and reproaches of the Roman Priests. So far Erasmus. He might have further added [so far he delighted in Tertullia's wit, that he did not only excuse him, but also] was carried by the pleasing stream of his wit and learning, into the very dregs of Montanism as deep as Tertullian himself. So shall we find him discovering himself at the full, in his first Book against Jovinian, as Erasmus himself in his Antidote prefixed thereunto doth hint, but the work itself makes it notoriously plain. It contents not that good Monk Father, there to produce as his own, all Tertullia's arguments, except he also delivers them for the most part in Tertullia's very words, so that there were not wanting such as excepted against him as a very Montanist. I speak not to lessen the worth of those two ancient Writers, but to manifest in these two great and sublimated Wits, when the Genius of one man so conspireth with another's, as to delight abundantly, it is as the Loadstone and iron to draw & to follow into falsehood as well as truth, except there be interposed much of the spirit of grace and meekness, and so high an esteem of the Word, that the mind explodes all other learning as base in comparison of it. No marvel then if Mr. Baxter having immixed himself into whole troops of Schoolmen, Jesuits, and others of the same Scholastic train with himself, hath been carried away in the crowd captive to their basest errors. Some would marvel rather how there should be found in England any Divines professing antipathy to Rome, applauding the very worst piece of Rome's Heresies, as soon as Mr. Baxter hath breathed upon and blessed it. But the case is the same. Mr. Baxter well knew in what water to angle that he might catch, he perceived that the Doctrine of Justification for these fifty years hath been too little preached in England. That since the heat of controversy betwixt us and the Papists about it abated, this Doctrine sounded in few Pulpits, which before sounded in all, that the Pia fraus (as they termed it) prevailed every where, a godly deceit to withhold from the people the knowledge of the liberty which they have by Christ, lest they should turn it into licentiousness. That as this pions' fraud passed from hand to hand among the Ministers, many of them while they were deceiving, were themselves deceived, and verily thought it the right art of profitable preaching to hold out the Law, and keep in the Gospel, to wash the utter part of the cup and platter, leaving that which is within full of guilt and corruption. Hence it came to pass that the Law by many was turned to a twofold use, like the sword of Achilles to Tilephus, to wound first, and then to heal, to cast down and to erect again, to kill and make alive, to damn and then to save also. First, it was so brandished for conviction, that all men by the light and curse thereof might be compelled to see themselves under sin and condemnation, and then held forth as a sovereign remedy against damnation, and means of salvation; such repentances for sin, such degrees of contrition and reformation prescribed out of the Law, which being practised, pardon of sin and eternal life must needs follow. Thus man was made not only his own condemner, but his own Saviour also; his evil works in transgressing the Law pursuing him with vengeance, and his returning by repentance to good works in strict obedience to the law, restoring him to life & salvation. In mean while Christ was left in a corner to look upon all, but without interposition of his operation or Passion. Sometimes indeed much might be heard of the riches of God's Grace, of the efficacy of Christ's merits to save the chief of sinners, so that the people might even see the door of heaven open to them; but in conclusion, the Preacher as if he had been deputed to the office of the Cherubims, Gen. 2. ult. to keep the way of the tree of life, with his flaming sword turning every way, affrighted the poor souls from all hope of entering, crying procul hinc, procul ite prophani, no profane or unclean person hath right to meddle with this Grace. No, first they must have such heart-preparations, purifications, and prejacent qualifications, before they draw near to partake of mercy; must first cleanse and cure themselves, and then come to Christ afterwards; must be clothed with an inherent Righteousness first, and then expect to be clothed upon with a Righteousness imputed. Such hath been and still is the Doctrine delivered in many Congregations within this Nation. I neither fain nor aggravate. It is that whereof myself not without grief have been oft an ear-witness, and that from the mouths of very zealous Ministers. And I fear the Lord hath a controversy against the Ministry, and will more yet obscure and vilify many of them for their obscuring of his grace and his Christ. Now when so many of them were by the tide of their own judgements moving before, not a little in Mr. Baxters' way, no marvel if they have admitted him among themselves to hoist the sails and carry them hastier and further than they before had purposed; specially when all the way along and throughout his whole Treatise he deals with them as Elisha did with the Syrians, telling them that he is leading them to Dothan, to Jerusalem, holding their eyes and wits suspended until he hath brought them into the streets of Samaria, of Rome itself, 2 King. 6. 8, etc. This I thought fit to premise of the Author, the next thing promised was touching the work itself. Whether we consider the matter or the artifice of it, I cannot in general otherwise give a livelier character or description thereof, than in the words of Mr. Fox, in his Tractate De Gratiâ gratis Justificante, against Osorius and others, where he gives his censure upon a book of the same argument with Mr. Baxters, set forth by Osorius, not as this man under the name of a Protestant, but ingenuously professing himself a Papist. Among other I may as fitly apply these passages of Mr. Fox to Mr. Baxters' work, as he did it to the popish Bishop. Si quisquam alius preter Osorium, etc. If any other man save Osorius had published this Book (saith he) but I say were it not that some unexceptively learned and godly Divines, did thorough (I know not what mistake) favour and even patronise this Tractate, Diceremei aperté atque in os, Pestem publicae Christianorum saluti, labem Religioni graviorem, majorem D. Paulo, Scriptures & Prophetis, injuriam inferre neminem unquam potuisse quam his libris ostenditur. i e. I would tell openly, and to his teeth, that no man ever could bring in a more grievous plague to the common safety of Christians, or blemish to Religion, or greater injury to St. Paul, the Scriptures and Prophets then is held forth in this Book. And p. 4. Ita sentio, etc. Philosophum t● quidem satis Platonicum, & Rhetorem non male Ciceronianum video; at Theologum vero parum, mihi Crede, Evangelicum, neque ad Causam ipsam justitiae Christianae perorandam, satis exercitatum. i e. This is my opinion, etc. [in the frame of this work] I see thee a Philosopher enough Platonical, and a Rhetorician not much beneath Cicero: but a Divine little seasoned with the Gospel, and unfurnished to treat of that Christian Righteousness [that tends to justification.] And pag. 11. while he disputeth and teacheth us many things of righteousness and justification, there is nothing for us to learn that comes home to the matter, not a mite that may further, but very much that may hinder salvation. And pag. 6. he likens him to Celsus & Antipho, mentioned by Origen, who when they wrote most eagerly against the eruth, call●d their Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word or treatise of truth: so this man entitles his Book [A discourse of Justifying Righteousness.] I had almost said Aphorisms of Justification, at ita ut nihil contra Veram Justitiam [vel justificationem] dici possit hostilius. i e. But so that nothing can be spoken more hostilely or hatefully against true righteousness and justification. All this is no less true of, and pat unto Mr. Baxters than B. Osorius his work. But much more pernicious in Mr. Baxters, because he hideth his poison under the name and pretence of an Orthodox and Cathedral Divine, and a great Antagonist to Popery. But of the matter of the work I have delivered my judgement before, and shall have occasion to examine it when I come to the bulk of his Treatise. Only at present I transmit the Reader (that would in a breviary find what the substance of his Doctrine is) to the second part of this Answer, Chap. 16, 17, and near the end of Chap. 22. where he may read in how many particulars he holds the same Tenet with the worst, and transcends in many things, the more moderate of the Papists, yea of the very Jesuits. Here I shall speak only of the form and artifice of the work, upon what foundation he hath laid, by what pillars he supports his own assertions, and with what Engines and Machinations he oppugneth the sacred truth, and judgement of all Orthodox Divines, whom he makes his adversaries. In all this he followeth his Masters the Schoolmen and Jesuits, baulking the Scriptures, and laying maxims of Philosophy and carnal, or at least humane Reason as the foundation of his whole building, & walls and pillars it up with sophistical Arguments, Distinctions, & quodlib●tary subtleties, raising every where dust and vapours to cloud and darken the Sun of truth, that he may have the opportunity with his ignis fatuus, to toll men out of the safe and sure way into the bogs and most excrementitious parts of Popery. Indeed sometimes he quotes Scriptures in heaps, (as they were prepared to his hands by Friars and Jesuits) and lets them out without measure or tale, telling us that he will stand to and be tried by the Scriptures: but scarce at any time vouchsafing to make known what he would diduce thence, and how; and many times not affording the labour to name the words, and then hieth back to his Sanctuary St. Sophistry again: declaring both at how cheap a rate he valueth the sacred word, not deigning either to cite the words, or at best to tell us what he thinks he hath found in them (when contrariwise if he cite any thing out of the heathen Philosophers, or their followers, the Popish Doctors unnamed, he is very busy to press and improve it to his advantage) and withal, that his meaning is to be tried by the boon sons of the unholy Catholic Church: therefore turns us over to them for our in formation what may be gathered from the Scriptures produced, himself passing by it as a thing already done to his hands by them. Now because the main strength of Mr Baxter and his leaders in fight against the verity of the Gospel, consisteth in this subtle and unscriptural way of disputation, it shall not be impertinent to digress a while in discussing what force there is in sophistical, (or to use milder words) Logical, Philosophical, and Metaphysical argumentations, to confirm or infirm Evangelical Doctrines. In Natural, Moral, Civil, and Oeconomical questions they may be (I acknowledge) very useful. Yea Logic in its sober and moderate use, applied as an instrument to assist in the contexture and retexture of Scriptures to find out the sense and meaning thereof; and further, as by discreet joining of Gospel positions together, it helpeth to elicit sure and sound conclusions, (not at all drawing the question out of its own sphere the Scriptures, to be judged and concluded by the niceties and quiddities of other besides Scripture-learning) may be profitably used in Evangelicall questions. But neither Logic itself beyond this, nor Philosophy or the Metaphysics at all, have any force to prove any thing in Gospel-matters. I know what to expect for such a discourse upon this subject. I shall be jeered at to be the Fox in the Fable, that being without a tail, to lessen his shame in a general counsel of Foxes, made an Oration, declaiming much against the discommodities which Foxes had by their tails, and labouring to persuade them all to rid themselves of such a discommodity, that he might make the shame common, and then not the whole, but a share of it only would be his. Gal. 6. 14. 1 Cor. 2. 2. Be it so, I neither arrogate nor usurp to myself the praise of humane learning. In reference to salvation and justification, God forbidden that I should glory in any thing but in the Cross of Christ, or should determine to know any thing save Christ and him crucified. To plead my righteousness; before God, and against Satan, the simplicity of the Gospel plenarily furnisheth and contenteth me; leaving it to Mr. Baxter (if he think it safe) with sophistical subtleties to dispute himself into heaven. Nevertheless the position stands firm even in the fall of the credit of the assertor, That such humane learning is of no force to decide, judge, and conclude any thing in questions merely Evangelicall, such as is Justification, and all other Gospel-graces and privileges. This may be with much facility evidenced to as many as have not their eyes blinded by the God of this world as yet, and that by these following reasons. 1. All the Doctrines of the Gospel are transcendent, high, and above the reach of the most sublimated reason. Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to know them, 1 Cor. 2. 9 The natural man receiveth not, cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, because they are spiritually discerned. ibid. Vers. 14. They are mysteries hid in God from the beginning of the world, from ages and generations, but at last made known by the Spirit in the preaching of the Gospel, not only to the Saints [on earth] but also to the Principalities and powers in heavenly places, i. e. to the Ministering Angels and Spirits before God in heaven, Ephes. 13. 9, 10. Col. 3. 26, 27. So that at the revelation thereof by Christ and his Apostles, the very Angels desired to look into them, as learners of that sacred Doctrine which before they had not attained, 1 Pet. 1. 12. But all this humane learning whereof we speak, is natural, flowing originally from natural and heathen men, who in their either most profound or most sublime speculations, could not see a span above Nature, no nor to the top of Nature by many fathoms. Therefore is there a total invalidity in it to discern one ray of Evangelical and spiritual things. To produce any thing therefore out of this humane literature to discern and judge of Gospel-doctrines; is no less folly than to make a blind man judge of colours, or a deaf man of sounds, or to set a dead man to running of a race. Yea to hold forth any thing hence, to clear up and evidence spiritual things, is but to hold a candle, nay a dark Lantern to the Sun, for the clearing of its beams that we may see it. If any object, that Spiritual and Evangelical Doctrines are by none brought (as Spiritual and Evangelical) under the Trial of this humane learning, but as they fall under some Topics of this or that Art or Science, as E●s, Substantia, Accidens, Actio, Relatio, etc. and so far only they are disputed of by and according to the Maxims and Canons of those places. I answer, that even this is to subject supernatural Doctrines to the judgement and censure of Natural Reason. It will not be denied that the first Founders of these Arts and the precepts thereof were merely Natural and Moral men, and neither did nor could accommodate their precepts and rules to any other but natural and Moral things; were so far unable to reach them to things supenatural, that they left them in many things unperfect as to things natural: so that after all the amendments of all their followers, not a few of their Canons remain disputable and controverted (as to Natural and Moral things) still. Therefore to prostrate spiritual things to the judgement of this Natural learning, is to subject the Authority of Christ to the Authority of men, the wisdom of the Spirit to the wisdom of the Flesh, and that which is infallible to that which is both fallible and fallacious. Nay all the doctrines and precepts of Philosophers are to be tried by the word; but in no wise are the dictates of the Spirit, and doctrines of the word of grace to be tried by the precepts of Men. I forbear to speak here, that otherwise not Christ but Aristotle must in matters of salvation be made our Ipse Dixit: or that none but Scholars can have any stable settledness of faith, the unlearned in humane literature remaining uncapable thereof, because they cannot prove the truth of what they believe as well by the rules of Art, as by the Testimony of the word of Christ. I only say, when Christ by his word hath said and determined, here not to subject and rest satisfied, but to consult with flesh and blood, with the rules of humane Art for my fuller resolution, is no less indignity to Christ, than to set man's wisdom in the Chair, and to prostrate Christ to be his Footstool. 2. If it have any power and efficacy to this end, it must be either from some natural and intrinsical virtue of its own, or else by God's ordination and infusion. Not by any natural virtue of its own, as appeareth by what was last said, and by this that none ever by such secular learning attained one lest spark of Gospel-knowledg, nor yet by God's ordination, and inspiring strength into it to operate for such an end. For let it be declared in what Scripture God instituted or owned it as an in-strument useful and effectualized for such a work. And if neither of these ways it be powerful, or in a capacity either to declare or confirm Gospel-matters, then hath it no power at all to such a purpose. If any thing be excepted against in this Argument, it must be the latter disjunctive particle thereof in the Assumption which denieth the humane learning before mentioned to be ordained of God, or qualified by him as instrumental and effectual to determine any thing in Evangelical and Spiritual Doctrines. But this may be cleared and confirmed by the Reasons following. 1. Because neither the Lord Christ nor any of his Apostles or Prophets have made use of it to this end. Not his Prophets under the Old Testament: For when they sp●ke any thing of the Mystery of Christ and his Gospel that were afterward more fully to be revealed, they did it by inspiration from God, 2 Tim. 3. 16. and the revelation of the spirit of Christ which was in them, 1 Pet. 1. 11. not as having dipped the same, from the broken Cisterns of humane inventions and learning. And when they will add a confirmation to such Doctrines, the only authority which they produce is divine. Thus saith the Lord, The Lord of Hosts hath said it, the holy, the lofty, the mighty one of Isroel hath spoken it, without any Philosophical or Metaphysical Arguments to prove it. No less is to be said of Christ himself our own and only Mr. when he descended from Heaven to reveal his Gospel in its fullness and glory, affirming his doctrine to be only and wholly that which his Father taught him, Joh. 8. 28. which he had seen with his father, Joh. 8. 38. as he had commandment from his father, Joh. 10. 18. even as the father said unto him, Joh. 12. 50. as he heard from his father, Joh. 15. 15. Lo all from heaven, from the Father; nothing from earth from men, in revealing the Gospel. No nor to the confirmation of it being revealed, save his own and his Father's testimony, Joh. 8. 18. Joh. 5. 31,— 37. Let there be but an iota produced of this kind of literature whereof I treat, that our Saviour any where used for the confirmation of the Gospel-doctrines which he delivered. Nay, he denies all ability and possibility, that any man by natural or acquired parts should see or show forth (until he hath received divine revelation) one ray of Gospel-light; Therefore when Peter had made but a course and confused or obscure confession of Christ, he answers, Blessed be thou Simon Barjonah, for Flesh and Blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven, Mat. 16. 16, 17. Insinuating that the very threshold of Gospel-knowledg is transcendent and above all the reach of humane Arts, and fleshly or natural wisdom, to find it out for themselves, or make it out to others. Hence are the universal conclusions and assertions which he layeth down to this purpose. No man can come to me except the Father draw him. It is written, they shall be all taught of God: Every man that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh to me, Joh. 6. 44, 45. No one knoweth the son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father but the son, and he to whom the son will reveal him. What he speaketh of knowing the Son and the Father, he meaneth of knowing the mind and will of God touching the Gospel-way in which he hath purposed to bring sinners to salvation. This is a wisdom not borrowed of, but hidden from [most of] the wise and prudent [in secular learning] and revealed to babes, Mat. 11. 25-27. And the Scripture giveth reasons why there is no power in the wisdom and learning of men to dive into the Mystery of the Gospel, and Evangelical knowledge of God. No man hath seen God at any time: The only begotten son which is in Joh. 1. 18. the bosom of the Father hath declared him, Joh. 1. 18. No man hath ascended to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven, Joh. 3. 13. What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him. Even so the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2. 11. What is here spoken of the knowledge of God, is to be understood as in the former Texts, the knowing of God's will and mysterious way of bringing many sons (ere while enemies) to glory. The scope of the Argumentation in these Scriptures runs thus. None but such as have seen God, seen into him, have been in heaven with him, nay have been in his very heart and bosom, can possibly know the mind and purpose of God hidden in himself touching the justification and salvation of men. But Christ only & the Spirit of Christ have been, and are still in heaven, have seen God, and are in the bosom of God reading and knowing all the purposes of his mind. Therefore none but Christ and his Spirit alone know and can reveal this mind of God to us. The Scripture here speaketh of Teachers, none hath been in heaven to come thence as a Teacher into the world of what he hath seen in the bosom of God, but the Son and the Spirit: And the teaching or revealing of which it speaketh, is meant original teaching and revealing. None can reveal the mind of God but the Son and the Spirit, or they to whom the Son high his Doctrine and Spirit hath first revealed it. What weight then can there be in the Testimony or learning of the Heathen Philosophers, or of the Angelical and Seraphical Doctors of the Romish Church, who never ascended the Heavens to look into God's bosom, and are as void of Christ and his Spirit as those Heathens themselves; that any thing of Gospel-wisdome should be grounded upon their authority? From Christ descend we to the Apostles, and first he that chose them to go forth into the world to bring forth fruit, Joh. 15. 16. (i. e. by the preaching of the Gospel to bring home many souls to God) to furnish them with abilities for so great end noble a work, promiseth to send unto them the Spirit, and to what end but to lead them into all truth, Joh. 16. 13. into the clear and full knowledge of the mysterious truths of the Gospel, bidding them not to go to Athens to learn from the Philosophers in their Schools any thing that might further their illumination herein, but to tarry at Jerusalem until they were endued with this power from on high, Luk. 24. 49. And if we look to the accomplishment of the promise, Acts 2. 1, etc. we shall find that the Holy Ghost descending in a glorious manner upon them, wrought on them, if not only, yet principally these three effects as abundantly sufficient to enable them for the Apostleship and Ministry of the New Testament, as the Apostle terms his Office, 2 Cor. 3. 6. 1. A sudden and wonderful irradiation of them with all the depths of Gospel-knowledg, that without communion with flesh and blood, they had the sacred secrets of the Gospel made out in an instant to them by the revelation of Jesus Christ, as afterwards Paul manifesteth the Lord Jesus to have dealt with him in like manner, Gal. 1. 12. 16. And thus they that were but mechanic and illiterate men, were filled suddenly with light and knowledge enough to enlighten the whole world then in darkness. 2. The gift of tongues, by which they were enabled to spread abroad unto all men of all nations, in their several Languages the wonderful things of God, i. e. the glorious, and until than hidden ways of salvation, Act. 2. 11. 3. A magnanimous and celestial boldness to hold forth, defend and maintain those sacred and saving truths revealed to them in despite of all the powers of Earth and Hell banding against them, Act. 4. 13. Here, as there is none that will deny the Apostles to have been sufficiently, yea abundantly gifted for the execution of their function: so I do not so much as suspect there will be any found that supposeth them to have received among the Abundance of their Revelations any inspiration of the humane learning as useful and needful to plant the knowledge of the Gospel in the hearts of men, or to confirm it after it was planted. And 2ly. with that learning and power so received, they went on in the execution of their Ministry, so far from using, as that they purposely rejected the use of humane reason and wisdom, holding fast to the word alone as the mind of God therein was revealed to them by the Spirit, for their rule in preaching, and authority in confirming the truth of the Gospel which they taught. In stead of all, attend we to Paul, that laboured more abundandantly than they all. Rom. 15. 19 When he had fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem in the regions round about even to Illyricum; he gives this account of his labours, that he had believed nothing, nor witnessed or taught any thing, save what is written in the law of Moses and the Prophets, Acts 24. 14. & 26. 22. That whatsoever Churches he had planted, were built by him upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Eph. 2. 20. Nothing here of Aristotle and Plato, but of the Prophets and Apostles, i. e. the Doctrine which Christ had revealed to them and by them, laid to support the Churches in the Faith of Christ. That he had utterly exploded all humane wisdom Arts, and inventions, as incompetent with the Gospel of Christ. That whether he laid in the hearts of men the principles and beginnings of Christ, having to deal with such as were but yet in converting, or else but babes in Christ, he totally abstained from the words of man's wisdom, from intermingling any of the artificial disputes of the Philosophers, that their faith might not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God: or whether he treated with them that were perfect, i. e. grown to a high stature in the knowledge and faith of Christ, even when he spoke wisdom, delivered doctrines of the greatest depth and misteriousness to them, yet was it not the wisdom of this world, i. e. neither was the matter thereof the doctrine of the profound Philosophers and Disputers that were held the Princes of the world for wisdom, but the mystery of Christ. Neither for the confirmation thereof did he use the words which man's wisdom teacheth, i. e. that way of philosophical and dialectical disputation, whereof the Philosophers give their precepts, but in the words which the holy Ghost teacheth, etc. 1 Cor. 2. 1.— 13. Now if neither Christ nor his truly inspired Ministers ever used, or would use this kind of learning in Gospel-matters, the conclusion will necessarily follow that it was never of God's ordination. For Christ was faithful in his house the Church, Heb. 3. 2, 6. and finished the work which his Father had given him to do, Joh. 17. 4. And the like may be truly affirmed and confirmed of the faithfulness of all those truly inspired Ministers of Christ, according to their measure, that with Paul they were stewards of God, and studied so earnestly to be found faithful, that they knew nothing by themselves to accuse themselves of falsehood or neglect, 1 Cor. 4. 1, 2. 4. That they kept back Act. 20. 20. 26, 27. nothing which was profitable to the people, but declared to them the whole Counsel of God, therefore were pure from the blood of all men: so that it must follow, that either the use of the aforesaid humane learning in Gospel-matters is no ordinance of God, and at the best unprofitable: or else that Christ and his Apostles not using it, yea rejecting the use of it, were not faithful. But all will deny the latter, therefore must grant the former. A second Reason to prove it not to be an ordinance of God, etc. I may draw from the slighting, abasing, and invective terms which the Holy Ghost in Scripture useth against it. The wisdom of the Holy Ghost doth in no wise slight any ordinance of God qualified and blessed by him to Gospel-ends. But the use of those humane pieces of learning whereof I am speaking is much slighted and aba●ed by the H: G: as impotent and unuseful to Gospel-work and ends, Ergo, etc. That the H: G: doth thus slight it in Scripture, to omit what the Lord Christ speaks against the traditionary learning of the Jewish Rabbis, Mat. 15. 1.- 9 & 23. 13, etc. & 11. 25, 26. Joh. 9 29-41. I shall mention only how contemptuously the H: G: by the Apostles pointing directly to this Gentilizing learning, speaks of it. They became vain in their imaginations (saith he) and their Rom. 1. 21-23. foolish heart was darkened; Professing themselves wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of God into a corruptible image, etc. What more to the abasing of their learning? he calls it at the best, the very froth of light fancies and imaginations, the darkness of foolish hearts, a profession of such wisdom as made them gross fools; that as it acted about religion and the way to happiness, it made both it and them a very abomination to the Lord. Again, The preaching of the Cross is to them that perish, foolishness. As it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, & bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the Scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe, etc. 1 Cor. 1. 18-21, etc. How differing is the spirit of our Sophisters from the Spirit which wrought in the Apostle? He pronounceth this Sophistical learning, to be so far from being a furtherance to the only true which is the Gospel-way of salvation, as that it is an enemy to it, rejects it as foolishness. 2. Them that follow it as their rule and authority what to believe and do, that they may be saved, to be in a perishing condition, in the ready way to damnation. They that perish account the simplicity of the Gospel without the fulture, or rather tainture of their Arts, foolishness. 3. He affirms God to be an enemy to it, to detest any patronage from it to his mysterious Doctrine of the Gospel. He hath left it upon record to curb wanton wits, that he will destroy the wisdom, etc. 4. That according to his threat, he hath executed, and will still fulfil, therefore challengeth the Sophisters to give answer from their own experience at last, whether God hath not, doth not always so curse this wisdom of theirs, that it turns to ruin and foolishness? Where is the Scribe? where the Disputer? etc. Hath not God? etc. 5. That it is a knowledge by which men know not God, which while they pursue, they lose utterly the saving knowledge of God. 6. That in contempt of this secular learning, God will by the simplicity and foolishness of Gospel-preaching save them that believe, leaving the Disputers to reason themselves into Hell. It pleased God, etc. Unto this I shall add but two Testimonies more; the one, when the Apostle hath to do with a company of Christians dwelling among the Philosophers, in great jealousy & fear of them, he cries out, Beware ye be not spoiled with Philosophy, Col 2. 7. & vain decit. He speaks of no possibility of any good that there should accrue unto them by the help of Philosophy, but of great danger to be spoilt and corrupted by it; and when is there such hazard of being corrupted by it? he answers, when men intermingle this learning, which is but of humane invention and tradition, after the Rudiments of the world, after and not above carnal and worldly Reason, with the Scripture, in measuring out to themselves the saving Gospel, and take not it up after Christ simply and unmixedly as Christ hath taught it, and put the impress of his authority upon it, Coloss. 2. 8. The other that for prevention of corruption by this secular learning, the Converts of Ephesus, while the Apostle was yet resident among them, and consequently consenting with them, burned their books of curious Arts, which though some will have to be understood of conjuring books, yet I cannot assent to them, because this cursed rather then curious Art, was proper and almost peculiar to the more Eastern people, Jews, Samaritans, Egyptians, and Babylonians; the Greeks very little or not at all studying it, but placing all their wisdom in the Arts whereof I have been hitherto discoursing, and these were Greeks that burned the books of those curious Arts which they studied, Act. 19 19 If then any conclude that the H: Ghost at any time doth so much abase and deface an Ordinance of God; Let him also conclude this kind of learning and disputation to be ordained of God for the confirming and promoting of the Gospel. A third Reason to prove that God hath not ordained this Sophistical or Philosophical learning to be instrumental for the promoting of the Gospel, may be drawn from experience itself. That which we never find to be blessed, but still blasted of God to the hurt both of the Churches that have been admirers and followers of Sophistical teachers of the Gospel, and of such teachers also, cannot be the Ordinance of God; for he always accompanieth and breathes his blessing in greater or lesser degrees upon the due execution of his own Ordinances. But God hath never blessed, but still so blasted and brought to nought & naught, etc. the use of this philosophical and philosophastrous learning. Ergo, It is not of God's ordination, I mean to be intermingled with spiritual, and Evangelicall Doctrines. For hence alone we banish it, not denying it to be useful in natural and moral things, as I have before granted. That it hath been so blasted as intermingled with Gospel-doctrines, experience itself evidenceth. Trace we down from the very primitive age of the Gospel Church until our times, Gods operations, in the Gospels and Churches w●xings and wanings, and we shall find his blessing to have been upon the pure preaching of the Gospel; his curse upon the mixings and medleys of m●ns wisdom with it. Begin we with the Apostles times, when the●e went forth acting only by the authority of Christ's mission, and according to the rule of his Commission, the very Devils became subject to them, and Satan fell as lightning before them, at the sound of the Gospel which they had charge to preach alone, and ground upon the authority of the Scripture alone, while this charge was faithfully put in execution, whole Nations either after the other, yea the whole world [almost] came to be discipled to Christ. God working mightily with them by many signs and wonders to make their Ministry successful. But when anon there entered into the Churches rightly grounded and established, false Apostles of the Jews that preached a legal and natural righteousness that reason and natural con-conscience could suggest (if the Law of Moses had been silent) as necessary to be joined with the gospel-righteousness of Faith to Justification: And on the other side there arose out of the Churches of the Gentiles some of themselves that spoke perverse things seeking to introduce the like natural righteousness out of the Ethics of the Philosophers, and to maintain their Doctrines, mainly if not wholly by Aristotle's dialectic subtleties: And both these began to be favoured by wanton wits within the Churches: Now the Lord turned his hinder parts to them on whom erewhile the light of his countenance shined, the glory of the Gospel became more and more clouded, the Churches rended and torn in pieces, abounding more with Apostates than with Christians indeed, as may be largely manifested from the New Testament if there were need. From the Apostles time descend we to the next ages or age after the Apostles, and I find not among the Writers of note any one much studious of Philosophy (much less spoilt with it) Clemens Alexandrinus only excepted, and he enough moderate in the use of it. But shortly after him sprung up Origen, a great and copious Writer: in his youth beyond his age hopeful, but in his maturity carried with full sails to the study of secular Arts, and with such success, that Hierom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers renders him in such learning unmatchable by any going before, or following him; as one thoroughly seen in all the differing opinions of all the several sects of Philosophers, a notable Logician and Disputer, and fully read in all the Liberal Arts, and as remarkable for the practical part as the Theory of all. Now from a man so accomplished in so many perfections (as some term them) would possibly be expected a greater success of his preaching and writing than ever Paul attained, because so much more learned than Paul: But the case proved contrary. Out of his brain thus filled, issued errors and heresies as thick as hailstones from the Clouds. Nothing of Scripture, Law or Gospel could escape his depravation, and a Religion he set forth, like Mahomet's Koran, a mere galleymaufry of Heterogeneous fancies, some Jewish, some Heathenish, and some in show at least Christian, compounded and confounded one with the other, so that there could not be a fouler abomination than such a Religion. Why? because he had attained so much secular learning? not so, but because he wrought with untempered mortar, mixing Philosophy and Christianity together, which close as sweetly as light and darkness. Hence was it that all the Churches at length exploded him for an Heretic, and his writings as Pseudochristian; and Hierom so wounded his reputation among the learned and godly, for writing somewhat in the praise of him, that with all his palliating and recanting, he could not fully repair it to his dying day. Yea the stinch of him hath offended all the godly Divines of our Reformed Churches, notwithstanding his antiquity, that they reject him. From the pen of one Beza, we may know the mind of the rest, who calls him hominem impuram sometimes, and sometimes hominum impurissimum, an impure or a profane man, yea the profanest of men, for profaning Scriptures, Gospel, Religion, and all other sacred things that he meddled with. At no long distance after Origen lived Tertullian, who finding the Church by the evil Artifice of Origen, and other Philosophical Christians like him, over spread with heresies, applies himself to seek the cure thereof. And a principal means he prescribeth hereunto, is a fast adhering to the doctrine of Christ, all other authority in divine things being rejected. It is not lawful for us (saith he) to bring in any thing [of faith or worship] out of our own will or judgement, nor to admit any thing what another hath introduced of his will and judgement. Apostolos Domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipse quicquam ex suo Tertul. l. de prescript. advers. Haereticos. Arbitrio quod inducerunt, elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus adsignaverunt, i. e. We have the Apostles of the Lord herein our authors or patterns, who neither made choice of any thing from their own invention, to impose [upon Christians] but faithfully delivered to the Nations the discipline which they had received from Christ. So that if an Angel from heaven shall preach any other doctrine let him be accursed. And having mentioned some doctrines not of Christ's prescribing, pronounceth of all such, Hae sunt doctrinae hominum & Daemoniorum prurientibus auribus natae, de ingenio sapientiae saeculi, etc. i. e. These are Doctrines of men and Devils sprung forth from itching ears, of the nature of the wisdom of the world, which the Lord calling foolishness, hath chosen the foolish things of the world even to the confusion of Philosophy itself. Ea est n. Materia sapientiae saecularis, etc. For this [Philosophy] is the matter of worldly wisdom: a rash interpreter of the nature and dispensations of God, from it Heresies are suborned. And having particularised what several heresies have been foisted into the Church from the several sects of Philosophers, and what from all conjoined, and inveighed against Aristotle's Logic as an enemy to Christian Religion, he thus breaks forth. Quid ergo Athenis & Hierosolymis? Quid Academiae & Ecclesiae? Quid haereticis & Christianis? Nostra institutio de particu Solomonis est, etc. Viderint qui Stoicum & platonicum, & Dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt, etc. i. e. what then hath Athens to do with Jerusalem? the Academy with the Church? Heretics with Christians? Our Institution [in Religion] is out of the porch of Solomon, etc. Let them look to it that have hatched out a Stoical, Platonical, and Logical Christianity to us. We have no need of curiosity after Christ, nor of inquisitive after the Gospel. When we believe [viz. Christ and his Gospel] we desire nothing beyond believing. For this we believe first, that there is not [viz. in Philosophy or other Arts] any thing that we ought to believe [unto salvation] beyond [the Gospel of Christ.] And a little after, he that is not satisfied with the Scripture, but seeks further authority from reason and Philosophy, his curious inquisitive argues him either not to believe, or else to be vainglorious in seeking after the praise of worldly wisdom, therefore annexeth this counsel, Cedat curiositas fidei, cedat gloria saluti, i. e. let curiosity give place to faith, and vainglory stoop to salvation. So much and much more not unworthy the reading, hath Tertullian in this Book. And none will easily affirm that Tertullian condemns that learning which himself wanted, to hid his own nakedness. All his polemical works or controversal writings declare the contrary, specially his book against Hermogenes, where having to deal with one that little regarded the Scriptures, sets upon him in his own fortress, and assails him with his own weapons, and philosophically convinceth the Philosophaster, and dialectically the Sophister, in his own arts and element, confuting and confounding him. But some may object, that seeing he holds the use of these arts unnecessary and hurtful to Christian Religion, why doth himself make use of them? Himself both moves and answers the question elsewhere, and thus puts the question, Whether ohere be not some Tertul. de Anima. lib. truths to be found in philosophy? and 2ly. whether a Christian may not in some case make use of it in his disputations? His answer is somewhat large, the sum and brief of it runs in this tenor: That it is not to be denied but there are some truths delivered by Philosophers in the more common and open things of Divinity, i. e. (as I granted before) in natural and moral things, and those we are to take up, not for the authority of the Philosophers, who by the groping light of Nature have by a kind of blind happiness found out and delivered the same: but for the authority of God, who by his undeceiving word hath manefested it to us, and further that in our disputes with such to whom the prescripts of philosophy are more authoritative and authentic than the oracles of the word, when it may be done without prejudice to the word, we may retort upon the adversary his own arguments, and stop his mouth with testimonies of Philosophers, which to him are most authentic. Nevertheless it is the safest and most pious way when we treat with Heretics that profess Christians, to hold them close to the Scriptures. Aufer Haereticis quae cum Ethnicis Tertul. lib. de Resur. carnis. sapiunt, saith he, ut de solis scripturis questiones suas sistant, & stare non potuerint, i. e. Take from the Heretieks those arguments which they draw from heathen learning, that they may state their questions from the Scriptures alone, and they will not be able to stand. With Tertullian consented the judgement of the sound and orthodox Fathers which lived after him, during the first six hundred years in the Christian Church, and my purpose was to demonstrate it from the very words of such of them as I have read; but finding the Preface swelling above its measure already, and the little or no use which they make of these pieces of learning, in their works, enough declaring their judgements, that they held the same useless and superflou● at least: in all their writings holding thewselves fast to the word, not meddling with profane arts to help or back the Gospel of Christ, saving when they were necessitated to disabuse the people, in discovering the fallacies of the Manichees, Arrians, and other sophistical Heretics: I think it more pertinent to ease myself of this burden. By the way only noting that as Julian, when he gave his mind once inordinately to the study of philosophy, and coveted to be a learned and philosophical Christian, did quickly declare himself to be an Apostate, and no Christian: So the like apostasy (no doubt) by the like means befell many others, though not openly declared. And this must needs follow in part upon all such as make not the word to be the whole foundation of their faith, but so far only as it hath reason and philosophy consenting with it. But the word of the Gospel is transcendent above the reach of Philosophy and natural reason, they cannot comprehend it to give testimony to it, so that to make reason the touchstone of Gospel-doctrines and truths, is the ready way to apostatise from Christ and his Gospel, although the self-deceivers declare not their apostasy, but profess Christianity still. To be a Christian only so far as the very extracts and spirits of natural reason suggest cause so to be, is to be a Christian only in name, but as void of the truth and power of Christianity, as are the very Pagans that never heard of Christ. I come now to speak of the fatal (if I may so term it) and almost total ruin of the Church and Gospel. Towards the end of that which is called the Primitive Church, and of them which are dignified with the name of the ancient Fathers of the Church: As the Saracens invaded the Eastern Churches, so a most stupendous and barbarous people, not only unchristian, but also inhuman, the Goths and Vandals, made incursions upon these Western Churches with one swelling tide, carrying all at once before them, and made impression into Italy itself, and seizing on Rome, made it their imperial City; and reigning over, or at least molesting all those nations which in this western part of the world were then termed Christians, made it their work for more than a hundred years not only to raze out the very being of christianity from the earth, but also all polite learning, filling all things and places with their barbarism, which also in length of time they accomplished almost to the utmost. Now when at length by the valour of Carolus Magnus they were discomfited, and wholly driven out of these christian Lands, after their subversion, there sprung out of the Barbarism which they left behind them, a Barabarian sect of Divines, more pernicious to Religion then the Goths & Vandals had been. In a general term they are usually called Schoolmen or School-Doctors. These like the Babel-builders erected upon other foundations, and of other materials a Babel-Church, with such barbarous slime in stead of cement and mortar, as was never before used since the first building of the old Babel; who exauctorating Christ and his Gospel from having any sovereignty in matters of Religion, and permitting them but now and then to peep for their advantage, canonised Aristotle the most subtle, but until then the least regarded of all the sects of Heathen Philosophers, to be their ipse dixit, chose Peter Lombard's sentences to be their Text, themselves to be the Commentators. The matter of their Commentary, a Miscellane, partly of the excrements of their own brains, partly of moralities, legalities, formalities; and partly of superstitions, idolatries and heresies borrowed, some from the Jews, some from the Heathen, and the rest from Hell itself. The Language in which all is set forth, no Language, but being caught out in syllabical, barbarous, and bombastical sounds of their own coining, would better fit the bellowing of a beast, than the utterance of men; or if the utterance of men, more beseeming Conjurers and Charmers than Divines. The God whom they serve and sacrifice unto in all is not Christ but Antichrist, whose commands and decrees assoon as they have received, they must and will with all their Hyperborean conjurations of ghastly words, defininitions, argumentations, and a cell or hell full of distinctions, maintain them to be from heaven, though they smell of nothing but hell itself. Nimble workmen, leaving a glory upon their disputes when they meet with sublunary matter, with a subject not above the comprehension of natural reason, but such whereof all men have an idea or image within their Synterisis, or natural conscience; but when they meet with Gospel-doctrine, that makes men wise to salvation, blinder than Balaam, that saw less than his Ass which he road upon. These have erected and held up many hundred years a religion which can save none, but damneth all that cleave strictly to it, and they have this peculiar virtue that they have still waxed worse and worse, the second generation more impure than the first, and the third than the second, and so lineally every generation almost until now: save that in these last times they have attained so much of the subtlety, falsehood and impiety of Satan, that there is scarce a possibility of receiving a further addition. If then any man will read how far the humane Learning of which I am speaking, may be helpful to propagate & maintain the truth of the Gospel, let him but look back to the fruit of these sophistical Doctor's Labours these many hundred years last passed, and by that which he seethe he shallbe able to answer himself, viz. that it hath been and is powerful to deface and subvert utterly the whole truth and salvation of the Gospel in relation to their Disciples that rest upon their Learning and Precepts: for look what of Religion, worship and ordinances there is in the Popish Church, the praise of it redounds to philosophy and sophistry the main instruments of laying its groundwork, and the sole instruments (unless ye will annex to it the fire and faggot, and tyrannical inquisition) for the maintenance thereof. Having seen how great a corruption, and how long a desolation of the truth of Religion there hath been, while Sophistry was made its perfidious Advocate. We are now in the next place to consider how the same truth of Christian Religion thrived when delivered out of the captivity of, and communion with this secular Learning. After the long holding of the purity of the Gospel in unrighteousness, by these Theologasters, it pleased God to raise up to himself for the reformation of his Church, men of his own choice, and gifted with a measure of the Spirit, answering so great a work to which they were deputed; as Luther, Zuinglius, and many other learned and godly men, some their contemporaries, some their followers. These restored the Scriptures to light again, which had been many hundred years buried in darkness, and preached again the true and clear Gospel which had been long also clouded with men's inventions, traditions and superstitions. What success this their Ministry had, cannot be unknown to them that know any thing of the history of those times. Disciples came in by thousands and ten thousands unto Christ, being totally revolted from Antichrist. Whole Kingdoms, Nations, Dukedoms, that ere while worshipped the Beast, now fell flat at the feet of Christ to submit to his Sceptre. And this not as constrained by the command of their Magistrates or Laws, but even while Magistrates and Laws slept, yea when Magistrates and Laws persecuted with Fire and Sword all that went this way: even than the Kingdom of heaven suffered violence, and the violent took it by force, i. e. by an unresistible conviction of the word, and wonderful operation of this Spirit upon their souls, they were carried out in contempt of all dangers and persecutions to receive the Lord Jesus Christ purely revealed in his righteousness, beauty and salvation to them. So that in few years, maugre all the malice of the Pope, Emperor, Kings, Princes, World, and Hell, Christ might be even seen reigning in the midst of his Enemies, and whole Lands, at least great multitudes of many Lands which were darkness, became light in the Lord, even so far as we see the Protestant Religion at this day propagated. If it be demanded here, how it came to pass that the word and truth of Religion in so short a time, so mightily grew and prevailed, that so great a part of the world from so small and even despicable a beginning, became so fully and so quickly seasoned with it? It were a full answer (I acknowledge) to say, It was the Lord's time, and he would so have it. But because the Lords operations are all done in wisdom, truth, and righteousness, an inferior subordinate cause visible to our eyes may be also alleged: when the Lord had purposed to do this great work, he ordained and fitted instruments for it. The Ministers which he employed the first threescore years and upward about the work of Reformation, were such as clavae only and wholly to the word, both in preaching and defending the sacred truth of the Gospel, minding only Christ Jesus, not seeking their own things, their own greatness, glory and praise, but the things of Christ. Denied all other authority save Christ's, knew no other, admitted no other Master, to define and determine any thing in matters of Religion but Christ alone. Therefore whether they provoked the Adversaries, or were provoked by them to disputation, their challenge, or receiving the challenge, was still upon this condition, that the Word alone must be umpire in all things. Thus they had Disputes before the Emperor Charles the 5. so they offered themselves to be disputers in the Council of Trent. But still refused the authority of Aristotle, and his genuine sons Thom: Aquinas, John Duns, Scotus, and the whole rabble of their followers, and all the testimonies and learning of such, as incompetent Judges of heavenly things. Thus these holy men ploughed the Lord's field, with his own Heifers, and sowed it with his own seed, therefore he gave so large an increase. They preached (as they had commandment and commission from him) only his Gospel, and all and only whatsoever he had commanded them, therefore according to his promise he was with them giving a blessing. But if it be further demanded, how it came to pass at last that there was a stop to the glorious proceed of the success of the Ministry of the Gospel these last sixty years, that we see not any further propagation of the truth, but Antichrist rather regaining strength than losing, and the kingdom of Christ rather declining than increasing? I answer, that as about that time the new sect of Loyalla, the Jesuits, came to some maturity, who being spes ultima Romae ruentis, the last subsidiary help of the Romish nodding and falling power, perceived that they might seek but not find any fulture from the Scriptures to their fainting cause; therefore applied themselves to the study of Aristotle the Pagan, and the Schoolmen the Semi-pagans, drinking into themselves their sophistry, and refining it into somewhat a purer Language, (though most of them retain a scholastical style still): And being thus furnished, they provoke our Divines to a dispute, objecting against them, that through their ignorance and illiterate sottishness, they dared not to dispute scholastically, therefore still cried Scripture, Scripture, to hid their want of Scholarship from the eyes of men. As about that time (I say) there were in such an operation, a new kind of Antagonists against the power of the Gospel: So on our part in many Churches, there succeeded the former Worthies, about the same time, Pastors in their own eyes possibly of a more noble, but in spiritual eyes of a base mettle: who to evade that scandal laid upon us by the Adversaries, that we destroyed good works by our Doctrine of free Grace through Christ, preached some men's inventions, superstitions, and traditions; others mere moralities, legalities, or duties after the tenor of the Law, scarce touching upon the strings of the Gospel to tune up the Justification, Life, Liberty, Peace, Joy, and other privileges which are by Christ: And to gain to themselves an applause and opinion among men of their universal Learning, assented to the forenamed Challengers to descend to them in their own Field, and to traverse their Disputes about heavenly things after the rules of worldly wisdom, thus basely prostituting the cause and doctrine of the Lord Christ, to the censure and arbitration of Heathen Philosophers, and of John Duns, and other enemies to the purity of the Gospel. For in trying all by their learning, by the light of Reason which they have dazzled and sophisticated with their rules and precepts, is to make them judges of Christ and his Gospel, how far they shall stand or fall. Who can deny, but in stead of the former Eagles which the Church had, that still beheld the Sun of righteousness, to fetch their light from his beams; we had now Owls that looked downward, and pitched upon the elements and rudiments of the world and worldly learning (as the Apostle terms them, Col. 2. 8.) to fetch light & authority thence in pretence to maintain the truth, but in deed and success to betray it? No marvel if in this case Christ hath with-drawn himself and his blessing from such Apologists for his Cause, which plead for him with such a kind of argumentation as is worse than total silence. For what of Christ is there in such disputes? when the first syllogism, or its prossyllogism, or a distinction, diverts the question from all the lists of Divinity, into Philosophy or Metaphysics, etc. and not the least parcel or particle of Scripture is any more heard of through the whole disputation? It is but as it falls ou● sometimes between two Apes, that having a heap of shells cast before them which they take for nuts, inconsiderately break out into a skirmish, rending in pieces either the others jackets, and then with tooth and nail wound either the others hides, until the weaker yield the victory to the stronger, and the Conqueror by his victory gets nothing but shells to break his teeth, not a kernel to stay his hunger: So when a question in Divinity once translated and removed into Logic, in this element to be tried, there is notable jangling, until one of the Antagonists that hath the stronger front, and more subtle brain, and clamorous voice, hath put the other to silence, and then one is as wise and as great a gainer as the other. For the question is adhuc sub judice, where it was, it was above all logical and metaphysical notions to dec●de it. I acknowledge that in such disputes it hath much delighted me sometimes to find the sophistical fallacies of an adversary detected and shamed in a logical way by some of our Divines. Yet this in no wise either doth or should satisfy me as touching the question, until I find the true assertion confirmed ●y Scripture itself. One testimony from above in this case is of more worth and weight than a thousand volumes of Arguments drawn out of worldly wisdom which is from beneath. And lest I should be taken as singular in this piece of prattle (as Mr. Baxter will term it) I shall mention in stead of many, two famous modern Writers, the one speaking with reference to the times past, the other to the time present and to come. Palam est (saith Amesius) Patres ex Philosophia introduxisse in Ecclesiam Ames. Bellar. Enero. Tom. 4. Lib. 6. Cap. 1. p. 136. varios modos loquendi, precipuè de meritis humanis, & de Justitia Evangelij, qui in scriptures non comparent; & inde occasionem datam & arreptam Scholasticis fuisse, perniciosos errores fabricandi. i e. It is apparent that the Fathers have out of Philosophy brought into the Church, various ways of speaking, especially of man's merits, and of Gospel-righteousness, which do not appear in Scriptures: And that occasion hath been thereby given to, and caught or reached by the School-Doctors to frame many Errors. And Bullinger seeing this way of disputation's beginning to peep and show itself in its time, within the reformed Churches, having before described them that give their minds overmuch to the study of Philosophy and Logic, that they became such as are unuseful for the edification of the Church, and in stead thereof, Disputatores rixosi fiunt, censores superbissimi, nihil aliud quàm disputationes & rixas spirantes, omnia aliorum, etc. arrogantissimè consentes, arrodentes, & malign cavillantes, Scholarum & Ecclesiarum pests, ex quibus venenum altercationum, simultatum, etc. effunditur in Ecclesiam, i. e. become brawling disputers, proud censurers, breathing nothing but disputes and janglings, most arrogantly censuring, snarling, and malignly cavilling at other men's labours, nisi quod eorum capitibus gravidis admodulatum sit prescriptisque regulis congruant, if they be not tuned to their heads great with Child, and congruent with their rules and precepts [of Art;] The very plagues of Schools and Churches, out of which the poison of brawlings, divisions, and distractions is poured out into the Church: Having thus described them, he thus concludes in reference to the times past, Equidem feliciter nunquam cessit Ecclesiae, quando homines docti & studiosi, deserta simplicitate & puritati verbi dei, aliò converterunt oculos, neque hos unicè in solum verbum Dei collimârunt, i. e. Verily it hath never thrived well in the Church, when learned Bulling. Ser. Decad. 5. Serm. 10. and studious men, forsaking the simplicity and purity of God's word, have glanced their eyes on some other thing, and not fixed them only upon God's word. And thus in reference to the times to come and present; Si hodiè quoque pergamus scripturis sanctis ma●è copulare philosophiam, & illas superstitiosè ad disputationes revocare, ac sub regulas cogere humanas, vel Artium; corrumpemus & ipsi in scholis, grandi cum Ecclesiae detrimento, sinceritatem doctrinem Apostolicae, i. e. If in our times also we proceed evilly to couple together the Scriptures and Philosophy, and to call the Scriptures but outsidely or in a show to our disputations, reducing them to the rules of men, and of the Arts, we also shall to the great disadvantage of the Church, corrupt the sincerity of Apostolical doctrine in the Schools. So much said Bullinger, a Classical Divine of his time neither without eminent learning, nor an enemy to it, for more than a 100 years since, in the last of those decades of Sermons which he set forth in print, Anno 1549. how long before the Edition thereof it was preached is uncertain. Ye● gives after all this to humane literature its due praise: Interim certum est (saith he) bonas Artes vel literas plurimum facere ad per spicuitatem & evidentiam; sed moderate cum judicio, religiose adhibitas, ut imperium relinquatur sacris literis, serviant autem omnes Artes exoticae, i. e. Mean while it must be granted that good Arts and Learning contribute much to the clearing and evidencing [of things] so that they be moderately, judiciously, and religiously made use of, and the Scripture be still left as Empress, and all extraneous Arts as handmaids (not to justle it aside, or sit in Chair with it, but) to do service to it. In some things, in many things I grant the rules of these Arts, (when agreeing with Scripture) to be useful to make out the absurdity or rationality of a man's reasoning about divine things: But except they could be proved universally, and in all parts perfect and indeficient, it is neither safe nor warrantable to yield up our faith and judgement in Gospel-matters to their determination. This ingenuity therefore is to be attributed to M. Baxter, that he doth (though not professedly, yet actually) to this end come armed a Cap ad Pe, with this kind of learning, to destroy, not to maintain that sacred and fundamental point of the Gospel, Justification of mere grace. Yet to show how much more confidence he hath in his Sophistry than in his Divinity, and to tell out aloud that he hath deserved to have the title of Subtilissimus Doctor, which Scotus hitherto hath worn, he hath affixed to the end of his Aporisms a Table of Distinctions, to spe●k out himself to all that will not otherwise see it, that he is whatsoever he is, Sophistry itself, that distinctions flow from him as thick as Bees from the Hive. Only this one thing seems wanting in him, that he sets not so much as an Asterisk upon any of these distinctions, to tell us that either it is grounded upon the Scripture, or that it distinguisheth him from a sworn enemy to the Doctrine of Grace. I do not expect to be free from censure for so much length in my discourse upon this last subject, to show the impotency and impropriety of secular learning to bear any authority in spiritual things. But I have to answer against such censures, 1. That I have written therein nothing but words of soberness and truth; and I had rather with tediousness make clear a truth, than to drop errors with conciseness. 2. That it was not against my purpose to be so large, nor yet beside the mark aimed at. For should I here put a period, Mr. Baxters' falsities are more than half answered; because that more than half of his Book consisteth of merely sophistical questions, definitions, arguments, evasions, equivocations, distinctions and fallacies. In all which, if there be no force to prove or refute in Gospel-matters; and that God is so far from commanding or allowing such slights in handling Gospel-truths, as that he explodes, hates & curseth the same (as hath been manifested) then the greater part of his work is hereby manifested to be vain. As for the residue of the Book, wherein he seems to confine himself to plain Scripture, he seldom and little meddles this way, but in confidence of his Sophistry that he hath at hand in ambush, to succenturiate and help him at a dead lift, else all the fat will quickly be in the fire, his scriptural reasons for the most part cutting the throat of his own caus●, and stoutly defending the truth which he oppugneth, as we shall find when I come to examine them. One thing yet remaineth which I promised to premise, viz. what my intention is in excepting against Mr. Baxters' book. This is not either to oppose him in all things which he hath written therein. For sometimes he looks out thorough truth's casement, that we might take him so a son of truth, and the less suspect him when he vends his false wares. In this case I will not jangle with him whether he speaks truth of envy and subtlety, or of good will and sincerity. Or 2. in all that shall seem to my judgement Heterodox in his Treatise, but only or mainly in those things wherein he joineth with the Romish Synagogue to maintain their damning doctrine, against the truth which is and hath been professed in all the Reformed Churches about Faith and Justification. Or 3. in every particular passage wherein he discovers himself in this point to be for Antichrist against Christ; for sometimes he delivers himself with such ambiguities and equivocations, like Apollo of old in his Oracles, that in pretence of another sense of his words than the more Grammatical and usual, he may leave a way of issue to himself, in case he cannot maintain his words in that sense wherein he would be understood that he may deceive. Let it not therefore be thought all granted that shall not be here excepted against, and that I approve all whatsoever I do not oppugn. For method, I desire no other may be expected from me, than to follow Master Baxter in order as he hath written, and to take up his Paradoxes and most profound and learned mistakes as they fall from him, examining them, not by the rules of Sophistry, but by the touchstone of the sacred Word. These things thus premised, we are now to begin to examine the unsavoury particulars occurring in the Book itself. Mr. Baxters APHORISMS Exorized and Anthorized: OR, An Examination of, and Answer to, a Book written by Mr. Rich. Baxter, Teacher of the Church at Kederminster in Worcestershire; ENTITLED, Aphorisms of Justification. THE FIRST PART. CHAP. I. Arg. In which Mr. baxter's Popish Doctrine of Implicit Faith is examined; and whether the people may admit Doctrine upon trust from their Teachers. THE first passage wherein he showeth himself to smell of Popery in the point of Faith and Justification, is (before the work itself) in the farewell of his Epistle to the Reader, pag. antepenult. of the Epistle, where he doth not obscurely manifest himself to like well enough the Papists doctrine of Implicit Faith, and to wish it more favoured, and taken up at home among us. His words are these, speaking to his Congregation, Bax. Who I hope do understand that to take upon trust from your teachers, what you cannot yet reach to see in its own evidence, is less absurd and more necessary than many do imagine. A very proper insinuation to a people whom he would have to swallow such Doctrines as in the following Treatise he offers to them to be swallowed. As far as he prevails, or prevails not with this insinuation, so far he hath or hath not men his Disciples. This is the very foundation of Antichrists kingdom, the authority of men, as the foundation of Christ's kingdom is the authority of the Scriptures. If Mr. Baxter can persuade men to admit and suck in this Doctrine, his whole business is finished, and all his ends attained. If they take upon trust even fundamental doctrines from their teachers, Let Mr. Baxter bring what doctrines he will with him of men and Devils, nothing shall be refused, all shall be taken upon his Credit. By this slight he knew the Pope had gathered, and many hundred years held under his vassalage in blind obedience many nations of the earth, therefore will not Mr. Baxter balk it, when he goes about to propagate the Pope's doctrine among us. But let us see what the Popish implicit faith is, and then compare Mr. Baxter with the Papists, to see whether there be not in both one mind and spirit. The Papists distinguish betwixt Faith and Faith, telling us there is an Explicit and there is an Implicit Faith. By the Explicit Faith they mean a clear and distinct knowledge, apprehension, and believeng of all the Articles and Doctrines of faith which the holy Mother Church of Rome hath prescribed to be received to salvation, and that not in a bunch only, but in particulars also. This Faith they hold needful and expedient in the Clergy (as they term their Prelates and Priests) who are to rule over, more than to teach the people. By the Implicit Faith they mean a general and confused apprehension and believing of all that the Church hath commanded to be taught and believed; that it is all good and true, though they that so believe, know not in particular what the Church hath commanded, otherwise than they take it upon trust of their Priests which tell them such and such things are commanded by the Church to be believed. This Faith they hold sufficient for the Laity to salvation, to believe what the Church believeth and enjoineth to be true, though they neither know what it is, nor are acquainted with one lest parcel of the word by which they may know it to be true, which they have so taken upon trust to believe. By the Church they mean the Pope and his Clergy, by the Laity the people: So that by their Doctrine, if the Pope's decree things in religion successively never so contrary, and contradictory either to other, and the titular Clergy follow them, and go to Hell for it; yet the people have this one supereminent privilege that their Implicit and Collier's faith saves them (as being still the same and unchanged) that they believe as the Church believeth; though they know not either with the Church or what believing is, or what the things are which the Church believeth. Compare we now Mr. baxter's words with this popish doctrine, and see we if there be any difference. I hope (saith he) you understand. When Mr. Baxter saith I hope, we are not to doubt but a man of such rare parts hath good grounds for his hope. He knew there was means used to make them understand, else would he not say, I hope you understand; and what means but teaching? and who should teach them but Mr. Baxter their Teacher? But what is it he hopes they understand? it followeth: That to take upon the trust of your Teachers, what you cannot yet see in its own evidence, is not, etc. Here is the Implicit Faith, not to ground their opinions and belief in matters of salvation, upon the known word of God, but upon trust from the Teachers, to believe because their Teachers say they believe it. And what are the Teachers, but what in Popish phrase is termed the Church, the Clergy, which is in their account at least the Church representative. And Mr. Baxter to decline envy useth the plural number, Teachers, not (as I conceive) that the people of Kederminster have more Teachers in ordinary besides himself, for he names himself in the Title of the book their unworthy Teacher, not one of their Teachers, so that his purpose is to deliver a general rule for all Churches: His congragation to take upon trust from him and other Congregations from their Teachers, what they themselves cannot reach to see in its own evidence, i. e. such doctrines as they themselves by their own light and knowledge cannot tell whether they be white or black, true or false, from Heaven or from Hell. And to do this, is less absurd and more necessary than many imagine. Mr. Baxter is scarce yet beginning to discover himself, therefore we have yet Bona Verba from him, we hear him speaking modestly; afterward vires acquirit eundo, we shall when once he is hot in his discourse hear him speak in the full of the mouth; here only he saith less absurd and more necessary than some imagine. But who knows not his meaning to be, that for the people thus to pin their Faith to the sleeves of their Teachers, specially to such profound Teachers as Mr. Baxter, is so far from being absurd as that it is necessary (I suppose he meaneth to salvation) though some imbegin otherwise. Here I would demand (not of Mr. Baxter, for I desire not familiarity with him while such an Aphorist) but of any knowing man indulgent to him, when he saith, less absurd and more necessary, than some imagine; whom can he mean by those some, but the Protestant Churches and Divines, who at all times with one consent have cried out against the absurdity of this doctrine, in their disputations against the Papists? And if so, what doth he less therein than pronounce the Popish Doctrine herein necessary, and the doctrine of all the Protestants in opposition to it, a mere imagination? But it may be objected, that the Papists lay down this doctrine of Implicit Faith, or believing upon the authority of the Church, or their Teachers, for a continual rule to the people. But Mr. Baxter proposeth it but as a temporary rule, useful only for a season. Therefore the difference between him and them is considerable: For so much may be gathered from Mr. Baxters' words, to take upon trust from your Teachers, what you cannot Yet reach to see in its own Evidence. It is but while they are yet weak, while they cannot yet reach, etc. But when once they are strengthened, and have attained to see truths in their own evidence, thenceforth they are to take up such doctrines upon their own evidence, not upon trust from their Teachers any longer. I answer, This difference is but supposed, not real. For if we compare his words here with that which he hath written in the next Section of this Epistle before, and with the whole frame and current of of his disputes, throughout his whole book, we shall find that he doth equally with the Papists labour to settle the people in an implicit faith to believe as the Church believeth still. For in the former Sect▪ he that knoweth best his own congregation, acknowledgeth it to be in the number of those, the greatest part whereof is uncapable of understanding such controverted points as are treated of in his book. He saith not only that they understand them not, but also denyeth them to be in a capacity to be brought to the understanding of them, viz. in their own evidence, therefore they must still hold them upon trust from their Teachers. Besides, if we look to the frame of his Disputes in this Treatise, we shall find him concurring with the Papists, in his endeavours to keep the people in a perpetual incapacity to understand such Doctrines in their own evidence. For what else can he mean by seeing a point of divine doctrine in its own evidence, but one of these two things, to see it in the evidence and clear testimony of the word by which God hath set it forth? or to see it in the evidence of Sophistical learning and disputes, by which Mr. Baxter and the Sophisters whom he followeth, pretend themselves to set it forth? But by neither of these will Mr. Baxter or the Popish Sophisters (if they can hinder it) suffer the vulgar people to know any Evangelicall truth in its own evidence. Not by the evidence of the Scriptures, by which God hath cleared up, and so plainly revealed the fundamental truths of salvation, that even babes and sucklings may in good measure comprehend them, Mat. 11. 25. 1 Cor. 1. 26. For here with his Masters the Romish Sophisters, he raiseth vain and distracting questions, making difficulties where the wisdom of God hath left none, and so puzzling weak and tender consciences, that even what before they had attained by the pure and simple light of the word, seeing now such a thick fog of doubts interposed, they think themselves to have lost what light once they had, and so sink into sadness and despair, concluding it utterly unattainable. What zeal Mr. Baxter hath thus not only to match, but also to exceed all the locusts of Rome in darkening such truths as Christ hath in Scripture left clear and open to all, shining in the very Sunbeams of the Gospel, we shall find in examining the following parts of his Treatise. So that in this respect he hinders, as much as in him lieth, his Kederminsterians from seeing the truth of Christ in its own evidence. Nor by the latter (Mr. baxter's sophistical way of quenching under a pretence of confirming Gospel-truth) can the vulgar ever attain to know them in their own evidences, not only because this humane Learning hath no power to search into them, but also because it is not to be expected that illiterate men should ever attain any depth in this learning. For if it be true what is generally held by Mr. Baxter and his side, that without great acquaintance with school-learning, the marrow of Divinity can never be effectually pierced into; and what a great Scholar once told Erasmus, that one of these School-Doctors John Scotus, can in no wise be understood under nine years' study at the least; and what a 3d affirmeth, that a man must have Aristotle's Metaphysics add unguem, before he can be capable of understanding one sentence of Scotus; Farewell then all hope of saving knowledge ever to be attained by unscotified miserable idiots, in its own evidence, or by the Ministerial help of such Teachers as have crept here below upon the Doctrine of Christ his Prophets and Apostles, and not had so much time and patience as Mr. Baxter hath bestowed in the sublimated study of Aristotle, Scotus, and their fellows. But what if Mr. Baxter herein speak the same things (may some say) with the Church of Rome, and the same in opposition to the judgement of all the Reformed Churches, yet this doth not certainly prove that it is savouring of error which he here delivereth, except it be manifested that he speaketh against the Scriptures. Doth the word any where forbidden us to take up points of Faith on the credit of our Teachers, though we understand not the points which they teach, much less can produce any Scriptures surely and sound to confirm them? I answer, that the Scriptures are very full and punctual against taking upon trust of mere men any doctrine to be believed to salvation. Be not ye called Masters, for one is your Master, even Christ, Mat. 23. 10. q. d. Dare not any of you to suffer any to take up matters in Religion upon your trust or authority? For there is but one unerring Mr. whose authority is authentic, Christ Jesus. If Paul or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel to you, etc. let him be accursed, Gal. 1. 8. therefore not trusted. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, 1 Thes. 5. 21. Believe not every Spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God: For many false Prophets are gone forth into the world, 1 Joh. 4. 1. When the Holy Ghost saith, Prove all, Try all, he implyedly forbids to take up any thing on trust from men. My sheep hear my voice, the voice of a stranger they will not hear, for they know not, i. e. own not the voice of strangers, Joh. 10. 4, 5, 27. They know and own the voice of Christ alone: If any preach with another voice, another doctrine than that which is originally from Christ, they fly from him, explode him. Here is nothing taken upon trust but from Christ himself. They are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ being the head cornerstone, Eph. 2. 20. A more noble foundation than the trust and authority of men. I might annex many like testimonies of divine Scripture to the same purpose, but to what purpose? They are Deceivers, such as the Apostle numbereth among grievous wolves, speakers of perverse things, i. e. perverters of the Gospel of Christ, that seek to draw Disciples after them, i. e. to settle men in a Faith upon the authority of their learning, wisdom, and holiness, Acts 20. 29, 30. But Mr Baxter and his peers are necessitated thus to do, if in teaching such doctrines they will draw after them Disciples; For being destitute of the authority of God and his word, if they should not urge men to a credulity upon the authority of men, their doctrine would be hissed at as having no authority. To conclude then; the doctrine which Mr. Baxter here more than obscurely holds forth is, 1 Against Christ, and all the Reformed Churches which condemn it, borrowed of, and owned by the apostatised Synagove of Rome only. 2 Against the Scripture, as hath been manifested. 3 It is a doctrine that brings with it an unsetledness and instability in Faith and Religion. Whosoever takes it up from Mr. Baxters' credit, must be always learning, and never know, be whirled hither and thither with doubts and uncertainties, without any firm station, never attaining rest. For he that taketh upon trust from his Teachers what to believe and do to be saved, will one day be of Paul, another of Apollo, and a third of Cephas, as his fancy tells him, this or that Teacher is most worthy to be trusted. In great probability Mr. Baxters' predecessor taught not the same Justification with Mr. Baxter, and he that shall succeed him will hold out the same grounds and way of justification with Christ and his Apostles which Mr. Baxter declineth. And I know not but either of them may be as worthy of Trust as himself. In what a maze must that people then be led, by what turn and returnings must they be dragged forward and backward, who are taught to take up doctrines on the trust of their Teachers? what joy in believing can they ever have, whose rule in believing is to be never settled in their faith, but to be still wavering? His Disciples must needs be mere weathercocks, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lay in wait to deceive, Eph. 4. 14. 4 It is a doctrine that makes way for all Heresy, Blasphemy, and Impiety into the hearts of the people. For when Religion is taken upon trust from the Teachers, Satan will transform himself into an Angel of light, and his Ministers themselves into Ministers of Righteousness, to gain credit and opinion of wisdom and holiness above others among the people, that upon their trust at last the people may swallow all falsehoods under the name of Truth, whatsoever they shall commend to them, 2 Cor. 11. 13-15. See whither the Galathians were carried by taking upon trust from their seemingly Angelical Teachers doctrines of faith. Christ is become of no effect to you, ye are fallen from grace, saith the Apostle to them, Gal. 5. 4. Surely the doctrine of Mr. Baxter is the same in general and substance, with theirs that corrupted and seduced Galatia. The Lord avert the like success from Kederminster. 5 It is a Doctrine pernicious in itself, and brings a curse upon them that receive it in the very receiving of it. For cursed is man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, whose heart departeth from the Lord, Jer. 17. 5. If so in earthly, much more in spiritual things. So much of this point, in which having found what Mr. Baxter is before his entrance upon the bulk of his work, we may easily conjecture what a one we shall find him, being entered. CHAP. II. Mr. Baxters Sophistical way and Method of dispute to obscure, and not to clear the truths of the Gospel, discovered: And that therein he imitates the Papists. IN the former Chapter we have found Mr. Baxter before his entrance upon his Treatise, somewhat discovering with whom he joins in opinion, so far that we may discern and guests ex ungue leonem, by one little piece of the man, what he is in his whole bulk and frame. It contents him not to be one and the same with the Papists in his judgement, but that he will next also discover himself to be the same with them in their slights and artifice, to bring all others into the same judgement and opinion with them. That generation of the Popish Schoolmen are fitly likened by Sir Francis Bacon, in his Advancement of learning, to Spiders, which spin out their webs out of their own bowels. So these spinn all their doctrines in religion out of their own brains, their own reason, naming Christ sometimes therein, but rather hiding and darkening the authority of his word, than following it as their leading thread in all their doctrines. All their writings about Evangelicall and saving points of knowledge, are but as so many webs of their fancy to catch and carry away from the purity of Christ's Gospel; not so many well-ordered threads of sacred Scriptures to guide and bring us to him. Who is there of all that have but cursorily read their works, that finds them not consisting of large heaps of needless and superfluous questions, to obscure the light of the word, and to bring all to the trial of reason, yea sophistical and sophisticated reason, surmounting the reason and capacity of the people to comprehend? And these questions which they spin and spit out by dozen, yea hundreds & thousands, as they are mostly superfluous, vain, useless, and many of them presumptuously and arrogantly proposed, about things which the Lord hath kept secret in his own bosom, not revealing them by his word: so are they oft no less peremptorily and audaciously by these men answered and determined out of their Philosophical and Metaphysical fancies, without one particle of the word to ground their determinations upon. Thus by their questionary sophistry they have both obscured, if not totally quenched all true Divinity, i. e. the Doctrine of the Gospel, and have foisted in a confused Chaos of titular Divinity, that hath nothing of light or life in it, such as the Scripture owns not, from their own reason. Compare we now Mr. Baxter with these, to see whether as the Apostle calleth Timothy his own, or his natural son in the faith, 1 Tim. 1. 2. because he walked directly after him in the steps of his faith: So Mr. Baxter doth not also declare himself the own and natural son of these sophisters, by walking directly after them in the steps of their cunning and subtlety to destroy the Faith. The Poets feigned that Minerva was begotten and born of Jupiter's brain, because she was all wisdom itself. And I think Mr. Baxter would be offended, if it should be denied that all the quintessence of sophistical learning that hath been in all the brains of all the Schoolmen and Jesuits, were not so extracted from them, as to have its residency now in his. He was (as far as I can understand) born and brought up in the Protestant Church within this nation, as Costor, Pollux, etc. were in the house of Leda; but by a new and strange generation or adoption of eggs laid by these Serpents, he discovers himself now in a manner to be wholly theirs: so fully doth he resemble, yea parallel them, that unum nôris, omnes nôris; you may read in him alone, the Genius and the Craft of them all. Attend we else to his own words in his explication of his 7th Thesis, pag. 25, etc. All that he hath written before, I pass by without exception against it, pag. 19 he layeth down his 7. Aphorism in these words: Bax. Jesus Christ, at the will of his Father, and upon his own will, being perfectly furnished for this work, with a Divine power and personal Rigteousness, first undertook, and afterward discharged this debt [viz. man's debt to God] by suffering what the Law did threaten, and the offender himself was unable to bear. To this as to the rest he addeth that which he calleth an Explication, i. e. an Exposition, explainning or making plain of the Aphorism or point so laid. Let us trace him how now he makes it plain, beginning at the 25. p. before mentioned. I should be too large to write all his words, yet shall not wrong him by writing any save his own words, or the very substance of them. Bax. Here we are cast upon many and weighty and very difficult questions. 1 Whether Christ did discharge this debt by way of solution, or by way of satisfaction? 2 Whether in his suffering and our escape, the threatening of the Law was executed, or dispensed with? 3 And if dispensed with, how it can stand with the truth and justice of God? 4 And whether sinners may thence be encouraged to conceive some hope of a relaxation of the threaten in the Gospel? 5 And whether the faithful may not fear lest God may relax a promise as well as a threatening? 6 And whether if the Law be relaxable, God might not have released his son from the suffering, rather than to have put him to so great torment, and to have freely pardoned the offenders? And p. 27. The resolving of the first question depends upon the resolving of two other questions, both great and difficult 1 What it was which the Law did threaten? 2 What it was that Christ did suffer? Various are the judgements of * He means the Popish Doctors specially, for they with him are the Divines. Divines about the former, etc. 1 Whether Adam's soul and body should have been annihilated and destroyed, so as to become in sensible? 2 Or whether his soul should have been immediately separated from his body, as ours are by death, and so be the only sufferer of the pain? 3 Or if so, whether there should have been any resurrection of the body, after any space of time, that so it might suffer as well as the soul? 4 Or whether soul and body without separation should have gone down quick into hell, are into any place or state of torment short of hell? 5 Or whether both should have lived a cursed life on earth, through everlasting, in exclusion from Paradise, separation from God's favour and gracious presence, loss of his image, etc. 6 Or whether he should have lived such a miserable life for a season, and then be annihilated or destroyed? 7 And if so, whether his misery on earth should have been more than men do now endure? And the more importance are these questions of, because of some others that depend upon them: As 1. What death it was that Christ redeemed us from? 2 And what death it is that perishing Infants die, or that our guilt in the first transgression doth procure? For it being a sin against the first covenant only, will be punished with no other death than that which is threatened in that Covenant. And pag. 31. Besides it is needful to know what life was the reward of that Covenant, that we might know what death was the penalty [and this also comes into question about the reward] whether (if he had not fallen) he should after a season have been translated into heaven without death, as Enoch and Elijah, or whether he should have lived for ever in this terrestrial Paradise without addition of further bliss to that which he had at his first Creation? And as touching the death which Christ suffered, whether it were the same that was threatened to Adam? Pa. 33. If we take the threatening at its full extent, as it expresseth not only the penalty, but also its proper subject and its circumstances, than it is undeniable that Christ did not suffer the same that was threatened. For the Law threatened the death of the offender, but Christ was not the offender. Adam should have suffered for ever, but so did not Christ. Adam did die spiritually by being forsaken of God, in regard of holiness, as well as in regard of comfort, and so was deprived at least of the chief part of his image, so was not Chrst. Yet [neither is this certain that Christ's death was not the same, etc. for] It is disputable whether these two last were directly contained in threatening or not? whether the threatening were not fully executed in Adam's death, and the eternity of it were not accidental, even a necessary consequent of Adam's disability to overcome death, and deliver himself, which God was not bound to do? And whether the loss of God's image were part of the death threatened, or rather the effect of our sin only, executed by ourselves and not by God? whether God did take away his image, or man did thrust it away? Admirable profoundness and learning! but after all this stir, and such egregiously deep speculations as preparatories to the determining of the first question, whether Christ did discharge our debt by way of solution, or by way of satisfaction? how doth he at length determine it? Bax. P. 29, & 30. Much may be said, this seemeth, that is unlikely, one thing probable, another possible: But for a final conclusion, p. 31. It is hard to conclude peremptorily [any thing] in so obscure a case. And so he leaves us so wise, as if he had slept and said nothing. But afterwards recalling himself, though he can conclude nothing as to the forementioned particular preparatories to the determination of the question; yet p. 35. to the substance of it in general he thus answereth. Bax. I canclude then, that in regard of the proper penalty, Christ did suffer a pain and penalty of the same sort, and of equal weight with that threatened; but yet because it was not in all respects the same, it was rather satisfaction than the payment of the proper debt, being such a payment as God might have chosen to accept. I list not to quarrel with him about the conclusion, it being not a point mainly controverted between us and the Papists. Only who sees not that he might as easily have thus concluded, without meddling with so many frivolous and arrogant questions, leaving them where he found them, as not giving the least fulture to such a conclusion? And when he hath thus determined the question, they that lock up to themselves his Conclusion as a treasure, shall gain so much by it as he that rejoiceth of a chip in his pottage. Possibly it may do no hurt, but certainly it will do no good to salvation. But the answer to the second question comes without the help or push of a leaver to heave it after, viz. whether the threatening was executed, or relaxed and dispensed with? B. The answer to this is plain in the Answer to the former, p. 35. Both alike; for were it worth the scanning, we should find both either answered or unanswered: and the things searched after, no less plain to be seen and taken up than a needle in a bottle of hay. And so much M. Baxter seethe, for he comes after, 1 with his distinction. B. In regard of the mere weight of punishment considered as abstracted from person and duration, it was executed, [and to avoid the mistake of the Printer, I conceive it should be] not relaxed. Yet taking the threatening entirely as it was given out, and we must say [viz. if we say after Mr. Baxter] it was dispensed with, for mankind doth not suffer all that was threatened. When I attain the meaning of the words, I shall be able to judge of the strength of the reason therein contained. And 2ly he brings in a doubt, viz. B. If the death threatened did consist in our present miseries, and temporal death only, than the answer must be recanted, etc. And a little further Conference with these Diviners rather than Divines (it seemeth) would make him of their minds. And so the answer to the question depends upon ifs, if Mr. Baxter change his mind, his answer must fall after him. In the mean while the third question must depend upon the uncertain answer to the second. B. If the threat be dispensed with, how it can stand with the truth and justice of God so to dispense with it? Lo the answer to the former question is stuck so deep in the mire, that the best Team in Worcestershire cannot draw it out. Nevertheless such an artisan is Mr. Baxter, that with the spell of a few distinctions, he doth it while a man would wipe his mouth, thus. B. Concerning the justice of God the question is not difficult, and I shall say nothing to that. See, he is half out of the labyrinth already, and never moves a finger for it. O rare dexterity! It costs a little more labour to get free from the other half, and thus the doth it. B. The question is, how to reconcile this dispensation with God's truth? Here you must distinguish, 1. Betwixt the letter of the Law and the sense. 2. Betwixt the Law and the end of the Law. 3. Between a threat with exception, either expressed or reserved, and that which hath no exception. 4. Between a threatening which only expresseth the desert of the sin, and what punishment is due, and so falleth under the will of precept; and that which also intendeth the certain prediction of event, and so falleth under the will of purpose also. And now I Answer. 1. The end of the Law is the Law, and that being the manifestation of God's justice, and hatred of sin, etc. was fulfilled, and therefore the Law was fulfilled a Let the Judge of assizes than chide, and lay by the feet a murderer for an hour, declaring thereby his justice and hatred of the offence. M. Baxter must conclude him to be a just Judge, & to have fulfilled the Law, if hereupon he forthwith discharge him. . 2. Most think that the threatening had this reserved exception. Thou shalt die, i. e. by thyself or thy surety: and though it be sinful for man to speak with mental reservations, when he pretends to reveal his mind, yet not in God, because as he is subject to no law, so he is not bound to reveal to us all his mind, nor doth he indeed pretend any such thing. 3. So that the sense of the same is fulfilled. 4. But the special answer that I give is this, when threaten are merely parts of the Law, and not also predictions of the event, and discoveries of God's purpose thereabouts, than they may be dispensed with without any breach of truth. For as when God saith, Thou shalt not eat of the tree, etc. the meaning is only, It is thy duty not to eat, and not eventually that he should not eat. So when he saith, Thou shalt die the death, the meaning is, Death shall be the due reward of thy sin, and so may be inflicted for it at my pleasure; and not that he should certainly suffer it in the event b This Doctrine wipes off all fear from scandalous sinners having this plea put into their mouth by Mr. Baxter: God hath said, thou shalt not so offend but his meaning is not that I should eventually abstain, and hath said, Thou shalt be condemned, not meaning eventually to execute it. Ergo, I may go on in sin without fear. . Read the rest he that loves it, I have enough even to nauseousness. What Jesuit reading this will not cry out, O delicatum animulum, a babe of the same mould with the Scholastic Doctors of the holy mother Church, li●ked by them Bear like into their own form. If Scotus could now awake to see how this man hath improved and perfected his method in disputing, it is a question whether envy or joy would more work in him. It was his rule to evidence ignotum per ignotius, an obscure point by that which is more obscure. This man hath proceeded further, to illustrate and prove Notissima, per ignotissima, that which is most clear of itself, by that which is as dark as darkness itself. For what more evident and plain than the Aporism or Doctrine which he doth here pretendedly explain? but the explication itself a dark labyrinth. Let Aquinas now and his Cajetan riding him with his Comments, both together, yea the whole rabble of the Scholasticks appear, and show whether among them all there be any that in so short a room and narrow a compass couched together so many subtle questions, backed them with so many dainty distinctions, and then answered them with so much profoundness as this one Mr. Baxter? Oh happy Kederminsterians that have attained such an Expounder and Explainer of sacred things, whom when they have heard and read, if they attend exactly to him, what they saw before clearly of Christ, they shall so see no more! How can they ever stray which have such a leader guiding them with a dark Lantern? By that time that Master Baxter hath so fully and learnedly explained all other doctrines of the Gospel to them as he hath this Aphorism, they shall be able to see so far into the mysteries of Christ, as they can kenn at Sea thorough a plank six inches thick. Nevertheless Mr. Baxter (I suppose will not deny but that he hath left unto others (if there be any that have so much wantonness in the cuerpo of their fancies, and such profligated consciences, that they dare to play with sacred things) a power to derive from the Schoolmen whom he followeth, so many pertinent or impertinent questions, so many vain and sophistical distinctions, that their gleaning shall match his vintage; and with these may stand in opposition to Mr. Baxter so stoutly, that they may conclude in all things no less uncertainly than himself: so that after many and long disputes in this Scholastic way, wholly in contradiction to him, they may prove themselves to be as far estranged from the plainness and simplicity of the Gospel, as himself seems ambitious to be found. CHAP. III. Queries about this questionary and distinctionary way of Dispute, too much used by Mr. Baxter, whether it be warrantable, and not manifoldly hurtful. To which is added a brief examination of what Mr. Baxter hath of Christ's Active and Passive righteousness. BUt having spoken somewhat largely of this kind of learning in the Preface to prevent length and tediousness in the following discourse, I shall here only oppose some questions to his questions, and pass away. And in these questions I shall be an appealer to Mr. Baxters' conscience only. 1. Whether he hath learned this Art of subtle, superfluous, and unscriptural questions and distinctions to explain holy and evangicall dioctrines, from the Lord Christ or his Apostles, or from any solid, humble, and orthodox Divines ancient or modern? and not wholly from the Popish Doctors and their adherents, Grotius, Socinus, Arminius, and their Disciples? 2. Whether in this questionary and distinctionary way of dispute, his purpose be not contrary to what he pretends (the explication of Divine truth) even the same with the Papists whom he followeth, to dim the truth, that having left it in a mist, he may take the advantage to foist upon men's consciences the fancies and errors of his own brain under the name of truth? 3. Whether it be not intolerable arrogance and presumption against the Most High God, not to rest contented with that which he hath revealed by his word, but audaciously to search into his secrets which he hath kept hidden in his own bosom? himself acknowledging that the H: G: speaketh in Scripture very sparingly (i. e. indeed not at all) of many things that he here hath so peremptorily questioned and disputed of, yet hath the front from sophisticated reason to argue and determine of them. Is not this proudly to pry into the Ark of God's presence, and uncalled, to make himself of God's Cauncell? If the Lord Jesus in a way of rebuke tells his Disciples, It is not for them (though deputed to a greater and higher charge than Mr. Baxter) to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put in his own power, when they sought (not from their Rabbis, nor from purblind reason, nor from their own deceitful brains, but) from the oracle of Christ's lips, when the kingdom should be restored to Israel; under what rebuke lies Mr. Baxter and his fellows, which audaciously search after the things which the Father hath put in his own power, to be there hidden until he shall be pleased to reveal them, and them to search after, not from the lips of Christ, but from their own mad reason and reasonings? Is not this knwledg a forbidden fruit? and will not the lusting after it bring vengeance? 4. Whether this were not the sin of Elimas' the sorcerer, who being full of subtlety and mischief, perverted the right ways of the Lord, Act. 13. 10. What were the right ways of the Lord, but the pure Gospel which the Apostle had preached in its simplicity and plainness? And what was Elimas' his perverting thereof, but the use of his subtlety and mischief, in his disputes to make that which in Paul's preaching was plain, right and strait, to seem absurd, abstruse and crooked? doth Mr. Baxter either here or throughout his whole book cease to use the like subtlety? what more plain and straight than the Thesis or point here laid down by himself? or what is his endeavour in his explication thereof, but with his subtle questions and distinctions to leave so crooked and so manifold wind upon it, that he makes it a very Labyrinth; that without his Clew, or with it, there is scarce a possibility of passage in safety thorough it? And the like operations of his we shall find every where in this book. 5. Whether he be not in such his disputes captious of praise to himself, seeking his own, not God's glory? and as it tickled the ear of Demosthenes to hear the people whispering, yonder comes the eloquent Demosthenes: So whether he hath not an itching ambition to be accounted and called the profound and learned Mr. Baxter, the great Reader, the man of deepest speculations and matchless comprehensions? I do but appeal to his Conscience. For my part I cannot with my dull apprehension as much as conjecture, what else he can in some passages of this work aim at in using so much sophistry, when there is no need of it, neither doth it as far as I can see, any whit further him to the end at which he driveth, unless it be his own praise among unspiritual men, and to make his authority the greater to deceive. 6. Whether he offends not here and elsewhere against the rule of the Apostle who enjoineth upon all to take heed of high thoughts of themselves, and to be wise to sobriety, Rom. 12. 3. i e. not to mount above their reach and measure. And what shall be accounted a wisdom without and against sobriety, if not that which intrudeth itself into the things of God which it hath pleased him not to reveal, pretending an ability with the key of secular learning to unlock the Cabinet of ●ods Counsels to which the most glorious Angels never dared to approach? The Christian Spirit is the meek and modest Spirit, where the Scripture is not the instructor, contents itself to be ignorant, concluding with Tertullian, Quis revelabit Tert. lib. de Anima fere in Principio. quod Deus texit? unde sciseitandum est? unde & ignorare tutissimum est. Praestat per Deum nescire quia non Revelaverit, quam per hominem scire, quia ipse presumpserit, i. e. Who shall reveal what God hath covered? whence [in such case] shall we make enquiry? ●ea hence to be ignorant is most fafe. It is better not to know by [the will of] God, because he hath not revealed it, than [to seem] to know by man because he hath presumed. 7. Whether he doth not cross another precept of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6. 20. peculiarly appropriated to all Ministers under the name and person of Timothy? O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babble, and oppositions of science falsely so called. He cannot, none can deny the thing committed to Timothy's trust, to be the Gospel in its verity, purity, and simplicity. This therefore he is charged to keep, to make it his business to preserve it alive and inviolated within him, to keep and hold himself closely to it, without deviating to any other studies as helpful to salvation. Therefore to avoid vain babble and oppositions of science falsely so called. Neither will Mr. Baxter deny, and all Commentators affirm the thing to be avoided here, to be sophistical and philosophical disputes; which if intermixed with the Doctrine of the Gospel, are here termed profane and vain babbling, which hath the name and opinion of science or wisdom in the opinion of men, but is falsely so called and reputed. Doth not Mr. Baxter here see himself set aside by the Holy Ghost for a profane and vain babbler? and his learning and wisdom exploded as shady and false, having nothing of substance and truth in it? 8. Whether he doth not by this way of disputing (as much as in him is) uncanonize and make void the word? For if he hold with the Apostle that the holy Scripture is sufficient and able to make men wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 3. 15. why doth he not stick to it? what else doth his so oft and foul digressions from it, to fetch aid from his sophistry, but argue that he holds the Scripture to be invalid to save, and that there is either an equal or greater power in his sophistry to make men wise and perfect to salvation? 9 Whether it doth not bewray his Cause to be naught, that he knows it to be naught, therefore seeks to bear it up with such slights & feats as a good Cause needeth not? When we see a house propped up on every side, at every end with posts, stakes and pillars, who concludes not, surely it is a ruinous and rotten building that needs so many supporters? It is not for the maintenance of the Aphorism or Doctrine which Mr. Baxter doth here pretendedly explicate, that he doth tie knots and untie them, bind and lose with such a hurry of questions and distinctions. This doctrine stands firm enough upon its own bottom. Conscious he is therefore of a rotten building, which he means in the following part of this Treatise, to erect, and therefore furnisheth himself with so many posts and stakes to underprop it. It is well observed by Mr. Pemble out of Erasmus, Malè res agitur ubi opus est tot remedijs. It is a certain Pemb. of Justis. Sect. 2. Cap. 1 p. 37. sign of an untrue opinion when it must be bolstered up with so many distinctions. And if the Cause be naught, and the defender know it, yet persists to defend it, then are the Cause and the man both alike. 10. Whether this kind of Argumentation doth not declare Mr. Baxter to be of another spirit from Christ and his Apostles, Christ came into the world to preach the Gospel to the poor, Lu. 4. 18. to give sight to the blind, that they which see not might see, Joh. 9 39 And Paul descended low nurslike with flattering speech unto the weak as to babes in Christ, feeding them with milk and not with meat, until they became capable to digest it, 1 Cor. 2. 1.— 4 & 3. 1, 2. likewise also the rest of the Apostles. But this man soareth on high unto the upmost region of the Airy element, above the kenn and reach of weak Christians, such as he acknowledgeth them (for the greatest part to be) for whose sake chief he wrote this, speaking not to the comprehension of any, save of such windy ones as himself, at least to the delight of no other; so elevated seems he with the vainglory of his own excellencies. And do not these contrary operations somewhat argue a contrary spirit moving him? I mean contrary to that which moved in Christ and his Apostles. 11. Whether it tends not to the quenching of the comfort, and hazarding of the salvation of weak Christians? 1 to the quenching of their comfort. For when from the pure word of God, not sophisticated with the intermixture of man's wisdom and inventions, they have attained to believe and joy in believing, and living by faith in Christ, rejoice in the grace and light of God's countenance shining upon them thorough him; meeting with Mr. Baxters' work, and finding therein, so holy, so incomparable a man for learning and piety, scattering so many doubts, and puzzling questions about the very beginning, & foundation of our redemption, that himself cannot answer himself otherwise than by conjectures, peradventure it may be thus, and it may be it is so: The poor souls are apt to fall foul upon themselves, for that they have been so audacious to believe any thing, seeing now so many doubts and uncertainties; and to account all their former joys in Christ to be a delusion: and being unable to make out the mystery of their redemption to themselves in his sophistical way, they lie down and sink under the burden of their sorrow as hopeless. It tends to the hazarding of their salvation also. For while he goes about to make them philosophical Christians, Popish and Socinian Christians, to live not by faith but by sense, not by the word of God's mouth, but by reason, so far only to believe as they see reasons in nature to support their faith (for hereunto all Mr. baxter's disputes are leveled) he makes indeed all that will be his Disciples no Christians. And suppose that Mr. Baxter hath a great confidence by his sophistical distinctions and arguments even to wrest from the Lord Christ a crown for himself in the day of judgement: yet what shall become of his unlearned Disciples, that are not so nimble Sophisters, nor have their d●stinctions at the finger's end so ready as their Master? These must sink under the sentence of Christ, having the word against, and not being able to plead reason enough artificially and subtly for themselves. 12. Whether it tends not to the corrupting and depraving of all the people of God within the Land? Mr. Baxter is no longer a student, but the highest graduate in policy, in that piece of policy at least now most in use, to see and prosecute the nearest and readiest way to the attainment of his own ends. His end in this work who sees not to be the poisoning of this whole Nation with the worst of Popish errors. For the attainment hereof his whole endeavour and wit is employed to poison therewith the Ministry (as I have before shown) For his sophistry is of little force to beguile the ignorant which understand it not. Therefore notwithstanding all his specious pretences he lays, and spins out his webs, to catch the learned, them at least that have some pieces of learning in them. These he knows to be the pipes and sluices thorough which the water of life is to be conveyed thorough the Land: If these be poisoned or tainted, the tainture and poison will be conveyed to all that come to dip the water of life from them. They are the light of the world; if he can prevail to turn this light into darkness, how great will be the darkness of this our little world? 13. Whether that kind of learning which he venteth so abundantly, and trusteth in so confidently, be not that secular wisdom which the Lord hath even cursed, and threatened to destroy and bring to nothing, and turn it into foolishness or madness, 1 Cor. 1. 19, 20. If so, both he and we shall see in good time whose counsel shall stand, either Mr. baxter's in counter-working against God, setting up his wisdom and learning against the wisdom of God, the wisdom of the word: or God's counsel in destroying Mr. baxter's wisdom and making it, i. e. discovering it to the world to be mere foolishness, so turning his glory into shame and baseness. Lastly, whether this threat be not in some measure already executed upon him from heaven? I would I could deny, that I had good grounds upon which to deny it. But sigh Mr. Baxter not contented with the light and wisdom of the word, hath rolled himself into the pits of heathen and Popish learning, out of their darkness to dig to himself such light as is not cohering with, but prejudicial to the wisdom of God and his word, whether the Lord hath not turned this wisdom of his into foolishness, and yielded him up to be stifled with the most pernicious of their errors, and to hug the same in his bosom as a treasure, so that he is become one of those some of whom the Apostle speaketh, which while they profess this sophistical & philosophical learning, falsely called science or knowledge, being indeed merely profane and vain babbling, have erred concerning the faith, 1 Tim. 6. 20, 21. The sequel of this his Treatise in our examination thereof will somewhat declare. I have here spoken once for all in answer to his sophistical disputes, as they are sophistical and imitating the School-Doctors of the Popish Church, having reference therein not only to what in this place he saith, but to all of the same kind, which we shall find flowing from him in full tide● elsewhere frequently in this book. So that as oft as we meet him speaking again in the same tone, I shall either pass him by with silence, or else turn him over to that which I have here said. There remains yet one question more in the explication of this 7th Aphorism, and the same of as great importance and usefulness, as most of the former are vain and superfluous. Mr. Baxter thus proposeth it. B. Whether we are justified by Christ's passive righteousness only, or also by his active? p. 44. Here he mentioneth 3. opinions; the first he utterly explodeth, viz. the imputation of Christ's active obedience unto Justification. The second, viz. the efficacy of Christ's sufferings to make satisfaction to the justice of God for our sins, whereupon we are forgiven and constituted righteous in the sight of God, he kindly saluteth and passeth some plausible Compliments upon it, and so Bids it farewell, without any purpose to be in love or familiarity with it. And then takes up the third as best agreeing with the end he drives at, though in substance it be the same with the first which he shook off and trampled under foot with great defiance as the absurdest of absurdities. What my judgement (as to the two former) is, I need not here express, because it is not a question controverted between us and the Papists. It is a question not of very long standing. Mr. Beza in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, by appropriating the several parts of Christ's righteousness to make up the several parts of Justification, gave the occasion of the dispute, as I conceive. And the difference hath hitherto made no breach of communion and amity between stable and able Divines or Christians. Nay among them that hold for the active righteousness also, there have been and are still at present not a few so learned and pious, that it would be no disparagement to Mr. Baxter and myself to be admitted as their amanuensis. And therefore I question the truth of that accusation which Mr. Baxter layeth on Mr. Walker, pag. 53. (whom he principally not only meaneth, but also nameth, when he tells us of ignorant men, that are strong revilers, and weak disputers, reproaching them for heretics that descent from them in judgement. I doubt much that Mr. baxter's main end here in declaiming against Mr. Walker, is to Apologise for himself, and that his anger against Mr. Walker is, because he finds the strokes which M. Walker leveled against Mr. John Goodwin, do now more wound Mr. Baxter than they did Mr. Goodwin then. I remember I once saw that little Tractate of Mr. Walker in a friend's house, and read cursorily some part of it, in which he charged Mr. Goodwin with Socinianism, and Arminianism. But if my memory fail me not (as too oft it doth) it was not upon this score, that Mr. Goodwin maintained Justification by the Passive righteousness of Christ only, but upon this, that he upheld the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or act of believing, or rather Faith as it is a part or act of our sanctification to be the very thing that is imputed to us for righteousness. And Mr. Baxter cannot deny but this opinion was first broached by Socinus, and afterward promoted by Arminius. But because Mr. Baxter hath taken it up from them, end speaks it out in this his Tractate, more in the full of the mouth, than Mr. Goodwin had done, (as we may see afterward) Therefore to prevent the like imputation of Socinian and Arminian heresy to himself, by his chafe against Mr Walker, he affrights all from charging him therewith. And yet howsoever he seemeth to decline such an imputation, who seethe not that he will, yea doth more readily take up a cursed Heresy from any of these learned Sophisters, than a blessed truth from such ignorant and unstudied Ministers, that glory in nothing but the foolishness of Christ's Cross, and dare not to be wise unto salvation, beyond the rule of the Gospel? Hence he passeth to his third opinion, which is wholly one with Page 54. the first in substance, and a little d●fference only made in the sound of words; for the Question was thus propounded, Whether we are justified by Christ's passive Righteousness only, or also by his active? The Assertors both of the first and of the third opinion, answer both with one consent, we are justified by both: Only Mr Baxter that he may show his wit and force of his Sophistry, that he can at his pleasure exauctorate any Tenet in Divinity, laying it all defiled and dead in the dust, to be trampled under foot, and then give it a resurrection with a new body, to show itself as an eminent and orient Pearl, to adorn Christian Religion; doth annihilate, and vilify it in one sound of words, and after Canonize it in another. And what is the difference betwixt the opinion which he spews out as filth and garbage, and that which he sucks and swallows as the bread of life, and food from heaven? Forsooth, this only, that the one opinion makes the active righteousness of Christ, together with his passive, to be imputed to us for righteousness; the other makes the active, together with the passive righteousness of Christ, satisfactory to God's justice, to put us into the participation of Righteousness or Justification. A vast difference in sense, no less than that was, between Doctor Martin, and Doctor Luther, or that which one put betwixt the operation and working of Pepper, that it was hot in the one, but cold in the other. Mr Baxter knows that the most judicious Assertors of the first opinion, urge no further then to have it granted, that the active as well as the passive obedience of Christ, is meritorious to our redemption and justification. That they are but the more inconsiderate sort that will have it so imputed, that we should be accounted before God as those that have fulfilled all the righteousness and duties of the Law, in and by Christ fulfilliing the same. Therefore his taking up this opinion as a third opinion, under the name of truth, is but a taking up again as holy and savoury, that which before he had rejected as the embryo of ignorant and unstudied brains, full of the greatest absurdities. But he tells us, pag. 55. that for ten years together he held the passive righteousness only effectual to justification, but since that, he hath been converted. Should I demand, how it came to pass that so Eagle-eyed a man so long doted upon a cloud, in stead of Juno, and by what means his eyes were at last opened, that he saw the delusion, and shunned it? Himself gives us a hint what to answer; and I hope he will not be too angry if we guess, so far that our conjecture hath his own conscience (if awaked) giving consent. 1 Then (to speak nothing of Mr. Bradshaw, whom either by face or writings I never had acquaintance with) that great wit Grotius, with his deep and sublimated speculations, overpoised him in his late reading of him. And how hard a thing is it for Mr. Baxter, so great an admirer and adorer of humane wit and learning, to meet with a brave Sophister indeed, and not to close in judgement with him, though a Papist, an Apostate, and more than a Semi-Atheist? so far do acute and finespun distinctions prevail with him, more than the honourable Authority of the plain word of God. 2 It is most probable that during these ten years Mr. Baxter held Justification by Faith only according to the Scriptures, and judgement of the Orthodox Churches, therefore stuck so long to the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's sole passive obedience, as cohering very harmoniously therewith. But since he hath cast himself into the Channels of Popish Writers, and thence derived Justification by works, it concerned him to cast off his former Opinion, for the sole passive righteousness, as being much repugnant to Justification by works, and to take up this as authentic, and somewhat conducing and helpful to his Cause. For if Christ's active obedience should not be held meritorious and satisfactory to God, with what face could Mr. Baxter attribute a prevalency and power herein to our best works and actions? I purpose not to trifle away time and labour to refel this Doctrine, or to show the weakness of his fine and plausible Exceptions which he maketh against the Objections that he thinks will be made against it▪ himself knoweth that some of his Questions being granted and cited Opinions which he neither denyeth nor opposeth, would turn his Grotian distinction of idem and tantundem, into wind and smoke. As for the rest which he speaketh, we may grant there is some plausibility; but if it were searched to the bottom, there would be little of solidity found therein. But my purpose is (as I have said) only or chief to except against his apparently Popish Doctrines, and with these he so much aboundeth, that I shall not want matter to take up more time and labour then my other Employments can well afford. CHAP. IU. What the immediate effects of Christ's sufferings are, which redound to the Redeemed? Whether Believers are under the Curse? And whether their Afflictions in this life be a part of the Curs, and have the wrath of God in them? With Mr. Baxter's Arguments to prove them such. IN this ninth Thesis, and its Explication, Mr. Baxter hews out crooked timber enough for many of the discreetest Divines to employ their time and labour therein, until they are tired, and yet they shall not be able at last to straighten it. It is like Pandera's box, which being opened, let out all miseries and mischiefs into the world, as the Poets feign. Whatsoever the Papists teach of the deficiency and maimednes of Christ's, and of the necessary supplies of man's satisfaction to be made unto God, of Purgatory, of the uncertainty of Salvation, and many other errors depending upon these, are all couched and compassed here within a very narrow circuit, some expressed, and some employed. But so that while he hasteth to bind together suddenly (that he may not be seen) so much dreggish Popery in one fardel, in his greatest haste he leaves not his wits behind him, but craftily delivers to us Papistical Doctrine, yet not in the Papists words, lest he should be espied and shunned. Thus run his words. B. Thes. 9 It was not the intent either of the Father or Son, that by this satisfaction the offenders should be immediately delivered from the whole curse of the Law, and freed from the evil which they had brought upon themselves, but some part must be executed upon the soul and body, and the creatures themselves, and remain upon them at the pleasure of Christ, Rev. 1. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 26. The phrase and words of this Position are not a little ambiguous, lest I should seem to wrest them to an evil, when a good sense may be given them, I will not so much as descant upon any thing therein, with the least paraphrase, but take all in his own Explication, which thus followeth. Explication. B. The Questions that are here to be handled for the explication of this Position, are these. 1 Quest. Whether the Redeemed are immediately upon the price paid, delivered from any of the Curse of the Law? if not from all? Quest. 2. Whether the sufferings of the Elect before Conversion, are in execution of any part of the Curse of the Law? 3 Whether the sufferings of Believers are from the Curse of the Law? or only afflictions of love, the Curse being taken off by Christ. 4 Whether it be not a wrong to the Redeemer, that the people whom he hath ransomed, are not immediately delivered? 5 Whether it be any wrong to the Redeemed themselves? 6 How long it will be, till all the curse be taken off the believers, and redemption have attained its full effect? I have oft heard, that one fool may put more Questions in an hour, than a whole University of Divines can answer in an age. If it be true, what are we to conclude of the Questions of Mr Baxter, the mirror of his age, for wit and profoundness in learning, who sitteth in the Chair alone, passing his censure upon all the Divines that are or have been, such are ignorant and unstudied, such judicious and learned, etc. his Questions surely will try the brains of men: and oh that he were so dexterous in Answering as in Questioning! Then (to use his own words) we would take him for a Divine indeed, yea for a Teacher sent from Heaven, for no mortal weight upon Earth can answer many things which he questioneth. Let us therefore hear himself answering himself. B. To the first Question I answer. In this case the undertaking of satisfaction had the same immediate effect upon Adam, as the satisfaction itself upon us or for us. To determine what these are, were an excellent work; it being one of the greatest and noblest Questions in our How pro●e● he that Adam and Eve were then existent, when Christ undertook? controverted Divinity, what are the immediate effects of Christ's death? He that can rightly answer this is a Divine indeed, and by the help of this may expedite most other controversies about Redemption and Justification. In a word, the effects of Redemption undertaken, could not be upon a subject nor yet existent, and so no subject, though it might be for them None but Adam and Eve were then existent, yet assoon as we do exist, we do receive benefit from it. The suspending of the rigorous execution of the sentence of the Law, is the most observable immediate effect of Christ's death: which suspension is some kind of deliverance from it. Of the other effects elsewhere. A complete and profound answer, who so stupid or wayward, that he resteth not satisfied with it? The Question was, Whether the redeemed are immediately upon the price paid delivered from any of the curse of the Law, if not from all? He answers, in this case the undertaking of satisfaction had the same immediate effects upon Adam, as the satisfaction itself, upon us, or for us: But what were those immediate effects upon Adam? He answereth, a riddle, unriddle what this is, what these effects are, & eris mihi magnus Apollo, such a one shall have a Temple built unto him, from which to give answer and resolution to all other questions and doubts in Divinity, Oracularly. And who more deserving of this honour, than Mr. Baxter? Who more able to unriddle his own Question, than himself? That he therefore may be taken for the Divine indeed, he so resolveth the Question, as his own words above declare. The benefit which Adam and Eve forthwith received upon Christ's undertaking to make satisfaction for them, is the most remarkable immediate effect of Christ's death, whereof the redeemed partake. But the suspension of the rigorous execution of the sentence of the Law, was the benefit that Adam and Eve upon such undertaking of Christ for them, forthwith received. Ergo, The suspending of the rigorous execution of the sentence of the Law, is the most observable immediate effect of Christ's death, whereof the redeemed partake. The Proposition he proveth thus, because there were none else existent besides Adam and Eve, when Christ so undertook; therefore the effects of his satisfaction must be upon them, or upon none. The assumption he takes to be clear by its own light, only he addeth, that this suspending was a kind of deliverance. If this be not the sum and force of his answer to the Question, Capiat qui capere potis est, I must plead myself not guilty of understanding him. But it is enough evident that this is his meaning. Now if I listed to answer his Argument, I should tell him that both premises labour of one and the same fallacy, which is in Schools termed Petitio principij, an assuming of that as granted, which is in Question. The validity of both Propositions depending upon these begged Principles, that Christ first undertook to make satisfaction to God for the sin of Adam and Eve when they were existent, and that they were in the number of the redeemed ones, as soon as they had sinned, for so was the Question, whether the redeemed, etc. are freed from any of the Curse of the Law? Now what Mr. Baxter goes about to prove, he doth it by the example of Adam and Eve, which is in no wise a competent proof, unless they be proved first to have been existent when Christ undertook to satisfy, and secondly to have been then redeemed. For the most observable effects of Christ's death pertain to the redeemed, not to the world. Both propositions then being faulty, the Conclusion is not worth a button In charity indeed we do not in any wise question the redemption and salvation of our first parents, (though the time of their conversion be disputable whether before the curse inflicted) But not the judgement of charity, but the undeceiving word of God must be made the ground of our Faith. Until therefore he bring some proof of Scripture that Adam and Eve were existent when Christ undertook then also and redeemed, in all that he saith, he saith nothing. Yet because this still leaveth sub judice litem, and certain Conclusions cannot be inferred upon premises left uncertain. I should answer secondly, That the Curse pronounced and inflicted upon Adam, related to him not as a private but public person. For so he fell, and so was he sentenced. As comprehending the Elect, he had the blessing of the seed of the woman, but as representing those that perish, so he had the Curse. But touching those things which he and the other godly do suffer, the learned Sadeel (Adver sus humanas satisfactiones) answereth this Popish Argument here proposed by Mr. Baxter, out of Augustine. Posset aliquis dicere, (saith Augustine) Si propter peccatum Deus dixerit homini, In sudore vultus tui edes panem tuum, & spinas & tribulos proseret tibi terra, etc. Cur fideles post peccatorum remissionem eosdem dolores patiuntur? Respondemus (saith Austin) Ante remissionem esse supplicia peccatorum post remissionem esse certamina exercitationesque justorum, i. e. Some one may say, If for sin God said to man, In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat thy bread; and the earth shall bring forth to thee briars and thorns, etc. Why do the believers after the remission of sins suffer these sorrows? We answer (saith Austin) Before remission these are punishments of sins, after remission they are trials and exercises of the Righteous. Whereunto Sadeel addeth, Non sequitur, si mors & vitae praesentis aerumnae per se sunt peccati poenae, quip propter peccatum in mundum ingressae; eas esse proptereà peccatorum paenas ipsis etiam fidelibus, quibus peccata sunt propter Christum condonata. i e. It followeth not if death and the sorrows of the present life be in themselves the punishments of sin, because they entered into the world for or by means of sin; that they are therefore punishments of sin to the very faithful also, to whom their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake. But to do him a pleasure should we give him his Argument, forgiving the unsoundness of it; what doth he conclude? Thus much that the suspending of the rigorous execution of the sentence of the Law is the most observable immediate effect of Christ's death, that the redeemed of the Lord partake of. By suspending the rigorous execution of the Law, he means, that he doth forbear an hour or a day, or some short time, to destroy their lives and cast their souls into hell: But so that every moment they must stand in expectation of it, and that to their greater torment at last, as their sins during the time of the suspension is increased. Whosoever now of Gods redeemed one's receives comfort by this doctrine, will (I doubt not) give his verdict for Mr. Baxter, having so nobly and divinely resolved this question; that He is a Divine indeed. He tells us there be other effects of Christ's death, etc. But he is not at leisure now to communicate them. But if they have no more sweet and marrow than this, let him keep them to himself, we will not be inquisitive after them. P. 68 B. To the second Question. The Elect before Conversion do stand in the same relation to the Law and Curse, as other men, though they be differenced in God's Decree. Eph. 2. 3, 12. Very short, yet not so sweet as short. He saith it, but he proves it not. For the Scripture which he brings for proof, doth only declare what the Elect are by nature before conversion, not what they are before God in relation to his Covenant of Grace. But Mr. Baxter purposeth to speak more largely hereunto in another place, which will give me occasion to enlarge my answer. At present he is in travel with his answer to the third question, and cannot be at rest until he be delivered of so beautiful a Monster, and thus it comes from him. Bax. To the third question. I confess we have here a knotty question; The common judgement is, that Christ hath taken away the whole Curse (though not the suffering) by bearing it himself; and now they are only Afflictions of Love, and not punishments. I do not contradict this Doctrine, through affectation of singularity, the Lord knoweth; but through constraint of judgement; and that upon these grounds following. 1 It is undeniable that Christ's taking the Curs upon himself did not wholly prevent the execution upon the offender. Goe 3. 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 2 It is evident from the event, seeing we feel part of the Curs fulfilled on us: we eat in labour and sweat; the earth doth bring forth thorns and brayars; women bring forth their children in sorrow; our native pravity is the Curs upon our souls; we are sick, weary, full of fears, sorrows and shame, and at last we die and turn to dust. 3 The Scripture tells us that we all die in Adam, (even that death from which we must at the Resurrection be raised by Christ,) 1 Co. 15. 21, 22. And that death is the wages of sin. Ro. 6. 23. and that the sickness and weakness and death of the godly, is caused by their sins. 1 Co. 11. 30, 31. And if so, then doubtless they are in execution of the Law, though not in full rigour. 4 It is manifest that our sufferings are in their own nature evils to us, and the sanctifying of them to us, taketh not away their natural evil, but only produceth by it, as by an occasion, a greater good: Doubtless so far as it is an effect of sin it is evil, and the effect of the Law also. 5 They are ascribed to God's anger, as the moderating of them is ascribed to his l●ve. Psa. 30. 5. and a thousand places more. 6 They are called punishments in scripture, and therefore we may call them so. Leu. 26 41, 43. Lam. 3. 39 & 4. 6, 22. Ezras 9 13. Hos. 4. 9 & 12. 2. Leu. 26. 18, 24. 7 The very nature of affliction is to be a loving punishment, a natural evil sanctified, and so to be mixed of evil and good, as it proceeds from mixed causes. Therefore to say that Christ hath taken away the Curs and evil, but not the sufferings, is a contradiction, because so far as it is suffering it is to us evil and the execution of the Curs. What Reason can be given why God should not do us all that good without our sufferings which now he doth by them, if there were not sin and wrath and law in them? Sure he could better us by easier means. 8 All those Scriptures and Reasons that are brought to the contrary, do prove no more but this, that our afflictions are not the Rigorous execution of the Law, that they are not wholly or chief in wrath; but as the common love of God to the wicked is mixed with hatred in their sufferings, and the hatred prevaileth above the love; so the sufferings of the godly proceed from a mixture of Love and Anger, and so have in them a mixture of good and evil; But the Love overcometh the Anger, therefore the good is greater than the evil, and so death hath lost its sting, 1 Co. 15. 55, 56. There is no unpardoned sin in it which shall procure further judgement, and so no hatred though there be anger. 9 The Scripture saith plainly that death is one of the enemies that is not yet overcome, but shall be last conquered. 1 Co. 15. 26. And of our corruption the case is plain. 10 The whole stream of scripture maketh Christ to have now the disposing of us and our sufferings, to have prevented the full execution of the Curse, and to manage that which lieth on us to our advantage, and good; but no where doth it affirm that he suddenly delivereth us. We have here an anti-scriptural, and an Antichristian Conclusion; yea a conclusion that hath many Antichristian and Popish Conclusions involved therein. Therefore Mr. Baxter being extremely ambitious that an assertion of that nature should stand, hath pillared and propped it up with no less than ten Arguments, delighted more (as it seems) with number than with the weight and strength of them. And that he may go orderly to work, he forelaies such a stating of the question as may not disadvantage him, leaving the question obscure and ambiguous still. The Common judgement (saith he) i. e. The Consenting judgement of all the reformed Churches is, that Christ hath taken away the whole Curse, (though not the sufferings) by bearing it himself, and now they are afflictions of love and not punishments. Who can persuade the Serpent to be straight, and cease from Crookedness and winding in his motions? He that maintaineth a good Caus needs no shifts; simplicity, ingenuity and plain dealing sufficeth him. Shall we think that Mr. B: minceth and maimeth the judgement of the Orthodox Divines, but for the advantaging of the Popish Caus which he mainteins against them? With a Counited Judgement they assert a total freedom by Christ, both from the Curs and the sufferings also, as they have reference to the execution of the law, yea from the law also as it threateneth and curseth them that are in Christ: so that their sufferings are chastisements and trials, flowing from the same grace & love from which Christ himself and the redemption which we have by him have issued, dispensed toward them by a gracious and reconciled father, not inflicted upon them by an incensed and unreconciled Judge. But Mr. B: casteth a veil over their judgements, and let's but a corner thereof to appear; because if he had set forth their judgement at the full, it would have marred most of his Arguments wherewith he fights against them. CHAP. V. The question stated between Mr: Baxter (and the Papists and Arminians whom he followeth) and the Protestants whom he opposeth. Scriptures and Arguments from scripture produced by the Protestants to prove. 1 That Believers are not subject to the Curse: 2ly, That their sufferings have not the wrath and hatred, but the love of God in them, are not vindicatory judgements but Chastigatory trials. LEt us now a little more fully state the question, by showing wherein that which Mr. B: calleth the Common judgement, and that which is his own (pretendedly at least) private judgement, do consent together, and wherein they differ either from other, and so we shall avoid all impertinencies and strife about words, which are besides the question. It is agreed then on both sides, 1 That the Curse is the penalty, or the revenging Judgement, or an effect of God's revenging wrath, by the execution whereof he taketh satisfaction to his justice upon Transgressor's for the breach of his Law; so Mr. B. makes it out, p. 17. 2 That the justice of God is so fully satisfied by bearing this Curse or penalty, as by a complete fulfilling of all the righteousness which the Law requireth, p. 48, 50. 3 That the Lord Christ hath undertaken and made full satisfaction to God for all the sins of believers, bearing the curse due to them, and paying (if not the idem according to Mr. B. yet) the tantundem that their debt did amount to. 4 That God resteth as fully satisfied with this satisfaction of Christ, as if it had been made personally by the believers themselves. These two last Mr. B: so frequently asserteth that there is no need to quote the places. To which I may add, 5 That Afflictions are incident to the believers as well as to the unbelievers, so that Love and hatred are not discernible to the lookers on, by that which befalls men in this life, Eccle. 9 1. 6 That these afflictions have in them a smart and bitterness, as they befall the very Saints, so that ofttimes in their apprehension the very wrath and curs of God seems to be in them. These two things we grant Mr. B: so that hitherto the judgements consent. Heb. 12. 11. The difference then betwixt him and us consists principally in these two things. 1 Whether when Christ hath by doing their law, paying their debt, and bearing their curse, satisfied the justice of God for the sins of believers; when God hath accepted the satisfaction given, when the believers have by faith apprehended and laid hold on it: They do yet remain liable to the curse of the Law in whole or in part to be inflicted upon them? 2 Whether the afflictions which God inflicteth upon believers in this life, are the effects of God's revenging justice, the Curse which the law threateneth, and so consequently whether after that God hath taken full satisfaction from Christ, he doth in whole or in part require and take satisfaction from them also; Mr. Baxter with the Papists and Arminians mainteins the affirmative of both these questions, we the Negative: He that 1 after Christ hath born the Curse of the law for believers, they are liable to bear it in whole or in part themselves also. And 2 that the afflictions which they suffer are from the revenging justice of God, the effects and Curse of the Law, vindictive punishments of sin, full of the wrath of God; as in this his answer to the 3 question he declares himself. But we utterly deny both these propositions, either that the believer is any more after his union to Christ, subject to the Curse, or that the afflictions which he suffereth have the Curse of the law and revenging justice of God in them, but proceed (not from the wrath of an angry judge, but) from the tender grace and love of a most wise and indulgent Father. Both these assertions we ground upon evident Testimonies of Scripture. First, that believers are no more liable to, but wholly freed from the Curse, we have the Holy Ghost affirming, Gal. 3. 13, 14. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the law, being made a Curse for us, etc. that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, through faith. What can be said more clear and full to the Confirmation of our assertion, or refuting of Mr. Baxters? The Holy Ghost saith not, Christ hath purchased to us a liberty for the future that in time we may be delivered from the Curse, but he hath redeemed us, hath obtained a present freedom for us, from the Curse of the Law. And how? being made a curse for us. He hath made present payment that we might have present deliverance. Even as a surety making full satisfaction to the Creditor for the principals debt, obteins thereby for him a present discharge from his obligation: not that he shall be for a season liable to arrests and imprisonments, and after much fear and sufferings in this kind, be at last discharged. This were enough, but the wisdom of the Holy Ghost proceeds yet further to evidence this truth, and to stop every mouth that shall presume to open itself against it. That the blessing of Abraham might come [even] upon the Gentiles [believing] viz. the promise of the Spirit, or Spirit promised, by faith. All must acknowledge that the entrance of the blessing, and removeall of the Curse by the virtue of Christ's death, are coaetanea, of one time and standing. But the blessing which is the receiving of the Spirit, is actually and oft in the believers own spiritual feeling, existent and working in him assoon as by faith he is united to Christ. Therefore also assoon as he is united to Christ, he is actually freed from the Curse of the Law. Again, Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. It will not be denied here that condemnation is either put for or includeth in it the punishment to which the offenders are adjudged or condemned, and so the meaning of the words must be this: that there is remaining, no curse, no vengeance, to which they that are in Christ might be condemned; nor any sentence to adjudge or condemn them to it, viz. because Christ hath born both for them, and in their stead. This is fully confirmed in the second verse, but I forbear to annex it, because it is capable of many interpretations, which would be too long here to insert, but all tending to the Confirmation of this truth laid down in the first verse. And if there be no condemnation, no vengeance, no curse to which believers are subject, than are they freed from the Curse as well in its parts as in the whole. So Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the Law but under Grace. In what respects shall not Sin have dominion over believers? It is expressed partly ver. 12. It shall not so reign that they should obey it in the lusts thereof. And more fully before cap. 5. 21. It shall not so reign, as formerly it hath reigned unto death, i. e. to expose them to the curse and wrath. Why? Because they are not under the law but under grace. The law denounceth and Gods revenging justice inflicteth the Curse, yet upon none besides them which are under the law. But believers, having done their law in and by Christ, come no more under the dominion of the law to be cursed by it, but ever after they are in Christ, they are under Grace, at the disposition and under the dispensation of God's grace, from which all blessings, but no curse hath its derivation. No less absurd therefore is it to say, that believers are liable to the Curse, than to affirm that the Curse is an effect of God's grace, and not of his revenging justice. And is there any thing less to be gathered from th'apostle, affirming Col. 2. 14. That Christ hath blotted out that Handwriting of ordinances which was against us, and contrary to us, and taken it away, nailing it to his Cross. What was there in that hand-writing of God's laws and ordinances, more against us and contrary to us than the curse? but this th'apostle affirms Christ to have blotted out, canceled, crucified, in respect of any further power that it can challenge over the Saints. Or when the promise of God is thus gone forth, I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more, Heb. 8. 12. Who will give any other interpretation to these words but this, that God will not be wanting in his grace to remember the iniquity of believers to purge them from it, yet he will never more so remember it, as to inflict the curse and wrath upon them for it? Not to heap up scriptures beyond measure to this purpose, I shall conclude with that of the Apostle, Rom. 8. 15. Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba, Father, When was their time of bondage and fear, but when they were under the law? or what did they fear, but the curse, death, and wrath, which the law threatened? But now being in Christ, & freed from the law, they have received together with a new Condition or relation a new Spirit, a Spirit not of fear but of Confidence, not of fear, because they have a freedom from the law and curse which before held them all their life time in fear: but of Confidence, because that being in Christ they are adopted to be the children of God, no more to fear the curse from him as a Judge, but to dwell upon his mercies as the mercies of an indulgent Father. Enough for the confirmation of the first assertion, and in all that hath been said, there is nothing of the fallacies and quirks of man's wit and learning, but the very demonstration of the Spirit by the word. The proof of the second is included in this. If true believers are not obnoxious and liable to the Curse and wrath of God, it must follow by necessary Consequence, that then the afflictions and sorrows which befall them here, are no parts of the Curse or effects of Gods vindicative justice upon them. But further to manifest that they are fruits of God's love, and descending from the grace of God, I shall annex some Scriptures that give their suffrage hereunto. First, that in Heb. 12. 5. 8. may stand in stead of all, in which the Apostle doth so fully dispute and determine this question, as if it had been in his days Controverted. He will not have us to forget that exhortation which speaketh unto us as to children; My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, neither faint when thou art rebuked of him. For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening God dealeth with you as with sons, for what son is he whom he chasteneth not? But if ye are without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, ye are bastards and no sons. Three Arguments eminent above the rest we here receive from the hand of the Apostle, full to our purpose. 1 He calls the afflictions of the Saints Chastenings or Chastisements, not punishments or judgements, insinuating that the troubles which they suffer, toto coelo differunt, have a vast difference from those which fall upon the ungodly. Chastisements tend to the amending, spirituallizing and perfecting of those that are exercised therewith, as appeareth by the 11 verse of this Chapter. But the judgements which proceed from the Law and revenging justice of God, work to the tormenting and total destruction of them upon whom they are inflicted. 2 He affirms them to have their rise from that new relation unto God whereunto by faith they are advanced, viz. to be the Children of God. They that are not Children undergo in their afflictions the vengeance of God, But the Children are under the sweet discipline and loving Chastisements of a Father, a most wise and most provident Father that seeks and in all his discipline worketh for the bettering, not for the destroying of his Children, judgeth, i. e. Correcteth them, and by correction holds them in from evil and apostasy, that they may not be condemned with the world, 1 Cor. 11. 32. 3 He pronounceth their troubles to the effects of God's love, whom he loveth, he chasteneth, etc. but the Curse and revenging judgements of the Law proceed from his hatred. The Law brandisheth its Curse against enemies whom God hateth, 1 Tim. 1. 9 not against the Children of his bosom, of his love. Against these there is no law, i. e. no power in the law to Curse and Condemn, Gal. 5. 18, 23. Or when the Holy Ghost Calleth the afflictions of believers, Trials, fiery trials, such as is the trial of the gold, 1 Pet. 1. 7. & 4. 12. doth he not denote a Contra-distinct difference between the afflictions of the believers and the unbelievers? Men cast wood and stubble into the fire to Consume them, but the gold and silver into the furnace, to try, refine, and purify them, that they may be of precious and honourable use to them. The one they cast from themselves, the other they fit for their use and service that they may never be lost. Such difference is there betwixt the fire of the curse into which God casteth the wicked from himself to be devoured, and the fiery trial, or fire of trial, into which he casteth his Saints for the further purifying and perfecting of their faith and sanctification, that they may become vessels of honour in his house for ever. And when the Scripture speaketh so oft of Rejoicing in afflictions, pronouncing it the duty of Christians so to do; as Mat. 5. 11, 12. Col. 1. 24. 1 Pet. 4. 13. is it not employed that their sufferings are altogether flowing from and dispensed by the grace and love of God. For who can or ever was directed by the holy Ghost to rejoice in the wrath of God, or in the effects of God's wrath against him, such as are the curse and vengeance? Or when the Lord Christ affirms the eternal Father to be the Husbandman of his Vineyard the Church, using his hook to cut off and cast away the fruitless branches, i. e. the false Christians, but his pruning knife to better & perfect the fruitful branches, i. e. the true believers, Joh. 15. 1, 2. Doth not this declare his administrations to be in hatred and defiance to the one, but in love and blessings to the other, even when he pruneth and woundeth them? And when the promise of God is gone forth in relation to the believers, not to exempt them from, but to support them in, and bless unto them all their sufferings; when they pass thorough the waters, to be with them, and thorough the Rivers, that they shall not overflow them, when they walk thorough the fire, they shall not be burnt, neither shall the flame kindle upon them, Isa. 43. 2. Surely these waters and fires are not the curse as the cause, in which God w●●l so accompany and perfect them, but as his preserving them in it, so his leading them into it, is from his love and not from his hatred. From all which we may boldly conclude, that the sufferings which befall believers in this life, are not the penalty or Curse of the Law, or any part of it, nor yet proceed from God's revenging justice: but fatherly Chastisements proceeding from the love and Grace of their heavenly Father. CHAP. VI Mr. Baxters ten Arguments for the contrary assertions examined and answered. TO the ten Arguments of Mr. Baxter, by which he goeth about to fortify his two contrary assertions, I answer in their order. To the first drawn from Gods dealing with our first parents, I have answered before. He must first prove these two things; first, that they were believers, which a mere and dark promulgation of a Saviour, Gen. 3. 15. doth not evince, (for many thousands have had the Gospel more fully and clearly preached to them, yet have continued in unbeleef) Secondly, that the sufferings to which his quotations direct, were inflicted upon them as a Curse by God's revenging justice; and until he hath proved both these, his Argument is besides the question. It being not denied by that which he calls the Common judgement, either that unbelievers are under the Curse, or that believers are subject to sufferings, though not to the Curse; but a full answer to this Argument was given before out of Austin and Sadeel. To the second I answer, that it laboureth of the same fallacy with the former. That the wicked feel all those sorrows that he mentioneth, and bear the curse and hatred of God in them, is not denied. But the godly have their part in the same sorrows, yet they bear not the curse and hatred of God therein. This he was to have proved, and until he hath proved it, he saith nothing but slides from the question; which (if he will but look an inch backward to his own words) he thus stateth. That the Common judgement is that Christ hath taken away the v●●ole Curse, being made a Curse for us, yet exerciseth his own people with sufferings, which unto them are only afflictions of love, etc. Against this opinion he opposeth himself, undertaking to prove that these also have not only their sufferings, but also the Curse of God in their sufferings. Now the second argument which he brings to prove this, is that the godly suffer the same things which are inflicted upon the wicked as a curse. What is this to the purpose? he doth herein but beat the air, and fight against the wind, and bark at the Moon, comes not near them whom he makes his adversaries in this question. For they confess the sufferings, but deny the curse. He must therefore prove that the curse as the curse, is inflicted upon the Saints, else he comes no nearer the question, than, Ararim Parthus bibit aut Germania Tigrim. For all that is here said denyeth not all the sufferings of the Saints to be chastisements and afflictions of love. What the Apostle saith of one of them is true of the rest also, viz. women's bringing forth of their children in sorrow. She shall be saved by childbearing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 2. 15 is the Original, though our Translation hath it [and not by] childbearing, if she continue in faith and charity, and holiness with sobriety. The meaning is (notwithstanding the Popish false gloss given it) that although sorrow in Childbearing was first inflicted upon that sex as a part of God's Curse for sin, yet as many as believe shall find the Curse removed, and a blessing in the place thereof. It shall be made a happy furtherance to their salvation, putting them in mind of their sin that first brought the sorrow, and so filling them with self-denial and self-abhorring, that they shall cleave the faster to Christ for salvation by Faith, as knowing themselves forlorn in themselves, and stand the more fixed and steadfast in charity, holiness, and sobriety. The like is to be concluded of the rest of the sufferings which he particularizeth, God so dispenseth them that they may be furtherances of salvation to believers, by working in them humblednes and self-denial, bearing up themselves by faith in Christ alone, both for salvation and increase of their sanctification. The very pravity of our nature of which he speaketh is left in us not as a curse in wrath, but as a means in God's wisdom and love more to humble us, to make us more to cleave unto Christ, and an Antagonist against which fight in the power and spirit of Christ we may overcome, and having overcome may obtain the Crown. So that these two Arguments are impertinent and nothing to the question. To the third, I answer that there is nothing else in it but a wresting of Scriptures from their proper sense that they may be subservient to Mr. Baxters' ends. First that of 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22. maketh nothing to his purpose. It only testifieth that as by man came death, i. e. by Adam, so by man, i. e. by Christ came the resurrection. But how far both of the members of this proposition reach, is manifest by the following words. For as in Adam all dye, i. e. all that live and die in Adam perish hopelessly and everlastingly: So in Christ all shall be made alive, i. e. All that are translated out of Adam into Christ. The one man being the root of death to himself, and all that are in him: the other the root of life to himself, and to all that by faith shall be ingraffed into him. That this is the genuine meaning of the words is evident by the next verse, which amplifieth what th'apostle had said in this, viz. who are these all that shall be made alive in Christ? First, Christ (saith the Apostle) as the first fruits, than they that are Christ's at his coming. Here is no mention of the resurrection of them that are not in Christ. Not that these shall not also be raised by Christ, but that the Apostle speaketh here not of resurrection in general, but of resurrection to life, whereof those that are in Christ do alone partake: Even as of those which die in Adam he speaks of an everlasting death, whereof the unregenerate alone partake. So that there is not any mention here expressed of the death of believers, much less of the curse and wrath in their death. Touching the second Scripture which he quoteth and citeth, Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sin is death: who doubts but it is so to them that are under the guilt and dominion of sin? But what is this to believers? And the third Scripture is as pat as the two former. For this cause many of you are sick, many weak, many sleep. The Apostle here writes to a visible Church, in which it appears there were some true, and some but formal and temporary believers. Christ is in the midst of this Church dispensing his discipline. The true believers by the contagion of the formal professors had somewhat profaned the Lords Table by resorting to it somewhat disorderly. The other had totally violated it by coming to it drunken (and so were worse than beasts) from their own Tables; here now had Christ inflicted chastisements of sickness and weakness for the humbling and amending of those that were his, but death and vengeance upon them that while they professed faith in him, yet were indeed despisers of him and his ordinances. What is this to the Curse of the Law upon believers? Therefore I shall add to Mr. Baxters [And if so] my [and if so,] if so that wresting of Scriptures will serve the turn, Mr. Baxter will surely have the water run in his ground, and his fancy stand, though God's truth thereby fall to the earth. To the fourth. That his phrase is ambiguous, and it is not easily understood what so cunning a sophister meaneth by evils. Until therefore he hath discharged his bushel of distinctions, putting a difference (after his manner) between a natural and a metaphysical good, whereof this evil is a privation, between an evil physical, and an evil moral, and an evil in a theological sense, between the evil of sense and the evil of loss, and a whole bundle more of evils that he can distinguish into their kinds, we know not what he meaneth when he saith that sufferings are in their own nature evils to us. If I should answer in one sense, he hath the slight quickly to evade to another: and to study out all his evils would cost more labour than a hundred such Arguments and all his evils to boot are worthy of. As for that which he addeth, Doubtless so far as it is the effect of sin, it is evil and the effect of the Law also. It is as much as if he had said, doubtless so far as the Sun is made or is the effect of a thunder cloud, it is black and dark, and the effect of the Thunderbolt also. We deny it to be the effect of sin as the meritorious cause thereof, so that the suffering of a believer should be the curse or revenging punishment of his sin, [Christ hath born that] and so it shall not be (in this respect) evil, nor the effect of the law neither. We grant a believers sin to be oft the occasion, never the proper cause of a believers sufferings. To the fifth. We deny not the sufferings of believers to be oft in Scripture ascribed to God's Anger. But it is so ascribed, 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set forth Gods deal to man's dull understanding by a similitude of man's passions, that they might be the more easily comprehended. Because man in his anger and wrath doth correct most severely, therefore the sufferings of the Saints when they are great and grievous are said to come from God's anger, and therefore said to be from his anger, to speak out that they are great afflictions, such as children receive from their parents when they are most hot in their passion: Not that there is indeed any such passion in God. 2 In respect of the sufferers apprehension, who being weak in faith and too much prejudiced by sense, is apt for a season sometimes in great trials to conclude himself to be cast out of God's favour, and overwhelmed with his wrath and fury. Not that it is so really, For God hath forgiven their sins, Therefore after his forgiving to retain wrath and anger may be ascribed to malicious men, whom we shall hear saying, I will forgive but never forget him: But in no wise to the most righteous God, who so forgiveth the sins of believers as that he will never more remember them. To the sixth. I will not fall into a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a strife and dispute about words and names. Let Mr. Baxter agree with us in the matter, and we will not stick to close with him in the name and words; Let him deny all malignity and curse in the sufferings of the godly, and to do him a pleasure we will call them punishments as he doth. After that God had new named Jaakob calling him Israel, he remained ever after indifferently called either Jaakob or Israel still, the new name made it not a sin to make use of the old also. So though the sufferings of the Saints which under the Law were usually termed punishments and judgements are now under the Gospel as it were baptised with new names which more set forth their nature, such as are, Chastisements and Trials; yet is it no sin to use the old as well as the new names still, for we see the penmen of the New Testament to have done it before us. To the Seventh. Mr. Baxter is here returned again to his evils; and either I understand not what his meaning is, or if I do understand him, I find a pack of little sense, and much arrogance, a compound of absurdities and presumptions, Absurdities in the Argument itself, arrogance and presumption in that which he speaketh for the confirmation thereof. First we have his absurd nonsense. The very nature of affliction (saith he) is to be a loving punishment, a natural evil sanctified, and so to be mixed of evil and good, as it proceedeth from mixed causes. Let him that can, make sense and truth here meet together, I cannot. By evil I must needs conjecture he means the evil not of sin, but of punishment. For the evil of sin, as sin, cannot be mixed of evil and good, being altogether evil. By affliction ever since I understood words, I have concluded to be meant any vexation, trouble, sorrow, anguish, or torment, that a man hath inflicted upon him by God or the Creature. If this be not affliction, I never knew affliction. If it be so, it is a mere absurdity to affirm every affliction to be a loving punishment, a natural evil sanctified, mixed of evil and good, etc. Pharaoh afflicted Israel, and the Devil afflicted Job, did either Pharaoh or the Devil mean or act love in afflicting? or sanctify the evil which they inflicted? or had the evil which they inflicted either love or good in its own nature? who but a man in a dream will affirm any of this gear? It cannot be pronounced and concluded that the afflictions which are from the Creature, as from the Creature, to have such qualifications as Mr. Baxter ascribeth to them, either from their own nature, or from the will and infusion of the Creature inflicting them. And no less absurd is it to attribute such qualifications to affliction universally as it proceeds from God, either immediately, or mediately by the Creature. The torment of the reprobate men, and Devils in Hell, must be granted to be an affliction, and that it is God which afflicts them. To conclude hence because it is an affliction, an affliction from God, it is a loving punishment, a sanctified evil, mixed of good and evil, as proceeding from mixed Causes, is such an absurdity, that although Mr. Baxter in words affirm it, * Abhorret a sensu comuni ut benefiat ei a quo poenae sumuntur. Cham. Panstr. T. 3. l. 23. Cap. 6. Parag. 11. Monstrum judicij, etc. id. ibid. Paragr. 30. yet would he be as loath as any of the opposite opinion to try it. If he had said Chastisements are in their own nature so qualified, we should have born with it; but he shuneth that word as a rock upon which he might have dashed the Curse against believers, wherewith as with a treasure he hath laden the Bark of his disputation in this place. From such false and absurd premises therefore to infer this Conclusion [Therefore to say that Christ hath taken away the Curse and evil but not the suffering, is a mere contradiction, because so far as it is a suffering, it is evil to us and the execution of the Curse] is as fallacious, as the premises absurd. Fallacious many ways, 1 in jumbling in the execution of the Curs, which was neither expressed nor employed in the premises. 2 In couniting together evil and the curse as equipollent terms, which are oft disparates. No man besides Mr. Baxter will conclude every evil of suffering to be the Curse. Christ mourned for the sins of Jerusalem, Mat. 23. 37. Lu. 19 42. Paul had continual heaviness and sorrow in heart for the unbelief of Israel, Rom. 9 2. Jeremy had his soul weeping in secret, and his eyes running down with tears, for the sin and afflictions of his people. Jer. 13. 17. This mourning, heaviness, and weeping, were sufferings, made impression of evil (I mean with Mr. Baxter the evil of pain and sorrow) upon them, yet were not these sufferings the execution of the Curse upon them. 3 In an employed insinuation that we deny all evil of pain in the sufferings of believers, so making them as stocks, and stones, insensible, or as glorified persons, impassable. Which none ever held, though Mr. Baxter would lay it as an absurdity upon all that dissent from him, to make the truth which they maintain odious. Now Mr. Baxter is not a Child, he sees well enough these absurdities and fallacies, and doth not either thorough ignorance or inadvertency commit them. His use of them therefore doth insinuate to us two things. 1 His abasing opinion of others in the superlative confidence that he hath of and in himself. If he thought not almost all others to be mere Terrae filios, Clods of clay in comparison of himself, he would not thus shake out upon his very absurdities, and grossest fallacies to be treasured up by us as Oracles, because his. 2 His suspending of conscience that while he pretends unto truth, yet takes the reins by any absurd false tricks utterly to subvert it. As for his arrogance against God in the Conclusion, What reason can be given, etc. ut supra. No marvel if he take the chair to himself alone from thence to judge of all other Divines, when we find him here as it were usurping the throne of Heaven, thence to sentence and censure the wisdom of God in his proceed. In answer to him I shall use no other but Mr. Pembles words against the like arrogance of the Papists. Such Questions (saith he) are vain and curious, prosecuted by idle and unthankful men, who not acknowledging the riches of God's Wisdom and Grace, in that course of our redemption which God hath followed, would accuse God of indiscretion, for making much a● do about nothing, and teach him to go a more compendious and easy way to work then [his wisdom hath chosen]. These Criticisms upon Gods glorious & wonderful proceed in his [administrations,] we leave to Socinus and Arminius with their followers. It is our part sapere ad sobrietatem, and to understand what God hath, not to tell him what he might or should have done? To the Eighth. Because he knoweth his assertion false, he therefore saith something, but conceals from us what it is, tells us that all the Scriptures and reasons which are brought against his opinion, do not hit it nor hurt it, but will not let us to know one particular of all those Scriptures and Reasons that he hath heard or read urged against him, lest that some one answering might manifest the falsehood of the assertion. This is safe disputing, to speak so as ●o leave no footing for an answer. Such baits may catch Frogs possibly, but never a Fish. And (as he affirmeth) neither Scriptures not Reasons prove more than this, That our afflictions are not the rigorous execution of the Law, what Scripture or Reason can be given why that believers shall not be damned in hell together with unbelievers? For what is the rigour of the Law but the infliction of the Curse in its utmost extent and extremity. But if the Saints be beaten with few stripes when the rebels are beaten with many, and be damned but to the uppermost when the other are cast into the nethermost hell, then is not the Curse of the Law executed upon them in its utmost rigour? If this be not to abase the merits of Christ that hath purchased, and abuse the grace of God that promiseth, and abate if not to destroy the hope and comfort of believers that shall receive (according to Mr. Baxter) no better privileges than this, surely than nothing can do it. As for that which he addeth of a mixture of love and hatred in God when he curseth the wicked; and of love and anger when he curseth the godly. This is a mere Chimaera of his own brain; a making of God to be in a commotion against himself, to carry fire in the one hand and water in the other; to fight with the right against the left, and with the left hand against the right: sometimes the one and sometimes the other overcoming, but of which side soever the Victory resteth, still must the poor believer be cursed, and when most under the curse (we must believe Mr. Baxter telling us a strange wonder) he is not at all under the hatred of God. An excellent disputer to have stood always at Martions' elbow prompting him with argument to prove this God to have been a malignant and envious God, the author of all evil to mankind; what less doth Mr. Baxter affirm when he tells us that he curseth his very Friends, those that trust in him, those whom he hateth not, yea those whom he loveth? But doth he bring no Scripture to prove all that he hath said? Yes one in steed of all, and that as pertinent and proper to his purpose as a Pearl to a Swine's snout, Death hath lost his sting, 1 Cor. 15. 55, 56. There is no unpardoned sin in it. Yet when God hath pardoned every of their sins, he will nevertheless pour upon them the Curse, when they are without, if not also because they are without sin, ipse dixit, and I must be silent. To the Ninth. It grieves me less when I find Mr. Baxter leaving the pure fountain of Scripture, stirring in his own element the puddle of humane art and wisdom, then when he meddles with the word, because he seldom toucheth it but with a defiled and defiling hand to pervert, maim, or add to it and so to profane it. So that his sin is greater in this than in the other. The place which he quotes here 1 Cor. 15. 26. saith not that (as he untruly allegeth) Death is not yet overcome, but only saith The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death; it is overcome already though not destroyed. Yet not to strive about words, Death is overcome, and it is not overcome, but in different respects. It is overcome 1 In relation to Christ himself and his natural body, that it cannot reach or seize on him. Else is not Christ risen from death, and then our faith is vain. But he is risen in the power of the Godhead, having loosed or dissolved the pains [and Chains too] of Death, it being impossible he should be held by it. Acts 2. 24. For how should a power finite overpower the power of God which is infinite? Neither will any say that Christ escaped from the bonds of death by Treaty, but by Conquest. He ascended on high, leading captivity captive, Eph. 4. 8. Having spoilt principalities, and powers, he made open show of them, triumphing over them, Col. 2. 15. By his death he hath destroyed not only death itself, but him also that had the power of death, i. e. the Devil, Heb. 2. 14. 2 In relation to the mystical body of Christ, the believers, it is so overcome that it hath in it no curse to vomit out upon them. That was carried away in Christ's natural body, that this his mystical body might be freed from it. He took to himself (saith the Apostle) part of our flesh and blood, that by death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, i. e. the Devil, and deliver them who through fear of death, were all their life-time subject to bondage, Heb. 2. 14, 15. What was that in death that the Saints so feared under the Law, (before the Gospel had fully cleared to them their liberty) but the Curse? The Law threatened them with death as with the Curse and vengeance of God. This made them to live all their life-time in a sad bondage for fear of death, of the curse and vengeance in death at the last. But Christ hath by his death delivered us from the Curse that was in death, so that now we live not in fear and bondage, in expectation of death. It is but a sweet dormitory to the Saints, in which they put off their corruptible and dreggish, that at last they may put on immortal and spiritual bodies, in them to meet with Christ in the day of Judgement, and be for ever with him, 1 Cor. 15. 44. 1 Thes. 4. 17. In these respects death is overcome. But it is not so overcome but that it hath its being, yea full dominion with its curse over the wicked, and in this respect it is said, The last Enemy that shall be destroyed is death; as will appear by reading the former vers with this, Christ must reign till he hath brought all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy, etc. The Apostle here from the Authority of that Prophecy, Psal. 110. 1. concludeth that Christ must sit at the right hand of God, having and executing all power in heaven and in earth, until he hath brought all his enemies under his feet. Here if 1 We consider that death as the other enemies that are to be subdued, is spoken of as an Enemy to Christ, we must conclude that the Apostle speaketh not at all of death, as a Curse. For death is no more a Curse to Christ glorified, than the other enemies wicked and reprobate men that are to be brought under his feet. 2 A reason is here given why death must be the last Enemy destroyed, viz. Because Christ must bring all his enemies under foot. Now as long as there shall remain upon the earth enemies to Christ, and his Gospel, succeeding one another in their generations, so long death in its fullness of the curse and wrath of God, is useful to seize on them, at the Lord Christ shall destroy and bring them under its power: so that as long as there is any other Enemy remaining, death is not to be abolished in regard of its usefulness in respect of the other Enemies. But when the end is come, and the enemies all destroyed, and no one more remaining to be seized on, but that all shall be raised from this first to be sentenced unto and hurled into the second death, hell and brimstone, (I mean all the enemies of Christ) now death also itself shall be destroyed, there being no further use of it. That this is the proper meaning of this Text a blind man may see, and consequently see it to be sinfully wrested by Mr. Baxter, forcing it seemingly to prove that the Saints are yet liable to the Curse, because subject to death. To his plain case of our Corruption, which he addeth, I have spoken before. To the tenth, which is the last. Every one will expect to find the sweet at the bottom, and that the last stroke should drive the nail home to the very head. Attend we to it therefore considerately, and we shall find it if not the strongest, yet the most portentous of all. The whole stream of Scriptures (saith he) makes Christ to have now the sole disposing of us and of our sufferings; Ergo because we are in Christ's arms and under his dispensation, we must needs be liable to the Curse. For the Scripture affirms him (saith he) to have prevented the full execution of the Curse, and to manage that which lieth on us for our advantage and good; but no where doth it affirm that he suddenly delivereth us. Which of Mr. Baxters' admirers would not have censured it in Bellarmin a most prodigious impudence, if not blasphemy, thus to father his conceits upon the holy Scriptures. If Mr. Baxter had found but one lest rivulet of that whole stream of Scriptures which he mentioneth to have been for his turn, would he not have directed us to it, or cited it to us? If he took the holy Scriptures for any thing else then one of his Fathers once termed it to Cardinal Bembus, Fabulam de Christo, he would not dare so much to slander, wrist, and corrupt it. While his dispute is wholly taken up about the Curse to bring believers under it, he would fear that Curse denounced against himself, all plagues upon him that shall add any thing to it, and the taking away his part from the book of life, whosoever shall take from it, Rev. 22. 18, 19 what less doth Mr. Baxter in pronouncing the whole stream of Scriptures, to teach that which no drop of Scripture hath a relish of? is not this adding. And when the Scripture pronounceth Christ to have delivered us from the curse of the Law; that there is no condemnation, etc. and he comes with his gloss, he hath delivered us from the Curse, i. e. hath prevented the full execution of the Curse. There is no condemnation, i. e. none is condemned to the Curse in its full rigour, among all the believers; is not this to take away from the word of God, yea to enervate and emasculate it and make it of no vigour? And further, doth not his Arguing here tend to the abasing, annihilating, and even unchristing of Christ? What an absurdity is it to think that he who was God, and accounted it no robbery to be equal with God, should in overflowing love towards us, make himself of no reputation, take to him the form of a Servant, humble himself to the death, even the death of the Cross, Phil. 2. 6.- 8. and himself bear our sins in his own body on the Tree, 1 Pet. 2: 24. and all to this end, that having disabled Law and Sin from all power to Curse without him, to purchase to himself the Monopoly of Cursing, or inflicting the Curse upon his own friends, yea his own Body and Members, that none henceforth should curse them but from by and under him? Who but one that is ambitious to be his Vicar, would make of Christ such a Pope? Yea how is the glory of Christ's grace and merits veiled, nay extinguished, by teaching that Christ is ascended into the Heavens, and sit down at the right hand of God, to manage the Curse to the tormenting, yet (if Mr. Baxter be heard) for the advantage of his Saints on Earth? The Scripture tells us of other and most glorious ends of his Resurrection Ascension and sitting at the right hand of God, viz. to receive a Kingdom for himself and those that believe in him, Lu. 19 12, 15. to prepare for them places and Mansions in it, that coming again he may receive them to himself, that where he is there may they be also, John 14. 2, 3. that being ascended on high, and having led our captivity captive▪ he may pour gifts upon his Saints, even gifts, greater than the whole world, That he might be a blessing-giver to us, that we might be blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, Ephes. 1. 3. to free us from the Curse and condemnation, by making intercession for us, Rom. 8. 34. But no where doth the Scripture make him a Curse-monger. But with what impudence doth he close up all that he he hath to say upon this subject in a known falsehood, telling us that the Scripture no where affirmeth that he suddenly delivers us from the curse; when the Scripture contrariwise affirmeth that he hath delivered us from the Law, hath delivered us from sin, hath delivered us from the Curse, and that we are thus delivered already; and already is a step before suddenly. Thus abusive is he both to the Scriptures, and to the Lord Christ. CHAP. VII. How manifoldly evil and hurtful such sceptic and distinctionary disputes are, and how far Mr. Baxter and the Papists agree in the matter and form of this dispute. I Have been large in answering these Arguments, yet it hath proceeded not only from my natural slowness and uncapablenes of Concisenes, but partly also from Mr. baxter's purposed Concisenes, whose common sl●ght it is here and elsewhere, under a pretence of avoiding tediousness, to leave the most precious truths hidden in corners, and only to leave a paint of plausibility and probability upon the Embryos and errors of his own brain, in stead of bringing them openly to the trial. And this occasioned me to be the more in length to bring forth clearly into the light the truth that he hath hidden; and to take off the outside paint from his fancies, that they might appear in their own nature and colours. Partly also to discover the pernicious danger which lurketh in the doctrine which he hath here delivered, against which too much cannot be spoken, to prevent the taking of inconsiderate and over credulous Christians in his snares. I shall show my reasons why I call it pernicious doctrine, and so leave the question. 1 It is anti-scriptural and diametrically opposite to the word, as is enough manifested by that which hath been already said in the examination thereof. 2. It is Antichristian, hath sundry Popish errors, some more apertly, others more hiddenly included in it. So that when immediately before his arguments he professeth, that it is not affectation of singularity that divides him in judgement from the reformed Churches, we doubt not but he speaks truth herein; For it is to follow the stream and Cloud of Popish Doctors, whose sophistry hath more force upon his judgement than ever I could perceive the Word to have. Those Popish errors then that are more openly contained in his doctrine here are principally about Christ's and man's satisfactions made to God for man's sins; in which as the Papists so Mr. Baxter will have man to bear a share with Christ, that the glory may not be wholly the Lords. And here in sundry points Mr. Baxter speaketh the very same things, though not altogether in the same words with the Papists. I shall in these several points, lay down briefly the doctrine of the Papists first, and then compare Mr. baxter's with it, that the Coherence betwixt them may be clearly seen. The Papists opinions I shall truly set forth to you, (though briefly) as they themselves express themselves in the Council of Trent. Sess. 6. Cap. 14. 16. & Sess. 14. Cap. 8, 9 and Bellar: in his two books de Purgatorio, & lib. 4. de Poenitentia, and by sundry other of their own Writers. 1 They hold that although Christ hath by his death and merits satisfied the Law and Justice of God for the fault of our sins in offending Gods Justice and violating his holy Law, so that God is no more at enmity with but reconciled to them which truly repent and believe, hath fully pardoned their sin, and forgiven their offences for Christ's sake: yet hath neither Christ given nor God taken full satisfaction for the punishment, but that after the fault is pardoned, God may and will infl●ct punishment upon the offender. In this and the rest points of satisfaction they give this general rule, that Christ hath undertaken for us only that which we could not do for ourselves, and satisfied for us so far only as it was impossible for us to make satisfaction for ourselves. As for that which by doing or suffering was in our power to accomplish for ourselves, that he hath left to be (without his preventing us) accomplished by us. But in this Case, say they, It was impossible for man to undertake any work any suffering so noble & worthy as might stand in equipoise with the offending of so infinite a Majesty, and so to satisfy God's Justice for the fault. This therefore Christ hath done and God hath accepted from Christ in our behalf. But it was possible for man to satisfy (at least in part) for the punishment which the justice and law of God exact for the offence committed. This therefore is in part left to us to satisfy; and after he hath forgiven the fault, doth notwithstanding inflict upon us the punishment for the satisfying of his law and justice. This they go about to prove by the example of Gods dealing with Moses and Aaron when they had sinned against him, he forgave freely their fault and offence, nevertheless called them exactly to a reckoning about the punishment; was in perfect friendship with them again, yet would not abate them an ace of the punishment which he had threatened to them, they must die in the Wilderness and never enter into the land that flowed with milk and honey. The like they instance in David about his sin in reference to Bathsheba and Vriah; The Lord forgave the offence, The Lord hath put away thy sin, (saith the Prophet) thou shalt not surely die, 2 Sam. 12, 13. Nevertheless in reference to the punishment, David shall smoke for it. The child shall die, the sword shall never departed from his house, etc. so that David shall rue it to his very dying day. Other Scriptures and reasons they bring which would be over tedious to insert. Compare we now Mr. baxter's doctrine with theirs. Thes. 7. he tells us, That Christ Jesus being fully furnished for this work [of Mediation] by his Fathers and his own will, first undertook and afterward discharged man's debt by suffering what the Law did threaten, and the offender was unable to bear. And Thes. 8. That the Father so fully accepted the satisfaction, that by way of reward to Christ that gave it, he hath delivered all things into his hands, and given him all power in heaven and in earth, and made him Lord both of the dead and living. Yet Thes. 9th, addeth that, It was not the intent of either the Father or the Son, that by this satisfaction the offenders should be immediately delivered from the whole Curse of the Law, and freed from the evil which they had brought upon themselves, but some part must be executed upon soul and body, etc. And this he goes about by his ten Arguments which we have examined, to prove of the believers themselves, that they are liable to the punishment and Curse of the Law, to bear it in part even to death itself, and that though there be no unpardoned sin for which the curse as the curse Pag. 71. Arg. 8, is inflicted upon them. Let any discreet man here judge if there be the least hairs breadth betwixt Mr Baxter and a Papist according to the Council of Trent, i. e. the worst Papist. The rule of both about satisfaction is the same. Christ hath done and suffered for us what we could not do and suffer for ourselves say the Papists; Christ hath suffered for us what the Law did threaten, and we were unable to bear, saith Mr. Baxter, implying that whatsoever we can bear must yet be inflicted upon us. For this satisfaction, the fault is forgiven, saith Bellarmine. By means of this satisfaction there remains no unpardoned Sin, saith Mr. Baxter [viz. upon believers.] Yet say both when the sin is forgiven the punishment, curse, and penalty of the Law must be suffered. Here is noble mercy and forgiveness, to pardon a man his fault, and to pronounce with Pilate I find no fault in him, and forthwith to whip and hang him for no fault. Such divine mercy and Justice do these white sons of the Pope ascribe to the Father of Mercies, and to his dear Son the purchaser and sluice of all Mercies. Touching the doctrine itself I have answered Mr. Baxters' Arguments. But as to these arguments of the Papists, I pass them by, not having undertaken to answer them here any farther than Mr. Baxter is their mouth to dispute for them. 2 The Papists teach (according to the forementioned rule) that Christ hath in part also satisfied for the punishment of sin, as well as wholly for the fault. And as far as Christ hath born and satisfied, so far we are freed from the punishment. But Christ hath satisfied only for the infinite & eternal punishment, leaving us to bear the finite and temporary punishments and curse of the Law, or to satisfy for it ourselves. So that by their doctrine, Christ hath not at all by his merits freed us from the substance of the Curse, penalty and vengeance of the Law, but only from the boundless measure and endless duration thereof. What saith Mr. Baxter to this? Christ (saith he) in reference to the punishment of sin, hath suffered so much of what the Law did threaten, as we ourselves were unable to bear. Thes. 7. leaving to us to bear the greatest Curses of the Law, but not in their full rigour, and in their rigorous execution thereof. p. 69. Arg. 3. & p. 71. Arg. 8. What is this rigour and rigorous execution of the punishment and curse of the Law, but the execution of the same in its infinite measure and endless duration, which could not be (as he confesseth) born without the offenders everlasting undooing. Thes. 6. And thus he with the Papists makes the satisfaction which Christ hath given to his Father's Justice, effectual to deliver us not from the substance of the Curse and vengeance, but only from the extent of its measure and duration. So that if I understand my mother language, and the equipollency of terms and words therein, there is but the name, and a Cardinal's hat that puts a difference between a Bellarmine and a Baxter in this point, both speak not only the Tantundem, but the Idem, the very self same thing in matter & substance, to the diminution, yea degrading of the merits of Christ, to make way to set up man's satisfactions parallel with if not supereminent and above Christ's. With whom if I should enter into a Contest upon this Argument, and dared as they to make the Scripture a mere Kickshose, without substance and authority, under the Charm of distinctions to be form, conformed, deformed unto and into any sense at pleasure, I could upon more probable grounds and with more plausible reasons argue that Christ hath satisfied for, and we by his satisfaction are delivered from the finite and temporary part of the Curse and vengeance only, but are left to bear for ever the infinite and eternal torment thereof in hell: than they bring for our deliverance only from the temporary and not from the eternal. Because (according to Mr. Baxter) Christ suffered the temporary and finite pains only for us, not the eternal, but left these (as it more probably seems) to be suffered by ourselves for ourselves. But as Mr. Baxter will not learn from Christ himself to oppose the Majesty & power of the Word against Sophistry, so neither dare I learn to oppose his Sophistry against Christ and his Word. 3 The Papists teach that those punishments which come upon Christians avoidable by the threat of the Law, for the transgression of the Law, viz. the temporal evils that are incident to their souls and bodies in this life, as sickness, sorrow, loss of friends, credit or estates, poverty, tribulations, persecutions, trouble of Conscience, etc. if they be suffered willingly and with patience, are satisfactions to God for sin; but if unpatiently and unwillingly, they are God's revenge upon us. So much the holy Council of Trent doth even in express words affirm and determine. What doth Mr. Baxter say in conformity or contradiction to this assertion? He tells us that all temporal evils do necessarily invade believers, and that by the force and Curse of the Law, that when God sanctifieth the same to them, he doth not thereby take away their natural evil or their Curse, but only produceth by it as by an occasion a greater good. What reason can be given why God should not do us all that good (viz. which the Orthodox Divines attribute to his sanctified Chastisements) without our sufferings, which now he doth by them, were there not sin and wrath and law in them. Sure he could better us by easier means. They are managed by Christ to our advantage and good. These are Mr. Baxter's words, Pag. 69, 70, 72. Arg. 2, 3, 4, 7, 10. Let us a little examine them. When we affirm that these sufferings as they befall believers, are not from the Law as a Curse, but sweet Chastisements of God's love, by which he mortifieth the flesh, increaseth their self-denial, Conformeth them to Christ, as well in his sufferings as in his graces and do, exerciseth and quickeneth all the gifts of his grace in them, Crucifieth the world to them and them to the world; and being in dispute with Papists, mention many other precious ends and effects of his Chastisements: Mr. Baxter Comes in with his Tush at all this, Arg. 7. Cannot God do us all this good (saith he) without our sufferings, and better us by an easier means? What then? [Doubtless] there is sin and wrath and law in these sufferings. What can he mean by this, but that first there is our sin as the merit of all these sufferings, and secondly, that God in executing them takes satisfaction from them and upon them for his law violated and his justice offended? Let any man that hath not divorced his reason from him through prejudice, pick out any other meaning of his words, or deny his words in this meaning to be heterodox and Popish. And when he saith that God doth by these sufferings produce a greater good [too believers than their sufferings bring evil upon them] Arg. 4. And that they are managed, to our advantage and good, what means he by this advantage and good? Not our purifying and bettering, etc. as we hold, For this as we have seen, he shakes off as a singlesoled supposition, with a kind of Apage. Nor any other good that his front hath yet taken boldness to express, for speaking thereof so oft in general, he would not have been so to speciallize it for our edification and comfort, if there were any in it. It must be therefore such a good and advantage, that though he would have us know, yet he will not speak it out plainly, lest his tongue and teeth should bewray him to be a professed Papist, before such time as he hath Phariseelike, etc. depraved others that are unwary, and made them worse than himself, Matt. 23. 15. And what should that be, but that God takes satisfaction to his justice by his judgements upon them, here, that they may not have, or may have the less to satisfy for, in hell or in Purgatory? In this therefore as in the two former points I take him expressing himself an adopted son of the ghostly Fathers of Trent. 4. The Papists hold that there is a Purgatory, which they describe to be a prison as hot and full of the same material fire and flames as hell itself: into which the souls of Christians after this life, are cast to satisfy God's justice for all their venial sins that they have not made satisfaction for in this life by suffering or doing; and being once cast into this prison they cannot come forth out of the torment, until they have paid the utmost farthing of their debt, i. e. until they have suffered so much as may counterpoise to a very grain, the sins whereof they die unpardoned. This they prove by many undeniable Arguments, specially by the testimony of many good souls that have obtained a dispensation to come thence with their bosoms so full of fire as of flesh and bones, to tell them so. Doth Mr. Baxter join with them in this opinion also? Soft and fair, There is skill in daubing; first he will try how this Tractate will take; if according to his mind, probably we shall have a second part, and therein he may tell us plainly his judgement in this and many other of his mysteries that here he leaves obscure and ambiguous. In the interim it pleaseth him not to deliver his mind herein in words at length, but in dark and uncertain figures. Yet join we together what he saith here and there in parcels, and somewhat may be made or at least conjectured of it. First then he telleth us that some part of the Curse must be executed upon believers, i. e. upon the whole man, the soul as well as the body. Thes. 9 2 That until the day of Resurrection and of Judgement, all the effects of sin and law and wrath will not be removed from them. pag. 74. Pag. 71: Arg. 8. Therefore thirdly what he will not [doth not at least] say of any of their former sufferings, he saith of death, That there is no unpardoned sin in it which shall procure further judgement, and so no hatred in it, though there be anger. A glorious privilege no doubt! such as according to our usual proverb a man may find at Billingsgate for a box on the ear from the worst of men that he meets with. When a man hath in revengeful fury persecuted his hated nighbour with all the strokes and storms of wrath and mischief, and after many years' persecution, hath at last slaughtered him, and trampled his dead Corpse into the mire and dust; now at last he ceaseth from hatred, & is but angry with his poor relics, forgives him all the rest, when he can do no more to him, and forgiveness can do him no good. Such tender mercies of Cruelty (as the wise man terms them, Pro. 12. 10.) doth Mr. Baxter here ascribe unto God in his gracious deal with believers for Christ's sake: viz. to persecute them with all the strokes of his wrath, and all the Curses of the law all their life time, sparing neither their body nor soul, and at last with great indignation to destroy them and trample their bodies into the earth, dust, and rottenness, yea and their souls whither he list, and under what torment he list, and after this (so remarkable is his love) he will hate them no more, but be angry with them still. When they are dead and can offend no more, and God hath inflicted upon them all his judgements that he can inflict no more, now their sins shall be so pardoned that they shall suffer no more, no more than all which they already suffer. Who denies this to be the very quintessence of mercy and spirits of love when Mr. Baxter hath so defined it, and held it forth to us as the most Celestial comfort that we shall find in death? There is (saith he) not unpardoned sin in the death of believers that shall procure further judgement. Where note 1 that he saith not simply and absolutely that there is no unpardoned sin upon the Saints now dead and buried: but no sin so unpardoned, that it should bring further judgement than that which is already upon them. And 2 That when he denyeth that their sin shall bring any further judgement upon them, he doth not deny but rather imply their sins to be yet still unpardoned as to the holding those judgements upon them that are already inflicted. A comfort that the Devils and reprobates in hell shall not want after the very day of judgement in the midst of their flames; That there is none of their sins so unpardoned as that it should bring any further judgement upon them. But put we all together, 1 That the believer must bear the Curse, even the whole man, in body and soul also. 2 That he shall not be delivered from this curse in soul and body until the resurrection. 3 That although death puts him into a freedom from further judgements, yet it doth not at all deliver him from those that at death are inflicted upon soul and body. How shall we now make up the matter? If the whole man both soul and body must suffer and not be wholly freed until the resurrection, this is not fulfilled in the suffering of the body alone. If the soul also until then must suffer, then is it not forthwith upon its separation from the body exalted to Heaven, for there, is no suffering, no affliction. Neither doth it suffer in hell, for Mr. Baxter exempteth thence all that persevere in the Faith (according to his definition of faith) until death. Where and whence then shall it suffer but in and from the fire of Purgatory? And so there is no unpardoned sin upon believers after death that can procure to them any further judgement beyond this. If Mr. Baxter meaneth not so, it is his fault to write with so much ambiguity, and so little plainness and perspicuity, as to toll us on to a strong Conjecture that he meaneth so, and is in this as in the rest apostatised to the Papists. 5 I might add also here that he seems to join with the Papists in holding believers in an uncertainty of their salvation all their life long. It is considerable that neither in his Aphorism, nor in the whole explication thereof, nor in all his arguments by which he goeth about to prove believers under the Curse, doth he once name any pardon of sin, or freedom from further judgement, which they attain until after death, and then when they have persevered to the end, and died in Christ, now he mentions and affirms it. What doth Arg. 8 p. 71. this argue but that he would (with the Papists) have men to hope well, but to be still uncertain without any assurance of Faith or certainty of their perseverance, and future glory until their very last gasp? But because from mere Negatives no affirmative can be regularly and sound deduced; I leave this but as probable, and conclude it not as certain. We have found Mr. Baxters dispute here to be first against Scripture; 2 Antichristian and wholly Popish in several points. There are many allegations more wherewith it may be justly charged, viz. that, 3 It is scandalous to the Grace and Mercy and Love of God that are the most sweet and amiable of all his Attributes. So doth he paint out terror in the very Love and Grace of God, and Cruel●y in his tender mercies; making flames of fury to break out from the very bowels of his Compassion, that poor souls believing what he saith will be apt to fly from God as from a Satan, and from his Gospel dispensations as from death and hell itself. When they hear him to be so bloody, to take delight in cursing, crushing, rending, taring, and tormenting in soul and body, unto death and after death, his own sons and daughters, and that under a profession of grace and love to them, what difference can they conceive to be between such a God, and the Devil? If there be such bitterness in his love, who will desire the least draughts thereof? If his arms of embracing be such Lion's paws, who will not shun all union all drawing nigh to him? so doth he scandalise God's love, etc. making it terrible, (which is amiableness and life itself) that none might desire him. 4 It is slanderous to the justice of God; 1 By accusing it there to inflict the curse, wrath, and judgements, where he imputeth no sin. 2 By charging it to receive full satisfaction for our debt from Christ our surety, and afterward when all is paid, to require satisfaction from us too. A piece of injustice so odious to the light of nature itself, that Mr. Baxter would account him a prodigy of Nature, a Devillized man that should so do: yet hath the face to charge the most righteous God, whose ways are all equal, yea equity itself, therewith. 5 It is injurious to Christ and his Mediation. Charging him and it with insufficiency. With the want (I mean) either of insufficient merit to free us from the whole curse and wrath of God, because he could not do it, or want of sufficient love to us that having all power given him in heaven and earth, yet will not do it. But in both these the Scripture testifieth Christ to be all-sufficient, without the least defect either of merit, or love to us, that in the infiniteness of his merit he hath purchased all, and by the infiniteness of his love he dispenseth this liberty in the fullness of it to us, Therefore is Mr. Baxter ungratefully injurious to our blessed Saviour in denying it and arguing against it. 6 It tends to the advancing of man's vainglory and boasting, in being at least in part a self-saviour, that his satisfactions have wrought with the Lord Christ's in the procurement of his Justification and salvation. This by the sequel of this work appears to be the main thing to which Mr. Baxter driveth. For yielding himself up to be the Disciple of men, to see and judge only by the light of man's reason, he seems to me to be so left of God destitute of his Spirit, that he can see no farther than a mere natural man in spiritual things; and so following the letter and scarce the letter without the Spirit of the word, he can think of no other way to happiness but that which the very instinct of nature suggesteth, namely a man's own willing, running, and procurements. To this end he lays a foundation here of humane satisfaction by sufferings, perceiving well that if man's suffering of the curse of the Law be once granted to be effectual by way of satisfaction to purge the soul from sin, then much more the righteousness of works done in obedience and conformity to the Law, by the help of the Spirit, will and must be granted to be more powerful to the same end. Therefore seeks he thus to depress the grace of God and merits of Christ, that upon the ruins thereof he might erect a Temple dedicated to man's righteousness. 7 It subverteth all the joy and consolation of Christians, which the Holy Ghost requireth of them in their sufferings from Christ or for Christ's sake. How can we according to the precept of Christ, Rejeyce and be exceeding glad, when we suffer, Matth. 5. 12. And with Paul, Glory in tribulation, Rom. 5. 3. and Rejoice in our sufferings, Col. 1. 24. And after the rule of James, Account it all joy when we fall into many temptations, Jam. 1. 2. If these be the curse of the Law, the effects of God's wrath and heavy displeasure? Can a good child rejoice and glory in his father's anger, and in the curses and strokes of his father's wrath which he hath justly deserved? It is enough to add despair and death to the sorrow of the Saints in their afflictions, to possess their Consciences with an apprehension that all comes from their father's wrath, and hath the curse upon it. 8 It holds poor Christians upon a rack of torment, and under the spirit of intolerable bondage all their life-time. For let Mr. Baxter though he were sworn against Christ to Antichrist, deny if he can that when the Apostle, Gal. 3. 10. saith; As many as are of the works of the Law are under the Curse; his meaning to be that they are in the state and under the power of damnation, or that the curse and damnation are not in Scripture phrase the same thing. I know he will not deny it, l●st he should declare himself to have taken at once his farewell of divine truth, and of natural reason also. If then to be under the curse is to be under damnation, then by affirming believers to be under the Curse, he affirms them to be under damnation, & consequently them that are in Christ to be so much the children of wrath and hell as the very reprobates. 9 It inureth upon Christ a brand of evil which St James pronounceth detestable in a wicked man. What, that out of the same James 3. 9, 10, 11: mouth should proceed blessing and cursing, saith he? Yet Mr. Baxter makes the same Christ, at the same time, to bless and to curse, to absolve and to sentence, to save and to damn the same person. 10 Let Mr. Baxter consider whether while he labours so vehemently to fasten the curse upon them whom God hath blessed with faithful Abraham, Gal. 3. 9 He doth not pluck the curse upon himself which God hath denounced, Gen. 12. 3. I will bless him that blesseth thee, and curse him that curseth thee. A word more I shall add (by way of digression) to some Ministers, who by a faulty inadvertency, speak in this point almost the same things with Mr. Bacter, though in the Article of Justification they wholly descent from him. It hath filled my spirit with sadness to hear not only in the Pulpits of the Country, but of the City of London, pronounced by the Mouths of some in great esteem both for piety and Learning; That to say God doth not punish his Saints for their sins, is flat Antinomism: and affirmed, that the afflictions of believers are punishments for their sin. I beseech these men to Consider whom they here explode as Antinomians? whether besides the Apostles and Fathers of the Primitive Church, they do not brand all the reformed Churches, and their Champions against the Papists, with this ignominy? Whether there be any one Article of Christian Religion, that hath been more stoutly defended by these against the Papists, than this which heat of zeal without knowledge (or Consideration at least) hath of late Called Antinomian? Let them produce any besides the Socinian and Arminian Sophisters that have stumbled at this doctrine as offensive. I beseech these men to read one Chamier at least, Panstr. Tom. 3. lib. 23. the six first Chapters, where this question is not only handled at large, but also the Arguments of the Protestants (who are also named Cap. 1.) particularised, and all the objections of the Papists against those Arguments Confuted: and the Papists Arguments to prove the Contrary assertion answered. The question being thus stated, Vtrùm puniantur fidelium scelera? & utrùm dura quae ijs immittit Deus, sint peccatorum paenae? So much by way of answer to Mr. baxter's resolving of his third question. There remain yet three questions more; viz. Bax. 4. Whether it be not a wrong to the Redeemer, that the people whom he hath ransomed, be not immediately delivered [from the Curse]? 5. Whether it be any wrong to the redeemed themselves? 6. How long will it be till all the Curse be taken off believers, and Redemption have attained its full effect? The two former of these questions, are saucy, arrogant, and proud. In their proposal, Mr. Baxter acts the part of Satan in questioning and accusing God's Justice. In his answer to them he takes upon himself to act the part of an Angel, to be an Apologist to plead for the defence of God's justice. 2 Gods justice is not, cannot be injurious to any, so that God needs not an Apologist to plead his cause; if he needed, his wisdom would not make choice of his accuser to be his Advocate. 3 Mr. Baxter if he would have dealt ingenuously, should have put the questions whether himself be not injurious; 1 To God and his Christ; 2 To the redeemed by denying their deliverance from and affirming their prostrate bondage under the Curse, and not to have questioned whether his slandering of God's justice hath made God faulty. And then he should have received an answer to his resolving of the questions. But as he puts the questions I reject his resolving of them as unworthy of an answer. Only by the way I say, that what he speaks in answer to his own questions is all merely sophistical and fallacious. The three first reasons that he brings to prove that Christ is not wronged by the not delivering of his ransomed ones, being things in question not proved by Mr. Baxter, therefore in arguing from them he doth (as it is usual with him) beg the principle. The fourth reason is not ad idem, but so far from the question as London from Barwick, that there is no hope they will ever meet together. The question speaking of believers, The reason, of Christ's dealing with the world to make them believers. And the same is evident in what he saith to the fifth question also. The sixth question he thus resolveth; Bax. The last enemy to be overcome is death, 1 Cor. 15. 26. This enemy will be perfectly overcome at the Resurrection. Then also shall we be perfectly acquitt from the charge of the Law, and accusation of Satan: Therefore not till the day of Resurrection and judgement will all the effects of sin and law and wrath be perfectly removed. If in the conclusion he mean the effects of sin and law and wrath shall not be removed from the world until the resurrection; he speaketh truth, but nihil ad rem, far from the question which speaketh only of believers. If he mean of them that the Curse shall not be removed. I have answered it before, and the Scriptures here brought to prove it, and will not here Actum agere. CHAP. VIII. Whether Believers are under the Law as a Covenant of works? The Negative proved. Mr. Baxters ambiguities and mental reservations in stating the question, and asserting the affirmative. The Law not repealed to any, but exauthorated to believers, having inflicted its whole curse upon them in Christ. Mr. Baxter had ended, but he had not finished his dispute about the Curse upon believers. He did but Parthian or ram-like, go backward and decline a little, to return with the greater force. Or as an Actor upon the stage, withdraw and make his exit, to put on a new dress, in which to appear again forthwith to act a second part. So doth Mr. Baxter decline the dispute in one Aphorism and its explication, (which I also shall pass by without excepting against it) and then he returns to prosecute the same dispute afresh; yet in another dress of words, that it might seem to be a resolving or determining of another question. That was, whether believers remain under the Curse of the Law? This, whether they remain under the Law as it threateneth and curseth? And between these two questions who seethe not so vast a difference, as is between an arrow in the quiver, and an arrow out of the quiver? within and without the quiver, it is the same arrow still. Yet let us attend to him stating the question (which anon we shall examine.) The result of it is thus. Bax. That the Moral Law (not in its directive use but) as it is a Covenant of works, is still in force to threaten and bring the Curse upon believers, in case they do in any thing transgress the Law. This he undertakes to make good, pronouncing it inconsiderateness to assert the contrary. Thes. 11. p. 78. & explic. p. 79. & explic. of Thes. 12. p. 82. Here before we meddle any further with Mr. Baxter, let us examine what the Holy Ghost in Scripture speaketh to this point. Ye are not under the Law, but under Grace, saith th'Apostle to believers. Rom. 6. 14. I conceive there is no one Christian upon earth that hath his head with sophistical fallacies and falsehoods, but takes the words in the same simple and clear sense wherein the Holy Ghost delivers them, viz. That we are no more under the Law, as a Covenant of Works, when we have once attained by faith to be under the Covenant of Grace. But a very thunderbolt against Mr. Baxter and his Assertion is that, Gal. 5. 3, 4. I testify to every one that is circumcised, that he is debtor to do the whole Law. Christ is become of none effect to you whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. From these words must needs be deduced these Conclusions. 1 That to be under the Law, and to be under Grace, are contraries, and do exclude either the other, so that it is impossible for the same person at the same time to be under both together. If but circumcised, if at all under the Law, ye have (saith the Apostle) made Christ of none effect to you, ye are fallen from grace, and consequently if at all in Christ, ye are not in the least part under the Law, but free from the domination and Curse thereof. 2 That whosoever yieldeth himself to be under the Law as a Covenant of Works, in the least part, hath his justification or damnation depending upon his perfect or unperfect keeping of the whole Law, so saith th'Apostle, if but circumcised, etc. ye are debtors to keep the whole Law: How debtors, viz. If ever ye will be justified and saved to keep it perfectly, if ye fail but once, to be damned for ever. 3 That whosoever affirmeth (whether he be a Bellarmine or a Baxter) believers to be under the Law as a Covenant of Works, the same by necessary consequence denyeth all actual efficacy of Christ's death, that ever any soul was or shallbe saved by his mediation, and affirmeth all the Saints that have been, are, or shallbe, to be damned for ever. For if at all under the Law, than not at all under grace or in Christ; but they must stand or fall according as they do or not do the whole Law, which none doth, ergo, all must perish. The same also may be gathered from Gal. 3. 10. but I have touched upon it before. A noble Aphorist ye will acknowledge, declaring a greater desire to bring the Saints under the Curse and damnation, than there is force in his Disputes to prove them to be under it. These Scriptures might suffice to satisfy every judgement, that believers are not under the Law. Yet I shall mention some few more to show the copiousness of the word in this point, that there might be no doubting in this point, Rom 7. 1-6, the Holy Ghost doth make out this truth as clear as the light. The Law (saith he) hath dominion over a man [only] during life, as the husband hath power over his wife. Let either the husband or wife die, the law or power which the husband had over the wife dyeth also. If the wife die he hath no power over the soul or ashes of his dead wife, to exact under any penalty, obedience from them. If the wife be survivor, she is no more bound to the dead ashes of her husband, to fear either command or wrath thence, but is wholly at liberty. So also stands the relation between the Law and believers. The Law in the height of its authority had power to inflict death but once upon man; this death have believers suffered in Christ, therefore are dead to the Law by the body of Christ, have done their Law, and suffered all that the Law had to inflict upon sinners, in the body, or humane nature of Christ suffering for them; so that they are dead to the Law, so far without the lists of further punishment or terror of the Law, as the Felon or Murderer that is condemned, hanged, dead and buried, is free from further punishment, by the Law of the Land. Yea the Law also is dead to them, having spent its sting and strength, and life also on the natural body of Christ, and is thereby disabled for ever to reassume the same against the mystical body or any member thereof: So that they are [fully] delivered from the Law. All this doth th'Apostle speak out at the full in that place, and no less in Gal. 3. 24, 25. The Law was our Schoolmaster unto or until Christ, etc. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a Schoolmaster. This also he illustrateth, Gal. 4. 1, etc. by a similitude, likening the Church before Christ's coming to an Heir in his Minority, by his fathers will put under Tutors and Governors, so that though he be Lord of all, yet differs nothing from a servant, but is under his Tutors ferule and rod also, to be constrained with fear, when love becomes ineffectual to move him to his duty: such was the condition of the Church while in its minority and feebleness of spiritual knowledge, the Sun of righteousness not being yet risen fully to enlighten them with the understanding of their liberty and glorious prerogatives. During this time though they were Lords of all, yet because of the weakness of their knowledge they were kept Servant-like under hard Masters, under the Commands and threats of the Law: but resembling the Church under the Gospel, to the same heir in his maturity of age, now entered into the possession of his heritage, and become rather Lord of his Tutors and Governors, than any way subject or servile to their authority, gently and generously accepting their wholesome Counsels, but disdaining so to subject to their authority, as to be brought under the rod of their power any more. So also Gal. 5. 13, 18, 23. speaking of them that had been called to the liberty of the Gospel, believing in Christ, walking in the Spirit, and bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit, concludeth of them, that they are not under the Law, that against such there is no Law. And 2 Cor. 3. 11. calls the Law (as a Covenant of works) that which was done away, as he doth the Gospel (as a Covenant of Grace) that which remaineth. Yea that the case might be so plain, that no Jesuitical distinctions might pervert it, the Holy Ghost at once concludeth, both negatively that believers are not under the terrors of the Law at all; and affirmatively that they are wholly and only under the sweet dispensation of grace, Heb. 12. 18-24. Ye are not come to the Mount, etc. burning with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, nor to the words and Covenants which could not be heard and born, and to the terrible voice which made Moses himself exceedingly to fear and quake. [These are the things done away in reference to believers] But ye are come to Mount Zion, to the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, etc. to all the prerogatives and privileges of the Kingdom of Grace. So also in the Epistle to the Galathians. There are two Covenants (saith the Holy Ghost) the one from Mount Sinai (where the Law was given) which gendereth to Bondage, [the other from] Jerusalem which is above and is free, the mother of us all, and concludes at last of all believers, negatively, that they are not the children of the Bondwoman, i. e. under the Covenant of works, and affirmatively, But of the free, i. e. under the Covenant of Grace, Gal. 4. 24, 26, 31. Hence is that bold triumphant challenge of the Apostle, Rom. 8. 33, 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? it is God that justifieth: who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that hath died, yea rather that is risen again, who sitteth at the right hand of God and maketh intercession for us. Having laid down these two positions as truths undeniable, that Christ hath effectually satisfied, and as a perfect Mediator sits at the right hand of God, making intercession for believers: And that God thereupon justifieth them: He now boldly challengeth earth and hell: who shall charge them? who shall condemn them? Yea his interrogations bear the force of strong negations, as if he had said, None can effectually charge much less condemn them, yea none dares to attempt it, no not one, not sin, nor Satan the Lord's Enemies, much less the Law which is just and conformed to the will of God. Collect we together now but some short notions of these Scriptures, what the Holy Ghost concludeth in them and by them, that believers are not under the Law, that it is an apostasy from Christ, from grace, to put themselves in the least part under the Law as a Covenant of works; that they are dead to the Law, that the Law is dead to them, that they are delivered from the Law, are no more under it, were servants to it, but are now free from it, there is no Law against them, that it is done away from having any domination over them, that they are departed from the Law's terrors, and come to the Gospel's celestial previledges; are not under the Covenant of Works, but under the Covenant of Grace, have the original of their present condition not from Sinai but from the supernal Jerusalem, are sons not of the bondwoman but of the free, that there is none that can condemn them, none that can justly say any thing to their charge. Let any man now that beleiveth there is a Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost speaketh in the Scriptures; judge whether i● be possible for the wisdom of the Holy Ghost himself, which is infinite, to give his testimony more fully, clearly or plainly to this assertion, that believers are not under the cursing power of the Law, or under the Law as a Covenant of works? whether this truth hath not from these testimonies of Scripture a sufficient fortification raised about it against all Jesuits and Devils. Yet Mr. Baxter with horn and hoof, tooth and nail assaults it, partly by secret minings, and partly by open batteries to subvert it. I shall hold out his slights, in his own words. B. Thes. 11. Not that Christ doth absolutely null or repeal the old Covenant hereby [viz. by constituting a New Covenant Thes. 10.] But he superaddeth this as the only possible way of life. The former still continueth to command, prohibit, promise and threaten: so that the sins even of the Justified, are still breaches of that Law, and are threatened and cursed thereby. This is his first plea, his dispute in general, against the before proved Assertion. The Aphorism consisteth of mere obscurities, ambiguities, equivocations, and mental reservations in words and phrases, wherein the Aphorist hides himself that he may smite and not be smitten; speaking in words of a double and doubtful sense, that he may beguile the unwary in the sense wherein he would be understood, that he may deceive; and yet in case that by them which are wise and wary he be called ad parts, to answer for his fallacious subtlety, he might fly for shelter to the other sense that he might not appear to be a deceiver. And first the word nulling, yea the phrase absolutely nulling, is ambiguous, equivocal, and fallacious. A thing, a law, a covenant may be said to be nulled, i. e. made void or none, either as to its essence and being, or as to its power and operation: yea to be absolutely nulled in some operations, though absolutely in force in other. Null as to such ends or persons, though in its perfect validity to other. But when Mr. Baxter saith absolutely null, he would be taken in another sense than he dares to avouch in the sense that the words do most literally and gramatically import, viz. the whole and absolute nulling of it not only to some, but to all operations, ends, and persons: yea not only to its operation but to its being also. For so much that distinguishing word (absolutely) insinuateth, viz. in contra-distinction to secundum quid. that it is nulled, not as to this or that purpose, in this or another respect, but absolutely, simply, wholly, from having any more operation or being. And this equivocation of his serves him to three ends. 1 To leave a secret accusation and odium among the people upon the Orthodox Divines against whom his dispute bendeth, that they deny both the power and being of the Law of God, and hold that it is become useless and abrogated, so that the people of God must be no more acquainted with it. And this is a tacit slander, for who among them ever taught such things? 2 To lay open to himself a wide field for a luxuriating and extravagant disputation, to affirm or deny, confirm or confute any thing about the present state of the Law, knowing that what is incompetent to what he asserteth in one sense, will be enough competent in another, and he doubts not while he is thus circling and roving, some purblind ones will be taken in his snare, if none else yet at least such as are made to be taken, 2 Pet. 2. 12. 3 That if his words come to a strict examination, how little of simplicity and truth, how much of doubleness and falsehood is couched in them, he may not want a place of retreat: his meaning forsooth was but so and so, and there is a fault in them that mistake him. 2 The same might I say of the word repeal which he useth. But because he repeats it again in the Explication of this Aphorism, affirming that there are godly and learned men that hold the repealing of the first Covenant, etc. I shall there speak what else might be here not unfitly spoken. 3 No less ambiguous is it what he will have us to understand by the Old Covenant, which he affirms not to be nulled, but to have the New Covenant superadded to it: at least to what sense thereof he will stand. Whether he meaneth, 1 The Law of nature not sounded in the ear but written in the heart of man at his Creation, Do and live, Sin and die? Or 2 That Covenant expressed in the word, about a positive Command of not eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eat and die, and consequently Abstain and live? Or 3 The Covenant of the Law written in stones upon Mount Sinai? If the first, Mr. Baxter himself sometimes declares his doubting, whether there were such a Law, with a clear impression of its penalty, ever created and imprinted in man's soul? And there are not wanting some among the most profound and Classical Divines, which hold that whatsoever notions of natural righteousness and holiness, of God, of good and evil, of truth and falsehood, there are in natural men without the word; the same not to be engraven into them by nature, or remainders of any Law written in man's heart at his first Creation: but of God's immediate infusion by a general and common operation of the Spirit in time, distributed to some in a greater to some in a lesser measure, to some scarce at all, as his infinite wisdom shall see it to make most for his glory. And from these Mr. Baxter seems elsewhere not to descent. And how then can that be nulled and repealed, or what new super-addition can there be made to that was never in being? much less can a Covenant stand firm, which was never existent. If the second, then contrary to his Assertion, the Old Covenant in respect of our personal Obligation to it, and of the dependence of our life and death upon it according to our personal obedience or disobedience to it, is nulled; there being now no accessible Paradise, nor tree of knowledge of good and evil, about which our obedience may be exercised, or disobedience manifested. If the third, Mr. Baxter speaketh point-blank in contrariety to the Apostle, in saying that the Covenant of Grace was added to the Law or Covenant of works. For the Apostle giveth the priority to the Promise or Covenant of Grace, and affirmeth expressly that the Law or Covenant of works was many hundred years after, added to it: Gal. 3. 17, 19 So that we know not where to meet with Mr. Baxter to understand, much less to answer him. 4 He hath a mental reservation also, when he affirmeth that the Covenant of Grace was superadded as the only possible way of life. Who knows whether he pronounceth it the only possible way to life, as it hath fulture and supportance from the Law and Covenant of Works to which it is superadded, and so Moses and Christ meeting together in the Mount do save a poor sinner, and what the Law could not do of itself, being weak through the flesh, [that could not fulfil it] Rom. 8. 3. Now by the superadded help of Grace, it doth perform? Or as it is operative in itself and by itself, saving by its own sovereign power without any help from the works of the Law. Why doth not Mr. Baxter speak out? Veritas non quaerit angulos. Truth loveth to show its face in the clear light, not hiding itself in the clouds. I do no wrong to M●. Baxter in pressing upon him for his meaning herein; every man may see in the sequel of his Tractate, that grace and faith have with him, very little power to justify or save, but what they borrow and fetch home in a Cardinal's Hat or Monk's Cowl from good works. 5 And he leaves us in the dark and doubtful, what he means by the word hereby, when he saith Christ doth not null the Covenant hereby, it is a relative word and must have its meaning from that which is antecedent in the tenth Aphorism, viz. Christ's prescribing of a new Law, and tendering of a new Covenant. The old Covenant is not nulled hereby saith Mr. Baxter. Doth he mean by the tendering of the New Covenant? Or the offer of Grace? This makes nothing to the end he drives at. None conceiving that the offer or tendering of Grace to a sinner, doth forth with free him from the Curse of the Law, until he accepts the tender. Or doth he mean that the effectualizing of the Covenant of Grace to a sinner, or the taking of him effectually into the Covenant of Grace, doth not make void the Law to him as a Covenant of works? This is indeed like himself, and agreeable to his purpose. He is not consistent with himself nor with the most subtle and sophistical of the Papists whom he loves as dearly as himself, if he do not so mean. Nevertheless because he is willing here to pass under a vizard, I will not trouble myself to unmask him. Himself will openly enough discover himself to us, when the humour takes him. At present let him be sullen. 6 The same might I say of that which followeth. The former, i. e. The Covenant of works or the Law, still continueth to command, prohibit, promise, and threaten. A wide dominion and large authority, but who the subjects & servants are over whom it is exercised, he leaves (as all the rest) in an ambiguity, is not disposed to tell us, except the next words do it. So that the sins even of the justified, are still breaches of that Law, and etc. 7 But here also he determineth to pass away in the dark, tells us only what power the Law hath against the sins, not against the persons of the justified, that it threatens and curseth their transgressions, but whether only upon the person of Christ satisfying for them; or else in their own persons also, after Christ hath so satisfied, is a secret that at this time and in this place, we must not know from him; though if he had not let it out before, he would have been in pangs of travel with it until he were delivered of it. Thus have we found M. Baxter in this Aphorism fight against the Conclusion and the Scriptures that confirmed it, with his sword in the scabbard. How terrible the skirmish was they that felt either the point or edge of his weapon can tell you. Suppose he should now unsheathe it, who could stand before his drawn sword? This he is about to do, by his Explication. Mr. B. I acknowledge that this assertion is disputable and difficult, and many places of Scripture are usually produced which seem to contradict it. I know also that it is the judgement of learned and godly men, that the Law as it is a Covenant of works, is quite null and repealed in regard of the sins of believers. Yea many do believe that the Covenant of works is repealed to all the the world, and only the Covenant of grace in force. Against both these I maintain this assertion, by the Arguments which you find under the following Position 13. And I hope notwithstanding that I extol free grace as much, and preach the Law as little, in a forbidden sense; as though I held the contrary opinion. First he acknowledgeth his Assertion to be disputable and difficult. We have found it not only to be so, but to be so of his own making, by means of his clothing it with the darkness of such and so many ambiguities, equivocations, etc. Against it he saith there is a twofold authority usually produced, the one Divine, the othee humane. The one he despiseth and blows of as contemptible, the other he falsifieth (I am confident) that he may have somewhat to say in answer to it. 1 There is Divine authority or many Scriptures produced, which seem to contradict his Assertion. And here take we notice in how base esteem he hath the Holy Scriptures; of those many Scriptures he vouchsafeth not to answer one, no nor to cite one: why? but that he thinks, when the Scriptures, and his own assertions do contradict either the other, the authority of his own judgement not only to parallel but also to over-weigh the authority of the Scriptures. What Papist, what Enthusiast hath or can have the Scriptures in less esteem than this Aphorist shows himself here and elsewhere to have? What Scriptures are brought against him, he disdaineth them an answer, yea a glance of his eye to see them, or tongue to read them to us. But if he finds any Scripture whose point with much bowing and wresting he thinks he may turn about against us that have no more wit but to think their authority venerable and requiring our submission thereunto: of these he makes use, to befool yet more such fools as regard them. If I fail in my censure, the Lord forgive to me the mistake of my judgement, and to Mr. Baxter his giving occasion, yea cause of such a mistaking. And as the authority of Scriptures is puffed from him with less than a piff or pish, so do we find humane authority (in all probability) falsified by him. I know (saith he) that learned and godly men are of this judgement that the Law as a Covenant of works is quite null and repealed in regard of the sins of believers. I do not doubt but by these learned and godly he means some Protestant Divines, whom sometimes he will flatter, smooth, and almost spit in their mouths, to allure them to run after him. Now if he do not falsify their assertions, let him name but one of them that ever affirmed the Law to be so repealed. I may possibly acknowledge him to be, in the main, learned and godly, but I believe I shall never account him to have been considerate in laying down such an assertion. For it directly contradicts the doctrine of our Saviour, Think not (saith he) that I am come to destroy the Law, etc. I am not come to destroy but fulfil. Verily, verily, Heaven and Earth shall pass, but not one jot or tittle shall not pass from the Law till all be fulfilled, Mat. 5. 17, 18. Or to whom should it be repealed? not to unbelievers; for it is consented in both sides that they are under the Law, under the Curse. Nor to believers, for the Law hath pursued their sins unto death in the body of Christ, and by Mr. Baxters' acknowledgement hath inflicted upon him for them, upon them in him, the tantundem if not the idem which it ever threatened against sinners. And how is the Law repealed in any of its power, that doth or hath executed all its power upon all that have been transgressors? Mr. B. very well knoweth what doctrine is taught in the Reformed Churches, but will needs falsify it, as he doth also the Holy Scriptures. We affirm that the Law is still in force and shall be till the world's end. We preach not a repeal of any of its power or righteousness which it had from God at any time. Neither on the other side, do we attribute to it a power or unrighteousness which God never gave it. We grant it a power to take full vengeance upon every sinner for every sin committed during life. But we deny that if any be raised to a second life after death (as was Christ) having born the whole wrath due to the sins of the former life, that such a one comes under the power of the Law again; the Law hath never more dominion over him. But so stands the case with believers: They have suffered in Christ, done their Law in Christ, are dead in Christ, and in him they have satisfied the Justice of the Law for the sins of their whole life. If now they are also risen with Christ, and are dignified with a new life, the life of grace, so that though they live, it is not so much they that live, as that Christ liveth in them, and the life which they live in the flesh is by the faith of the Son of God, Gal. 2. 20. In this new life which they have by their union unto Christ, now triumphant, the Law can no more reach them, than Christ himself triumphant. So the Law is nulled to them, but never repealed, nulled because it hath inflicted upon them its whole penalty, and after it hath so done, it hath no more power over the very reprobates, much less over the Saints. So that the Law being null or of no force to believers, hath received no diminution to its power, holding it still firm and entire as ever; no more than the Law of the Land is weakened for that when it hath inflicted death upon the Felon or Traitor, it hath no further power to question him. As, before they had existence in Adam, their not existing yet in him, and under the Law by being in Adam, argued no weakness in the Law: So when they have done their Law for the sins committed while under the Law, and that by their new union unto and existence in Christ, they cease to be under the Law, that the Law hath no power over them, argues no wound or weakness or detriment that the Law hath sustained; any more than it doth, because it is null in power to the Angels in Heaven, over whom it had never power: or null unto Christ now in Heaven, over whom it had once power. Mr. Baxter acknowledgeth that the penalty of the LAW is due to none but the transgressors of the Law, to the unrighteous, and withal affirms Thes. 16. p. 96. and Explication page 98, 99 That Satisfaction for disobedience is our Righteousness, makes a man so perfectly righteous (as to the Law and further penalty thereof) as if he had never disobeyed. Yet we find him here fight not only against Heaven and Earth, but against himself also, to deny the nullity of the Law to them that have satisfied by CHRIST, for their disobedience to the Law; making it one and the same thing with the repealing of the Law. This word repealing being here foisted in by himself, partly to make way for his sophistical, and bombasticall distinctions which are no less deer to him then his life, therefore in the Explication of the next Thesis, comes in great ostentation, no less trappled with them, than a Carthorse with his painted Collar, bells and feathers, partly to give occasion of his riding in state upon Grotius his shoulders, to show what new, subtle, and finespun learning, he hath drawn from so noble and Apostatical a Doctor, no less fit to the Argument he hath in hand, than the i● for the hand, or the glove for the foot. But lastly and principally, that having according to his wont and inbred subtlety, put on a false vizard upon the doctrine of the reformed Churches, he might in the 13 Thes. and its explication, dispute victoriously against the vizard, having nothing to say against the doctrine in its own nature and verity. As for the other pretended opinion, that the Covenant of works is repealed to all the world, and the Covenant of Grace alone in force: Those that hold it (most probably) are some Eutopians that Mr. Baxter alone, and no other either man or Angel besides him have had acquaintance with, or the happiness to know their opinion. So that Mr. Baxter might have done well to have taken a second voyage into the land of Utopia, either to have joined with them or disputed against them upon their own happy turf, and not to have troubled our unhappy Coasts with this Controversy: it hath the unhappiness doubtless to be pestered with so many opinionists as any Nation in the world, but among all hath not such bugbears or frantics, that I know, who maintain such an assertion. But it is one of Mr. Baxters' subtleties to feign such ghosts and phantasms of men to fight against, thereby taking the advantage secretly and unespyed (as he hopeth) to erect more cursed and monstrous assertions, than all such ghosts and phantasms as he feigneth, could have devised. But we cannot stop him in his Career, on he posteth, and Against both these [imaginary opinions] saith he, I maintain this Assertion, i. e. his 11th Thesis, which we have found to be a mere fardel of equivocations, ambiguities, etc. for explication whereof we have sought where he promised it, but have found nothing but fictions, imaginations, and new falsehoods more to obscure it. Yet this piece of darkness he promiseth to maintain under the 13 position, where we shall wait on him. But in the mean while he hath a 12th Thes. and an explication to intersert which we must by the way take notice of as a most noble preparative to the sublime learning which in the 13th he will deliver. As for that brag wherewith he shuts up all that he hath said in the titular explication of this his 11th position, [I hope that I extol free Grace as much, and preach the Law as little in a forbidden sense, as though I held the contrary opinion.] unto it I say but this: If his preaching be so much better and honester than his writing, we could wish him henceforth to apply himself wholly to the Pulpit not at all to the Press. And notwithstanding his brags, and all his equivocations, wind, and fallacious argumentation, we will still keep in mind the state of the question from which he seeks to avert us, viz. that the Law is not nulld to believers, but even when they are believers, they are still under the Law as a Covenant of works. This he hath promised to maintain, against Scriptures and Orthodox Writers, whatsoever else he speaketh and not home to this point is besides the question. Attend we therefore what he hath to make this good in the next position. CHAP. IX. Mr. Baxters Distinctionary preparative to the Confirmation of his Assertion [that believers are under the Law as a Covenant of works] examined: and all that he haeh therein manifested to be in part impertinent to the question, and pertinent only to his vainglory: in the rest to be Popish and destructive to all hope of salvation. Thesis' 12. BAx. Therefore we must not plead the repeal of the Law for our Justification; but must refer it to our surety, who by the value and efficacy of his once offering and merits doth continually satisfy. We assent here to his words in substance, but find Cause in the placing of them, to doubt of a fallacious meaning which he hath therein. 1 We do not we will not plead the repeal of the Law for our Justification. But Mr. Baxter (as he makes it appear by what is antecedent and following in this dispute) would have us to conceive, that in the not repealing of the Law is included our being under the Law as a Covenant of works. Such tame fools, in the lofty opinion that he hath of himself, doth he account us. If in the following words of the position, he meant fairly he would speak plainly. We must not plead the repeal of the Law for Justification, etc. What then? but we must refer it to our surety who by the value, etc. Why saith he not plainly we must not plead the laws repeal for etc. but our fullfilling of it in Christ, or the satisfaction which he hath once made for all the breaches of the Law which we have or shall have committed? why speaks he ambiguously? we must refer it to our surety, what? whether or when we shall be justified? or to him to plead for us neglecting to seek for any ableness to plead and give account of our hope for ourselves, willingly remaining uncertain of salvation all our life time? And when he saith by his once offering and merits, he doth continually satisfy: though in a good sense it be true and good, yet hath he not already actually satisfied? and are not believers by that satisfaction actually justified? we shall find anon there was a monster contained in the womb of these equivocal locutions. In the interim let us search whether in the place of explication there be any thing spoken to explain his meaning. Explication. Bax. I shall here explain to you, in what sense and how far the Law is in force, and how far not: and then pr●ve it in and under the next head. Here now he brings in a quaternion of distinctions to undermine and blow up the authority of the sacred T●inity, expressed in the forecited Scriptures that proves believers not to be under the Law as a Covenant of works: and four against three is odds. B●x. You must here distinguish betwixt 1 The repealing of the Law and the relaxing of it; 2 between a dispensation absolute and respective; 3 Between the alteration of the Law, and the alteration of the subjects relation to it. 4 Between a discharge conditional, with a suspension of execution, and a discharge absolute. Parturiunt Montes. What follows upon all these polite and profound distinctions? many notable Conclusions doubtless: Mr. baxter's nose is as right in the middle of his face, since as before his disburthening himself of these distinctions. But most certainly we are dull and cannot piece deeply. But Mr. Baxter is no less acute than deep, let us see what work he can make of it. Bax. And so I resolve the question thus. 1 The law of works is not abrogate or repealed, but dispensed with, or relaxed. A dispensation is (as Grotius defineth it) an act of a superior whereby the obligation of a law in force is taken away, as to certain persons and things. 2 This dispensation therefore is not total or absolute, but respective. For 1 Though it dispense with the rigorous execution, yet not with every degree of execution. 2 Though the law be dispensed with as it containeth the proper subjects of the penalty, viz. the parties offending, and also the circumstances of duration, etc. yet in regard of the mere punishment, abstracted from person and circumstances, it is not dispensed with. For to Christ it was not dispensed with. His satisfaction was by paying the full value. 3 Though by this dispensation our freedom may be as full as upon a repeal, yet the alteration is not made in the Law, but in our estate and relation to the Law. 4 So far is the Law dispensed with to all, as to suspend the rigorous execution for a time, and a liberation or discharge conditional procured and granted them. But an absolute discharge is granted to none in this life. For even when we do perform the condition, yet still the discharge remains conditional, till we have quite finished our performance. For it is not one instantaneous act of believing, which shall quite discharge us, but a continued faith. No longer are we discharged than we are believers. And where the condition is not performed, the law is still in force, and shall be executed upon the offender himself. I speak nothing in all this of the directive use of the moral Law to believers, but how far the Law is yet in force even as it is a Covenant of works; because an utter repeal of it in this sense is so commonly, but inconsiderately asserted. That it is no further overthrown, no not to believers, then is here explained. I now come to prove. Here we see the offspring of the precedent mountainous and swelling distinctions. Exit ridiculus mus. In the three first Conclusions a mere tattle about the repealing and abrogating, or dispensing and relaxing of the Law; and of its dispensation in a totality and absoluteness, or in a respectivenes to persons, circumstances and degrees of execution, etc. which is as proper to the thing that he drives at, as swine's flesh and a peacock strangled, with all his glittering feathers, to the satisfying of a Jews hungry appetite. Surely either Mr. Br. had forgotten, or thought we had forgotten that he had before vented this Mystical learning of his own and Grotius his brain; or doubted that it was not finely enough set out there, therefore that he might have the full praise of so curious and spiderthreeded a speculation, brings it in here again, in somewhat a new and more specious a dress. Let him rest contented, we acknowledge it all very trim. If he believe us not, let him set it as a philactery upon his garment. It will tend so much to the strengthening of it, as of the cause he hath in hand. For the question is not whether the Law be repealed or but dispensed with, But whether it be in force to believers as a Covenant of works, with which the three first positions meddle not. The word [abrogating] some orthodox Divines (I confess) do use, but not in a sense equipollent with the word [repeal,] meaning thereby only a nullity of the law's domination over believers. The alteration not being in the Law (as we acknowledge with Mr. Br.) but in our estate and relation to it. The law reigneth over all that are under it. But the Saints are not Inst. lib. 3. cap. 19 sect. 2. under the Law, saith the Apostle, But as (Calvin saith) in Christ above it. But his fullness and plainness in his fourth Conclusion maketh some recompense for all his Amphibologies, all his dark & doubtful locutions in that which went before. Here we acknowledge his ingenuity, He so speaks as that an English man may understand him. Here he tells us what he meant before of nulling, repealing, etc. of the Law to believers, that it is not so nulled, abrogated, repealed, relaxed or dispensed with, but that all their life time they are still under the Law as a Covenant of works. And why could not this be spoken, without so great a preparative of sophistical equivocations and distinctions? It pleased him surely to act the Alderman that decked himself with all his robes and rich furniture, to go into his stable and cut off his horse's tail. But it shall satisfy us that after some suspension, he at last discovers to us his meaning. Let us examine it, and first we shall find set forth in two positions; two so soul-ravishing privileges, purchased by the Lord Christ for the Elect Saints, that whosoever of them will rest satisfied with them, may gird himself fast, and departed without them. 1 That they have so large a discharge from the rigour of the Law for a while, as any of the worst reprobates. 2 That they have no more discharge from the Law's curse than the worst of reprobates. Must we not account him a Saint that hath a fastidious stomach or sore mouth that cannot relish these dainties. The former Conclusion he reacheth to us in these words. So far is the Law dispensed with to all, as to suspend the rigorous execution of it for a time, and a liberation and discharge conditional, procured and granted them. Jam sumus ergo pares. In this the sons of God are in as good a case as the reprobates, and somewhat before the Devils. The latter Conclusion in these words; But an absolute discharge is granted to no man in this life. Jam sumus ergo pares. Yet have we as large cause of exulting and joy in the Holy Ghost as the reprobates, that (as far as we can discern) we are no nearer to hell than the children of hell, whose inheritance is in hell forever. To prove the latter assertion, that none are, that believers are not absolutely discharged from the law as a Covenant of works, in this life, he borroweth matter from Pelagians, Papists, Socinians, Arminians, and the whole rabble of professed enemies to the grace of God in Christ, manifesteth (Scotus like) ignotum per ignotius. carries us into a dungeon of darkness, to discern Colours which we could not judge of in the light, to his mind; brings seven other Devils, many other heresies worse than the first, at least so bad as the first, to strengthen the first. Clavum clavo [not] extorquet, [but] torquet & figit, beats in other wedges not to lose the first, but to fasten all. Having gotten in the paw of the beast, beats and beetles in many of his horns after to wedge fast all. The Popish errors which he brings as an addition to confirm that believers are during life, under the law, are these. 1 That they which are in Christ have not their sins fully pardoned, neither are themselves wholly justified in this world. 2ly, That whosoever shall be justified in the world to come, must procure it by his own willing, running & persevering in this world. 3 That they which are in Christ may fall away and be damned. 4 That no man while he lives can be certain of his salvation. 5 To this he addeth one worse than any Popish or Socinian heresy as proper to himself and from himself alone, viz. That all believers (notwithstanding Christ's satisfaction for them, notwithstanding their persevering faith in him, yet) must be at last damned forever. Some of these errors are in express words asserted, the rest by necessary Consequence employed in this short dispute of Mr. B: The first he expressly affirmeth. Even when we do perform the condition, yet still the discharge remains Here he followeth Arminius because in this point Arminius overruns the Papists. conditional (saith he) till we have quite finished the performance, i. e. till we have gasped out the last breath. So that in this life there is no discharge, but a conditional promise that possibly we may in the world to come be discharged. what is this discharging but Justifying and absolving us? from what but from the sin which we have committed, and from the vengeance which the law threateneth? such a justification he denyeth to be attainable in this life. And this argument he thus urgeth; Whosoever is not perfectly justified, is still under the law as a Covenant of works. But the very Saints are not in this world so Justified ergo they are under the Law, etc. The second, that Justification in the world to come must be procured by man's own willing, etc. He delivereth plainly enough in that he saith, that we must perform, yea continue performing the conditions until we go out of this world, and then we may possibly obtain to be justified in the world to come. What are the conditions by which we procure the discharge? Mr. B: tells us afterward (as we shall find) Faith and good works. These must we observe and continue observing to the end to procure justification after this life ended. And so it is by our own strong and lasting endeavours, that after the world is ended our sins may be possibly forgiven, and we saved. Here if we grant unto him, that we are Gods hirelings thus to work in his vineyard the whole day, the whole term of our life; and that Justification is the wages of our work to be paid in the evening, i. e. at the end of the world, than it will follow indeed (what he deduceth hence) that until the world be ended we are still under the Curse of the Law. 3 That they that are in Christ may fall away and be damned if they continue in their Apostasy, or may after their many apostasies, oft renew again their union with Christ, and so at last be justified, he speaks out fully in telling us, It is not one instantaneous act of believing, but a continued faith that shall quite discharge us; that no longer are we discharged than we are believers, and when we cease to believe, the Law is still in force, and condemneth. Either he reasoneth from an impossible supposition, or a possible and usual Case incident to believers. If from an impossibility, it makes not at all for his purpose. If it were possible for him to fall from grace, than should believers be under the Law again. But it is not possible, etc. ergo they shall never be reduced under the law again. But he argueth as from a possible and usual case, and then if we grant him, that the Saints may fall away, it will follow that they are not absolutely freed from the curse of the law in this life. But in granting this, we grant ourselves to be Popish, and may shake hands with Mr. Br. The fourth, that no man can in this life be certain of salvation, depends on the former. For if we cannot be certain of our perseverance, we cannot be certain of eternal happiness: and by necessary consequence it must be concluded also that we are not discharged from the bondage of the Law. But we cannot grant the premises from which such inferences are drawn, unless we will grant away ourselves also in despair to perdition. And therefore we deny to Mr. B: all his argumentation here, as having nothing of Christ, but all of Antichrist in it. I mean not to prosecute in this place a dispute against Mr. B: about these four pernicious errors which he holds in common with other Papists; himself will elsewhere minister to me an occasion of speaking more fully to them, where he doth not only touch upon, but also professedly handle the most (if not all) of them. Here I shall only (to preserve the simple from his guile) manifest upon what fallacious grounds he pitcheth these his assertions. They are principally these two. 1 That Faith as an infused gift of grace, and a part of our inherent righteousness doth justify, when it is not only (as the Papists say) Fides informis, but also Formata, perfected both in its duration of time, and in all its Concomitants the other habits, virtues, and gifts of grace, such as are love, mercy, goodness, temperance, etc. and in the fruits and acts of all these which are good works. For so shall we find him in the sequel of this tractate teaching. 2 That Faith and all those its Concomitants with their fruits and effects depend upon our freewill, to gain and retain, refuse and lose them at the pleasure and lust of our corrupt freewill. These points being granted all those four errors will follow as necessary deductions thence. But the orthodox Churches hold and the Oracles of the Gospel teach otherwise. 1 That our Justification floweth from our union to Christ, that All in Adam are under the Law, under the Curse, unblessed, unjustified, unpardoned. But that all which are in Christ are justified, pardoned, etc. So the Apostle, Phil. 3. 8. etc. All things are dung to me that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, etc. Here was the Apostles righteousness and Justification to win Christ and be found in him. And this union unto Christ is made up principally by the Spirit, by which Christ apprehendeth and uniteth us to himself. No otherwise is our Justification attributed to faith than as it is the instrument by which we apprehend Christ to ourselves as we are apprehended of Christ to himself, and bring home into our bosom● the benefit of this our union to him, together with the sense and joy of our Justification by him. This I shall have occasion to illustrate and prove more fully before I part with Mr. Baxter, and because he will call me to it in another place, here I shall say no more of it. 2 That our Faith both in its existence and perseverance, dependeth not upon the fickle sweek of our own freewill, but upon the support of God's power and unchangeable love, and upon the virtue of Christ's mediation and faithfulness of the Mediator; though our freewill be mutable, yet the gifts & calling of God are without repentance, i. e. without Change. Rom. 11. 29. He that hath begun a good work in you, will perform it till the day of Jesus Christ, Phil. 1. 6. Though our faith be weak, yet we are preserved by the power of God through Faith and salvation. Christ hath by his sacrifice purchased to us, not only salvation but faith also, both in its being and persevering to apprehend him and it to our persevering Consolation; They shall never perish saith he) neither shall any man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any one, man or Devil, pluck them out of my hands, Joh. 10. 28. It is the will of my Father which sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day, Joh. 6. 39 If now the word of God stand, and the judgement of the Churches that is grounded upon the immutable word of the eternal God; then those bugbear assertions, the (brats of Mr. baxter's windy distinctions) which he brings as arguments to prove the slavish bondage of believers under the Law, will appear vaporous and so vanish. For if our Justification proceed not from the old age or perfection of faith & its Concomitants, but from our union to Chrst, and no otherwise from faith than as it instrumentally closeth us with Christ (which no instantaneous Faith, that lives and dies at an instant, but a truly living faith can do) than it will appear to be a falsehood, that None is justified in this life. Nay all that by a living faith are united to Christ, are fully justified in this life. And as many as are unjustified here, shall not be either justified or saved hereafter. Again, if our Justification spring from our union with Christ, than not at all from our own willing, running, and persevering. And so his two first Arguments fall into shivers. 3 If no true and justifying faith be instantaneous, and the perseverance of faith in the believer, and of a believer in the faith, depend not upon man's mutable will, but upon the all sufficiency of Christ's merits, and the truth and omnipotency of the most high God: then his two latter assertions, viz. that of Apostasy from Christ, and the other of the uncertainty of salvation, fall into shivers also. For what more fixed and certain than what by the will of God, is bottomed and sustained with the rock Christ, and the truth and power of the eternal God? None then of his popish arguments here brought, do give the least fulture to his assertion, that The very believers are under the Law as a Covenant of Works. The fift Position, that all Believers (according to Mr. Baxters' doctrine) must needs be damned, ariseth from the Assertion which by the four mentioned Propositions, as by so many Arguments, he goeth about to prove: viz. That until death they are under the Law as a Covenant of works. If so then must they be needs damned: 1 Because whosoever is under that Covenant is bound to seek freedom from vengeance, and possession of blessedness, by the conditions Gal. 5. 3. of the same Covenant. But these conditions are impossible to man in his present feebleness and corruption, viz. the purification of himself from all sin, and perfect performance of all obedience. Who can perform all this, except peradventure St. Francis and Mr. Baxter▪ so that either none or at least they alone can be saved. 2 Because whosoever professing the Faith, is in the least part under the Law, etc. is fallen from Christ, hath no part in the Covenant Gal. 5. 4. of Grace, as I have before proved, therefore must necessarily be damned. 3 Because whosoever liveth and dyeth under a Covenant of works, is under the curse and damnation, Gal. 3. 10. That which follows in the conclusion of the Explication of this Thesis, acquits me from all men's suspicion of doing Mr. B. any wrong in misinterpreting his meaning in this his dispute. Himself acknowledgeth it to be his own sense. In all this (saith he) i. e. in this whole dispute, I speak nothing of the directive use of the Law, [viz. as it is a rule and Counsellor to a Christian in all moral righteousness] but how far the Law is yet in force as a Covenant of works, because an utter repeal of it in this sense is so commonly but inconsiderately asserted. [Let him name but one considerable man that ever affirmed the Law repealed, that it may appear it is not a slander which he casts upon the Anti-Papists.] But he proceeds, That it is no further overthrown, no not to believers, then is here explained, I now come to prove. And we shall come after him to see what he proveth, and how far he proveth. And that it may appear to all what sincerity is in the man, two things are to be kept diligently in mind. 1 What he is to prove. 2 What he is not to meddle with in proving, if he will show himself honest, and not a mere Imposter. We utterly deny any repeal or abrogating of the Law as a Covenant of works to them that are under the Law, or have not done their Law, yea any repeal of the Law at all, as I have made to appear. Therefore if Mr. B. go about to prove either that the Law is not repealed, or that unbelievers or such as have not done their Law by satisfying for the breaches thereof, are still under the Law; This is fallacious dealing, a proving of that which never came into Question, for all acknowledge it without his proving. That which he is to prove is that none, no not believers are absolutely discharged from the Law, but are under it as a Covenant of works to the utmost moment of their life. This he promiseth throughout his whole dispute to prove, let us attend how he doth it in this 13 Position, under which he promiseth to do it. CHAP. X. Mr. Baxter's much promised and long expected Arguments to prove Believers to be under the Law as a Covenant of works, discovered to be mere impertinencies, and Sophistical Impostures: And the Question whether the Elect while yet unbelievers, are so under the Law, and in what respects, discussed. Thesis' 13. B. IF this were not so, but that Christ had abrogated the first Covenant, than it would follow. 1 That no sin but that of Adam, or final unbelief is so much as threatened with death, or that death is explicitly (i. e. by any Law) due to it or deserved by it. For what the Law in force doth not threaten, that is not explicitly deserved or due by the Law. 2 It would follow that Christ died not to prevent or remove the wrath and curse so deserved, or due to us, for any but Adam's sin, nor to pardon our sins at all: but only to prevent our desert of wrath and curse, and consequently to prevent our need of pardon. 3 It would follow that against eternal wrath, at the day of judgement, we must not plead the pardon of any sin but the first; but our own non desert of that wrath: because of the repeal of that Law before the sin was committed. All which consequences seem to me unsufferable, which cannot be avoided if the Law be repealed. Unto these three Arguments he addeth four more in the Explication of this Position, which thus follow. B. We may plead our non deserving of death, for our discharge at judgement. 5 And further, than Christ in suffering did not bear the punishment due to any sin but Adam's first, for that which was not threatened to us, was not executed on him. This is a clear but an intolerable consequence. 6 Scripture plainly teacheth that all men (even the Elect) are under the Law till they believe, and enter into the Covenant of the Gospel. Therefore it is said, Jo. 3. 18. He that believeth not is condemned already, and the wrath of God abideth on him, ver. 36. And we are said to believe for remission of sins, Acts 2. 38. Mark 1. 4. Luke 24. 47. Acts 10. 43. & 3. 19 which show that sin is not before remitted; and consequently the Law not repealed but suspended and left to the dispose of the redeemer. Else how could the redeemed be the children of wrath? Eph. 2. 3. The circumcised are debtors to the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3, 4. And Christ is become of no effect to them: but they that are led by the Spirit are not under the Law, and against such there is no Law, Gal. 5. 18, 23. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin (and so far under the Law no doubt) that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe, Gal. 3. 22. We are under the Law when Christ doth redeem us, Gal. 4. 5. See also Ja. 2. 9, 10. 1 Tim. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 56. Gal. 3. 19, 20, 21. Therefore our deliverance is conditionally from the curse of the Law, viz. if we we will obey the Gospel. And this deliverance, together with the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, is it which is so oft mentioned as a privilege of believers, and an effect of the blood of Christ. Which deliverance from the curse is yet more full, when we perform the conditions of our freedom. And then we are said to be dead to the Law, Rom. 7. 4. and the obligation to punishment dead, as to us, ver. 6. but not the Law void or dead of itself. 7 Lastly all the Scriptures and Arguments, p. 60 61. which prove that afflictions are punishments, do prove also that the Law is not repealed. For no man can suffer for breaking a repealed Law, nor by the threats of a repealed Law; yet I know that this Covenant of works continueth not to the same ends and uses as before; nor is it so to be preached or used. We must neither take that Covenant as a way to life, as if now we must get our salvation by fulfilling its conditions, nor must we look on its Curse, as lying on us remediless. Alas for the conscience of this man! I know (saith he) that this Covenant of works continueth not &c. yet against knowledge and against conscience will he not only teach the contrary, but with all Jesuitical arts labour to screw it into the judgements of men that are more Logical than Theological. How hath he suspended our expectation with promises that in and under the 13 Thesis he would bring his Reason's to prove 1 That the Law as a Covenant of works is not become null and void to believers, p. 79. that they are not discharged in this life from the curse of the Law, p. 82. But that 2 They are under the Law as a Covenant of works still, after that they are in Christ and partakers of of his Redemption. Why had he not by and by proved it, but that he might Bellarmine-like, first busy his Reader with Sophistical distinctions and disputes, until he had forgotten the state of the Question, and then prove what he would, not what he should to his forgetful Reader For so there is not the least gry or jota in all his Arguments here that doth so much as glance upon the things that he was to prove, but a labouring to confirm things which no one of those whom he makes his adversaries, doth or did ever Question, much less deny. So that all these his Arguments, are mere impostures, not (as he terms them) Reasons to confirm the Doctrines which he pretends to prove. For first, his five first Arguments (or rather those three in his Thesis, which in the Explication he subdivides into five) and the seventh also in the Explication tends only to prove that God hath not, did not revoke, repeal and extinguish the Law that it should have no more a being, or remain a Law to the sons of men; assoon as Adam had sinned, and a promise of redemption by Christ was made, Gen. 3. 15. who ever taught or thought so? or what is this to prove that the Saints (after they have suffered and satisfied in and by Christ the whole penalty of the Law, for all their transgressions of the Law) are not delivered from it as a Covenant of works? Secondly, the other Argument which he puts in the sixth place goes about to prove that unbelievers are under the Law. And this is as potent a reason to prove believers to be under the Law; as if I should thus argue, Mr. Baxter is a Jesuit, because Bellarmine and Maldonat were Jesuite●: o● that Mr Baxter is not the Teacher of the Church at Kederminster, because Robin Hood and little John are not Teachers there. This might suffice as a full Answer to his seven Arguments and to manifest his sin and shame in using them. But I shall add something by way of Explication to make that which I have said plain to the weakest. Not imitating Mr. Baxter, who under a pretence of Explication, doth in most places totally darken what was before clear and plain. First then, I grant to Mr. Baxter, that if Christ had from the beginning of sins entrance into the world, repealed and (in the proper and full sense of the word) abrogated the Law, those five consequences, which he mentioneth in his 5 first Arguments would follow, 1 That no sin but that of Adam, and final unbelief is so much as threatened with death, the one being forbidden by the Law while it was in force, the other by the Gospel, that is still unquestionably in force, Nay not any thing else in reference to the old Covenant but that of Adam should be a sin, because sin is the transgression of the Law, and where there is no Law, there can be no transgression. 2 That Christ by his satisfaction for us, prevented not the wrath deserved [viz. otherwise then by Adam's sin] but the desert of wrath. 3 Neither doth he properly pardon any such sin, for where no Law is, there is no sin, where no sin, there is nothing to be pardoned. 4 And then might we plead innocency, or our non deserving of death (except before excepted) for our discharge at judgement. 5 And Christ in suffering did not bear the punishment of any other sins of mankind besides the . Thus we grant Mr. B. five of his Arguments without any detriment to our Caus or advantage to his. Believers are as fully freed from the Law as if he had slept while he thus disputed. For all these his Arguments lean upon a false supposition. If the Law be so repealed and abrogated (as is before supposed) then and not else will these cursed Consequences take place. But the law is not so repealed etc. therefore none of these will follow. For we hold that Believers are therefore delivered from the law as a Covenant of works, not because the law was almost from the very beginning repealed or abrogated from being any longer a Covenant of works, but because the law as a Covenant of works hath executed upon them in Christ all its penalty for all their sins, and hath therefore now no more power to question them: as hath been more copiously declared before. The same I say also to the seventh Argument as it pointeth to the not repealing of the law, whatsoever else is in it, hath been in answer to the place cited, sufficiently spoken to. His sixth Argument about which he laboureth more than about all the rest, though (as I said a little before) it makes nothing to his present and explicit purpose, proving only unbelievers to be under the law; (for this is nothing to believers) yet it makes way to an implicit or secret end which he hath, and determineth to prosecute with much ardency in the following parts of this Treatise. There are two sorts of unbelievers, the one under a temporary, the other under a final unbelief, the elect and the reprobate. Mr. Baxter here driveth with all his force to prove both under the law, because he conceiveth that if he prove the elect before they believe in Christ, are under the law, and so granted to be, it may be proved much the more easily and plainly, that they are so also after they become believers. For many of the strongest Arguments which are for the one are for the other, and which are against the one are against the other also: So that it is hard to bring reasons for the affirming or denying of either, without giving advantage for the like affirming or denying of both. I purpose not here to anticipate but to suspend the dispute upon this Question until Mr. B. shall show his face openly as a Challenger; here he doth but as it were peep behind the Curtain, in comparison of what he saith afterwards with full expressions of himself. Yet that I may not be forced then to retreat hither again to what he doth here deliver, but answer every thing in its own place; I shall at present examine those Scriptures which he here produceth, whether and how far they prove elect unbelievers to be under the law as a Covenant of works. And to clear up a way to the be●ter understanding of these and the like testimonies of Scripture, I shall prefix two Positions visibly and apparently springing from the pure fountain of God's word. First that all which are elected from eternity shall in their appointed times come unto Christ and persevere in him by a living Faith. I mean not only all but only these and none besides them▪ As many as were ordained to eternal life believed, when Christ was, and Acts 13. 48 so still do or shall believe when Christ is, or shall be preached to them. If the Gospel be hid from any (viz. so that they believe not in Christ manifested by the Gospel to them) it is to them that perish, etc. 2 Cor. 4. 3. i e. to them that are not elect but reprobates. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to I will in no wise cast out, [or suffer to be lost] John 6. 37. To come to Christ is to believe truly in him, such shall never be lost, never fall away, or make shipwreck of their Faith. But who are they whom God giveth to Christ that they may believe in him? Thine they were, and thou gavest them me, saith our Saviour. Mr. B. will say they were in a peculiar manner to be God's people, at least by election, and therefore given to Christ that by faith in him they might be saved, Jo: 17. 6. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but unto them that are without all these things are done in Parables; that seeing they may see and not perceive, etc. Mark 4. 11, 12. Why was it given to the one part to know the mystery life and spirit of the Gospel, to the other only the outside and letter thereof? They were within, these without the lines of God's election. They went out from us but they were not of us, for if they had been of us they would without doubt have continued with us, but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not of us, 1 Joh: 2. 19 Not of us, he means, not of the number of them that are called according to God's purpose of Election, Rom. 8. 28. for then they could not have fallen away, All should have wrought for good to them. So that hence it followeth that every elect unbeliever shall come to and continue in the Faith, and whosoever doth not so is manifested not to have been elected of God. 2 That justification or remission of sins, may be considered in a threefold respect. 1 As it is in God, 2 As it is delivered over by God, into the hands of Christ our Mediator. 3 As it is by Christ brought home unto and given into the bosom and possession of any man. As it is in God, I shall pretermit to speak much of it any where, but any thing at all, until Mr B. directly and expressly calls me to it, lest the man should be tormented before his time. For he hates the very naming and thought thereof as an Act Immanent in God, cane pejus & angui, and is ready Jew▪ like to rend his , and fling dust in the air, at any mention thereof, as an article that stands in enmity to his justification by works. 2 Then as it is delivered into the hands of Christ, we may speak of it without such terrible offence to his patience, or setting him into so direful a commotion; conditionally that we will undertake for Christ that he shall be ruled by Mr. B. to do what he appoints with it, that is, to keep it in his pocket and deliver it to no man, but hold all under the Curse of the Law until the day of judgement, we cannot adventure upon such an undertaking, nevertheless shall hold forth the truth of God in this case. This is, that Christ by offering himself a Sacrifice for sin, and presenting the Sacrifice of himself unto God in the most Holy place, i. e. in heaven at his Mercy-seat, hath thereby effectually purchased everlasting redemption, and remission of sins, and hath received a full absolution and acquittance from the father for all his elect by name. So that in Christ they are justified from all sin, and freed from the Law as a Covenant of works even while they are unbelievers, have this freedom (I mean) in the hand of Christ though not in their own apprehension and possession. Though as to themselves and their own judgements, and as to the apprehension of men, they are under the Law, under wrath, yet in Christ they have done their Law, their iniquities past present and to come are blotted out, their peace made, and they reconciled to God. This is observably set forth in Aaron [and the other High Priests his successors, as they were Types of Christ] Aaron the High Priest must bear the Names of the Children of Israel engraven upon 2 precious stones on the two shoulders of his Ephod, before the Lord for a memorial, Exod. 28. 10, 12. yea he must bear their names in the breastplate of judgement upon his Heart, when he goeth in unto the Holy place, [viz. with the blood of the sacrifice for the expiating of si●s] for a memorial before God continually. What memorial? that they were the men for whom the sacrifice was offered; and that their sins were purged thereby, that God should therefore have them in remembrance to preserve them from the Curse and judgement of the Law, for so it followeth, And Aaron shall bear the judgement of the Children of Israel upon his heart continually, ver. 29, 30. These things were but figuratively done in Aaron, but really and fully accomplished in Christ his Antitype, who being constituted our High Priest, and having received Command from the Father not only what but for whom to offer, even for Israel, i. e. the elect of God, (which for a great part) were not yet in being, h●th by his own blood entered into the Holy place, with their names engraven upon his heart, having purchased for them an everlasting Redemption. Not into the Holy place made with hands, but into Heaven there to appear for them by way of Mediation and Intercession, Heb. 9 12, 24. Rom. 8. 34. Wherefore also God hath given him not only an acquittance for them from all their sins, Heb. 10. 17. but hath also given and delivered up them into his hands, as hath been before proved, and Mr. B▪ himself confesseth, yet not as he insinuateth, to plague and Curse them, and hold them during life under the intolerable bondage of the Law; but to deal with them in a gentle dispensation, according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace, in tender mercy to draw them unto and keep them in the Faith without all Apostasy, to the end. All which he performeth to all his elect, as is evident from most of those Scriptures which were brought for the confirmation of the former point, and elsewhere, Gods giving them to Christ, and into his dispensation, being their perfect translation from the Covenant of the Law, into the Covenant of Grace: And this was done before their believing. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, first they are given, and then they shall come. Be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace, for I have much people in this City, said the Lord Jesus to Paul of the Corinthians, yet Heathen, Acts 18. 9, 10. They were his people before, therefore must they be gathered to him by Faith. I have other sheep which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, etc. Jo: 10. 16. he means the Gentiles that were infidels yet, nevertheless his sheep that must afterward hear his voice, because they were his sheep, how were these termed Christ's people, Christ's sheep, while yet in Paganism, idolatry and unbeleef, but because they were his redeemed and justified ones? Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, Jo: 10. 26. What is that, but because they were not of the number of them for whose sins he had effectually satisfied God's justice. 3 Justification and Remission of sins may be considered also as it is brought into their own apprehension and Conscience, that were justified by Christ, and in Christ before. And in this sense it is oftenest taken in Scriptures, yea always when we are said to be justified by Faith. This is done when Christ by the manifestation and ministry of the Gospel maketh known in all ages to them for whose sins he hath satisfied, the Mystery of Grace by him, and frameth their hearts with all gladness by Faith to embrace him and it thorough him, unto Justification. Then are they justified in themselves, and remission of sins sealed up by the spirit to their own Consciences, and so have the Kingdom of God within them, consisting of Peace, Righteousness, and Joy in the Holy Ghost. Before this Christ had life for them, now they are said to have it themselves, Jo: 20. 31. 1 Jo: 5. 12. Until now was their winter season, so that all their life was in Christ as the Vine or Root, now is their spring, so that the life showeth itself in them as the branches blossoming with peace and joy unto all obedience. Before life was purchased and seizure thereof taken for them by Christ: Now they are passed from death to life, 1 Jo: 3. 14. i e. are put into the actual possession of it. Before though they were Lords of all (as the Apostle in a case little different from this speaketh, Gal. 4. 1, 2.) yet differed nothing from Servants, being (in their own apprehension) under the threats and condemnation of the Law, and so still in slavish, fears and terrors. But now they see their freedom and take possession of it, with boldness to cry Abba Father, and to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, and through the veil of his flesh, with full assurance of hope, etc. Hebrews 10. 19, 20. These things so premissed, we shall the better see whether the Scriptures which Mr. Baxter here produceth, do by their own force, or else by his misinterpretation of them seem to prove that the Elect while unbelievers, are under the Law as a Covenant of works. First that of Joh. 3. 18. is a threat of the Gospel Covenant against the Contemners of it and of Christ the preacher thereof, and not of the Law Covenant. And it is brandished against reprobats and not against elect unbelievers. Christ had now preached his Gospel a while in Galilee; the elect believed, and of them saith Christ they are not condemned. The reprobates would not believe; of them he saith, they are condemned already: and the reason is rendered, not because they have broken the moral Law, but because they have not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the condemnation that [Christ the] light is come into the world, and men preferred their own darkness before him, etc. The same also is the meaning of the 36 ver. which he citeth. Neither of these pointing in their threat to the elect but the reprobates among unbelievers. Neither threatening for Contumacy against the Law but the Gospel. Therefore nothing here proveth the elect before they believe to be under the Law, as a Covenant of works. Again those Scriptures which he saith bid us to believe for the remission of sins, Act. 2. 38, etc. do only prove that faith in Christ doth justify the elect in the third consideration of Justification or remission of sins before mentioned, viz. as it evidenceth and brings home into their apprehension and Conscience that their sins are remitted. For so run the words, in that 10 of Act. v. 47. that Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins; not denying that Christ had received it for them before, but affirming only that now they should receive it from Christ. Besides, this promise is held forth there promiscuously to all both elect and reprobate, and it is but an offer not the gift of pardon, to distinguish betwixt them for whom Christ had and those for whom he had not effectually satisfied and received absolution from the Father, by the one's believing and receiving by faith from the hand of Christ, the pardon, and the others refusal and manifesting thereby their abode under death and the Law still. The surety had paid the penalty of the obligation, taken up the bonds, and acquittance or discharge of the debt. Thenceforth the Creditor had no more plea against either principal or surety. Nevertheless the principal knew it not, therefore playeth least in sight, is in continual fear of arrests, thinks every bush hath a Sergeant or Bailiff under it; but at length the surety gives and delivers into his hand both the acquittance, & the obligation Canceled. Now is his first receiving of a discharge, now he first finds himself free from his Creditors obligation, now hath he the first comfort of the benefit; but he was discharged before, though he knew it not; so is it with the elect, etc. Therefore Mr. baxter's inference hence is unsound. He addeth the Testimony of Paul, Eph. 2. 3. That the redeemed were by nature the Children of wrath: who denyeth it? But this is nothing to the question. It is not here enquired whether the redeemed drew not the seeds of sin and death by natural propagation from their parents, as much as others: But whether by the satisfaction which Christ made for them, according to the Covenant of grace, they were not redeemed from that wrath before they yet believed. It is true what Mephibosheth said of himself and his brethren, to David, We were all as dead men before my Lord the King, etc. 2 Sam. 19 28. because they were the progeny of Saul that fought against David. Nevertheless by means of the Covenant that intervened between David and Jonathan, Mephibosheth had right to all the favour that King David could express. As for those testimonies cited by way of Thesis and Antithesis, out of Gal. 5. ver. 3, 4. & ver. 18, 23. they make wholly against him, nothing for him. The 3 & 4 verses, speak nothing to the question in hand, but utterly destroy that to which in this whole dispute he driveth, nothing to the question in hand. The circumcised are bound or debtors to the whole Law, and Christ is become of none effect to them. He was to have proved that believers, were before they believed under the Law. This Text speaketh not of the elect before they believed, but of professed believers returning to Circumcision and the Law, to fetch thence help unto their justification after that they seemingly at least believed in Christ: so here is nothing that makes for him, because nothing to the present question. But much against him in reference to the grand thing which he laboureth for, to bring believers under the Law as a Covenant of works. Whosoever doth so saith the Apostle in the least mite, that contents not himself with Christ alone, taketh in but so poor a piece of the Law as Circumcision to help with Christ to Justification, the same person hereby forfeiteth all his claim to Grace and Christ, and must gain heaven by his perfect fullfilling of the Law, or must be damned in hell for ever. Into this state Mr. Baxter striveth to bring himself and his disciples. I shall not wish them joy in it, because I use not to wish impossibilities. Touching the verses which he puts in opposition to these, ver. 18, 23. But if ye be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law, against such there is no law. If he mean simply and sincerely what the Apostle here meaneth by being led by the Spirit, viz. the seeking of righteousness by Christ alone, as the same Apostle more fully expresseth himself, Gal. 3. 3. Phil. 3. 3. Then by granting that such are not under the Law, there is no law against them; he destroyeth and recanteth all that he hath before spoken to prove believers under the Law. But if by being led by the Spirit, his aim be to bring in works to justification under the name of the fruits of the Spirit, we shall here forbear to answer him, because it is besides the present question, leaving it to its fit place where he openly explaineth himself. And no less abhorrent from the question is his next proof, Gal. 3. 22. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ may be given to them that believe. What is this to the purpose in hand? we deny not the promise of, or the promised Justification and remission of sins, by faith in Jesus Christ to be given to them that believe, into their hands and possession when they believe, by affirming that Christ hath taken possession thereof for them before they believe, that he may let it down into their hearts when they believe. He ascended up on high, and led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. Eph. 4. 8. The Apostle fetcheth his authority from the word in Psal. 68 18. where it is said, He received gifts for men, viz. to give them in his time. But the Apostle contents himself with the scope of the word, not binding himself to the bare letter and sound thereof. So Christ at his ascension received for us the gifts of Justification, and remission, and all other benefits of his passion; They were then laid up for us in his Custody, so that we had them in him before our actual existence upon earth. But he gives them to us into our sensible possession, when we come to be, to live and to believe. That which he citeth from Gal. 4, 5. is altogether besides the question also. Himself acknowledgeth that it proveth us only to be under the Law when Christ redeemed us, or undertook to pay our ransom. Not that we were under the Law after he had redeemed us by paying our ransom, before we yet believed. The words are these in the 4 & 5 verses; God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law. The scope of the Apostle here, is one and the same with that to which he drives, Gal. 2. 15, 16. We who are Jew's by nature, [a holy seed, within the Covenant, and have all the privileges of the Law] and not sinners of the Gentiles [that are without the Covenant and the Law] knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; even we have believed that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law no flesh is justified. Why then do we draw the poor Gentiles to seek any furtherance to their justification, by the observation of the Law, by which ourselves who were most privileged with it could not be justified but by Christ only without the law? So here, Even they that had the law and were not a little zealous for and active in the righteousness of the law, had need of a redeemer, were justified and saved not at all by the law's righteousness, but only by Christ's redeeming of them: What madness is it then in you O foolish Galathians, that are not of the holy stock of Israel, but sinners of the Gentiles to seek any help to your justification by the works of the law, which could not justify the very Israelites that were born and brought up in it: and not to repose yourselves upon Christ alone? If Mr. Baxter will pretend any other meaning of the Text besides, he shall therein wound and not strengthen his Cause. For he speaks of the same persons here, to be under the law only in the hand of a Mediator, not under the Curse of the law, but under such an administration thereof, that even before they actually believed in Christ, the very person of Christ, are affirmed ver. 1. to be Lords of all, all the inheritance which is by Christ; ergo not under the wrath of God before they embraced the Faith of Christ. As for the other Scriptures which he annexeth yet further to prove, that the very elect before and until they believe, are under the Law in the sense so oft manifested; let him once show how he will argue, and what he will conclude, and upon what grounds, from them; we shall be ready to answer him. In the interim I profess I see not any thing in them more prevalent to his purpose, than a night's lodging in a bed of snow and ice, to cure the Cough. Yet from all these wrested Scriptures he Concludes at last that the deliverance which believers have by Christ from the Curse of the Law, is a conditional deliverance, viz. if they will obey the Gospel, i. e. when they believe, if they will believe, not only while they live, but also when they are dead and buried. For as we say that a conditional proposition doth nihil ponere, so it is true in the sense of Mr Bax. here, that this conditional promise doth nihil promittere. The Condition as long as this world lasteth being still in performing not performed, and so nothing obtained. Yet will he have this new nothing together with the abrogation of the ceremonial Law, (to which we never were, none but the Israelites ever have been subject) to be the great privilege of believers and effect of Christ's blood. When we poor souls with our dull eyes, can see no more privilege that we have herein by Christ's blood, than the worst of infidels and reprobates have, for they also ●ave this conditional deliverance from the curse, and freedom from the ceremonial law. And this deliverance (saith he) is yet more full, when we perform the conditions of our freedom; And then we are said to dead to the Law, Rom. 7. 4. and the obligation to punishment dead, as to us, ver. 6. This is indeed a full and perfect deliverance. But what doth he mean in saying when we perform &c. either when we are performing the conditions, That were a contradiction to himself in what he saith p. 74. that we are not perfectly freed till the day of resurrection and judgement. And so also it will be hard for another save Mr. Br. to make sense of the words. That the deliverance of believers is yet more full when they perform the Conditions, are performing the conditions of their freedom; i. e. more full when they believe than when they do believe. For if we should grant to Mr. Br, Faith to be a condition, and not rather a mean or instrument of our justification, yet would we grant him no other condition thereof. Or doth he mean, it is full when they have performed the Conditions? it seems then that some of the Conditions are left to be performed in the next world, because until then he tells us we can have no such perfect freedom. This is the free Grace of God which Mr. Br boasteth himself so much to extol, p. 79. let him that delights in it, be his disciple. That which he speaks in the upshott for the mitigation of his harsh doctrine aforegoing; (that he knoweth this Covenant of works continueth not to the same ends and uses as before, etc.) is but a trick of the Jesuits, to give sugar after the poison which was before gone down to destroy. Neither can he make out how believers are under the law of nature as a Covenant of works, and yet not bound to seek life according to the tenor and condition of that Covenant. If any marvel that Mr. Baxter should so waste his spirits in abusing both divine and humane learning to prove the Saints to be still under the Curse, under the law as a Covenant of works, he will cease to wonder, if he take notice of a further aim that he hath therein. He would not out of doubt have so much insisted on it, had he not looked to a further end in it. If the believers are still under a Covenant of works, as to the Curse, wrath, and Condemnation, much more are they under a Covenant of works as unto life and Justification. If the former be once granted, he accounts the game won as to the latter. Therefore doth he so much stir in the former, that he may with the more facility and less contradiction, bring in afterwards the latter, Justification by works, which is his very business in Compiling this book. CHAP. XI. Whether as the Covenant of Works was made with all mankind in Adam their representative, so the Covenant of Grace was made with all the elect in Christ their Representer? What relation the Covenants made with Adam, Abraham, the Israelites, and lastly with us under the Gospel have to that Covenant made with Christ. B. Thesis 14. p. 89. THe Tenor of the New Covenant is this, that Christ having made sufficient satisfaction to the Law, whosoever will repent and believe in him to the end, shall be justified through that satisfaction from all that the Law did charge upon them, and be moreover advanced to far greater privileges and glory than they fell from: But whosoever fulfileth not these conditions, shall have no more benefit, by the blood of Christ, than what they here received and abused, but must answer the charge of the Law themselves; And for their neglect of Christ, must also suffer a far greater condemnation. Or briefly, whosoever believeth in Christ, shall not perish but have everlasting life; but he that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, Mar. 16. 16. Jo. 3. 15, 16, 17, 18. 36. & 5. 24. & 6. 35, 40. 47. & 7 38. & 11. 25, 26. & 12. 46. Act. 10. 43. Rom. 3. 26. & 4. 5. & 5. 1 & 10. 4, 10. 1 Jo. 5. 15. Mar. 1. 15. & 6. 12. Luk. 13. 3. 5. & 24. 47. Act. 5. 31. & 11. 18. & 20. 21. & 2. 38. & 3. 19 & 8. 22. & 26. 20. Rev. 2. 5, 16. Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 9 Mr. Br having (as he thinks) laid prostrate the whole generation of Christ, and antipapisticall believers under the Curse, under the wrath of God, sticks as close to them, as the vulture to the carcase, or the beetle to the dung, or the flesh-fly to the sore. For here again he concludes that the very Tenor of the New Covenant is that notwithstanding Christ's sufficient satisfaction made to the law, they must remain unjustified, unpardoned, under sin, under vengeance to the end, and then possibly after many hundreds and it may be thousands of years wherein their bodies have laid under rottenness, and their souls under all hell-torments which the law can inflict, they shall be justified. And this (very probably) shall be about that time when origen's reprobates and devils shall arise from hell and fly away thence all at once and together to heaven. For whosoever is not justified and pardoned here in this life, shall surely not attain it until that St Nevers day of Origen. But to this it hath been answered already. He seems now to bring some new thing, and that which every believing soul gaspeth to hear made out in its fullness viz. What the Tenor of the New Covenant is. viz. That whosoeve will repent and believe to the end, shall be justified after the end. When the Serpent hath got his head into the hole the body also, by little and little follows. Erewhile it was, he that believeth to the end, now it is, he that repenteth to the end, and believeth to the end, that shall be after all ends and worlds justified. Yet this is but the head and neck of the Serpent. The bulk and belly are behind, and the same full of all the qualifications and good works that Mr. Br can devise, or all the herds of Monks and Jesuits have devised to his hands. These all must be according to Mr. Baxters' Gospel, as effectual as faith, or Christ himself to Justification. I should but preoccupate a dispute here to examine whether repentance be one of the many thousand conditions of Justification which Mr. Br in the sequel of this Treatise holds necessary to Justification. I shall therefore leave the handling thereof to its due place. Only by the way, if by repentance Mr. Br here meaneth any thing heterogeneous, or specifically distinct from faith, I affirm and shall in its place make good, that this his assertion is totally Popish, against the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. As for the Scriptures which he doth here roll out in a Crowd without rank or file to prove it; partly because he neither allegeth the words, nor shows how he would argue from them, partly because his shuffling them together in Clusters, tends only to make the labour of his answerer almost intolerable, to show particularly how little each Scripture makes for him, and how much many of them against him; partly because he doth still reserve to himself, [whatsoever be said in answer] an advantage to evade, by telling us that the force of that Scripture doth in another way, and not in that to which we have answered, prove for him; but principally because he quotes the same Scriptures over and over again in another place more proper, where it shall be more pertinent to answer them, I shall therefore here forbear to speak to them, lest I should there be forced to omit it, or to say over again what had been here said before: Nay himself will not have them to be answered here, for he speaks so ambiguously, that he will not have his meaning understood, telling us only that upon these Conditions (forsooth) performed, we shall be justified in another world, but doth not let us know from him whether upon performance of them we may be justified in the present world. But he passeth to the explication. Explication. Bax. Christ's satisfaction to the Law, goes before the New Covenant though not in regard of its payment, (which was in the fullness of time) yet in regard of the undertaking, acceptance and efficacy. There could be no treating on new terms till the old obligation was satisfied and suspended. I account them not worth the confuting, who tell us that Christ is the only party conditioned with, and that the New Covenant as to us, hath no conditions. (so Saltmarsh &c.) The place that they allege for this assertion is that Jer. 31. 31, 32, 33. cited in Heb. 8. 8, 9, 10. Which place containeth not the full tenor of the whole New Covenant, but either it is called the New Covenant, because it expresseth the nature of the benefits of the New Covenant, as they are offered on God's part, without mentioning man's conditions. (that being not pertinent to the business the Prophet had in hand) Or else it speaketh only what the Lord will do with his elect, in giving them the first Grace, and enabling them to perform the Conditions of the New Covenant; and in that sense may be called a New Covenant also; as I have showed before p. 7, 8. though properly it be a prediction, and belong only to Gods will of purpose and not to his legislative will. But those men erroneously think that nothing is a condition, but what is to be performed by our awn strength. But if they will believe Scripture, the places before alleged will prove, that the New Covenant hath Conditions on our part as well as the old. Some benefit from Christ did the condemned here receive as the delay of their condemnation, and many mere mercies, though they turned them all into greater judgements, but of this more when we treat of general redemption. I shall here propound some questions to Mr. Baxter, about his own words to be answered by some of his Chaplains or Disciples, For I am not so ambitious as to expect his stooping in person to so low an office. 1 Whether Christ's satisfaction to the law were undertaken and so virtually made, without an agreement between the Father and the Son, that the Son should give, and the Father accept such satisfaction? Mr. Br so great a Master of reason, who hath sacrificed all his religion to reason, can judge whether this could rationally (if possibly) be done. 2 If by agreement whether this agreement was not by way of Covenant between the Father and the Son? and so whether the whole business of man's justification were not transacted and concluded upon, first between the Father and the Son? 3 Whether Christ undertook to give satisfaction or the Father to accept it for any other besides those that in time have or shall have the full benefit thereof? I mean, besides the elect, whom the Son must perfectly know because he was in the bosom of the Father, and was thoroughly acquainted with all his bosom secrets? 4 Whether any one can miss of the benefit of this satisfaction, when it is once so given and accepted for him by name? 5 Why Mr. Br speaking of the payment of this satisfaction, doth plainly mention the time when it was made, namely, the fullness of time: in the very same breath speaking of the undertaking, acceptance, and efficacy thereof, doth not also name the time when that was Covenanted and Concluded upon? Did he not see that it was needful to the Completing of this member of the sentence, in a full equipage with the former, to name the time of this as well as of that? Was it a bear or an evil Conscience in the way that put him to such an Aposiopesis? that shook him into a dumbnes, when truth, honesty and plain dealing bade him speak out? Whether he had said before all time, or shortly upon the beginning of time, he saw he should have given a deathly wound, either to his Cause, or to his Credit, or to both; therefore like a cunning sophister, stops his breath, and speaks nothing. 6 And if the Covenant of grace, in all and every of its Articles were thus agreed upon between the Father and the Son, either before the actual existence of any man in the world, or as Mr. Br here Confesseth, before Adam and Eve the sole persons then existent upon earth were treated with about it, how then doth he add, that he accounts him not worth the Confuting, which tell us, that Christ was the only party conditioned with, and that the New Covenant, as to us, hath no Conditions (so Saltmarsh &c.) thus Casting an Odium upon this opinion, as if Mr. Saltmarsh and his Disciples alone held it, and that never any before him thought of it? For my own part, where the Scriptures are silent, I am in great dread to be loquent; and where the word speaketh sparingly and darkly, I dare not to conclude too peremptorily. Neither in points that are controvertible in religion, but which way soever decided, do not Confer much to, or detract from the Basis and foundation of our salvation, would I prosecute either vehement or endless disputes. Every least truth in Divinity is precious indeed, therefore not to be betrayed, but to be preserved more carefully than our life & blood. Yet our life and blood ought not to be so dear to us as the Peace of the Churches of Christ. And the disturbing of the Church's peace may sometimes more obscure the honour of the Gospel, than the suspending of the defence of some not very important truths, for a while, could have done. I should not therefore quarrel against them that ascribe to the New Covenant its Condition, and make faith alone as it instrumentally receiveth Christ, the only Condition of our being justified to and in ourselves. I see not so great eclipse upon the glory of God's Grace or Christ's merits caused by such an assertion, that we should disturb the peace of the Churches about it, were it not that the Papists and Arminians by this unscriptural phrase do seek totally to corrupt the doctrine of justification. Nevertheless Mr. baxter's contumelious words shall not affright me from delivering my judgement what I think most probable, and most agreeing with holy Scripture touching the point in hand. Yet laying it down not as absolute and certain, but as that which is yet most probable to me until I shall by further enquiry into the Scriptures, or by the help of others, that have more enquired, see Cause to judge otherwise. As for Mr. Baxter, though in humane literature, and in things subject to the trial of reason, I hold his judgement not Contemptible, but equal with the most, yea the best; yet in Gospel and spiritual things, I find him so stupefied, perverted, and wholly spoilt with Philosophy, seeing so little of the mystery of Christ, yea so prejudiced against the sacred things which he knows not, that I account him one of those whom the Apostle describeth 1 Tim. 1. 17. Desiring to be teachers of the Law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. And therefore am so little affrighted from any doctrine of this kind by his abasing thereof, that I am the more induced to search into it if it be not a pearl indeed, because he hath trampled it. I shall then express what I think in these following positions. First as God hath made two great and general Covenants with mankind, each of them comprising other & lesser Covenants under it: So because there were not existent personally (at the time of making these covenants) the singular individuals of mankind to whom these Covenants belonged, therefore did he appoint 2 public persons, each of which then existing when either Covenant was made, to be (as it were) representatives of all the singular persons, that then did or after should exist to be under either Covenant, with whom when the Covenants were concluded, they should be in perfect force for or against all that were represented in their several ages, as though they had been but then made particularly with them in their own persons. The one of these Covenants is usually termed the Covenant of works, the other the Covenant of grace. The public or common person Covenanted with in the one was the first Adam, in the other the second Adam Christ Jesus. The case is clear in respect of the first Adam, and the Covenant of works. Mr. Br himself grants every inch of it. That whatsoever law or positive Commands were given to Adam, whatsoever promises in cases of performance, or threats in case of breach, were added, all pertained as full to all the future progeny of Adam, as represented in him, and enclosed in his loins, as to Adam himself. And accordingly while Adam stood we stood in him, when he fell we fell in him and with him, as deep under the wrath of God as himself. I forbear to prove any of this, because it is granted on all sides. But the question is wholly about Christ the second Adam, whether the Covenant of grace was so made with him, as the Covenant of works with Adam? and what that Covenant of grace was? I conceive that both there was such a Covenant between the Father and the Son in reference to us, and that this was the tenor thereof: viz. that the Son in time appointed should assume to himself our nature, and in it represent the persons of the elect that were equally sinners and condemned with others in Adam; that he should offer himself in our flesh a sacrifice for sin; that upon his undertaking thereof the sins of all the elect should be pardoned, and they of sinners should be made righteous, and delivered up into his hands, no more to be accounted to Adam, but to Christ, and to be preserved in the bosom of his grace & love to eternal glory. And (as Mr. Br acknowledgeth) upon Christ's undertaking etc. The satisfaction was so virtually and effectually made by Christ and accepted by the Father as when it was actually accomplished. First it seems there was such a Covenant; For the Apostle tells us, Rom. 5. 14. that Adam was a figure of him that was to come, which is Christ. And how a figure? Doubtless not only in this that as by him the one and first man, sin and death by sin immediately came upon all men: so by Christ, righteousness, and by it life came upon all the elect: But also in the manner of the agreement of the Type and Antitype together. That as Adam representing all mankind, by his unfaithfullnes in breaking the Covenant brought sin and death upon all that he represented: so Christ representing all the elect, by his faithfulness in performing the Covenant etc. brought righteousness and justification of life upon all the elect represented in him. Yea the Holy Ghost in express words testifieth to such a Covenant. In the volume of thy book it is written of me that I should do thy will O God, saith he when he comes into the world, i. e. it is testified in the word what Covenant hath passed betwixt thee and me etc. Heb. 10. 5-10. yea and testifieth to the tenor of the Covenant, his coming with a body to be offered in sacrifice: this will of God he came to do. And moreover he giveth witness also to the faithfulness of Christ in offering it, Lo I come; and to the efficacy of it upon all immediately for whom it was offered; By the which will we are sanctified, i. e. no more taken for sinners, but Consecrated as holy to the Lord through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, ibid. The same is employed in that phrase which here termeth the offering of Christ's body the doing of the Fathers will. And elsewhere obedience unto death even the death of the Cross, Phil. 2. 8. Obedience and will presuppose Command and Covenant. And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the one righteousness or one act of righteousness of Christ, opposed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that one offence of Adam, (for so the phrase seems to me to hold out more grammatically, than the offence of one and the righteousness of one:) doth not obscurely argue that one righteousness of Christ in fullfilling, opposite to that one offence of Adam in once breaking the Covenant, Rom. 5. 18. And that all this was covenanted to be done and accepted for and in the behalf of the elect, and to them and none but them to be effectuallized, is also evident from the Scriptures. For he did the will of his Father in offering himself as was before showed; i. e. did according as it was agreed and covenanted between him and the Father, died for them only for whom he made prayers and intercessions. But when his time was come to suffer he prayed & interceded not for the world, but for them only whom the Father had given him out of the world, Joh. 17. 6, 9 Therefore for them only he undertook to satisfy. Therefore is it that he is said to lay down his life [only] for his sheep, not for the goats, Joh. 10. 11. 15. For them whose names were written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev. 13. 8. The rest things contained in this position are granted by Mr. Br himself, therefore need no proof here. I have couched together many things in this, to avoid multiplicity of positions. 2 That by force of this satisfaction so given and accepted for the sins of the Elect, according to the Tenor of this Covenant between the Father and the Son, all the Elect of God were Justified in Christ from the very time of Christ's undertaking to be their Justifier. Therefore in the last alleged Scripture their names are said to be written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Here though the book of life which is elsewhere mentioned to be God's book will be taken by Mr. Br to be the book of Election, yet this book of life of the lamb is to be understood for the book of Justification, implying indeed the election of all that are written therein, but primarily and in its direct sense comprehending the names of them that are justified by the blood of the sacrificed Lamb of God. And these are said to be written in Christ's book, that is registered in Christ, and upon Christ's account from the foundation of the world, immediately upon Christ's undertaking to satisfy for them. Of him ye are in Christ, saith the Apostle, who of God is made unto us Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1. 30. When was he so made unto us? Mr. Br answereth, not only upon the payment but upon his undertaking to pay our debt. Therefore is he said to be Jesus Christ yesterday, and to day, and for ever, Heb. 13. 8. And that not only in reference to them that lived in all ages of the world, but in respect of us also, that in all ages of the world he hath been, and will be what now he is our Jesus our Christ. But this position hath been before proved in the former Chapter, in answer to Mr. Baxters' 13 Thesis and its explication, where I spoke to his sixth Argument. 3 The Ministerial way of offering and conveying the benefits of Christ's satisfaction into the souls and apprehensions of men, now used under the Gospel, according to the command of Christ, is or at least sounds like an inferior Covenant, subordinate and sub-servient to this between the Father and the Son, whereof we have spoken. Christ having now made full satisfaction to the Father, invites all, and brings in his elect, to taste and enjoy by faith all the perfections which he hath merited and received into his hands for them. It is confessed by Mr. B. Thes. 8. That God is so fully pleased with the Sons undertaking of this business of Mediation, that he hath delivered all things into his hands, and given him all power in heaven and in earth, and made him Lord both of the dead and living. And the Lord Jesus himself affirmeth, that the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement to the Son, i. e. the dispensation and ordering of all things in heaven and in earth. And it is the opinion of great Divines, that the Lord Christ in the old world before the Law, and in all ages under the Law, being that person of the Trinity, which had undertaken to assume our nature unto him, and in it to die for the reconciling of us to God, and entering from the beginning upon his power, to set in order all things to this glorious end; was he that conversed with the Patriarches and Prophets, sometimes in an assumed body like a man, sometimes invisibly, making known the mystery of Redemption by himself to them, and prescribing under what administrations he would have his Church governed until his coming. That it was he who first preached to Adam salvation by the seed of the Woman, and afterward more clearly to Abraham. That it was he also which delivered the Law upon Mount Sinai, and added there a second Covenant, in show and sound a mere Covenant of works, (Do and be Blessed, Sin and be Cursed) which Covenant alone is expressly called the Old Covenant, and is indeed now repealed, and abolished from being any more a Covenant, saving to them that put themselves under it. This was but a temporary Covenant, an Appendix to the Covenant before made with Abraham; and both this and that with Abraham were but subordinate Covenants to that before mentioned between God and Christ. Here now all that were justified before Christ's coming in the flesh, were justified in Christ by force of the first Covenant made between the Father and the Son. The promise to Adam, and the Covenants made with Abraham, and with the Israelites, together with all the Sacraments and signs annexed to all these, tended only to bring them that were justified before in Christ to a real and sensible participation of it and the comforts thereof, by Faith within their own consciences: So is it now under the Gospel administration, That first Covenant is that by which our justification is completely finished in Christ; the preaching of Faith in a Covenant way, tends only to this, that as many as were before justified in Christ, may by Faith have their Justification declared and evidenced to their consciences, to fill them with joy unspeakable and full of glory, and with that peace which passeth all understanding. Not but that Christ could without any such Sub-Covenanting have filled up his elect with all the marrow and mystery of Justification, by immediate Revelation from himself, as he dealt with Paul the Apostle: but that this way made most for his and his Father's glory, both in them that are saved and in them that perish. 4 Faith itself, (much less any other qualification, gift or act) is not a condition of Justification in foro Dei, there Christ hath pleaded our discharge by his blood, & still maketh intercession for us, but a means or instrument by which we receive Christ Jesus, and the righteousness or justification that is in him to ourselves for consolation and salvation, in foro conscientiae, so stood the case in respect of the under Covenant that of the Law. When the Lord Christ had published his Law upon Mount Sinai, and given to Israel by Moses all his Judgements and Statutes, there now passeth a solemn Covenant betwixt Christ and them, the people also every one in person assenting gladly; to fulfil all that they might be blessed, or if in the least point they should fail, to yield themselves cursed. This Covenant was made more visibly and in every part more strictly after the nature and rule of Covenants, than this under the Gospel. Yet will any say that this perfect obedience so Covenanted, was a condition of their justification and salvation, without which none could be justified or saved: Then were all damned, for no one either did or could perfectly obey. Nay it was added because of transgressions, saith the Apostle, Gal. 3. 19 i e. as a means so to operate about sin in the discovery of it, and the damnation that is by it, so also to convince men that they might be driven from all supposition of their own righteousness, and seek righteousness by Christ alone, in whom alone the elect were justified before this Covenant was made. In the same manner the holding forth of justification now under the Gospel, in the form and likeness of a Covenant; Believe and be saved, believe not and perish for ever: proveth not Faith to be the condition of the New Covenant, (as hath been said) even the whole preaching of salvation by Christ, and enjoining of Faith upon all to receive it, is an effect of that First great Covenant of Grace between the Father and the Son, and a part of Christ's Prophetical Office which he undertook in that Covenant to accomplish, in undertaking the Mediatorship between God and Men. An effect of that first Covenant I say. For so it was agreed that All which the Father had given to Christ, by him to be justified and saved, should come to him, i. e. believe in him, Jo: 6. 37. To this purpose it was Covenanted on the Son's part, to seek and to save that which was lost, Luke 19 10. to call unto him all to participate by Faith of the life, light, righteousness and salvation that he had received for them, Isa. 55. 1. Io: 7. 37. Ma. 11. 28. This was a part of his Prophetical Office, to discover the treasures of Grace in his heart, and to invite all to the participation thereof. And then on the Father's part it was Covenanted that he would draw to Christ all the Elect, all that he had given to Christ, that while the Gospel sounded in their ears, he would divinely by his Spirit teach and move their hearts, that they shall not but come to Christ, Jo: 6. 43, 44. And lastly it is agreed on the Sons part again, that of all that the Father thus bringeth to him, he must cast out none, lose none, but raise them all at the last day [to glorification] and the reason of all is annexed, It is the Father's will, i. e. that which was Covenanted between the Father and him in Heaven, and he came down from Heaven, not to do his own will, i. e. any thing of his private will, without the consent of his Father, but the will of him that sent him, i. e. what was Covenanted between the Father and him, and concurrent with the will of both, Jo: 6. 37, 38, 39 Thus all that which Mr B. calleth the Covenant of Grace, is but an effect or an Article and branch of the Covenant made of old between God and Christ. And Faith not so properly termed a condition of justification, as an instrument to apprehend the present comfort of it, being before ours in Christ. 5 That this Covenant of Grace is absolute, shall be the work of the next Chapter to evince. CHAP. XII. That Text of Jer: 31. 31, 32, 33, etc. opened, and Mr. Baxters' elusions by which he would evince that it proveth not a free and unconditional Covenant answered: with some other Argumentations with Mr. Baxter about the same Question. I Now come to that Testimony of Jer. 31. 31, 32, 33. cited in Heb. 8. 8-10. against which Mr. B. so much excepteth. That New Covenant there mentioned is called the New Covenant, not in opposition to the Old Covenant made in the beginning with Adam, but in opposition to that Covenant made two thousand and six hundred years after at least, with Israel upon Mount Sinai. And that Covenant upon Mount Sinai is called the Old Covenant, not in opposition to the Cov: of Grace made [if not from eternity according to Mr. B. yet] by Mr B. acknowledgement almost 3000 years before, and in those thousands of years oft held out afresh and renewed: but in opposition to the Covenant of Grace as it is now held forth in a new form and administration under the Gospel. So that the two Covenants there mentioned, are termed Old and New, not for their differing in substance, but for their different ways of administration. The Church of Israel then, and the Churches of Christ now, are and were under the same Covenant of Grace in substance; but the Church then under a legal and the Church now under an Evangelicall and spiritual administration thereof. That was the old, this the new administration, and in respect hereof the same Covenant then and now, are termed the Old and New Covenant. This is evident from the Text, It shall come to pass (saith the Lord) that in those days I will make a New Covenant with [them] not such as I made with their Fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my Covenant they broke, though I were an Husband to them, saith the Lord. But this is the Covenant that I will make with [them] in those days, I will put my Laws in their minds, etc. And I will be their God, etc. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, etc. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Here Mr. B. must 1 Grant that the Old Covenant in this place mentioned, was the Covenant of the Law given in the Wilderness. For this is expressly affirmed where it is said to be made with their Fathers when the Lord took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt. And 2 Notwithstanding Israel being under the Covenant, they were not either wholly under a Covenant of works, or besides the Covenant of Grace. For the Apostle maketh these two phrases, to be Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and Strangers from the Covenant of Promise, to sound one and the same thing, Ephes. 2. 12. and telleth us that the Law which was 430 years after, could not null the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, so as to make the Promise of no effect: but that after the addition of this Legal Covenant, that Gospel Covenant made with Abraham, and them i● him, of blessedness by Christ the seed of Abraham, stood firm unto them still, Gal. 3. 17. This also will doubtless be granted. 3 That therefore the Gospel Covenant in this Scripture promised, is called a New Covenant, not in opposition to that made with Abraham, for that is the same with this here promised, only that was confirmed of God in Christ to come, this in Christ already come; and yet in opposition to that legal administration of it, and additory Covenant of the Law 430 years after annexed. 4 That this additional Covenant was that Pedagogy of the Law under which the Apostle affirmeth the Jews (though Lords of all) to be kept until the coming of Christ, in the third and fourth chapters to the Galathians. And it consisted partly of Ceremonial Laws and typical Ordinances pointing to Christ that was to come, and obscurely teaching Christ and Faith in him: partly of the Moral Commandments, the observation whereof was enjoined as a condition of attaining that blessedness before promised to Abraham in Christ, yet so as this condition, If ye will obey, was still in the hand of a Mediator, satisfying for disobedience, because no perfect obedience could be fulfilled. This Pedagogy or leading of the Jewish Church by the hand while it was a child in the knowledge of the mystery of salvation by Christ was needful, it could not well be without the typical Ordinances, which by Lectures read upon them by their teachers, might discover and seal up much of Christ to them. Neither could it well be without the promises and threats of the Law, while yet the Grace of the Lord Christ was veiled to them, that in the light joy and brightness thereof they could not as the Saints now run the race of God's Commandments of pure love without some mixture of servile fear. 5 It will hence then follow that the New Covenant here promised is termed a new Covenant, because exempted from that additament of the Law. 1 From the Ceremonial Law, which in its revealing of Christ veiled him, and let out but a dark shadow of him and the grace that is by him, so that there was need of a large exposition upon every figure, Circumcision, Passeover, Sacrifices, etc. Brother to teach Brother, and one Neighbour another what these things meant, and yet at last both teachers and learners remained exceeding dark in the mystery of Christ. But it is otherwise with us under the Gospel. The shadows are vanished and we have the very body which is Christ, Col. 2. 17. Our eyes have seen, we have heard with our ears, and our hands have handled the bread of life, 1 Joh: 1. 1. All is made out to us clearly by the Doctrine and Spirit of Christ. The Law (by which the Prophet speaking in the tone of the jews, and in a phrase which under that administration they best knew, understandeth the Gospel and Law of the Spirit of life) is written in our hearts, revealed and sealed up to our Consciences. We need not say, Who shall ascend up to Heaven, or who shall descend to the deep? etc. But the word is nigh thee even in thy mouth and in thy heart, this is the word of Faith which we preach, Rom. 10. 6-8. So that there is not so much need of brothers teaching brother, etc. because all is held forth not in the shadow but in the clear light. 2 From the conditions of the moral Law, yea from all conditions which made that former administration of the Covenant terrible, because conditions could not be performed. The New Covenant saith the Holy Ghost, shall be absolute, not such as was made with their Fathers, that might be broken; but free and absolute, all begun and ended by the mere grace of God, I will teach, etc. I will be their God, and they shall be my people, I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquity will I remember no more. I am not so happy as to express myself in few words, nor so either reckless, or evilly subtle, as under a pretence of brevity to leave things in ambiguity for self-ends. This I conceive to be the meaning of this text, and in these five Positions I have (sub calculo melioris judicij) expressed what yet I conceive to be the truth about the Covenant of Grace, 1 between God and Christ, 2 between Christ and man. To this last thing handled, that the Covenant of Grace in its present administration is free and not conditional, otherwise than I have before granted, the Apostle giveth purposely his suffrage, affirming the Covenant made to Abraham is that which now stands in force, that the Law was but a temporary additament to it, to remain only till the promised seed should come, he means so to remain as to make the Covenant conditional. The Law therefore being in this respect done away, the Covenant abides free and absolute. In thee, in thy seed, all Nations shall be blessed, Gal. 3. 8, 16, 17, 18. This Covenant is free, absolute, laden with no such conditions as might make the hope of blessedness uncertain. The evasions which Mr. B. useth to elude the authority of this Scripture, are merely Sophistical, having no footing upon other Scriptures, and totally crossing the purpose of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture. It containeth not (saith he) the full tenor of the whole New Covenant. Where then shall we find it, if not where the Holy Ghost undertaketh professedly to declare both what this New Covenant is not, and what it is? This is the Covenant saith the Holy Ghost, Nay it is but a piece or morsel of it, saith Mr. Br. whom shall we believe? him that speaketh from Heaven, or him that (at the best) speaketh but from the earth? But either so called (saith Mr. Br.) because it expresseth the nature of the benefits of the New Covenant as they are offered on God's part, without mentioning man's conditions (that being not pertinent to the business the Prophet had in hand.) A most impudent fiction, yea it was the whole or chief thing he had in hand; was it not to show the difference between these two under-covenants, that under the Law, and this under the Gospel? But how doth it serve to this purpose to express the nature of the benefits of the New Covenant? Did not the Elect under the Law partake of the same benefits in nature though not in measure, with the Elect now? Or is not this one of the differences which he makes betwixt the Covenants, that the one was hedged about with hard conditions, the other free? Or else, saith he, it speaketh only of what God will do for his Elect, in giving them the first grace, and enabling them to perform the New Covenant. Ridiculous; though right in the Monks tone. For did not God give the first and second Grace too, to the Elect under the Law as well as to the Elect under the Gospel? Where then is the difference hence, to give a new name to the present Covenant? But lastly, saith he, It is a production and belongs to the will of purpose, not to his legislative will. Now he hits the nail upon the head. He makes a very Ass of this distinction, and loads him with all sorts of trash. It is to be doubted it will shortly get a gawld back, and kick his Master in the legs. Predictions and Promises, because they are not pertaining to God's legislative will, must henceforth give neither fulture to our faith nor light to our judgements. The rest that he hath upon this Thesis hath nothing of moment in it calling for an answer. Thesis' 15. B. p. 92. Though Christ hath sufficiently satisfied the Law, yet is it not his will, or the will of the Father, that any man should be justified or saved thereby, who hath not some ground in himself of personal and particular claim thereto; Nor that any should be justified by the blood, only as shed or offered, except it be also received and applied; so that no man by the mere satisfaction made, is freed from the Law, or Curse of the first violated Covenant, absolutely, but conditionally only. I annex this Position because it is homogeneous with the many former, and though Mr. Br. would seem in the Explication to distinguish the matter of it from that which the former Aphorisms contained, yet is it not only of the same kind but of the same substance also with it, and what hath been said in answer to that which went before might suffice as an answer to this also. Yet because it delights him to speak the same things in a variation of words, let us see whether the words which he here useth have more efficacy in them to his purpose then the former. We find here as we did in some of the former Theses, a fardel of ambiguities, and phrases of a doubtful sense, which puts us into an uncapacity of answering his meaning, because he so speaketh that he will be sure we shall not be able to prove what is his meaning. First when he saith, It is not the will of Christ, or will of the Father, he leaves us unresolved whether he mean the will of purpose or the will of precept, that if we answer to the one, he may evade by a pretence he meant the other. If he will be understood of the former, when was he rapt up into the third Heaven to search what secret purposes and decrees are hidden in the bosom of the Father or of the Son? Or if he hath it by revelation, why doth he not show how and when it was given him, and whether in an ordinary or extraordinary manner? Or if he mean that will, how shall he take it up to be the rule of his judgement, which in the very last words to which I answered, and so often elsewhere, he abandoneth from being the rule of other men's judgements? If he mean the latter, the will of precept, why holds he us suspended in the expectation of alleging the precept, and arguing forth his Conclusions thence, that if satisfactory we may submit to it, if otherwise we may except against it? Secondly when he tells us of Justification denying any living soul to have it only by Christ's satisfaction, without some ground in himself of particular right and claim thereto, and except it be also received and applied, etc. he leaves us doubtful whether he meaneth Justification as completed in Christ, or as evidenced also to our own consciences. If the former what will he then conclude of perishing or dying infants, that they are all unjustified, and in respect of the punishment of loss remedilessly damned, and so with his brethren shut them up for ever in that dark prison which is termed by them Limbus infantum? If the latter, and that he will give us leave to take his words in Scripture-sense, we will not quarrel with them; but this in the Explication he seems to explode. Thirdly when he tells us of some grounds of claim in ourselves to Justification, which in the following words he seems to determinate to consist in our receiving and applying thereof, and in the Explication, p. 93. he calls somewhat of man intervening to give him a legal right to it, annexing that we are said to be justified by Faith; in all this he mixeth together falsehood and subtlety with his ambiguity: putting himself into that posture wherein the Papists have painted and feigned Erasmus, hover between Heaven and Hell, sometimes mounting on high, sometimes sinking low again, but pitching neither above, nor beneath. In such a motion we here find Mr. B. as he is in his gradation further making out the Mystery of Romish iniquity for a Law, soaring still higher towards the very top of it, and sinking lower from the Orb of Christian verity? So by that something of man that must enright him to Justification, he must mean something more than Repentance and Faith, which he had before concluded necessary to Justification, Thes. 14. Else were he upon a retreating not a marching posture. Nevertheless how subtly doth he d●wb and paint to gull the simple, and catch them that are made to be taken, by putting fine words upon his course purposes, telling them that we are justified by Faith, and that there is required on our part but receiving and applying of Christ's merits; as if he were as innocent as a Dove, and had none of the Serpent in him; when contrariwise the sequel of his Tractate proclaims him, by that which he calls here somewhat of man, to mean at the full with the worst Papists, man's works to the total exclusion of God's grace. In mean while his words leave it doubtful here what this somewhat of man is, and whether it be the hand or the heel that must receive and apply Christ to Justification? His Disciples are not yet enough moulded (he thinks) to receive the Dragon's voice in his own tone; they must be accustomed to bear the Calf daily until he become an Ox that he may be born then too, and at length we shall find the instruments which Mr. B. appoints to receive Christ, to be instrumental only to push him from us. However he concludes thus (because he will have it so) That no man by the mere satisfaction made, is freed from the Law and Curse, etc. absolutely, but conditionally only, i e. not at all. And this he hath said over and over already, and there needs no further Answer than that which hath been before given: So that where he repeats this Assertion again in the Explication, That Christ doth not justify by the shedding of his blood immediately, without somewhat of man intervening, etc. adding that All the Scriptures alleged p. 79. do prove it. I grant what he saith, for I find no Scripture there alleged. But if he mean p. 89, & 90. what I said there I say here again, he shall not miss of an answer to them when he comes to allege them again in their proper place, and declares how he will argue from them. Yet because the man is delighted to deliver first in general what he will after deliver again in particulars, I shall say something also in general to his general assertion, That Christ's satisfaction justifieth not without something of man intervening to give him right to it. Let us see what the Scripture saith for or against it. The Apostle speaking of man's redemption and justification, and showing the cause why some have, and some have not their part in it, affirmeth and proveth, that it is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, Rom. 9 16. By the willing, is to be understood all the good qualifications and operations of the soul; by running all the good works of a man's life and practice, as all confess. When the Holy Ghost excludeth every somewhat of man within the man, and every somewhat of man without man, from conferring any thing to Justification, what other somewhat remaineth of man to intervene, & c? Let it be judged whether Mr. B. doth not purposely fight against Scripture? Again, Rom. 5. 6, 8, 9, 10. When we were yet without strength, (viz. to any spiritual operation) Christ died for the ungodly, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, and we were justified by his blood: while enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Here the Result of the Apostles reasoning discovers to us two things to our purpose. 1 That according to the mind and language of the Holy Ghost Christ dying, and by his death satisfying for any man's sins, and that man's justification, and reconciliation to God by that satisfaction, are equipollent terms, holding forth one and the same thing. For so the Apostle here useth justification and reconciliation as words of the same sense and weight. And Amesius manifesteth Ames Med. Lib. 1. c. 27. Sect. 22. in what respects they must needs be taken for the same thing, and makes both the same with Christ's dying for him. So that every person for whom Christ hath by his death made satisfaction, is effectually justified and reconciled to God (I mean) in Christ, though possibly not yet in his own apprehension. 2 That we are thus justified and reconciled to God, while ungodly, while sinners, while enemies, while without strength to that which is good. What somewhat of man can there be in such, to enright them to justification, unless any will say, their impotency, ungodliness, sin and enmity shall do it? Such contrariety is there between Mr. Br and the Spirit or word of truth. There needs not much deliberation to determine which to follow. But he proceeds, Bax. p. 93. Let all the Antinomians show but one Scripture which speaks of Justification from Eternity. And what if it be but one of all, or one that is not an Antinomian that shows it, will Mr. Br hearken and submit his judgement to that Scripture so alleged? I say in like manner: Let all the Antichristian Jesuits, or Mr. Br. or his Mr Grotius, show one Scripture which asserteth only a conditional and not an absolute Justification purchased to us by Christ, I will hear and submit, though I see not then how to be saved. As to his Challenge I shall speak in a more proper place. Bax. I know God hath decreed to justify his people from eternity, and so he hath to sanctify them too, but both of them are done in time: Justification being no more an immanent act in God, than sanctification: as I shall show afterward. I shall therefore wait on him until he hath the leisure and pleasure to show it. In the mean while, why doth he Conclude so hotly and peremptorily beforehand that which he brings nothing save his own bare affirmation to prove. He said not unwisely which said; Let not him that girdeth on his armour boast as he that putteth it off, 1 King. 20. 11. Bax. The blood of Christ then is sufficient in suo genere, but not in omni genere; sufficient for its own work, but not for every work. There are several other necessaries to Justify and save, quibus positis, which being supposed, the blood of Christ will be effectual. Qui non vult intelligi debet negligi. He that will so speak that he may not be understood, is worthy to pass without an Answer. If he mean that the blood of Christ is sufficient to complete our justification before God, and that this is its own work; But that there are other necessaries to justify us in ourselves and our own apprehensions, which being supposed the work is ended; I will abstain from all contradiction. If he mean otherwise, and will not express himself. Hony soit Qui male pense. Bax. p. 94. Not that it receives its efficacy from these, nor that these do add any thing at all to its worth and value, no more than the cabbinett to the jewel, or the applying hand to the Medicine, or the offender's acceptation to the pardon of his Prince. Yet without this acceptation and application, this blood will not be effectual to justify us. These words would seem to plead a good meaning in Mr. Br to them that neither are acquainted with the gloze of the Papists, nor with that which followeth in this Treatise of Mr. Br. He might be thought by this his smoothing to attribute our Justification wholly to Christ's sufferings, and nothing to any thing in ourselves, save to faith only, nor to Faith, but as it is appointed of God to be instrumental for the accepting and receiving into our bosoms Christ's merits and the benefits thereof. The like fine words we shall find oft falling from the pen of Pelagius, Papists, Arminians, etc. But both of him and them I may say what the Lord once said of Israel; This people hath well spoken in all that they have said: O that there were in them such a heart etc. Deut. 5. 28, 29. He proceeds and opposeth to the Authority of our Apostle Paul, the authority of his St Grotius, at the hearing of whose sophistical learning, all the doctrine of Paul must fall broken and shivered to the earth, no less than the Ark of God did before the great Dagon of the Philistims. Bax. Cum unusquisque actui ex sua voluntate pendenti legempossit imponere etc. as may be there read at large. p. 94. The sum of all is this. Because our justification is an act proceeding from the mere and free will of God and of Christ, it was therefore in their power, after payment made by Christ, and accepted by the Father in our behalf, to covenant, and accomplish our discharge, either forthwith or a long time after, either simply or upon Conditions. Therefore it is Covenanted between the Father and the Son that we shall be, after satisfaction made, not forthwith, but in process of time, justified, and then also not purely or absolutely but conditionally. A mad Argumentation. For A posse ad esse non valet Consequentia. It is as if I should argue God could have supported Mr. Br and his Mr Grotius in the truth of the Gospel. Ergo he hath preserved them in the truth. What judicious man that hath considerately read their works, would not hisse at such an argument? But he adds the authority of Austin. Bax. As Austin. He that made us without us, will not save us without us. O that Mr. Br had stood as Austin, pillar-like to bear up the Grace of God entire in the whole business of our salvation, against all the sophisms of Pelagius and his followers. We should in no wise have excepted, against Augustine's words in Mr. Baxters' mouth uttering them in Augustine's sense. We make not men stocks and stones, nor deny the operation of their wills moved by God's Spirit in the way to happiness. Yet the sentence itself alleged out of Austin, (I doubt) is perverted by Mr. Baxter, as it hath been by some before him. I have been told that in Austin it is read intorrogatively; and bears the force of an affirmative, thus; He that made thee without thee, will he not save thee without thee? which is equivolent to this (if it were said) he will save thee without thee. For the truth of it I have been directed to his Serm. 11. de verb. Apostoli. where though I find it not totidem verbis, yet the full sense and substance thereof I find. The Father treating of those words of the Psalmist [He made us without us, or not we ourselves] improves them by the annexion of other Scriptures against Pelagius, demonstrating that he also saves us when we were lost without us. To this effect his sentences are full and manifold. Perditos nos per nos, reficit nos qui fecit nos. Again, Ipse fecit nos & non ipsi nos, ut simus populos ejus & oves pascuae ejus. Again, Homines sumus ipse fecit nos, fidel●s sumus & jam justi, ipse fecit nos & non ipsi nos. Again, Ipse fecit nos, & antequàm essemus omninò ipse fecit nos: & factos & lapsos ipse justos fecit nos, & non ipsi nos. Nondum erat [homo] & factus est: offendit & salvus factus. Again, Quis prior dedit ei & retribuetur ei? Si Dominus retribuere vellet, nihil nisi paenam debitam retribuisset. Nihil dederunt ut eyes, retribueretur, pro nihilo salvos fecit illos. In a word, as all this is directly against Mr. Baxter, so is there no one title in the whole Sermon for him, but all proving not in Mr. baxter's sophistical way, but seriously and profoundly from clear and invincible Scriptures, our salvation to be only God's work, not his and ours together. If nothing else should be said, that which Austin in this one Chapter hath said, is enough to bury Mr. Baxters' doctrine in the dirt for ever. Bax. He never maketh a relative change, where he doth not also make a real. True, but whether the relative, or the real change hath the precedency in order, is the question. Whether our reconciliation or justification go before sanctification, or follow it as the fruit thereof. Bax. God's decree gives no man a legal title to the benefit decreed him, seeing purpose and promise are so different. True, but altogether besides the question. Bax. A legal title we must have before we can be justified; and there must be somewhat in ourselves to prove that title, or else all men should have equal right. If he speak of our being justified in ourselves, or having our Justification evidenced to ourselves, or our brethren, we consent with him. If he mean otherwise (in the sense often mentioned) what he saith here is that which he hath often said, but it remaineth yet to be proved. There is somewhat else (as hath been oft showed) besides Mr. Brs somewhat in us, that differenceth man from man, that all have not equal right. And this is somewhat in Christ; not somewhat in us. CHAP. XIII. Mr. Baxter's doctrine of a twofold, i. e. a legal and Evangelical Righteousness equally necessary to salvation, or Justification, examined. The terms and phrase which he useth discussed: and how little he saith to prove either phrase or matter to be good, manifested. I Shall totally pretermit the 16th Aphorism and its explication, not but that there are some passages therein deserving examination, but because that what is delivered in such passages, is done very warily, and may admit of a good as well as of a bad Construction; and in the following part of his book, Mr. Br speaketh it out fully and plainly, that no man can doubt of his meaning; Therefore is more properly to be answered there, than in this place. Neither shall I say much to the 17, & 18 Aphorisms, because they are but (as it were) a bridge of Mr. Brs making, on which to pass over to the following matter. Yet that he may not Complain of wrong, that he is deprived of the honour of his artificial Method, I shall transcribe his words, and annex some animadversions upon them. Thesis' 17. Bax. p. 102. Therefore as there are two Covenants with their distinct conditions: So is there a twofold Righteousness, and both of them absolutely necessary to salvation. Thesis' 18. pag. 103. Our Legal Righteousness or Righteousness of the first Covenant is not personal, or consisteth not in any qualifications of our own persons, or actions performed by us, (for we never fulfilled, nor personally satisfied the Law:) but it is wholly without us in Christ. And in this sense it is that the Apostle (and every Christian) disclaimeth his own Righteousness, or his own works, as being no true legal Righteousness, Phil. 3. 7, 8. Thesis' 19 p. 107. The Righteousness of the New Covenant is the only Condition of or interest in and enjoyment of the Righteousness of the old. Or thus: Those only shall have part in Christ's satisfaction, and so in him be legally Righteous, who believe, and obey the Gospel, and so are in themselves Evangelically Righteous. Thesis' 20. p. 108. Our Evangelicall Righteousness is not without us in Christ, as our legal Righteousness is; but consisteth in our own Actions of faith and Gospel obedience. Or thus: Though Christ performed the conditions of the Law, and satisfieth for our non-performance; yet it is ourselves that must perform the Conditions of the Gospel. I close up all these positions together (as it were) in one Frontispiece, partly in regard of their near Cognation in Nature, and partly that the profoundness and dexterity of Mr. Br may the more clearly appear: and that it may be here evidenced to the very senses of all, what is said Gen. 3. 1. That the Serpent is more subtle than all the beasts of the field which God hath made. The one part of Mr. Brs' Gospel we have found, in the former part of this Tractate, the sum and substance whereof may be thus expressed; That Christ Jesus by the will of his Father, hath by the satisfaction made to justice for the sins of the Elect, obtained that the whole Curse and managing thereof, together with the Elect for whom he hath satisfied, should be delivered up into his hand: And he showeth himself in this his power an unmerciful High Priest, holding his redeemed ones, under the Curse, wrath, and torment in soul and body, not giving them deliverance until the day of judgement. He did somewhat before look unto, but now really enters upon the second part, which is like to the former, holding forth a justification in the world to come, upon such Conditions as will not bring any unto, but certainly exclude all, that to this end use and perform them, from justification into condemnation. Within the Confines of these two essential parts of his Gospel, he compriseth all the riches of grace by Christ, which whosoever likes it, may if he will, partake of. Such have we already found the Nature of the first part of his Gospel. We are now to examine whether the second part thereof be not such as I have here mentioned; if not, I have wronged Mr. Br; if so, he wrongs Christ, and works against him seeking the damnation of the Elect. And by the very words of these four propositions of his, (if nothing else were to be added) he that is both orthodox and judicious, may somewhat judge whither Mr. Br driveth, finding him to set up man's righteousness parallel with Christ's righteousness, and equally necessary to our Justification; so making man at least a demisaviour to himself, and so (in effect prove) an absolute destroyer of his own soul. For whosoever brings any thing besides Christ to his justification, falls utterly from Christ, righteousness, and salvation. Yet while he thus acts the part of one of those evil workers mentiuned Phil. 3. 2. he shows himself an Artisan to deceive the wits of the time, no less than Muncer did himself to beguile the witless Common people in Germany. He when he was vanquished, taken, and now under the hands of the tormentor, being demanded why he had so deluded the silly vulgar multitude to his own and their ruin; breaking forth into a vehement laughter, answered, Sic voluerunt, They would have it so; insinuating that because he found them little regarding the solidity and power of the Gospel, but itching after novelties, he attempered and even sacrified his studies to their humour, until he had subverted himself and them. So Mr. Br taking notice of some affected wits that had rather perish and die for ever by Art, & that which is falsely called Science or learning, 1 Tim. 6. 20. than to live and be saved by the simplicity and plainness of the Gospel; composeth himself wholly to please their humour, and make himself their darling; handles the Case so finely and artificially, that he may kill them softly, they never feeling it until they are dead and ruined for ever. One piece of his artifice we have here in his invention of that twofold Righteousness of the two Covenants absolutely necessary to justification or salvation: The one in Christ, the other in ourselves: Christ's righteousness purchasing for us a conditional justification, a possibility of righteousness & bliss in the world to come; but the other, our righteousness when once finished and completed, being that which doth the deed and drives the nail to the head, making both Christ's righteousness and the justification purchased by it, to be no longer Conditionally, but actually and really ours. Provided and always excepted that this cannot be in this life, and so the trial of Mr. Brs' doctrine by experience, can never be made until this world be wholly ended. This is learning indeed, such as neither the dictates of men, (at lest totidem verbis, in so fine a contexture of words) nor the Oracles of God could ever teach Mr. Br. It is his own and possibly may continue his only to the world's end, all men else proving themselves too wise or too foolish to join with him in this his speculation. We thought that the righteousness according to the Covenant under which God hath placed us, had sufficed to justification; he tells us nay, but we are under both the Covenant of works and the Covenant of grace too, and must be righteous in the righteousness of both. The world had not the wit until now, nor yet Christ, or any of his Prophets or Apostles had it ever in their Consideration to term Christ our legal, and our own works and qualifications our Gospel righteousness: Mr. Br first having received it rough hewn from Papists and Arminians, teacheth us this piece of distinctionary learning. Neither did it enter ever into our thoughts that the righteousness of the Old Covenant was of a more noble ●ace, or that the righteousness which is in ourselves could be more excellent than that which Christ is made to us, until this new Doctor took the Chair to teach Mysteries, and by inverting and misnaming Scripture-phrase hath so taught. Nevertheless it behoved Mr. Br having resolved to keep on the triple Crown upon the Pope's head, by stablishing justification upon works, (though it were to the uncrowning of Christ,) to reject uprightness and to seek after inventions, Eccles. 7. 29. First he must hold believers to be under both Covenants, else while he builds up one piece of Babylon, he should pluck down another; and give his judgement against his holiness in one point, while he acts the Champion for him in another: and adventure with all the loss of his Cause, if he keep not as strong holdfast in the Covenant of works with the one hand, as in the Covenant of grace with the other. 2 He must call the Condition or means of applying Christ to us or obtaining interest in his satisfaction, our Righteousness, else he will not be able to evade those Scriptures which assert our Justification by faith. But by this feat he thinks himself in a fit posture both to answer this, and to bring in all qualifications and works that he pleaseth in a partnership with faith to justify. True (will he say) we are justified by Faith as a part of our righteousness, and by all other good qualifications and works as other parts of our righteousness. 3 He must call faith and works our Evangelicall righteousness, having seen in what a stinking trance some of his dirty dear brethren in their disputes have been left, when they would prove that good works as works of the Law do justify: and how little better they have fared, who would have them to justify only as works of grace, having not had enough subtlety to prove them Gospel or Grace works. Need had he therefore to put himself upon strong and strange inventions that himself may not stick in the same mire after them. But enough in general, let us hear him deliver his own mind in particulars. B. Thes. 17. p. 102. As there are two Covenants with their distinct Conditions: So is there a twofold Righteousness, and both of them absolutely necessary to salvation. The latter member of this proposition is grounded upon the former, the Thesis upon the Hypothesis. As true is the latter as the former. But how true is the former, that there are two Covenants, and that they have their distinct Conditions? First when he saith there are two Covenants, he meaneth two Covenants in force to the very Saints in Christ, that while they are under grace to salvation, they are also under the Law to the Curse and Condemnation. This hath been his business to Confirm in the former part of this Treatise, and he owns it in the explication of this Thesis. But this is false as in disapproving of his arguments before hath been proved. They are no more under the Law, who are once under grace, Rom. 6. 14. 2ly, Neither have the two Covenants their distinct Conditions, according to Mr. Br. For Thes. 4. he makes the Condition of the first Covenant, Perfect Obedience or Righteousness. The same he makes here the Condition of the New Covenant, viz. Faith and Obedience, but both as integrant parts of our own inherent righteousness; as we have partly seen, and shall be forced to see more fully in that which is to come after. So that we grant him that as true, as there are two Covenants, with their distinct Conditions in force to the same persons, so true is it that there is a twofold Righteousness, and both absolutely necessary to salvation, (if by salvation he means Justification) At falsum prius, ergo & posterius. When he brings proofs to Confirm his assertions, he may meet with a larger answer. In mean while a simple Negation stands fittest in opposition to his bare affirmation. That which he brings in the explication to Confirm it hath been answered over and over before. Only he tells us in the upshot that He will take it as granted: To which I answer, that there hath been such a generation of men still upon earth so fingerative, that will needs take that which was never granted and delivered to them; such is the main bulk of Mr. Brs' doctrine in this book taken but never delivered to him from God or his Christ. Bax. The usual confounding of these Righteousnesses (saith he) doth much darken the Controversies about Justification. And Mr. Br doth no less clear the Controversy, than an Eclipse the Sunbeams. He proceeds to explain what this twofold Righteousness is, so absolutely necessary to salvation. Bax. The legal Righteousness (saith he) is not in us, or consisteth not in any qualifications of our own persons, or actions performed by us, But it is wholly without us in Christ, Thes. 18. p. 103. The righteousness of the New Covenant is the only Condition of our interest in and enjoyment of the Righteousness of the old, etc. Thes. 19 p. 107. Our Evangelicall Righteousness is not without us in Christ, as our Legal Righteousness is, but consisteth in our own actions of Faith and Gospel Obedience etc. Thes. 20. p. 108. What there is more in any of these three positions, is transcribed at large before. To the 18 Thesis he annexeth in the explication a dispute against the Papists, not to Confute them as adversaries to the truth, for joining man's righteousness with Christ's righteousness unto justification, (for herein he professeth entire Communion with them) but to admonish them as his loving brethren to defend this their Conclusion of Justification by their own righteousness, not under the terms of their legal, but of their Evangelicall righteousness. Because the legal righteousness is impossible, but the Evangelicall righteousness (according to his carving and forming of it) is easy to be fulfiled, and almost impossible to be violated. Not that the Papists were wholly ignorant of this mystery until Mr. Br here teacheth them. Nay many of them had and pleaded it very artificially, before he was born. And himself hath learned it of them: But he as the most proficient of all their disciples hath more fully improved it, so that now he becomes a teacher to his very Masters, and exhorts them to learn of him the pious feat and fraud, of making use of this distinction yet further than ever they had the wit or grace to devise; even to all matters and purposes that tend to the eluding of the word of Christ, and the advantaging of the holy mother Church, in her doctrine of Justification, that is altogether Contradictory to the doctrine of the Scriptures upon the same Argument. To the 19th & 20th positions he annexeth an explication of both of these and of all that was said in the two former positions also. In it we shall find whatsoever deserveth a fuller Answer than hath been yet given to all and every of these four positions, or any thing in all or any of them contained, not against but according to his own expressed and explicated meaning. Bax. p. 108. Explication. The Contents of these Positions being of so near nature, I shall explain them here together, though they seem so plain and clear to me, that they need not much explication, and less confirmation: Yet because some Antinomians do downright oppose them, and some that are no Antinomians have startled at the expressions, as if they had contained some self exalting horrid doctrine, I shall say something hereto. Though for my part I do so much wonder that any able Divines should deny them: yet me thinks they should be Articles of our Creed, and a part of children's Catechisms, and understood and believed by every man that is a Christian: I mean the matter of them, if not the phrase; though I think it to be agreeable to the matter also. Egregious Confidence and a sparkish spirit! If the Triumphant Chariot were in use again at Rome, and that Mr. Br could either not get it, or not hold it, he would at least give occasion to the world to Epitaph upon him,— Magnis tamen excidit Ausis, he hath bidden fair and stretched wide for it. Yet there would be some men that would otherwise Comment upon his bravery of words. That they are usually bad wares that will not go off without such bravery of words. That Bragg is seldom the best Soldier. That thundering words are mostly used, when there is wanting strength of reason to support a Cause. We shall in some measure be able to judge when we have examined, what sound Arguments Mr. Br brings to Confirm his assertions. By the way we are to note his subtlety, his ingenuity, and his gallantry. 1 His subtlety in pretending that his Assertions are mainly opposed by Antinomians; and that all that he delivers here, is out of his pure zeal (good man) to dash those earthborn monsters that they may do no more harm. Doth Mr. Br think that none but strangers in our Israel, none but novices in divinity, that never saluted the Gospel, but at twelve furlongs distance, none that ever had acquaintance with this Controversy between the Papists and us, should read his book, that he thinks to blind the eyes of all with such a mummery? Nay let him name one man in any of the reformed Churches, that hath been numbered among the Orthodox, which dissenteth not in the Chaffy doctrine here delivered from him? Or any save the worst, or a man worse than the worst Papists, that consenteth with him to make our inherent righteousness the Condition to give us right to Christ's imputed righteousness? Must Christ and Paul, and all Evangelicall disciples be rejected as Antinomians, because they became not Mr. Baxters' disciples, and that before he became their Teacher? Or how could they downright oppose this doctrine, before he vented it in print? Was he so familiar with them as to Communicate to them his Manuscripts? Or hath any other since the world began delivered the same assertions in the same words, that in opposing them Mr. Br should take himself opposed? But he suspends his subtlety a little to show some though but little ingenuity, which is the second thing here Considerable in him: Confessing that there are some that are no Antinomians who have startled at the expressions, as if they had contained some self-exalting horrid doctrine. And did not this also startle Mr. Br to reexamine what he had written before he Committed it to the Press? Nothing less, but he looks over them with a fastidious admiration, that they should be so shallow, himself being so profound, rejecting their authority, with the like Contempt that Caesar did Sulla's, Tush he was a duus Non potuit dictare, so he of these, Nequeunt Philosophari. And thus in the third place passeth on to his gallantry or rather his arrogance. That his doctrines here are so plain and clear, that they need little explication, less Confirmation, That he wonders any able Divines should deny them: shall such be termed Divines? nay his very Catechumeni, the Children under his Catechising, much more every man that is a Christian should understand and believe them. That they should be taken up for our Creed, why? because profound Mr. Br hath delivered them; if not upon this ground, let him name that man upon earth that hath delivered or believed them before himself became the author of them. But at length he somewhat stoopeth from his bravery, and tells us that he would have the matter of them at least thus taken into the Canon of our faith and Creed, if not the phrase: though he think it to be agreeable to the matter also: and therefore goeth about thus to defend his phrase and make it good. Bax. p. 109. That there may be no contention about words, you must take my phrase of (legal and Evangelicall Righteousness) in the sense before explained: viz. as they take their name from that Covenant which is their rule. And I know not how any Righteousness should be called (Legal or Evangelicall) in a sense more strict and proper, nor whence the denomination can be better taken, than from the formal Reason of the thing: yet I know that the observance of the Law of Ceremonies, and the seeking life by the works of the Law, are both commonly called legal Righteousness: but in a very improper sense in comparison of this. I know also, that Christ's legal Righteousness imputed to us, is commonly called [Evangelicall Righteousness.] But that is from a more alien, extrinsecall Respect; viz. because the Gospel declareth and offereth this Righteousness, and because it is a way to justification which only the Gospel revealeth. I do not quarrel with any of these forms of speech, only explain my own, which I know not how to express more properly, that I may not be misunderstood. The righteousness of the New Covenant then being the performance of its Conditions, and its Conditions being our obeying of the Gospel, or believing, it must be plain, that on no other terms we do partake of the legal Righteousness of Christ. To hold therefore that our Evangelicall or New Covenant Righteousness is in Christ, and not in ourselves, or performed by Christ, and not by ourselves, is such a monstrous piece of Antinomian Doctrine, that no man who knows the Nature and difference of the Covenants, can possibly entertain, and that which every Christian should abhor as unsufferable. Here we find Mr. Br at the very top of his gallantry and animosity; most probably his fancy had suggested to him a total rout of all terrene animals at the sound of his precedent glorying, and polemical argumentation; as if therefore all this visible world were Conquered, and he were marching out of it in triumph, as Israel out of Egypt, not a dog being left to move his tongue against him: he now challengeth the Heavens, and Calls the Holy Ghost ad parts, to Come to a reckoning for the impropriety of language which he useth by his penmen in the Scriptures. For when he saith, I know that the observance of the Law of Ceremonies, and the seeking of Life by the works of the Law, are both commonly called Legal Righteousness, and that Christ's legal righteousness imputed to us is commonly called Evangelicall Righteousness: he must needs mean primarily that these are so Called Commonly in holy Scriptures, and but secondarily that they are so called by Ecclesiastical Writers, as they derive from the Scriptures a Chaste Scripture phrase wherein to express spiritual doctrines, For so the Scripture mentioneth only two kinds of Righteousness that ever Came or shall Come into Competition about our Justification, the one a legal righteousness, or righteousness of the Law, the other the Evangelicall righteousness, or righteousness of the Gospel. The legal Righteousness it affirms to be a righteousness of works which we have done, i. e. of good qualifications within us, and good operations flowing from us; the Evangelicall righteousness to be of mere grace and mercy, Tit. 3. 5. The latter it terms God's Righteousness, i. e. that which God giveth and imputeth; the former our own righteousness, i. e. which is wrought within ourselves, and acted by ourselves, Rom. 10. 3. Phil. 3. 9 That of the Law, a Righteousness of works, this of the Gospel, a Righteousness without works, Rom. 4. 6. That a Righteousness in ourselves, inherent, This a Righteousness in Christ, imputed, Eph. 2. 8. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Or let Mr. Br show any one Scripture that terms the Righteousness which is in and by Christ a legal, or that which is inherent in ourselves an Evangelicall Righteousness: or that terms any gift or qualification in man, or work and deed of man his righteousness, any piece of his righteousness unto Justification. So that his quarrel here is against the Holy Ghost for speaking so improperly and incongruously in Scriptures, and Calling the Righteousness which is by Christ Evangelicall, and the righteousness which is in ourselves Legal Righteousness. But how will he Confute the Holy Ghost, and prove an absurdity and impropriety in the language of the Holy Ghost? Forsooth, by opposing himself, his own authority and learning, to the Holy Ghost, and his wisdom and authority. Himself he affirms to speak logically, and by Consequence, strictly and properly, But the Holy Ghost is no scholar, never read Aristotle, therefore speaks rudely, rustically, like one of the Rural Animals, not as an Artist out of the schools. Himself gives (scholarlike) a denomination to these two Righteousnesses, from that Covenant which is their Rule, from the Formal Reason of the thing: But the Holy Ghost for lack of school-learning, gives names thereunto from more Alien Extrinsecall respects. This is the sum of his reasoning. And is it not possible to request from Mr. Br that he would take the Holy Ghost a while as a pupil into his Tuition, to read unto him some Logical Lectures by which he may be instructed to mould a new the Scriptures into another, a Logical, instead of that spiritual and Celestial phrase in which we now find them? Or if the Spirit of truth and wisdom should be the Teacher, not the Scholar of Mr. Br, then may we break out into Mr. Brs' words against Mr. Br, Monstrous Doctrine, pride, reasoning, and that which every Christian should abhor as unsufferable. But if Mr. Br be not in more haste than good speed, a word or two, we shall request from him to be resolved in some few questions, (before we part,) upon that which he hath here written. First, Whether it hath not been the Common slight of all subtle heretics to make new and unused phrases their harbingers to promote and make way for the vending of their new opinions and monstrous doctrines? yea whether he himself had not first laid down a purpose within himself of broaching his doctrine of Justification by works and inherent righteousness, and then after devised this new distinction of our legal righteousness in Christ, and Evangelicall righteousness in ourselves, both necessary to our justification? or to what other end hath he coined this novelty of words and phrase in opposition to the language of the Gospel, but to make it subservient to the novelty of his pernicious doctrine, Contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel? 2 Whether by this novelty of phrase he doth not attribute more excellency and efficacy (as to justification) to man's inherent, than to Christ's imputed righteousness? For pag. 98. himself affirmeth, that The primary most excellent and most proper righteousness lieth in the conformity of our actions to the precept; the secondary less excellent Righteousness, (yet fitly enough so called) is when, though we have broke the precepts, yet we have satisfied for our breach, either by our own sufferings or some other way. Compare we with that which he there spoke that which here he speaketh, and we shall find him attributing that which he calleth the primary most excellent and most proper righteousness to ourselves, viz. our Conformity to the precepts of the Gospel; and that which he calleth the secondary less excellent righteousness, to Christ, in and by whom we have satisfied for the breach of the precepts of the Law. If this be not the nullifying, surely it is the abasing of Christ. And he that would thus veil, will be ready also to quench (as much as in him lieth) the glory of Christ's Righteousness. 3 What show of truth is there in that which he assigneth, as the Cause of his departing from the usual phrase of Scripture to a new expression of words, Calling Christ our Legal, and our own qualifications and works our Evangelicall Righteousness, which no man since the very foundation of the world was laid (I think) ever so termed before him? They so take name (saith he) from the Covenant which is their Rule etc. and their Denomination from the formal Reason of the thing. To the unveiling of this Mystery Davu● sum non Oedipus. It must be some of Pythagoras his mystical, and not of Aristotle's Dialectic learning, that must so bring this about that we may find and fathom it. For first how is the Law of Nature or Covenant of works the rule of Christ's Mediation, or satisfaction made for us? Whether we Consider it as it was fulfiled by Christ, or as it is apprehended by us to righteousness, is the Law or old Covenant made with mankind a rule or direction to him or us? Did this law at all either bind or direct the eternal son of the eternal God to assume our Nature, and in it to offer himself a sacrifice for our sin, and so make satisfaction to divine Justice? Indeed as in Christ's sufferings we see him only a patiented, drawn and dragged to judgement and death for our iniquities laid on him, so was his passion the effect of the Law. But if there were no more to be seen in his sufferings, he should not have been our righteousness either Legal or Evangelicall. For what merit could there be in a suffering of Constraint and Compulsion? But when in his sufferings he was a voluntary agent, Called and Consecrated by the Father to be our Priest, Heb. 5. 5. No man taking his life from him, but himself laying it down of himself, for us and in our stead, Joh. 10. 18. Thus he became the purchaser of righteousness for us, and is made of God Righteousness to us, 1 Cor. 1. 30. But all this he did not by the rule of the Law or Covenant of works, but of the secret and sacred Covenant made between the Father and him: Therefore having mentioned the voluntariness of his suffering in the fore quoted Joh, 10. 18. He addeth, This Commandment have I received of my Father, implying that this his satisfactory obedience in dying for us had its regulating not by the old Covenant of works, or any precept of the Law given to man, but by the Covenant which had passed between the Father and the Son in reference to man, and a special positive Commandment from the Father agreeing with the tenor of that Covenant. As for our apprehending and pleading the righteousness of Christ to Justification, impudence itself will neither affirm it to be done by the rule of the Covenant of law and works; nor deny it to be done in Conformity to the Covenant of grace and rule of the Gospel. Or because Christ hath born the penalty of the Law's breach, shall he therefore be Called our legal righteousness, as from the formal reason of the thing? Nay both that Christ suffered, and the Father received and accepted his sufferings in full satisfaction for our transgressions; That the Father sent him to satisfy the justice of his law for us; and for his satisfactions sake, he doth no more impute to us the breach of his Law; All this is the fruit of his grace and in conformity to the Gospel and Covenant of grace; not to the Law and Covenant of works. Therefore if we give the denomination from the formal reason of the thing, we must call it our Evangelicall not Legal righteousness which is in Christ. Touching the other opposite term, that any thing inherent in man, whether the gifts of grace, Faith, Repentance, Charity, etc. or their fruits and works, should be called our Gospel righteousness; I see no reason for it, neither can devise in what other sense they may be so called, but by a catachrestical Ironia which names a thing and means the contrary. As the Mounteins are called Montes quia minime movent, Mounts or Movers because they do in no wise Move: or as the Fame's Auri is sometimes called sacra the inordinate desire of money is termed holy, quia minime sacra sed prorsus, execrabilis, because it is in no case sacred but wholly accursed. So in no other sense may this righteousness in self be called Gospel righteousness (in reference to Justification) but because it is totally opposite to the doctrine and nature of the Gospel, and because the Gospel doth wholly reject and abandon it. Mr. Br. peradventure may and will bring other reasons, and where he doth it we shall take pains to examine them. 4 Why he calls believing or Faith to be our Gospel righteousness, and whether it be to any other end, but with the Papists upon the same grounds to bring in good works to Justification also? If he deny this the whole sequel of his Book will be an indictment of falsehood against him? CHAP. XIV. That which Mr. Baxter brings to confirm the matter of this his Doctrine, examined and found both fallacious and empty: And what he addeth to mitigate the asperity (viz. That we perform these conditions not by our own strength, but by the grace of Christ) evidenced to be a mere shift borrowed from the Papists. Mr. Baxter after he hath thus made a flourish and nothing but a flourish to explain and defend his phrase, and make odious the phrase of Scripture; now proceedeth to confirm the matter of his doctrine. Let us see whether there be any thing Logical or Theological, and not merely sophistical? He hath confessed before, p. 109. that some who are not Antinomians (but Orthodox Divines) have startled at the expressions of his 19 and 20 Positions, as containing in them some self-exalting horrid doctrine, therefore will he say something thereto, by way of explication and confirmation. Now having said something as bad as nothing to take off contention about words; what doth he add for the confirmation of the matter of his doctrine? He was to have proved 1 That Gospel righteousness, or the righteousness of the New Covenant consisteth not in the imputation of the righteousness which is by Christ to us, but in our own actual and personal faith and obedience. 2 That we must be righteous in ourselves first, and then after be made righteous by Christ. 3 That the righteousness of the New Covenant is not sufficient to justify and save, but only to give us right to the righteousness of the old Covenant, which doth actually and immediately save and justify. 4 That those gifts of grace, virtues, and endowments, that are required to our sanctification are not the fruits but the causes of our justification, and conditions of our interest in Christ, and consequently that our sanctification hath a priority and goes before justification. These were the points in which he acknowledgeth himself to be downright opposed by some and startled at by others. What doth he now say for the silencing of these downright opposers and startlers? Just so much as he that would confute all that Bellarmine had written, in three words, viz. Bellarmine thou liest. Or what brings he for the confirmation of those his assertions wherein he is so opposed? Nothing but a fardel of sophistical fallacies, consisting of begged principles, and homonymies of words. First he clustereth together many Conclusions, without either premises or proofs. The righteousness of the New Covenant then being the performance of its conditions; this is his first Conclusion, which by the word (then) bearing the force of (therefore) he would insinuate to lean upon some foregoing premises, when contrariwise, there is not so much as a pebble of four grains to sustain it, not a word laid as the foundation thereof. It is the thing in question, we deny it, he brings nothing to confirm it besides his bare affirmation, which to us is no more than a pillar of straw to bear up a Castle. And its conditions being our obeying the Gospel or believing. This is his second Conclusion, taken as granted, when contrariwise his opposers utterly deny it. And here he plays also with an homonymy of words, as if faith and obeying the Gospel, which in the Apostles sense are, so in his sense also were, the same thing, covering his poison until the feat be done by it. It must needs be plain that on no other terms do we partake of the legal righteousness of Christ. I will not say that selfconfidence hath made the man mad, but rather that he thinks all the world mad and in such a sottish slumber, that none can put a difference betwixt midday and midnight. It is plain, by what light? by what argument? It is the thing in question, and none until Mr. Br. ever held forth this assertion in these his expressions. Yet it must be plain, viz. because he hath said it, so plain as a New world created in Mr. Br. fist, he that can see what is not, may see it. We deny both the righteousness which is by Christ to be a legal righteousness, and our own qualifications to be the terms and grounds upon which he is made to us Righteousness. And let the world judge whether he show himself a Christian Teacher or an Antichristian Imposter, who having promised a confirmation of his strange and before unheard of doctrine, brings nothing but flourishes of words to charm fools, not one argument or Scripture to satisfy the wise and conscientious. Himself seethe the grossness and palpablenes of his delusions, and left his Reader should stay in his meditations upon it to see it also, he hasteth to annex a fourth Conclusion, very plausible to them whom he hopes to beguile, whereupon, as on a Cross he naileth the picture of an Antinomian to crucify him, that with this pleasant spectacle, he may divert his Readers eyes from the nakedness and nothingness of what went before, to the beholding of a new object set before him. To affirm therefore that our Evangelicall or New Covenant Righteousness is in Christ and not in ourselves, or performed by Christ and not by ourselves, is such a monstrous piece of Antinomian Doctrine that no man etc. ut supra. Which is as much as if he had said to his Reader, if upon the bare authority of my words (when I have no one good Argument to prove them) thou wilt not become a rank Papist; I will register thee for an Antinomian, and make thee out to the world such a Monster that all shall abhor thee as unsufferable. With this Thunderbolt he knows he shall shake into an Ague all those that Nicodemus-like are Disciples of Christ, but secretly for fear of the Jews. Should they be suspected of the least tang of Antinomianism, they should never more have a good look from the Scribes and Pharisees. But he is not forth with an Antinomian whom Mr. B. so termeth. If Pythagoras his transmigration of souls into new bodies were Canonical, I should conclude that the ghost of one of those ghostly Fathers of the Council of Constance had crept into Mr. B. body. They to make John Huss odious, painted an ugly Devil in paper, and crowned John Huss therewith when they carried him to the stake to be burned, at the view whereof the people exulted in his death, as if they had seen some Witch or rather young Devil burned. So deals Mr. B. here with them which are truly Evangelical, inures upon them the black brand of Antinomianism, so to make truth in their mouth hateful as well as the persons. But is it decreed that they are all Antinomians that hold, and that it is a monstrous piece of Antinomianism to hold, that our Evangelicall or New Covenant righteousness is in Christ not in ourselves, performed by Christ and not by ourselves? If so, I much question whether there will be found any one (save Mr. B. alone) in all the Reformed Churches that are or have been, but must bear the imputation of a monstrous Antinomian. I will not be over confident of Socinus, Arminius, Grotius and their followers, because I take them not for members but troublers of the Reformed Churches. For my part I know no difference about this point between the Orthodox and Antinomians: Both consent 1 That our Gospel-righteousnes which worketh effectually to our Justification is in Christ, not in ourselves, (save by imputation.) 2 That our Gospel or New Covenant righteousness in reference to our sanctification, is in Christ radically, but in us by derivation and influence, actually to sanctify us. 3 That our faith, repentance, obedience, holiness, good works (though flowing from Christ himself into us) are the Gospel or New Covenant Righteousness, not by which we are justified, but by which we are sanctified. And let Mr. B. or any of his Disciples produce that Orthodox man that ever called this doctrine Antinomianism, or that hath not shunned the contrary doctrine as Popish and Antichristian. Yet Mr. B. finding himself bound by promise to prove many things (as was said before) that his fallacious dealing might not be too notorious and shameful, he chooseth one of the many (leaving the rest untouched) to speak something to it, (as he had said) though not to prove it. And in that which he saith, there is nothing to confirm his own assertion, but a mere reviling abusing & abasing of them that assert the contrary, under the false imputation of Antinomianism. And here he comes upon the stage like Hercules Furens, who in a Frenzy taking his Wife and Children to be a Lioness and her Whelps, falls upon them fiercly with his Club and envenomed Arrows until he had utterly destroyed them. So Mr. B. in somewhat a like fit, not finding real Antinomians, but making in his fancy, imaginary Bug-bears and phantasms of them, curseth them with Bell Book and Candle for saying that Christ hath fulfilled the conditions of the New as well as of the Old Covenant, and that our Evangelical righteousness is not in ourselves but in Christ. At the supposition of such assertions, (which none ever laid down in these terms) the man is in a rage, beats the wind, and flings dust in the Air, cryeth Blasphemy, heresy, impiety, and enumerateth Absurdities upon absurdities arising from such doctrine, all which I am not at leisure to transcribe, (it being all superfluous and not to the purpose) but may be read at large pag. 111, 112, 113, of his Tractate. More proper shall it be for me here to make out Mr. B. either willing or unwilling mistake herein, and then all his absurdities will ●ither vanish into wind or return upon himself. First then as we deny not Faith in the Lord Christ, to be instrumental to apprehend to ourselves Christ for our justification, and a declarative evidence to our own souls that we are actually justified by him; (as before hath been granted) so we affirm it to be heretical and popish doctrine which Mr. B. doth here pag. 111 deliver, in asserting repentance, obedience, submission, etc. and afterward all other virtues and good works, to be conditions of the New Covenant, viz. by which as by our Gospel righteousness we are, and without which preceding, we cannot be justified. For all these (in Mr. B. sense) as Austin from the tenor of the Gospel saith Non precedunt justificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum: are not the precedents but fruits of justification. 2 We affirm Repentance, Obedience, Charity, etc. and all good works which the Gospel requireth, to be originally and materially the works and duties of the Law. Nature and natural conscience itself suggesting to every of us both the rest, and withal in case of offence committed against God or man, to repent of it, to sorrow for it, and at our utmost to make satisfaction for the offence. Yea even Faith in Christ, is in general required by the Old Law and Covenant. We in no wise ascribe to the Gospel a creating of new points of righteousness, or injoining of new duties which the Law did not at least in general bind us unto, (this opinion we leave as proper and peculiar to the Socinians) But a modification spiritualizing and appropriating the righteousness and duties which the Law in general commanded, to the now present lapsed condition of man, to Gods present offers of grace, and our present necessities. Yea herein we have Mr. B. consenting to us, who, Thes. 30. and its Explication delivers his judgement herein to be fully one with the stream of Orthodox Divines. So that if we should affirm that Christ hath believed, repent, sorrowed, etc. for us and in our steed: it would not thence follow, that we pronounce Christ to have performed the conditions of the New but only of the Old Covenant for us. 3 Yet are we far from affirming that Christ in the most strict and proper sense hath so believed, repent, etc. for us, that we should be taken to have believed, repent, etc. not in ourselves but in him and by him. But the reason why we neither affirm nor hold it, is not because that these are our Gospel righteousness or New Covenant conditions of righteousness and life in the sense before oft mentioned, for we have denied and do still deny them to be such: But 1 because it is in question whether the active righteousness of Christ be imputable to us for justification; And 2 if it were, yet were it an unchristing of Christ to affirm him to have been ever in such a state and condition, that he had need of repentance or faith to the remission of sins. He took indeed our nature not the sinfulness of our nature; had our sin imputed to him, or (as the Scripture phrase expressly speaketh) laid on him, Isa. 53. 6. to suffer and satisfy for it: but had no sin of his own to repent of and mortify, than had there not been virtue in his Priesthood & sacrifice to have expiated ours. And to say that he actually repent, sorrowed, believed, etc. for the pardon of our sins, we confess is a harsh, unproper and catachrestical locution. Yet we still hold that the flaws and infirmities of our faith and repentance as well as our other iniquities were laid upon Christ, that he hath satisfied divine justice for them by his sufferings; and that therefore God imputeth them not to us being once in Christ. Otherwise though they are parts of Gospel righteousness to sanctification, the sin and infirmity that is in them, in not squaring fully with the Law their rule, would bring upon us condemnation. These things premissed, all the absurdities which (to make the assertion odious) Mr. B. layeth upon us for affirming our New Covenant righteousness to be in Christ in the sense mentioned and explained, and denying our faith, repentance, obedience, etc. to be our New Covenant righteousness to Justification; vanish into smoke. For 1 It implieth not (as he saith it doth) blasphemy against Christ, as if he had sin to repent of, for we utterly deny that Christ hath believed or repent for us, otherwise then by satisfying justice for our not repenting, believing, etc. home to the rule of the Law. 2 Nor doth it imply that Jews, Pagans, and every one shall be saved, because Christ hath fulfilled the conditions of both Covenants for them, so that they are culpable in neither. For Christ hath not satisfied for the breach of (much less fulfilled) that which Mr B. called the conditions of the New Covenant, as such conditions, etc. but as precepts of the old Covenant or Law of works. Or should I say Christ hath satisfied only for the Elect, will M. B. contradict? 3 If it should follow hence that the Elect then are righteous and justified (viz. in Christ) before they believe; this would not sound as an absurdity to any other besides them to whom truth is an absurdity, as hath been before showed. 4 Neither if it would follow hence that believing is needless to justification, would it also follow, that it is needless to any other use? This cannot fall from any other but a profane mouth and selfseeking man, that will have nothing done out of love and obedience to God, to glorify him, but all out of self-love for his own benefit only. But I have before proved faith to be needful to justify us, to bring home into our own Consciences the benefit and evidence of our Justification, even Faith acting in us, therefore Faith so acting in us is also needful to this as well as to other uses, though Christ hath satisfied for the infirmity of it in reference to the Law. 5 It were no absurdity to confess the saved and the damned to be alike in themselves and by nature (before Justification) but that the difference is only in election and Christ's intention. Until than the Holy Ghost pronounceth both to be Children of wrath by nature, Eph. 2. 3. both to be ungodly, Rom. 4. 5. what then is the difference in themselves? But their believing and Justification puts a difference in their relation first, and then in their qualifications also, the one becoming sanctified, the other remaining unholy still. The rest that is contained in this fifth place hath been objected before, and before answered. 6 What he saith in the sixth place proceeds from the heat of passion and height of selfconfidence, not from strength of reason, or evidence of Scriptures. Which of all the Laws and precepts of Christ had Justification for its end, save that of Faith? Or who hath confounded Law and Gospel, and overthrown all the Laws and Precepts of Christ, by removing Faith from operating in its office to this end? Who hath contradicted the whole scope of Scriptures by denying Christ to be made under the Law, to have fulfilled the Law, to have born the curse of the Law, or its imposing upon all the necessity (of duty) to perform ourselves whatsoever the New Covenant requireth of us to Justification or Salvation? But that all which Mr. B. would make conditions of Justification, must be such because he will so have it, notwithstanding all his bombasticall noise of wo●ds, his great Cry and little wool, will not be gr●nted him. When he brings us his large transcript of New Testament Scriptures, I doubt upon due examination they will be found to make not for but against him. What he instanceth, p. 113, 114, 115. of Mr. Saltmarsh, I cannot deny it, neither will I defend it. I remember that I did once read this passage in him, and it was the same in substance, as Mr. B. here transcribes him. It is not a grain or two of salt that can make his Argumentation there, enough savoury: unless he mean by Christ's repenting, believing, etc. his satisfying of God's justice by his expiatory sacrifice for the failings of our Faith and Repentance, at they held not up to the Law's perfection, I dislike it no less then Mr. B. But can we conjecture that Mr. Saltmarsh himself was not the first that disliked it and all the rest both good and bad of what he wrote in that Tractate? I have been told by some of his godly acquaintance, that the man had a natural impotency of crazines in his brain. And the whirlwind of imaginations wherewith he was carried to a hasty taking up of opinions, and no les hasty hurling away of them again; the much of the top, and the little of the bottom of wit, the flashes of nimbleness, and the want of solidity and depth which he shown in his writings, his inconsistency with himself, with others, with the Scriptures; his ex●reme mutability and roving from Tropic to Tropic without settledness any where, do in great measure prove the report to be true. And if so, he is to be pitied though his infirmities are not to be patronised. However this extravagancy of his into so loose and careless expressions, doth neither justify Mr. B. Tenants, nor aught to prejudice the Truth from which Mr. B. or any other hath erred. Neither doth Mr. B. captiousness so null my charity as to entertain the least conjecture that ever Master Saltmarsh meant or thought that Christ had sin to repent of, or believed to obtain the pardon thereof. Here now we find Master Baxter returning from his ireful pursuit of his imaginary, not real Antinomians, and of a dead man's Ghost that could neither see nor hear him. And when he reviews what he had written, he sees it neither helped nor amended by his hot words spent upon the wind. He had affirmed, that there is a twofold Righteousness necessary to our Justification; one, the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, the other a personal Righteousness, or Righteousness of our own, inherent in ourselves: And to this our own Righteousness had attributed an equal power with the Righteousness of Christ to our Justification, if not a power above, and superior to it. This assertion of his he perceives to savour so much of humane arrogance, and (to use his own words) to be a self-exalting, horrid Doctrine, of so high a nature, and so contradictory to the whole Tenor of the Gospel, that a short affected brawl with Nobodies, and dead men, cannot turn away the hatred which all that know and love the Lord Jesus must needs conceive against it. He is therefore in a straight, cure it he cannot, revoke it he will not: Therefore in stead of a better shift, he posteth to the Monks & Jesuits, & borrows their either, Cowl, or Cloak, to cover the deformity of it. And good reason have they to stead him, for it is their cause in his hand, viz. Justification by our own personal Righteousness, that hath streightened him. Let us now see what he brings from them to us, to make their assertion from his pen tolerable. B. Thes. 21. 115. Not that we can perform these conditions without Grace: (for without Christ we can do nothing) But that he enableth us to perform them ourselves; and doth not himself repent, believe, love Christ, obey the Gospel for us, as he did satisfy the Law for us. B. Explication. This prevention of an objection I add, because some think it is a self-ascribing, and derogating from Christ, to affirm ourselves to be but the Actors of those duties, though we profess to do it only by the strength of Grace. But that it is Christ that repenteth, and believeth, not we, is language somewhat strange to those that have been used to the language of Scripture, or Reason: Though I know there is a sort of sublime, Platonic, Plotinian Divines sprung up of late among us, who think all things to be but one, etc. We find in Scripture, that as Christ hath his Mystery, so hath Antichrist his Mystery also: And that this latter is a Mystery of iniquity, 2 Thess. 2. 7. and Mystery, Babylon the great, etc. And it is somewhat mysterious and strange that the materials of this Babel-building will not hold and close together without Babel slime to cement it. Mr. Baxter would fain have fortified, and fastened together the gaping chinks of this Babel with his own mortar. But it will not hold, therefore is he forced ever and anon to make use of the proper slime which the former Builders have left for them that come after to repair; so doth he in this place. None of his own sHifts and tricks could hid the menstruousness, and monstrousness of his Doctrine; this Pall from Rome doth it no less perfectly than the Fig-leaf Aprons covered the nakedness and filthiness of our first Progenitors from the eye of God. It sounded before so dreadfully, as it was enough to make the ears of a true Christian to tingle at the hearing, that Our own righteousness must go foot by foot with Christ's righteousness to our Justification; but that which Mr. Baxter brings here from Rome, takes off the ghastlyness, and makes all smooth, and himself in what he hath said no less amiable than he that had the Lambs horns, but the voice of the Dragon, Rev. 13. 11. How should it be otherwise when all the glory is ascribed to God's Grace and to the Spirit, and Power of Christ? so saith he. We are justified in part by our own righteousness indeed, [yet] Not that we perform in this Righteousness [which he termeth these conditions] without Grace, (for without Christ we can do nothing) but he enableth us to perform them, etc. And in the Explication: This prevention of an objection I add, because some think it a self-ascribing, and derogating from Christ, to affirm ourselves to be the Actors of these duties, though we profess to do it only by the strength of Grace. Now when Mr. Baxter hath thus said and professed, what reason can there be given why he should not be thought as honest and innocent as the proudest Popish Prelates, Jesuits, and Friars, that in answer to this objection which Mr. Baxter preventeth here, have said and professed the same thing over and over many hundred times? In stead of them all (which even to name with their words abbreviated, would fill a volume) I shall mention some few only. First the Popish gloss thus speaketh, Opera nostra, quatenus nostra Glosa ordinaria in cap. 6. ad Rom. ver. 23. sunt, vim nullam Justificandi obtinent; quatenus verò non à nobis sunt, sed in nobis à Deo facta sunt per Gratiam, Justificationem promerentur. i e. Our works as fare as they are ours, have no power to justify: but as fare as they are not from us, but wrought of God by Grace in us, so they deserve justification. In the same manner our English Jesuit Campian is recorded in the dispute which he had with some of our English Divines to have sought an evasion: Opera quidem legis (saith he) quatenus sine fide & gratia Campian▪ geruntur, nihil habere quod ad justitiam conferant: Caeterùm opera sanctorum Hominum cùm ejusmodi non sint, sed fide & gratia referta, ideo justificari dicuntur verè coram Deo, ex operibus suis, non tamen tanquam suis. i e. The works of the Law, as they are done without Faith and Grace, have nothing to contribute to Justification; nevertheless the works of godly men are not of that kind, but replenished with Grace and Faith; therefore are they said to be justified by their works, yet not by works as theirs [but as wrought by the grace of God in them.] So also Vega the Monk, Duplex est Justificatio, altera ex gratia operandi infusa; Andr. Vega de Just. wag. 751. altera ex debito Legis, seclusa Gratia: Excluditur ergo Justificatio illa quae fit seclusa gratia: non Justificatio illa quae fit ex operibus gratia adjutis, etc. i. e. There is a twofold Justification, one of the Grace to work infused into us, the other of the debt of the Law without Grace [to enable.] That Justification is excluded which is [sought after] without Grace, not that Justification which is of good works helped by Grace. And Hosius, to Hosius. elude that of the Apostle, We are not justified by works; Verum, inquit, ex operibus iis quae legis sunt, aut quae liberi Arbitrii nostri propria existunt; quae cum laborant imperfectione, nihil ad justificationem conferunt. i e. It is true (saith he) of those works which are of the Law, or done in the strength of only, which in regard they have their imperfection, cannot avail to Justification. But as for such works as flow from our , as it is set in operation by the overpowering of God's Grace, He concludeth otherwise. Not to trouble ourselves with what these Sophistical pratlers speak every, and each of them severally let us take them collectively in one bunch and body, as Mr. Pemble in his Treatise of Justification brings them in both head and tail, great and small, thus disputing against Justification by the righteousness which is in Christ, without any righteousness of our own intermixed. Against this Doctrine they have two exceptions (saith Mr. Pemble) Pemb. Treat. of Just if page 37. 1. That we are not justified by any work of our own (viz.) that we ourselves do by our own strength without the help of Grace: But yet we may be justified by some work which we do (viz.) by the aid of Grace; such is the work of Faith. 2. That we are not justified by any works of our own, i. e. by any works of the Law; but by a work of the Gospel, such as Faith is, we may be justified. By this time it is enough evident that Mr. Baxter fights the Pope's battle with the Pope's weapons, that as he maintains the Pope's cause, so he ranks and files himself with the soldiers of the Pope's Army; who then can give any reason why he should not be thought as sure a friend either to Christ, or at least to Antichrist, as are the Priests and Jesuits? Only if for no other, yet for this cause Mr. Pemble deserves the brand of an Antinomian, (which in the following part of his Tractate Mr. Baxter gives him pag. 173.) for disgracing this sophistical shift which is common to other Papists with Mr. Baxter, telling us in the forequoted place, that this distinction of works done without Grace, and works done by Grace, was devised by one (and consequently followed by others) that had, or have neither Wit nor Grace; being a trick to elude the force of such Scriptures, as exclude indefinitely all works from Justification, etc. A spiteful speech, thus at once to cast dirt in the faces both of Mr. Baxter, and all his fratres, or Friars of the holy Mother Church of Rome. No marvel if Mr. Baxter, though he smooth him sometimes for his own ends, yet doth carry him in mind to fit him a pennyworth for it, when he thinks he hath caught an advantage against him. Nevertheless though Mr. baxter's ingenuity and plain dealing seldom keep him company in this dispute and controv●rfie, yet his subtlety and sophistry fail him never. In his former positions before examined, he affirms, that besides the imputed righteousness, we must have a personal righteousness inherent in ourselves, as absolutely necessary to salvation and justification: Here now to make that his assertion sufferable, he minceth it in its terms, and in this Thesis calls it a performance of conditions, and in the Explication, an Acting of Duties, what before he had called justifying righteousness: Yea further tells us, that some think it a self-ascribing, and derogating from Christ to affirm ourselves to be but the Actors of those Duties; though we profess ourselves to do it only by the strength of Grace. When contrariwise the question is not about either the requisiteness of Gospel duties, nor about the strength by which they are to be performed; (herein if Mr. Baxter meaneth as he speaketh, we are agreed) but about their office and end to which they are to be performed; whether these duties are conditions of our Justification, and that the end of our performing them aught to be, that we may be justified by the righteousness which consisteth in their performance? Doth he mean to tune up a Palinodiam, to recant and eat up his former assertions, that he doth here so lenify the roughness, and correct the extravagancy both of his words and matter before delivered? Nothing less, but he throws sugar after his poison, both that it may go down the more quietly what he hath given already to his unwary Readers to drink, and that they may be ready without suspicion to drink deeper, and more deadly draughts of the same poison, which thorough the whole sequel of this his Treatise he makes his business to temper for them. I shall there answer more fully where he speaks more fully. In the mean time all may see his dealing here to be not fair and logical, but fallacious and sophistical. He tells us in the conclusion of his Explication, that He will not digress from his intended subject so far, as to enter here into a disquisition of the nature and workings of that Grace which doth enable us to perform these conditions, but refers us to Parker's Theses de traductione peccatoris ad vitam. What that Mr. Parker, or his work is, I know not. But that Mr. Baxter will not here deliver his own judgement, I think he doth well. For if his judgement in the doctrine of God's Grace working unto man's conversion, and sanctification, be not more sound than about the operation of the same Grace to man's Justification, his silence will be fare more acceptable than his best argumentations, to chaste ears, and spiritual minds. And little cause have we to expect any good from him upon that subject, because that although there are many who extol the power of man's to his conversion, even to the clouding of the glory of Grace, that do notwithstanding hold fast the doctrine of Justification by Christ alone, without any intermixture of our own righteousness: Yet I know no one sort or sect of men that part our Justification between God's righteousness imputed, and our own inherent, but that the same also, about the doctrine of , are wholly Popish, if not Pelagian also. In the bulk and body of his Explication, wherein he inveigheth against those whom he in terms of abasement calleth sublime, Platonic, and Plotinian Divines, when as they account themselves essentially God himself; he hath not us dissenting from him. CHAP. XV. Whether men in Scriptures are said to be personally Righteous, because they perform works and duties, as conditions of the new Covenant, ye a only for this? Master baxter's reasons by which he labours to make it good, examined. Thesis' 22. BAx. page 118. In this fore-explained sense it is, that men in Scripture are said to be personally Righteous: and in this sense it is, that the faith and duties of beleivers are said to please God: viz. as they are related to the Covenant of Grace, and not as they are measured by the Covenant of Works. Explication. Those that will not acknowledge that the Godly are called Righteous in the Scripture by reason of a personal Righteousness, consisting in the Rectitude of their own dispositions and actions, as well as in regard of their imputed Righteousness, may be convinced from these Scriptures if they will believe them. Gen. 7. 1. and 18. 23, 24. Job 17. 9 Psal. 1. 5, 6. and 37. 17, 21. Eccles. 9 1, 2. Ezek. 18. 20. 24. and 33. 12. 13. 18. Mat. 9 13. [To these he addeth, as may be there read, a multitude of Scriptures more, which unless it were to better purpose, it is not worthy the labour to transcribe.] To this he further addeth.] That men are sometimes called Righteous in reference to the Laws and judgements of men, I acknowledge: Also in regard of some of their particular actions, which are for the substance good; and perhaps sometimes in a comparative sense, as they are compared with the ungodly: as a line less crooked, should be called straight in comparison of one more crooked. But how improper an expression that is, you may easily perceive. The ordinary phrase of Scripture hath more truth and aptitude then so. Therefore it must needs be, that men are called righteous, in reference to the New Covenant only. Which is plain thus, Righteousness is but the denomination of our actions or persons as they relate to some rule. This Rule, when it is the law of Man, and our actions suit thereto, we are then righteous before men. When this rule is God's Law, it is either that of Works, or that of Grace. In relation to the former there is none Righteous, no not one; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Only in Christ who hath obeyed and satisfied, we are Righteous. But if you consider our actions and persons in relation to the Rule of the New Covenant, so all the regenerate are personally righteous: because they all perform the conditions of this Covenant, and are properly pronounced righteous thereby. Neither can it be conceived how the works of beleivers should either please God, or be called righteousness, as they relate to that old Rule, which doth pronounce them unrighteous, hateful and accursed. All this (in its substance at least) might be granted to a conscientious man, that meaneth as he speaketh, hating all equivocations and mental reservations. For it being first granted to us (what is here granted) That men are called in Scripture, Righteous, sometimes in Regard of their imputed Righteousness, sometimes in reference to the laws and judgements of Men, sometimes also in regard of some of their particular actions, which are for their substance good: and sometimes in a comparative sense, as they are compared with the ungodly: The 3 last of these consisting in the Conformity of persons and actions with the Laws of God, or of men, though not a perfect Conformity: upon this first yielded to us, we could without any prejudice to truth grant back again to such qualified men as are before mentioned, that sometimes men are called [personally] Righteous, in reference to the New Covenant, i. e. in regard of their inchoat sanctification, and an inherent righteousness flown out of Christ into them, by means of their union unto Christ; for which (though not yet Complete and perfect in them,) they are, à parte praestantiore, termed Righteous. But to Master Baxter, whom we have as the wolf by the ears, prepared if we hold him, to by't at our hands, if we let him go, to fall upon our throats, or invade our face and head; if we deny him what he would have, to by't at us; if we grant it him, to improve it against Christ our head; we grant nothing, we can grant nothing, because in all that he speaketh, he means not as he speaketh, but covers under fine words fallacies and falsities. First then, we except against his Thesis, that it is a mere fardel of Amphibologies and Equivocations. That he so delivers all, that he will be held to nothing. For first, when he saith In this fore-explained sense it is, his meaning was (no doubt) to leave us doubtful, or at least to leave himself this advantage, that we should remain uncertain where to find him. If we should fetch the explanation from the next Theses, he might except that his meaning was of some of the more remote Theses; if from the remote, he would fly to the next; or if we should draw the sense from both the next and remote Theses, he might evade thus, that he meant not any thing that was said in any of his Theses, but something in the explication of some of them. And thus we might pursue the wild-goose long enough, before we should find her pitching. Secondly, When he saith, Men in Scriptures are said to be personally righteous, his purpose was to leave us in the like doubt, whether he means the Righteousness of justification, or the Righteousness of Sanctification; and himself the like advantage to fly from the one to the other, as may most further his ends. Thirdly, when he saith again, And in this sense it is, he leaves us as knowing as before, what sense he meaneth, himself hath not yet concluded what the sense shall be, saving in general, such a sense as upon all occasions may serve to his purposes. Fourthly, When he saith, That the faith and duties of believers are said to please God. viz. As they are related to the Covenant of Grace, and not as they are measured by the Covenant of works; he had a project to leave us uncertain, whether by the word They and They twice used, he means those believers, or those duties and works. And upon this hinge runs the question in great part between us and the Papists, whether the works make the person, or the new relation of the person make his works accepted. And in the Fift place no less ambiguity is there in the phrase, Related to the Covenant of Grace, not to the Covenant of works. For in many respects may a person or thing be related to either Covenant, and he tells us not in what respect he meaneth. Now though from the whole scope of his worst we may assure ourselves that he would be understood in the worh, i. e. in the Popish sense, in reference to all these things which he delivers in such words as may bear a manifold sense: yet because the man delights to dance in the dark that he may not be yet taken, we will neither cross his humour, nor befool ourselves in dancing after him, until he shall discover himself and his meaning in the light. To the explication I except, that it is full of extravagancies, equivocations, contradictions, saying and gainsaying, doing, and undoing, mental reservations, and in all of fallacious subtleties. First he racks & rakes together Scriptures in heaps to prove that a man's eyes are in his head, not in his heels; I mean, to confirm that which no rational man ever denied, viz. that sometimes men are called righteous by reason of a personal righteousness etc. what an extravagancy is this, so strongly to fortify, where there is no fear of an assault? But there lurketh here a twofold fallaciousness and subtlety of Master Baxter. 1 a trick to delude his inconsiderate readers that view his words running, without any stay or stopping to consider with an opinion that he hath all the Old and New Testaments on his side, in that he can spit Scriptures so swiftly and numerously for himself. 2. a feat to screw into the minds of unwary men a conceit, that all these Scriptures, (which he confides they will not examine) do hold forth justification by our own personal, or inherent righteousness. Which they do no more prove, than a crow upon a sheep's back proves the sheep to be a crow, or a red hat forced upon Master Baxters' head proves him to be a Cardinal: Yet this must he mean and aim at, else (to use the very same words which he before used against Master Saltmarsh) his Argumentation is no more to the business that he hath in hand, than a harp to a harrow. For it is not the righteousness of sanctification, but of justification that is the subject of his dispute. 2. He is liberal in his concessions, grants us first that the Scripture calls men righteous sometimes in regard of their imputed righteousness; and when they are so called in respect of their inherent righteousness, it is sometimes in reference to the laws and judgements of men; Also [sometimes] in regard of some of their particular actions which are in their substance good: (viz. therein conformed to the law.) And sometimes in a comparative sense, as they are compared with the wicked, etc. Yet with one flat contradiction recalls all again, thus, Therefore it must needs be that men must be called Righteous in reference to the New Covenant only. Who ever heard until now of such a conclusion from such premises. If because we are sometimes in Scripture called righteous in regard of imputed Righteousness, which (according to Master baxter's Divinity) is our legal righteousness, and in regard of these other ways which he mentioneth, none of which relateth to the New Covenant, how doth it follow hence, Ergo, men are called righteous in reference to the New Covenant only? In this, his Logic is no less mystical than his Divinity. I can see no other ground of such an argutation in stead of an Argumentation, But this; Master Baxer hath granted, and laid the premises, Ergo, earum contrarium verum est, i. e. Therefore the contrary to what he saith must needs be true. But paradventure he draws the conclusion not from those concessions; but only from the words next & immediately going before, viz. The ordinary phrase of Scripture hath more truth and aptitude then so, Therefore etc. Did he not grant that the Scriptures do call men righteous in all the former mentioned respects? what is it then that he here saith The ordinary phrase of Scripture hath more truth etc. Are some Scriptures more true than others? And therefore doth he reject that which is affirmed by the less true, & conclude that which is affirmed by the more true Scriptures? or can he deny the Scriptures sometimes to call men righteous in the former respects? No marvel if he doth so profanely wrest and abuse the Scriptures, when he takes them for such false and uncircumcised things, that in his account they need also an inherent truth and righteousness to justify them. I should here prove, that men are called Righteous, not in reference to the New Covenant only. But let him first bring his proofs to confirm the contra●y, and I stand waiting to answer him. This he attempts to do in the next words: Wherein we shall find him bringing nothing else but some vain and lose propositions, fallaciously and sophistically disposed, laying them down as known principles, when they are the very things in question (for the most part of them) yet Confirming them with no other authority than his own bare affirmation and Negation, as if every paradox must be taken as sacred and undisputable, when he hath, and because he hath delivered it. It is plain thus (saith he;) B. Righteousness is but the Denomination of our actions and persons, as related to some Rule. He had before said in the Explication of Thes. 16. pag. 96. That Righteousness is no proper real being, but a Modificatio entis, the Modification of a being. This he means also here in calling it the Denomination of our persons and actions as related to some Rule. But what end he hath in degrading Righteousness from the honour of a positive real being more than other virtues, I do but yet kenn at a distance, and not fully comprehend. This we clearly see that he takes the chair, and challengeth to himself a Magisterial power to create and destroy what his Cap thinks fit in Philosophy, Logic, and Divinity. A famous Doctor, long versed in more sublime, and profound studies, and by means thereof having let slip some of the poor elementary rules of Grammar, having once by a mistake broken Priscian's head, being admonished, thereof is said in great haste to have answered, He would make a New Grammar, that should conform to the incongruity of his words, seeing his words were unconform to the congruity of Grammar. Such is the animosity of Mr. Baxter, where his opinions agree not with the rules of Philosophy, or Divinity, there he damns and annihilates the old, and with the breath of his mouth creates a new Philosophy, and Divinity, that shall be subservient to his opinions, and so Godlike, Diruit, aedificat, mutat quadrata rotundis. This he doth here in defining, or describing righteousness, denying it a positive, and real being; herein puffing off all the Classical Philosophers, and Divines. Philosophers; for Aristotle affirmeth, that all [Philosophers] call Righteousness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 only a virtue, but a perfect virtue, citing and approving that Proverbial verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That all [or every] virtue 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 speaks 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 be one and the same thing with virtue itself. Some call it bonitatem, probitatem, & integritatem, goodness, honesty, and integrity; others, rectitudinem virtutis, the uprightness, 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 natural, moral, or infused Habits, Positive, and Real Being's? Must all other Philosophers and Divines vanish to nothing, when Mr. Baxter comes with his Denominations, Modifications, or rather Noddifications? Nevertheless though we deny to him that Righteousness is but a bare Denomination, or dead notion; yet we grant to him that true righteousness both of men's 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 falsehood. Mr. Baxter hath his restrictions to promote, but not to prevent a falsehood. The thing that he pretends to prove, is, That men are called Righteous [in Scripture] in reference to the New Covenant only. There he finds the word only to make a falsehood. Here he cannot find it, will not find it; for if it be brought in place, it will reprove him of falsehood to all men. Is it for men's actions suiting to the Laws of men only, that they are called in Scripture righteous before men? He would be so understood; for if it be not only 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, only for this they are called Righteous before men. For he knoweth whole streams of Scriptures would be brought ●o confute so bold an assertion. But he proceedeth. B. When this Rule is God's Law, it is either that of Works, or that of Grace: In relation to the former there is none righteous, no not one, etc. ut supra. This, and that which followeth is all sophistical, 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 terms, 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 twofold Covenant of Works and of Grace, to beguile such as desire to be beguiled; yet really he labours to bring all under a Covenant of Works, making man's own righteousness 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 fare his meaning therein in reference to the Law extendeth, whether for a direction only what is good, and what is evil, 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 evil shunned, that we may be justified and saved thereby. Though we may without much difficulty smell his meaning herein, yet because he reserveth it for another place clearly to express himself, we also will reserve it for the same place to make him a full answer. 4. He playeth his usual 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 aught to be in the conclusion, which is not also in the premises. The conclusion (as we have seen) is that none is called righteous, etc. 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 Righteousness which is by the Law, I was blameless, 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 Righteousness, yet he is termed, and called Righteous, blamelessly 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 than I; and Solomon of Joab, Two men more righteous than himself, Gen. 38. 26. 1 Sam. 24. 17. 1 Kings 2. 32. Were these here called Righteous in reference to the righteousness of the Gospel, and not of the Law? Or when the Lord by his Prophet calls them righteous which turned from their righteousness, and perished in, and for their wickedness, Ezek. 3. 20, 21. and 18. 20, 24, 26. and 33. 12, 13, 18. was it an Evangelical, or a legal Righteousness, that gave them the denomination of Righteous persons? When Isaiah calls all his, all the people's Righteousness, menstruous or filthy Ragged, and Paul his Righteousness, 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 heap, and hoard up Scriptures to the same purpose which call men righteous in reference to the Law of Works: But in what respects men are called so in Scripture; for an unperfect righteousness is not the thing in question. Not that they were justified by it, is certain; but in whatsoever other respects, it destroyeth Mr. Baxters' conclusion, that men are called Righteous in relation to the Covenant of Grace only; and shows the inconsequence of his Argumentation, that because none is perfectly righteous, viz. to Justification in relation to the Law of Works, Ergo, in no other respect is he called Righteous according to the Covenant of Works. What he addeth, Only in Christ, who hath obeyed, and satisfied, we are Righteous. This we embrace as our Gospel Righteousness, and Mr. Baxter alone without company, or suffrage of Prophet, or Apostle, Ancient, or Modern Writers, affirms to be our legal Righteousness. But hitherto we find it an affirmation without confirmation. It follows. Bax. But if you consider our actions and persons in relation to the Rule of the New Covenant, so all the Regenerate are personally righteous, because they all perform the conditions of this Covenant, and are properly pronounced Righteous thereby. Neither can it be conceived how the works of Believers should either please God, or be called Righteousness, as they relate to that old Rule, which doth pronounce them unrighteous, hateful, and accursed. He proceeds still in his sophistry without any the least particle of Scripture, or any thing else, save the wind of wit and words to prove what he would have us to believe. It behoveth him that will fasten and screw into the judgements of men new, and strange Doctrines, that never sounded before (at least in the same phrase of words) in their ears, to bring irrefragable Arguments to confirm it. But such paradoxes and prodigies both of doctrines and words, doth Mr. Baxter here hold forth, as were never before heard of, but in uttering them he is a Barbarian to us, and we Barbarians to him, in not understanding them, yet brings nothing else but his own word to promote them. The mysteries of his sophistry are so deep, that our wooden wits cannot sink to the bottom to comprehend and understand it. First, what means he by the Rule of the New Covenant? Doth he put the New Covenant here in the Passive, or in the Active, and Possessive sense? i. e. Doth he mean by the Rule of the New Covenant a rule extrinsecall, and without the New Covenant, to which the New Covenant must be conformed, that it may be regular; or a rule in the New Covenant, and by it made out to us, whereunto we must be conformed? If in this latter sense, then whether without, or else with reference to some end? if to some end, whether then to Sanctification or Justification? I cannot so much as conjecture that he puts the phrase in the first sense, that he tells us here of a Rule to which the New Covenant must be conformed, because it is altogether alien from the scope of his dispute; and besides how we should be related to a rule with which the New Covenant must suit, I cannot see; for such a Rule I should conceive to be immanent in God, and so hid from us, that we cannot perceive how to regulate ourselves by it. This than he cannot mean. 2. Neither do I conceive that his meaning is, that we are to be conformed to the Rule which is contained in, and manifested by the New Covenant, without respect to any end to which the rule directeth; that we ought to be thus and thus qualified, and thus to act only, because the Gospel so biddeth, without reference to the end of such qualifications and actings: For neither is this any thing to the purpose of his dispute. Neither in this sense can such qualifications and actings be in any show of reason called, what Mr. Baxter here calleth them, Conditions of the New Covenant: For they are Conditions (if at all Conditions) in reference to some ends, without which the end cannot be obtained. Or what ends doth the New Covenant immediately point at, more than either our Justification or Sanctification? 3. If he mean the Rule of the New Covenant for Sanctification. 1. Then I shall demand of him, whether the Law of Works be not the rule of the matter and substance of those qualifications and actions which conduce to Sanctification, even under the New Covenant; and whether the Rule of the New Covenant or Gospel do extend any further than to the Modification of those Qualifications and Actions, directing to the Mediator from whom to derive those Qualifications and Actions, and by, and through whom to present ourselves and them unto God? 2. And then, whether in reference to Sanctification, men may not be called Righteous, as having their righteousness relating to the rule of the Old, as well as the New Covenant? I cannot be so uncharitable to think that Mr. Baxter; having positively affirmed that believers are in part under the Curse of the Law, will deny them to be also in part under the rule and direction of the Law; if he should, he must brand upon himself the due infamy of Antinomianism, which he unduly and falsely chargeth upon others. 3. And yet this will in no wise advantage his cause: For we grant him, that in reference to the inherent righteousness of Sanctification, men are called Righteous in the Scriptures by a personal righteousness. But what is this to that righteousness in ourselves equally necessary to the righteousness which is in Christ, to Justification, which he had in the former Theses asserted, and here goes about to prove or illustrate? 4. If he mean the rule of the New Covenant to Justification, (which seems to me unquestionable, though he will not fully express himself) then 1. I demand of him, how our actions relate to this rule? Is it, that themselves, i. e. our very actions may be justified by it? This he condemneth, Thess. 25, and its Explication. Or that they may Justify us, as conditions of our Justification? This most probably is his meaning, which when he confesseth, he confesseth himself worse than Popish; for the Papists ascribe Justification not to actions indefinitely, but to some good works only. When he speaks more broadly than they, let him show himself without a vizard under the name and notion of a Papist, and he will not want answerers or answers. But upon this supposition let us see what he inferreth; So all the regenerate are personally righteous, because they all perform the conditions of this Covenant, and are properly pronounced righteous thereby. Let us now collect together what in probability is the whole sum of his dispute. Leaving what he hath said to deny that men are called Righteous in respect of Justification, by the rule of the Law, because we do not, cannot perform the conditions of the Law (unto which I have already answered) here he endeavours to prove, that they are called Righteous only in reference to the rule of the Gospel; and if we draw his reasoning into a syllogism, it runs thus. All that perform the conditions which the Gospel, or New Covenant prescribe unto Justification, are personally righteous thereby, and properly so called. But all the Regenerate perform the conditions which the Gospel, or New Covenant prescribe unto Justification. Ergo, All the Regenerate are personally righteous, and properly so called thereby. If Mr. Baxter saith not this, either he saith nothing, or I understand nothing of what he saith. But if this be his meaning, then as to his Proposition or Major, 1. I except against the ambiguity of the terms, they want explication. What he means by conditions, I know not; for if we grant one, yet shall we grant but one Gospel condition of Justification, viz. Faith in Christ Jesus. When therefore he puts the plural number for the singular, until he shall certify us what he meaneth, we must leave him uncerta in what we will answer. Again, it is doubtful what he meaneth by personally Righteous: if he mean thereby the same thing with that which our Divines call inherently Righteous, and put in opposition to imputed righteousness, we deny the proposition as false and Popish. But if he means by personal righteousness the Justification of our persons by the blood of Christ apprehended by Faith, we gainsay not his proposition, but pronounce it to be utterly besides his purpose, which is to prove a twofold righteousness, one in ourselves, the other in Christ necessary to salvation. Yet that this is not, but the former is his meaning, he makes evident by the word [thereby] i. e. by such performance. And if righteous by his own works and performance, he needs not to step further to Christ for another righteousness, to make him more than righteous, exorbitantly righteous, righteous in a way of supererogation. He that hath justified himself, needs no other Justifier. Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. As to the Assumption, or miner Proposition, I except that it labours of the same ambiguity in the word [conditions] with the major, so that until he tell us how many thousand, and what conditions he meaneth, I must be dumb instead of answering. To both Propositions, I except that there lieth a fallacy in the word [perform.] No living person can perform any thing so as to be justified, and be termed absolutely righteous by such performing. Yet every Regenerate man doth perform that upon which he may rest confident that Christ is made of God Righteousness to him, and so have his Justification evidenced to his own conscience. But if Mr. Baxter will change his terms, and call (after the tone of Scriptures, and Orthodox Writers) Christ our New Covenant or New Gospel righteousness, and our performings or works, our legal righteousness, then lo how near I shall close with him. I shall say with him, that all which perform, are righteous; but in what sense? Righteous in a proportion answering the proportion of their performings; if they perform perfectly, then perfectly righteous; if unperfectly, and sinfully, then sinfully, and unperfectly righteous. Whatsoever else Mr. Baxter would hence elicit, in doing it he prostitutes all his integrity to sophistry and fallacies. The rest hath been said, and answered before, in, and upon the former clauses of this Explication. Yet as if he had spoken all this out of Peter's chair, which is as free from errors as an Irish from Lice, so he holds forth his golden foot triumphantly to tread on their necks, as being all laid prostrate before him, whosoever have since the beginning of the world, said any thing contrary to this doctrine which he hath brought to light now at the end of the world. Thus disdainfully exulting over them, Bax. pag. 121. Two sorts among us therefore discover intolerable ignorance in this point. 1. Those that commonly use and understand the words [Righteous, and Righteousness] as they relate to the old Rule; as if the godly were called righteous (besides their imputed righteousness) only because their sanctification, and good works have some unperfect agreement to the Law of works; as if it were a straight line which is in one place straight, and in another crooked; much less that which is in every place crooked in some degree. I have been sorry to hear many learned Teachers speak thus. In these words we find first gross contradiction, whom he accuseth in one breath of intolerable ignorance, in the next breath he applauds to be learned Teachers. If intolerably ignorant, how learned Teachers? If learned Teachers, how intolerably ignorant? Doth he not contradict himself? unless he will thus solve it. That in comparison with others they are learned Teachers, but as compared with himself, they are intolerably ignorant. This indeed is employed in the next words, compassing the learned Teachers, I have been sorry to hear many learned Teachers speak. Others that were taken for learned saw no infirmity in them, But I have been sorry to take notice of their nakedness, and babishness in learning. So doth the light of Moon and Stars vanish before the Sun. Let us next take notice whom he calleth intolerably ignorant, and for what. 1. Those that commonly use, and understand the words, etc. ut suprà. The Crabfish cannot, will not cease to go fideling, and crooked, though his dam entreat him to take straight steps. Can Mr. Baxter in a case of this nature deal simply, and sincerely? Shall we conclude (because he saith it) that many intolerably ignorant learned Teachers have said, and maintained, that the Godly are [in Scriptures] called Righteous (besides their imputed righteousness) Only because their Sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works, Credat Judaeus Apelles, or Quaerat peregrinum: I am too much acquainted with his fallacies and falsifications to believe it. It were a m●er contradiction, for how that should be called Sanctification which hath only some imperfect agreement with the Law of Works, I see not; I never met with that man that hath professed himself to have seen. We do not place Sanctification in some outside conformity of the utter man, and his visible works only to the Letter of the Law, but in the actual infusion of the Holiness and Righteousness of the Law into man's heart, working a real change of the whole man from the image of Satan, unto the image of God. Whom the Lord Jesus hath justified, and by his blood reconciled to God, so changing their relations: Them also he sanctifieth by his Spirit, and reforms to the image of God by the alteration of their qualities, which though it be but inchoate and unperfect at the first, yet is it more and more consummate and perfited until the day of the Lord Christ. So that here is not only the Law without, to rule and direct, but the holiness and righteousness of the Law, and Christ by his Spirit as the root thereof, wrought by Gospel grace in the heart, and diffused through the whole life; and the same conformed not only to the Law, but the Gospel also, as before hath been mentioned. In respect of this sanctification, though yet but unperfect, we indeed affirm the godly to be sometimes called Righteous, yet not righteous to Justification, but in regard of the life of Righteousness new begotten and inherent in them. But it is observable how subtly he slanders the Orthodox Teachers, with a fault which is his, not theirs, how he would condemn them for men, attributing too much to the Law and Works, because they call those virtues, and good works which the Law commandeth, a righteousness with which the godly do serve the Lord, in, and through Christ Jesus. When himself affirms the same to be the very Righteousness by which they are justified. For if he be demanded whether the personal Righteousness which he contendeth to be necessary and effectual to Justification, ought not to have at least some unperfect agreement to the Law of God, he answers affirmatively, and fights strongly for it in the sequel of this Treatise. Let him be demanded whether any other supposed Righteousness that the Law command not, can be our personal righteousness to justify us? This he● denyeth. What then is the difference betwixt him and them This only, that they will not say with him, that his righteousness (so unperfect as he here terms it, and which in the las● words of the former Section he pronounced unrighteous, hateful, and accursed) is the personal righteousness by whic● men are justified before God. If you ask how such works should justify, being so unrighteous and accursed? yes, saith he, as God hath appointed them to be the conditions of the New Covenant, the performance whereof justifieth and maketh us personally righteous before God. Here now is a heavenly Gospel. Such conditions and such a justification, if the one be accursed much more the other. And where is God's Righteousness, if he will not justify but upon accursed conditions? Those that will not, have not consented to this doctrine of his, he calls intolerably ignorant. Let him now name any one either Divine, or understanding Christian in any of the Churches that have shaken off Popery, and not sucked it back again, consenting with him in this doctrine; else it is not his humility that is discovered, in calling all the godly and learned that are, or have been in any of the Churches of Christ, intolerably ignorant. Satis pro imperio; enough Magisterially out of doubt. What he talks of the straight, crooked line, hath its dependence only upon the fallacious definition which he before gave of Righteousness, making it a mear empty notion, not a virtue or give of God's grace; which definition falling, this comparison falls with it. For if we grant unto Righteousness a real being, Master Baxter himself will not deny but, as one spark of fire under a vast heap of ashes is as true and real fire as if no ashes were there; so one spark of righteousness, (I mean living Righteousness) under a whole body of infirmities, is as true and truly Righteousness as if no infirmities were there; And if God vouchsafe to call a man righteous in reference to that poor pittance of Righteousness, rather than unrighteous for the whole mass of his corruptions: what art thou O man that repliest against God? is thine eye evil because he is good? B. Most they say to maintain it, is in this simple objection. If we are called holy because of an unperfect holiness, then why not Righteous, because of an imperfect righteousness? Answ. Holiness signifieth no more but a dedication to God, either by separation only, or by qualifying the subject, first with an aptitude to its Divine employment, and then separating, or devoting it: as in our sanctification. Now a person imperfectly so qualified, is yet truly and really so qualified. And therefore may truly be called Holy so fare. But Righteousness signifying a conformity to the rule, and a conformity with a quatenus, an imperfect rectitude, being not a true conformity or rectitude at all, (because the denomination is of the whole action or person, and not of a certain part, or respect) therefore imperfect Righteousness is not Righteousness, but unrighteousness: It is a contradiction in adjecto. Object. But, is our personal Righteousness perfect, as it is measured by the New rule? Answ. Yes: as I shall open to you by and by. I could here heap up a multitude of orthodox writers that do call our personal Righteousness by the title of (evangelical) as signifying from what rule it doth receive its name. The words of the Poet are here verified by Master Baxter, mali bonos malos esse volunt, ut sint sui similes. He is angry with the simplicity of the godly and orthodox that they are single and sincere in their disputes, and would have them double and crafty like himself. In this sense I acknowledge the Argument which he saith they bring, and is most they say to maintain their assertion, is a simple objection. They have more to say for the maintenance thereof then all his sophistry can subvert. And this argument though simple, yet is not silly or weak, but strong and sound against all his batteries. It is drawn à pari. If there be a parity between righteousness and holiness to give a denomination of holy and righteous persons, than the argument is firm, and men may be as properly termed Righteous in reference to a righteousness not yet perfected, as holy in reference to a holiness not perfected: at verum prius, ergo & Postorius. The former is true, therefore the latter also. Master Baxter denyeth the assumption, and goes about to show a disparity in this case between righteousness and holiness: making holiness to be either only a separation of a thing or person to holy use, without an infusion of a new qualification to fit him for holy employment, or at least the qualification of such a person first always, and then a separating of him afterward, as if usually the consecration or separation by the blood, did not go before the new qualifying of him by the Spirit of Christ, (this indeed is not so squaring with the Popish Canon, as his way.) But to let pass this, & touch only upon that wherein he opposeth righteousness to holiness. Holiness he grants to be a qualification, and consequently to have a real Being. This here he denyeth, as before, of righteousness. A merely fallacious evasion; for righteousness hath no less a real being than holiness (as hath been before showed.) And the Scripture gives its Testimony, making Righteousness and true Holiness, as it were the two essentials of the New Man, which is created after God, i. e. in answer and conformity to that essential Righteousness and Holiness that are in God himself. Eph. 4. 24. And what else doth Saint Peter mean in affirming the Saints to be Partakers of the Divine Nature, but by the infusion or creating of Righteousness as well as Holiness in them, by which they are reform to the nature of God, which is Holiness and Righteousness. 2 Pet. 1. 4. And no more is it a true Holiness, than this a true Righteousness which are not both in some measure conformed to the Law of God. And because they are both alike real beings, or qualifications: Therefore what Master Baxter saith of Holiness may be no less truly said of Righteousness also. That a person imperfectly so qualified, is yet truly and really so qualified, and therefore may truly be called Righteous so fare. What he doth Philosophari to the contrary of Righteousness, is against both Philosophy and Divinity, as hath been before manifested. When he hath once opened the perfection of this Righteousness according to the new rule: we shall there and then examine it as in its due time and place. Let him name but one of the heap and multitude of those Orthodox writers, that call our Personal Righteousness [Evangelicall] in his sense, else let him give us leave to conclude, that he makes no conscience of heaping together falsities in multitudes to Eclipse the truth. But who are in his account Orthodox writers, though he doth not expressly tell us, yet he hath made it easy for us to judge. So fare of the former sort of intolerably ignorant, viz. the learned teachers. He proceeds to the latter. Bax. pag. 123. The second sort that show their gross ignorance, of the nature of righteousness, are the Antinomians (and some other simple ones whom they have misled) who if they do but hear a man talk of a righteousness in himself; or in any thing he can do, or making his own duty either his righteousness, or conducible thereto; they startle at such Doctrine, and even gnash the teeth, as if we preached flat Popery, yea as if we cried down Christ, and set up ourselves: The ignorant wretches not understanding the difference between the two sorts of Righteousness: That of the Old Covenant, which is all out of us in Christ, and that of the New Covenant, which is all out of Christ in ourselves (though wrought by the power of the Spirit of Christ.) In this, and that which follows, there is nothing but dirt and wind, all unworthy of the labour to transcribe it, much less deserving an answer to be given it. I should therefore have past it by with disdainful silence, were it not for the respect which I have to the weakest sort of Readers, which ordinarily are more affrighted with high and bragging words, then wrought upon by sound reasons from the Word of God: For preventing of delusion to such, I shall therefore say somewhat, and there will not be need that I should say much. First then I undertake to maintain, that although there be no man upon earth that hath in words pretended more hatred against Antinomians, than Mr. Baxter, to make them hateful to such as are foolishly apt to hate without a cause; yet is there no other man upon earth that hath in reality and substance so much honoured and magnified them as Mr. Baxter. He makes them, even them alone to be the sound Christians, the advancers and maintainers of the pure Gospel of Christ against all the falsities and portentous lies of Antichrist, railing against them as the only hinderers of the total ruin of Christ's Kingdom, and the advancing of the Kingdom of Antichrist in the room thereof as Paramount. These he affirms here to be he men supereminently zealous for Christ, who if they do but hear a man talk of a righteousness in himself, or any thing that he can do (viz. as ordained, or powerful to justify; for so is his meaning, or else he saith nothing) or maketh his own duty either his (Justifying) Righteousness, or conducible thereto; they startle, etc. as if we preached, etc. ut suprà. O noble spirits! these are the men indeed (as fare as we can judge) baptised with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Let me not live one moment longer than the Grace of Christ supports me in such Antinomianism. Such have been all the holy Orthodox Reformers, Martyrs, Teachers, and Saints, in all the Churches from Luther unto this very day, such were the Apostles. Let them be accursed that preach another Gospel; I would they were cut off that pervert this Gospel, saith the Apostle. These all are at once Anathematised by Mr. Baxter for Heretics, for daring to be bold in speaking for Christ, when himself is impudent to speak for Antichrist. But tush, all these were but the Angels of the Churches, this man is mounted higher, to take the Chair among the Seraphims, or Seraphical Doctors: Therefore pitieth the childishness of this lower order, that they have not more sublime apprehensions. The ignorant wretches (saith he) not understanding the difference between the two sorts of Righteousness, that of the Old Covenant, which is all out of us in Christ, and that of the New Covenant, which is all out of Christ in ourselves. Oh intolerable ignorance of all the worthies that have lived in all ages ever since God had a Church upon earth, Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, that none of all these could see that which never was, never shall be! Yea the most holy Father, Christ's Vicar, with all his Cattles, Cardinals, Bishops, Schoolmen, Monks, and Jesuits, could but kenn it a distance unperfectly, until Mr. Baxter (Cui meliore Luto finxit praecordia Titan) having lighted his Torch from him that fell as Lightning from heaven, brings it here as clear and visible as the man in the Moon to our view. What Lyncean eyes hath he! one of Plato's scholars no doubt, that had higher speculations than others, and could see Ideas, which this man hath discerned more clearly than all his elder brethren that have studied, and even spent themselves in the contemplatioa of them. But let us leave the man, Narcissus like, in his amorous doting on his beauty and righteousness, while we present ourselves before the Lord, who is present only in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. The objection about Ahab and Nineveh, and the answer thereto given, wherewith the Explication of this Thesis is closed up, I pass by as altogether impertinent to this question of Justification by our own personal righteousness; except either the Objector or the Answerer, i. e. Mr. Ri. or Mr. Baxter will say, that either Ahab or those Ninevites, were ever truly justified. CHAP. XVI. Whether Faith in its proper sense, or [in Mr. Baxters' sense] the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, i. e. Believing as it is an act, or work of man, and comprehends in it all duties, be itself, our righteousness? or be imputed to us for Righteousness to Justification? or both? Mr. Baxters Reasons brought to prove the affirmative of all these, examined. Thesis' 23. page 125. BAx. In this sense also it is so fare from being an Error to affirm that (Faith itself is our righteousness) that it is a truth necessary for every Christian to know, i. e. Faith is our Evangelical Righteousness (in the sense before explained) as Christ is our legal Righteousness. Explication: This assertion, so odious to those that understand not its grounds, is yet so clear from what is said before, that I need no more to prove it. For first I have cleared before, that there must be a personal righteousness besides that imputed, in all that are justified. And that secondly, the fulfilling of the conditions of each Covenant, is our Righteoesnesse in reference to that Covenant. But Faith is the fulfilling of the conditions of the New Covenant; therefore it is righteousness in relation to that Covenant. I do not here take Faith for any our single act, but as I shall afterward explain it. Mr. Baxter verifieth the Proverb, Noscitur ex comite, qui non cognoscitur ex se. The affections of the man may be discerned by his company, with whom he is (as it were) in a confederacy. The Holy Ghost pronounceth of the Jews once degenerated into the manners, and false-worships of the Canaanites, that they were [no more children of Abraham, but that] their birth was of the land of Canaan, their father was an Amorite, their mother a Hittite, when once they had taken the pattern of their Religion from the Amorites and Hittites, and diverted from the Word of God, and steps of their own Progenitors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the following Patriarcks, and Prophets, Ezek. 16. 3. What should we account less of Mr. Baxter, whom we find deriving his Religion from the Papists, and their associates the Arminians, in contempt of Scriptures, and the godly Divines of the Reformed Churches? His former assertions, That believers are still under the curse of the Law after they are in Christ: That their Justification is but conditional both before, and after their believing: That none is (in any sense) justified before he believeth: That Justification is a continued act, during only so long as we continue fulfilling, broken off when we break, and repaired when we return to the fulfilling again of the supposed conditions thereof. That it is not completed before the end of our life (or as Mr. Baxter, outstripping most of his Masters, will have it) not before the day of Judgement. (These all) he cannot deny to be Doctrines held in common by the Jesuits and Arminians; and I could (were there need) allege the very words of Bellarmine, and other Jesuits, and of Arminius, Corvinus, Episcopius, Grevinchovius, the Apology of the Remonstrants, and in most of these even Socinus himself, whose not only matter but also their very words Mr. Baxter hath transcribed into our language, in the delivery of those Tenants. Here again he doth in this Thesis lay down a conclusion (before more then hinted at) wherein Bellarmine, Socinus, and Arminius fully agree; that, Faith is our righteousness, even Faith itself our Evangelicall righteousness (viz. to Justification) that it is so far from being an error to affirm it, that it is a truth necessary for every Christian to know. He acknowledgeth it in the Explication to be an assertion odious to some. Rational men would therefore expect great strength of Arguments to prove it. And what brings he? Nothing but his own Authority, which to us is of equal, and but of equal authority with theirs from whom he hath taken it up. It is clear (saith he) from what is said before. No less clear I acknowledge, than the face of a man in a mudwall for a Looking-glass. 1. I have cleared before (saith he) besides that imputed, that there must be also a personal Righteousness in all that are justified. This is not denied, that there must be such a personal Righteousness, but that where it is, it is there proper and effectual to Justification, is no better cleared than hath been said. How the second thing was before cleared by him, I refer to that which hath been said of both sides about it. If the casting of dust and dirt into the eyes, may be properly called clearing of them; in this, and in no other sense, do I acknowledge the thing to be cleared by what Mr. Baxter hath before said. Where he lays down this caution, (I do not here take Faith for any one single act, but as I shall afterward explain it) he might have spared the labour to tell us so: For we see what himself seethe, that so to take it, would be a ruinating blow to the most of the foregoing and following doctrines about Justification, contained in this his book. But he goeth forward thus. B. Quaest. In what sense is then Faith said to be imputed to us for Righteousness, if it be our Righteousness itself? Answ. Plainly thus. Man is become unrighteous by breaking the Law of Righteousness that was given him. Christ fully satisfieth for this transgression, and buyeth the prisoners into his own hands; and maketh with them a New Covenant: That whosoever will accept of him, and believe in him who hath thus satisfied, it shall be as effectual for their Justification, as if they had fulfilled the Law of Works themselves. A Tenant forfeiteth his▪ Lease to his Landlord by not paying his Rent: he runs deep in debt to him, and is disabled to pay him any more Rent for the future. Whereupon he is put out of his house, and cast into prison till he pay the debt. His Landlord's son payeth it for him, taketh him out of prison, and putteth him in his house again as his Tenant, having purchased house and all to himself: He maketh him a new Lease in this Tenor, that paying but a Pepper-corn yearly to him, he shall be acquit both from his debt, and from all other Rent for the future, which by his old Lease was to be paid. Yet doth he not cancel the old Lease, but keepeth it in his hands, to put it in suit against the Tenant, if he should be so foolish as to deny the payment of the pepper-corn. In this case the payment of the grain of pepper is imputed to the tenant, as if he had paid the rent of the old Lease. Yet this imputation doth not extol the pepper corn, nor vilify the benefit of his benefactor, whoredeemed him. Nor can it be said that the purchase did only serve to advance the value and efficacy of that grain of pepper. But thus, a personal Rent must be paid for the testification of his homage. He was never redemeed to be independent, and his own Landlord and Master. The old Rent he cannot pay. His new Landlords clemency is such, that he hath resolved this grain shall serve the turn. Do I need to apply this to the present case? or cannot every man apply it? Even so is our Evangelicall Righteousness or Faith imputed to us for as real Righteousness, as perfect obedience. Two things are considerable in the debt of Righteousness. The value, and the personal performance, and interest. The value of Christ's satisfaction is imputed to us in stead of the value of a perfect obedience of our own performing; and the value of our Faith is not so imputed. But because there must be some personal performance of homage, therefore the personal performance of Faith shall be imputed to us for a sufficient personal payment; as if we had paid the full rent; because Christ, whom we believe in, hath paid it; and he will take this for satisfactory homage. So it is in point of personal performance, and not of value that Faith is imputed. I should have left this passage, as merely windy, to the wind, finding nothing in it that hath the least force to disturb, or shake any wel-grounded Christian. Only because not all that are true Christians, are also so well grounded and rooted in Christ, and built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets as could be desired; but not a few children in understanding whirled to and fro with every wind of doctrine; for prevention of their sliding I shall say something, (and there is not much need of speaking much) to it. Mr: Baxter shows himself to be a notable proficient, yea a perfitist in the art of Imposture. As he hath his feats and shifts of sophistry still in readiness to beguile them that pretend to learning; so he hath, and here makes use of his good words and fair speeches, smoothness of language, and a show without substance of reason, which the Holy Ghost affirms to be the common slight of false teachers, to deceive the hearts of the simple, Rom. 16. 17, 18. His scope here seems to be twofold. 1. To hold himself in favour with the Arminians his younger brothers, and kindly to draw them with him up to a full closure with the Papists, the worst of Papists, to speak not only the same thing, but also the same words with him, and them in the point of Justification. 2. To delude and charm with golden words of painted vanity, in stead of sound verity, the weak and unwary Christians among us, into a confederacy with him in his opinions. 1. In reference to the former part of his aim and purpose, it is evident, that though the Arminians are led by the same spirit with the Papists, and as much as we can understand by their writings, have even sacrificed themselves to drive on the Papists interests; yet they speak not altogether so broad and home as Master Baxter doth in the Popish dialect in this point of justification. The times of Master Baxters and Arminius his declaring themselves for the Popish synagogue, were not one and the same. Here Master Baxter hath the advantage of Arminius, & improves it diligently. Arminius was to broach his doctrine in Commonwealth; where he knew he should have all the Magistracy, Ministry and people also, on a sudden, rising up with counited strength to oppose him; yea all the Magistrates and Ministers of the reformed Churches round about, bringing their counited help to extinguish his wildfire. Needful was it therefore for him in policy to speak warily, & none repent fieri turpissimum: not at once to discover himself at the worst. The times do better serve Master Baxters purposes, Providence hath cast him upon a people of itching ears, at a time when the promoting and admitting of Monstrosities in opinions is the fashion mainly in request in religion, the most, like the Athenians, harkening ●fter nothing else but news and novelties in doctrine, & having set up Altars in their hearts to the unknown Gods, are ready to burn incense and offer sacrifice to every phantasm of falsehood, which under the name of a new light or truth, shall be discovered to them. It behoved him therefore, for the full attaining of his designs, to make use of the opportunity, to strike home, and to the purpose, while the iron is hot, and having his mouth once open, to vomit out all the poison in his belly in one flood, while there are so many mouths and bellies open to receive it. Hence it is, that Arminius and his followers, though they had as good stomaches as Mr. Baxter, yet did not open their mouths as wide as he in Babel language. Though they spoke the tantundem, yet they spared to utter the idem, with the Papists to obscure the Grace of God in our Justification. They termed not (as the Papists do) Faith the very, or part of the very righteousness which justifieth of itself, but that which is imputed to us for, or in stead of perfect righteousness, to Justification, asserting not that it justifieth by its own inherent virtue, or righteousness, but to be graciously accepted for righteousness at God's tribunal. Christ (say they) hath merited for us, that our Faith should be accepted, and esteemed of God, for, and in place of the perfect righteousness of the Law, to justify us in his sight. In substance they speak the same thing with, but in words they are somewhat more favourable, and modest than the Jesuits. But Mr. Br. doth not thus speak thorough his teeth lisping, to mince the matter, but having the advantage of a good wind and tide, (as hath been said) hoiseth sails, and is at once carried into the very Lateran of Rome, through the streams of Tiber; and speaks out in the Romish tone, asserting Faith to be the personal righteousness by which we are justified, and makes the righteousness of Faith a collateral with the righteousness of Christ to our justification. Yet doubting his good friends the Arminians will be angry for his posting before them, and finding them in reverence to their Father Arminius, yet sticking to, and loath to departed from his words, that Faith is but imputed for righteousness, he calls back (notwithstanding all his haste) to them, inviting them to follow him; for he is still of the same mind with them, and endeavours to show them, that Faith itself may be our righteousness, and yet be imputed to us for righteousness also. Which also he doth so graphically paint out to them, that they may (if they will not be too wayward) easily perceive, that they may own the Pope for their Father, and be nevertheless the genuine sons of Arminius still. What effect his fine words will take upon the Armians, I know not, I care not. Only this was requisite to be made out to be one end that he had in this passage of his, that we might the better know the man what he is: One that hangs so close to Rome, as the burr to the garment; yet holds sweet correspondence with the Arminians too, to draw them to so full a discovery of themselves, as himself hath made of himself. 2. In reference to the weak, and unwary Christians among ourselves, his aim is to fasten both the Popish and Arminian doctrines before mentioned upon them; and that not by strong arguments of Scripture, whereof he is wholly destitute in this point, but by fine paints and flourishes of words, and delightful fimilies, pretending much sweetness and innocency in those doctrines, having learned of his forefathers that images are Laymens' best books, viz. to carry them into idolatry & error, and pictures are of more force to work upon the ignorant, then sound doctrine. To prevent therefore what evil is intended to them, I shall give these few premunitions. First, that the question itself proposed by him, is merely captious; If Faith be our Righteousness itself, how is it said to be imputed to us for Righteousness? as if Faith either as an act or duty, or habit of Evangelical righteousness, were imputed to us for, and in stead of the perfect fulfilling of the righteousness of the Law to Justification. This he takes as granted, whereas it is one chief thing in question. All the reformed Churches, with their Teachers & Pastors have unanimously denied both that faith is our justifying righteousness; and that it is imputed to us for righteousness, otherwise then as it is instrumental to apprehend Christ to be our righteousness, or the satisfaction which Christ hath made for us, to be imputed to us for, and instead of that righteousness which consisteth in fulfilling the Law. 2. As to the plain and positive answer which he makes to the question: Though we grant what he saith of our unrighteousness, Christ's satisfaction, and purchase of the prisoners; yet in that which he addeth of the covenant that he makes with the prisone●s so bought, there is nothing but guilful, ambiguity. viz. that Whosoever will accept, and believe in him, who hath thus satisfied, it shall be as effectual for their justification, as if they had fulfilled the Law of Works themselves. To the simple and upright man, that is not acquainted with Mr. Baxters' subtleties, this will seem as sound a Doctrine as if an Angel from heaven had delivered it. But how wide is his meaning from that which his words seem to import? 1 By faith he meanth not what he calls it, An accepting of and believing in Christ, as it is such an accepting and believing, but as it is a qualification or act, Comprehending in it all qualifications and good works besides, as afterward he makes his meaning evident. 2 When he calls it an accepting of and believing in him who hath thus satisfied, he means not a believing and accepting of him only under this notion as he hath satisfied, that this shall suffice to Justification. Nay our accepting him for our law giver and performing of all things that he Commandeth, and Consequently all our obedience, he will have to bear an equal part to Justification. 3 When he saith, whosoever thus accepteth and believeth, doth he mean that this Fa●th or believing is the alone Condition of the full justification of which he speaketh, or upon wh●ch alone Christ Covenanteth to justify? Nay he attributes no less to repentance, Charity, mercy, holiness, every gift of the Spirit, every work of the law to which we are moved by the Spirit, and Called by the Gospel; about their efficacy to Justification than to Faith itself. Why doth he put off the Monks Cowl and put on Paul's Cloak, only to deceive the simple for whom Christ hath died? 4 When he saith, It shall be as effectual etc. putting It next to the word satisfied, and next to the Clause Him that hath satisfied, there is the same ambiguity and falsehood with that which I noted in the second place, and whether he meaneth it faith, or it satisfaction, shall do the work? 5 Where he saith, It shall be as effectual to Justification as if they had fulfilled the law of works themselves. Here he utterly destroyeth the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ, as any way imputed to Justification, when elsewhere he makes it equally necessary with the righteousness of Faith to Justification. And thus he seems to leave the Papists (which he would not do for a world I think) which hold that we are justified both by Christ's righteousness and our own righteousness also: and to join only with the Socinians, which hold that we are justified only by faith imputed to us for righteousness, and not by the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ at all. For if this believing be by the virtue of Christ's Covenant as effectual to Justification as our fulfilling of the law of works could have been, then is there no need of any act or suffering or satisfaction of Christ to be imputed to us. For whosoever shall fulfil the law shall have no need of a Mediator to justify him. Therefore neither he that so believeth etc. But how hard is it for a man that oppugneth truth and propugneth error by mere fallacies against the light of his Conscience, to keep himself free from Contradictions; here he Contradicts what he had before said of Christ our righteousness; and in the application of the following similitude we shall find him in substance contradicting what he here saith. Touching all those things which a little before I have affirmed his meaning to be so and so; let none demand how I know what is in another man's heart: himself in the following part of this Tractate fully discovers it, as we shall find by reading and examining it. Neither will any question it but they that have not read him, or in reading have not understood him. Thus much to his plain answer before he descends to his similitude which he useth as sugar to lap & roll it up in, that it may go down pleasantly. In this answer we find nothing but words, his own words, not the least pittance of God's word to authorise it; he saith all, and with the same facility we deny all. Proceed we after him now to his similitude. 3 As to his similitude, first I except that Similitudines or rather Similia illustrant, non probant. Similitudes are of good use to illustrate and make Clear to the understanding that which is before proved to be a truth; but of no use to prove that which is unproved and the thing still in question. That which Mr. Br hath before Concluded in his answer, was that Faith is both the righteousness itself by which we are justified, and 2 that it is also imputed to us for and in stead of Justifying righteousness: viz. the very Gospel Righteousness, imputed for and in stead of the legal righteousness. He hath said it without any addittament of Scripture or reason to prove it; so that his similitude here is brought to illustrate only a phantasm of his own brain, not any doctrine of God's word. 2 I except against the similitude itself as being in its matter and form altogether incongruous to illustrate the doctrine of justification by Faith, which the Gospel holds forth to us; because it hath (besides other) these following incongruities to it. 1 Though (as in the positive answer before we did, so here) we grant what he saith of the Tenant's forfeiture, unablenes to pay, expulsion from the inheritance, casting into prison; his Landlord's son paying the debt for him, delivering him out of prison, putting him into his house again as his Tenant, having purchased the house and all to himself; (provided always that all this be done by the will of the Father the first Landlord, which Mr. Br doth not deny,) And though we pardon to Mr. Br (upon Condition that he do so no more) that he speaks here more orthodoxly than he purposed, viz. the prisoners debt to be satisfied, the prisoner to be delivered, & restored to his house, to the inheritance again by the mere grace and purchase of the Son, before God; which implies no less than a full justification with & by God, before ever the prisoner believed, or had a new Lease, a new Covenant of grace and faith made with him; a doctrine which before Mr. Br anathematizeth to hell itself: and will do so again; though he thereby Curse himself for that which inconsiderately here fell from him: These things granted and winked at: we utterly explode all the rest in the Similitude not only as uncoherent with, but as contrary to the doctrine of Grace, yea utterly destructive to the nature and working of grace in our Justification; and that in these particulars, as I promised above to specify. 1 That it maketh our Justification mercenary, and held by yearly rent: for though it be but a pepper-corn that is paid, yet that is rend and payment, (as shall be manifested before we pass from this similitude) which is contrary to the Covenant of grace, and doctrine of the Gospel which affirmeth, that We are justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption which is in Jesus Christ, Rom. 3. 24. And wholly agreeing with the doctrine of the Gospel is that of Austin; Non enim gratia Dei Gratia erit ullo modo, nisi gratuita sit omni modo. The Grace of God shall not be grace in any respect, except it be free in every respect. But how is it free which is a debt acquired and held by rent and payment? 2 That it maketh our Justification Conditional, if Articles of Covenant be performed then the Tenant abides in the inheritance, the man is justified, if through foolishness or forgetfulness unperformed, then is the Tenant outted, the man unjustified. And to be thus conditionally Justified is no Justification. When contrariwise the Gospel holds forth a real and absolute Justification, Son, Daughter, Be of good cheer, thy sins he forgiven, Mat. 9 2. Luk. 7. 48. He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit, Joh. 13. 10. Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, and glory in tribulation, Rom. 5. 1. 3. Is it not a real and absolute, but a conditional forgiveness, washing, Justifying here spoken of? then must the effects in these places added and attributed to such forgiveness washing & Justifying, be not real but conditional also. A conditional not real cheer & comfort, a conditional not real cleanness, a conditional not real peace with God, and glorying in tribulation. But these effects are out of question real, Therefore Justification the Cause of these effects real also. 3 It delineats an unperfect Justification. The Old Lease is not canceled, but kept firm to be put in suit against the Tenant after the New Lease is made. The Old Covenant of works is kept in force against the believer after he is entered into the New Covenant of grace to be put in suit against him upon occasion to his total damnation. When the Gospel pronounceth the justification of a believer perfect, the Old Covenant in respect of any power over him to be dead, Rom. 7. 6. The hand writing against him and contrary to him, blotted out, taken out of the way, and nailed to the Cross of Christ, Col. 2. 14. So that he is no longer under the Law of works to be pleaded or put in suit against him, Rom 6. 14. Nor is there now any more Condemnation to be inflicted on him, Rom. 8. 1. 4 It points out a mutable justification. While the Tenant payeth the rent he shall be acquit both from his debt and all other rend for the future, but if he miss of payment then, both the old debt and rent falls on him as a mountain again, crushing him until the pepper-corn intercede & remove the mountain, and then acquitt again until the pepper-corn be lost in carriage, or being round and full of volubility, run besides the Landlord's hand, than on comes the mountain of debt upon the Tenant again, etc. Thus man's justification is made fast or lose, according to the steadfastness or mutableness of man's will, and the grace of God in justifying, of so little fixedness that a pepper-corn can weigh it and sway it up and down at pleasure. When contrariwise the Scripture every where pronounceth the grace of God, and Covenant of grace, everlasting, unchangeable; and makes the Justification of man to rest not upon his own mutable and mad will, but upon the stable and stablishing grace of God. I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more, Heb. 8. 12. I will make an everlasting Covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good, but I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not departed from me, Jer. 32. 40. with a large heap of testimonies more to the same purpose, which would be here impertinent to transcribe. Thus is the similitude as here framed in all these respects, proper indeed to illustrate the bugbear figment of Justification in Mr. Brs' brain: but altogether incoherent with the Justification which the Gospel holds forth to us. Yet he addeth, In this case the payment of the grain of pepper is imputed to the Tenant as if he had paid the Rent of the old Lease. When contrariwise the reformed Churches affirm from most full and pregnant Testimonies of Scripture, that to rest any thing at all upon the imputation of such pepper payments for righteousness, doth utterly frustrate the offers of grace and benefits of Christ's death unto us; as hath been oft before manifested. That which followeth doth not take off the Odium and falsehood of this his doctrine, but rather augments it, declaring that he hath learned of the Papists not only their falsifications of the Gospel, nullifying of the grace and righteousness of God, and extolling the crest of man's pride; but also their fallacious shirts to defend his dealing herein. Yet this imputation (saith he) doth not extol the pepper-corn, nor vilify the benefit of his benefactor, who redeemed him; Nor can it be said that the purchase did only serve to advance the value and efficacy of that grain of pepper. The very language of the Papists and the Arminians, for ●o they when they have mounted the righteousness of man's faith and works to be a part or the whole of the righteousness effectual to Justification; they come after with a plausible varnish of words, professing that they do not herein abase God's grace, nor heave above its own proportion man's righteteousness. For (say they) we do not attribute any thing to man's righteousness, either as it is man's righteousness, or to the price and value of it, as if by its own worth & merit it doth Justify; but partly (saith Antoninus) ex ordinatione Divina, as God hath ordained it to that end; and partly as it is the effect of Grace, and wrought in us by the Spirit, so that the value and efficacy thereof is to be taken not from the righteousness inherent in us, or performed by us, but from God's ordination of it to the end to which himself will make it effectual, and from the virtue of grace, and the spirit of grace in whose strength it is performed. So also Antoni. par. 4. tit. 9 c. 7. ante sect & sect. 1, 2, 3. Osor. de Jus: li. 6. nu. 151 ex Hos. Confut. l ih. 5. pag. 451, 452. Andrad. Orths. explic. li. 6. pag. 181. Pemb. of justif. p. 34, & 35. sect. 2. cap. 2. the rest of the Scholasticks, Monks and Jesuits, affirm that they do not by this doctrine Contribute any thing to man's righteousness, or diminish the glory of God's grace and Christ's merits; Nay they are the sole advancers of Grace and of Christ; for that they attribute due power to them, to make man's righteousness that is base and nothing in itself, to be effectual or meritorious to Justification. That these Heretics the Lutherans are the Cursed enemies unto Christ and grace, in denying our Righteousness available to justify and save us, so streightening the virtue and power of Grace and of Christ, as being unable to infuse virtue and efficacy into our righteousness to justify and save us, but more fully of this in a more proper place. The same paint doth Arminius use to make tolerable if not plausible his imputation of the Act of Faith to Justification, as his very words are alleged by Mr. Pemble. No marvel then if Mr. Br hath proficiently learned at the feet of such Gamaleels. But what force or show of substance is there in his and their so peevish shifts and evasions? It is as he that broke up a neighbour's house, killed the Master and enriched himself with the Treasure thereof, with this mental reservation, that the Act should be without any guilt of Murder before God, or of felony before men. And what either God or man could then lay any thing to his Charge. So Mr. Br with those whom he followeth, robs God of the glory of his grace, and Christ of the honour of his merits, to enrich the righteousness of their own Faith and works therewith: but with this proviso first laid in their fancies, and after subscribed to with their hands, that God and his Christ must not take their grace and righteousness herein wronged, nor man's righteousness extolled, nor the actors therein offenders: and when they have laid all things so sure, what hath God or man to say against them? Yet is there one inconvenience, and the same a shrewd one, that God's way of reckoning in the point of Justification was fixed before this of Mr. Br and his Masters, and without any Consultation with them about it, by means whereof it runs right Contrary to theirs. And it is much to be feared because he is God, he will not now Change. He hath in this point set so in direct opposition man's righteousness and God's righteousness, grace and works, that both Cannot, shall not Consist together, but either exclude and frustrate the other. It must be only God's righteousness or only man's righteousness (according to his rule) by which we must be justified; he prohibits all medleys, will have no mixture of heaven and of earth, of the Spirit and of the flesh, the ox and the ass must not be yoked together in this business: he that brings any of his own righteousness, frustrates to himself the Grace and righteousness of God: He that trusteth to grace, and puts on by Faith the righteousness of God, must derelinquish his own righteousness to be found in Gods alone unto Justification, Rom. 9 30, 31, 32. Rom. 10. 3, 4. Phil. 3. 9 If by Grace, than it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, than it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work, Rom. 11. 6. And other such like Scriptures which in the more proper place I shall produce. What will Mr. Br answer at God's tribunal for raising his pepper-corn as a mount from which to batter the impregnable grace and righteousness of God? If this doth not, what can extol his pepper-corn? To conclude what I have to say to the foresaid words of Mr. Br, let him not take pepper in the nose (as the Country phrase is) if I take a grain or two of his own lose powder to blow up his pepper-corn, that it may not be abusive to the feeble and simple Christians. If these will but consider well these two things; first, what he means by his pepper-corn? secondly, how far he will abase, or extol it, they should easily see his subtlety, and keep their foot from being taken in this his snare laid for them. Both these are to be gathered from himself. Touching the former he means by the pepper-corn, the whole righteousness of man, the entire righteousness which the Law requireth in the full substance, though not in the full degree which the Law requireth it, all personal virtues and duties which the moral Law enjoined upon men. This is clear enough by what he hath said before, hinted by that which he annexeth in the application of this Similitude when he saith, Even so is our Evangelicall Righteousness or Faith, insinuating that by Faith he means all that Can be brought under the notion of Evangelicall righteousness in his sense, which is all that the Law Commandeth and the Gospel approveth as righteousness: and in the following part of his Treatise when he Comes to the Anatomising of his Faith here spoken of, he doth in express words affirm & seek to confirm it. Here is a pepper-corn able like Moses his rod-serpent, to eat up all the pepper-corns of the East-Indies. Possibly the royal Sovereign was built to fetch it from the East Indies to us, it being too great a fraught for any other Ship in England. And it must not be divided, for a piece will do no good in this business, but the whole is required. Doth not the weakest Christian here see discovered the Cunning of the man that would have them to swallow such a pepper-corn, such a Camel into themselves? What room would be left then for Christ? which of the Pharisees of old or of the Papists in latter ages, have more extolled man's righteousness, or more fully ascribed salvation to works? only though they used terms equipollent to Cover their falsehood, yet they did not hit upon the pepper-corn, to delude poor souls with an opinion that if there were any difference between their doctrine and the Doctrine of the Scriptures, yet was it as small as the weight and worth of a pepper-corn, so that they might be followed without danger. Touching the latter, how far he will extol the pepper-corn of our own works and righteousness to Justification and salvation, he doth not here (though afterward he doth) in express words signify. But that he means to extol them, he doth enough plainly give us to understand: When he saith that the purchase did not Only serve to advance the value and efficacy of that grain of pepper, his meaning must be (at least) that Christ died and by his death hath purchased to the pepper-corn of man's righteousness, a value and efficacy in part, though not Only to Justify us, so that our righteousness must go Cheek by Cheek with the righteousness of Christ to Justification. Now as if Usury as it Consisteth in taking increase, be unlawful, a penny of a hundred pounds taken by way of increase, is no less in substance Usury and unlawful, than the taking of Tenn pounds of the hundred: so if the adding of our righteousness to the righteousness of Christ for our justification, be an unlawful exalting of our own, and depressing of Christ's righteousness, then to bring our own righteousness with the righteousness of Christ in the least part to justify, is as truly an unlawful depression of Christ's righteousness and advancing of our own, as if we brought it in the highest degree wholly and alone to justify us: and so by his account Christ died to make man, though not the Only, yet in part a saviour of himself. And herein to follow his doctrine is the ready way to be a self-destroyer. Christ is become of none effect to you whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace, said the Apostle to a people, that did extol but in part and not Only their own righteousness to justification. Though it be not Only poison which a man eateth, yet it there be poison in it, it brings death after i●. If we magnify one grain of our own pepper to that height that we make it a part of that righteousness by which to stand at God's tribunal this one grain will sink us down to hell, so hot a poison is Mr. Brs' pepper-corn. I shall join that which follows in the similitude, viz. Bax. But thus: A personal Rent must be paid for the testification of his homage: He was never Redeemed to be Independent, and his own Landlord and Master; The old Rent he cannot pay, his new Landlord's clemency is such, that he hath resolved, this grain shall serve the turn. With that which is homogeneous to it in the application. Bax. Two things are considerable in this debt of righteousness: The value and the personal performance or interest. The value of Christ's satisfaction is imputed to us, in stead of the value of a perfect Obedience of our own performing; and the volue of our Faith is not so imputed: But because there must be some personal performance of homage, therefore the personal performance of Faith shall be imputed to us for a sufficient personal payment, as if we had paid the full Rent, because Christ whom we believe in, hath paid it, and he will take this for satisfactory homage; so it is in point of personal performance, and not of value, that faith is imputed. It is not denied but a personal testification of homage is required. We were not Redeemed to be independent, or our own Landlords and Masters, to serve ourselves and walk after our own thoughts. No; Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price, (saith the Apostle) Therefore glorify God in your body and in your Spirit which are Gods, 1 Cor. 6. 20. And again, He hath given himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. We must live and die to him that died for us in testification of our homage. But the thing in question is not whether this homage is to be done, but whether when it is performed, it be a Cause or an effect of our redemption and justification; Whether we are to perform all duty that we may be redeemed and justified, or because we are redeemed and justified. Whether the relation of the persons go before the relative duties, or the relative duties before the relation of the persons. Reason tells us that filial obedience doth always presuppose the relation of a Son, and where there is no Child there can be expected no Childlike obedience. First free and then free service. And to this tenor runs the vote and voice of the Gospel. We are delivered out of the hands of our enemies, that we may serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life, Luk. 1. 74, 75. Not that we shall be delivered out of &c. because we have so served him all the days of our life. That we are married to Christ, that we should bring forth fruit unto God, Rom. 7. 4. Not that we are married to Christ, because we have brought forth fruit unto God. That he died for all, that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him that died for them, 2 Cor. 5. 15. Not that we must live to Christ, that we may live by Christ and obtain life by his death. If any man be in Christ he is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5. 17. Not that he must be a new creature to the end that he may be in Christ. Mr. Br shakes the whole frame of the Gospel into a topsie-turnie, and might as rationally make our glorification the Condition of our sanctification, as sanctification the Condition of our Justification and Adoption. As for the distinction which he puts in the application, between the value and the performance of Faith, i. e. (in his sense) of sanctification, making the value of Christ's satisfaction to be imputed in stead of the value of a perfect obedience, and the personal performance of Faith to be imputed only in stead of the personal performance of the Law, and so our inchoat sanctification (for that he means by the performing of faith) is imputed to us in place of performing all perfect righteousness, unto justification; some pretty witty men may be taken with it as a pretty witty fancy; But whosoever Loveth the Lord Jesus up to a due jealousy for his honour, Cannot but have his heart full of trembling, to see the sacred word and mysteries of Christ, to be made the play-game of an audacious and frothy wit, and eluded yea vilified and enervate, with such absurd and windy distinctions that have no footing in the word of God. Himself using this distinction with a purpose not to teach but to Cheat the simple. For pag. 141. he doth in express words affirm the worthiness or value (which he doth here ascribe to Christ's satisfaction) to lie in our performance or works. Either he must be destitute of all natural and moral operations of Conscience, or an Anti-Hannibal, that hath sworn unreconcilable wars, not for God against Rome, but for Rome against Christ, that in so holy a business can so frequently and fearlessly act the wanton. I shall conclude therefore in the words which Mr. Pemble hath against the brethren of Mr. Br in this point. These things the Scriptures teach not; They teach that Christ is our righteousness, Pembls. of Justif. ca 2. pag. 41. and that we are justified by his blood and obedience. But that he hath merited by his obedience, that we should be justified by our own Righteousness and Obedience, is a perverse assertion of men that love to run about the bush, and leaving the straight to run into crooked and froward ways. Like to theirs is Mr. Brs' dispute here, and no less than they deserving the same censure. The Holy Ghost Calls upon us for a Faith to Justification, that Consisteth in taking and receiving, Mr. Brs' distinctions for a Faith that Consisteth in doing and performing: The Holy Ghost in the dispensation of Gospel-grace saith; Take Freely, Rev. 22. 17. Mr. Brs' distinction presseth upon us to give all or we shall receive nothing: The one saith, Without money and without price, Isa. 55. 1. The other makes all our hopes to depend upon our payments and rents. How apparent is it that the spirit of bondage that speaketh in Mr. Br is a Spirit of a contrary nature to the Spirit of Liberty that speaketh in the Gospel? He should not abuse the Scripture that shall say to Mr. Br what Peter said to Simon the Magician, Act. 8. 20. Thy money, thy pepper-corn perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money, with pepper-cornes. But in stead of saying so against him, I shall pray for him. CHAP. XVII. That Popish Luciferian doctrine of the Perfection and Merits of man's inherent Righteousness to Justification, here taught by Mr. Br. examined. To which is added something in answer to what he bringeth, about the Justification, first of the person and then of his works, and of the possibility of performing this perfect meritorious Righteousness. Bax. Thesis' 24. p. 129. THis personal Gospel Righteousness is, in its kind a perfect Righteousness; and so far we may admit the doctrine of personal perfection. Thesis' 26. p. 137. Neither can our performance of the conditions of the Gospel, in the most proper and strict sense, be said to merit the reward: seeing there is nothing in the value of it, or any benefit that God receiveth by it, which may so entitle it meritorious. Neither is there any proportion between it and the Reward. But in a larger sense as promise is an obligation and the thing promised is called Debt, so the performers of the Condition are called worthy; and their performance merit, though properly it is all of Grace, and not of Debt, Rom. 4. 4, 10. & 5. 15, 16, 17. Hos. 14. 4. Mat. 10. 8. Rom. 3. 24. & 8. 32. 1 Cor. 2. 12. Rev. 21. 6. & 22. 18. Rom. 11. 6. Gal. 5. 4. Eph. 2. 5, 7, 8. Gen. 32. 10. Matth. 10. 11, 12, 13, 37. & 22. 8. Luk. 20. 35. & 21. 36. 2 Thes. 1. 5. 11. Rev. 3. 4. etc. I join these two together because of their affinity either to other, and annex them to the former, viz. the 23 Thesis, because of their dependence on it, standing or falling with it; there being no new thing in substance, but in degrees only, here asserted. In the 23 Thes. he had asserted a personal Righteousness of our own, necessary and effectual to Justification: Here lest he should seem a younger Brother to any of the Jesuits, he mounts himself Checkmate with the worst of them in his gradations, affirming that Righteousness of our own to Justification, Thes. 24. to be a perfect Righteousness, and Thes. 26. a Meritorious Righteousness. Hath any of the most zealous Children of Babylon raised his scaffolds higher, to exalt the pinnacles thereof to a more stupendous height? There shall not be need of speaking much by way of answer to him in these positions and their explications: For he doth here build Chimaeras upon Chimaeras, and nothings upon nothing. We deny, and so do all the true Churches of Christ, any such personal Righteousness of man, as righteousness necessary or required to Justification, affirming that every imagination of such righteousness as effectual or ordained to justify, is a monster begotten of the pride of men's hearts, which in the midst of all their gaudy knowledge, never experimentally knew Christ, or the operation of that justification which is by Christ alone, upon their Consciences. Neither hath Mr. Br brought any one reason worth a rush to prove such a Righteousness. So these two positions are answered in the last before it. There being no such righteousness: the blind man may see that No righteousness cannot be either a perfect or meritorious Righteousness; The subject Righteousness being evaporated, the accidents thereof [perfect and Meritorious] are turned to vapours with it. The Adjects stand not, where the subject is dissolved. It can be but an imaginary dress that is put on upon a merely imaginary body. Yet I shall look after Mr. Br in his imaginations, if peradventure there fall from him any thing here and there deserving an animadversion. In the Explication of the 24 Thesis he spends two whole pages, viz. 130, 131, in spitting of wit, and playing with his imaginary perfection of personal Righteousness unto Justification, as with a shuttlecock, here I hit you, there I miss you, there you were mine, here I came short of you; and when he hath taken his fill of this game, in the last line of pag. 131. and so forward in the next page, confesseth that all this is nothing to his meaning or purpose, [and yet is it full to it.] Nothing to his purpose or meaning, in reference to the explication much less to the proving of a personal righteousness required to Justification, or a perfection of such a righteousness: yet full to his purpose to delight and allure to him such as have nimble wits but dull Consciences, how should these but run after him finding more wit and art, in these two pages of his, than ever they met with in all the doctrine of the dull Apostles and Prophets, though they should add to them their Master also. Well, Haec non successit, alia aggrediamur via. That which he hath said is not home to his meaning: But that which he saith next shall come home to it. And what saith he? Nihil quod non dictum est priùs Only that which he had said before once and again. Holiness is a quality, Righteousness is not so, but the Modification of our Acts as to the Rule, viz. to the Rule of the New Covenant in point of Justification. Here is nothing but what was said before, and hath been answered before in our Examination of the Explication of the former Thesis. But he adds which is not varied secundum magis & minùs, alleging Schibl. Metaph. li. 2. ca 9 Tit. 7. Art. 2. His word Which, I conceive he will have to relate, not to the Rule which was the next Antecedent, for this serves nothing to his purpose: but to the more remote Antecedent, which he calls the Modification of our Acts, or cur righteousness to Justification, that it is not varied secundum Magis & Minùs. Indeed Schibler there concludes out of Aristotle that Relations which have their foundation in substance or quantity, non recipiunt Magis & Minùs, have no remission or intention, but an equality, fullness or perfection in their relation (if I may speak a little unproperly to please Mr. Br.) But that Righteousness hath its foundation in substance he seems to deny, or that it hath its foundation in quantity, he saith but doth not prove. We say it hath its foundation in quality, & such relations Schibler there acknowledgeth to admit Magis & Minùs. Again Schibler addeth in the second place, that Relata ex parte sui, hoc est, secundum esse relationis ipsius, non recipiunt magis & minùs. But this hinders not why in some yea sundry other respects, they should not admit it. And thus Schibler doth him no good. Yet if Schibler were for him, I should except that the Holy Ghost is not (specially in Gospel matters) a Peripatetic, was never a disciple of Aristotle, his wisdom is a Metaphysics more transcendent above Aristotle's Metaphysics, than Aristotle's Metaphysics are above his Physics. Therefore the Holy Ghost takes the liberty in Scriptures, to affirm a Magis & Minùs in Righteousness, to pronounce one more, and another less righteous in reference to the Rule, as hath been before showed. Br. Therefore our Divines usually say, that our Justification is perfect, though our sanctification be not: and then I am sure our Righteousness must be perfect. A mere flame & vanity of words! Our Divines (saith he) doth he own them? are they not such as he would rather tollere than extollere? Our Divines and yet not Popish Divines? our Divines usually say that our Justification is perfect. But will Mr. Br say so? Nay he saith point-blank in opposition to it. Yet even hence would he force in his Conclusion, & then I am sure our Righteousness must be perfect. A mere sophism and fallacy: we grant that the righteousness by which we are perfectly justified, must needs be a perfect righteousness. But we deny that righteousness to be any otherwise ours than by imputation, viz. Christ's satisfaction. As for the Righteousness of our sanctification which Mr. Br makes the condition of our justifying, we utterly deny either to be perfect in this life, or to have any finger in the business of Justification. When he finds all his other shifts too weak to hid the nakedness of his Conclusion, at length he flieth to his sophistical distinctions according to his usual manner, to obscure & darken what he cannot confirm & clear up in the light to be of God. B: A twofold perfection is here employed (saith he) 1 a Metaphysical perfection of Being, 2 A perfection of sufficiency in order to its end. These two he jumbles & tumbles together, sometimes into a Confusion, & then out of the Chaos that he hath made goes about to separate them again into some distinct order, so far that if there be any that can see things which are not as if they were, may discern either from other so perfectly at a distance that he shall never attain the one or the other as a perfection of Righteousness to his justification. The former he makes to be the Material entity of a non ens, (as he had before defined Righteousness) the Material Being of that which is not a being. And this, saith he, is the sincerity of our faith, i. e. of our Sanctification (for so he meaneth:) this is the first perfection of our own righteousness to justification. Let us suppose now that there is such a Metaphysical perfection in the sincerity of our righteousness and the matter thereof, what doth this make to his purpose, that there is a perfection in our personal righteousness to justify us? I shall demand these questions of him. 1 Whether a Metaphysical perfection of Being, in the matter of our Righteousness be the perfection of righteousness which is required to justification? Is there not a Metaphysical being yea perfection of being in the matter of all the Acts of righteousness which the very heathen and reprobates perform? 2 Whether Sincerity be perfection of righteousness, any further than it is more or less sincere, perfect sincerity being a perfect perfection, unperfect sincerity an unperfect perfection, perfect it may be in its Metaphysical being, that is unperfect in its degrees: But must there not be also a moral perfection in a righteousness personal that shall be perfect to justify. 3 Whether there be not sin & imperfection in the best sincerity of the Saints during this life, a mixture of unbeleef with their faith, of flesh with Spirit, of doubleness with their simplicity? 4 Whether this mixture be not evil and a sin in reference to the New, as well as to the Old Covenant? Why else doth the Lord Christ so oft reprove and upbraid his disciples with the feebleness of their Faith? O ye of little Faith, etc. because of your unbeleef. Where is your Faith? and such like? 5 Grant unto a man the greatest sincerity of Faith & holiness attainable by the most spirituallized Christians in this life, hath God ordained it to be a perfect righteousness, or is it a perfect righteousness either in itself, or to Justification? if so why doth the Apostle when he could profess not only his personal obedience as a Christian, but also his righteousness and integrity as a Minister, to be so far in sincerity, and as in the fight of God, & in Christ, that he knew nothing by himself, wherein he could accuse himself as failing in sincerity; nevertheless add, Yet am I not hereby justified, but he that judgeth me is the Lord, 2 Cor. 1. 12. & 2. 17. 1 Cor. 4. 4? This Mr. Br seethe and that his reader may not see the weakness of his Metaphysical material Righteousness, he therefore Confounds it with the Formality of it. Else should he give every reader to retort upon him his own words pag. 121. that he pronounceth that a perfect Righteousness which is unrighteous, hateful and accursed, being a righteousness which in its matter is enjoined by the old Covenant, & hath for its rule in the matter thereof the Law of the old Covenant still. No less vain also is that which he discourseth of the Formality of this personal righteousness, that it is a perfect righteousness in respect of its perfect sufficiency in order to its end, which is to be a condition of our Justification, etc. This end (saith he) it shall attain. The tenor of the New Covenant is not, Believe in the highest degree and you shall be justified, but believe sincerely and you shall be justified. So that our righteousness. 1. formally considered in relation to the conditions of the New Covenant, is either perfect or none. To this I answer that God hath ordained no righteousness of ours as our Righteousness, to be a Condition of the New Covenant. 2. If he had so done, yet it follows not thence that the same Righteousness performed, is a perfect righteousness, though it be sufficient and effectual to the end to which God ordained it to be performed. God required the use and sound of Trumpets and voices to destroy and lay level with the earth, the strong walls and Towers of Jericho; and the washing in Jordan to Clean●e Naaman of his Leprosy; and the washing in Siloam to Cure the Man that was born blind of his blindness. These were ordained as several Conditions in order to those several ends; and being performed became sufficient and effectual to the attainment thereof. Shall we say then, that the performance of these Conditions was their perfect righteousness which performed them? So neither if God had appointed Faith which according to Mr. Br is sanctification, as a Condition of our Justification, is the performance thereof our perfect righteousness. 3 This sufficiency of that which Mr. Br calleth perfect righteousness in order to its end, is no more in & from itself, than the noyces and washings were in themselves, to the attainment of their ends: But the sufficiency thereof is wholly from the righteousness faithfulness and all sufficiency of God to fulfil the promises of his grace. So that what he saith of believing in the highest degree, and believing in sincerity, is besides the matter in question; Both together if they could be performed according to the tenor of the new Covenant, not being of sufficiency to make up a perfect righteousness. Therefore we conclude in Mr. Brs' words, That our Righteousness formally considered in relation to the condition of the new Covenant, is so far from being a perfect Righteousness, that it is none at all. I have nothing else to say against that wherewith he concludes his explication of the Thesis, enumerating the many respects in which this imaginary righteousness of man is imperfect, and consequently sinful; But this that it displays the sin and impudence of the man, that he will call that a perfect righteousness, which himself confesseth to be so deficient, rotten, and unrighteous. Thesis' 26. pag. 137. In the 26 Thesis he addeth to the perfection of Man's righteousness, merit or meritoriousnes also. In my exception against him upon this point, I shall take notice, 1 of his position or asserting of this doctrine, 2 of his lenifying & mitigating the roughness thereof, that it may go down the more gently & pleasantly. In both which it shall suffice to show that he speaketh the same things with the Papists his Masters, & that in their Tone also; though I do not ex professo, undertake a full Confutation of the doctrine itself, leaving the reader to fetch it from those many Orthodox Divines that have copiously & unanswerably done it against professed Papists. In this I shall seemingly cross yet really follow Mr. Brs' method, putting first what was the first & primary purpose of his heart to hold out unto the world, viz. that our Righteousness is meritorious; (though in a pretty subtlety he puts it last both in the Thesis & in its explication,) and last that which he puts first, viz. his limitation & mitigation of so arrogant a doctrine, which he doth so trimly & ●eatily, that if his reader be a fool it is possible he may think Mr. Br to deny, and not to assert here the doctrine of merits; though there were never any of the worst Papists that hath asserted it higher than Mr. Br here doth. His assertion of merits then, runs in these words in the Aphorism itself. B: In a large sense, as promise is an obligation, and the thing promised is called debt, so the performers of the Conditions of the New Covenant are called Worthy, and their performance Merit, though properly it is all of Grace and not of Debt, Rom. 4. 4, 10. And all those Scriptures which he annexeth and I have before in adding this to the 24th Thesis transcribed. 1 His assertion of Merit in man's righteousness is here laid down in a Connexive proposition, The performers of the conditions of the new Covenant are called Worthy, & their performance Merit. If both members of the proposition be not true, if either fail, the proposition is false. But where doth he mean these are so called? in the Scriptures which he here annexeth all men will (it is questionless his meaning is that all shall) conceive. (For to say that they are so called by Popish Writers were to make his doctrine suspected, not accepted.) But neither in these nor any other Scriptures are they so Called; therefore his proposition is false. The 13 first Scriptures alleged, affirm the contrary: deny all worth, all merit, in our persons & righteousness, pronounce the reward, to be of grace not of debt, a gift, not a payment, given freely, without desert: & all this so fully that it appears the Holy Ghost had an aim not only to stop the mouths of the mercenary Jews then, but also of the Popish Justiciares now, whom he foresaw as enemies to the doctrine of Grace. And the last six Scriptures here alleged prove only that the Scriptures call the Saints worthy, but neither in these nor in any other Scripture can he find that their performances are called merit, or their Justification here or glorification hereafter debt. 2 By the way we may take notice of his fallacious sophistry to deceive the simple, in making the whole worth of the performers to consist in their performances, because the performers of such an act are called worthy, therefore there must be merit and worth in the performance. Which is grounded upon as good reason as if I should say, The Murderer of Vriah, and the abjurer of Christ were counted worthy of justification and glory. Therefore was there an unproper worth (at least) in the one's murder & the others abjuration to Justice & save them. None of these nor any other Scriptures do affirm (in express words) the performers of the conditions of the new Covenant Worthy, much less, as they are performers; and least of all that the performance hath worth or merit in it. 3 Besides there is a great difference between Gods Dignari & man's Dignun esse: between Gods accounting or reckoning man worthy, & man's being worthy in his own deserts; so that those Scriptures, Lu. 20. 35. Lu. 21. 36. 2 Thes. 1. 5, 11. that speak of Gods accounting men worthy, do not import or imply any worth in a man's own qualifications & performances: but a worth which God hath put upon him by imputation, viz. Christ in them, the blood of Christ sprinkled upon their Conscience, Christ's merits imputed to them, they being found in Christ the righteous, & not in Adam the unrighteous. As the Israelites were accounted worthy of deliverance from destruction which fell upon the Egyptians in the day of Gods passing over Egypt; but how worthy? surely not in respect of their own righteousness, but in respect of the worth of the Paschal Lambs blood sprinkled upon their door-posts. In this sense is also that of Rev. 3. 4. to be taken. And hereunto runs the whole tenor of the Gospel, making not our own righteousness & works, but Christ in us the hope of Glory, i. e. all the ground and worth upon which we may Cherish within ourselves a lively hope of glory, Col. 1. 27. 4 The word worthy in Scriptures oft signifieth, Meet, beseeming & answerable to: as Ma. 3. 8. Bring forth fruits worthy of Repentance, & Eph. 4. 1. Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. & Col. 1. 10. Walk worthy of the Lord. The meaning is that we should bring forth fruits beseeming the repentance which we profess, & walk agreeable unto, & in ways becoming our holy vocation, & answerable to the Grace of God in the Lord Jesus Christ: not to make ourselves worthy of the gift of repentance, of so high a vocation, & of so glorious a Christ to be conferred upon us. And in the same sense are those other scriptures, Ma. 10. 11, 12, 13, 37 & 22. 8. alleged here by Mr. Br, to be taken. Where those that are termed worthy or unworthy of Christ and his Gospel, are meant to be such as carry themselves in a way becoming or not becoming Christ and his Gospel preached to them. Without any hinting at an imaginary worth or Merit in their performances that might make them deservers of Christ, and the grace of the Gospel: as is easy to be made out, from the very Texts here alleged, if there were need thereof. Thus it appears to be false, either that in a larger sense, promise is an obligation, & the thing promised is called Debt: or that the performers of the conditions are called worthy, & their performance merit, in the scriptures. And consequently neither the fallacies nor the falsities of Mr Br do any thing avail him here to the setting up of Man's & the frustrating of Christ's Merits, which is the scope of his levelling. The explication in reference to this part of the Thesis hath nothing that may be called an addition to it. Only there pag. 141. as here in describing the third kind of meriting, he tells us, that The obligation to reward is God's ordinate Justice, & the truth of his promise; & the worthiness lieth in the performance of the Conditions on our part. He doubted (it seems) that we would have taken him (notwithstanding that which he had said equipollent with this in the Thesis) to have had some seed of Christian modesty & humility remaining in him, that he had not totally forsworn all self-denial, unless he should express, & therefore hath expressed himself at the full here, to be full of self-arrogance. But in this doth he declare his intolerable contempt of the word, that having himself quoted (at the least) 13 testimonies of scripture, all with one harmony affirming, that God's Gospel dispensations are free, of mere grace & mercy, without any reference to our works & righteousness, that God's grace & man's works or worth cannot stand together, but that they destroy either the other in reference to Justification & salvation: That man's merit in any respect without difference is a subversion and denial of God's grace in all respects; (For all this he shall find that will but peruse the 13 first scriptures which Mr B. quoteth in this Thesis) yet he doth elude all with this frothy distinction in the beginning of the same Thesis: True, Our Performances cannot be said to Merit in the most strict & proper sense, etc. but in a larger sense they may. What is this but to oppose the sacred verity of the most high God, with the froth of man's wit? what Scripture shall henceforth stand in its venerable Majesty & authority, if the boldness of a corrupt worm shall thus puff it to nothing? Of all other men I conceive Mr Br hath most need to make grace alone & free Mercy his refuge: For of all that I have met with accounted Members of any of the reformed Churches, I never found any whose very meritorious services (as he terms them) such as this work of his is, have more provocation in them. But thus far of his assertion which we have found full of the Leaven, or rather to be the Leaven itself of the Scribes and Pharisees both of the former and latter ages. Let us see now how he lenifieth & sweeteneth it, that his sacrilege in robbing God of the honour of his grace appear not. B: We ascribe not Merit (saith he in the Thesis) to our works, as Merit is taken in its most proper and strict sense, seeing there is nothing in the value of it, or any benefit that God receiveth by it, which may so entitle it Meritorius: Neither is there any proportion betwixt it and the reward, but in a larger sense, as promise is an obligation and the thing promised is debt, etc. Yet in the explication, p. 138, he grants to man a capacity of Meriting somewhat at the hands of God in this sense also, lest he should seem to acknowledge that there are some of the worst reprobates yea devils, that have not at all merited from God; But of these he Concludes p. 139. that it is a poor kind of Meriting which they can boast of yet without some Merit, & that of good from the Justice of God he will not leave them destitute. But in the Conclusion of the explication pag. 141. he adds somewhat more to take off the harshness of his self-ascribing doctrine of Merit: thus; B: This kind of Meriting is no diminution to the greatness or freeness of the Gift or Reward: because it was a free and gracious Act of God, to make our performance capable of that title; and to engage himself in the foresaid promise to us; and not for any gain that he expecteth by us, or that our performance can bring him. Lo ye now, the strength of this man's wit, that can blow heaven & earth into a confusion with one breath, & with the next breath set both into their due place and order again. Nothing inferior is the slight of his wit to the slight and dexterity of that headman's hand that is reported so nimbly to execute his office that having cut off the head, he left it standing without any wagging upon the shoulders still. So this man hews off the honour of God's grace yet leaves it in all its glory without diminution still. Yet let us reckon with the man a little. Can he name any one of the worst Papists or Jesuits that doth attribute Merit to man's works in a higher degree than, or doth not when he hath extolled man's Merits, salve the grace of God as finely as himself? Are not his words and theirs about God's Grace and man's merits the same? Doth he add any thing here of his own that he hath not learned of them? We cannot merit (saith Mr Br) in the most strict and proper sense: Why? Alas, saith he, There is nothing in the value of our works, or any benefit that God receives by them, that may entitle them Meritorious; Neither is there any proportion between them and the Reward. Do not Bellarmine and his brethren speak altogether so fully & more fully, seemingly to vindicate the grace of God from all eclipsing by their doctrine of Merit? Merit as strictly and properly taken (say they) must be, 1 Ex proprijs, 2 ex indebitis, 3 Ad aequalitatem. 1 It must be of something of our own which we have not received; 2 of that which we were not indebted or bound to perform; 3 It must come up to a full proportion of equality in value with the reward which it meriteth. And thus (say they) no man can merit with God. For neither hath he any thing of his own to offer unto God which he hath not received from God, nor any strength to act meritoriously but what he hath received from above, & is inspired by grace into him; So that Antoninus that Postill Schoolman, Concludes that in this Case that Father's conclusion is authentic, which said it before him, though not punctually in the same words Quùm enim Deus coronat Merita nostra, remunerat A●on par. 4. Tit. 9 ca 7 ante sec: Munera sua, quia scilicet ipse dedit virtutem operandi gratis. When God Crowns our Merits, he rewards his own gifts, because himself hath freely given us the strength so to work. Nor 2 Can he do any thing but is his due obedience he owes it as homage to his Creator. And 3 as to proportion & equality, even Bellarmine that affirms quandam infinitatem, a certain infiniteness in man's works, not as they proceed from man, but as the Holy Ghost which is infinite, is the author of them, yet concludes, Nemopotest paria reddere Deo. Our works can never mount up to an equality with God's bounty. In this proper sense therefore all the worst hornets of the Romish hive do explode Merits with as much detestation as Mr. Br. In like manner what he tells us in the beginning of the explication of Merits in strict Justice which he doth in part abandon; is but a distinction which he hath learned from the Jesuits which distinguish betwixt Merits in strict Justice, & Merits in gracious acceptance, rejecting the former, and attributing unto man a power only to perform that which God will graciously accept for Merit. Yea when Calvine will express what use the whole rabble of Popish Schoolmen make of this evasion, not troubling himself to allege their particular words, he contracts the sum of all that they all say into these words of his own: Aiunt, Non tanti esse intrinseca dignitate bona opera, ut Cal. Inst. li 3. ca 14. sect. 14. ad justitiam comparandā sufficiant, sed hoc acceptantis esse Graciae quod tantùm valent. They acknowledge that man's good works are not worth a rush in their own intrinsical worth to Merit or obtain Righteousness [before God,] but that it is of God's Grace accepting that they are of such value. And what he saith at the end of the explication, [that this kind of Meriting is no diminution to the greatness or freeness of the gift or reward, Because it was a free and gracious Act of God that made our works capable of this title, and to engage himself by promise to us, etc.] as it is in substance one & the same thing which he had said before, to make his doctrine appear sufferable, so is it that which he hath sucked from the breasts of the Holy Mother Church of Rome also. It is the plea of all the Popish Sophisters saith Calvin, Qui bellè se absurda omnia evasisse putârunt, Inst. li. 3. ca 17. sect. 3. non intrinseca sua bonitate valere opera ad salutem promerenda, sed ex pacti ratione, quia Dominus liberalitate sua tanti aestimavit, i. e. who thought that they had bravely discharged themselves of all the absurdities [which follow this doctrine] by saying that our works do not avail to merit salvation by their own intrinsic goodness, but by reason of God's Covenant or promise, because he of his free bounty hath put such a value upon them. And still affirming that the Merit of works doth not at all Cloud God's grace, Quia a Gratia acc●ptante habent suum Ibid. ca 17. sect. 15. valorem, i. e. because it is the gracious acceptance of God that entitles them to this honour. I shall instance no further in particulars: only in general I affirm there is not to be found any of the most Trentified & deepest branded Papists, that hath in this point spoken more derogatorily to the grace of God, or more superlatively to the exalting of man's menstruous righteousness; but contrariwise divers especially of the more ancient Schoolmen that have spoken more modestly & moderately of both, than Mr Br. So high in the conceit of his own worth & perfection, have the praises of his righteousness & virtues decanted by some throughout the Country, coming (as it is probable) to his ears, enthroned him. Or if it be not either the proud opinion of his own virtues and righteousness, or an ambition to be esteemed matchless and unanswerable in any Paradox that he undertakes to maintain, or a vow that he hath made to return & bring what Proselytes he can with him to Babylon; which hath; let him show what it is that hath induced him, thus to pervert & disturb the Churches of Christ with these Antichristian doctrines, by raising them to life again after they have so long laid almost dead and buried therein. But whether there be not as concinnous an agreement & uniformity, in Mr Brs doctrines of the perfection & Merit of man's righteousness; & yet while his righteousness is thus perfect & Meritorious with God, he remains notwithstanding under the Curse of the Law and wrath of God until the day of Judgement, (as before he hath asserted) whether these things do not so trimly agree together, as a Crown on the head, and a halter about the neck, I leave to every rational man to Judge. That which he hath in the middle part of his explication about Merits of man which the Wisdom (not the Justice) of God is bound to reward; as also sundry passages that he hath about Merits in the strict Justice of God; I leave as mere fopperies unworthy of reading, much more of answering. Only this I affirm that he doth here equalise the merits of man's with the merits of Christ's righteousness, for neither hath Christ merited from God's natural but his ordinate Justice, not in the strict, but in the large sense. His 25 Thesis' lying betwixt these 2 that I have coupled together, I pass by without any particular examination of the particulars in it, or in the Explication of it, because it hath not any thing in it controverted between us & Papists, though what he saith there, be said with an intention to ●app up himself in an Antipopish dress that he may be the less suspected when he comes to sour us with the leaven of the Papists. He saw these 2 Theses which I have examined together, viz. Perfection & Merits of works, if they should come together one in the neck of another, without any Calm betwixt them, would make so terrible a sound as would be enough to waken and startle all that were but sleeping and not dead, for fear the Pope or the Devil had been come to assault them; Therefore to keep all quiet he interposeth this Thesis and its explication, in which he pulls the ears of our Divines for saying that God doth justify first our persons and then our duties and actions. pag. 134. & deinceps in the explication, telling us it is a doctrine of dangerous consequence many ways, and except we will take it in his, that is, in the Popish sense, it smells rankly of Popery, & sets up Justification by works, from the very thought whereof he starts & startles away as affrighted. Notable dissimulation, not of a learner but of one learned in the Trade, Clodius accusat Maechos, Catilina Cethegum. He that affirms our Righteousness equal with the righteousness of Christ to justification, that entitles it a perfect righteousness, a meritorious righteousness, is the first man in all the world that fears of the advancing of Justification by works, by them whom he hateth for oppugning it. If there were that which he calls danger in this phrase or doctrine, of setting up such a justification, would not himself be the first man to kiss it, to eat it up, to promote it? What is it that makes him to disrelish the phrase so extremely? is it not that it inverts his order in Justification, that he would have the works to justify the man, when contrariwise this doctrine makes the justification of the person to be the ground of the acceptance of his obedience? Is it not the very depth of Satan, from which he is moved to guise & disguise himself, to act Satan's part with all guile and subtlety to betray the Saints of Christ and the truth of Christ to damning Popery, and yet here and there to transform himself into an Angel of Light, a Minister of Righteousness, to blind the eyes of the simple that they may not espy him until they be taken in his snare and lost for ever. As for the doctrine or phrase itself, he knows our Divines mean this only when they say, God doth justify first our persons and then our duties & actions, viz. That God having first justified their persons from all the guilt that was upon them, doth thenceforth also justify them in reference to all the duties which thorough Christ the Mediator they shall perform unto God, not imputing to them the imperfections thereof, so that they may rest Confident of Gods accepting both the performers and the performance in and through Christ the beloved. In this respect and not as Conditions of the New Covenant (as Mr. Br dreameth) doth the Gospel teach our works to be accepted of God. There is yet one link of the Popish Chain wanting, without which it will be unperfect and unuseful. If it were granted that there is, 1 a personal righteousness of Gods own appointment necessary to justification. 2 That this righteousness consisteth in ou● own Faith and sanctification, or good works. 3 That it is a perfect, and 4 a Meritorious Righteousness: yet all this cannot be effectual either to save or deceive us, unless it be a righteousness also possible for us to perform. Tha● he may not be wanting therefore to the Popish Cause in any one branch of Popish doctrine, he addeth this also. Thesis' 27 in these words, pag. 141. Bax: As it was possible for Adam to have fulfiled the Law of Works, by that power which he received by Nature; so is it possible for us to perform the Conditions of the New Covenant by the power which we receive from the Grace of Christ. To which he adds in the Explication, pag 142 etc. Bax: This possibility is to be understood not in Relation to the strength of the Agent. But in the Relative sense, the Conditions of the New Covenant are possible to them that have the assistance of Grace. So that strength which was in Adam to fulfil, was a power which he received by Nature; But the strength by which we perform, is the power which we receive from the grace of Christ If any should have asked him what that grace of Christ is? the man was very Coy, he could, but he would not tell, whether it were a Pauline or a Pelagian Grace; a grace equally extended both to the Elect and the Reprobats, or a grace peculiar to the Elect; a grace that comes no further than the ear, or a grace operating upon the heart also; etc. He had other fish to fry and had not the leisure to stay & c●ack these nuts now He bids us to turn over many volumes, and specially Parker's Theses, to search if possibly we can find what Mr. Brs judgement would be many years after in this point. But it is easy to perceive the man's meaning by his gaping in many passages of this book. We should have had all this in rank and file in his much promised Tractate of Universal Redemption, by which as by a second famous achievement he meant to endear himself to his holy Father, but that unluckily there is one of his own spirit step into his Holinesses Parlour to present him with this gift, and so anticipated this favour which Mr. Br would have had entire to himself; so that now the expected advantage being lost, & he not using to open his Commodities to sale a day before the Fair, we might possibly for a couple of Capons obtain to know his meaning herein In the mean while, it must needs be his intent in reserving to himself what he meant by grace, to pu● upon us a kind of impossibility to say readily, yea or nay to his asserted p●ssibility of performing the Conditions of the New Covenant by a power which he leaves us uncertain of knowing what it is. As for the two fold opposition which he puts in his Thesis, 1. between the conditions of the Old Covenant & New, 2. Between the power which Adam had by nature, and the power which we have by the Grace of Christ; there is nothing but a windy sound of words therein, to deceive his reader into an opinion that he hath some honest and sound meaning in what is here posited or said. For neither doth he make any real difference between the conditions of these two Covenants: but makes our own Righteousness, consisting in faith and works, to be the substance of the conditions of both Covenants, only he puts a supposed difference in the measure of them: One, an imaginary perfection of sincerity in doing them, answering to what the New Covenant requireth; the other, an absolute and gradual perfection in doing them without the least particle omitted or committed, besides or against the rigorous exaction of the Old Covenant. And this is a difference made up of a man's dreaming fancy without any least footing that it hath in, or sustentation by the Word of God; which utterly shakes off all man's righteousness, works, and qualifications in either, and both senses, from having any thing to do in the business 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 Adam's 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 envy the rays of God's Grace, when they lustre, and by their brightness discover the dimness and invalidity of man's nature? He will own no longer Peter Lombard himself to be the Magister, if he affirm (as he doth affirm) that the power which Adam had to fulfil 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 amiss, it is his fault in writing so ambiguously and refusing to explain his own meaning that ministereth cause and evidence enough so to judge. But as to the thing itself here posited by Master Baxter: we utterly deny that God hath ever given, or any where promised to give unto the best of men in the state of sinful infirmity, such a measure of Grace, as might put him into a possibility by the power which he hath received, to perform either a righteousness effectual and sufficient to justification, or a righteousness perfect and Meritorious; or a righteousness which as righteousness, and by a worthiness in itself, can give him right and title to the righteousness of Christ to justify 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 lose 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 righteousness 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 itself again more properly to be answered in the following part of this Tractate, where we shall find Mr. Baxter speaking it out more fully than he hath done here in these Theses, and their explications. To the 31 Thesis, pag. 154. as it is considered in, and by itself, 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 he hath to deliver; accordingly as he lays down here for delivering them. His words therefore I first transcribe, beginning at pag. 155. B. That the Moral 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 easy. 1. Whether Christ did first repeal that Law, and then re-establish it to s●me other ends? So some think. 2. Or whether he hath at all made the Moral Law the preceptive part of the New Covenant? and so whether the New Covenant doth at all command us perfect obedience? or only sincere? 3. Whether the Moral Law be continued only as the precepts of the Old Covenant, and so used by the New Covenant merely 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 Works itself; 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 Moral Law must be 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 only for a rule, or guide, or directive, to give us light to discern between truth and falsehood, good and evil, lawful and unlawful; 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 withal 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 only, because pag. 156. in answer to the first question, he distinguisheth, and puts a difference between the Covenant of Works, and the Moral Law, so plainly, as if he did, totidem verbis, tell us that he understands by the Moral Law, the rule and precepts of Holiness, and Righteousness, as considered apart from the pactionary Adjunct of life and death going with it. 2. The word Moral also hath its divers senses; sometimes Divines take it in a larger sense, for all whatsoever pertains to manners; and then by the Moral Law they understand all the Commandments, 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 Commandments be either of natural, or of positive right, written in man's heart at his creation, or had their first positure 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 Law they understand sometimes the Decalogue, or Law of the ten Commandments: Sometimes the Law of Nature, or natural Righteousness imprinted in man's heart at his first creation. Here taking it for granted, that Mr. Baxter meaneth by the Moral Law, the doctrine of the Law considered as a rule of Righteousness, not as a Covenant of Works: If 1. he mean by the Moral Law all Commandments both of natural and positive right; I deny the Moral Law so taken to be in the whole, and in every part now in force. If 2. he mean by it the Decalogue, or Law of the ten Commandments, as it was given upon Mount Sinai in time, so himself knoweth it to be the judgement of many Divines, that it bond the Nation of Israel alone, was not at all given to the Gentiles, doth not at all bind us that are not of the Na●ion of Israel; otherwise than it clears up to us the Law of Nature written in our hearts, which d●th bind us; or as the duties thereof are required of us in the New Testament, by the Lord Christ, whom we acknowledge to be our King. See Zanchius, Tom. 4. lib. 1. cap. 11. Thes. 1. Where he fully handles, and confirms this assertion; adding moreover, Sic etiam insignes Theologi omnes sentiunt. i e. All Divines of note a●e of this judgement. Withal, that there are some things contained in some of the ten Commandments, not pertaining to the jus naturae, save in their genus, and that somewhat remote, I know Mr. Baxter will not deny; and if I thought any else would question it, it were easy to be demonstrated. But if he mean by the Moral Law, the Law of Nature, as aforesaid, as it is written in the heart; yea as it is further illustrated▪ either by the book of the Creatures, or by the Decalogue, as it is epitomised in Tables of stone, and explained and amplified in both Testaments; so I grant the Moral Law to be still in force; viz. as a directive of Moral obedience still. What Mr. Baxter addeth, [viz. to what ends, and in what sense the Gospel continueth that law, and commandeth perfect obedience thereto, is a question not very easy] is to me a strange speech, in many respects. For 1. I cannot see how the question can be difficult to him that will not Nodum in scirpo quaerere, make the plain ways of God rugged, by filling them up with briars and thorns. To the same most honourable ends, and in the same sense is it continued, for, and in which it was first given; I mean to the same ends in general, though not in every far remote particular. First to make his glory elucent in this Microcosm, this choice piece of his Workmanship: Man is the glory of God, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 7. How? but as he bears the image of God, not only in rule and dominion, but also in wisdom, holiness, and righteousness, to manage that authority, and rule wherewith the grace of God hath invested him. And this glory of God upon man is by so much the more conspicuous, by how much the more perfectly he resembles God in wisdom, righteousness, and holiness. Besides it was both given and continued, to direct and enable man in some measure to render to God his Pepper-corn (as Mr. Baxter terms it) in testification of his homage, and thankfulness, both for the favours received, and for the favours promised: without the guidance of the Moral Law written without us, yea within us also, we should, though our affections were never so sweetly sanctified, for lack of sound illumination, present God with wild grapes in stead of grapes, with an abomination instead of due obedience and devotion. And are not these ends as requisite in the state of man's Renovation, as they were in the state of his innocency? Yea further, impossible was it, that Christ should not continue the Moral Law, no less impossible than it is for God to be unrighteous, or not God: He came to fulfil all righteousness, not to destroy any one branch of natural and essential righteousness. The Moral Law is the image of God, in which we may read the nature of God: The rule and platform is in God himself originally, this is but an extract from it, and abstract of it. Christ came to restore it, not to quench it, to set it up in man to perfection, not to deface it by any diminution: For so should he have abased the glory of his Father, shining in his living image. And lastly, not to have commanded perfect, but a maimed obedience thereto, had been against the rule of righteousness, which bids us to render to every one his due, his whole due; To God the things that pertain to God; yea the whole that pertains to him. All is but a Pepper-corn to a whole kingdom of Grace held, and of glory expected from him; and should not Christ require the payment of a Pepper-corn whole and entire, without diminishing, or dividing it? But the truth is, that the question is difficult to be answered, without crushing Mr. baxter's Gospel Justification by Works, not in reference to Christ's Gospel Justification by free Grace; with it the Commandment of perfect obedience to the Moral Law sweetly cohereth. The command of perfect obedience to the Moral Law, as a condition of Justification, leaves all men hopeless of Justification, sure to condemnation for ever. Because none can perform the condition in this life. But when we are justified freely by the blood of Christ; and then by way of answering the grace of our Justifier with our real thankfulness, we are bidden to render our obedience more and more perfectly, not slacking our endeavours, until we come to full perfection: Though we attain it not in this present life, yet our not attainment doth but increase our self-abasement, and make us feel that Christ is our all, and we are nothing; but doth in no wise destroy our Justification, or lessen the joy of the Holy Ghost, and peace of conscience, which are bottomed only, and wholly upon Christ, and not upon ourselves at all. Now let us see how he will make the question difficult to us, as it must be to him. First, saith he, it is a question, Whether Christ did first repeal that Law, and then re-establish it to other ends? So some think. A mere windy question of such as delight to play with God in contempt, as the Frogs with Jupiter's Log. Where are those some thinkers? No less rationally might they feign that the Lord Jesus plucked down his Father joseph's house, & re-edified it to this other end, that men might go in and out no more at the doors, but at the windows. Mr. Baxter washeth his hands clean from having a finger in this pie. Nay, saith he, I have proved already, that it is not repealed at all, even concerning the Covenant of Works itself. i e. That Christ is so fare from taking from us the perfect rule of righteousness, that he (however he be called a Saviour) yet hath left all men, without saving any, to be damned for their unrighteousness. But what he hath proved before, I suppose, we have disapproved, and that sufficiently, before. Yet, saith he, that Christ useth it (i. e. the Moral Law, without the separable adjunct of the Covenant of Works thereunto annexed) to other ends I grant. He grants that which none demands of him. But what title he hath to make such a grant, he shows not. And I think it will cost him so much labour as will make him sweat under the saddle, before he be able to show to what other substantial, and not merely circumstantial ends it now serveth, besides those to which it served at the first creation thereof in man's innocency, at least after his principles, that holdeth the works thereof now under the Gospel to tend to Justification. But from this he passeth to a second question which he makes hence to arise. B. Quest. 2. Or whether he hath at all made the Moral Law to be the preceptive part of the New Covenant, and so whether the New Covenant doth at all command us perfect obedience? or only sincere? To this he answereth. B. 1. That the Moral Law, as it is the preceptive part of the Covenant of Works, is but delivered over into the hands of Christ, and so continued in the sense before expressed, seems plain to me. 2. That the Moral Law doth therefore so continue, to command even beleivers, and that the perfect obeying of it is therefore their duty, and their not obeying, their sin, deserving the death threatened in that Covenant. 3. That Jesus Christ hath further m●de use of the same moral Law, for a direction to his subjects, whereby they may know his will. That whereas our sincere subjection, and obedience to Christ is part of the condition of the New Covenant; that we may know what his will is, which we must endeavour to obey, & what rule our actions must be sincerely fitted to & guided by; he hath therefore left us this moral Law as part of this direction, having added a more particular enumeration of some duties in his Gospel: That as when the Old Covenant said, thou shalt perfectly obey: the moral Law did partly tell them wherein they should obey: So when the New Covenant saith, thou shalt obey sincerely, the moral Law doth perfectly tell us wherein, or what we must endeavour to do. Before he pretended a purpose to speak of the Moral Law in itself, and as considered without the Covenants; but finding quickly that his Babel will not tower up out of simples, he is forced either to let all fall, or else himself must return to his compoundings and confounding again, now mixing the moral law with the old, and by and by with the New Covenant, as a part sometimes of the one, and sometimes of the other; as if it were a Noun Adjective which cannot stand by itself. When contrariwise the moral Law is the rule of righteousness, complete in itself, the very image of God's Nature, and Will, to which every reasonable creature is bound to conform, that it may be like to God himself, and so illustrate either to other the splendour of God's glory invisible in himself, but shining forth in their persons and performances. But the Covenants are separable Adjuncts of the moral law, when annexed to the moral law, being free and voluntary Acts and Statutes of God, which he might pro imperio, by the Sovereign authority which he hath over his creatures, either have, or not have added to the moral law, at his pleasure: The Old Covenant making out to men the way of Salvation in strict, yet equal and uncorrupt Justice: The New Covenant, his way of saving sinners, and justifying the ungodly, by free grace, when in justice they were lost and unrecoverable. The one of these is by the perfect fulfilling of the moral law; the other without reference to the moral law at all, freely by the redemption which is by Jesus Christ. Here now, if both Covenants were silenced, and annihilated, yet the moral law would abide firm still, it would as well without Covenant as by Covenant, speak out man's duty and obligation, both unjustified and justified, in his state either of integrity or infirmity, to be wise, holy and righteous, as God made him, and to act perfectly according to the perfect principles of acting first created in him; even without life and heaven before him to allure him, or death and hell behind him to enforce him. And so the moral law is no part of either Covenant essentially, that it cannot be separated from it without its nullifying. Nay it was in God from all eternity, and shall be in him still, when all Covenants conditional shall have their expiration. Yet let us follow Master Baxter, to see what business he will make in the dark, having thus obscured the clear light of this doctrine by his mixtures and confounding. He gives many answers to this 2 question. 1. That the moral law, as it is the preceptive part of the Covenant of works, is but delivered over into the hands of Christ, and so continued in the sense before expressed, seems plain to me. How clear are this man's eyes? I can see no plainness in the answer, or any part thereof. It is all intricate, and almost incomprehensible to our dull understanding. For 1. I see not how the moral Law is the preceptive part of the Covenant of works. It contains in it I confess the precepts of all good, just and holy operations, as it is the rule of all these. But how it is the preceptive part of the Covenant, being a distinct thing from it, the Covenant being added to it, and not it to the Covenant, I see not. 2. How it is delivered over into the hands of Christ, and in what sense, is hard for me to apprehend. Is it taken out of God in whom it was originally and essentially, & so put into Christ's hands, that it is no more to be found in God? or is that unperfect remainder of it which abode still in the Synteresis, or mind and conscience of lapsed man, taken thence and put into the hands of Christ, that it is no more to be found in man, but that after Satan had felled down the stem and branches thereof, Christ at last hath forced thence the very root thereof also, that there may be no more sprouting even of an unperfect righteousness in any man, saving by some light and mover from without him? Or is it so put into Christ's hand to dispose of its being and office, that if he say the word, that which was shall be no more natural or moral righteousness, much less the perfect rule thereof; or that which was man's duty, and his conformity with the nature of God, if Christ will, shall be so no more? All these are such absurdities as cannot possibly drop from Master baxter's learned pen. Or is it delivered into the hands of Christ to be the dispenser and disposer of it in relation to i●s end, whether the natural righteousness which it prescribeth shall be effectual, and of necessary use to man's justification? This indeed were an intolerable absurdity for one of us, that have our stations here below under Christ, to be regulated by his doctrine, to utter: But for M●ster Baxter that hath soared upward in his Enigmatical and Metaphysical learning unto the sphere of Saturn, high above the Sun of righteousness and his light, it is no absurdity to deliver it. It is but the language of Rome, that the righteousness of the moral law must under the Gospel still justify us, as when we were perfect in Adam, though then in him we could, but now we cannot perform it. And why so? not because Christ hath declared by his word that he will so have it, but because the holy Mother Church, that hath the power to make the word of Christ to dance into all forms and senses after her interpretations, hath so decreed. If this be Mr. Baxters' meaning, & that it appears to him to be a plain truth, why doth he not make it plain to us that we may see it with him, but only saith it, as a cathedral doctor without adding illustration or confirmation to it? 3. What he meaneth by that which he next saith, viz. and [it is] so continued in the sense before expressed, is not plain to me, where this sense is expressed, whethe● in the former part of this answer, & then it must be continued by Christ, to be the preceptive part of the Covenant of works still: or in the question, and so it is continued by Christ to be the preceptive pa●t of the New Covenant; or in some one or more passages of the foregoing part of this his treatise, & so we shall be still uncertain of the sense, because we cannot tell, and he doth not tell us where it is expressed. And for us to seek after a man in his sense, who wilfully hides himself and his sense in the dark that we may not find them, were but a senseless piece o● werke, especially when we know it will nothing better our senses in case we should be so lucky as to find his. I should guess that he means the sense expressed in the former part of this answer, and so it will be examined in that which he addeth in his second Answer, viz. 2. That the moral Law doth therefore so continue &c. as before. What else should he mean in saying it doth continue, but that as he had said in the former clause of the first answer, viz. to be the preceptive part of the Covenant of works? or why doth he say, it doth therefore so continue, but that his therefore bids us to fetch the cause from the same answer, because Christ, into whose hands it is delivered, hath so continued it. And if so, to what purpose is all this reasoning? Tends it to affirm that it was possible for Christ considered either as God, or as our mediator, to rescind and destroy the eternal and immutable Law of natural and eternal righteousness? or that it would have fall'n to the ground with its own weight, if it had not been delivered into Christ's hand to sustain it? Or that it would not be in itself the rule of Righteousness for ever, except Christ had assumed our nature, in it to give it a second birth and establishment? Or that the Moral Law had lost its power and righteousness when we had lost ours, and so it needed no less than we, a reparation? Nay whether man had sinned, or not sinned, been redeemed, or not redeemed, the Moral Law was, and is still the same. What the Psalmist saith of God, Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and world were form, from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God; Psal. 90. 2: So may I say of the moral Law, wheresoever it is, and as fare as it is truly held forth and fully too, whether by Christ or by Moses, by the Old or by the New Testament, by the creature, by the conscience, by the Philosopher's Ethics, or by any other way or means whatsoever; before the mountains and world were form, from everlasting, to everlasting it hath been and is the perfect rule of Moral righteousness still. Neither shall it cease so to be when world and mountains are dissolved: but then we shall see perfectly in the face of God himself what we now see in his either more or less perfect images, & be perfectly configured thereunto. In the mean time evenbeleivers have this as one of their great privileges, to be free f●om sin, and servant, of Righteousness: Ro. 6. 18. and so the Law of Righteousness continueth to command both believers and unbelievers, and the perfect obeying thereof is the duty of both, and the not obeying their sin, deserving the death threatened in the Old Covenant: But so that believers having fully done their Law in Christ, and being freed from the Old Covenant, though still in a sweet conjunction with the Moral Law, Rom. 7. 22. have no more their hated irregularities imputed to them, but fully forgiven for Christ's sake. Thus the Word of God, and Doctrine of Christ run smoothly, and clearly, why doth Mr. Baxter not find, but make whirlpooles, and stoppages therein, to offend, and drown poor souls, that cannot yet swim in the deep? Good ends have straight ways leading to them. Mr. Baxters crooked wind, argue him not to have a straight and upright meaning. His unuseful therefore, and therefore, put out of joint that which God hath so compacted, as that it ought not to be disjointed. And if we would know what he aims at in his circumlocutions to circumvent the simple in these his two first answers, let us but follow him to the next, and we shall in part find it. B. 3. That Jesus Christ hath further made use of the same moral Law, for a direction to his subjects, etc. ut suprà. What he saith in this his third answer to the second question, of the usefulness of the moral Law for direction to Beleivers, is granted. And this is one great prerogative which Beleivers have, that the moral Law, which in relation to unbeleivers hath the curse of the Old Covenant, as a scourge and sword annexed to it to take vengeance of them for their transgressions, is to them that are in Christ a peaceable, sweet and unarmed counsellor. But in the opening hereof Master Baxter shows himself to be himself, in foisting in two of his unauthentick paradoxes or falsities (call them which ye will) & the same so finely with slight of hand interwoven in his discourse, that his craft might not be easily espied; but being espied, every one that knoweth Master Baxter, may know them to be from his Artifice so inserted. viz. 1. That obedience to Christ, in the performance of all the duties which the moral Law prescribeth, is part of the condition of the New Covenant. 2. That the Gospel, or New Covenant doth not require of men perfect, but sincere obedience only. Both of these his subtlety lays down not as positions here first asse●ted, and consequently here to be proved: But as assertions before proved and granted, upon which he is now ready to build his other gear and trash which he hath in readiness to j●yne to these as a superstructure. Whereas our sincere subjection, and obedience to Christ (saith he) is part of the condition of the New Covenant: And where again, When the New Covenant saith, Thou shalt obey sincerely, putting there this voice of the New Covenant in opposition to the voice of the Old Covenant, which (as he tells us) saith, Thou shalt obey perfectly. Here is a pretty slight to broach errors, a creeping into men to persuade them in despite of their teeth that he and they are of one mind: That he proved, and they granted it yesternight when they were all fast a sleep, and none of them spoke or heard any thing. Which shall we think this man to have more studied, Machiavil, or M●ldonate? If Bellarmine were alive, he would even shake off his red Cap with laughter, to see a son of his so much more witty, and crafty than his Father. But to the matter itself. First concerning obedience to the Moral Law, that it is part of the condition of the New Covenant. 1. I demand where it was before proved, yea where in direct words asserted, that it is here taken up as a point granted? He gave cause enough indeed to be suspected of it throughout the foregoing part of this Tractate, but not evidence enough to be impleaded for it. This is Magisterially to command Faith, as one that speaketh by the authority of an infallible spirit, and not Ministerially to teach, as one that subjecteth himself and his Doctrine to the trial of God's Word. 2. I demand whether he means not by the condition of the New Covenant, the condition upon which, and for which God will justify the performer? Yea that condition which he had before termed a righteousness perfect, and meritorious in its own worthyness to Justification? If this be not his meaning, than Master Baxter eats up again to day what he spit out yesterday. But this can in no wise befall the animosity of his spirit. If it be his meaning, then doth he pronounce even our legal righteousness, which consists in the fulfilling of the Moral duties of the Moral Law, as well as our Evangelicall righteousness (as he terms the personal righteousness which is conformed to the rule of the Gospel) to be meritorious to Justification. And not any one of the Popes themselves have spoken higher language than this, to deify man in his own righteousness. 3. I would be informed, if the performance of the duties of the Moral Law, in obedience to Christ doth justify, why the same performance in obedience to God, doth not justify also? Is not obedience due as well to the Father, as to the Son? or is not Justification as much from the Father as from the Son? The same honour is due to both, and the same work of grace effected by both. Neither can I see any more worth in Moral Righteousness Morally performed (for I find not Mr. Baxter as yet speaking further of it) in obedience to the Son, then in the same done to the Father by way of obedience to him. But of this point we shall have a more proper place and occasion to speak more fully afterward. 2. Concerning the second, that the Gospel doth require but sincere, not perfect obedience, I might also inquire, 1. Why Mr. Baxter doth here take it up pro concesso, for granted? He had indeed put it in the question to which he is answering, but had said nothing for the solution of it, except peradventure by the art of ventriloquy, he spoke something under the Table, that he might not be heard, when he said in his first answer to it, That the Moral Law is continued by Christ in the sense before expressed, meaning by those words, the expressions used in the said question, that under the New Covenant the Moral Law commandeth not perfect obedience, but only sincere, or at least the Gospel having the Moral Law for its preceptive part doth so. If I knew that to be his meaning, I have somewhat to say to it. In mean while, be it, or be it not his meaning, is every thing that Mr. Baxter hath once imagined in his brain, or spoken under a bushel, by and by to be taken up for a granted principle in Religion, upon which he may make a superstructure of what he pleaseth? 2. Why doth he not allege those Testimonies of the New Testament which assert only a sincere, and not a perfect obedience? Why doth he suffer us poor souls to continue in darkness for lack of his light communicated to us? Is it in the outside, or the inside of his Testament that this mystical doctrine is contained? I acknowledge the promises of Gods free grace are made ●ut in the riches thereof to them that are in Christ, that God for Christ's sake will accept their sincere volitions, and performances, according to the ability which they have, and not reject them for want of the ability which they have not. That not only the infirmities of their obedience, but their very sins, and disobedience is blotted out, and shall be no more imputed to them, etc. But this in no wise denyeth perfect obedience to be their duty still. Yea much more their duty under the Gospel, then under the Law, because there is a greater obligation of greater, and more benefits upon them under th● Gospel then under the Law, binding them to yield back perfect love and obedience to their Benefactor. 3. What shall we think of those Texts in the New Testament, which require of us to be perfect, 2 Cor. 13. 11. Jam. 1. 4. Yea perfect as God is perfect, Mat. 5. 48. reproving weakness and infirmity, and commanding a going on to perfection, Heb. 6. 1. as compared with the precedent Chapter in the latter part thereof? Yea if perfection were not the duty of a Christian, and unperfectness and infirmity his sin; why doth the Apostle so much groan and grieve under the remainder of his natural infirmities, and press on to perfection? Rom. 7. 14, to the 24. Phi. 3. 12-14. Or is such unperfectness a sin only in reference to the rule of the Law, and not the rule of the Gospel; for that the Law doth, but the Gospel doth not call for perfection? This is both contrary to the Scriptures alleged, and doth withal make the Gospel to allow imperfections. And (to use Mr. baxter's own expressions, which calleth the Gospel a Law) what the Law forbids not, we take the same to be approved by that Law. If any should say that the Gospel doth not require perfect, but sincere obedience, ad aliquid, in relation to this, or that particular end; it might in some case be a truth. But Mr. Baxter lays it down positively in itself, that the Gospel requires not perfection. And this can in no wise be defended. 4. Is not this Doctrine a sluice to let into the hearts of men a whole flood of carnal security, idleness, improficiency, contempt, or neglect of all the means of growth in grace, each man settling himself upon his lees, with this Apology, that they are already squared to the mind and rule of the Gospel, are sincere, have the truth and true being of Faith, knowledge, and obedience: This is all which the Gospel requireth, they are even with the rule, why should they stretch themselves further to be beyond it? This is a brand which Mr. Baxter inureth upon our, or rather Christ's doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. Is not himself guilty? 5. I would be informed what he means by sincere obedience. It is very requisite that he which vends new Doctrines in new terms, should be exquisite in expressing, and explaining his terms and words. Sincerus, say the Etymologists, est quasi dicas sine cera, as honey pure without the mixture of any wax in it. That which is most pure and simple, without any mixtures, or taintures. And Sincerity is usually put in opposition, 1 to hypocrisy, or 2. to corruption, or sinful pollution. As sincerity of obedience is put in opposition to that obedience which is done in hypocrisy, or with sinister, and self ends; so ou● Saviour denies the sincerity of the Scribes and Pharisees, and chargeth them frequently in the Gospel with hypocrisy, for their strict walkings, devotions, almsdeeds, etc. that they might be justified by such personal righteousness of their own. This he calls hypocrisy, and denies to be sincere obedience, because it aimed not simply to the glory of God, but to their own ends, their own justification. But this I take to be Mr. Baxters' main end of obedience, to do it that we may be justified by it. And then according to the doctrine of the Lord Christ, it is not sincere, but hypocritical obedience. Or if we take hypocrisy to consist in professing, and practising holiness and obedience outwardly, but to base, and worldly ends, lurking secretly in the heart, viz. profit, honour, applause, and praise of men, etc. which is there of the aliens from the Covenant of Grace, that cannot plead a sincerity this way. I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day, saith Paul of himself, in reference to the time wherein he was yet a Saul, insinuating the Moral sincerity of his heart in opposition to hypocrisy and base ends in his obedience while he was yet out of Christ, that even then he served, and obeyed of good conscience, and according to the measure of the light of God's Word shining, as fare as it shined in his conscience, Act. 23. 1. Yea he did in sincerity according to the dictate of his conscience, whatsoever he did against Christ: I thought verily, saith he, that I ought to do many things against the Name of Jesus, etc. which things also I did, Act. 26. 9, 10. It is ●hat whereof the Apostle gives his testimony to the greatest bulk of his kindred and Nation that rejected Christ. They have a zeal of God, saith he, etc. Rom. 10. 2. of God, therefore sincere in opposition to base ends in all the services which they performed; and a zeal; this importeth an high degree of their obedience, and sincerity of obeying. Who is there of the carnal, and ignorant multitude, but can profess the like sincerity in their public worship, and private performances, without proposing to themselves any base and sinister ends therein? And doth the Gospel prescribe only such a sincere obedience, which is attained without any Gospel, or Gospellizing of the heart? Or if we take sincerity in opposition to all mixture of the flesh and corruption, in our obedience; in this case the sincerity must be either perfect or unperfect: If perfect, than the Gospel requireth the most perfect obedience, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Baxter. For what can be more perfect than that which is pure, and free from all contamination of the flesh, wholly spiritual? But where is the man to be found that can practically perform the duty? That Apostle which had laboured more abundantly than they all, professed himself not to have compassed it, but that in the purest and liveliest operations of the Spirit in him unto good, there was a counter-working of the flesh in him, hindering the good which he willed, and turning it into the evil which he hated, etc. Rom. 7. 21-23. And the same he professeth also to be the case of all other the Saints of God, Gal. 5. 17. So that a perfect sincerity he cannot mean, both because he denyeth that the Gospel enjoineth perfect obedience, and perfection of sincerity in this kind is the highest pitch of the perfection that is in the most perfect obedience: And withal because he tells us in the next answer, pag. 158. He knows not to what end Christ should command us that obdience, which he doth never enable any man in this life to perform. And this he hath laid down for a maxim, That whatsoever Christ hath commanded, or testified, if Mr. Baxter cannot find out, and fathom a good reason for it, and of it, meddle with it who listeth, he will have nothing to do with it. Or if he mean an unperfect sincerity, that, according to Mr. Baxter, is none at all. For if the righteousness of our persons and actions be, much more the sincerity of our righteousness and obedience must be, not a being, but a modification of a being, which doth not admit of magis and minus, but must be perfect, or none at all. Yea what an absurdity is it to affirm, that he, whose office it is to perfect his Elect, Heb. 10. 14. that doth not only begin, but finish his good work in them, hath commanded that which is unperfect? He may be truly said to wink at our unperfectness, to forgive our imperfections; but to say he commands that which is unperfect, is to deny the perfection of his commands, and so to lay imperfection to his charge, as well as to our own. Besides he may according to his custom, if he be put to tell us what sincerity he means, fall to distinguish it, into a Physical, or Metaphysical sincerity, into a Moral, and an Evangelical sincerity, so that although we find many of his Meashes, yet shall we never find his Form: So full of doubles, and false leaps are they that deal not sincerely in handling the doctrine of Christ, swaying and waving it hither and thither, to make it not subservient to the advancing of Christ's kingdom, but of their own inventions. Let Mr. Baxter labour rather practically, and feelingly to know the power of Christian, and spiritual sincerity within his heart, then to make use of the Word to make intricate the plain doctrine of Scriptures, and henceforth we shall find that which we have hitherto unsuccessefully sought after, sincere dealing in his disputes. It is not all this while denied, that the Gospel requires sincere obedience, but affirmed, that it calls for both sincere, and perfect obedience. I much doubt I should slander Mr. Baxter, if I should say that he means by sincere obedience, sincerely Evangelical obedience. For he will not be known to know what that is. It is besides the Orb of Philosophers, Scholasticks, and Sophisters, in which he moveth. But if beyond our belief he mean so, than I shall consent, and speak with him, When the New Covenant saith, Thou shalt obey sincerely, i. e. purely, according to the Gospel rule, which teacheth us to fetch all our guidance, in every work of obedience to make it Evangelical, from the Word of Christ; all our strength to do it from the Spirit of Christ, all our acceptance from our union to Christ, presenting all, and ourselves withal to God, through the mediation of Christ, doing all not to attain Justification by all done, but to glorify God with the fruits of our thankfulness, for the priceless gift of Justification conferred upon us in, and through Christ. When the New Covenant (I say) hath taught us to obey in a sincerely Evangelicall manner; here now the Moral Law steps in, and tells us (as Mr. Baxter saith) wherein, and what we must endeavour to do. i e. What be those duties of Moral holiness, and righteousness, which being in this Gospel way performed, do receive a higher title than Moral, and become Evangelical, Christian, and spiritual obeying. If Mr. Baxter mean, or will mean thus, we will go hand in hand wi●h him, or (what shall be more proper) give him his due precedency, and follow him. The next answer (put in numb. 4.) whether it be also an answer to this second Question, or intended as an answer to the third Question (which else passeth without answer) or else to both questions; runs in these words. B. But that the Moral Law, without respect to either Covenant, should command us perfect obedience; or that Christ as the Mediator of the New Covenant should command us, not only sincere, but also perfect obedience to the Moral Law, and so hath made it a proper part of his Gospel, not only as a directory, and instruction, but also as a command: I am not yet convinced, (though I will not contend with any that think otherwise.) My reason is, because I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience, which he never doth enable any man in this life to perform. If it were to convince us of our disability and sin: That is the work of the Law; and the continuing of it upon the old terms, as is before explained, is sufficient to that. But I judge this question to be of greater difficulty than moment. The multiplication of nice and unnecessary questions hath been one special means to bring a darkness upon the doctrine of the Word in those parts thereof, that in themselves are clear and full of light. It sufficeth me to know, what hath been a little before proved, that the Moral Law, both with respect, and as considered in itself, without respect to either Covenant, hath been ever, is, and shall be ever the perfect rule and directory of Moral obedience; And that Christ, as the Mediator of the New Covenant, hath not dissolved, or made void any part of the Moral Law, or of the Righteousness and duty which the Moral Law requireth, in reference to either the sincerity or perfection in performing the same; but contrariwise hath avouched the contrary, and denounced, that whosoever shall break one of the least of these commandments, and teach men so; i. e. as I conceive, shall take liberty by the abuse, and misunderstanding of the New Covenant to neglect, or be remiss in any part or degree of that righteousness which the Law requireth, and teach others the same remissness also, The same shall be least in the kingdom of heaven. i e. A useless and unprofitable Teacher in the Gospel Church. This sufficeth me to know, and this the Scripture plainly affirmeth and fully confirmeth. Mat. 5. 17. 19 But whether the Moral Law to them that are under the New Covenant, and truly in Christ, be only a rule and directory, or else a commander also? Or whether Christ hath made the Moral Law a proper part of his Gospel, these are things Heterogeneous from the former, and first devised by those distinctionary Sophisters that to strengthen their doctrine of merits and works of supererogation, have distinguished between the precepts and counsels of Christ. Sure I am, that the Gospel in its strict and proper sense, consists not at all in bringing precepts, but life, grace, righteousness, peace, joy, holiness, liberty, and salvation from heaven, and whatsoever else tendeth to the perfect and never ending wellbeing of poor souls, together with an alsufficient light and direction how to attain all these, and manage them being attained, to the advancing of the glory of the grace of the giver. This is properly the sum of the Gospel, and the precepts intermixed with the doctrine hereof, no otherwise proper to the Gospel, than as they are furtherances to the attainment of them, and lights and helps to direct us how to stand fixed in the enjoyment of them, and walk holily, honourably and worthily in the strength and comfort of them. Yet it cannot be denied but that still the Law Moral is a perfect rule of all perfect Moral righteousness; and that Christ hath expunged no part of it, but commands all, yea writes the righteousness of all in the hearts of believers, that they might will all, and delight to do all, not only after the Moral, but after the Evangelical rule, through Christ, for whose sake their unperfect services are accepted with God as though they were full and complete. This hath been cleared before in our examination of Master Baxters second Answer to the seeond Question, and express Scriptures alleged for confirmation thereof. Neither can we think that the many infinite benefits freely conferred in the way of the Gospel upon us, do exempt us from, but are obligations upon us unto the fulfilling of all righteousness: or that it is our bondage, but our liberty to be free from sin, and the servants of righteousness. The nature of the commands being now altered under the Covenant of Grace, from what they were under the Covenant of works. Then they proceeded from mere sovereignty and power, now from tender Grace and Love. Then had they a sting in the tail, the curse and hell to inflict, in case there were not full performance. This sting and curse is now carried away in the body of Christ, no threat of it to them that are in Christ, but the thing commanded for the completing of our perfection, which consists in our conformity with the will and nature of God, with this damage annexed, that the less perfectly we perform, the father off we are yet from our desired perfection. There the Lord commanded his servants, here the father his dear Children. There man was commanded to work in his own strength, here the treasury of Christ is opened, and the power of his Spirit offered, and we commanded to receive our fill, and in the strength of what we receive, to mount higher and higher until we come to full perfection. The reason that Master Baxter bringeth, why he cannot be yet convinced that Christ commands perfect obedience to the Moral Law, were from another reasonless, but from Master Baxter it is but a discovery of himself to be himself, i. e. an admirer (I had almost said adorer) of his own wisdom. Because (saith he) I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to perform. What more lofty arrogance? he must be admitted into Christ's privy Council, and have communicated to him what ends Christ hath in giving his commands, else will he cast be hind him his precepts as void and vain. He should have left to Socinus and his followers thus to have argued, who make humane reason the rule and bound of their Religion. Had he said, he is not yet convinced, because he yet meets not with any punctual testimony of Scripture that expressly affirms it, this would have at the worst but employed some inadvertency in his reading the Scriptures. But not to deny that the Scripture saith it, and yet not to be convinced, because he seethe not to what ends Christ should do what the Scripture saith he hath done; this is no less than the advancing the authority of his reason above the authority of God's Word: and an attributing of power to his own blindness, of silencing and frustrating the authority and truth of the Scriptures. But who is more blind than he that will not see? Or what hinders Master Baxter from seeing what ends Christ had in commanding that perfection which we cannot attain in this life fully to perform? Is it not because he terminateth and boundeth Christ's ends in all that he did, suffered or commanded, to man, as both the circumference and centre of all, and had no aim to his own glory, and the glory of his father that sent him, therein? How many honourable ends of Christ in this case may there be gathered from the Scriptures. 1. That God might be herein glorified. Herein is my father glorified, that ye bear much fruit. Jo. 15. 8. The more fruit we bear, and the more perfect, the more is God glorified in us. Therefore is the perfection of our fruitbearing commanded, that God may be still more and more glorified by our greater & greater fruitfulness; every one being forced to magnify the wonderful operation of God's grace in Christ, that hath enabled that which was erewhile a dead stock, to bring forth against nature so much and so good fruit. Even as an expert penman, or Master in writing, to get honour by the proficiency of his Scholars, doth not bring down, and lessen the perfection of his letters which he writes for their copy, to their feebleness and unableness in writing, (so should they continue unskilful and unable still) but sets before them a perfect copy, commanding and teaching them to follow it, and by degrees even to match it; and by this means the more perfectly they writ, the more honour comes to the Master. 2. To hold us in a constant intercourse and communion with himself by faith. Were we perfect, or had we attained all that is required of us, we should be wholly apt to settle ourselves upon our own bottoms, and work either not at all, or else in our strength. But when we see ourselves deficient in what we ought to be, and nothing in ourselves, or any where else, out of Christ to supply us, that without, or out of him we can do nothing, this keeps us in a diligent and constant union with him, to abide in him as the branches in the vine, to suck from him sap and life more abundantly for the producing of more abundant growth and fruitfulness in us: and thus the communion beeween Christ and ●s is more and more perfected, and he more and more honoured, when we fetch all our virtue and strength from him. 3. To keep us in continual selfe-denyal, and to dash to nothing Master baxter's idol of Justification by our own inherent righteousness; which when we find to come still short of the perfection enjoined, and sinful in its defectiveness, we shall be forced to withhold our confidence from it, and with the Apostle to shake it off (in reference to Justification) as dung and loss, that we may win Christ, and be found in him etc. So making Christ our All, and ourselves nothing to our own happiness, Phi. 3. 8. 9 4. To awaken us out of our carnal slumberings, and contentation in our poor beginnings and slight pittances of knowledge and righteousness already attained, and to stir us on with a holy agility towards perfection, in our motions. It was this that wrought thus with the Apostle Paul. Knowing perfection to be commanded, and seeing himself yet in a station so short of it, it makes him to cry out, I have not yet attained, I am not yet perfect, [therefore] forgetting those things that are behind, that are already done and attained, and reaching forth to the things that are before, not yet attained, I press toward the mark, [of perfection.] Phil. 3. 12, 13, 14. For these and many other ends (that might be added) doth Christ command perfection, though not fully attainable in this life. Master Baxter expresses himself to be able to find but one, and that but a seeming end or reason in this case, and that he blows off as insufficient. If it were (saith he) to convince us of our disability and sin, that is the work of the Law; and the continuing of it upon the old terms, as is before explained, is sufficient to that. Sundry failings are there in this passage of his, making it insufficient to the end for which he useth it. 1. That it makes the Law, because it convinceth of sin, to be the only means ordained of God to convince us of sin. When contrariwise the Lord Christ tells us, that the Spirit of Grace shall, under the Gospel also, convince men of sin, Joh. 16. 8. and that with a more effectual conviction than ever the Law, as the Law, could work. It shall so convince men of sin, that it shall convince them of righteousness also, of damning sin in themselves, and of saving righteousness laid up for them in Christ. This the Law could not do; Therefore is as a Covenant of works (for so Master Baxter here takes the Law,) neither the only, nor the chief means ordained of God to convince of sin. 2. That it makes the Law, upon it old terms, to be ordained of God, in a special and proper manner to convince of sin. This indeed was the office of the Law, as given to Israel upon mount Sinai, upon other and new terms: But upon its old and first terms as it was given to Adam, this could not be the next and proper end of the Moral Law. For Adam received it while he was yet innocent and without sin, and in that state of his, the Law could not convince him, was not appointed to convince him of sin, having not all sinned. 3. That it makes the Law upon its old terms, i. e. (according to Master Baxter) as a Covenant of works, sufficient by itself to conviction, without any need of Gospel convictions to be used. When contrariwise all the convictions of the Law so considered can work but desperation and death in the convinced. They are the convictions of the Gospel, and Spirit of Grace working by the Gospel, that are effectual to conversion and life. For conclusion he saith, B. But I judge the question to be of more difficulty than moment. And I answer, that the difficulty of the question is not from the Word of God, but from him and his fellows, which fill with knots hard to be loosed, the leading thread which Christ hath given us all displayed. As for the Moment of the question, let him crack at his pleasure among fools; yet the wise must needs see and acknowledge it such, as if he lose it, he loseth one of his chief pillars (though it be but a paper pillar) to bear up man's personal righteousness to justification. For if it be proved that Christ requireth perfect obedience under the Gospel, down falls all the perfection, meritoriousness and efficacy of man's righteousness to Justification. And so he must begin all again, and fit himself with better pillars next, if any where from Rome or Jury they are to be had, this proving rotten and unuseful. That obedience which in relation to both Covenants, to Law and Gospel too, is sinfully unperfect, cannot be of any power to Justify. CHAP. XIX. Arg. Whether Christ hath satisfied for sins against the Old Covenant, and not for sins against the New also. Thes. 32, 33, 34, 35. UNto this I may add the quodlibetarie & quidlibetarie doctrines of Mr Baxter, his Niceties, quiddities, and nimble nothings, whereof he disputes profoundly in the four next Theses, viz. the 32 etc. and in his Appendix, in answer to the third question, pag. 12. of the appendix, and thence to pag. 27. in which many notable and rare speculations are unfolded. viz. 1. Whether the rope wherewith Judas hanged himself, were made of hair or hemp? 2. Whether it were Simon, alias called Peter, or Peter, alias called Simon, that denied Christ; and whether it were Pontius, or else Pilate that condemned him. 3. Whether it were Christ's Cross, or else the Cross of Christ that Simon of Cyrene was compelled to bear? Item whether he carried it on his right or his left shoulder? and which end of the Cross was before, and whether the contrary end were behind in carriage? 4. Whether when Joab was put to death for killing two men, Abner and Amasa, for which of these two murders he suffered, for the former or the latter, or for neither? The same or like to these are the disputes of Master Baxter, in these Theses and their explications, and in the forementioned part of the Appendix. viz. 1. Whether, when himself hath laid it down for a position no less firm and unrepealable than the Laws of the Medes and Persians which altar not, that there is no sin prohibited in the Gospel, which is not a breach of some precept of the Decalogue, and a sin against the Old Covenant, etc. Yet nevertheless there be any sins against the New Covenant which are not also against the Old Item whether there be any sins, considerable in any of their respects against the Gospel only, and not against the Moral Law? and then consequently, whether Christ hath satisfied by his death for such sins as himself affirms never have been, never shall be, or can be committed. Thes. 30. pag. 148. that is, for imaginary sins which never were sins, nor shall be? Thes. 32. 2. When he hath asserted, and peremptorily concluded, Thes. 32. That Christ was not to satisfy for any sin committed against the New Covenant, which was not, is not also a sin against the Old: Yet whether it be not very needful to be questioned in the 33. Thes. Whether Christ hath done, what he was not to do? whether he hath satisfied for sins that violated the New Covenant, as well as for those that violate the Old Covenant? And consequently if he should have so done, whether this were to have been reckoned as a work of supererogation above, and beyond his duty, to have merited superexcedently for us; or an act of sin against his duty, putting him into an incapacity to merit at all for us? yea whereas Mr. Baxter concludeth absolutely as an undeniable truth, Thes. 32. Therefore Christ died not for any sin against the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace, whether that be not a sufficient argument to prove in Thes. 33. that Christ hath not by his passive obedience satisfied for the sins that violate the Covenant of Grace? who can evade the force of such an argument, Christ hath not satisfied, ergo he hath not satisfied; specially when it hath been before proved in words at length, that there is no sin against the New Covenant, but is a sin against the Old also; and it is satisfied for, as to the Old Covenant, what reason is there then that it should be satisfied, as to the New Covenant too? When the Creditor is paid his full debt in the hall, and hath yielded up the bond, will he expect to have the same debt paid to him in the parlour also? 3. Whether, when both Law and Gospel, Old, and New Covenant, command the same thing; that Christ then satisfyeth for the breach of that duty, as to the Law, but not as to the Gospel? The Gospel than damneth men for that fault that in reference to the Law is satisfied for? and consequently many poor wretches are damned by the Gospel, and New Covenant, which by the Law, and Old Covenant should be saved? Or if it be not so, whether then it be not the Law that damneth even final unbelief itself, taking advantage from the violating of the grace of the New Covenant, to aggravate their condemnation, that under the means of Grace have lived, and died contemners thereof? 4. Whether all other sins which the Gospel precepts do prohibit, be against Christ and his Gospel, as the object of those sins, only the breaking of the conditions of the Gospel, be not a sin against Christ and his Gospel, as the object of that sin? for so Mr. Baxter pag. 159. distinguisheth between those sins that have Christ, and the Gospel for their object, and those breaches of the conditions of the New Covenant, as if these had not Christ and his Gospel for their object. What then is the object of these sins? or have they no object? or how many thousand conditions of the New Covenant are there, the breach whereof is by no sacrifice to be purged? He tells us indeed, Thes. 32. pag. 159. that the Gospel threatneth death to no other sin, but final unbelief and rebellion. But this final unbelief, and final rebellion hath its belly so full of other small sins threatened in the womb of their Mother, [Rebellion] as ever a man found of the berries in the belly of a breeding Lobster. And in his Appendix, pag. 23. he makes final unbelief the genus, to which he attributes but three species, of which the first, viz. Ordinary final unbelief, is not to be considered as species specialissima, but subalterna, which being looked upon as a genus, hath so many species, or as a species hath so many individuals under it (according to Mr. Baxters' doctrine) as the best Arithmetician in the world, saving himself, will not dare to yield up, upon his casting, the true sum of them to satisfy Mr. Baxters' censure therein; as it will appear when Mr. Baxter comes to unlace, and rip abroad his Justifying Faith in its largest sense. Thes. 70. To these I might add many more quaintisies of the same nature, breathing out themselves from the veins of this his dispute. But all the rest, as those already mentioned, are but tarrying irons to take up the time of men that are Malè feriati, rather love to play with the buttons, then to close with the body, and drink in the spirit of true Christianity. And what other end can Mr. Baxter have in these his chip and mincings, but to show the delicacy of his wit? Whom hath he in the substance of what he speaketh, his adversary? We grant and teach with him. 1. That there is no sin prohibited by the Gospel, or New Covenant, which is not a sin against the Law, and Old Covenant also. 2. That final unbelief, and rebellion, are sins (if not unpardonable) as if they exceeded the bounds of God's grace, and Christ's merits to pardon them, yet) which have no futurition of pardon, shall never be pardoned in this life, or in that which is to come: For so hath the Lord declared his purpose in reference to these sins. 3. That both the Law and the Gospel concur in damning such persons; the Law as a Covenant of Works properly, for their refusal to submit (even till death itself) to the will and authority of God, requiring Faith in Christ for their redemption from vengeance. The Gospel improperly, by withholding its shelter from the Laws sentence against them, because they would never be persuaded to come under the shelter of it: yea more in strengthening the hand of the Law to give them the sorer punishment, for the contempt of God's grace, as well as of his Authority and Justice. And thus not only the mountains of their sins against the Law, but also Christ the Rock shall fall upon them to their greater shivering, for that they dared to dash themselves against him, and would not be induced to be built against all the strokes of vengeance upon him. This is the sum of all that which Mr. Baxter here in substance says. To what purpose then are his elaborate distinctions of the differing respects and aspects, senses and non-senses, in which Christ hath either satisfied, or not satisfied for man's sins, unless it be Balaam-like, to lay a stumbling block in the way of the simpler people of God's Israel, to occasion their fall? to puzzle their judgements and consciences? and to make the way of grace, which is in itself as discovered by the Lord Christ, easy and plain, to be unto them by his evil working therein, intricate, perplexed, and full of snares? To all sober men it sufficeth to know, 1. That there is no one of their sins, in whatsoever consideration it be taken, but hath death and hell in the tail of it. 2. That there cannot be any other way of exemption from the death & hell which every such sin of theirs meriteth, by any other means but by the redemption which is by, and in the Lord Jesus. 3. That the blood of Christ hath in it a perfect efficacy to cleanse from all sin whatsoever, no one excepted, if it be applied to cleanse; Not the very sin against the Holy Ghost, which it hath not power totally to purge out from the conscience, if it were truly applied. But therefore is that sin never pardoned, and purged from the soul, because the Spirit of God never doth, nor will apply the blood of Christ to the soul that is guilty of it; nor generates Faith in such a soul to run unto, and wash in the Fountain of Christ's blood, that it may be clean. Let there be any one sin named of all the sins whereof our corrupt nature is pregnant, that is so much a sin against the Gospel, but that the purging, or not purging away of it, the absolving of the conscience from it, or retaining of it upon the conscience, doth not wholly depend upon the application, or not application of the blood of Christ to the soul, and I shall acknowledge that I have seen but the Letter, and was never yet acquainted with the Spirit, and drift of the Scriptures. Or suppose we should take a delight to contend about that which is a mere lana caprina, whether it be hair or wool that grows upon the Goat's shoulders, how feeble might we manifest the reasons to be which Mr. Baxter beingeth to prove, that the sins against the New Covenant are not satisfied for, by the sacrifice of Christ's death. As 1. When the Apostle affirmeth Christ to have suffered death for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Testament, Heb. 9 15. Doth it follow thence that he hath not redeemed from the transgressions against the New Covenant also? If I say that Christ forgave to Peter, or Paul, or Mary Magdalen all their sins committed before conversion, do I thereby as much as imply that he retains still, and revengeth upon them all the sins they committed after they were converted? Or should one of Mr. Baxters' acquaintance say, that whatsoever Mr. Baxter preached, and wrote, until four or five years since, was good, and Orthodox, doth it follow that all that he hath since preached, and written, is heretical, and erroneous? Nay the purpose of the Apostle here is to convince the Hebrews that sought in part for righteousness by the Law, or Old Testament, that it could not make its observers perfect: For Christ died to redeem the transgressions of them that were under the first Covenant, which he needed not to have done, if all the Sacrifices under the Law could have purged them. And thus the Moral Law is not here at all opposed to the Gospel, that the Gospel, or New Covenant do purge the sins only that were committed under, and against the Moral Law, because all the righteousness of the Moral Law could not purge them; but the sacrifice of Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant, is here opposed to the levitical sacrifices under the Legal Covenant. What these could not, the sacrifice of Christ hath expiated. 2. Where he tells us, that Christ could not satisfy for sins committed against the New Covenant, because the New Covenant threatens no death to such sins, therefore no need if Christ's mediating death here for us: For where no death is threatened, there is none explicitly due, saith he. But will he say none is either explicitly, or implicitly due? Or when Mr. Baxter tells us pag. 15. that in the Old Covenant the promise of life is not expressed, but plainly employed in the threatening of death: Will it not follow by the same reasons, that when Mr. Baxter in the after part of this his Tractate allegeth such multitudes of Scriptures, that promise life to the performance of such and such acts of Gospel righteousness, that there is employed the threat of death against the non-performance of the same? Or if it should have been printed (as it is most probable, because he so speaketh elsewhere in reference to the covenants) that where death is not explicitly threatened, there it is not due, and Christ hath not suffered it in our behalf. What shall we think then of all the fathers from Adam to Moses? where was this death explicitly threatened to any actual sin, until the Law was given by Moses? The Scripture mentions it not, and Mr. Baxter hath told us (though I doubt somewhat rashly, and Magisterially) that to Adam himself in his perfection the form of the Covenant was not known (as written in his heart) but by superadded revelation, pag. 14. Yea what shall we say of all the Nations of the world (Israel alone excepted) that even until Christ, had not revealed Covenant with God, much less death threatened explicitly by such a Covenant? Will Mr. Baxter deny death to have been due to them for their sins, because not explicitly threatened? Doth not the Apostle, Rom. 1. 32. & alibi, affirm the contrary? Thus if it were; but it is not proved, that the New Testament doth not so threaten death. 3. When he tells us that Christ is said to have been made under the Law, and to have born the curse of the Law, and to have freed us from it, but no where is this affirmed of him, in respect of the Gospel, pag. 161. This is an Argument of the same nature, with that before, from Heb. 9 15. The Apostle to dash the crest of their selfconfidence, in seeking to be in part justified (as Mr. Baxter also doth) by their own personal righteousness done in conformity to the Law, tells them that even the Israel of God, that were privileged above all other people with a Law of Righteousness, were under the curse of the Law, and could not be saved but by a Redeemer; much less they that had not the help of such a Law. It bears the same sense with that of Gal. 2. 15, 16. We that are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we may be justified, etc. What a monstrous delusion were it then for us to teach the sinners of the Gentiles to seek after Justification by their personal righteousness, according to the Law. And though it be not where, totidem verbis, said, or affirmed of him in respect of the Gospel, yet is it said in the words equivalent, Heb 9 15. That he is the Mediator of the New Testament: whence Pareus on the place concludeth, That if he hath satisfied for the sins against the Old, much more for the sins against the New Testament, seeing he is the Mediator of this, not of that. And the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, 1 Joh. 1. 7. Ergo from sins also against the Gospel. I cannot say from sins which are only against the Gospel, for there are none such. Or if Mr. Baxter will take the words so strictly as he seems to take them, that Christ hath redeemed only from sins against the Law, he must exclude himself, with all the Churches and Saints of the Gentiles that are, or have been, from the redemption which is by Christ; for so then must that passage in Gal. 4. 4, 5. be read; Christ was made under the Law to redeem them [only] that were under the Law. i. e. Only the Jews, for they only were under the Law of Moses, and of this Law Mr. Baxter must needs confess the Apostle here to speak. So that this argument of his, if it please not a Jew, it will please no body. 4. The last Argument which he brings in the same 161 pag. to hit the white, and cleave the pin, and resolve the question so unanswerably, that no tongue which cannot speak may ever more utter, or mutter against it, is as straight with his purpose, as a rams horn with a line. 4. But the question is out of doubt, (saith he) because that every man that performeth not the Gospel-conditions, doth bear the punishment himself in eternal fire, and therefore Christ did not bear it. True, for Christ did bear the punishment of none of his sins, neither of his lying, swearing, lust, murder, drunkenness, and other sins against the Law, but he shall bear all himself: shall we therefore conclude that Christ died not to make satisfaction for those sins in reference to them that have part in his death? This were to pronounce Christ to have satisfied for no sin at all, either against Law or Gospel, and so no flesh shall be saved, but ll suffer in eternal fire. 5. What is in this Argument, as also in the two next, and immediately put before this, in the same 161 pag. of his Saint-conditions which he worshippeth as his Mediators to bring him into communion with Christ, no less than he doth Christ himself to bring him into communion with God, I have partly spoken to before, and shall have large, and frequent occasions to speak more fully and largely upon other parts of this Tractate of Mr. Baxter; here he doth but name conditions in general, and what he saith is not worthy of any particular Animadversions in relation to it. He confesseth himself pag. 160. To have been long of another judgement in this point, while he considered not the tenor of the Covenants distinctly: That is, as long as he derived his guidance therein from the Scripture itself, and from the truly Evangelical, and Orthodox Commentators thereon. But since he hath met with Apocryphal Doctors, the Jesuits, and other nimble brains among the Papists, and with Grotius, and Vossius, and others of that hair, which h●●e divided their consciences between the Papists and Socinians, little prising the Word, where some acquaint wit and invention of man ha●h not descanted upon it to make it shine in the paint and varnish of humane speculations and art: Now having found a Cuckoos egg in a Finches nest, the man is so taken with the pretty conveyance, that he doth as it were nest himself by it, and accounts all other contemplations base in comparison of this, defies Eagles, Swans, Turtles, yea the whole generation of other birds; cares not 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 total 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 piece 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 Gabri●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 fantastical 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 Writers 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 sin 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 sin 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 chief in this, that the terminus à quo of Remission is the obligation to punishment, but the terminus of Justification (or the evil) that it forma●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 real. But how doth the difference lie in the different termini à quibus, Remission of sins, and Justification free us? because Mr. Baxter (a more curious cummin-cutter in Logical disputes than he that Aristotle in his Ethics speaks of, was in dividing of secular goods) hath thus cloven the hair into two even rafters, and so hath himself laid 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 entrench upon the others part. I confess myself to have been so gross witted, until 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 bea● 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 itself doth connote the state of favour. For if the loss of God's favour be a part of the punishment, and all the punishment be remitted, than the favour which was lost, must needs be thereby restored. So neither should I have easily closed with another, putting Mr. baxter's 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 freedom from the Laws accusation, and condemnation; and freedom from the Laws accusation, and condemnation connotes freedom from obligation to punishment; and so doth Remission of sins, and Justification, i. e. Justification in Roman, 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 he thinks it will somewhat advantage him in attaining the ends to which he driveth, to make an imaginary difference between pardoning of sin, 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 do 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] he doth pag. 168. trifle about the difference which he maketh between Christ's Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdom, and God's Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdom. 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 Kingdom of Glory, but through the Kingdom of Grace. But to put a difference between Christ's, and God's Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdom, as if the one were upon Earth, the other not until we are translated hence into Heaven, and so we must be in Heaven first, and be forgiven afterwards; or as if Christ's acceptance, etc. were not Gods, or the Father's Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdom, is a merely imaginary dream of one that listeth to dream waking; pat indeed to Mr. Baxters' purpose of setting up his twofold, or rather manifold Justifications; but wholly thwarting and crossing the Scriptures, which affirm, 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 Christ's sake, Eph. 4. 32. Col. 2. 13. And more often call the Kingdom of Grace here, the Kingdom of God, than the Kingdom 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 it so term this. 3. And of as little moment is that which he hath pag. 169. in the Explication of his Definition of Pardon, calling i● [a gracious Act] where he blesseth, and kisseth the image [Tantundem] set up by Grotius, and polished by himself, denying it to be a pardon, if it be not in some sort gratuitous, or free, and asserting, that if Christ hath paid for us the idem, or the proper debt, than there is no place left for pardon, and we have nothing forgiven us: For the Creditor (saith he) cannot refuse the proper debt, nor deny an acquittance upon the receipt thereof, etc. A mere vanity of words, without either ground, or substance. It doth not always hold firm in trifling debts of money. Suppose I have a son, that having received his portion of my estate from me, will forthwith come and pay it me for the debt of some bankrupt debtor, that I have cast into prison; if indeed it be so agreed upon between myself, and my said Son; and that to this end I gave him such a portion of my estate, that he should so do with it, than it were not equity in me to refuse the payment so offered. But yet Master Baxter will not deny that this agreement, or covenant between me, and my son, and my receiving of my own monies in satisfaction for that Bankrupts debt, though it be the same, to the utmost farthing which he owed, is an act of grace, or favour in me to the said Debtor. But in case ●here were no such covenant between me, and my said son, but that I gave him the said portion of my goods for other ends, and uses, and not to pay the Debts of Bankrupts: I suppose than it is in my choice, either to receive, or refuse the full debt so offered me, because he which offerrs it, was not bound upon the Bond, as Surety, or as Excecutor, or Administrator to the Debtor, nor is assigned by the Debtor to make payment in his stead. What is there in this case binding me to receive the debt from such an hand, or to give an acquittance to him that should pay it? Much less will the case hold in point of Life and Death. Suppose some Priest, Jesuit, or other Traitor were by the Law condemned to die for Treason committed: The day of Execution is at hand, Master Baxter interposes, and offereth to die for him: Is it not in the power of the chief Magistrates to refuse the accepting of the death of the Innocent for the Nocent? Or if they do accept the change, is it not an Act of free grace to pardon the offendor, accepting another's sufferings for him? Much more is it a gracious act in God to pardon us upon Christ's suffering in our stead, because he sent his Son, and gave him a body wherein to suffer for us, Heb. 10. 5. And gives us acquittance, having cast him into prison in our behalf, until he had paid the utmost farthing of our debts. 4. What he saith against the ignorant Antinomians in the end of page 169, and in page 170, he hath said before, and it hath been before examined, and his peppercorn being crushed, hath been found too hot in smell and operation, for a humble, and selfe-denying Christian to meddle with in the point of Justification. Therefore I conclude with him, nor further to trouble the Reader with those senseless conceits which have only a plausible show of words, but no footing in Scriptures, or authority from Scriptures to establish them. The rest of the Doctrine which he delivereth in this page 170, and addeth page 171, and 172, I do in part grant him; and what I grant him not, we shall find again so involved in his dispute, whether Justification be an immanent, or transient Act of God, page 173, & seq. that it shall be more proper there then here to take it into examination. In his 173 page, Master Baxter enters upon a dispute of great moment, whether Remission and Justification be immanent, or transient Acts of God? Before pag. 93 of this Tractate, in a brave challenge of the Antinomians to produce one Scripture, testifying Justification to be from eternity, he promised to show, or prove that Justification is not an immanent Act in God. Here he addresseth himself to the accomplishment of what he there promised, and in doing it he pretendedly draws the sword against the Antinomians, as the sole assertors of the opinion which he here with much gallantry seeks to confute. Two things then I conceive here to call for examination. First, how sound the reasons are which he brings to deny Pardon, and Justification to be immanent, and to prove them to be merely transient acts of God. 2. What kind of Vermine these Antinomians are, against whom Mr. Baxter hath already discharged so many Gun-shots before in this Treatise, and finds them nevertheless yet alive, and in a capacity to bear so many more shots from him, in this, and the following parts of this book. Before my entrance upon either of these, for an introduction to the former, that the state of the question may the better appear, I shall endeavour with as much fidelity, and simplicity as (in brief) I may, to lay down the judgements of our Protestant Divines, whom he slanders here, and every where (almost) with Antinomianism, about this question, before mentioned, which Mr. Baxter here so much opposeth, I mean such of these as hold (not that all have taught it) to be in some respect immanent in God. 1. Then, in their disputes against Bellarmine, Arminius, Socinus, and their followers, about remission of sins, and justification they tell us, that justification is taken sometimes actively, for a judicial act of God's grace; sometimes passively, or terminatively; as it hath its termination upon believers. In the former sense, it is an act internal and immanent in God, not transient upon an extraneous subject; or in plain words, it is secret, abiding, and hidden in God himself, not declared or passing into the knowledge and conscience of man. That it is of the same nature with the acts of election and reprobation, having its complete being, as these, before the persons so elected, justified and reprobated, begin to have being, life or faith in them, or to do good or evil. But in its passive sense, as it is terminated upon, and made out to the conscience of a man, so it is a transient act of God, pronouncing and declaring home to the conscience of a man now living, convinced of his sins, and trembling at the sense and burden thereof, yet resting upon, and cleaving to Christ by faith; that his sins are forgiven for Christ's sake; and by this act and sentence of God in his conscience the poor sinner becomes sensible and apprehensive of his full discharge and absolution at God's tribunal, thorough Christ's satisfaction made to justice for him. 2. That justification, as taken in the former sense, is an Act of God's supreme Lordship or dominion, or else of his good pleasure (to use the Apostles terms) by which he freely and without necessity, in relation to his justice, willeth the salvation of one, and willeth not the salvation of another, loveth or hateth, imputeth not, or doth impute sin, according to his own free will. But justification in the latter sense, is an act of God's righteousness or faithfulness, by which he faithfully and righteously accomplisheth his promises of grace, in just ●ying and absolving them which believe, by the sentence of pardon pronounced to their conscience, according to the Gospel promise made to believers. No word of promise went before justification in the former sense, to make it an act of justice to fulfil that promise; neither could it be an act of his natural justice, that by the necessity of his nature he should so justify and love any; for than should none be either loved or saved freely of God, when contrariwise it was in his own free choice, to love or to hate, to save or condemn all, or mutatis vicibus, to have loved Esau, & hated Jacob, to have willed the condemnation of the saved, and the salvation of the reprobated. But the word of promise preceded justification in the latter sense, which it is righteousness in God to fulfil; therefore is it an act as well of his justice or righteousness, as of his free grace. 3. That Justification in the former sense is antecedaneous, or foregoing to all covenants whatsoever. 1. In order of nature (though not in time) it goeth before that covenant between the father and the son, mentioned before in the examination of the explication of Mr. baxter's fourteenth Thesis; and consequently before Christ's undertaking to make, or the father's Covenant to accept what he should offer, in satisfaction for the sins of the elect. For in order of nature the willing of the end, always goeth before the willing of the means conducing to the end; so that God's willing man's righteousness and immunity from sin, and loving him to salvation, must needs go before his willing of Christ's satisfying of his justice, which was but a mean appointed of God to the constituting of man righteous before him, that he might be pure from sin, discharged from condemnation, and partaker of salvation, which was the end. Not that there was any precedency, or following after, of these acts of God, in time: for they are both coeternal, and before all times. Whom God hath loved, and forgiven their sins, them hath he so loved and forgiven, in and through Christ from all eternity, and through and for the merit of his satisfaction. Much more doth this immanent act of justification go before, not only in nature, but in time also, the other temporary Covenants, both the Covenant of works made with Adam, and the Covenant of Grace, made after by Gospel promise, by Christ, or God in Christ, to us and with us. For these had all their being in time. But justification in its other acceptation is subsequent unto, and follows after, and is an effect of not only the Covenant of Grace, but of faith itself, which the Covenant of Grace calls for, as a mean to attain it. None else but a beleiver, nor he, until he actually believeth, is thus actually justified, or hath pardon of sins and absolution from wrath declared and pronounced of God in his conscience. And thus to be justified in Christ, or in God, is one thing and to be justified in ourselves by God through Christ is another. The former is an antecedent, the latter an effect or consequent of the Covenant of Grace. 4. That neither the mediation & satisfaction of Christ, nor (much less) our faith in Christ, nor any of the most noble gifts of grace received from Christ, either in their habit or operation do move God to justify us, so as to put into him a will to pardon our sins, and accept us as righteous, or to change his affection from nilling to will our forgiveness and happiness, and from hating to love and accept us; because he is God, and therefore immutable; and there cannot be any cause of Gods will rendered, any more than of God himself. For the Will of God, is God himself, and these immanent acts of God, are God himself acting. So that the substration of all that Christ hath suffered, and by his sufferings satisfied for us, and of all that we do, or can do to put ourselves into union with Christ, and a conformity with the Will of God, are in no wise the causes or conditions, or antecedents of God's first loving, owning, and pronouncing u● righteous and pure from sin imputed; but the effects thereof. For he so loveth and justifieth all, that in a Covenant way have been, or shall be justified in their own conscience, before ever they believe, or live. But that the intervening of Christ's satisfaction for our sins, and our recumbency upon, and embracing of Christ so satisfying by faith, that we may be justified, do add nothing to God which was not, nor alter any thing which was in his will before; but do only lay and make a way by God's ordination, how he from all eternity loving and justifying us in himself freely, may in a course most convenient to magnify both his truth and righteousness, and withal his grace and mercy, at length actually declare us just in, and to our own consciences, and for ever acquit us from sin and wrath, to the admiration of Men and Angels. And so the former justification is a pure, simple, free, and irrespective act of God, having no causality out of himself moving him to it: but the latter is a foederal, Gospel or Covenant justification, respecting his own Covenant before made, Christ's satisfaction already given and pleaded in heaven by Christ, and man's faith in the mediator and promiser, pleading the promise, and the blood of the mediator sealing it: upon all which he doth, he cannot but actually pronounce and declare to the conscience of the beleiver his perfect absolution from sin and vengeance. This latter is indeed the justifying whereof the Scriptures primarily speak, as oft as they speak of justification by faith, but so as the former is also in such Scriptures employed. Neither is the Scripture silent in reference to the former, as considered without the latter, or apart from it. 5. That although all that are or shall be justified by faith in time, i. e. each on● in the time when he so believeth, were justified also in Christ, & secretly in God before they believed, or yet lived even from eternity: Yet is there no man justified by virtue of the New Covenant and promise of the Gospel, proclaiming right to the Lord Christ, to forgiveness of sins, freedom from condemnation, heirship to God's Kingdom, and all other benefits of Christ's Passion; until he doth actually believe and embrace Christ, thorough him to have all those precious promises made good and effectual to himself. Though in Christ he were Lord of all before, yet differed he nothing in himself from a servant, from a child of wrath, his life and righteousness were hid with Christ in God; He could claim nothing from God by any evidential title, but wrath and condemnation; though he had right in Christ, yet had he no right unto Christ; though in Christ all was his, because Christ had united, purchased, and received all into his hands for him, yet had he no right to Christ by which to claim a partnership and interest in the kingdom and privilege of grace, was without all true peace of conscience, all joy and consolation in the promises of grace, under fears and terrors in expectation of wrath and damnation, could be sensible of nothing but anger, hatred and displeasure against him for sin, knew not himself to be one of the children of promise, Gal. 4. 28. to be entitled to Christ, in whom alone the promises of God are yea and Amen: 2 Cor. 1. 20. Therefore as if there had been no Christ, no Mediator and reconciler, no Covenant of Grace, yea no Grace, or acts of Grace eternal or temporary in God thorough Christ, so he remained under a Spirit either of delusion or of bondage still. But now when the father hath drawn him to Christ, and Christ hath received him, when Christ hath apprehended him to himself by his Spirit, and he by faith hath apprehended Christ to himself for redemption, reconciliation, remission, righteousness, and whatsoever else is laid up in Christ for him; and so hath union and communion with Christ, hath Christ in him, and is himself in Christ: Now his justification, which was sure before in God and in Christ, is also made sure to his conscience. He is now justified in his own conscience after the tenor, and by the virtue of the Gospel and Covenant and promises of Grace; finds and knows himself through Christ absolved at God's tribunal, hath all the evidences for it that possibly he can desire, the Word and the Oath of God, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, he may have a strong consolation, Heb. 6. 18. The Word evidenceth, and his faith evidenceth, the Covenant is now sealed mutually and reciprocally between God and him, by believing he hath put to his seal that God is true, and God sealeth to his conscience by certifying it by his Spirit, that his wrath is pacified, that all accusations are silenced, there is no condemnation to him being now in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 1. Himself may now rest satisfied, banishing henceforth all fears and doubts, and glorying in the Lord that the fear of death is past, it is enough my soul is now alive, Christ is made sin for me, that I might become the Righteousness of God in him: 2 Cor. 5. 21. Now Lord lettest thou thy servant departed in peace, for my eyes have seen thy Salvation: and in the interim while he is here enjoying a heaven upon earth, a kingdom of Righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, until he was incorporated by faith into Christ, Christ might indeed plead for him, but he had no evidence, no show of title, not an article, under God's hand, or from his lips, to plead at God's bar for life or pardon. 6. That nevertheless when a man truly believeth, then may he apprehend justification and remission of sins not only as now first declared and evidenced to his own soul: But also as past and complete before the foundation of the world was laid. Because from eternity Christ satisfied, in that he undertook to satisfy, for the sins of the Elect; and God from eternity rested in this satisfaction undertaken by Christ, and so laid aside all displeasure which (without this Covenant between him and his only Son) he might have taken up as well against them that should afterward believe, as against them which die in unbeleef. For their justification in time doth à posteriore argue their justification before all times: and where faith finds the least rivulet of the great stream sent forth it can, it ought, by it to ascend up to the very fountain to be filled and satisfied with the deliciousness thereof. Thus shall we find the Apostle almost in all his Epistles, from the sense of their present enjoyments in Christ, to carry upward the Saints to whom he writeth, unto the very bosom of God's eternal grace, counsel and good pleasure where all was laid up and treasured for them from all eternity, that thence it might in due time be shed forth upon them. Faith runs not away rashly and hastily with the gift, but delights to enter and pierce through the vail, to contemplate and embrace the as well eternal, as infinite love of the giver. 7. That although no man receiveth the sensible comfort of his justification before he actually believeth, yet every elect vessel hath (besides, and without his knowledge) the true benefit thereof (as to freedom from vengeance) throughout the whole time of his infidelity: was in Christ beloved, accepted and owned of God as righteous, in that his sin was not imputed, as fully before as after he believed, the price of his redemption was paid, all his sins borne and punished upon the shoulders, yea the soul and body of Christ, so that himself was no less exempted from the revenging wrath of God, & from all obligation to make any part of satisfaction in his own person for his sins, as he that was already in Christ by faith: So that whatsoever afflictions befell him in the time of his unbelief, were not the infliction of the curse, as the curse for sin, but sanctified chastisements of a loving father, flowing from his grace and favour, not from his indignation and hatred against his person (though against his sins) tending all to his good, not to his ruin. Else if he should have born the least stroke of God's revenging justice, and in the least pittance have made but one lest piece of satisfaction by his sufferings for his offences; then either Christ hath made satisfaction for him but in part; and is not his whole Saviour and redeemer, for that himself hath satisfied divine justice in part: or otherwise the father hath taken satisfaction twice for the same sins, once from the Lord Christ, and after that from the offender also. But this were to slander either the perfection of Christ's mediation, or the incorruptness of God's justice, both which are unsufferable. 8. That the justification which is by faith consisteth not only in a bare apprehension of our justification and pardon from God, (for this is only man's act, and no express act of God) but first in God's actual declaration, evidencing and certisfying the conscience of man drawn to the bar of judgement (set up as it were in the conscience) that God hath taken satisfaction to his offended justice from the Lord Christ for all the offenders sins, and hath for ever quit-claimed and discharged him from all sin and wrath, and admitted him into favour and family to be under the dispensations of his grace for ever. And then indeed God having by this act absolved the conscience, there followeth also the sense of our remission and justification: So that besides this sense and apprehension, there are two things in our justification by faith over and above that which was in our eternal justification in Christ: viz. 1. A total diffidence and denial of our own righteousness, and a trusting and adhering wholly and only to Christ for pardon and justification. 2. God's act upon our consciences, declaring and assuring us that our debt is paid by Christ, and we discharged upon the satisfaction which our surety hath made, so that the obligation is canceled, and we departed with a full and general acquittance in our consciences. Neither of these were there in the former justification, i. e. in the justification in the former sense before mentioned, and so that there is more than the bare knowledge of our justification, in our being justified in the latter sense is evident. Whatsoever else is contained in the doctrine of the Protestant divines about this question, we shall have occasion to add in examining what Master Baxter saith here, and afterwards to oppugn it. But the chief thing is yet behind, (may some say) viz. the proof of these positions by sound Arguments, or by evidencing Scriptures: and the main thing to be proved, is, that there is such a justification as is an immanent and eternal act in God. It is Master baxter's loud challenge. pag. 93. Let all the Antinomians show but one Scripture that speaketh of justification from eternity. I will be so charitable as to conceive, he expects not that we should produce Scriptures that say in those very words, but that which is the Tantundem) that say it in sense and substance; else if he reject the matter, and stick to words, I shall challenge him to produce one sentence of all the sermons which Christ preached, and in the whole doctrine that he personally delivered, which speaketh at all of justification by faith. But in words equipollent to Master Baxters, the Scripture delivereth this doctrine which he opposeth, viz. justification from eternity. First, What less is to be gathered from 2 Tim. 1. 9 God hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ, before the World began. What can be said more fully to Master baxter's challenge? He will not deny that the word saving, doth include in it justifying, for so should he both contradict himself, and lose elsewhere more than he can gain here, by denying it. It will then run thus, that we are justified and called of God with a holy calling, not according to our works, [these words destroy the end of Master baxter's opposing the eternity of our justification] if our own qualifycation and works may not come in collaterally with Christ to constitute us justified, he little regards whether the act be immanent or transient) but according to his purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ, before the world began, and that is from eternity. See, the grace of justification and salvation was given us in Christ from eternity. Object. Master Baxter may probably object, that the grace was indeed given us in Christ from eternity, that is, God had decreed from eternity to justify us in Christ, when we should come to believe in him, to justify or save us in time, as to call us in time. For the grace here mentioned given us in Christ before times, is as much affirmed to be the grace of our vocation or calling, as of our saving and justifying. But our calling must, therefore our justification also must be in time. And thus by the grace given, must be understood Gods gracious purpose, and decree to give us salvation and justification. So Mr. Baxter, I know God hath decreed to justify his people from eternity. But it is done in time, page 93. Sol. 1. That Covenant justifying, or the declaring of us in our own Consciences to be accepted as just in Christ, is not denied to be an act accomplished in us in time. Nor yet that God decreed from Eternity to declare us in our consciences Righteous, when we should believe. But the granting of all this nothing advantageth Master Baxters' cause: For neither doth this Act of God in time terminate upon our conscience, nor his eternal decree so to justify us (believing) in ourselves, deny that we were justified in God, and in Christ from Eternity. 2. It appears not that the Apostle here speaketh of our calling to the participation of Christ, and of justification and sanctification by him in time, but rather of that calling mentioned Rom. 4. 17. That God calleth those things that be not, as though they were. As he called Abraham the father of many Nations, when he was yet either childless, or at least was in reference to the strength of nature, without having, without hope to have that child from whom those nations should issue and accrue to him as their father. So God is said to have called us with a holy calling, i. e. to have called and reputed us in Christ his pardoned, accepted and adopted children, even before we had any actual being in ourselves. Dedit qui erat, accepit qui non erat. Quis antem hoc facere potuit, nisi qui vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam ea quae sunt. Aug. de verb. Apost. Sect. 3. If by Calling it be pertinaciously maintained that we must understand that which is done by the Ministry of the Gospel; yet all this helps not Master Baxter at all, in regard of the exclusive clause following, not according to our work●, where our salvation and justification as well as our vocation, are denied to have any dependence upon our own works and qualifications, as conditions thereof: And the whole end of Master baxter's dispute against justification as an immanent Act in God, is, because if that be granted, there will be no place for footing our works and qualifications as necessarily precedent conditions of justification. And these fall to ground, as well as if we were justified without them, though in time, as if we were justified from Eternity. 4. But how, and whether we can truly, and properly be said to have received Grace in Christ before all worlds, whereby we are saved, and justified, and yet not to be saved, and justified in Christ before the world was, will come to be examined in drawing forth the sense of other Scriptures which I shall annex. In the interim this remains unquestioned, that although the Apostle speak here of Justification in ourselves in time, yet he affirms it to be according to the Grace given us in Christ before the world; so it was in Christ for us before, though not in ourselves till we believe. Again when the Scripture speaking of the Sons of Isaac, saith of them, while yet unborn, and consequently having neither done good nor evil, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, Mal. 1. 2, 3. Rom. 9 11, 13. And elsewhere pronounceth of men, that when they lay in their blood, in their nakedness than he made it the time of love, said to them live, spread his skirt over them, and covered them, entered into Covenant with them, and made them his, Ezek. 16. 6, 8. God of his great love wherewith he hath loved us, even when we were dead in sins and trespasses, hath quickened us, etc. Ephes. 2. 4, 5. God commendeth his love to us that when we were yet sinners, when enemies, we were justified by Christ's blood, and reconciled to God by his death. Rom. 5 8, 9, 10. Here it is evident to all men that the love of God justifying and reconciling us to himself, goeth before our Faith and Works, was then in its power and operation, when we were yet sinners, in all our pollution, enemies, dead in sin, therefore without any spiritual motion, or operation to our own cleansing, or happiness. I demand now when this love of God so justifying us began? Not when we believed, and first obeyed the Gospel, for it went before, it was then acted toward us when we were enemies, dead, etc. Or when we began to be sinners? Then it seems our sin begat this love in God, and then let the Atheists Aphorism stand as an impregnable Principle, let our sin abound, that the grace and love of God may abound. Or was there ever an hatred of us, as a contrary affection in God, before, which is now expelled that love might succeed in its place? And hath God now changed his hating of us to condemn us, into a love to justify and save us? This were to accuse God of mutableness and change. For God is Love, 1 john 4. 8. and the Love of God is God himself loving, and to affirm where we find the Love of God at present, that there was a time when this Love was not in God, and a time when God began to love, is no other but to affirm, that there was a time when God yet was not, and a time when he began to be God, the will of God being God himself; And the volitions, or willings of God, being God himself willing: And the acts of God's Love and Hatred being acts of Gods Will; yea of God himself, and no more subject to change (because immanent in God) than God himself. So that these Scriptures which affirm God's love to us when sinners, do affirm also consequentially his love to us before we were either in being, or just, or sinners, even from eternity. Thirdly, when the Lord saith to his people, I have loved thee with an everlasting love, Jerem. 13. 3. Doth he not mean a love which is from everlasting to everlasting? Or is there a Love of God to everlasting which was not from everlasting? Or was it not the Love of accepting, and approbation of them unto Righteousness and Salvation, whereof he there speaketh? And when the Apostle john tells us, that the glory of God's love doth herein shine forth, Not that we loved him, but that he loved us, 1 John 4. 10. making not our love, or any fruits thereof, the foundation of God's love to us, but the love of God to us to go before and prevent our love; is not this a doctrine universally true of all the Saints that are or have been, that God's love to them prevented, and was antecedaneous to their love toward him? if so, then consequently before man's being, as well as before his loving; and if before man's being, then from eternity was this grace given us, that we were loved of God in Christ, to justification and salvation. It is that which the Lord Christ speaketh, (and that not obscurely) in his prayer before his passion, where having interceded and craved sundry blessings for his Elect, he adds this reason why he craved those blessings in their behalf, viz. That the world may know that thou hast sent me, and that thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me. Jo. 17. 23. How is that? in the next verse he explaineth himself thus, Thou hast loved me before the foundation of the world: what doth follow hence, but that as Christ, so they that are Christ's, were loved of God unto life, before the foundation of the world? why will not Master Baxter acknowledge what Christ hath prayed that all the world may know? Object. 1. Or will it be objected, that God loving the Elect in Christ before the foundation of the world, is to be understood only in this sense, that before the foundation of the world, God decreed in himself to love them in Christ afterward in time? Then must we so conclude of Christ also, that God loved Christ before, that is, decreed before the foundation of the world to love Christ in after time, not that he loved him from eternity, for as he loved Christ, so he loved them in Christ: But he actually loved Christ as the head of the Church before the foundation of the World, therefore also he loved the Elect in Christ as the body and members of Christ before the foundation of the world. Yea to decree from eternity, to love them afterward in time, and until the time came, to hate them, or not to love them in Christ, was to decree mutableness and change in his own will, i. e. in himself, which is wholly repugnant to his nature that cannot change, by receiving augmentation unto, or diminution of the acts of his Will, which were in him from eternity. Object. 2. But perhaps Master Baxter may object with his friends of the Netherlands, the Arminians, whose ghosts have much infested us within this Nation these many years, that this love of God from Eternity, that which he shed abroad upon the Elect when they were yet sinners, enemies, and dead in sin, is to be understood only of God's universal & common love, his love to all the creatures which he hath made, or at the uttermost his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his love unto mankind which he extends to all alike; Making the rain to descend, and his Sun to shine upon the just and unjust, and fills the hearts of all with food and gladness. Sol. But how then was Jaakob loved and Esau hated, when Esau partaked more of this common love than Jaakob? or was it a Common love by which God doth justify and reconcile sinners to himself? then all shall be reconciled, justified and saved. Or when the Apostle terms it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the much, or great love of God, out of which when he quickened us, yet dead in sins and trespasses, Eph. 2. 4. was this the common love extended to all the Sons and Daughters of Adam without difference? Then also (for God loved us as he loved Christ) the love of God to Christ was a common love, in nothing supereminent to the love wherewith he loved Cain and Judas. Lastly, when God saith, I have not beheld iniquity in Jaakob, nor seen perverseness in Israel, Num. 23. 21. it will (I doubt not) be granted that the meaning was, that God did not see it to impute it, as to the curse which Baalam was hired to denounce from God against Israel. If God did not actually see iniquity and perverseness in Israel, than never did he see it in any people; So degenerate had Israel been into the idolatries of the Egyptians, so full of infidelity and murmuring in the Wilderness, until the very day that God thus spoke; that unless we will make him Pliny's God, that doth not descend in his providence lower than the starry and Celestial Spheres, to intermix himself with earthly things, for fear of attracting to himself pollution thence; We must acknowledge that he saw iniquity in that people. But he saw it not to impute it, although he saw it clearly to reprove it, and to purge it out of them. Also in those Scriptures, where God imputeth to men righteousness without works, pronouncing ●hem blessed, whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered, and to whom God imputeth no sin, but imputeth Righteousness, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. 11. 2 Cor. 5. 19 To what time shall we reduce this imputation to find it in its Original, if not to Eternity? When began God to account or reckon us righteous in Christ, or not to impute sin to us, if he did not actually do it in himself before time from eternity? When else was the generation of the Elect reckoned righteous in Christ first, and had their iniquity no more imputed; but when Christ's satisfaction became effectual for them? But this Master Baxter before, page 23, 24. acknowledgeth, and maintaineth to be when Christ undertook to satisfy in their behalf: How should it be otherwise? when Christ came to be voluntarily bound for them, than were they dismissed free. When he became sin for them, they became the righteousness of God in Christ. 2 Cor. 5. 21. At once their sins were imputed to Christ in point of satisfaction to be made for them; and they discharged for ever, (viz. in the Court where these things were transacted between the Father and the Son) from making satisfaction in their own persons, and reckoned perfectly righteous for ever, in respect of vengeance, and condemnation for sin. But Christ's undertaking to satisfy for them, and consequently the whole transaction, and covenant between the Father and him about our Redemption, and Justification, and the said imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ, were all from eternity, before the foundation of the world, else how could they be loved in Christ before the foundation of the world? Therefore also their being accounted Righteous in Christ, the not imputation of sin unto them, their absolution, and discharge from condemnation (and this Master Baxter will acknowledge to be Justification) were perfited in God, and in Christ before the foundation of the World. Yea however some godly Commentators speak beneath the mind of the Apostle, yet his words are plain, and full, Tit. 1. 2. 1 Tim. 1. 9 That God hath promised eternal life, and given us Grace in Christ before the world began. How promised? unto Christ our head, and to us in him, by that eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son? And how given us in him, but as john saith, He hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son; viz. laid up in him for us from eternity, to be received in time into ourselves, as we receive Christ, according to what followeth, He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life, 1 joh. 5. 11, 12. And the grace or life that in that 2 Tim. 1. 9 is said to be given us in Christ before times, is yet. 10. affirmed to be brought to light by Christ in these last times; As the former seems the Immanent, so this the Transient Act of Justification. Else let Mr. Baxter produce any other season of such a parley and covenant between God and Christ since the world began. He finds this project not to thrive in the hands of his friends the Arminians, therefore as ashamed of it, he lays it aside, not touching it (as far as I can remember) in any part of this his Tractate. As for that giddy and unbottomed devise of Grotius, which Master Baxter lays down first in his own words, Thes. 15. pag. 92. and then in Grotius his words, pag. 94, 95. it hathin its due place received so much in answer, as I think fit to be given to so bold & peremptory an assertion as hath nothing but a dream for its father, and neither Scripture nor show of reason annexed to confirm it. If it be objected, that the Apostle in the afore● quoted Chapter affirms faith to be imputed for righteousness, and that it was so reckoned to Abraham when he was yet in uncircumcision: and thence concluded that therefore we are justified in time even when we believe, we grant the argument in respect of federal justification, or Gods transient act, concerning declaring a man justified to his own conscience. This alone the Apostle there asserteth, and this is acknowledged by our Divines (as hath been said before) not to be until we actually believe. But this is nothing to the confuting, no nor to the weakening of our Justification, completed in God, and in Christ before the foundation of the world. This I take to be the sum of the Doctrine which Mr. Baxter asperseth with Antinomianism; which I believe no other Papist, or Arminian had done before him. As well, and properly might he have termed it Mahometanism; for as agreeable is it with the principles of this, as of that. How consenting it is with the Scripture I leave to the unprejudiced Reader to judge. The very flower of all our Protestant Writers have asserted it in such numbers, as would fill up a page to name them. Neither know I any one Writer which (having not occasion to manifest himself to be of the same judgement) hath ever expressed himself to descent from it: Till Doctor Downham excepted against Master Pemble for delivering it, and that upon a strange ground, that declared great inadvertency in the reading of the Doct. viz. That he believeth no man had so written before Mr. Pemble. Within these ten years indeed, some others of great place and name (among ourselves) have disrelished it. But (as fare as I can by enquiry find) have not communicated their reasons to their Brethren, why they did it, therefore ought not to be angry with them, if by an implicit Faith they take not in the same disrelish also. For my own part I must crave the liberty to see light for my guidance into the contrary assertion, before I lay down this as darkness, unto which I at least think myself to have been led by the light of the Word. Yet with these Provisoes (to prevent mistakes) I adhere to his opinion. 1. That this Immanent Act in God doth not deny his Transient Act of Justifying man when he believeth, any more than this latter doth that former. 2. That the Transient Act of Justification consisteth not only in Gods evidencing and manifesting to the believer that he was really justified in God from eternity; but also in God's Actual, and Judicial pronouncing of the sentence of Absolution to the soul drawn to God's Tribunal, and gasping for pardon through Christ. By means whereof the poor sinner is constituted, as well as declared actually, and personally righteous, and that before God his Justifier. 3. That as oft as the Gospel speaketh of Justification by Faith, it is in reference to this Transient Act of God, not that Immanent. 4. That as I conceive the Covenant between God and Christ to be (if I may so term it) a fruit, in order to that immanent act in God; so I think also that the Covenant of Promise, the Covenant under the Law, the Covenant under the Gospel, and the very Covenant of Works to be subservients to this Covenant made with Christ as a public person, representing us, to work all coordinately to the advancing of the glory of God's Grace to his Elect, in justifying them in himself from Eternity. Yet so, that if I find a candid Teacher in any, or all these to inform me better, I hope I shall not be wanting to show my docility. I should have wholly forborn to touch upon this point (so famous a Divine having lately taken upon him the Province) but this was written before, and it will not hinder his further prosecution thereof, to which I hear he will be provoked. As to Mr. Baxter, let him pretend what he will of his zeal against this Doctrine, because it is a Pillar of Antinomianism, yet his conscience tells him that his rage against it is under this consideration, as it is a sl●dge to beat in pieces the conditional Justification, Election, Redemption, and Grace; together with the pride of man's , Works, and Righteousness, uncertainty of Perseverance, etc. Which are the Articles of Faith common to Mr. Baxter with the Papists and Arminians. If Justification, as an immanent act in God from Eternity, hold, all these must fall, and Master Baxter and his fellows be crushed with the ruins thereof. The work of the next Chapter therefore shall be, to examine the force of his reasons, and arts, whereby he seeks to refute, and subvert it. CHAP. XXI. Arg. Mr. Baxters Reasons and Dispute examined, by which he endeavoureth to refute Justification as an Immanent Act in God, and from Eternity. B. A great question it is, whether Remission and Justification be Immanent, or Transient Acts of God: The mistake of this one point was that that led those two most excellent, famous Divines, Doctor Twiss, and Mr. Pemble to that error, and pillar of Antinomianism, viz. Justification from Eternity. For saith Doctor Twiss often (All acts immanent in God are from Eternity: But Justification and Remission of sins are Immanent acts. Therefore, etc. By [Immanent in God] they must needs mean Negatively, not Positively: For Acts have not the respect of an Adjunct to its Subject, but of an Effect to its Cause. Now whether all such Immanent Acts are any more Eternal than Transient Acts, is much questioned: As for God to know that the world doth now exist, that such a man is now just, or sanctified, etc. Gods fore knowledge is not a knowing that such a thing is which is not, but that such a thing will be which is not. Yet doth this make no change in God, no more than the Sun is changed by the variety of creatures which it doth enlighten and warm, or the glass by the variety of faces which it represents, or the eye by the variety of colours which it beholdeth. (For whatsoever some say, I do not think that every variation of the object maketh a real change in the eye, or that the beholding of ten distinct colours at one view doth make ten distinct acts of the sight, or alterations of it; much less do the objects of God's knowledge make such alterations.) But grant that all Gods Immanent Acts are Eternal (which I think is quite beyond our understanding to know) yet most Divines will deny the minor, and▪ tell you that Remission, and Justification are Transient Acts; which is true, but a truth which I never had the happiness to see well cleared by any. For to prove it a Transient Act, they tell us no more, but that it doth transire in subjectum extraneum, by making a Moral change on our relatio, though not a real upon our persons, as Sanctification doth. But this is only to affirm, and not to prove, and that in general only, not telling us what Act it is that maketh this change. Relations are not capable of being the patients, or subjects of any Act, seeing they be but mere Entia Rationis, and no real beings. Neither are they the immediate product, or effect of any Act, but in order of Nature are consequential to the direct effects. The proper effect of the Act, is to lay the foundation from whence the Relation doth arise▪ And the same Act which layeth the foundation doth cause the Relation, without the intervention of any other. Suppose but the subjectum, fundam entum & terminus; and the Relation will avoidable follow by a mere resultancy. The direct effect therefore of God's actual Justification must be a real effect, though not upon the sinner, yet upon something else for him. And thence will his passive Justification follow. Now what Transient Act this is, And what its immediate real effect, who hath unfolded, I dare not be too confident in so dark a point. But it seemeth to me, that this justifying transient Act is the enacting, or promulgation of the New Covenant, wherein Justification is conferred upon every believer. Here passing, and enacting this grant, is a transient Act. 2. So may the continuance of it (as I think.) 3. This Law, or grant, hath a Moral improper action, whereby it m●y be said to pardon, or justify, which properly is but virtual justifying. 4. By this grant God doth, 1. Give us the righteousness of Christ to be ours when we believe. 2. And disableth the Law to oblige us to punishment, or to condemn us. 3. Which real foundation being thus laid, our relations of [justified and pardoned in title of Law] do necessarily result. A matchless and egregious dispute, able to tum all the immanent Acts of God into Transient, yea, if spelled backward, to turn all his Transient Acts into immanent; of force enough to extort from God's bosom all that wa● in him from eternity, that it shall abide in him, or with him no longer. Here is Doctrine fitted to purpose for his ignorant babes▪ and tender lambs of Kederminster, for whose sake and use, this work (if we will believe the Author) was chief published: No less proper for them, than the Scripture in the Latin tongue by his holy mother appointed, for the illumination of them that cannot read the English, or their Country language. What a supereminent measure of the Spirit hath this man received above Christ himself, above Paul, the most learned of all Christ's Apostles? Christ was anointed with the Spirit to preach the Gospel to the poor. Luke 4. 18. Isa. 61. 1. And had received from the Lord God the tongue of the learned, to speak a word in season to the weary. Isa. 50. 4. This man's Spirit carries him aloft in the Air, to cloud the Gospel from the poor, and to darken with his vaporous Sophistry the things which God hath hidden from the wise and prudent, but revealed to babes: and useth the tongue of the learned to amaze and entangle, not to refresh the weary. Paul descended from all excellency of speech and of wisdom, to the capacity, or rather incapacity of the weak Christians in the Ministry of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 2. 1, 2. and fed the babes with milk 1 Cor, 3. 1, 2. And even, then when he spoke wisdom to the perfect, because perfect; it was not the wisdom of the World, or of the Princes [for learning] of the World, but the Mysterious and hidden wisdom of God; and this he spoke also not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth▪ [which the subtle Sophisters made u●● of] but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 1. Cor 2. 6, 7. 13. This man, casting away the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, and useth in the holy Scriptures, sends his poor lambs to feed, and seek spiritual pasture in the thorny Copses of his Master Aristotle, and his Saint Suarez, Saint Vasques, Saint Fonseca's Metaphysics, and Metaphysical Jesuitical Divinity, or in Seraphical Scotus his Quodlibetary learning; all which understood just so much of the Spirit and mystery of the Gospel, in this greatest point of Gospel Doctrine [Justification] as the unlearned people of Kederminster do of this and the like pieces of this tractate of Mr. Baxter. As for the matter itself, he that understands it not, shall be as much endoctrined by it, as he that understands it. For my own part, I profess I see nothing in it of any more force to refute the opinion which he here opposeth [Eternal Justification, or Justification as an immanent Act in God] than there is in a Peacock's Feather to dash out all the teeth of a Lion. For should we grant to him all that he here saith (the thing in question only excepted) That immanent in God must be understood, not Positively but Negatively, for that Acts have not the respect of an Adjunct to its subject, but of an effect to its Cause; that Gods justifying a man when he believeth, argues no change in God, any more than is found in the Sun, glass, or eye, by the variety of creatures, faces, colours, set before them; as he mentioneth: what of all this? What will he conclude at length against that which he saith Doctor Twisse maketh the Major of his Argument, [vizt. That all immanent Acts in God are from Eternity.] will he deny it? Nay, but distrusting the weakness of his reasoning, he doth rather grant it. But grant (saith he) that all Gods immanent Acts are eternal, (which yet I think is quite beyond our understanding to know) This is the result of all his Argumentation, as to the Major; It is true, notwithstanding any thing I have said, or can say against it, only I think it is beyond our understanding to judge whither it be universally true or no. As to the Minor of Doctor Twisse his Argument, (vizt. That Remission and justification are Immanent Acts) he disputes with as little dexterity as to the Major. Most Divines (saith he) will deny the Minor, and tell you that they are but transient Acts. Be it so. But what have those most Divines to say for the disapproving of the Minor? 'Tis true (saith Mr. Baxter) what they say, but I could never have the happiness to see, or hear it well cleared by any. For to prove it transient they tell us no more, but that it doth transire in Subjectum Extraneum, By making a moral change on our Relation, etc. But this (saith he) is to affirm and not to prove. What then doth Mr Baxter himself to supply what is in his most famous Divines deficient? This only: he tells us a tale of a Tub, about relations how they are made up, and thence he brings in his Conjectures to make clear how this change of our relation is made up, that our Pactional Justification, or Justification according to the New Covenant is a Transient Act of God; which I was never so happy, or unhappy in my slender reading, to find any one that denyeth. And all this being granted, yet may it stand as a firm foundation, that Remission and Justification are immanent Acts in God, as hath been before, and shall be, (if there be need) more fully afterward showed. He that readeth Mr. Baxters' dispute, must acknowledge that I do him no wrong in this Epitomizing of it. And let every rational man judge whether the heat of the man in promising so confidently before pag. 93. and in charging all his impetus, or impotent impetuousness here, as against the Pillars of Antinomianism, be answered with strength of reason to beat down what he would have down, God's Eternal acceptation and approbation of his beloved ones in Christ Jesus. Thus feeble are the most Nervous arms in fight against God, and so vain in their imaginations (as the Apostle saith) do they become, who whet their wits upon the threshold of humane literature to dispute against God. But after this general view of his dispute, it shall not be impertinent to take notice of the particulars also therein enclosed. And 1. Why doth he call Doctor Twisse and Master Pemble, Most excellent famous Divines?? Doth he so style them for the excellency of their Philosophic Scholastic learning? He should then more properly have termed them Most excellent famous Philosophers, or Scholars: Except he will also make Aristotle (because he in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes the Treating of God, one part of that Doctrine which is to be handled in that Science which is commonly called Metaphysics) to be a Theologer or Divine also▪ Or for their abundant knowledge in the Doctrine of Christian Religion, together with their great ability and faithfulness to teach and maintain it against the Adversaries thereof? Much more proper had it been then, for him to have followed the Genius and policy of the chief Priests (as in other things he doth) that would not say any thing to the Praise of john, that his Baptism or Droctrine were Divine and from Heaven, fearing, lest the Lord Jesus should then urge upon them; Why then did ye not believe him? Mat. 21. 25. For so Master Baxter here opens his bosom to the dint of the like reproof. Were they excellent? Why doth not he close with them in their excellency. No one of the Papists or Arminians, against whose Sophisms and impostures, these two Champions so excellently and famously propugned the truth of Christ; hath more deviated from their doctrine, i. e. the Doctrine of Christ which they defended, than Master Baxter: how is not then himself in famous in reference to that for which he pronounceth them famous? Or in granting them at the highest, the name of Theologers, doth he not inure upon himself the brand of a Theologaster? But peradventure he thus insignizeth them in respect of the opinion that others have of them, though in his own account, or in comparison with himself, he knows not whither to term them Cranes or Pigmies. Or it is a piece of that subtlety which elsewhere he useth frequently, to abuse the ignorant with a conceit, that all which he delivers is orthodox, because of his pretending himself to be an admirer of such, in whom verity and Godliness with profoundness in learning are met together. Or lastly, Ambition of popular glory and praise, might invite him so to magnify them; The greater the Champions are with whom he Combateth; The more glorious he may conceive his victory to be, if he return out of the field Conqueror; And he might expect that the lesser and lower rank will be as mute as fishes, when they see the Classical Doctors of highest esteem once battered by his disputations. Two Kings could not stand before him, how shall we stand? 2. Kin. 10. 4. so &c. However it be, all that know them, and him, will conclude certainly that he doth in no wise so speak of them, because he can say of them in the words of John, whom I love in the truth. 3. Jo. 1. But note ye, out of the same mouth, in the same breath come Blessing and Cursing. The Kiss and the stab of Joab go together. Majestically rather than Magisterially he mounts them to the top of the Stage, to hurl them down thence in the same Moment headless. Master Pemble long since while he was yet a young man, slept in Christ. But Doctor Twisse not until of late in a venerable old age was laid in the grave, and Master Baxter a Puny to him, throws his curses after him, that he was erroneous, heretical, yea, one that set up the Pillar of that which he calls and detesteth as the worst of Heresies, [Antinomianism] Dared he but to have whispered so while Doctor Twisse was yet living? It is come to pass what I conceived, and intimated to divers of my friends at the first coming abroad of Doctor Twisse his works, that during his life we should find none that would write against him, but after his death, there would be many censurers, though never an answerer of him. Our eyes have seen since his death brought forth into the light those Tractates, which while he lived, dared not come forth out of the womb of darkness: And those mouths now open after his death, to snarl at him, which for fear of him were as fast shut while he lived, as the Egyptian dogs at the presence of an Israelite. Exo. 11. 7. yet may some take it to argue an ignoble Spirit in Master Baxter, so to tread on the neck of a dead Lion, having not so much as looked thorough the Grate upon him while yet living; and to seek honour by the Conquest of them, Quorum Flaminiâ tegitur cinis atque Latinâ. But there is but little harm, where there is but barking only without biting. And how little impression upon Doctor Twisse his either Doctrine or reputation, Master baxter's sugillation hath made, we have in part, and in general seen already, and may yet take notice more particularly. 2. Then when in opposition to Doctor Twisse his Major proposition, [vizt. All Acts immanent in God are Eternal] he tells us that [Immanent in God] must needs be taken Negatively, not Positively; §. To speak more scripturally, than Metaphysically. I answer, I see no ground of such a necessity: but that it may be understood as well positively, as, yea rather positively than Negatively. What is immanent in God, but abiding or residing in God, or (to use the Scripture terms) hidden in God? Eph. 3. 9 Col. 3. 3. Yet so that when it is revealed, it abides notwithstanding, and hath its immanency in God still. Approbation, Acceptation, accounting us just, and loving us in Christ, are Acts of God's Knowledge and will; and both before and after, we have the revelation thereof to our souls; they are immanent and abiding in God f●om everlasting to everlasting. Are there not imm●nent Acts in the soul of man? much more in the mind and will of God. What man knoweth the things of a man, but the Spirit of man which is in him? Even so none knoweth the things of God, but the Spirit of God, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2. 11. By the things of God, and the things of a man, I doubt not but it will be granted, that we must understand the apprehensions, volitions, purposes, and affection's (if I may so speak) of God and of men. And are not these things in God, as well as the things of God? So they are as properly termed Acts immanent in God in a positive sense, as actually abiding in God, as in a Negative, in opposition to their Transiency and termination upon a subject without God: The latter is not only, or so much denied, as the former affirmed. And thus our justification is positively and depositively immanent in God from eternity. Posited in the bosom of God the Father, as in the Cabinet of his counsels: and deposited in the hand of God the Son, as in the hand of a faithful Mediator and surety for us upon his undertaking to make satisfaction, which God the Father accepted as present satisfaction made for our sins. 3. The reason which he annexeth, to prove that Acts are not positively immanent in God, is insufficient and reasonless. For Acts (saith he) have not the respect of an Adjunct to its subject, but of an effect to its Cause. As if Acts and effects could not also abide and remain in their cause. Master Baxter (no doubt) hath read Bellarmine, Arminius, and Corvinus, in their disputes against the Doctrine of the reformed Churches: suppose now an act of approbation hath passed within him so far, as that their Faith is become his Faith also, but secretly and not fully yet manifested to the World: Is not this approbation an Act of Master Baxter? if so, is it not also an immanent Act abiding in himself within his own mind, as well positively the residing, as negatively not transient upon those Writers to produce any new relation or passion in them? Himself, and his Master Grotius concur, That the effects of efficient voluntary causes do not always immediately follow them; That God hath decreed from eternity the transient Justification of the Elect in their own consciences, yet the execution thereof follows not until they believe. Thes. 15. and its Explication, and here again pag. 177. I demand now where this decree, this act lieth hid until the execution thereof? It must be either no where, and consequently null, and annihilated, or else abide still, and be Immanent in God, and so what was in God from eternity, is immanent in him from eternity, and continued until 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 eternal 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, we 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 again, and so consequently change more frequently than the Moon, and yet be G●d still. Such shall we find Mr. Baxters' doctrine, sucked 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 eternal; viz. For God to know that the world doth now exist, that such a man is sanctified, or just, etc. God's 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 Eclipse, in every point of its time, measure, etc. 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 eternal, dwells 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 speaks oft in Scriptures to our capacity of succession of times, as if he together with us did act within the bounds thereof (else if he should speak still in reference to things of old, and things hereafter [to us] as the eternal I AM, not I was, or I will be, our weakness would be beneath the comprehension of what he saith) Yet these circumstances of time do add 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 n●w, and new in the knowledge of the Creature, not the Creator. Or let Mr. Baxter deny the world in that form, state, extent, fullness, etc. 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 God's knowledge, as it is in this now, or present time of us his creatures. 5. The comparisons or similitudes which he 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 only those acts that flow naturally, and therewithal necessarily from God: Not those that proceed from the liberty and freedom of his will, (which Master Baxter call Moral Acts, and Moral Causes) For of these there can be no Cause assigned but the free will of God. And if they serve not Master baxter's turn in this respect, they become utterly unuseful to him in the point of Justification. Yet to this end doth he drive, that God doth justify and unjustify, 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 show, 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 Eternal. And this is as much as if he had said; All that hath been said is of no force to refel it, Therefore I grant it. As for his answer to the Minor [That Remission and justification 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 knows he they Will say it? peradventure he puts so much confidence in his following dispute, that he accounts all will be captivated by it into his opinion. O● if he mean the most Divines have said it, he questionless means partly the Jesuitical 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 sometimes deny, yet do they also sometimes (when it may make for their advantage) affirm 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 Twisse● 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 had never a beard. There is no contradiction between these two assertions; A man may be old, and yet be without a beard: So to affirm that Justification is a transient, doth not contradict, that Justification is immanent in God. For both are true, and may concur without dashing either in the other. The Eternal Justification deposited in Christ, upon the Covenant made between the Father and the Son is immanent in God. But that Justification, which according to the tenor of the New Covenant made with man, is declared and evidenced by God unto the Conscience of man, is a transient Act of God: So that the affirming and confirming of the latter, doth not contradict the former, but is a mere sophism, an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a flinching to another question; which I take to be in substance the same with the before named fallacy. And so Master Baxter doth but Oleum & Operam perdere, toil much & catch nothing in disputing so profoundly and Metaphysically, pa. 175. about the Doctrine of Relation, and pa. 176. to make out, according to that Doctrine, a possible, probable, Transient Justification, which is a conclusion that is granted him without dispute. And yet the grant of it doth not at all weaken the Minor proposition of Doctor Twisse, That Remission and Justification (in the sense oft mentioned) are Acts immanent in God. The Subjectum, Fundamentum, Terminus, together with the Ratio Fundandi, are no more wanting in Gods Eternal justifying us in Christ, than in his Temporaneous justifying us declaratively and evidentially to our own Consciences, and might be no less confidently upon as good grounds of Reason particularised; if we delighted (as Master Baxter doth) to bring God's Acts under the rule and measure of the terms of humane Art and learning. Which notwithstanding, if we either would not or could not do, our Faith should in no wise stumble, but having the infallible word of God for its foundation (which we have before seen, notwithstanding all that Master Baxter hath said against it, to be for us,) it ought on it to rest, contemning all the pillarage of humane reason and wisdom, to lean thereon for sustentation. In like manner the whole sum of Master baxter's dispute, pa. 177, 178, 179, 180. spent in raising and overthrowing an objection so raised, about a thing never questioned, is altogether impertinent to the question in hand. None denies the conclusion, or objects against it in that manner, or any thing at all to the substance of it: So that Master Baxter doth here but make knots to lose them, and fight against the Air, which never accepted of a Combat with him. Neither is there any other, or new thing in this piece of his dispute, that hath not had before a sufficient examination and Answer. At length, pa. 180, & 181. he doth in a manner unsay all that he hath said, and confess that his whole dispute, is little to the purpose, and therefore doth more than half grant the question to them whom he hath made his adversaries; For these are his words. B. The second kind of God's acts, which may be called Justifying, is indeed immanent; vice. his knowing the sinner to be pardoned and just; His willing and approving hereof as true and good: These are Acts in Heaven, yea, in God himself: but the former sort are on earth also. I would not have those Acts of God separated which he doth conjoin. And he ever doth these last with the former. But I verily think that it is especially the former transient legal Acts, which the Scripture usually means, when it speaks of pardoning and (constitutive) justifying, and not these immanent Acts: though these must be looked on as concurrent with the former. Yet most Divines that I meet with, seem to look at pardon and justification as being done in Heaven only, and consisting only in these latter immanent Acts. And yet they deny justification to be an immanent Act too But how they will ever manifest that the Celestial Acts of God, (advise. his willing the sinners pardon, and so forgiving him in his own breast; or his accepting him as just) are transient Acts, I am yet unable to understand. And if they be immanent acts, most will grant that they are from Eternity. And then fai● fall the Antinomians, etc. I know not of two things considerable in these words of Master Baxter, which is more considerable, either the power and victory of truth against his will convincing his Conscience, or his hateful and desperate detestation of the truth, when his Conscience is convinced thereof. The conviction of his Conscience, that it is the truth which he hath here oppugned, is sufficiently manifested in this, that he confesseth 1. That Gods knowing the sinner to be pardoned and justified, his willing and approving hereof to be true and good (and a little after) his willing of the sinners pardon, forgiving him in his own breast, and accepting him as just, to be Celestial Acts, Acts in heaven, yea in God himself, indeed immanent. 2. That he seethe not how they can ever be manifested to be transient Acts. 3. And if immanent Acts, most will grant (and himself hath nothing to contradict) that they are from Eternity. His wilful hatred of this truth so confessed, is plainly enough hinted in these words. Then fair fall the Antinomians, i e. then in despite of the Devil, yea malice itself, the Assertors of this truth abide unquenched, yea untouched. This torments his spirit, and makes him to gnash with the teeth in fury, like him that cried; O Galilaean, thou hast the Victory. He will not have those acts of God to be separated which he doth conjoin. And who ever separated, or was so mad as to divide God's Knowledge and Will from his either immanent or transient Acts? that hath ever said that God in imputing our sins (in reference to punishment) to Christ Jesus, in forgiving, absolving, and accepting the sinner, hath done either he knows not what, or that which he would not, willeth not? But to conjoin what the Lord hath divided in point of time, his constitutive justifying us in his own breast thorough Christ before time, with his declarative justifying us in our own consciences in time, were to confound heaven and earth, eternity and time, together in one. The question is not, whether when God hath by a transient act justified a sinner, he knoweth and willeth his justification? But whether God did not both knowingly and willingly so justify and pardon him through Christ, within his own breast from eternity? or whether Gods accepting him in Christ, and knowing him to be so accepted, be begotten in the will and mind of God now in the end of time, and so God is not the same God in his Knowledge and Will, which he was from eternity? He verily thinks that the transient Acts of God are meant in those Scriptures which speak of justification by faith, (for so I conceive he would be understood.) And I verily think that he is not enough sound in his head-piece, whosoever thinks the contrary. For it were a mad contradictive proposition to say, whosoever doth, or shall believe, shall be justified in himself before he had a self, or being. But this is no nearer to the matter in question, than the North is to the South pole. As for that bar of God in heaven, that he concludes with, where his Angelical and Seraphical Doctors that better know the way thence than thither, saw at their last coming thence, God fitting and transacting these things before his Angels, we are bidden to wait until he shall have the leisure after he hath spoken once more with Lucian's Icaro-Menippus, and enquired of him the certainty thereof, and then we shall hear the dream interpreted. This is the sum of his noble dispute against justification, as an act immanent in God from Eternity. And now I appeal to the reader, comparing together his big and swelling promises with his curt and insubstantial performance; after his challenge of all the Antinomians, his promise to show that there is no such thing, his charging the doctrine with the scandalous terms of error, and pillar of Antinomianism, & his undertaking to prove it such; upon due examination to judge, Quid tanto dignum tulit hic [Promissor] hiatu? CHAP. XXII. Arg. What the real Antinomians have been, and are, and that Master Baxter casteth this reproachful name upon all the Churches of Christ, charging the innocent with the fault whereof himself is guilty. THE second thing which I promised to take into examination, in his explication of this Thesis, is his vellication of the Antinomians, which here and elsewhere throughout this Book he defieth with unquenchable hatred, charging and discharging so hotly against them, as ever jupiter did against the Giants that made a battery against the Heavens. And what are they, that Goliath like, he should come harnessed from the head to the foot, brandishing his weaver's beam against them? he tells us, They are Ignorant [animals] pa. 169. Fit to learn the grounds of Religion in a Catechism, than to manage those disputes wherewith they trouble the world. pa. 115. If so, who can abstain from laughter, to see so great a Nimrod as Mr. Baxter, hunting, with no less weapon than Hercules his Club, a nest of wrens to death? and with the great Monarch of the World Domitian, to set himself in battle array against the gnats and flies that dared to peep into his chamber. But his aim is to show his Craft more than his power, as I before in part have manifested in the preface to this examination, and there promised more fully afterward to evidence: The performance whereof, I have reserved for this place. That we may the better discern Master baxter's either singleness or doubleness in this Case, it shall be somewhat expedient to inquire after, first the original, secondly the growth of the Antinomians properly so taken and denominated in the several reformed Churches, until our late divisions within this land have made such a medley and confusion of all, or at least many errors together, that we know not punctually what error is predominant in most of the wilfully erroneous: that having seen them both in their birth, and their full height also; we may compare Master Baxters Antinomians with the Antinomians indeed, and so judge how far he goes about to confute the innocent, and how far to defame and deceive the innocent. The first rise of them was in Germany, Anno. Dom. 1538. as Sleidan in the 12 Book of his Commentaries tells us. Their principal ringleader was joannes Islebius, Agricola. I have not met with any of their Books, neither know I whether there be any of them extant, from which we may certainly gather their opinions. We are forced therefore to take them at the second hand from the foresaid Author, who in the forequoted place thus speaks of them. Hoc Anno secta prodijt eorum qui dicuntur Antinomi. Hi poenitentiam ex Decalogo non esse docendam dicunt, & illos impugnant qui docent non esse praedicandum Evangelium, nisi primum quassatis animis, at que fractis per pradicationem legis. Ipsi verò statuunt quaecunque tandem sit hominis vita, & quamtumvis impura, justificari tamen eum, si modò promissionibus Evangelij credat. i e. This year sprung forth the sect of them which are called Antinomians. [Their Tenants he reduceth to three general heads, telling us that first] They say, that Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue: [2] They impugn them that teach, the Gospel ought not to be preached to men, until their hearts be first shaken and broken by the preaching of the Law. [3] They assert that whatsoever the life of a man be, and how impure soever, yet is he justified if he only believeth the promises of the Gospel. He addeth further, that Luther wrote against this Islebius, who thereupon submitted, and in a sort recanted; and so it seems the Sect ceased, and their assertions for a while slept. Such were they at their first rise. In these after times, they discovered themselves in more plain terms than Sleidan here discovered them. About twenty years since, I had acquaintance, and upon that acquaintance, much reasoning, and many disputes with some of them in Summer set shire, who much honoured and professed themselves to have received their light from that Master W●otton, whom Master Baxter doth seem much to applaud in some parts of this Treatise. Their opinions that partly were, and partly weretaken by the most t● be points of Antinomianism were these, (as in discourse with them I found them to maintain) 1. That the Law is totally abrogated now under the Gospel, and that not only as a Covenant of Works, but also from being any more the rule of righteousness. That we have but one Master, Christ, that since his coming into the world, he is our Teacher sent from heaven: the Prophet raised up like to Moses, that we should hear him alone. That since the time he began to speak, Moses hath been silent, and we are bound now to attend to the voice of God, as in these latter times he speaketh to us by his Son only. 2. That the whole Old Testament is (as it were) uncanonized, though it were the Word of God, the Rule and Canon of Faith, and practice, to them that lived under it; yet to us that are under the Gospel it remains not in its former power. Because the Last Will and Testament only stands in force, and when a latter Testament is made, the former is thereby to all uses and purposes made void. We may read the Old Testament as other Apocryphal, and Ecclesiastical Writings, but must no more subject our judgements or consciences to it, then to these: For Moses and the Prophets prophesied (only) until John the Baptist, were in force until he began to preach the Gospel, and ever since the Kingdom of heaven hath suffered violence, the doctrine of the Gospel hath succeeded in its place. 3. That we have no Sabbath under the Gospel, but all holiness in days, and difference between days and days is taken away; so that to sanctify any one day to the Lord above another, is mere Will-worship, and Superstition. Upon this ground they actually made use of shooting, bowling, and other lawful recreations upon the Lord's day, pronouncing it to be a use of the Liberty which Christ had purchased for them. 4. They disrelished altogether that phrase of Justification by Faith, as attributing somewhat to man; and would that all should rather say that we are Justified by Grace, or by Christ or by being found in Christ, or by our union unto Christ, that the praise of our Justification might be reserved whole and entire to the Grace of God in Christ alone. 5. That we are justified by the Passive, not the Active obedience of Christ. 6. That God seethe no sin in the justified, he knows indeed when they sin, and that they have sinned, but the doth not see it because themselves and it are covered under the righteousness, and cross of Christ, so that the Father doth not, will not see it. As if the eternal God had any other eyes besides the eyes of his knowledge to see; or that Gods seeing, and his knowing were at least disparats, and not the same thing. 7. That God punisheth not sin in his people, for he seethe not sin in his people, and what he seethe not, that he cannot punish. He hath punished it upon Christ, therefore are they free from punishment. 8. That whatsoever is not in precise words forbidden in the New Testament, that is lawful for a Christian to do, how strictly soever it be prohibited in the Law, and Old Testament. So that I have taken notice that when in disputes, such and such things have been denied to be expressly forbidden in the New Testament, and that they could not find any clear testimonies of the New Testament literally forbidding them; though before they made it a case of conscience to abstain, yet thenceforth, notwithstanding all that is said in the Old Testament against it, they have taken full liberty to commit it. These things were formerly (as fare as I have taken notice) either all, or the chief things, branded with the name of Antinomianism. And they that held them were called by the most Antinomists, or Antinomians, because either in all, or most of these assertions, they either did, or seemed to oppose, and set themselves against the Law, or Old Testament. In these last seven or eight years indeed, wherein all the Ghosts of all the Heretics of former Ages have been let lose from hell in full swarms, to infest this Nation more than ever the Locusts did the Land of Egypt; and men in wantonizing against Christ and his Truth, have thought it too little to be Satan's budget-bearers in some, except they had their packs filled with all varieties of his hellbred errors, so that the Legion of Devils now might be found sometimes in one man, which heretofore was distributed into a legion of men: By means whereof, many Heresies moulded together have gone under one denomination; partly through ignorance, and partly out of malice, both all the dreams of mad Enthusiasts, and blasphemies against the Word sometimes, and sometimes the very sacred truths of the Gospel of Christ have been exposed to the hatred of the multitude under the title of Antinomianism: Men full of all subtlety and mischief thus painting Christ in the midst of many Devils, that he might be taken for one of them, and the truth of his Gospel be abandoned under the name of Heresy. But as to the forementioned tenants in former times charged with Antinomianism, I shall say something. First those three mentioned by Sleidan, as he expresseth them, it is very ambiguous whether they were truths or errors. Because the words by which he describes them, are ambiguous: and may be taken either in a good, or evil sense. 1. That they taught that Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue: It is doubtful what his meaning is; 1. Whether they denied it to be taught simply, or secundum quid, either that it ought not to be thence taught at all, or not to be taught thence, as ordained and effectual to justification, and salvation? 2. It is doubtful also what he means by the Decalogue, whether he means the Ten Commandments considered strictly in their own words, as mere Law (for so I see not how repentance can be taught properly out of the Decalogue, because it commandeth perfect obedience, that there may be no need of repentance) or as the Doctrine of the said Decalogue is amplified, and expounded in other Scriptures: where we shall find indeed Repentance required in case of transgression, with a promise of temporal deliverances and blessings annexed; and so the teaching of Repentance out of the Law be here opposed to the teaching of it out of the Gospel, and consequentially the Legal be here opposed to the Evangelical Repentance? 3. Or whether his meaning be, that they would not have repentance at all taught, because they took it to be a merely Legal, not an Evangelical duty, therefore pertaining to the administration of the Law, not of the Gospel? I conceive the Historian being a man singular for his moderation in all that he writes, though he speaks of their opinion in the easiest words he may, yet means that they held it in the worst sense, (And such have been the Antinomians in these latter times) otherwise in a good sense, that his words will bear, this first tenet deserves not the name of Antinomianism, or error. To the second, if his meaning be, that they impugned those that preached the Law to shake the hearts of men into self-denial, and to break down the proud confidence of safety, and righteousness in themselves, thereby to make way for the doctrine of Christ into them: There is something indeed worthy of blame laid to their charge. But if we take his words strictly as they lie, viz. that they opposed them which teach that the Gospel is not to be preached until the Law hath so convinced, and shaken the conscience, etc. I profess myself to be an Antinomian also, if this be Antinomianism. For what warrant hath any Minister so to teach? The commission which we receive from Christ is, to preach the Gospel to every creature in all the world. Mar. 16. 15. without any restriction whether they be shaken, or unshaken: And if we continue Law-shakers still among some people, until we see them thereby shaken into a Palsy of selfe-despairing, I know no ground we have to promise to ourselves a time of preaching Gospel so long as we live. And what answer can be given in such a case to Christ for following our own carnal wisdom, and not his commission? Neither was it one of Luther's praises (pace tanti viri dixerim) from the experience of Gods working upon himself, which was first the laying of him prostrate by the Law under great horrors, and then reviving him with the precious comforts of the Gospel; to prescribe unto God the same method, or to conclude the same to be the method of God in his operations upon all in converting them. The rending whirlwind doth not always go before the quickening beams of the Sun of Righteousness. To the third, if he mean that they taught that Justification by Faith in the Gospel promises might be sound and effectual, though no sanctification, but all allowed impurity of life should follow; the assertion and doctrine implies a contradiction; for there can be no living Faith in the promises, that is not fruitful in good works: And herein they declared themselves no less Anti-Gospellers, than Antinomians. But if he mean that without all such extreme horrors of the Law, a man may be truly justified by Faith in Christ, notwithstanding all his former lose and impure life, and so the Publicans and Harlots enter into the Kingdom of God before the self-righteous Pharisees; this is not Antinomistick, except Paul's doctrine also be such, Rom. 4. 5. 2. As for those opinions charged in these latter times with Antinomianism by many, the 1, 2, and last cannot be excused. Only (to give the Assertors their due) whatsoever of doctrinal truths to be believed, or of Moral duties to be practised, are expressed both in the Old and New Testament, they were conscientious to submit themselves thereunto, yet not for the authority of the Law, or Old Testament, but of the New only. The third can be justly charged with Antinomianism no farther, then as either the Maintainers of it were in other points Antinomists, or in respect of the foundation, which they laid to maintain it, which was the abrogation of the Law and old Testament. The Law of the Sabbath being one part thereof, which must stand or sink with the rest. But as they denied the lawfulness of all discrimination or difference of days, by way of Moral, or Ecclesiastical, or Apostolical order, for the more orderly, and profitable celebration of public Assemblies, and the ordinances of Christ in public Communion, calling it Will-worship, and Superstition: This error they drew from the Petrobusians, and Anabaptists, not from the Antinomians that had been before them. As to other questions about the authority of the Sabbath first, & now of the Lords day, what relation they have either to other, whether the observation of them be of Natural, or Positive right: If of Moral and Natural right, by what express authority it is altered from the last, to the first day of the week? If of Positive right, whether it began from the Creation, or from the Law given upon Mount Sinai? Whether the fourth Commandment hath any thing in it Typical, now vanished in Christ? Or whether wholly Moral, and binding for ever? how far it did, or did not bind precisely to a day, & not this day of 7? Whether it were of Moral Righteousness, or else only of Moral order? Whether the holiness of the 7th be now wholly translated upon the first day of the week? By what authority the observation of the seventh day ceased, and of the first day of the week was instituted to succeed? Whether by virtue of Christ's Resurrection, or by some express command of Christ? and where that command is to be found? Or else by Apostolical appointment? And then whether in respect of order, or of the aforegoing authority of God's Commandment about the Sabbath? or else by the appointment and consent of the Churches in, or after the Apostles times? These, and many other the like questions Mr. Baxter knoweth to have been in agitation between both the greater and the lesser Divines and Members of the Reformed Churches, & adhuc sub judice Lis est. Only some within the Church of England, ever since a Tractate came forth upon this subject from one Dr. Bound, Anno Christi 1595. seem to fix the observation of the Lords day upon more strict grounds, and to bind it to more precise terms then the other Reformed Churches beyond the seas admit, or many of the solid Divines have approved. But of this there is no proper occasion here given to dispute. This assertion therefore, any further than hath been specified, I doubt not but Mr. Baxter himself will discharge of Antinomianism. The 5. & 7. Mr. Baxter himself will not have to be ranked among Antinomian errors, confessing the former to be the judgement of many learned, and godly Divines, of singular esteem in the Church of God, pag. 53. & Ap. pag. 12. The latter he pronounceth to be the Common Judgement, viz. of Churches, and Divines; therefore of ignorance accused of Antinomianism, pag. 68 of his Aphorisms. The fourth gives us cause to accuse them of some audaciousness, in teaching the Holy Ghost to speak, and pertinaciousness in binding themselves to phrases and words, even to the declining of the language of the Holy Ghost in Scriptures. To be justified by Faith, and to be justified by Christ, or our being found in Christ, being ever both in Canonical, and Ecclesiastical Writings taken as Equipollent terms, until in these few last years Mr. Bax. and some of his fellows irradiated from Rome, and by the doctrine of Socinus, and Arminius, have broached another, a new, and unheard of interpretation of the phrases. For whether we say we are justified by Faith, we were formerly understood to affirm our Justification by Christ, to whom our Faith hath united us; or by Christ, it was understood by Christ apprehended by faith. Neither manner of Locution therefore was to be rejected, as opposing the other. The sixth I take to be a fancy (if they understand Gods seeing and knowing in general, without restriction) troubling the brains of men with a strife about words without substance. God seethe no sin unpardoned upon his people, we acknowledge. In reference to Judgement and Vengeance, he hath seen them all upon Christ, and punished them upon Christ, so that he no more sees sin in believers, to take vengeance of them for it. But it were our loss and misery, if God should not at all, and simply see sin in us; How then should he purge it from us, and us from it? He is the Husbandman of his Vineyard, sees, and cuts out every canker from his Vines, seethe, and pareth off every unprofitable sprig from the branches, by means whereof fruitfulness followeth, where else▪ there must ensue barrenness and rottenness. Some Divines therefore thus distinguish, that Gods seeing of sin may be considered as either in Articulo providentiae, (so he seethe all sins of all men alike to dispose of them to his glory,) or in Articulo justificationis, (so he seethe the sins only of the unjustified; jer. 18. 23. Forget not their iniquity, neither blot out their sin from thy sight: but the sins of the justified are forgotten, and blotted out of his remembrance and sight (as the constant phrase of Scripture affirmeth) no more to be imputed. If they mean only in this latter sense, they err not. By that which hath been said, we may easily perceive (without any further and new summing up the particulars) what the assertions are which may be truly and properly charged with Antinomism, and gave first the Term of Antinomism to the Assertors. Now let us see also what the Tenants of Master Baxters Antinomists are, and what opinions he curseth to Hell, unde the name of Antinomianism. Their Heresies according to Master Baxter are these which follow. 1. That Justification is, or there is a Justification from Eternity. pag. 93. 2. That it is an immanent act in God. pa. 173. 3. That our Evangelicall righteousness by which we are justified, is without us in Christ. pa. 109. or performed by Christ, and not by ourselves. pa. 111. 4. That Justification is a free act of God, without any condition on our part. pa. 169, 170. 5. That God seethe not sin in his justified one's, pa. 207. 6. That we must not work or perform duties for life and salvation, but from life and salvation: or that we must not make the attaining of justification, or salvation, an end of our endeavours, but obey in thankfulness only, because we are saved and justified. pa. 324, 325. 330. 7. That they acknowledge no condition of life, but bare belief in the narrowest sense, that is, either belief of pardon, and justification, and Reconciliation, or affiance in Christ, for it: so also they acknowledge no proper damning sin, but unbelief, in that strict sense, as is opposite to this faith, i. e. the not believing in Christ as our Saviour. Append▪ pa. 20, 21. 8. To these he addeth many more, (or rather mostly the same in other Terms) out of the Marrow of Modern Divinity, (I mean the book so entitled) which in due place we may as far as shall be thought needful, examine. Appen. pa. 100 to pa. 106. Lastly, he seems to accuse them of all the prodigious Doctrines which Colyer, Spriggs, Hobson, and the rest of that Anabaptistical, enthusiastical, and fanatic strain of men, have (if indeed they be of them that have at any time) said and unsaid; whether such as they have derived from Nicolas Stock, David George, Thomas Muncer, John of Leyden, Cniperdolins, etc. and others of the same stamp in these latter times: or such as either of them hath by a kind of Necromancy raised up from the ashes of Manes, Samosatenus, Arrius, and other cursed Heretics of ancient times. All these he would willingly inure upon the Antinomians, i e. upon them that will not say the same things with him, who speaks the same things with the Jesuits in the point of Justification. This he doth subtly, and underhand, to beguile his unwary reader. Append. pa. 99 Of all these only the fift hath been (as far as ever I could find) by any considerate and judicious person, nicknamed with Antinonism, until Master Baxter and some other of his fellows in these late years have taken upon them a Sovereignty, as Lords and judges from Peter's Chair, which they have Canonised again, to baptise with new names, all the Doctrines of the Gospel that cross the pride of their self-righteousness. And even the sift itself in Scripture sense (as I have before shown) is a Soul-comforting truth, which we must no more suffer to be wrested from us, than our Christ and all our happiness by him, vizt. that God seethe not sin in his justified one's, to impute i●, to hate and condemn them for it. He seethe not the guilt of any sin upon them, having laid it and the condemnation to which it obliged, upon Christ Jesus. But that God doth not simply see sin in them, either Original or Actual, to act about it in a way of grace and truth, according to his promises in Christ; This I take to be a foppery, the fruit of men's wilfulness, and pertinacity, to have their own words and phrases stand as impregnable as Christ's truth leapt up in them. Let it be called Antinomism, or Antigospellism, or what else Master Baxter will style it, I shall not herein withstand him; To me the truth and spirit of the Doctrines contained in the word, sufficeth, the letter I shall no further propugn or oppugn, than as through it the spirit and truth is leveled at. To the first and second I have before spoken, and let any man upon earth be produced, that ever charged them with Antinomianism, saving Master Baxter himself, or one of his Disciples: And if they be Antinomian Tenants, then is Master Baxter one of those Antinomians, being forced after his long and impotent cavil against, as last to grant both; as we have before seen. To the third, I have also before answered. Neither hath Master Baxter named, nor can he (I am confident) name one man, but either a Papist, or at best an Arminian, that before him hath either called Faith and Gospel obedience the Evangelicall Righteousness by which we are justified: Or that hath denied our gospel righteousness by which we are justified to be without us, in Christ. So that he pronounceth here all the orthodox of all Churches, yea, all professed Christians, saving Papists, Arminians, and (perhaps) Socinians to be Antinomians: So much of Antichristian pride and impudence possesseth him. To the fourth and seventh I answer, 1. That they are contradictory either to other. For how can both be true, that they affirm Justification to be a free Act of God without any condition on our part, and yet teach also Faith or affiance in Christ to be a [necessary] condition of our Justification? who shall take upon him to defend him that arraigneth and proveth himself to be a slanderer? 2. Yet may it without contradiction be both affirmed, that Justification as an act immanent and Eternal in God, is absolute and without condition, but as it is transient and Terminate upon the conscience of a believer, not to be without condition. 3. Because the Scripture never nameth Faith, much less works, the condition of Justification in time; to question whether Faith itself may not more properly be termed by some other denomination in reference to justification, than a Condition, is no piece of Antinomism, but a point of Christian prudence to consider and examine: specially at such a time when Master Baxter and other of the Pope's Factors, under the word condition bestir themselves to re-erect Justification by works. 4. That Justification by that which Master Baxter abasingly calleth bare belief, or affiance in Christ the Saviour, i. e. by Faith without works, is no Antinomian Doctrine, but the Doctrine which Christ and Paul, and the rest of the Apostles, have preached and sealed with their blood; that which all the reformed Churches have unanimously maintained, and do maintain unto this day: and that which Antichrist with his vassals, and others apostatised from the reformed Churches to them do pursue with fire and fury unto ruin. With whom though Mr. Bax. come up in the rear, driving Jehu like furiously in his Chariot, to destroy it, yet shall it stand impregnable, as the prime Article of their Creed, who either are, or shall be justified and saved. To the sixth, I shall reserve my answer until I come to examine the forequoted places of Master Baxter, together with his impetuous and fiery dispute against it, Append. pa. 76. and thence forward unto pa. 98. where we shall find him combating against this opinion, with as much gallantry, and possibly with no less success than the Dragon fought against Michael. In the interim, I doubt not thence (after the question rightly stated) to maintain the position, as our Divines most eminent in the reformed Churches have taught it, to be the sacred and sound Doctrine of the Gospel, as free from Antinomism, as the contrary assertion of Master Baxter is full of Popery. The examination of the things▪ contained in the eighth and ninth, I shall leave to their proper place, particularly to be examined, because they have a multitude of particulars congested in them, requiring particular answers. From all that hath been said upon this point, we may take up two observations, in reference to Master baxter's dealing therein. 1. That there is no truth and sincerity in his pretence of fight against the Antinomians (truly so called) throughout this his Tractate, (For he meddleth not at all with their erroneous Tenants:) But contrariwise, that he useth mere fraud, to inure the odious Term of Antinomism upon the choice and most precious Doctrines of the Gospel, delivered by Christ and his Apostles, and taught and defended by the most able and most faithful Ministers of Christ in all ages, to make both the pure Gospel, and the defenders thereof, to stink in the nostrils of unread and unwary men: subtly concealing the names of those worthies which have taught and maintained these truths, lest their light and glory should bring his Doctrines, contrary to theirs, into suspicion first, then to examination, and lastly to an abomination among men. How much more candour do we find in his fellows the Arminians, or Remonstrants? These in all their Tenants wherein they descent from the Protestant Churches, do not load the contrary opinion with the imputation of Antinomism; but throughout their Apology, ever and anon ingeniously confess of that which they hold, Contra quod fere hactenus creditum est, in these, and in words equipollent, acknowledging still their opinions to be wholly against the judgement of the best Churches and Divines before them. Master Baxter it seems hath more of the serpent in him than they had, therefore follows the steps of our English Arminians, rather than those in Holland before them. For as these blasted the sacred truths which they opposed with the name of Puritanism, so doth this man with the name of Antinomianism, to make them odious. A trick which the old Pharisees had learned of their Father, Jo. 8. 44. and propagated to their sons the Papists, to besmear the Doctrines of Christ with the infamous titles of Schism, Nazarism, Heresy. Who then will lay it as a fault to their Children in our times, if they do also Patrizare. Secondly, that he hath the like fraudulent design in mingling with the truths of the Gospel, which he brandeth with Antinomism, the dreams of Colyer, Spriggs, Hobson, and other Ranters, (if indeed these be such, for I have not read them) giving the same brand to these as to the former; by this feat endeavouring to instill into the minds of them that will be deceived, 1. That all the heretical and blasphemous Doctrines which these men teach, are Antinomian. 2. That the truths which the one side teach against Antichrist, and the Blasphemies which the other side vent against Christ, are of one Nature, and the former to be no less abhorred than the latter. Now if the Pamphlets of these men be so abominable as Master Baxter affirmeth, and others also that are both able to judge, and faithful to give their judgement, have told me; (for I acknowledge myself never to have been so ill at leisure to spend two hours in reading what any, or all of them have written) he dealeth unjustly to yoke them together with those tenants which he falsely accuseth of Antinomism, yea, with those that are rightly fathered upon Antinomians indeed. For granting that they hold some Tenants of the Antinomians, yet this neither argueth that all their heresies and blasphemies are so many pieces of Antinomism; Nor yet that the Antinomians speaking the same things with these in the points proper to their sect, do also close with them in their abominable Doctrines that are totally alien from the Antinomists Tenants. Else because Master Baxter joineth with the Jesuits in the Doctrine of Justification by works, we might conclude that in all points he is a Jesuit, holdeth not only lies, equivocations, and mental reservations; but also murders, Massacres, Seditions, Powder treasons, and all other practices devised in hell itself, to be Meritorious works, if done to the advancing of Rome's interest. And because he holdeth the very Act of believing to justify, with the Socinians, therefore he is in all other the most blasphemous of their assertions against Christ and his blood, a Socinian also: or on the other side, that the Jesuits and Socinians are in all things, because in some things of the same judgement with Master Baxter. Were it the truth of Christ which Master Baxter goeth about to propagate, he would doubtless seek the propagation of it in Christ's Spirit, and Christ's way. When we see such serpentine wind and crookedness in his disputes, who can but judge that it is the work of the Old Serpent about which he is employed? Neither the truth of Christ, nor Christ which is the truth, have any such impotency in them, as to need any deceits and shifts for their support. When Mr. Baxter, yea when all the Jesuits have raised all their mists of Sophistry, Sycophancy contumely, etc. as thick as the smoke from the bottomless pit, to dim the beams of God's grace shining forth in the Sun of Righteousness; not one Ray thereof shall be thereby diminished, it shall hid the [pure light of the] Gospel only from them that perish, whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded. 2. Cor. 4. 3, 4. No one Soul shall be thereby beguiled, save those only that were made to be taken and destroyed, 2 Pet. 2. 12. A large Catalogue more of the Antinomian Tenants are set forth by Master Anthony Burgess, affixed to his Lectures against them: Which he saith he hath gathered from Luther's works against them. I will not question his faithfulness in collecting them, whether Islebius and his Disciples directly maintained such Doctrines; or whether Luther in prosecuting them, enumerates these as absurdities that would follow upon their Doctrine? whether they are imaginary, or real opinions of any sect of men, the most of them are detestable. But I find not that either Master Burgess, or Mr. Bax, can name any one creature under the Sun, that hath declared by words or writing, that he held them. If they can, we shall join with them, as dissenters from, and excepters against every such person. That these Antinomians of the former age were filthy dreamers, lose livers, such as turned the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ into lasciviousness, is very probable, if not certain, from that which Calvin and others have written against Antinomians and Libertines. And from such we have no less abhorrence than Mr. Baxter. But while Mr. Baxter declaimeth against the innocent, he proclaims himself a rank Antinomian, in teaching, and maintaining that the perfect obedience and righteousness of the Law are not required, and consequentially not due under the Gospel. Islebius himself never spoke so derogatorily to the righteousness of the Law. CHAP. XXIII. Arg. Mr. Baxter's distinction of Justification in Title of Law, and in Sentence of Judgement examined, together with other distinctions equipollent to this. Whether besides the present there be also a future Justification? and whether it be begun and perfected together at once. I should wholly have passed over the 37, 38, 39, and 40 Theses, with their Explications, as merely shady imaginations, void of all reality and substance, without stopping to give them one word of answer: (For why should we talk of Pictures that have no life in them?) were it not that it is Master baxter's drift to carry us through these ways of his own chalking, wholly from Christ, under a pretext of leading us to Christ the Justifier. To frustrate therefore his deceit I shall speak somewhat to these passages of his Tractate also. Thes. 37. pag. 183. B. justification is either in title, and the sense of Law, or in sentence of judgement: The first may be called Constitutive; the second Declarative; the first Virtual, the second Actual. Lawyers have laid it down for a Maxim, Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit. i e. We are not to distinguish of any point in the Law, where the Law itself hath not made a distinction. If the Laws of men are not, much less are the Laws, and Word of God to be violated with men's bold distinctions: For this is no less than to bring Gods sacred Oracles into a subjection to man's vain fancies. Let Mr. Baxter show any Scripture that gives footing for the distinguishing of Justification into that which is in title of Law, and that which is in sentence of judgement, into constitutive and declarative, or virtual, and actual Justification. These are the inventions of wanton wits in these latter times, whose endeavour it hath been to tear in pieces, and thereby wholly nullify God's Justification, and to put many Justifications of their own in stead thereof. We deny not a constitutive and declarative Justification in some sense, but in Mr. Baxters' sense we deny it. It is granted that the Satisfaction which the Son by promise gave, and the Father accepted for the sins of the Elect, according to the Covenant between the Father and the Son, before more than once mentioned, did constitute the Elect justified in Christ before they were born; who notwithstanding were not declared just to their own consciences before they actually believed; nor to others until they manifested their Faith by their Works. But Mr. Baxter explodes this constitutive, and declarative Justification, as an unsufferable abomination, and will not have his virtuality, and actuality to these applied. And let him allege any one Scripture that calls the sentence of life (unto those that shall be saved by grace) that is to be pronounced in the last day, Justification: Or if he cannot, but that the justification of the New Covenant, wherever it be mentioned in the Word, be that which is in this present life, who sees not that his distinguishing here tends to the subverting of Scriptures, and of the both virtual, and actual Justification which the Scriptures speak of? B. The Scripture speaks of it many times as a future thing, and not yet done. Rom. 3. 30. Mat. 12. 37. Rom. 2. 13. Explic. pag. 185. This is all that he bringeth, or can bring for Justification in the day of Judgement; and this all is nothing. It followeth not because these Scriptures speak of Justification as of a thing to come, saying, they shall be, not they are justified; that this Future tense doth point out the day of Judgement. If I should say, Mr. Baxter shall die, I should not be accused for speaking an untruth; but if any will needs confine that [shall] to the day of Judgement, that Mr. Baxter shall then die, who would not laugh at the absurdity of the consequence? That of Mat. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned; and that of Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers, but the doers of the Law shall be justified; speak of Justification after the tenor and covenant of the Law, not of Grace; therefore pertain nothing to the present purpose. He shall but Dare verba, damnably deceive with words, that teacheth men to seek for Justification by the righteousness of the Law consisting in deeds and words. Whosoever indeed shall neither in word or deed be found a transgressor of the Law actually or originally, shall be justified by his words and deeds. But this man must be sought for out of a happier generation than those of the race of Adam; else (if we except Christ alone) we must return our Non est inventus. That of Rom. 3. 30. speaks indeed in the Future tense, but may be as properly rendered, by the word [will] as [shall] (though the difference be not very considerable) thus, It is one God which will [or shall] justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through Faith. The Apostle here meaneth not otherwise, speaking here in the Future, than what he had said before in the Present Tense of Justification. And it is as if he had said, God hath decreed and declared his method of justifying both Jews & Gentiles to be one and the same. As long as there remain, or succeed any upon earth of either part to be justified, the purpose of God abides firm to justify as well the one as the other by faith, and no one of either sort by Works; neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision shall avail, or hinder any thing, but Christ, faith in Christ shall be all unto all in this business, as long as the world endureth. And what is there then in this Text to prove Mr. Baxters declarative Justification in the day of Judgement? Not that we deny the adjudging of life in the day of Judgement to all that in this life were justified; but the Scriptures terming this last sentence by the name of Justification, whatsoever is said of Justification by Faith or Grace, is still to be understood in this life. And the whole reason that Mr. Baxter hath here to coin a Justification in the day of judgement, is to lay a foundation of Popish Justification by Works; as by the sequel of this his Treatise will more fully appear. Else would we not contend with him about mere words, did they not tend to a destructive end; and that we are taught by him elsewhere, That no advantage is to be given to the Papists in the point of Justification. To say that the last sentence of judgement shall declare to Men and Angels that the Elect were justified in this life by faith in him, is according to the voice of the Word. But to say that they shall be then fully Justified, as if their Justification had not been before completed, is to out-throw the Bar two foot beyond the Papists for the maintenance of their self-justifying, and to speak more for them then they had wit, or gracelessness to speak for themselves. Hence it is that in the beginning of his Explication, pag. 183. he forbears to mention other distinctions which are common in others, and may be found in Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. John Goodwin, and Alstedius, because (saith he) they are not so necessary and pertinent to my purposed scope, which is to destroy Justification by Grace, and erect in place thereof Justification by Works. It is a superlative praise that he giveth these men (how well deserved by some of them I know not) that they are travelling another way from him, their faces are toward Jerusalem, and he cannot obtain a word of direction from them, but must trust to his own Compass to guide him to Rome. What he hath more in the Explication, is but the interpretation of his own dream: And I have not superstition enough to keep me awaked, and attentive to dreams, and their interpretation. Neither is there any thing else in his 38 Thesis, and its Explication, but a further forming of the same Chimaera▪ and notional Nothing, created out of his brain in the former Position, and its Explication. Or if there be any thing besides, it hath been examined in the precedent Chapter. With no less silence might I also pass by the 39 Thesis, and its Explication, as being of the same nature with the former; saving that there are two things that we may glance our consideration upon, before we pass further, lest that we should seem to look aside from any thing that hath an appearance of weight and strength in it to confirm his doctrine, of a Justification, or pardon of sin in sentence of Judgement, contradistinct from that which he maketh to consist in Title of Law. To make evident, that besides the Justification here, there shall be another Justification in the day of Judgement, he addeth these two things unto what he had before said. 1. An explication of the form of future Justification, and Pardon. 2. Another Text of Scripture, besides the former, to evince it. The former he hath in these words of that his Thesis, That it shall be an acquitting of the sinner at God's public Bar. B. From the accusation and condemnation of the Law pleaded against him by Satan. For pag. 189. in the Explic. the accusation of his guilt will be managed against him by Satan hereafter, from which accusation he shall be then acquitted. Who is there now that can doubt of a Justification after this life, when he hath heard so graphical a description of it? But how came Satan and Mr. Baxter to be of so great acquaintance, that either shall know the others purpose about the Judgement to come? I had thought the Devil had made known only to his friends, not to his adversaries, what he means to do to morrow, much less what he means to do in the day of Judgement. I should have conjectured that he is more taken up with the horror of torments that he shall suffer, then with the thought of further actings in that terrible day. Neither did I until now find that Satan should be an accuser of others, having not what to say for the defence of himself, being accused by others, as the author of their sin and misery in the day of Judgement. Neither can I find yet that the Scripture teacheth any such thing, that Mr. Baxter should be able to say, he hath received from the Lord what he doth here discover to us. It must be from some Apocrypha's, or out of the left side of the Romish Legend that he hath borrowed this doctrine, where I shall leave him to dig out more traditions to maintain his bold assertions, that have no pillarage from Scripture to sustain them. The latter, vizt. the Text of Scripture which he allegeth to the same end we have in the beginning of the Explication thus. B. There is also a twofold pardon, as well as a twofold Justification, one in Law, the other in sentence of Judgement. So Act. 3. 19 Repent, that your sins may be blotted out when the time of Refreshing comes, etc. Lo here a Justification, or pardon of sin, in, or after our glorification begun. But Mr. Baxter knows that Erasmus, and the old translation otherwise render this Text, making the latter clause thereof Ecliptic, or unperfect, which is thus to be supplied, Repent etc. that your sins being blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come forth from the presence of God, [What then? we must supply] Ye may have your part in the eternal refreshing and joy: This rendering of the Text even the most solid Expositors that follow the other reprove not, but speak honourably of it; much more those that take it up. And if we so understand the Text, it hath no show of affirming a forgiveness of sin, but glorification only after the judgement day. Yea I have found none, until Beza's new Translation of the Testament, that otherwise understood the text, or since this translation that hath reprehended the former as faulty, but all both before and since making that the sense of it. Yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which our Translation renders [when] both Beza and all the Orthodox Expositors render foe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after; thus reading the Text; [not when, but] after the times of refreshing shall come. And this Mr. Baxter will not deny to be the proper meaning of the phrase. And will he notwithstanding say that the times of refreshing, that is, of everlasting joy, come first, and then the forgiveness of sin follows? Mr. Baxter is not ignorant that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the original may be as properly rendered [have, or are come] as [shall come] And so many learned Translators and Expositors of this Text have understood it, viz. of Christ's first coming in the fl●sh. And then without any supplement the Text is full in itself, and runneth thus; Repent, etc. that your sins may be blotted out, seeing that the times of refreshing are come forth from the presence of God. Let Mr. Baxter cite any one either Scripture, or Greek Writer, in which [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] signifieth [when] otherwise I cannot see the least ground upon which he can blame this, or uphold that Translation which he taketh up. 3. The translation which a learned and godly friend gives, rendering the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] [that] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. to this end that, bears great force with me, as best agreeing with the constant use of the Scripture. And so the Text is thus to be read, Repent, etc. that your sins may be blotted out (and that the times of refreshing may come, etc. (upon you.) In this sense is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken, Mat. 6. 5. Lu. 2. 35. Act. 15. 17. Rom. 34. In which soever of all these senses the words be taken, this Scripture favours not at all Mr. Bax. neither hath his second justification or pardon in the day of judgement any patronage from it. Yea the vanity of this distinction of pardon & justification, into that which is in Title of Law, an● that which is in sentence of judgement, this declarative, that constitutive, is evident to as many as understand evidences. For the whole tenor of scriptures which speaks of the last judgement, tendeth to manifest it to be a pronouncing of eternal glory to the Saints, because they were justified and before pardoned, perfectly righteous, in that sin was not imputed to them in this life, not a pronouncing of pardon to them that they may be thereby received into glory. Let there be any Scripture produced to evince the contrary. Or why will Master Baxter have the sentence of the judge and Saviour in the last day called a declarative justification and pardon? To whom shall this his sentence declare it? to God? He knoweth who are his, and whom he hath justified and pardoned in himself, and thorough Christ before the World was made, therefore needs no such declaration. To themselves? They had in this life the word of the Gospel declaring, the truth of Faith evidencing, and the spirit of grace witnessing it to them; and whether at the very instant they shall be affirmed to have come in spirit from the flames of Purgatory, or from under the Altar in Heaven to reassume their bodies (for Master Baxter keeps himself reserved in this treatise what he thinks thereof) yet their separation from the reprobates hath enough declared them to be justified; so that they need no● any further declaration to be made therein to themselves. Or lastly to the World? This might be somewhat useful to the World, and to themselves while they were in the World: but is now utterly useless, when they shall no more return to the World. Neither is there need of a voice to declare it to the World, where their instantaneous rapture up to Christ in the air; to sit with Christ in judging the World, shall fully enough demonstrate it. And no more doth this Scripture uphold this Justification, as in other terms he proposed it, calling it Actual, as distinct from that which he terms virtual. All these are but windy notions, to fill up the dictionary of his distinctions which have no footing in the word. And when all these are fartheled together, they will quickly be consumed with the fire of God's jealousy, and little steed Master Baxter to dispute out his justification by works in the day of judgement. No less vaporous is that which he hath, Thes. 40. and in its Explication, where he distinguisheth most learnedly between a bar, and the bar, between a Wooden and an Iron Bar, between a Bar, and a Bar of judgement, a primary and secondary bar, a direct and a Consequential Bar, and all with such sagacity and profoundness, as passeth all the wisdom of the Holy Ghost in the scriptures to make out unto us. pa. 190, 191, 192, 193. B. Thes. 40. When Scripture speaketh of Justification by Faith, it is to be understood primarily and directly of justification in Law title, and at the bar of God's public judgement, and but secondarily and consequentially of Justification at the bar of God's secret judgement, or at the bar of Conscience, or [at the bar] of the World. And in the explication he disputeth about B. The Forum Dei, and the Forum Conscientiae, the Bar of God, and the Bar of Conscience; the Bar of God, and the Bar of the World; the Bar of God's secret judgement, and the Bar of his public judgement; the Bar in heaven before the Angels, contradistinct, I suppose, to the Bar in hell before the Devils. At last he gallantly gathers together all these dispersed bars, justifying and unjustifying, pardoning and condemning us, in some sense at all the bars, and in several senses at several bars, according as his wit and Sophistry doth give him utterance. And to what purpose is all this, but to tickle witty, wanton, and sophistically fantastical brains, flattering them off from the simplicity, plainness, and soundness of the Gopsell into a disputative, fangled, and wordy formality of religion, having the spirit and power of Conscience, and the word that should regulate it, enervate and evapored in to mere froth and bubbles, by this questionary, distinctionary, and colorative show of learning. In the mean while, all these bars are by the subtlety of this Artificer made use of, to bar out the poor and simple for whom Christ hath died, from the due comfort of their justification, obscuring to them the Doctrine of grace, sending them from Bar to Bar for pardon and peace, and leaving them unsettled, and hover to their very dying day, yea, till they come to the bar of Christ at the judgement day, where if they be followers of this man's Doctrine, they shall appear no less uncertainly and tremblingly before the great judge than the reprobate men and Devils. For until then all the former bars (according to Master Baxter) minister no absolute pardon or acquittance to any soul, so free from the Curse, but that we are left under the curse; acquit conditionally, that is, leave us fast bound to hell as it found us; lose the finger to day, that it may bind us up hand and foot to morrow. Such and so precious Gospel doth this learned Scribe draw out of his Treasury among his Keder minsterians, as by that we have already seen, hath been in part manifested; and by that which follows in this Treatise will more fully appear. When contrary to all this Sophistical winding, circling and labyrinthicall Mazes, the Scripture speaking of Justification and condemnation after the tenor of the Covenants, makes only two Barrs of judgement, the Bar of justice according to the Law, and the Bar of grace or Mercy-seat, according to the Tenor of the Gospel or New Covenant: affirming all that are judged at the one condemned, and all at the other justified. That as soon as we are convicted of death, and vengeance only due to us at the former, we are carried out in the Spirit of Christ thorough the consecrated way of his purifying blood, to seek remission of sins at the latter, the Throne of grace; the all gracious Father, from the bar of grace pronounceth to our consciences peace, and pardon, and joy which shall never be taken from us. This is the sole and all-sufficient Justification which the Scripture speaks of, speaking properly of justification. The subject hath heaped up Treasons against his Prince; For this cause the Law apprehends and arraigns' him. The Prince's Son pitieth and mediateth, and by Mediation obtains a pardon from the Prince, and brings it under hand and seal, puts it into his hand for life, while standing at the Prince's Law bar, he was by Law condemned, yea condemned himself. The pardon thus freely given, he cannot but gratefully embrace. He questions not, none can question that finds him guilty in Law, from what bar the pardon came. He was a dead man in Law. It must therefore needs be from free Grace, mere Mercy that the pardon came. The receiver acknowledges it, pleads only the grace of the pardoner, not any righteousness of his facts, or innocency in the things whereof he is accused, or deserts of former service, or purposes of future loyalty, for his life. Such is the justification which the Gospel holds forth. The multiplication of Barrs which Master Baxter maketh, at which ●his New Covenant justification is transacted; is a confection of fancied Bears, Bulls, and Bubbles, to distract poor Souls from the plain way, and sound Comfort of Justification. B. Thesis 41. pa. 194. That saying of our Divines, [that justification is perfected at first, and admits of no degrees] must be understood thus, That each of those Acts which we call justification, are in their own kind perfect at once, and that our Righteousness is perfect, and admits of no degrees. But yet as the former Acts called, Justification, do not fully and in all respects, procure our freedom so they may be said to be imperfect, and but degrees to our full and perfect Justification at the last judgement. Here Master Baxter advanceth himself not so much as Doctor and Moderator, as Popelike to command and impose a sense, yea his sense, upon that which the Divines in general of all the Churches have said, That saying [that justification is perfected at first, and admits not of degrees] must be understood thus: etc. very Magisterially at the best; for what if not all of them, yea none of them meant so, would be so understood? This nothing hinders, though they will not, yet they must be thus understood. What necessity or authority lieth upon them and their writings, that they (will they, nill they) must be understood, or upon us, that although we know them to mean otherwise, yet we must so understand them? No other power or reason from Heaven or Earth is here specified, besides Master baxter's placitum, his pleasure, he so defineth, so determineth. How fair doth he bid for Peter's Chair, and Golden Pantofle? Jupiter in caelis, Caesar regit omnia terris. What authority the Pope challengeth over all the Canonical Scriptures, and the penmen thereof, the same doth Master Baxter over the Ecclesiastical writings, and the Authors thereof. It is but one step higher to the Triple Crown. But ipse dixit, and we must be silent, else Master Baxter will be angry, and crown us with the fool's Cap, and put upon us the Ignoramus and Dulman. Wel●, how must they then be understood? viz. that each of those Acts (saith he) which We call justification, are in their own kind perfect at once, and that our Righteousness is perfect, and admits not of degrees. H●re I crave leave of the Magister, to put some few qu●stions. 1. Whom he means by the word [We] when he saith, which we call justification? doth he not mean Chief, yea only himself? if not, let him name any of the Divines which deny against the Papists, the Magis & minùs, or degrees of Justification, but denies also against the same Papists, the twofold justification, and maintains against their Sophisms, justification to be but one, one only justification? I acknowledge myself not to be, that I am not ambitious to be Librorum helluo, I have in sacred Doctrines but one Master. Yet as many of our Divines as I have read, disclaim and detest this twofold justification, not only as a Popish, but also as a new and Jesuitical invention, devised for the perverting and subverting of that justification which is by grace. That this man therefore takes upon him to affix his Index expurgatorius, not to their words, but to their meaning, that they must be understood in another sense than they meant, because he will so have it, is not only to usurp to himself a power above the Pope, but above God himself also, who doth not, cannot make that which was not to have been the meaning of any man in what he hath said. 2. When he saith they must be thus understood, I demand what the necessity is, either simple and absolute, or respective and secundum quid? a Necessitas praecepti. or Necessitas Medij. If simple, and the duty enjoined by some precept, where is that precept of God or man to force the understanding to believe a lie? if respective, or in order to some end to which such a misunderstanding subserveth as a mean; let us know what that end is, whether good or evil? if evil, we must not do or think one evil, understand falsely against understanding and Conscience, for the promoting of another evil. This is worse than devilish, for he can say, video Meliora,— Deteriora sequor Or if good, their damnation is j●st that report (saith the Apostle) we say, [much more that would have us say] let us do evil that good may come thereof. Ro. 3. 8. Or must Master Baxters will or peremptory conclusion stand in stead of a Divine precept to necessitate and determinate our understandings to a false principle? Get thee behind us Satan, we own no such Masters. 3. When he saith, we must understand Each of those Acts [i. e. God's justifying us first in title of Law, secondly in sentence of judgement] are in their own kind perfect (not in the respect that either hath to other, but that the latter addeth a perfection which was wanting in the former) I might demand first, who besides the We in Master baxter's mouth hath called the latter, Justification? But of this already. 2 What new thing, as an increase or further degree of Justification, doth the latter Act add to the former? He acknowledgeth that the former (which is the sole New Covenant Justification) doth acquit from Accusation and condemnation, Thes. 38. yea from all guilt and obligation to punishment, pa. 189. and all this at once, not by degrees, as in this Thes. 41. what new things, or farther degree doth the latter feigned justification add to this? Himself attributeth no more to this which he calls justification in Sentence of Judgement. This (saith he) acquitteth from Accusation and condemnation, Thes. 39 where now is the Magis here, or the Minus there? the most Eagle and Lyncean eye cannot discern it in the substantials, we must therefore seek it in the circumstantials of justification. This he seems to place in two things. 1. The former only in Title of Law, the latter in sentence of judgement at the bar. 2. The former to be from the accusation and condemnation of the Law simply, the latter from the same accusation and condemnation pleaded by Satan. This is the whole difference which he putteth, as may be seen by comparing the 38, and 39 Theses together. To the first, I demand whether the Justification in this life be not an acquitting by sentence of judgement at the bar? Whether it be not a sentence of absolution pronounced to the soul and conscience of a sinner drawn to God's bar, and there impleaded, and confessing itself guilty of sin, and of condemnation? Who was there ever of them whom Mr. Baxter vouchsafeth to call our Divines, that held otherwise? Where then is the difference? Yes, saith Mr. Baxter, this latter is at the public bar. I answer, so is the former even that bar of God, at which all that ever have been, are, or shall be justified, have, and shall have the sentence of Justification pronounced to them. Object. But this latter shall be at the great and grand general Assizes, before all the host of heaven, earth, and hell; whereas the former was but between God and the soul. Sol. This is nothing else but a public▪ declaration to the world, what God had before granted to the soul; which indeed in judicatures of men, which are mutable, and deny oft in public what they had before acted in secret, may be of some consequence to him that is so publicly acquitted; but in respect of God's judgement, who cannot be inconsistent with himself, and whose acts in secret are as unreversible as those in public, here is nothing added to the bulk of justification, nor any thing (but the solemnity of the manifestation of it after the man is before completely justified) to the circumstances thereof. To the second I have spoken before, that Satan's managing of the accusation and condemnation of the Law is more properly, if not only in this life, and let Mr. Baxter prove (if he can) any such accusation that he shall manage against us in the day of judgement: If he can prove it, the thing proved proves no addition or increase which shall be then made to our present justification, because here also we are acquitted against all accusations pleaded by Satan. If he prove it not, then there is in this respect a magis in the circumstance of justification here, beyond that imaginary justification in the day of judgement. 4. When he addeth, that we must understand our Divines affirming our Justification to be perfect at first, and to admit of no degrees, that they mean our Righteousness is perfect, and admits not of degrees, I demand which righteousness himself meaneth? that which he calls our Legal, or that which he calls our Evangelical righteousness? or both? If the first, Christ made Righteousness to us, this is indeed the righteousness, the whole, and sole righteousness, the Gospel righteousness which we have given to us unto Justification, a righteousness without us, which admits not of degrees: And this righteousness is fully given us in this life, and not reserved to be given us in the day of Judgement. This [must] we are content Mr. Baxter should put upon our understandings, that in this sense we must understand our Divines. But this hews in pieces what Master Baxter addeth in this Thesis, making the Justification here unperfect, and to have but degrees toward our full and perfect Justification at the last judgement; for if so, the imperfection here, and the perfection there must be either in the righteousness given (as I conceive) or in the act of giving the righteousness. Not the former, for Christ, whole Christ (according to Mr. Baxter) is the righteousness given in this life. Neither will he, I suppose, affirm that we shall have a doubled Christ, or two Christ's given us for righteousness at the last judgement: Nor the latter; For I will not entertain so slanderous a thought of Mr. Baxter, to think he will say, that God gives Christ but unperfectly and seemingly here, but there perfectly, and really: Nay he gives Christ perfectly and really here; There he will but own and manifest his former gift, and grant. Object. But the former acts of Justification do not forthwith and fully bring a total freedom, and glorification after them, as doth this last at the last judgement. Sol. This is not ad idem. Mr. Baxter here flirt's from the question, which is of Justification itself, to the consequents, and effects of justification, which are total freedom from inherent sin, and from all sorrow, glorification, and in truth also the sentence of life at the last judgement, which is not another justification, but the fruit and effect of our present justification. The supreme power of the Nation grants to Mr. Baxter great immunities, and a large demeans to be entered upon at the next general Assizes for the County, and withal appoints the judge of the Assizes openly to proclaim it. The judge doth according to his commission, and Mr. Baxter taketh possession, by the virtue of the aforesaid grant: will he say the former grant was unperfect in comparison of the judge's proclamation at the Assizes, because it put him not into the present possession? are not as well the judge's proclamation, as his entry, the effects of the former grant? But how far, and in what respects the possession of the effects of justification is suspended, hath been before examined. I● he mea●s that which he calls our Evangelical righteousness, consisting in Faith, and Gospel obedience, Thes. 20. that we must understand this righteousness to be perfected at once, and not to admit of degrees, this were totally to confute, and confound himself in wha● he hath written, and all the Papists his darlings in what they have written about the point of justification; and would put the lie upon most passages that remain to be examined in these his Aphorisms. This therefore I cannot conjecture to be his meaning. I would he could as well discharge himself of doubleness as of silliness, and simplicity. In the 42 Thesis he seems to have had a purpose to have brought somewhat against that which they, whom he calls [our Divines] do assert of the perfecting of Justification at once, in the due and proper sense of their own meaning; and to yield forth some show of reason, that (contrary to their assertion) Justification begun admits of many steps and degrees one after another tending to the perfecting thereof. To this end he brings in a whole legend of stairs mounting up from the bottom to the top of Justification. A sack full of Heterogeneous bugbears, like that army of Solomon whereof Mahomet speaks in his Alcoran, consisting of men, beasts, angels, devils, creeping, flying, swimming, crawling, and hopping creatures, all marching together in so comely and harmonious order as confusion and ataxy can devise: with such an army comes Master Baxter here against our Divines, with a catalogue of God and Christ justifying, Men justifying, Angels justifying, self justifying, acts justifying, passions justifying, relations justifying, qualities justifying: One taking it from another's hand, and each amending what the other had left defective; so that at last the sinner so shifted from hand to hand, after many hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, is at length fully justified; or if he be a piece of knotty timber, perhaps comes not at last to be fully justified. I shall leave the Reader to view the Aphorism in Mr. Baxters' book; I hold it not worthy the transcribing; so i● seems doth Mr. Baxter too; for reviewing his company, of the whole number, which are no less than ten, he retains only two, viz. Justification in title of Law, and that in sentence of judgement, about which his former Thesis was occupant, disbanding all the rest, and so leaving the cause as raw and unconfirmed as he found it. CHAP. XXIV. Whether Justification be, and remains to be conditional, and that to believers during life, and the justified, and pardoned may be unjustified, and unpardoned again? Also whether, and in what sense, and respects, there may be remission of sins before they be committed? Thes. 43. pag. 196. B. The Justification which we have in Christ's own justification is but conditional as to the particular offenders, and none can lay claim to it until he have performed the conditions; nor shall any be personally justified till then. Even the Elect remain personally unjustified, for all their conditional justification in Christ, till they do believe. Thes. 44. Men that are but thus conditionally pardoned, and justified, may be unpardoned and unjustified again, for their non-performance of the conditions, and all the debt so forgiven be required at their hands. And all this without any change in God, or in his Laws. See Ball of the Covenant, page 240. Thes. 45. pag. 198. Yea in case the justified by Faith should cease believing, the Scripture would pronounce them unjust again, and yet without any change in God or Scripture, but only in themselves: Because their Justification doth continue conditional as long as they live here. The Scripture doth justify no man by name, but all believers as such. Therefore if they should cease to be believers, they would cease to be justified. I join together these three Aphorisms, partly because Mr. Baxter doth very little sever them by the interposition of very short Explications, which might have been as well spared as used, for any light they give to his Aphorisms. But principally because they all treat upon one, and the same Argument, conditional Justification. And here I could have desired that he had treated more Argumentatively, and less Magisterially. That he had stated the questions which he here determines into Conclusions, and by the best Arguments he could, have assayed to prove his assertions, which he doth here nakedly, and peremptorily lay down only upon his own bare authority to be taken up, as if it were holy, and unerring. He could not have wanted help to have handled these points more controversally, having the Papists on the one hand, and Arminians on the others, suggesting matter, and arguments to him, it being their, not Christ's cause and doctrine, which he bids, and teacheth here to stand alone; so that in case he had met with a learned adversary that had driven him out of this field, he might have been sure to have been succoured with a whole brigade of these Sophisters, that would either have laid in the place, or recovered the field for him again. But we must give leave to a man that is all wisdom, sometimes for his recreation to be servant to his will: And because we find him not here what we expected, we must take him as he offers himself— Stet pro ratione voluntas. Only I think it fit to save the labour to answer Arguments, when he refuseth to make it his task to bring them: Bare negations of Conclusions being the best way of answering, where they are peremptorily, and fastuously posited, without any premissed reasons from whence to draw them, or following arguments to back them. In matters of Faith asserted, not proved, Jack Straw's negation being of equal validity to John Scotus his affirmation; only we shall view his words, to see what show of reason there may be found in them. In the Explication of the first of these three Positions, vizt. the 43. He tells us, This needs not explication. He saw it, and had acquaintance with it while it was yet but a notion in his brain, therefore needs not any spectacles to clear up unto him his own form of spring; but for my part, such is my dulness, that whether I seek for his meaning in some part of the Position, or for truth in the rest, I profess myself unable to understand without an interpreter. Let his words be not only glanced over, but well considered, I might think there may be the like, though not so great an incapacity in another's brain, as in mine. The Justification (saith he) which we have in Christ's own Justification, is but conditional as to the particular offenders. Let the acute wit here inform my stupidness what he means by the Justification which we have in Christ's own Justification? What is Christ's own justification? or what the justification which we have in Christ's own justification? If we understand not what the subject of a proposition is, we cannot judge at all of the truth of the proposition, and do in vain inquire into the predicate. We can go no further understandingly in this Thesis until we understand this, of which all the rest speaketh. Christ's own justification may be understood actively or passively: For the justification by which he justifieth others, or that by which God hath justified him. If Mr. Baxter had meant the former, I conceive he would have said plainly (as he doth every where else) Justification, without adding to it Christ's, or Christ's own, which seems to be used to distinguish here between the justification here spoken of, and the common Justification whereof he treateth throughout this Tractate. If in the latter sense, it may not suddenly appear, how possibly we can be justified in Christ's own justification. Neither can Christ's own justification properly taken, be possibly made our justification: For all will apprehend (without help) by Christ's own justification, the justification proper to his person, which none had, or have in common with him. Yet I conceive Mr. Baxter means here Christ's passive justification, Gods justifying of Christ; and that these words here do relate to the words which he hath within the 4 number of the foregoing, or 42 Thesis, where he saith [4. His own Justification as the public person at his resurrection.] which is not enough properly called Christ's own, because it is not the justification of Christ as personally alone, but as mystically considered. Taking this to be his meaning, I shall first speak something of the meaning of the phrase, and then examine the truth of the Position. 1. For the meaning of the phrase; As the first Adam sustained the office of a public person in relation to that Commandment of not eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil, so that if he had obeyed we had all lived, and been justified in him; but in his disobedience we all sinned, and were condemned in him: So also Christ, the second Adam, in making satisfaction to God's justice upon the cross sustained the office of a public person, stood in the room of all the Elect, bare their sins as imputed to him, so that they all in him did their law, were in him crucified, dead, and buried, and suffered the pains of hell it self. And as he was a public person in his suffering, so also was he in his resurrection; having paid the utmost farthing of our debt, he risen to receive a full acquittance, or justification in his own, and our names for all the sins for which, and all the vengeance which he had suffered for us, and we in him. The justification and acquittance then given him, and to us in his name by the Father, is that which (out of doubt) Mr. Baxter calls Christ's own justification, yet was not his own so, but that it was every elect persons in him. Having the meaning of the phrase, let us now inquire into the truth, or falsehood of the Position. The Justification (saith he) which we have in Christ's own Justification, is but conditional as to the particular offenders, and none can lay claim to it till he have performed the conditions, nor shall any be personally justified till then: Even the Elect, etc. He saith much, and audaciously (as all may see) but how strongly doth he prove it? For confirmation (saith he in the Explic.) there is enough said under the 15, 18, 19, 20 Positions before.) And I answer, how valid and pertinent to his purpose that Enough which he there said is, I there examined: And because he brings here no new reasons, I may justly pass it by without giving any further answer. Only it shall not be impertinent to take notice how ambiguously he lays down every clause of this Position, to corrupt with an evil sense whom he can, and to evade with the pretext of a good meaning where he cannot deceive, if espied, and questioned. 1. When he saith this Justification is conditional as to the particular offenders, & none can lay claim, etc. Though by the whole frame of this his Treatise, it is enough evident that he means what he speaks in the worst sense; yet his words leave it here doubtful, whether he means that our Justification which we have in Christ's justification be conditional▪ as Christ hath received it in his, or our names; or as he having received it for us, doth offer it to particular offenders upon conditions, upon the performance whereof they shall have it, with the fruit, and comfort thereof declared, and evidenced to their own souls. Though the former be his sense, yet knowing with what arguments he may be encountered; That there was an absolute, and not a conditional payment made▪ to which not a conditional, but an absolute discharge is due. That Christ as a public person standing in our stead, received the same justification for himself and us, from all the sins that had been imputed both to him and us: but that he received for himself not a conditional, but an absolute Justification; therefore for us also. That if particular offenders be but conditionally justified in Christ, then are they not at all actually, and really justified in Christ, and so the fruit of Christ's death being suspended, upon conditions, may be none at all, in case none perform the conditions. That it is against the stream of the Gospel, which affirms, that even upon the cross he hath canceled, or blotted out the hand-writing, spoiled the principalities and powers, Col. 2. 14, 15. redeemed us from the curse of the Law, Gal. 3. 13. purged the conscience from dead works, by his blood, Heb. 9 13, 14. That God was in Christ reconciling the world (while the world) to himself, 2 Cor. 5. 19 and made us accepted in the beloved, Eph. 1. 6. And all this, before we had a being personally, therefore before we performed any conditions. Knowing (I say) how he might be overwhelmed with arguments from the Scriptures by our Divines, as he hath read far more copiously than I have time here to particularise, in their works against the Papists and Arminians, and might have been more pressed and multiplied against himself; and that Truth is not only unconquerable, but victorious: To prevent the inconvenience, he leaves a hole by which to escape, viz. He meant not thus: But that our Justification is conditional as to our claim of right therein, we are not personally justified, have not our forgiveness declared, and evidenced to our own consciences till we perform the conditions. Such sincerity and integrity is there in Mr. Baxters' doctrines. 2. When he saith, None can lay claim to Justification until he have performed the conditions, nor shall be personally justified till then, he leaves it ambiguous whether he mean till his faith, obedience, and good works (which with him are the conditions) be in fieri, or else in factum esse, be begun, or else finished, and perfected, in doing, or else fully done. His phrase directly points out the latter, & the whole stream of his disputations in this Book concurs with it. Neither is Mr. Baxter such an A, B, C, darian that he need to be taught to speak Grammatically, and to deliver in proper terms his own dictates, that we should think him to speak more, or less than he meaneth, saving when he will do so for his own advantage. Unless therefore he meant in the latter sense, and would be so understood, he would give no advantage by his words to any so to understand him. This being then his meaning, he leaves us yet in doubt whether he joins with the Papists here, in implying that it is possible to attain perfection of righteousness, and so to have fully performed all obedience in this life, thereby meriting Justification, so winning it at the hardest, before he wear it, as we have found him in, and under his 23, 24, 26, 27, Theses, maintaining enough fully behind the curtain; or else with the Arminians, in holding that no man is justified in this life, and so confounding Justification and Glorification either with the other, an assertion worse than Popish, wholly contradicting the whole ●enor of the Gospel, as Rom. 4. 10. Abraham was justified while yet uncircumcised. Rom. 5. being now justified, now reconciled, ver. 9, 10. So Rom. 8. 30. Eph. 1. 7. Yea not to stay particularising the whole sum of the Gospel, but because both Papists and Arminians are his cabinet friends, that he might please both, and offend neither, it sufficeth him to show himself an adversary to the truth, wherein he hath them both confederates with him, and either with the other; it being no difficulty for him to close with both that differ but in words a little, but are one in substance, like Sampsons' Foxes hung together by the tails in a firebrand, though their faces look several ways. 3. I might no less discover his subtlety in that ambiguous term of Personal Justification, as he opposeth it to Conditional Justification in Christ, how many senses it may bear, and scarce ever a good one; yet in the ambiguity of the phrase, a way left him to evade. The 44 Thesis is ridiculous to all that desire to speak after the wisdom of God, and not after the fallacies of men that are mere foolishness with God. Men that are but thus conditionally pardoned and justified, may be unpardoned and unjustified again, etc. ut suprà. In this at last Master Baxter is not to be deprived of his due praise; that he makes his foundation and building to consist of homogeneous Materials: an imaginary foundation, and a fantastical building. It is as much as if he had said, A fancied something made up of nothing, may without the spilling of much blood or sweat, be resolved into nothing again. The Cat in the Fable, which Venus turned into a fair Virgin, because she would not leave to hunt mice, was quickly reform into a Cat again. If one dream make Master Baxter a Holy Pope, the next dream may unpope and unhallow him again. And men that were but conditionally justified, may be unjustified again, and be altogether as well justified while unjustified, as when conditionally justified, and as fully pardoned while unpardoned, as when conditionally pardoned; and all the debt as fully required at their hands when it is conditionally forgiven, as when it is unforgiven again. And all this without any change in God, or in his laws. For all these are not Gods, but Master baxter's, and his Arminians, and Jesuits justifications, and Non-Justifications pardoning and unpardoning, forgiving debts and requiring them again. God is unchangeable, His gifts and calling without Repentance. Rom. 11. 29. But these are Protei and Chameleons, (specially when the change is from evil to worse) and would feign to themselves and us a God like to themselves, that should be a changeable God, no God. It behoved Master Baxter to have proved from Scriptures this Popish Arminian Doctrine of conditional justifying, and unjustifying, etc. from the word, that it might appear to us that the Oracles of God, and not the Sophistry of men had drawn him into this Topsie turnie tattle, rather than Doctrine of justification. Not doing this, his breath smells of a Pope in his belly; That his aim is to make the word of God to strike sail to the Sophisms of the Papists and Arminians, and not these to the word. For so he proceeds in the next, which is the 45 Thesis in their language. B. Yea in Case the justified by faith should cease believing, the Scripture would pronounce them unjust again, etc. because their Justification doth continue conditional as long as they live here, etc. if they should cease to be believers, they would cease to be justified. If the Heaven's fall, we shall need no hobbies to catch larks. If Master Baxter cease to be a man, he will cease to be an Impostor. They are suppositions of things possible, or impossible, which in both these his Theses he maketh: if of possibles, why doth he not prove them? if of impossibles, what can he aim at but the deceiving of them that are made to be taken, and the destroying of the peace of tender and infirm consciences? He turns us over in the former position to Ball of the Covenant. I have it not. But if there he be the same Ball with Ball of Faith, there is no more agreement between Ball and Bax▪ than betwixt Christ and Belial. I heard indeed long since, that this Master Ball seeing fashionableness and formality tending somewhat to the Popish Outsidenesse in Religion was the way to preferment, had before his death somewhat declined. But unless I saw grounds for such a thought I cannot entertain it, so great an estimation both of his ableness and holiness hath his Treatise of Faith left in me. But if otherwise, it is not unnatural to a Ball to roll, especially down the hill. And we halt not between two opinions, we have the Lord, and not Baal for our God. But Master Baxter cannot put upon us this bull, that he should with a trick of the hand beguile us into an opinion, that in this Doctrine he is a follower of Baal. Nay first his popish Schoolmen and Jesuits have taught him, and then Arminius, and his followers have polished him; so that in these two Theses he doth but speak parat-like, even word for word after these his Masters; as I could (if there were need) allege cut of the Authors whom he followeth. Yea further, the more ancient Schoolmen, and the most learned and Metaphysical among the Jesuits, blow off as basely derogatory from the perfection of God's Nature, the frothy positions which he here layeth down as Articles of Faith, which he doth not at all apply himself to prove, as if they were unquestionable because his quill hath dropped them. He sees his Doctrine in these 2 Theses, such as either hath nothing but words in it, or if any thing real, such as tendeth to the advancing of the Popish and Arminian Doctrines of Universal Redemption, Freewill, falling from Grace, etc. Therefore entreats his reader [in the Explication] to suspend his judgement till another Tractate of his about universal Redemption come forth, which in the Postscript to these Aphorisms he tells us he is not certain whether it will be ever; and in his Append. pag. 164. seems to conclude that it will be never: And that, if I mistake not, is upon Saint Justifications day, according to the Baxterian account. And in case it bring no better savour of Christ with it then this his Tractate, better then, then sooner. To which time also if he had suspended the publication of this book, I doubt not he might have obtained more than a conditional Justification from the guilt of such a suspension. And For that which intimates the falling away of the justified, (saith he) he speaks only upon supposition, etc. but doth believe that the justified by Faith never do, nor shall fall away. ibid. Explic. A larger profession in respect to this Article of his Creed, than I expected from him, if it be single and hath no flaw of rottenness and deceit in it. But when we have found him calling the sentence of judgement in the last day, justification by Faith, as well as that which is in this life in title of Law, (as he terms it) pag. 185. and makes the justification in this life to be merely conditional, and consequently either nul or reversible, in these 44, & 45 Thes. what can we think can be his meaning, when he saith, I believe that the justified by faith never do, or shall fall away; but this, that they that are sentenced once to life in the day of judgement, and already glorified, neither do, nor shall fall away. And yet for him that holds our justification to be still but conditional until the day of judgement, it would (I think) be a harder task to prove that it remains not conditional after the day of judgement, then for the truly Orthodox in this point to prove it to be in this life absolute and unconditional. Were I the man that were fit to undertake such a dispute, I should (as I conceive) have a great advantage against such an adversary; for most of the arguments which he should bring to prove the absoluteness and immutability of justification in the Kingdom of glory, would strengthen against himself the same absoluteness and immutability of justification in the Kingdom of grace. And almost all that he should be able to answer for the eluding of my arguments against absolute justification above, would strengthen me to answer his arguments against absolute justification here. But I hold it altogether unproper to make so holy a thing the subject of ludicrous exercitations. The Scripture is as full to prove the Saint's perseverance in grace here, as their perseverance in glory above, and as possible is the falling from the latter as from the former. Now before I wholly pass from these positions of Mr. Baxter, to make way for the examination of other Positions of his which I shall annex to these in this Chapter, because of the near affinity of their matter with that which is contained in these: I shall speak something in opposition to Mr. baxter's universal conditional Justification in Christ, or (as Mr. Baxter terms it) in Christ's own Justification. First then, whatsoever sins, of whatsoever persons were imputed unto Christ, and for which he hath made full satisfaction to God's Justice, these are no more imputed, but forever remitted in Christ absolutely, and unconditionally to them who were the committers thereof. But all the sins of all the elect, and of them only, and not of the world, were imputed to Christ, and he hath made full satisfaction, etc. Therefore, etc. The proposition is clear, unless we will pronounce God unjust: For if he should impute to the offender any one sin which was imputed to Christ, and for which Christ hath fully satisfied God's Justice, then should God be unjust in taking vengeance twice of the same sin, once from Christ, and another time from the offender, contrary to the both equity of his justice, and infallibility of his truth, in either of which it is impossible for God to fail. Or if any should say that their sins were but conditionally imputed to Christ, and that he made but a conditional satisfaction for them, this were totally to deny the truth, and reality of Christ's sufferings. It was not a conditional, but absolute, and real satisfaction that he made to divine Justice; they were real stripes, real and absolute wounds, groans, torments, death-pangs, by which he satisfied Justice: He was not conditionally, but verily made fin for us, 2 Cor. 5. 21. a Curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree, 1 Pet. 2. 24. was wounded for our transgression, bruised for our iniquity, Isa. 53. 5. When all this was done absolutely, and really, and so a real, and absolute condition made, shall all this produce only a conditional, and not a real and absolute justification in Christ to, and for them who in him have made absolute satisfaction, so that themselves in themselves must make absolute satisfaction again? This possibly may agree with Mr. Baxters' Justice, but never with the Justice of God. The assumption is thus proved, as to his bearing, and satisfying for the sins of the Elect only, and not of the world. He suffered not for such as we call Individua vaga, certain uncertain persons, himself not knowing who they were, or should be. The High Priest, that typifyed him, offered not his sacrifices at adventures for he knew not whom, but bare the names of them for whom he offered, before the Lord, Exo. 28. 9, 10, 11, 12, 29. And this was to be fulfilled in Christ their Antitype. I lay down my life for the sheep, saith he, and know my sheep. Joh. 10. 11, 14, 15. For the sheep only, for them whom he knew to be his sheep, he laid down his life. And lest any should think he speaks here only of his called, and not his elect ones, he addeth, Other sheep also I have which are not of this fold, i. e. of Israel; but of the Gentiles, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice. They are his sheep, and he layeth down his life for them, to satisfy for their sins before they were believing, before they were in being, and brings them home by the voice of his Gospel afterward, ver. 16. But to the unbelieving Jews he saith, Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, ver. 26. First sheep purged, and redeemed by the blood of the Shepherd, and then believers afterward. And if not sheep first, than unbelievers forever. Neither saith he, ye are not my sheep justified and reconciled by my death, because ye believe not; but ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, in the number of my Elect and justified one's. Justification, absolute justification in Christ, still goeth before faith in the so justified. Again for them all, and only, did Christ as our Priest offer himself in sacrifice, for whom as our Priest he offered prayers to God when the offering of himself was at hand; but he so offered his prayers, not for the world, but for them which God had given him, i. e. the elect, Joh. 17. 9 So in this part the Assumption stands firm; on the other part, that he bore and satisfied for all the sins of all the Elect, is plain; The blood of Christ purgeth from all sin, 1 John 1. 7. by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. When it is said they are perfected forever, it is included that there remains not one sin unsatisfied for. And this is the privilege of all the Elect, of all the Sheep both in being, and in futurition, both within, and without the fold, as before was manifested. 2. If Christ hath purchased, and we receive in this life only an universal conditional Justification: It will follow also that God hath in himself decreed before all time only such a justification to men; and consequently that he neither loved, nor elected to life them that are saved more than the damned: For the Son was in the bosom of the Father, therefore privy to his secret will, to his very bosom counsels, came down from heaven not to transgress, but to fulfil his will, Joh. 6. 38. & 4. 34. & 5. 30. was faithful to him that appointed him, etc. H●b. 3. 2, 6. So that he acted in time according to the will and decree of God before all time. But it is false that God decreed only such an universal conditional justification to all, not preferring in his love and election those that shall be saved, before them which shall be damned, as appeareth Act. 13. 48. Rom 8. 30. & 9 15— to the 25. Eph. 1. 4, 5, 6, 7. Therefore it is false also that Christ hath purchased only, and we receive only 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 conditional, so is salvation or glorification also; that if one, then both run upon these terms dum bene se gesserit, if he believe and obey he shall be justified and glorified, if not, neither shall be his protion. And when any is justified and glorified, his perseverance in that state depends upon his freewill, runs upon the same condition still, so long justified and glorified as he is willing and obedient, if he cease to obey he shall be unjustifyed and unglorifyed again. And thus all the fruits of Christ's death shall be rolled to nothing, and Christ righteosunesse and glory shall be a conditional and mutable righteousness and glory, to day in splendour, to morrow in darkness, and himself become a conditional Saviour, a conditional King, at one time complete 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 nobody's, a King without subjects; some not at all submitting to his golden sceptre, the rest that have submitted revolting from him, some from the kingdom of grace, some from the kingdom 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 conditional justification: There is I confess no weight in this Argument as to the truly Orthodox. But it holds as firm to Mr. Baxter as his Arguments can hold to us about conditional justification in Christ's justification. If he object, that the Saints in the kingdom of glory shall be so confirmed that they shall not fall away. I shall answer, so are the Saints also in the kingdom of grace, and are as absolutely fixed therein, upon the truth, love and power of God in Christ, as the triumphant Saints in the kingdom of glory. I doubt not to prove the one as sound as he can prove the other. I cease further to enlarge myself 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 show the vanity of a conditional justification by Christ, as to make way to that which comes after to be handled. From the 45 then I pass 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 runs thus, pag. 209. B. Remissian, Justification and Reconciliation, do but restore the offender into the same state of freedom 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 Queries to him. 1. Whether remission, justification and reconciliation are equipollent terms 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 freedom from obligation to punishment is called Remission; the freedom from accusation and condemnation is called Justification; and the freedom 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 freedoms? 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 freedom 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 freedom 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 freedom 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 Gospel, and may (as I conceive more properly be called God's 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 ask him whether there be any mystery in the order wherein he placeth them? Whether first we have remission of sins, than 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 informed, whether by reconciliation he mean the reconciling of our love to God, or of God's 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, than it seems God's 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 several differencing forms, as we find him to do? 2 Whether he take them for the same or divers things, I inquire whether they be antecedents or consequents of our union with Christ? If antecedents, whether it be possible for a man to be justified in the way of the new Covenant (for of this justification Mr. Baxter speaketh) being yet out of Christ? or how is he then justified by faith, charity, and good works; except it be by a legal faith, charity and works? and if legal, how are these than our Gospel's righteousness? or have they Gospel righteousness 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 justified in Christ are not advanced to a far higher state of freedom and honour by their being found righteous in Christ, than they lost by being found sinners in Adam, and whether their union with Christ be not the common foundation both of justification and adoption? Or lastly is his meaning, that our union with Christ is the foundation not only of remission, justification and reconciliation, which do restore the offender into the same state of freedom and favour which we had lost, and fallen from: but also of Adoption and of a far higher advancement then that from which he fell? herein I shall not descent from him. But why then doth he so transpose his words as to make the stream of God's operations to run backward, if not to make man's qualifications the ground of his union with Christ, his faith and good works by which he is justified to be if not the cause, yet the antecedent of this union, and not this union to be the cause or antecedent of his both justification and holiness? So much I thought fit to interpose here, that this Thesis of Mr. Baxter might not serve as a bridge to carry over the reader captive unto some fallacious untruths in the after-part of this his Tractate contained. Hence now let us pass to the 55 Thesis, which hath not a total disagreement with the former that have been examined in this Chapter, but a dependence upon them. B. Thesis 55. p. 211. Before it be committed it is no sin, and where there is no sin the penalty is not due, and where it is not due, it cannot properly be forgiven; therefore sin is not forgiven before it be committed, though the grounds of certain remission be laid before. The strength and evidence of this reasoning will the better appear if we lay by it another to the same tune and upon the same terms. It cannot be denied to be as good an argumentation as this, if I should thus argue. Before it be committed it is no sin, and where there is no sin, there is no penalty due, and where it is not due, it cannot properly be required; therefore the sins that have been committed since the death of Christ, had not their penalty born by Christ, before they were committed, and consequently, God's justice remains unsatisfyed for the sins of all, that have been committed since the death of Christ, and every offender is to bear the condemnation of them in his own bosom, though the grounds of certain remission were laid before [in God] except another Christ be sent from heaven to bear, or the same Christ again to bear the penalty of the sins after they are committed. Whether this argumentation doth not carry in it as great, if not greater, likelihood of reason then Mr. Baxters, I leave to every rational man to judge. And thus when a proud lust possesseth us to reason from our own brain and not from God's word, we easily reason ourselves into hell. Neither do I see how Mr. Baxter according to this reasoning can ever look to be justified or saved, except by one of these two ways, either by asserting his own righteousness (which hitherto with his fellows) he hath made but a collateral with the righteousness of Christ to justify and save) to be at a pinch all-sufficient and effectual to perfect the work without Christ; as it is with partners in a Trade, and buying and selling of wares, what one doth both do, and what bargain one makes both must stand to it: Or else by canonising the Popish mass, to offer therein Christ often unto God as a sacrifice for the expiation and forgiveness of his sins when he hath committed them, sigh Christ's offering himself was in no wise the bearing of the penalty, or satisfying of God's justice, for his or our sins, because not then committed. But let us see whether in any sense the reasoning of Mr. Baxter here, may be made good or taken up as tolerable. Not to mention here God's forgiving of sins as an act immanent in God from eternity. For this would but make Mr. Baxter startle, he is no more patiented to hear this voice, than was Caligula at the voice of Thunder; his blood riseth at it, as do theirs at the sight of a Cat whose natures have an antipathy to that poor creature that never meant them hurt: Let us consider forgiveness and pardon in terms and ways as himself granteth a possibility of giving and receiving it. And First, in foro conscientiae at the bar of God in the conscience of man, to which he most limiteth and contracteth remission and justification. May not the offender apprehend and apply to himself the pardon of his future (as well as of his past and present) sins through the Lord Christ in some sense? 1. In respect of the seed of all the sins which he shall through infirmity commit in the time to come of his life, I mean his corrupt nature or original defilement and sin, from which as from their natural source, all their acts of sin spring, every true believer is, and may apprehend himself pardoned; this the very Papists acknowledge, denying original sin and defectiveness to have any mortality of sin in it, because the guilt thereof is purged from the soul by the blood of Christ at his very first admission and entrance into Christ, (as they say) In this respect I doubt not but Mr. Baxter will confess that all their after acts of sin are remitted (in their seed and womb) to believers before they be committed. 2. In respect of Gods not imputing them to the person that shall offend, so the sins not yet committed are forgiven to every elect person. God hath laid on Christ's score all the sins of the elect, committed or to be committed, and satisfied his justice for them upon Christ, who in their names hath paid the penalty of all, therefore their consciences are discharged, neither sins past nor sins to come shall be any more imputed to them. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 1. There is daily new sinning, why not also subjection to condemnation? because the person being in Christ, though subject to a necessity of sinning, yet through the justification of his person is exempted from the further imputation of sin so committed unto condemnation; He that believeth hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, Joh. 5. 24. He comes daily into the acting of new sins; how is it that he comes not into a subjection and obligation to condemnation by those sins but because they were forgiven to the offender before, therefore not imputed to him when committed? It is one chief privilege of the new Covenant, Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin? Jer. 31. 38. etc. Heb. 10. 17, 18. speaks the holy Ghost here only of sin past and not of those to come, that they which are within the new Covenant, have remission of them? then 1. The same person hath some sins forgiven and some not forgiven by Christ, that which is passed is remitted, that which is to come is retained. 2. Then the privilege is no privilege, if only sins passed are not remembered, but sins to come are kept in God's memory to impute them every moment as fast as they are committed: For one of these last millstones tied 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 justified a believer from the sins which he hath committed, and not from the sins which he foreknoweth they will commit, but imputeth or will impute them, than is the same person both justified and unjustifyed at the same time, and God at the same time both loveth the same person to eternal life, and hateth him to eternal condemnation: which were no less absurdity then to attribute two contrary wills 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 passed 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 Christ's 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 God's mercy seat to mediate with his blood for them, he either received acquittance from, and forgiveness 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 acquittance and forgiveness of their sins as hath been before showed, 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 Christ's satisfaction any sins be imputed any more to the elect, they must be such as Christ hath or hath not expiated with his blood, and made satisfaction for to God's 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 satisfied for, than the faith of an elect person obtains at God's hands forgiveness, or the not imputing of such sins, for which Christ hath not satisfied God's justice, and so there shall be here remission without the shedding of blood, and justification out of Christ; or faith and Gospel obedience shall be the price and ransom of their souls: 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. baxter's meaning be when he saith [the sin is not forgiven before it be committed] that the believer hath not a singular apprehension of the forgiveness of every singular sin before it be committed, and that God hath not declared to his conscience the forgiveness of every singular offence, i. e. this evil which at this, and that evil 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 err, but also how oft and wherein he hath erred? in this respect the general pardon sealed in Christ blood to us, though it mention not every singular error of our lives contained under the general, is alsufficient for us. But perhaps Mr. Baxters meaning is, that Christ hath not purchased to the elect a plenary and absolute forgiveness, but hath conditionally died for all if they shall believe 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 daily pardoned upon the continuance and daily renewing of their obedience, and so this Thesis runs in the same channel 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 Model of the causes of Justification examined; and first his dispute about the efficients, and the material and formal 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 rustic, and not enough pretty and dialectical; himself presents me with a new case and order of causes from the forge of his fancy, viz. some sole and some social, 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 particularising 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 several causes. 1. The principal efficient cause is God. 2. The instrumental is the promise or grant of the new Covenant. 3. The Pr●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 chief, 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 mercy. The first of these is the meritorious cause: the second, the moral persuading cause: the third is the objective: and the fourth is the occasion. 2. Material cause properly it hath none, if you will improperly call Christ's satisfaction the remote matter, I contend not. 3. The formal cause is acquitting of the sinner from the accusation and condemnation of the Law, or the disabling the Law to accuse or condemn him. 4. The final cause is the glory of God, and of the Mediator, and the deliverance of the sinner. 5. The Causa sine qua non, is both Christ's satisfaction, and the faith of the justified. 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 show of causes, like a cupboard of rich glasses set in artificial order, and able to dazzle the eye of the beholder; what pity is it that any one of them should meet with a knock and be broken, and so the beautiful order in which they were placed, be on a sudden marred; yet if such a thing should fall out, it were no great wonder. Pretinesse and strength are rarely twins, and we speak of pretty things but rarely, long in the present tense, before their perishing by weakness forceth us to take up another tone, and to tell that there was such a delicate toy, but if we seek it, the place thereof is not to be found. It is possible such a stroke may befall the image that Mr. Baxter hath here set up in imitation of that of Nabuchadnezzar, Dan. 2. 31, 32, 33, etc. it hath clay in the feet, cannot go without halting, if it meet with a stone to crush its toes, it may possibly fall all to shivers. Himself seems to doubt of it, therefore prepares himself to defend it, as seeing, it cannot defend him or itself. So saith he in the Explication. B. Here it will be expected that I answer to these Questions, 1. Why I call the Gospel the Instrumental cause? 2. Why I call Christ's satisfaction the Meritorious cause, and the Causa sine qua non? 3. Why I make not Christ's righteousness the Material cause. 4. Why I make not the imputation of it the formal cause? 5. Why I make not faith the Instrumental cause? 6. Why I make it only the Causa sine qua non? To these Queries it will be expected (saith he) that he answer. But what if other besides these exceptions be made, though it be in his power to deny his answer, yet it is not in his choice or authority to restrain any from excepting. 1 Perhaps some may except why he in asserting God to be the principal efficient cause of Justification, lets it pass so nakedly without an adjection of any of his attributes; so leaving it doubtful whether it be the grace or the justice, the love or the hatred, the mercy or the wrath of God that is the efficient of Justification. We may easily answer ourselves as to this question, It is not Gods, but Mr. Baxters' justification whereof the causes are here assigned, such as the Scriptures are unacquainted with, a justification of his own devising, defining and distinguishing, himself and none before himself (that I know) was in every point acquainted with it: No marvel then if he speak differingly in setting forth the causes of his, from our Divines in laying down the causes of God's justification. And indeed it is a difficult question to determine whether his justification (if it were at all granted to be of God) might challenge more properly the love or the hatred, the grace or the justice of God for its womb: It being a justification that leaves all men under the curse, under the wrath of God, both in life and in death, until the very day of Judgement, (as we have found him disputing most profoundly in and under his 9 Thesis'.) A justification that gives only a titular title without actual and absolute possession of any greatest or least benefit to the justified, [which according to Mr. Baxter is the same thing as if we should say to the unjustifyed,] A justification more impossible to be apprehended and held, then was the first justification by works, that was held forth upon possible terms, exacting from a living man only continuance in the works of life; this upon impossible (as respecting our present state of infirmity) offering to a dead soul righteousness and life, upon condition the dead soul will quicken and arise from the dead to fetch it thence, whither if it come it must still abide empty as it came, until the day of Judgement, and then Mr. Baxter will come again to tell us more of his mind whether it be at all attainable. I do not at all injury the man in saying he offers justification to a dead soul, etc. upon condition the soul will quicken itself. For let there be found but one clause in his whole book that implieth a concurrence and effusion of grace from God, more to the quickening and justifying of Peter and Paul, then of Cain and Judas, of the damned then of the saved. Or what doth he less that brings in works to justification, then destroy grace, to set up justification after the order and rule of strict justice? Or when Mr. Baxter is so exact in enumerating the procatarctical or outwardly moving causes; to what purpose doth he jump over the Proegumene or inward moving cause, viz. the grace, love, and mercy which is within God himself, but to imprison it in darkness and eclipse its glory, that man's righteousness might have the praise which pertains to God alone? 2 It may be also questioned, why amongst all the causes of justification here assigned, there is no mention made of union and communion with Christ; when as our Divines following the rule of the Word, makes our union with him the very chief cause and ground of our being justified or declared to be justified according to the Gospel's justification, 1 Joh. 5: 12. Phil. 3. 9 1 Cor. 5. 19 and a multitude of other Scriptures which they allege, and if there were the least need I might here quote a score. What else but an evil eye, maligning the praise of God and of his Christ, suppresseth in silence and suffers not to appear in the chain of the causes of justification this link of union with Christ. Is it not that he will make our faith and works yet out of Christ the cause of our union with Christ, and not this the ground of the other? 3 To come to those questions which Mr. Baxter answereth because he conceives it will be expected. 1. About the instrumental cause, we question not what he goes about to answer why he calls the promise or grant of the new Covenant, or the Gospel, the instrumental cause of justification actively considered? but 1. Why he makes it the only instrumental cause, of justification howsoever considered? For this grant and promise doth by itself no more justify the believers than the infidels, the justified then the unjustifyed. Doth not God also make the spirit his instrument of justifying, by declaring and unfolding the doctrine of the Gospel, and evidencing and witnessing to the soul remission and justification, together with the love and grace of God from which this justification floweth? Why doth he stifle the working of the Spirit from having to do in this great work, except either with the Sadduces he denies the being, or with the Socinians the divinity and divine operation of the Spirit, or else to leave open a door to let in justification by the flesh not by the Spirit, by the strength of man's free will without the preventing helps of the Spirit of grace? Or as justification is taken passively for our being justified in ourselves, why is not faith put as an instrumental cause also? But this Mr. Baxter will answer anon, and I shall wait on him to hear how satisfactory his answer is. 2. Whether in his answer to the Question as he puts it, when he makes a man's lease or deed of gift, and a Kings pardon to have their force from the hand and seal annexed to it, is it not much more employed that the grant of the Gospel without hand and seal put to it is not a sufficient instrument to the justifying of any man. For the grant of the Gospel is made to the world indefinitely, but when faith as the impression of God's hand upon the soul, and the Spirit witnessing and sealing to the conscience thou art the person to whom the justification generally proposed in the Gospel doth particularly belong, and so are applied by God as true accessary evidences to the grant of the Gospel, to terminate justification upon the soul of man, can Mr. Baxter deny these being acts of God distinct from the word of promise, to be instrumental to justification as properly and fully as the said promise and grant? 3. To his Procatarctick causes which in the Thesis he giveth [viz. so far as God may be said to be moved by any thing out of himself, speaking after the manner of men, saith he] I ask 1 Whether God may be moved in his will, by any thing out of himself? If so, whether than something out of God do not give magis & minus, increase and diminution to God? For every change of God's will is a change of God himself, and what shall it avail any to be justified by a mutable God that to day will justify, to morrow unjustify again, being apt to take impression of change from things without him? yea if a God mutable, then in truth no God, but one of the Pagan's Idols or Puppets. Or how little doth his additional cause help him, [to speak after the manner of m●n] he ought not to speak a lie for God to please men; much less to lie against God, to fashion himself to the manners of men, foolish or wicked men. If he say God cannot be moved by any thing out of himself, how can he excuse himself from being a slanderer of the most high God, by devising and asserting here 4. causes out of God moving him to justify us, having before wilfully suppressed in darkness the riches of God's grace within himself alsufficient without any auxiliary strength from the creature to move him? How preposterous is he herein to the order of nature, making the fruit to bear the tree, and not the tree the fruit? What less doth he in making Christ's satisfaction and intercession, the sinner's supplication and desire of supply, and the opportunity or advantage, for the glorifying of his justice and mercy, the causes of Gods will, and gracious willings, when contrariwise Gods gracious will is the cause of all these? 2 Whether he jeers at the invaluable means of our salvation, or else that he thinks himself matching cocks for the game, that he counterpoiseth the highest perfections of Christ's mediatorship with man's vanity? how unsufferable is it to see him putting into the one scale a precious pearl, into the other a peppercorn or cherry stone? To match Christ's intercession with the sinner's supplication? To make the feebleness of man, a collateral and concause in the same order and degree of efficacy to justification, with the virtue of Christ glorified? It is to be acknowledged that the nothingness of the one is of as full validity as the omnipotency (if I may so term it) of the other to beget new love, new purposes, new acts in Gods will. This is that which God himself cannot do, not because it is a work above his power, but beneath his nature and perfection, to work or to be capable of the working of any new impressions or changes in his will. Nevertheless this excuseth not Mr. baxter's vilifying of Christ in mating his intercession with the sinner's supplication, as if the former were a star of the same magnitude with the latter: like that profane fellow that twisted together Religion and Cheese. 3 Not to trifle away time upon every trifling word of Mr. Baxter, I demand of him why (seeing in the Explication, pa. 215. he acknowledgeth that procatarctical or [outwardly] impulsive cause's have properly no place with God] he doth yet in his Thesis here fetch about again his four impulsive causes to mark them with several names in their foreheads in Aristotle's print? is it not a testimony under his own hand that he will rather play and dance about God as if he were a mere maypole, then lose the ostentation of one lest piece of his wit and art? 4 Though I mean not to contend about the meritorious causality of Christ's satisfaction, because in this he hath as well many orthodox writers as Papists speaking in the same tone with him: nevertheless I should deny his assertion unless he he will grant me these 4. or 5. suppositions. 1. That so far as justification is an act eternal and immamanent in God, Christ's satisfaction is not the meritorious cause of it. 2. If in some other respect it be the meritorious cause, that God doth therein merit from himself. For the satisfaction made to him is of his own proper money, himself paid the price in delivering his Son for our sins, the body which Christ offered for us was given him by the Father to offer in our behalf. 3. That this merit must in no wise hinder, but that the entire benefit of justification must come to us freely without money and without price. 4. That it is but unproperly termed merit even then when it respecteth the discharge which God giveth into a man's conscience, it being so called metaphorically as our state in sin is considered as a state of debt, which when Christ our surety hath paid for us he hath so far merited only, as the payment of our debt may be said to deserve that we should receive a full acquittance from the debt. In which Mr. Baxter goeth yet further, that it was so paid, that the Creditor might have chosen to accept it for satisfaction, much more to have given us a full acquittance and discharge. So that in relation to him and his principles, it is less properly merit, then to another. 5. That Christ's satisfaction is more properly to be called God's foundation of this our new relation of justified persons, upon which he hath enabled himself to justify us in mercy, without any seeming diminution of his justice and truth. These things granted me, I dismiss Mr. Baxter with his meri●orlous cause. 5 When he calls Christ's intercession and the sinner's supplication the moral persuading cause, etc. I demand whether there were such a total deficiency, or so great a scarcity of moral reason in God, that it needed a begetting or quickening by persuasions from without him? or whether he were so flinty a● that without strong persuasive reasons he could not be induced to melt out his mercy in justifying us? How then was he in Christ reconciling the world to himself before all such actual intercession and prayers? 2 Cor. 5. 19 6. The like might I say of his objective and occasional causes; that objects and occasions have their being and qualifications from Gods either directive or promissive providence, that they may serve to his eternal and absolute volsitions and purposes; not that they work any new thing in the will and purposes of God, for then like the Masspriests should they be the creators of their Creator. 4. To his second Question, Why he calls Christ's satisfaction, both the Meritorious cause, and the Causa sine qua non; If he had not, I should not have made it a question. But because he delighteth both to put the question and to answer it, I shall not permit his answer wholly to pass without a short reply. B. Pag. 215. That it is the Meritorious cause I know few but Socinians that will deny. He must needs mean few Baxterians, that are not also Socinians, i. e. few of them that with him deny justification to be an eternal immanent act in God. For Mr. Baxter himself whether he be, or be not a Socinian, will and must grant, that if justification be, and as far as it is an eternal immanent act in God; Christ's satisfaction neither is nor can be the Meritorious cause thereof. But as we look to the justification, as in time applied and declared to the soul and conscience which Mr. Baxter calleth the justification of the new Covenant, and the Scriptures justification by faith, of this justification I will not contend with him, but Christ's satisfaction (though not where in the word totidem verbis so termed) yet may enough properly be termed the Meritorious cause. But why he will also have it called the Causa sine qua non, a blind man may easily see his reason; what else doth he drive at but to put it in the same order of Causality with faith and good works, which also in the whole sequel of this Treatise is with him the Causa sine qua non, and consequently to make Christ's sufferings and man's qualifications collateral causes of Justification? Hereunto pertaineth his extolling the cause sine qua non, and exalting the praise thereof above other causes, Pag. 216, 217. not so much to attribute it to Christ's satisfaction, as preparatively to deify and equalise with Christ the meritorious perfection of man's righteousness, which he is bringing in as a rival of Christ for the honour of justification; and herein he will rather turn Cynic then leave the praise of man in his justification any one inch beneath the praise of Christ. For hereunto pertains his Quare me non laudas qui dignus sum ut accipiam? Plus enim est meruisse quam dedisse beneficium? If God be to be praised for giving justification, why not I that am worthy to receive it? for it is more honourable to have deserved then to have given a Benefit. How well this agreeth with that which he hath in and under his 24, 26, & 27. Theses, I leave the Reader to consider; and how fully he speaks it out in the following doctrine of this book, we shall see more fully afterward. Yea when he here puts Christ's satisfaction in the same kind of causality with faith and works, which he here calls the Causa sine qua non, elsewhere the conditions of justification; and Thesis' 62. pronounceth faith to be the principal, and works the less principal condition; what place doth he leave for Christ's satisfaction, but to be a footstool to our faith and works? Ob. Yes he reserves the entire praise of merit still to Christ's satisfaction alone. Answ. Not so, for though in words he sometimes asserteth Christ's satisfaction to be the merit of our justification, yet he makes the worthiness of our own righteousness to be that which makes both Christ's merit and justification merited to be ours, and so we out-merit Christ, deserving not only justification but Christ the meriter, and the merit of Christ to be made ours: In this he is worse than the Papists. They give the praise of our m●rit to Christ; he hath merited (saith they) a power ●o our works to merit. This man contrariwise, that neither Christ's merits, nor justification the fruit of it becomes ours, until we by our merits and worthiness have put ourselves into the possession of it; so according to the Papists the efficacy of man's merits depends upon Christ's merits: according to Mr. Baxter the efficacy of Christ's merits (as to this or that justified person) depends upon a man's own merits, as in the fore quoted Thesis he manifesteth himself: Let all men judge whether his ambition bends not to be more than an approver, even an eminent improver of Popery. 5. To his third question somewhat also. In the Thesis where he gives us the order of the causes of justification, to set up his own, not God's justification, he saith, B. Material cause properly it hath none; if you will improperly call Christ's satisfaction the remote matter, I contend not. And in the explication pa. 214. against what he had said in the Thesis, he supposeth it will be questioned. B. 3. Why he makes not Christ's righteousness the Material cause? And pag. 217. He thus answers the question: B. Christ's righteousness cannot be the material cause of an act which hath no matter. If any will call Christ's righteousness, the matter of our righteousness, though yet they speak unproperly, yet far nearer the truth then to call it the matter of our justification. We have here as elsewhere a Momus among the Gods, a curious and carping Critic against not only Ecclesiastical but Canonical writings also, no farther owning what they speak then as they speak it in a dialectical dialect, so setting Aristotle above Christ and weighing all the sentences of the Gospel in the scales of Logical terms and maxims, and Socinus-like submitting all the truths of the Gospel to reason, yea to the rules of Aristotle's logic or reason; Justification is an act saith he, and there is no matter of an act, ergo, it hath no material cause. Christ therefore and his Apostles, yea all the Doctors of the Church that speak after the Scriptures, are dunces, delivering a vain Theology not truly Theological, because not after the Peripatetics precepts totally Logical. But what law of Medes and Persians can bind the holy Ghost never to mention justification but strictly under the consideraration of an act? Will Mr. Baxter deny it sometimes to be used in a passive sense? Or what he saith of faith Thesis' 62. may it not more truly be affirmed of justification, That as a whole Country oft takes it name from the chief City, so may all the privileges and benefits of the Gospel from justification, so that when it is named all the rest are employed and named under it? The thing in question I acknowledge, (Mr. Baxter granting what he grants) is not of great moment; but the supercilious haughtiness of the man puffed with the opinion of his secular learning so high as to puf and pif at so many excellent Divines for learning and holiness, to many of which he is not worthy to be an Amanuensis, is unsufferable. I shall therefore as briefly as I can express upon what grounds our Divines and how far they make the righteousness of Christ the matter of our justification, as near as I may upon good probabilities conjecture. The Doctrine of justification by Christ, is not where in the four Evangelists held forth under the name of justification or justifying. Many both Parables and clear doctrines that proceeded from the lips of Christ, do indeed in other words fully display it; specially John the Evangelist, who made it more his task to record the doctrine than the acts of Christ (because he saw those historifyed somewhat largely by the other three Evangelists which had written before him,) Eaglelike mounting on high to the contemplation of his Celestial and Divine nature and doctrines, very exactly sets it forth but under other words, naming it Life, eternal Life, everlasting Life; He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life, Joh. 3. 36. Is passed from death to life, Joh. 5. 24. Hath eternal life, Joh. 6. 54. My flesh which I give for the life of the world, Joh. 6. 51. And ye will not come to me that ye may have life, Joh. 5. 40. Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye have no life in you, he that eateth me shall live by me, Joh. 6. 57 In all which and many other texts of this Evangelist none can deny but by life is to be understood chief, if not only, life in law, the life of justification, not that of glory which is to be received above, but that of grace here. For so those Scriptures point out a life here in this present world enduring everlastingly to all eternity, and not a life here only to be hoped for, and hereafter to come into our fruition. Neither do I find the word [justify] used but once by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Nor yet at all in any one of the Epistles of the Apostles (St. James only excepted in one Chapter) but by the Apostle Paul alone. Yet the substance of justification was the chief doctrine in▪ all their Epistles handled, but the same set forth under the name of Salvation, saving, life, and other phrases which our Saviour himself used. And these phrases also doth St. Paul use as equipollent with the word Justifying in all his Epistles. Now the reason why this Apostle more than the rest treats of this doctrine under the name of [justification] I conceive to be this: Because he was forced to handle it by way of controversy against the false Apostles, some professing, some rejecting Christ, that taught justification and salvation by the works of the Law in part, and not by faith only; whom therefore he must needs in his disputes treat with in their own terms and words. Their Argumentation against the Apostle (as may be gathered from the Apostles answers) ran in this tenor and to this effect, That righteousness alone which justifyeth or maketh a man perfectly righteous, saveth. But the righteousness of the Law, is that righteousness alone which justifyeth or maketh man perfectly righteous, at least by procuring proper righteousness to him: therefore that alone saveth. The Apostle here granteth the proposition, that no other righteousness but that which justifyeth or maketh a man perfectly righteous saveth: But denyeth the assumption, that the righteousness of the Law only or at all justifyeth or maketh a man perfectly righteous: Because only the perfect doers of the law are perfectly righteous, not the hearers. But no man can perfectly do it. And contrariwise proveth that the righteousness of the Gospel which he calls the Righteousness of God, the Righteousness of faith, the Righteousness of God by faith, which consisteth in Christ's satisfaction imputed to us, is the Righteousness which justifyeth and maketh perfectly righteous, because it cleanseth from the guilt and freeth from the imputation of all sin and unrighteousness. Rom. 1. 17. & 3. 5, 21, 22, 25, 26. & 4. 3, 5, 6, 11. & 5. 17, 18, 21. & 9 30. & 10. 3, 4, 6. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Phil. 3. 9 In all which places and in many other the Apostle having rejected the righteousness of works from being, asserteth the righteousness of God in Christ by faith, to be the righteousness, the matter and substance of the righteousness by which we are justified. This he illustrateth Rom. 5. 19 by a comparison between Adam and Christ, Adam's disobedience and Christ's obedience, As by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one shall many be made roghteous: the ones disobedience was not only the merit, but also the matter of our sin, as far as sin is capable of matter, the very sin itself, which being imputed to us as being in him, without any personal and actual sin of our own, makes us sinners. So the obedience of Christ in offering himself a sacrifice for sin, and giving satisfaction to God's justice in obedience to that positive command of the Father which required it, was and is not only the merit, but also the matter of that righteousness which being imputed to us (as being in Christ) without any personal obedience of ours added to it, constituteth us righteous and justified in God's acceptance, or is that for by and in which the Lord pronounceth us just and justified to our own consciences. Such is the frequent dispute of the Apostle about the substance and matter of that righteousness by which we are justify ad, which he concludes not to be a righteousness inherent in us, but this Righteousness inherent in Christ, but imputed to us and apprehended by faith to justification; whom God hath set forth as a propitiation for our sins through faith in his blood, Rom. 3. 25. And this is all that I find our Divines to mean in saying the righteousness or satisfaction of Christ is the material cause of our justification defending against the Papists as the Apostle did againsts the Pharisees, that the matter of the righteousness which God accepteth and imputeth to us in justifying us, or unto righteousness and justification, is this righteousness of Christ only, not the righteousness of works. Mr. Baxter in rejecting the phrase, 1. As rude and not Logical; 2. As at the best unproper; doth first, accuse the Apostle; and secondarily, them that follow his Apostolical doctrine and phrase, of this rudeness and impropriety of language: One of them speaks out the mind of the rest, Deus justitiam, i. e. Obedientiam & satisfactionem Sevarpius' ●rs. Th' eol. ● justif. ●. 925. Christi nostram facit ac pro nostra ducit, etc. atque ita nos antequam justos pronunciet justos facit; God makes the righteousness, i. e. the obedience and satisfaction of Christ ours, accounts it for ours, etc. and so before he pronounceth us he maketh us righteous. Let us be rude with the Apostle as long as we stand fixed in the doctrine of grace with the Apostles. That Mr. Baxter speaks more Logically after the Sophisters, and captivates himself to their learned errors (however he may applaud himself therein) we conceive it to deserve more pity than envy. 6. To his fourth Question I shall speak but little, because I understand him but little. Neither have I that edge upon my dull brain to discern whether in his acuteness he doth more contradict others or himself? or what other least cause he hath to contradict (granting what he grants) save ●●ly the spirit of contradiction. The formal cause of justification in his Thesis we have thus; B. The formal cause is the acquitting of the sinner from the accusation and condemnation of the law, or the disabling the law to accuse or condemn him. The question that he conceiveth will be put to him here to answer is; B. Why he makes not the imputation of Christ's righteousness the formal cause? To this he answers, p. 218. B. That imputation is not the form is undeniable. The form gives the name: especially to actions that have no matter. Imputation and Justification, denote distinct acts; and how then can imputing be the form of justifying, etc. Here before I can understand the depths of Mr. Baxter, I must be resolved by him in some Queries. 1. Whether justification hath its being before it hath its form? For the form doth more unexceptively give the being then the name; and is in order of nature before the thing form or named. 2. If not, Whether then there were ever a justified man (after the tenor of the new Covenant) upon earth, or ever shall be such? For if the acquitting of the sinner from the accusation and condemnation of the Law, or the disabling of the Law to accuse or condemn, be the form of justification, then is justification unformed and without being (according to Mr. Baxter) until the day of Judgement. Until than he binds all hand and foot under the threaten and curse of the Law; as we have seen in and under his 9, 11, 12, & 13. Thesis', and how long after he doth not yet certify us: so that if this be the form of justification, then after his principles there neither is nor shall be either justification or any justified person as long as the world lasteth, either in heaven or upon earth. Except Mr. Baxter will say the law is so dealt with by Christ, as Cnipperdoling was by John a Leyden, of the highest magistrate and judge made tormentor or hangman, deposed from being any longer a righteous Accuser, Judge or Condemner of guilty persons; and made an Executioner and Tormentor of them whom no Law accuseth or condemneth. 3. Whether the Law accuseth or condemneth of any thing else but of sin? And if not, Whether Gods acquitting the sinner from the Law's accusation and condemnation, be not his acquitting the sinner from all sin that might expose him to the Laws accusing and condemning? This Mr. Baxter must grant except he will say a man may be acquitted from the Laws, yet left unto the Devil's accusation and condemnation, as he seems before to hint. But this is no other acquitting but from the frying-pan into the fire, from a just accuser and Judge, into the tyranny of an unjust slanderer and destroyer. Such a justification with its form we decline as damnation itself: if Mr. Baxter can with his Sophistry charm the Devil, let him grapple with him. 4. Whether the imputation of righteousness and the not imputing of sin be not the same thing, neither an act distinct from the other, but each connoting and implying the other? For so he answers the question, denying imputation to be the form, viz. imputation of righteousness, without the adject term of diminution, the righteousness [of Christ] knowing well that some of the most considerate of the Antipapisticall Divines place the form of justification, in the imputation of righteousness, not in the imputation of Christ's righteousness (viz. which he hath done) These two Queries he must grant us, except he will sink from his own principles, and contradict himself. 5. Whether then there be any difference between Mr. Baxters' form of justification, and that form which he impugneth? Whether the acquitting of the sinner from the Law, from sin which exposeth to the Law's accusation and condemnation, be not the same thing in substance with Gods imputing of righteousness, and not imputing of sin to him? What hath the one of these (save words alone) more or less in it then the other? They must be Mr. Baxters' Lynxes eyes that are busied in the speculation of Democritus his Atoms and Plato's Ideas, that can discern the difference, my blunt fancy is uncapable and uncomprehensive of it. B. I believe (saith Mr. Baxter) that this imputing doth in order of nature go before justifying. And doth not the form in order of nature go before the thing form? how else doth the form give it its ultimum esse? This more proves than denies imputation to be the form. B. And that the righteousness so imputed is the proper ground whence we are denominated legally righteous, and why the Law cannot condemn us. This also makes more for us, then for him. He tells us before that the form gives the name. Now to be Legally righteous in Mr. Baxters' phrase, is to be righteous in the righteousness of Christ's satisfaction. He that is so, is justified in title of Law, (as Mr. Baxter terms it, and here treats of it) if then it give denomination of legally righteous, it gives the name of justification in title of Law; (except he will say that a man is legally righteous in Christ before God's gracious act makes him such) if so, then is imputation the form of justification because it gives it its name. He concludes well; B. It is a vain thing to quarrel about the Logical names of the causes of justification, if we agree in the matter. Yet see I no other ground that Mr. Baxter hath to take up this quarrel against the whole stream of Protestant Divines in refusing and oppugning the form of justification which they give, but to quarrel about names and words. The form which he substituteth in place of theirs, being the same with theirs in substance, and differing only in Logical not Theological names and words. Unless some will say there is a real as well as a nominal difference between the disabling of the Law to accuse of sin, and Gods not imputing sin; i. e. between the Laws acquitting, and Gods acquitting from sin; between the Laws not imputing unrighteousness, and Gods imputing righteousness; which is all one as if I should put a difference between the pardon that disables the Law of the Land from accusing and condemning of a malefactor, and a pardon which acquits him from the offence which the same Law had power to accuse him of, 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 instrumental 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 particularised. TO the first Question we must apply ourselves somewhat more fully, because in answer to the former Questions Mr. Baxter seems to me to have aimed chief to the ostentation of his wit and Logical both acuteness and profoundness, to make himself thereby admired and formidable. But in answering this and the next he collects in one all his subtlety and Sophistry ●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 errors (about justification) which follow and hang as at the tail of these Questions. His words in the Thesis are. B. The Causa sine qua non is both Christ's satisfaction, and the faith of the justified. As much as he thought would be objected against his putting Christ's satisfaction in the same place and degree of causality as a collateral with faith, he hath spoken to in his answer to the second Question, and the firmness of this his answer hath been there examined. But what concerns faith, that which he thinks he shall be opposed in, he forms into two Questions, Explication, pa. 214. 1. Why he makes it not the Instrumental 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 principal efficient, he doth not justify himself. 2. Not of God: for 1. It is not God that believeth; 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 justify himself. 3. For (as Aquinas) the action of the principal cause and of the instrument, is one action; and who dares say that faith is so God's instrument? 4. The instrument must have influx t● the producing of the effect of the principal 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 entangle. 2. His daring threats to them that being not entangled 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 tells 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 Authors 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 rob of the glory of his new invention. That the praise thereof might therefore wholly redound to him, he tells 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. B●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 Jesuits? 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 justify us, except it doth obtain and in some sort merit Justification from God? Do not all his brethren with one voice shake off the instrumental causality of justification and make it as a perfect quality or good work to merit it? A two fold subtlety, yea falsehood, is there to be found therefore▪ in this his insinuation: 1. That he affirms 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 tells us that affectation of singularity leads him not to it. We believe 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 refel his reasons which he brings for the proof of the minor. Yet because my drift is not so much to answer him, as to establish 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 merely Actively, for that internal, eternal and immanent act in God; not transient upon an extraneous subject, but hid in God before the world was, or any justified or unjustifyed persons began to live or be: Mr. Baxter would be ready to deal with us as did the Jews 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 Man's 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 Christ's sake the sinner from condemnation, by virtue of the new Covenant, and that precious Gospel's promise, He that believeth in the Son shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life: so I affirm faith to be both Gods and Man's instrument, Gods effective and man's receptive instrument in relation to justification, as shall be beneath more fully explained. First, it is God's instrument. This justification is but Gods pronouncing and declaring a man to his own conscience to be just and discharged from sin and condemnation through Christ, so that he perceives and apprehends himself absolved and doth acquiesce in this absolution. One chief instrument by which God doth thus justify or declare and manifest man to himself just and pardoned, is faith. This is God's instrument in the same sense in which Mr. Baxter maketh the promise and grant of the new Covenant to be God's instrument, and that more fully (as I in part shown before.) For that grant doth but declare a possibility to a man (as it is considered by itself) to be justified; promising forgiveness and life to all that shall believe. By this act alone no singular person is actually justified. But now this grant premised, when God is pleased to infuse faith into the soul of any singular person, by it as by his instrument he declareth that person to himself just and acquitted from condemnation; so that he can thenceforth plead out his own justification. God hath pronounced them all just and pardoned which believe in his Son: I so believe, therefore I am pronounced and declared of God just and pardoned. So this faith is the instrument of God, (for so Lawyers term Deeds and Grants in writing, instruments, yea instruments of him that makes the Deed or Grant.) And the promise of the new Covenant or the new Testament is called novum Instrumentum; as it is his evidence written (not without the man as that Gospel's grant) but by the finger of God's Spirit in the hearts of the Elect, so that they may read this instrument of God's writing within their hearts evidencing and manifesting to themselves their justification from God. And this is one principal instrument and evidence of God promised under the new Covenant, Jer. 31. 31-35. recited (as now fulfilled) by the Apostle, Heb. 8. 8-12. & 10. 16, 17. I will write my Laws in their hearts, etc. what Law but the rule, doctrine and evidence of life and salvation? But what benefit by having it written within them, more than if it were in writing without them? Yes this, They shall not need [external] teaching to know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least to the greatest. What knowledge of God was this whereupon they should not need teachers? They shall know him to be their God, their Justifyer, their Saviour, for so much intimate the next words, For I will forgive their iniquities, and remember their sins no more. This was one chief part of the Law, or will of God written in their hearts, justification or everlasting remission of sins. This they should not need to be taught from without, the instrument of writing or evidence thereof should be within their own hearts apparent, not to others but their own reading. And what more principal evidence or instrument of writing within our hearts thus to assure us, than our faith, engraven by Gods own hand in us? I appeal to Mr. Baxter himself whether I wrist this Scripture from its proper sense; or if any shall except against me, I doubt not but I shall make it good to be the mind of the holy Ghost, which I have here given. To the same purpose is it, that Faith is called the Evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11. 1. Whose evidence? God's evidence given us, by which he declareth to us, and manifesteth to our consciences the invisible things of our justification and salvation: and when given, than our evidence also by which we not only apprehend, but also plead against all the accusations of the Law, yea of sin and Satan, our actual justification. And that it is called the witness of God in us; or, within us; because God by this witness as his instrument declares and evidenceth us to our own consciences justified, 1 Joh. 5. 10. Secondly, It is man's instrument by which he applieth to himself, and without which he cannot apply to himself this justification, and remission of the new Covenant to know and be sensible of it, that he may rest and rejoice in it, being justified in himself, i. e. in his own knowledge and conscience; God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their trespasses, 2 Cor. 5. 19 Reconciliation and Justification (as hath been showed) are one and the same thing. That we may receive it therefore from him in Christ, he gives us (as many as are his Elect) this living faith as an instrument by which he may apply it and bring it home into our bosoms. Therefore is the operation of the soul by faith, set forth in the Scripture by a comparison of a man's working by the several members of the body as by his instruments: Calling Faith sometimes the e●e of man by which he looketh to Christ crucified as the Israelites to the brazen Serpent, thence to obtain cure to the wounded and poisoned soul, Joh. 3. 14, 15. Sometimes the foo● of the soul by which it runs and comes to Christ for life and justification, Joh. 5. 40. Sometimes the hand of the soul by which it apprehendeth Christ and the justification that is in and by him: To as many as received him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God, even to as many as believe in his Name, Joh. 1. 12. Sometimes the mouth of the soul by which it eateth and drinketh in Christ with the life that is in him, both to justify and sanctify, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, Joh. 6. 54. If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious, 1 Pet. 2. 3. Sometimes the arms of the soul, by which it embraceth and holdeth in possession Christ with his life and righteousness; He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the S●n hath not life, 1 Joh. 5. 12. What doth all this imply less than that faith is instrumental to our justification? Yea given to us to be the sole instrument on our part by which to apply to ourselves the justification offered by God in Christ, Or what else is meant by the general voice of the Gospel pronouncing us to be justified by faith, but by faith God's instrument and evidence to declare and manifest it to our souls, and our instrument to apprehend and hold it fast and firm to ourselves? It remaineth now to examine Mr. Baxter's reasons by which he assayeth to prove that it is neither man's nor God's instrument. First, that it is not man's instrument, he thus argueth, B. Not man's instrument, for he is not the principal efficient, he doth not justify himself. Both this and all that which followeth in this his dispute, he hath out of Schiblers Metaphysics, sound enough (I acknowledge) as Schibler proposeth it in Thesi, but fallacious and misapplyed by this man to his Hypothesis. Yet what ever it be (though not the least portion of God's word in it) let us examine the strength of it It is the principal efficient, of the act or effect, that worketh by the instrument, saith he; but man is not the principal efficient, therefore worketh not in this business by instruments or instrumental helps. I answer 1. (not only in resevence to this, but to that which also followeth in his Argumentation) We are to distinguish between instruments, that they are of two kinds, effective or receptive. Effective, so is a knife the instrument of cutting: Receptive, so is the hand the instrument of receiving. Mr. Baxters Arguments are applied to the former only, not at all to the latter. For 1. Of an Effective instument it may be said, the knife cuts and the Man cuts likewise: But a Receptive instrument hath a double relation; 1. To the giver; 2. To the receiver. As if a rich man give a great treasure to a poor man, he receiveth it in his hand: the receptive instrument of the poor man's enriching is his hand. Now if a man should argue as Mr. Baxter doth; the hand if it be an instrument it is an instrument either of the giver or receiver; not of the receiver, for he doth not enrich himself, he is not the principal agent enriching: not of the giver, for he doth not receive any riches, but the act of the hand is to receive; therefore the instrument of neither, nor at all an instrument: Who sees not the vanity of such an Argument? Yet such is this paralogism of Mr. Baxter. I say therefore that the Canons of an instrument which he citeth out of Aquinas and Schibler, hold only of effective, not of receptive instruments. Yet as faith is God's effective instrument to justify man, and not himself, (as Mr. Baxter trifleth) so these Canons hold of it also in the sense before specified. 2. I deny the Assumption or Minor; he proves it thus, Man doth not justify himself. This is an equivocation, and besides the question. None ever made man the causa prima of his justification, none I mean of all those whom Mr. baxter's disputes against. Himself indeed and his followers asserting the perfection and merit of man's righteousness consisting in faith and good works, and affirming that this righteousness of man, and in man, doth give him title to the righteousness which is by Christ, cannot well be cleared from making man the first tause of his justification. But we speak nothing tending to this purpose; and in no other sense do we say that man acteth to his justification, but by this apprehending and applying to himself the justification of God. And in this respect man is not only the principal but also the sole efficient of apprehending or receiving Christ to justification, and faith his alone receptive instrument therein, by the instrumental subsurviency of his faith in receiving Christ. We make it not man's instrument of Christ's satisfaction, or of God's acceptation, or of his declaring, but only of our applying it to our souls. That it is not God's instrument, he hath these reasons to prove. B. 2. Not of God: for 1. It is not God that believeth, though it's true, he is the first cause of all actions. A mere bull, with which he jeers and scoffs, not only at all the Protestant Divines, but also at Christ and his Apostles, as poor sorry animals and asses, unworthy to be answered with reasons, but with absurd nonsense. 1. Faith in one was never used or ordained to be an instrument of justifying another, much less faith in God to justify man. 2. He can conclude nothing else hence but this, God believeth not, therefore God is not justified or discharged from condemnation by the new Covenant. 3. He doth in the Magisteriall confidence of his heart, implicitly accuse Christ his Apostles and faithful Teachers in his Church, to hold that God is the instrument of our justification, that the Principal agent and the instrument are the same thing, that the instrument must be in the Agent or cannot be his instrument, so that faith must be G●d himself, for whatsoever is in God is God himself; the immanent acts of God, are Gods acting. These are all but slander of the Lords servants, to make odious the doctrine which they deliver. 4. We make faith in man, not in God, God's effective instrument, which he infundendo create & creando infundit, and having wrought it in the soul, he doth put it also in acting, thereby to evidence to man his justification. As some great and munificent Lord having laid up a great treasure for one of his poorest and most abject servant in some secret place; tells him first what he hath done, bestows it fully and freely upon him: but the servant not finding it is never the richer, because he hath not the possession of it. At length the Lord lights a torch, guides his servant to the secret place, and by the light of the torch shows him the treasure (which before in the mind and purpose of the donor was wholly his) bids him to see and possess: Here the torch is that Lords instrument by which he discovered to his servant the treasure, and evidenced him to be indeed enriched. So and much more completely is faith God's instrument by which he justifies us to ourselves, i. e. declareth and evidenceth us to be just and justified. B. 2. Man is the causa secunda between God and the action; and so man should be still said to justify himself. Either I understand him not, or he speaks words without matter, or words that are nothing to the matter in hand. He is speaking of justification as of a transient act of God upon man in time. This act of God we acknowledge no other but Gods declaring and evidencing man to himself justified, God's manifestation or pronouncing his justification to his conscience. How man in this act of God should be the causa secunda between God in the action, he explains not, and I perceive not. That man is the causa secunda between God in the application of justification so manifested, I deny not. But in this doth man no more justify himself then is above expressed. Or because it is faith in man which we pronounce to be God's instrument of justifying; is therefore man causa secunda, or a self-justifyer: nay, faith even in man is God's Creature, and the same, nothing of man's essence; Not of our s●lves, it is the gift of God, Ephes. 2. 8. May not God lay up his own instruments where it pleaseth his will and wisdom, for his own use? or ceaseth it to be God's instrument or in God's hand, when it is laid up in the heart of man for his good? Obj. But faith acts not in man without man as the second cause acting it, and by such acting his faith, man should justify himself. Sol. We make not man a stone, nor degrade him into a dead block, we grant of him that actus agit. He hath not lost his freewill, but all possibility of being saved by it, all the spiritualness of it, that without a new reparation of it, it can will nothing in matters of salvation concurrent and conforming with the will of God. But all man's actings of his faith when he is so renewed and moved by the prime cause, is but to the receiving and application of his justification evidenced to him: As it is God's instrument and acted by God, so it is God's evidence to manifest to him his justification. It is Mr. Baxt●r and his fellows that by their doctrine make m●n self-justifyers. Teaching that God's justification is conditional, and the alone instrument of God therein, viz. the Gospel, holds forth the same universally to all, no less effectually to them that reject it, then to them that embrace it. But that it is a man's faith and obedience begun and continued in until the day of judgement, that makes this justification to be the justification of each singular person that is to be justified; and so God's instrument of justification justifyeth but conditionally; i. e. no one singular man actually and absolutely. It's man that by his faith and works makes Gods universal justification to be his proper justification and Gods conditional justification to be his actually and absolutely. It is God that justifyeth all with a common and conditional justification, but it is every man's task to make, and his own act when he hath made this justification to be really and undoubtedly his. Therefore he doth but gaze here to find a moat in his brother's eyes, fastening the beam in his own. B. 3. For (as Aquinas) the action of the Principal cause, and of the instrument is one action; and who dare say that faith is so God's instrument? 4. The instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect by a proper causality; and who dare say that faith hath such an influx into our justification? I couple these two together because they are as twins that show no malignity in their faces, but are by Mr. Baxter made to carry fire in their tails, Who dares to say? and who dare say? What if we should say it? must we expect a broken head from the Challenger? Is it but a word and a blow with him? Or doth he affright us with God's judgements from saying it? is it his meaning, who hath so little fear or conscience towards God as to offend him and derogate from his glory in saying it? O that there had been but a moiety of the reverence and conscience toward God, to annihilate man, and advance the glory of God's grace, in Mr. Baxter, which aboundeth in many of those whom he here opposeth; he then surely would have cast this pernicious pamphlet of his into hellfire, (if it had been possible) rather then published it to the nulling of Gods, and deifying of man's righteousness. But to the matter, we dare and that in the fear and presence of God to aver, 1. That the declaration of a man to his own conscience and evidencing to his soul that he is justified in Christ, to be the one and same action of God the principal cause and of faith the instrument. The declaration and manifestation of justification to the soul is here the action, God as the principal cause doth it by faith his evidence and instrument; faith as the instrument and evidence doth it from God as the principal cause, in manner before expressed. God healed Naaman of his Leprosy by the water of Jordan as his instrument; did many wonders in Egypt, and in the Sea, and in the wilderness by Moses his Rod as his instrument; subverted the walls and Towers of Jericho by the instrumental subserviency of men's voices and the sound or wind of Rams horns and Trumpets: Christ gave sight to the blind man by a plaster of clay applied to his eyes. Will he not acknowledge all these wonders to be the actions both of God the principal cause, and of these so feeble instruments also? The despicableness of the instruments and means do not spoil God of, but visibly attribute unto God the whole glory of his grace and power which in the use of more noble instruments would not appear so sensibly unto some apprehensions; much more is the same action the action both of God and faith his instrument, and this without all seeming ground of contradiction, when we attribute not to faith any instrumentality under God to the working or effecting, but only to the declaring and evidencing to man his justification, before effected and completed in God and in Christ. And 2. That faith as God's instrument hath influx (in its kind) to produce this effect [the evidencing of man's justification to himself] by a proper causality. I mean not, Mr. Baxter I think means not by a causality that is naturally its own and proper to it: but by a proper causality which God hath given it in appointing and using it as his instrument to produce the effect. Will deny any this to be true of the forementioned instruments? He that made them his instruments begat in them a causality, and power instrumentally by and under him to produce those effects. Indeed to Mr. Baxter in respect of his principles, that denies Justification as an immanent act in God constituting and accepting us righteous, and will have this to be done only by a temporaneous and transient act of God by the grace of the new Covenant, these assertions must seem to have some monstrosity upon their faces, that faith should be so the instrument of God in justifying or making us just. Yet such as he can easily swallow, because on the other side his justification is but an universal conditional justification, i. e. a justification in a possibility, or impossibility, but not at all in being; and that faith should be termed the conditional instrument of God in producing a conditional justification▪ I see not why it should set the man in a chafe, he puts the dare to it therefore (I suppose) to make it too hot for the swallowing of weak and fearful Christians. To them that know whosoever are justified in themselves, that is, declared to be such within their own consciences, the same were justified in God in Christ from all eternity: so that fai●t is God's instrument only to evidence them to themselves and in themselves justified, not to justify them in God's mind and will: (for there they are justified without instruments) there is nothing formidable, nor rough in these assertions. The objection which he adds, by which he pretends we seek to evade, we own not, neither have we need in the defence of truth to seek evasions. Let him name some one of his [some] that have so objected a passive instrument of justification, or else leave us to conclude that the objection is of his own head; partly to take advantage thereby, yet further to take his pastime in his Logical and Metaphysical learning, which may possibly please him but never justify or save him; and partly by showing the weakness of the objection to gull his unwary reader with an opinion of the weakness of their cause, who are forced with such Egyptian reeds (for lack of better pillars) to sustain it. It is one of the Jesuits principles to fetch arms indifferently either from heaven or hell to storm the Church and truth of Christ, and to promote the holy mother harlot of Rome. But I am weary following him while he brings nothing but the Socinians right reason to be judge of the Mysterious doctrines of Christ; and fear whether it be answerable before God, to spend time in answering his babble with babble again; for the truth of Christ doth neither stand nor fall by what can be said for it or against it out of the principles or learning of abused Aristotle. Let Mr. Baxter call to mind what he hath read as elsewhere, so in his adored Schibler in the second book of his Metaph. Cap. 3. in his interserted oration, a little before the end of that book, pa. 211. (of the book printed at Oxford) concerning the sophister, convinced by an unlearned Confessor after his almost victorious disputes against all the Doctors of the Nicene council many days together: If he take it for a truth, it may help to convince him, that God is more effectually present in disputations about Evangelicall matters, when they are totally confined to the Word, then when they are handled after the rule and in the Predicament of carnal reason. It argues that he undertakes a business not for God, but against him, else would he not cast away spiritual and take up fleshly arms to maintain it. But sith Mr. Baxter is Mr. Baxter, we shall crave leave to speak the less to him henceforth where we find him to have little of the word, and reserve ourselves to speak more largely where the man for his recreation vouchsafeth to abase himself so low as to meddle with Scriptures. B. Quest. But though faith be not the instrument of justification, may it not be called the instrument of receiving Christ who justifyeth us? Ans. I do not so much stick at this speech as at the former: yet is it no proper or fit expression neither. For 1. The act of faith (which is it that justifyeth) is our actual receiving of Christ, and therefore cannot be the instrument of receiving. To say, our receiving is the instrument of our receiving, is a hard saying. 2. And the seed or habit of faith cannot fitly be called an instrument. For 1. The sanctified faculty itself cannot be the souls instrument, it being the soul itself: and not any thing really distinct from the soul, (nor really distinct from each other, as Scotus, Dr. Orbellus, Scaliger, etc. Dr. Jackson, Mr. Pemble think, and Mr. Ball questions.) 2. The holiness of the faculties is not their instrument. For 1. It is nothing but themselves rectified, and not a being so distinct as may be called their instrument. 2. Who ever calleth habits or dispositions the souls instruments? The aptitude of a cause to produce its effect, cannot be called the instrument of it: You may as well call a man's life his instrument of acting, or the sharpness of a knife the knives instrument, as to call our holiness or habitual faith the instrument of receiving Christ. I have before expressed in what sense we make or at least hold faith to be man's instrument in applying Justification to himself. And 2. have manifested the testimonies and authority of the Scripture herein; so that Mr. Baxter if he list (as it listeth him) to cavil, cavils not so much against all godly Protestant writers whom he opposeth, as against the holy Ghost, speaking by the mouth of Christ himself, and his Apostles, whom thorough the loins of those he smites at. It is not the first time that he hath accused Christ and the holy Ghost in this manner of impropriety and unfitness of expressions in Scriptures. And why? because they speak not enough logically, and in all probability never read thorough Aristotle's Metaphysics. But let us hear what he can say here to prove the unpropernesse of that language which calleth faith an instrument of receiving Christ and justification in and by him. His reasons are above in his own words rendered. To the first I answer, Mr. Baxter makes and lays his own principles of Religion, and from them, as from an impregnable mount he battereth Christ and his doctrine. Should we grant him that faith is the receiving of Christ, yet 1. How shall it appear otherwise then by Mr. baxter's own Magisteriall dictates, that justifying faith is nothing else but the receiving of Christ? 2. Why else doth he make it simply and only a quality or act of the soul without the adjection of its original from above, but to ingenerate into the minds of men an opinion that it hath its emanancy and rise from nature, from freewill, that every man may have and act it, if, and when he will; and that it is not infused of God to be instrumental by his appointment for the producing of any spiritual effect? 3. How doth he prove that only the act of faith justifyeth? Yet 4. If all these dubious things were granted to him, his own words therein tend to the confirmation rather than the infirming of the main conclusion which he opposeth that faith is the instrument of justification. For if the act of faith be the receiving, then must faith itself so acting be the receptrix, or that by which we receive Christ: but that by which man receiveth Christ is instrumental to his receiving of justification; for Christ is made of God to us righteousness, he that hath Christ hath life; specially this will follow upon Mr. Baxters' principle of Christ and justification given to all universally, to none in particular; he must be made ours therefore by receiving him; and if faith doth receive, how doth it receive but as an instrument? or whereas the well is deep, and we have nothing of our own to draw with, what shall be the instrument of drawing and receiving if faith be not it? 5. And in this lieth Mr. Baxters' Sophism, that he puts the act of faith for faith actuated. Though the act of faith were the receiving of Christ, yet faith actuated and acting is that by which we receive Christ, and to say that by which we receive is the instrument of our receiving is not a hard but a proper saying. The act of Mr. Baxters' hand was the writing of these lines. To say that his writing was the instrument of his writing is a hard saying; but to say his hand acted in writing was his instrument of writing it is not a hard saying. To the second. It is wholly Sophistical. For when he saith, 1. The sanctified faculty itself cannot be the souls instrument, because it is the soul itself: what is this to the purpose? 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 essential part of man for the whole man, after the common use of the Scriptures; and why may not the several faculties of the soul be as well man's instruments as the several members of the body? It is not unproper to call the eye the instrument by which man seethe; or his ear the instrument of hearing; or the the tongue of speaking; or the hand of working, etc. 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 instrumental to man in their places? Nay it makes them instrumental to work henceforth upon spiritual, as before upon natural and moral objects. And this also answereth his second reason why the habit of faith cannot fitly be called our instrument; because (saith he) the holiness 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, instrumental to the applying of Christ to justification. The Compass is the Mariner's instrument by which to steer his ship, yet would it be nothing instrumental to this purpose were it not touched with the Loadstone that points it to the North-pole; so are the will and understanding instrumental 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 blood 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 instrumental to justification. The power and disposition which it hath to this act being not natural from itself, but supernatural 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 Gospel, 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 Surgeons instruments were not his instruments while they lie by him, but then only while he actually useth them in the several 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 justified and unjustifyed oft in the same day, in the same hour, being no longer justified than 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 man's 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 man's instrument. The holiness of the faculties is not their, i e. the faculties instrument (saith he) but themselves rectified. 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 instrumental to justify a faculty, but man's instrument and nstrumentall to justify man. 4. In supposing it as a thing granted that faith in the soul or faculties of the soul is nothing but the holiness of such faculties, or their being rectified, 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 throughout 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 holiness and rectitude; but as by a supernatural virtue which it infuseth into the soul to carry it out to Christ, to God in Christ for remission and reconciliation. Otherwise godliness, hope, love, meekness, and all other the fruits of the Spirit, should justify us equally with faith, because the holiness and rectitude of the soul consisteth no less in these then in faith. And this is the thing in question, if we grant it all is granted which the worst of Jesuits 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 gross 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 man's justification, especially God having appointed and fitted it to that end; much more of being an instrument in general for man's use, which is all that Mr. Baxter should have denied, 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 plays the Sophister to make the instrumentality of faith ridiculous, as if we affirmed it instrumental 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, endued 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 natural or infused, a corrival with it. 6. He at last deals no less sophistically in his comparisons; You may as well call (saith he) a man's life his instrument of acting, or the sharpness of a knife the knives instrument, as to call our holiness or habitual faith the instrument of receiving Christ. The aptitude of a cause to produce its effect, cannot be called the instrument. There is no parity in the Comparison: Life to acting, and faith to receiving of Christ are not (Mr. Baxter will not say they are) in one and the same kind and order of causes and effects. Besides, one of the effects is put with the other subtly left without an object, as if the receiving of Christ were no more then, and altogether as natural to man, as receiving indefinitely any natural object; so that albeit this Comparison may stand in some parity with a natural and civil faith without the object Christ annexed to it, yet the divine faith, whereof we hear speak, is of an another, an upper and higher region, and agrees not in motion with the natural life, or with the natural or civil faith. The one moves its course and operation in a way that God by nature hath prescribed, and the other in the way which God by grace hath prefixed. Their orbs are severed, and not confounded either with other. As for the other Comparison, the sharpness of the knife: Nothing else undoubtedly but the sharpness of M. Baxters' wit could have devised it. Is then faith in man no more than sharpness in a knife? What good then might a ship-load of whetstones and grindingstones do among the Turks to make them Christians? The sharpness of the knife is not any thing really distinct from the knife; it is otherwise with the faith of a man. The knife is man's instrument, the sharpness thereof is but the aptitude of the instrument by which man as the efficient produceth the effect. How shall this square in the Comparatum? Man must be the principal efficient cause, what will he assign to be the instrument whereof faith is the aptitude to produce the effect? But I fear of transgressing by following him, that— Parvis comp●nere magna solebat: That dares with audacious arrogance to measure the bottomless ocean in his fist, and to try Celestial and Spiritual things in the scales of Nature, and to compare, not with the Apostle, spiritual things with spiritual, 1 Cor. 2. 13. but with carnal; profanely making the Mysteries of Christ to be rather the whetstone of his wit, than the object of his reverence and ballast of his conscience. I shall forbear here to add my judgement concerning what faculty or faculties of the soul are the subject of faith; Whether faith may be more properly said to receive Christ by the faculty, or the faculty by faith? How far faith in the habit, and how far in the act may be said to justify? These and other things may come more properly to be handled afterward then in this place. It shall suffice that here notwithstanding Mr. Baxters' winnowings, yet faith faileth not from being our instrument of applying or receiving Christ. Eightly, The latter which he maketh his sixth Question, Why he maketh faith the C●usa sine qua non, he thus endeavours to maintain, as it followeth in the n●xt Chapter. CHAP. XXVI. Arg. Mr. baxter's further dispute upon the same Subject, examined and answered. B. Pag. 223. TO the 6. and last Question I answer, Faith is plainly and undeniably the condition of our justification. The whole tenor of the Gospel shows that. And a condition is but a Causa sine qua non, or a medium, or a necessary antecedent. Short and in compass of words little is it which he here speaketh, yet if we look to the matter thereof in it two things are principally to be examined. 1. That he makes faith the condition of justification, and what he means by that term? 2. That he calls it the Causa sine qua non. He means (questionless) the same thing by both, but the words differ, and he useth both, as by both together, so by either part to get advantage to his cause. Therefore I shall examine them severally. To the former I have spoke somewhat largely before in the examination of his 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 43, 44, & 45. Theses, as he gave me occasion in these several positions to answer what he there asserted of conditional justification. I have therefore here the less to speak, referring the reader to what hath been spoken before. Yea in this point I should be totally silent, because Mr. Baxter in words speaks no more here than what some of our most sound and godly Divines have spoken before him (that faith is the condition of justification) were it that Mr. Baxter meaneth as they mean. For though in the best meaning of the best men the propriety of the terms or phrase may be much questioned and give occasion of much dispute, yet traversing controversies about words, when there is agreement in the substance to which both parties drive, is in my apprehension a business so far tending to distractions and breach of union among the Saints, that it is the last and least Trade (I am confident) that ever will befall me to drive. But in this point though Mr. Baxter here speaks in words what some of ours have said, and do say still, and that without any detriment (that I can see) to the Gospel: Yet his meaning and theirs are in no less antipathy than a Hawk and a Heron, and that as in other lesser, so principally in these particulars of moment. 1. By faith they mena our application, or faith as it is our instrument of applying Christ and the grace of God in Christ to our justification; he by faith means not only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere as a part of our inherent righteousness, but as a general and common word that compriseth within itself all good qualifications and good works whatsoever, as elsewhere, and specially in and under his 70, & 71. Theses he declareth himself; so that he makes and under the word Faith understandeth all these as equal conditions with faith of our justification. 2. By condition they mean that which being once attained and once fixed upon Christ, speaks us absolutely justified for ever. So that in calling faith the condition of justification, they mean we cannot be justified without it, but having once by faith apprehended Christ we are by it united and joined to Christ, and by force of our union with him are thenceforth absolutely and irrevocably pardoned and accepted as righteous in God's fight. He calls it so a condition as that it continues still a condition, justifying us only conditionally and not absolutely, so that it leaves our estate still one and the same, no more justified and pardoned when believers then when unbelievers: For by the satisfaction of Christ we are before faith cometh conditionally justified if we believe, and when faith is come we remain still but conditionally justified if we believe, our safety being as lose 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 justified then while we believe and obey: so that by believing and unbelieving, obeying and rebelling we may be justified 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 Magu● with Peter, or the Scribes and Pharisees with Christ. In stead of speaking what might be further expected, I shall only content myself 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 mind and will, as swift and sudden as in mutable and sinful man. For if God justify and unjustify, 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 steadfastness 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) than 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 unbelieving and persecuting, but loves him believing and obeying, the change is here in the object, not in God, No more than the Sun is changed by the variety of the Creatures, which it enlighteneth and warmeth; or the glass 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, etc. (as this kind of Anti-Gospellers assert) this is one and the same mutableness 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 show of change in God, for God changeth not his purpose of saving, because he had never but a conditional purpose and will to save, viz. if man will believe and obey; and this conditional intent remains in God still, together with a conditional 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 find him not yet adventuring to make use of this objection. 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 verbal; not a real forgiveness. And Mr. Baxter will not let out one gry or jot 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 than 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 believers worse than the state of unbelievers. 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 loss of it, than it would have been if they had never had any thing in hand or in hope. It utterly destroyeth all joy in believing, all peace of Conscience, all consolation in the holy Ghost, while it sets the believer in the arms of Christ's love, and participation of his merits and benefits, as Dionysius placed Damocles at his table with all sumptuous provisions before him, Music, attendance, and whatsoever else was Majestical or delightful to cheer him; but with a sharp sword hanging by a single hair over his head threatening him. No other (after Mr. Baxter) is the state of a believer, 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 crumbs that fall from God's 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 believers, Joh 16. 22. The foundation thereof, the love of God in Christ, remaining immutable, impregnable; I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, etc. 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. Christ's giving; 2. God's accepting the satisfaction given for us; and 3. God's 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 Christ's giving satisfaction, this is a contradiction; for Christ gave satisfaction before we believed 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 die as sinners attain to believe: If of God's acceptance, then more is ascribed to our faith then to Christ's death for our justification, and faith shall be more than collateral with the sacrifice of Christ to our salvation, the sufficiency of satisfaction remaining only in Christ's blood, but the efficacy thereof arising from man's faith: yea and so Christ should have paid our debts, and spilt his blood 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 believers before his death is but conditional until the day of Judgement after Mr. Baxter, and what may fall out as touching the apostasy of their souls before that day is uncertain.) And it being not known of those that should come after him, who or whether any would believe and persevere in believing. If of Gods justifying us in ourselves, i. e. declaring and evidencing us justified, we do in some cases acknowledge that God hides his face and evidenceth not his love in Christ in the same degree to all believers, but in God and in Christ they are still justified, and their salvation is sure. But Mr. Baxter shakes off this Act of Justification in disdain, therefore the absurdities which follow in his conditions in respect of one of the former cannot be avoided. I forbear to enlarge myself further in this kind here having spoken to it before, and finding a necessity of speaking more afterward. But it will be expected that Mr. Baxters' Arguments be rather answered, than his conclusion denied and opposed; let us therefore examine them; as far as I can find they are in number two, by which he proveth faith to be the condition of justification. 1. It is plain and undeniable. This I acknowledge is a Noli me tangere, strikes dead in the place, renders the respondent as mute as a fish: Let a wiser man undertake, it is passed my skill to answer. 2. The whole tenor of the Gospel shows that: specially such Scriptures as give their testimony of our justification in Christ before faith entered to purify our hearts: When we were without strength, when sinners, when enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death, and justified by the blood of his Son, Rom. 5. 6, 8, 9, 10. While we were in our blood, polluted, Ezek. 16. 6. While yet unborn, and had done neither good n●r evil, Rom. 9 11. 13. When yet of the world, and not served from the common mass of mankind, Joh. 3. 16. God loved us to salvation, While yet dead in sins and trespasses, he hath quickened and saved us by grace, Ephes. 2. 5. Blotting out the hand-writing, etc. forgiving all our trespasses, unto us in Christ while yet hanging on the Cross, Col. 2. 13, 14, 15. making us accepted in Christ the be▪ loved, Ephes. 1. 6. putting away our sin and perfecting us for ever by the sacrifice and blood of Christ, i. e. in Christ offering himself and his blood in sacrifice, Heb. 9 26. & 10. 14. and all this before we had a being who now live, much more before we were in a capacity of having any condition in ourselves of Justification: As also such Gospel Scriptures as affirm this remission, or justification unreversible, calling it an eternal redemption, Heb. 9 12. a perfecting of us for ever, Heb. 10. 14. so that there is no more condemnation, Rom 8. 1. no more remembrance of iniquity, Heb. 10. 17. no more separation from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 39 and other many such testimonies before in part quoted, and partly remaining to be alleged if occasion shall require; all which do concur in one harmony to evince Justification once obtained to depend upon no conditions, but to be absolute and indefeasable, that if any fall away, it is because they only seemed, but never were in the number of the truly justified, 1 Joh. 2. 19 Whosoever layeth all these together, and will not be convinced that Faith in Mr. Baxters' sense is the condition of Justification, but will believe the Gospel itself more than what Mr. Baxter speaketh of the Gospel; for any thing that I know, he may remain the Disciple of Christ, and unconvinced still. In the Appendix, in the answer to the six and seven Questions or Objections, pag. 41. to the 46. Mr. Baxter makes it his task again to prove the justification of the New Covenant to be conditional and not absolute. But so poorly doth he there handle his dispute, so unlike Mr. Baxter, who when Scriptures fail him, is elsewhere wont to play his game with Sophistry (which here doth very little help him;) that unto a discreet man nothing can more breed a suspicion of the goodness of the cause, than the hard shifts, confusedness, contradictions, and other weak devices and extravagancies, to which so accomplished a scholar is put (even when he hath no opponent but a mere question) to make it seem probable. How doth the man put himself here into a wood or wilderness, seeking but finding no certain way out, acting his wit and study to the highest to expedite himself in a clear way that might be visible and plain to himself and others? and not finding it, he at last doth what may be done in such a labyrinth, trusteth to groping for what he cannot see. And first he seems to have found in the dark a twofold Covenant of Grace, one absolute, and the other conditional. First then he follows the absolute Covenant, if that will or can lead him with certainty to any safety or show of reason what to speak of it, as he makes it contradistinct to the Conditional Covenant, or Justification; that the former which he cannot deny may stand as a cipher, but this be the Numeral, and only in power and force: here he is carried in a maze of doubts and rovings, not finding where to pitch. 1. Pag. 41. Sect. the 42. he would shake off this absolute Justification as a Prophecy and promise made only to the Jews, not extending to us: but here the Apostle meets him in the way, Heb. 8. 8, 9 otherwise expounding the Scripture that holds it forth: so that this shift fails him. 2. He questions whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise, or else in an opposition to he knows not what; but foreseeing what would herein be answered, he lets fall this too, pag. 42. 3. He brings something which he thinks will hold water: that this absolute Covenant of Justification is made with the Elect, and not with mankind in general. What is this to the purpose? He is here treating of the New Covenant as it respecteth Justification. And what one Scripture can he produce that tells us of all mankind, and not of the Elect only justified? In what a strait is the man, that in stead of distinctions, which were ever wont to be his Egyptian Reed to secure him, he is forced to fly to confusions for help? For so he confounds together here the promulgation of Justification with Justification in its being, or with the being of it, when these are different. As well might he pronounce the rich glutton to be no less blessed in seeing then was Lazarus by being in Abraham's bosom, as to pronounce all mankind justified, because Christ is conditionally offered to all for Justification. We have granted before the promulgation and offer of Justification by the Gospel to be conditional, but the gift and being of it to be absolute. Neither is there any thing in this offer to our Justification in Christ which is absolute before and without any promulgation or conditional offer thereof to us. Nor any thing to the justified and actually declared just in themselves: Justification is no longer in a conditional offer to them, but in its absolute being within them. Whatsoever therefore he addeth there pag. 43, 44. is wide from the question, being not limited to the Justification of the New Covenant which is the subject of his Treatise, which here he shuneth and talketh extravagantly about sanctification, because he cannot confute the absolute justification, but that it doth and will stand, and standing will not admit a conditional justification to stand with it and by it, in its being, though the offer thereof (before it is in being) be conditional. And this is all which at length he concludeth pag. 45. of the conditional Covenant of Grace, which without all this circuition would have been granted him: viz. that it is propounded and offered to mankind conditionally, if they will believe, and without this faith none hath or shall have the benefit and comfort thereof to themselves and in themselves, because all these that do not or shall not (being in a capacity to) believe are reprobates, and as many as are elect shall come to Christ and believe in him, as hath been before shown. What he addeth for the application may have some pertinency to the matter there objected, but it hath none to the thing here in question. Therefore I pass it by as not concerning us. 2. To his Causa sine qua non, briefly thus. 1 In so terming Faith he denies faith to be any cause at all of our Justification, for that is but Causa ●quivoca, or nomine tenus, or titulo tenus, hath but the name not the nature of a cause, hath no causality upon, gives no influx into the effect. 2 Neither whatsoever it be, is Faith the Causa sine qua non of Justification, in that sense as Mr. Baxter taketh and defineth it either in his stricter or larger definition: except he will say that no Infants are justified, who do not, cannot accept Christ, much less so believe as in his larger definition he sets forth faith. 3 Faith is not the Causa sine qua non of our justification in God, no nor yet in Christ's Justification (as he terms it) for these are antecedaneous to our faith, and our faith not an antecedent to it. 4 At the utmost it can be but the Causa sine qua non of Gods declaring and evidencing of ourselves to ourselves justified; and this justification Mr. Baxter so disdaineth and snuffs at, that he will not own it much less mention it. Yet can he not with all his Sophistry name any other act of justification in this life whereof faith can be proved to be the Antecedent, Medium, or Causa sine qua non. 5 Why doth he call faith and all the conqualifications wherewith he loadeth the shoulders thereof, and all the works which he makes its Concomitants, the Causa sine qua non, as if all these with their Colaterall in the other scale of his balance, Christ's satisfaction, did make up the one and sole Causa sine qua non of our justification; can none else be named? Besides other, the weakness and infirmity of the Law to justify, as it removes the impediment of justifiableness in God's Court of strict Justice: (For had there been a Law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law, Gal. 3. 21.) and sin which removes the same impediment, might more properly and socially then Christ's satisfaction have been placed on horseback in the same saddle of Causa sine qua non, had not Mr. Baxter thought Christ would bless, but these would have defiled this golden saddle of his own either making or appropriating to this use, and so bespattered and undressed the righteousness of his Qualifications and good works that they would never more become fit to ride on horseback in procession with the Holy Wafer. Thus his condition and Causa sine qua non must be new modelled ere they will be Canonical. But see we here the man's wit which never fails him at a dead lift. What he cannot act by power he seeks to compass by a stratagem. Because he cannot cover the nakedness of his assertion, he labours to make bare ours, and cast filth in it, that having diverted the eyes of his Reader thither, he may forget the vanity of his Condition, or Causa sine qua non. And thus he doth it. B. Here by the way take notice that the samemen, thus blame the advancing of Faith so high, as to be our true Gospel Righteousness, Posit, 17 20. and to be imputed in a proper sense, Posit. 23. do yet when it comes to trial, ascribe far more the faith, than those they blame: making it God's instrument in justifying. In examining all these quoted Theses, I have showed both who they are which blame him, or at least his doctrine, which was born before ever he commenced such a Doctor, viz. All the Orthodox Protestant Divines and Christians; and withal for what they blame it, viz. as it is Papism, Socinianism, and at the best Arminianism. 3. To which I have also made out their just grounds of blaming it, as may be there seen; yet to cheat his Reader, he calls these, those very men, as if there were some few contemptible Antinomians lately sprung up: when himself knows them to be all the Churches of Christ, which since the Reformation have been called Protestants. But of what blasphemy or evil fact doth he accuse them? That they ascribe more to Faith then those they blame, making it God's instrument in justifying. Yea but we have seen or thought we had seen (at least) just grounds for their so doing: how doth Mr. Baxter aggravate it to make it odious? B. 1. And so to have part of the honour of Gods own Act. Fie upon the Huguenots and Lutherans! if this be true, who then will not run from them at Mr. Baxters' heels to Rome? But the Scriptures make Balaams A●se God's instrument to rebuke the madness of the Prophet, Namb. 22. 28, 30. 2 Pet. 2. 15, 16. The Raven his Instrument to feed Elijah, 1 King. 17. 6. The brazen Serpent his instrument of healing the Israelites bitten with fiery Serpents, Joh. 3. 14. Numb. 21. 9 The Assyrians his instruments of chastising and reforming his people, Isa 10. 5. etc. and the very Devil his instrument of trying Job, Job. 1. 12. and of executing his pleasure upon Ahab, 2 King. 22. 21, 22. Shall we now fall foul with the Scriptures, and accuse them that they ascribe part of the honour of Gods own acts to the Ass, the Raven, the Serpent, the Assyrians, the Devil, by affirming these to be the instruments by which God acted? Doth not the feebleness of the means and instruments speak out the whole honour of the action to pertain to the Lord? Was it to honour his slaves, and abase his freemen and subjects, the Lords Israel, that Solomon made the former, not the latter his instruments in building the Temple? Mr. Baxter himself must conclude the contrary. B. 2. And that from a reason intrinsical to faith itself. So acted the Assyrians and the Devil in the acts before mentioned, as instruments in God's hand from a reason intrinsecall to themselves. Did this increase their honour? Rational men in their actions make use of instruments that are fittest from an intrinsical reason within themselves to produce the effect purposed. They seek not to speak with their ears, or hear with their eyes, or see with their heels, etc. because these have not a reason intrinsecall in them to such effects; do they therefore ascribe honour to the tongue above other members, as the eyes or hands, etc. because they speak with the tongue and not with their eyes and hands? And do we ascribe to God or derogate from him, when we say he hath no less wisdom than a man, therefore useth, yea maketh instruments both within and without fitted for his work? when the Apostle affirmeth the foolishness of Preaching God's power to save, he robs God of none of his power to deify either the foolishness of Preaching, or the Word preached, or the mortal Preacher thereof with God's power. B. And from a reason that will make other graces to be instruments as well as faith. For love doth truly receive Christ also. 1. Qui alterum accu●at probri, ipsum se intueri oportet. This trick he hath learned of Potiphars wife to accuse innocent Joseph of the fault whereof herself, not he, was guilty. Mr. Baxter indeed makes Faith and Love concauses (of one and the same kind) to Justification, viz. the several parts that make up the body of Evangelicall Righteousness which he saith justifies us, pag. 236. na. 3. why doth he proclaim it a scandalous crime in us, which he fastens to himself as a praise? 2. We affirm not faith to be God's instrument as it receiveth Christ, nor any further to be the instrument of Gods justifying, then of his declaring and evidencing us to ourselves justified: We affirm it to be our instrument (yet as given us of God) as it receives Christ. Gods as by it he evidenceth life and righteousness to be ours; ours as by it we receive Christ and the justification, yea justifier in receiving Christ. And when that Mr. Baxter shall make it his task not only to say (as here) but also to prove that God hath qualified love for this Office, I shall not doubt to undertake the task to answer him. B. 4. And worst of all, from a reason which will make man to be the Causa proxima of his own justification. For man is the Causa proxima of believing and receiving Christ, and therefore not God but man is said to believe. Here is much of sound to astonish fools, but nothing of substance to satisfy the judicious; For 1. Did we hereby make man the Causa proxima, yet it is but the Causa proxima instrumentalis passiva of his Justification, the next instrument to apply it, and that not by any thing naturally his own, but by the new hand of Faith, which God hath given him to this end. And this obscures not but clears up the Grace of God. Therefore by faith that it might [appear to] be by grace, Rom. 4. 16. The beggar by receiving the freely given treasure may be as properly called the Causa proxima of his enriching: yet hath the Benefactor that freely gave it, the entire praise of it. 2. Or if there were any damage herein done to the Grace of God, how much more guilty is Mr. Baxter of the fact, in making man's faith and works the very righteousness which giveth man right and title to Christ, and the Justification which is by Christ; yea a righteousness perfect and worthy: as he hath expressed himself before in what we have already examined. Is not this to make Christ's satisfaction the remote Causa sine qua non (as he calls it in this 56 Thesis) and man himself the Causa proxima sine qua non? and if the Causa proxima must in his judgement have the pre-eminence, then in his judgement man's righteousness hath herein pre-eminence above the righteousness of Christ. 3. Yea not only this but the very devil is the Causa proxima sine qua non of our justification (according to Mr. Baxter) and so must in this great business have the upper hand of Christ. For the Justification here is but a mere Embryon of Justification with him; which most times comes to nought and naught. But Justification in the day of Judgement is the thing consummate and in its perfection, which (he tells us) is our acquitting from accusation and guilt, which shall be then pleaded and managed against us by Satan. Here he makes the Devil's plea and managing of the Laws accusation, the next Causa sine qua non, upon which our final and complete justification followeth. Thes. 39 pag. 188, 189. Where now is his worst of all, in his or in our Doctrine? Thus while Mr. Baxter fights against us with a sword that hath neither edge nor point, he neither hurts us, not provides for his own defence, but by brandishing his weapon untowardly, wounds his own face with the hilts. B. And yet these very men do send a Hue and Cry after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere for robbing Christ of the glory of Justification, when we make it but a poor improper Causa sine qua non. Why and yet? All that he hath said against them is not against them but against himself: and for himself he hath said nothing. Only he hath entertained his Reader with a declamation against us, who expected his own assertion should have been confirmed, he hath by all laid never a Millstone, no nor a Cherry-stone in the way to hinder the pursuants of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cr●dere at all for its sacrilege in robbing Christ. When we make it, etc. which we, with whom doth he side? or whom makes he to side with him, but Socinus, Arminius, and one or two possibly of their scholars among us, which have carried this and many other monsters in their belly long before they were delivered of them, and most probably have yet more behind which have not yet seen the Sun. It is Mr. Baxters' unhappiness that these notwithstanding his wresting and catching them by the heel, come to the light still before him. This is that (most likely) which stifles his Universal Redemption in the womb. But having nothing else to do to make him gracious at Rome, because he could not speak first, his care is to speak all bigger than they all that have spoken before him. We make it a poor improper Causa sine qua non: i. e. in true and plain English, a poor perfect meritorious righteousness, a collateral of and no less necessary than the righteousness of the Lord Christ, as in this 56, and before in and under his 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 26 Theses he hath enough manifested himself. B. Some think that Faith may be some small▪ low and impulsive cause: but I will not give it so much: though if it be made a Procatarctick objective cause, I● will not contend. If he mean any other difference between the impulsive, and the Procatartick objective cause, besides that which is between the General and the Special, it is passed my skill to understand him, or to comprehend what he denies and what he grants; no doubt either he would not be understood, or else he attributes to his righteousness of faith and good works an excitation (but not an impulsion forsooth) of the Grace of God actually to justify those whom he beholdeth Schild. Metaph. li. 1. c●. 44. N. 24, 25, 40. fairly dressed therewith, and so the beauty of the object enamors God to love and justify. And what more do the P●pists teach? and so our justification as God's act is but in posse till our righteousness as a sufficient cause brings it into esse or act. Thus far of Mr. Baxters' causes of Justification, in which if he hath illustrated or confirmed any truth of God, God is much beholden to him and Aristotle for it. For distrusting the succour of the Scriptures, he hath left them, and brought nothing else but Logical and Metaphysical notions and reasons to prove all that which he hath said. CHAP. XXVII. Arg. Whether the sinner be justified only by the act, not the habit of faith? And whether it be not ordained to this use by reason of the useful property which God hath infused into it, to receive Christ? Whether and in what sense a man may be said [properly] to be justified by faith? In which also some things are intermixed about Mr. Baxters' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere, and conditions of Justification. B. Thes. 57 IT is the act of faith which justifyeth men at age, and not the habit: yet not as it is a good work, or as it hath in itself any excellency above other graces: but 1. In the nearest sense directly and properly as it is [the fulfilling of the condition of the new Covenant.] 2. In the remote and more improper sense, as it is [the receiving of Christ and his satisfactory righteousness. It is not for nothing that Mr. Baxter puts here a restriction upon justification by the Act of faith, limiting it to [men of age:] Are then elect infants that die before they attain age and strength of reason to put forth their faith into act, justified only by the habit of faith? It seemeth then that the hue and cry hath apprehended the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, as to them, and laid it fast from justifying them. Again, if they are justified by the habit of faith as a habit of inherent grace, (though not such as he here denyeth to have an excellency above other graces) what difference doth he put between Justification and Sanctification? Doth he not speak the same things here with the Papists? Yea in a higher dialect than any of them? For they grant to Infant's justification only by the washing of Christ's blood conferred upon them in Baptism, without any qualification of their own. But this man (if he thus say) justifies them by an inherent righteousness of their own. But if Infants are justified without the act of faith, and yet not by its habit, how are they then Justified but by that which he calleth Christ's own justification as a public person at his resurrection? which notwithstanding he utterly denied Thes. 42. and its Explication: and if they are so justified, will it not follow then that justification by the act of faith is God's declaring and man's applying of his justification to his present comfort and full assurance? (which Mr. Baxter explodeth as an unsufferable conclusion) But dying Infants are to have no use of this present comfort and full assurance, therefore it sufficeth them to be justified in Christ, though not in themselves. Lastly, or do they departed hence unjustifyed, because without actual believing and receiving of Christ, and so shall be justified in the day of judgement, because at the resurrection they shall actually believe? What a cry do the poor souls in the interim then make in that Limbus insantum? And why may not then (according to Origen) all the Devils and reprobates in hell be then justified and saved also, because than they may actually believe, and (according to Mr. Baxter) the condition of justification lasteth until that day. B. Explication, That faith doth not properly justify through any excellency that it hath above other graces, or any more useful property, may appear thus: To the excellency of faith above other graces I have nothing to say. But to the reasons which he brings to deny the more useful property of it, I shall speak briefly. B. 1. Then the praise would be due to faith. No more than when God gives us meat, the praise of our nutriment and life is due to our teeth, because they have a more useful property to grind and chew the meat, than our eyes or ears. B. 2. Then love would contend for a share if not a priority. This is only said and not proved, or declared upon what grounds love should contend. B. 3. Then faith would justify though it had not been made the condition of the Covenant. 1. We deny faith to be the condition of the Covenant in Mr. Baxters' sense. If he would have spoken directly to them against whom he argueth, he should have said, Then faith would have justified though it had never been appointed and given of God as an instrument to receive Christ the justifyer. And then we should answer, 2. That it is so much as if he had said, Then our teeth would have nourished and preserved life, although God had never appointed and given them to us as instruments to chew the nourishing meat. And thus the Caveat that he addeth becomes useless, viz. B. Let those therefore take heed, that make faith to justify, merely because it apprehendeth Christ; which is its natural essential property. For none affirms faith to justify merely because it apprehendeth Christ, without considering also Gods ordering and fitting it to this office, together with his promise, and the virtue laid up in Christ to justify all that do by faith so apprehend him. B. That it is faith in a proper sense that is said to justify, and not Christ's righteousness only, which it receiveth, may appear thus, 1. From a necessity of a twofold righteousness, which I have before proved, in reference to the twofold Covenant. 2. From the plain and constant phrase of Scripture, which saith, he that believeth shall be justified, and that we are justified by faith; and that faith is imputed for righteousness. It had been as easy for the holy Ghost to have said, that Christ only is imputed, or his righteousness only, or Christ only justifyeth, etc. if he had so meant. He is the most excusable in an error, that is led into it by the constant express phrase of Scripture. 3. From the nature of the thing. For the effect is ascribed to the several causes (though not alike) and in some sort to the conditions, especially me thinks they that would have faith to be the instrument of justification, should not deny that we are properly justified by faith as by an instrument. For it is as proper a speech to say [our hands or our teeth feed us,] as to say [our meat feedeth us.] I shall not have need to speak much to this passage, because Mr. Baxter hath before said and I have answered to the greatest part of it in examining his 23. Thes. with the explication thereof. Here as there I shall defend against him, that it is not faith as it is righteousness, but Christ's righteousness by which we are said to be justified. The first reason which he brings to evince the contradictory and contrary conclusion, hath been there examined, and I will not here actum agere. To the second, 1. He should have quoted that Apocryphal Scripture which saith, He that believeth shall be justified (as if he were not already justified:) I find it not in the Canonical. 2. Those Scriptures which say we are justified by faith, say not that we are justified by it as it is our righteousness, or any part of our justifying righteousness; and those that say it is imputed to us (as Mr. Baxter will have it) for righteousness, have been sufficiently spoken to under Thesis 23. And by the way Mr. Baxter is not ignorant that the original text may be more properly rendered unto or to righteousness then for righteousness, and that the old translation and most of our Protestant Divines so render it, neither have I met with any one that declares his dislike of that version. And from the text so read what Mr. Baxter can suck out to establish the righteousness of faith not as the same but as a collateral with the righteousness of Christ's satisfaction to justification, I understand not. 3. To his Only, only, and only, I answer, 1 That it is not the first time that Mr. Baxter hath taken the boldness to teach the holy Ghost to speak properly and fully. 2 When the holy Ghost saith, That the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin, 1 Joh. 1. 7. that whosoever is washed [therein] needs no other washing, Joh. 13. 10. that he is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, Joh. 1. 29. that by his one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified, by taking away their sins and iniquities, Heb. 10. 14, 17. That he is made of God righteousness to us, 1 Cor. 1. 30. that he was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5. 21. That he is all in all, Col. 3. 11. Will Mr. Baxter elude all these and a whole century more of the like Scriptures with this evasion; yea Christ hath done, and is all this in part to us, leaving the other part of righteousness not perfected by him to be supplied by faith his collateral to our justification? Or when it is said, There is salvation in no other, nor any name else given us under heaven by which we may be saved besides Christ, Act. 4. 12. and the Apostle professeth it his whole labour to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness which is of the Law, but the righteousness which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith; so making Christ put on for righteousness, the righteousness which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith, not several kinds of righteousness, but one and the same righteousness which he opposeth there to his own inherent righteousness which he excludeth: are not these speeches equipollent to that which Mr. Baxter requireth, the Christ only, or the righteousness of Christ only? It is but a flourish wherewith he concludes this argument, about the constant express phrase of Scripture. For let him either produce one Scripture that affirmeth faith by any inherent righteousness in itself, or of her own conveyed into us to contribute somewhat to our Justification, or else confess his error to be derived from the scribble of Bellarmine, Socixus, Grotius, and Arminius, where this Doctrine is to be found, and not from the Scriptures of God's inspiration that are wholly against it. To his third reason I can say nothing because I understand nothing of his meaning therein; or if I do understand it, nothing needs to be said, because it hath nothing for himself or against us. But to that which he adds of his thinking. 1. Let him say whether by them that (he saith) would have faith to be the instrument, etc. he doth not mean all the Protestant Churches, both Lutherans and Zwinglians or Calvinists, as they are by some distinguished: whether the best that have opposed them herein have not been the Arminians, and from what Rome or Hell these first drank in their opinion, he is not ignorant having fished in the same pools after them. 2. When he thinks these should not deny that we are properly justified by faith as an instrument: I answer, 1 If they will not deny it, will Mr. Baxter with them confess it? 2 The word [properly] is vox aequivoca; a phrase may be said to be proper, as it is enough fit and proportioned to declare the meaning of the speaker, and in this sense we deny not that faith as an instrument subservient to the principal efficient, doth so properly as an instrument can, justify us in ourselves or to our own consciences. Again, it may be said to be proper in opposition to a tropical way of speaking: and in this sense we cannot say that faith doth so properly justify, specially in that extent wherein Mr. Baxter and his Masters will have it to justify, without a trope in the phrase of speaking, which I would show if it were pertinent to the question. I shall spare to transcribe at large his next section which he puts under n. 4. of his Explication. Because if he meant singly and precisely as he speaks, all might be granted in a positive sense without prejudice to our cause or advantage to his; viz. that faith doth directly and properly justify in and to themselves those that were before justified in Christ, as it is (in a good sense) the condition of the new Covenant, and a means or instrument of Gods stamping by his commandment and promise to the attainment of this justification. For this denyeth not that truth which before he kicked at, that faith doth so justify also in regard of that useful and essential property which it hath above all other gifts of grace, to be instrumental to apprehend Christ for righteousness. Nay even for this cause hath God either ordained and commanded faith to this end, because it hath this property, or because he hath ordained and given to it this property, therefore he not only requireth but also concurreth with it to bless 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 less direct or proper to the end, or whether they are coordinates' thereunto, I fear may proceed more from a heady rashness then from the modesty of Christian wisdom; especially because I take justifying faith to be more than a natural or moral 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 show in some particulars what mental 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 justified. 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) believers shall not be justified 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 less Orthodox in the point of Justification than Luther or Paul himself: that he explodes all works, all inherent righteousness 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 itself all good works to justification; attributes no more to faith then he doth to any other part of our inherent righteousness, nor any thing to faith itself as useful to justify, but as it is our whole inherent righteousness, 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 pass without examination. I come now to the fift and last Section of his Explication, pag. 230. B. 5. That faiths receiving Christ and his righteousness is the remote and secondary and not the formal reason why it justifyeth, appeareth thus. We find verified in Mr. Baxter that of the Poet, Dolus an virtus quis in host requirat? having professed open war against the doctrine of all the Protestant Churches, yea of the Gospel of Christ, he manageth it more by stratagems then by valour. We find 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 formal, 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 justify by virtue received from Christ its object, or else by its own virtue, as it is a good work, or as it is an act of righteousness performed in obedience to God's commandment? That which they maintain is that faith justifyeth by virtue 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 find in him so much fraud and so little of sincerity. It is not Christ's but Antichrists kingdom 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 needless terms of art; his poor flock of Kederminster, for whom he affirms himself to have compiled this work, are in all probability as well acquainted with the formal 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 air 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 believed 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 show 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 God's 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 effectual Oratory of his precious blood making intercession for us, Rom. 8. 34. so the supposition of Mr. Baxter extends no further than this, if without any Covenant promise of Justification by Faith in Christ, could they by believing in him have had the being and comfort of Justification within their own souls? Unless 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 less firm before God in Christ. But now by the promise of the New Covenant, through Faith they have the sweetness 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 virtue 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 King's stamp which maketh it curraut for justifying. If God had seen it meet to have stamped any thing else, it would have passed currently. We cannot so suppose, for one absurd supposition being granted a thousand more will follow after: Mr. Baxter gins too low in his suppositions. Let him here advance a stair higher with us, and suppose first a truth, before he supposeth that which is false and impossible in respect of that truth that must necessarily be presupposed: viz. That God before his Covenanting with man had decreed within himself (Salva Justitia, without obscuring at all his Justice) to make known on the vessels of mercy (i. e. in justifying and saving miserable sinners whom he had before prepared to glory) the riches of his glory, i. e. the praise of the glory of grace, Rom. 9 23. Ephes. 1. 6. that himself and his free grace should be all, and man nothing to his justification and salvation; and to the end that his justice might appear still in all its lustre, had taken full satisfaction from his own Son: here to manifest the freeness of his grace, the all to our happiness residing in his mere mercy, and the nothing in ourselves, I see not what other condition or means besides faith God could have put, out of which man's proud heart would not have arrogated something to himself to have swollen therewith, and so the glory of God's grace, should have been obscured. Or doth Mr. Baxter see farther than the Apostle? He tells us, It is of Faith that it might be by Grace, Rom. 4. 16. If by other means it might have been, and yet by grace there would be a notable flaw in the Apostles arguing, which limits it to faith that it might be of grace. To the same purpose are those many Scriptures in which he affirms it to be by faith that all man's boasting may be excluded, implying that if it had not been only by faith, there would have been something of man in it clouding the glory of God's grace, and giving to man occasion of boasting that there is something of his own to his justification, and so to glory partly in himself and not wholly in the Lord. So Mr. baxter's arguing, If God had put some other condition, no doubt it would have justified; is one and the same with this; If God had acted against his own purpose, and betrayed the glory of his Grace, no doubt it had been betrayed. But the former supposition is no less absurd than the latter. And almost so much at the full, Mr. Baxter, either to toll on his Reader into more snares which afterward he layeth, by his magnificent eulogies of God's grace, or from the throws and checks of an accusing conscience; speaketh in the following part of this Section. Yet so that he cannot cease from the interweaving of man's works with God's grace unto Justification: which because he doth more fully and grossly in the following part of this Tractate, I shall here forbear to anticipate what there is to be said by way of answer to him. The next Position is of near cognation with this; his words are these: B. Thesis 58. The ground of this is; because Christ's righteousness doth not justify us properly and formally because we believe or receive it; but because it is ours in Law, by divine donation or imputation. This is plain in itself, and in that which is said before. How this is plain in that which is said before, we have before examined; how it is plain in itself we are here to examine. To omit how after Mr. Baxters' Principles the righteousness of Christ can be said to be ours by divine donation and imputation, when he holds it not otherwise by God's donation ours, than the wild Goose is his: his, if he can catch her, and as long as he can hold her: so his as it is every ones else as well as his if they can take and hold her. For she is the world's Goose, and proper to no one before one hath taken her, and no longer that one's then while he holds her, if he let her go she is the world's Goose again. If Mr. baxter's righteousness be established upon such a law, donation, and imputation, let it be his, not mine, I shall not contend with him for a share in it, because the Lord offers me a righteousness of a better Covenant established upon better promises, Heb. 8. 6. But to let this pass; When M. Baxter saith the ground of this is; what meaneth he by this? That no doubt that went before in the former Position. But in it are many things, and which of them is plain upon this ground in his meaning I cannot easily judge, because to my understanding no one of them is upon this ground plain. Nay upon this ground no man living is justified in this world. For it is not ours, saith he, by believing and receiving it, but by divine donation; And this donation he will not have to be confirmed, until all the conditions be completed, and that is not until the world be ended. But to give my best conjecture of his meaning, I think he will be understood that the two last clauses of his former Thesis are plain upon this ground, viz. 1. That Faith doth justify▪ properly as a condition, etc. 2. Improperly as it doth receive Christ. The ground saith he is this, because, etc. Here by the way we may take notice of the man's subtlety and sophistry, in shifting from one term of Art to another, Thes. 57 he tells us that faith doth [properly] justify thus, and [improperly] thus; but in the Explication, he fosteth in the word formally and formal, pag. 230, 231. and here Thes. 58. puts both together, properly and formally, as if there were no other proper cause and reason but the formal cause and reason of a thing, and that every proper cause were the formal cause. And thus whatsoeverr Scripture saith illiterately, Christ himself after Mr. baxter's proper language, should not be a proper cause of our justification. And who sees not the end of this his project? If he be put to it, he lays a ground for the diverting of the whole dispute from the Scriptures, unto Philosophy, Logic, and the Metaphysics, where there may be a cavil about the nature of the formal cause, so long until both sides be out of breath, and in the end both parties be as wise to Justification as in the beginning. This is the calamity of the Church in these times, that they which hold themselves the chief Doctors and eminent lights thereof, darken every sacred truth with the mist of humane Learning cast upon it, in stead of clearing it to the comprehension of God's babes and sucklings. No marvel then if the justice of God hath stirred up among us so many Earthborn and Earth-bred Meteors, persons of no learning, (Ranters and Enthusiasts I mean) like Balaams' Ass to rebuke the madness of these Prophets. And doubtless either by these or some other the Lord will prevail against them, if they shall not cease to pervert with Elymas the plain ways of God. Now to the matter itself about which his sophistry hath been occupant. In these two Positions, viz and 57, & 58. Mr. Baxter's aim is at two assertions of the Protestants to smite them through, viz. the instrumentality of Faith, and the virtue which it deriveth from Christ's it object, to justify and to set up his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere or act of believing under the name of a condition of the New Covenant without any respect of instrumentality that it hath to apprehend Christ, or any virtue that it receives from Christ apprehended to justify. 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 justify; where by receiving he shaketh and shifts off the instrumentality of faith, and by Christ the virtue of faith's object, into a remote and dark corner as not working at all or very obscurely in our justification. But his act of believing he exalteth as the proper and formal 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, etc. that could not be instruments of receiving Christ, nor have Christ their object to draw virtue 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 virtue, by their own act have justified? So faith being the condition of the new Covenant doth by its act justify. So argued he under Thes. 57 But doubting of the validity of his reasons there either to weaken ours, or to establish his own assertion, he adds this Thesis more fully to confirm what he had there endeavoured. 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 strengthening of his tenant. For be it that Christ's righteousness 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, etc. doth properly justify? He must show 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 God's donation or giving, or our believing or receiving of Christ's righteousness as if they could not both consist together in justifying us, at least properly. Then it seems we are properly justified by the donation of Christ without his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or act of faith. Yea then are we properly and formally justified in Christ before we yet believed: For he will not deny that God's 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 Tenor, Faith doth not justify us either as an instrument, or by virtue of Christ; or Christ's righteousness its object; because it doth not justify us as an instrument or by virtue of its object. Who can shake his buildings that found'st them on such firm 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 justify 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 Christ's righteousness doth not properly justify us because we believe or receive it, but because it is ours in Law by God's imputation or donation, than faith doth not justify as an instrument or by virtue 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 believing and receiving, etc. And Mr. Baxter brings not so much as a gry to prove it. And as to the latter member, God's donation, etc. I deny the consequent of the Major, Though Christ's righteousness justify us properly, because it is ours in Law by God's donation or imputation, yet it follows not that either faith as an act or condition doth so of itself justify, or that it doth not justify as an instrument and by virtue 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 God's donation to Israel; so also was the Sovereign 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 virtue issued from it to heal. So was the son of man lifted up with virtue in him to heal. Christ with this virtue is of God's 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 virtue or righteousness in him comes from him upon us to justification. It is no more the act of faith that of itself because a condition (if indeed a condition) doth it, than the act of the eye▪ cured the wounded without virtue drawn by it from its object. 2. From the cure of the woman which had the bloody issue, Mark 5. 25. it will not be denied that the virtue by which she was healed was of divine donation, yet it was brought home to her not by the instrumental service of her hand touching Christ's 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 virtue from Christ its object, Jesus perceived that virtue had gone out of him, verse 34. So it was not the virtue of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or act of believing, but of Christ believed on, which wrought the cure: such are the operations of Christ and faith in the cure of the soul as here in the cure of the body. 3. From 1 G●r. 30. 31. Christ is of God made unto us Righteousness, viz. to Justification, That he which glorieth may glory in the Lord. God hath made him righteousness, but how to us, or our righteousness that it may be of his donation to us? Mr. Baxter must answer, by faith, else farewell his condition; but if by the act of faith as our righteousness in fulfilling ●he condition, or otherwise then an instrument to apprehend the righteousness of Christ to justification, then have we somewhat of our own righteousness wherein to glory, all would not be the Lords that we might glory in him alone. 4. To this I might add also the phrase which the Apostle useth, that we are justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by faith, through faith, as an instrument; and never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for our faith, or upon our faith as for a cause or upon a condition fulfilled, as some of our Divines have well observed. I proceed to the next position. B. Thesis 59 Justification is not a Momentaneous act, begun and ended immediately upon our believing, but a continued act; which though it be in its kind complete from the first ' yet it is still in doing till the final justification in the judgement day. All this together with most of the Explication may be granted as being capable of an Orthodox sense. 1. That justification as an act immanent in God is such as is here described is confessed. But Mr. Baxter is deaf in this ear. 2. That our justification in Christ is such (in some sense) we also grant, but neither will he listen to this. 3. Therefore if he would take off all ambiguity of his words, and declare his sense to be the same with the sound, we would grant to him also that such is our personal justification in ourselves, which he owneth only for justification. For as it is an act of God it is never interrupted or dissolved till the day of judgement, though as it is taken Passively, there may be many interruptions of our sense and apprehension of it. But his Thesis is faced like Janus, looks two ways at once, is set forth in such words as will more properly admit of an evil than a good sense. And that he speaks them after the Remonstrant, not the Protestant dialect, is too probable though not infallibly evident, from these reasons, to be meant in an evil sense. 1. Because he delivers it in the Arminian phrase. For so his St. Episcopius, Justificatio est actus continuus qui est Episcop. Disp. 22. Thes. 12. de Justif. & durat, quamdiu durat ipsius conditionis requisitae praesentia, interrumpitur vero semper & toties quoties actus praestantur ejusm●di qui cum vera fide & conscientia bona consistere nequeunt, i. e. Justification is a continued act which is and dureth as long as the presence of its requisite condition continueth, but is interrupted so often as such acts are done which cannot consist with true faith and a good conscience. To the continuance of justification Mr. Baxter here speaketh the same thing with him, and though as to the interruption of it he speaks here as out of a cloud, yet compare with this his 45. Thesis and you will have the whole of Episcopius from the pen of Mr. Baxter. 2. Because his words do seem here to suppose a Magis & minus in its active acceptation or sense. It is not begun and ended immediately, saith he, but is still in doing [in a way of perfecting] until the judgement day. 3. His restriction added to the completeness or perfection thereof at the first. It is complete at first, saith he but in its kind, which restriction makes the completeness of justification incomplete, and its perfection imperfect till the day of judgement, as himself hath expressed himself before Thesis' 41. These things from the position itself. From the explication will follow. 4. The heartless and comfortless proof that he brings to prove the continuance of this justifying act, making it to reach only to the Genera singulorum, not to the singula generum: to such a kind of men, not to any singular man, or individual person upon earth: to Believers, but not to this or that believer. So that the holiest Saint if at any time his faith in some temptation faint, and cannot be brought to sensible acting, is left destitute of all comfort from the Gospel or new Covenant after Mr. Baxters' principles. It justifieth only so long as faith actually receiveth Christ; if faith through infirmity cease to act, he gives the distressed soul no comfort that God continueth to justify. 5. From the first use of instruction which he draweth from this position. This showeth us (saith he) in the first place, with what limitation to receive the assertion of our Divines, that remission and justification, are simul and semel, performed: his meaning is, that we must understand them in this assertion to deal as Mr. Baxter is wont, viz. to say one thing and mean another. Not to think as they speak, but to equivocate and retain a mental reservation within themselves. That our justification is begun and perfected both at once and together, but all this is but suo genere, in its kind; that is, conditionally, even as the Usurer frankly and freely forgave to his debtor all that he owed him, but with this limitation that if he were not paid the whole debt to day, he would cast him in prison to morrow there to lie until he should pay the whole forfeiture. But because Mr. Baxter is disposed here to lisp and not to speak aloud and plain his mind, we shall leave him to his humour, and proceed to hearken to him where he speaketh plainly and without parables. Mr. Baxters APHORISMS EXORIZED AND ANTHORIZED: OR, An Examination of, and Answer to, a Book written by Mr. Rich. Baxter Teacher of the Church at Kederminster in Worcestershire; ENTITLED, Aphorisms of Justification. THE SECOND PART. By JOHN CRANDON an unworthy Minister of the Gospel of CHRIST at Fawley in Hantshire. LONDON, Printed by E. C. 1654. Mr. Baxters APHORISMS Exorized and Anthorized: OR, An Examination of, and Answer to, a Book written by Mr. Rich. Baxter Teacher of the Church at Kederminster in Worcestershire; ENTITLED, Aphorisms of Justification. THE SECOND PART. CHAP. I. The following Doctrine of Mr. Baxters' Book reduced to some few heads, and the question between him and the Protestants about Justification by works stated. HItherto we have been busied about the view of Mr. Baxters' swelling, which the more and the farther we gazed on, the more it increased, and after a long expectation of an issue, at length the imposthumated matter breaks out in the sight of all men, to the offence of all spiritualised men, Justification by works. This is the declared and professed Subject of all the following part of this Treatise, what before he did but hint and whisper in a kind of darkness, now he preacheth on the top of the house, proclaiming it as the sole Soulsaving doctrine, canonising as Saints the Papists for the constant holding forth of it, and Anathematising all the Protestants Churches as Apostatical for departing from it, as by examining what follows in this his Tractate will appear. For the avoiding of confusion, and prevention of a voluminous prolixity, into which I see myself 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 confirm 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 Christ's mediation; or from all tainture of Popery, Socinianism, or other heresies. Within this Triangle I conceive the whole fabric of his doctrine of works 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 near as may fitly be done) transcribe from him in his own words: thus, 1 The bare act of believing is not the only condition of the new Covenant but several 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, etc. must not be confounded with those of Justification; if it were granted him, that the Gospel 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 Gospel, subjection, consent, acceptance, cordial covenanting, self-resigning, esteeming and preferring Christ before all, loving him above all, sincerity, perseverance, affiance, sincere obedience, and works of love, serious, painful and constant use of God's ordinances; hearing, praying, meditating; in a word, all good works, i. e. all the works of Righteousness, holiness, mercy, etc. which the Law requireth: [yet with this proviso that all these legal works must be called not our Legal but our Gospel's Righteousness.] 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 believing in Christ, or to any other inseparable concomitant of Faith, you must understand it Caeteris paribus, viz. that your knowledge, repentance, obedience, good works, etc. are not an inch behind your faith; or in sensu composito, that it is a compounded Faith, hath all other virtues 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 denial extremely wound, if not wholly subvert his cause, and yield it to us. 4 It is not the habit of these virtues 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 itself (much more implieth it of the other virtues) that it is the act of faith alone, as it is our act or work that justifyeth, a●d consequentially that we are justified wholly by works, viz. as the alone condition or causa sine qua non. 5 That some of these justifying virtues or works, are antecedaneous to, or foregoing preparatives of, some integral parts, some proper, essential, formal acts, some differential and essential▪ 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 itself 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 harshness 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 God's grace, etc. 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 moral virtues, and of all insured 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 justified. 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 virtue, 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. Baxter's 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 darkness, 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 Scripture may be judge: and that they will put by no one Text to that end produced, till they can give some other commodious, and not forced interpretation. We gladly accept this rule of dispute, and pronounce all other rules in Questions of this kind to be irregular. Yet have we somewhat to say to the proposer of it. 1 Why hath he in the former part of this Tractate so much wandered from the rule of Scripture as insufficient or improper to try his opinions, and make use (in stead of it) of so much exotic learning, the Jesuits sophistry, and Socinus his right reason, as if the Scripture were not, but these were to be attended on as proper Judges in such matters? 2 When all the Scriptures which he here bringeth to prove a cooperation of works with faith to justification (scarce any one of them excepted, as I undertake if he call me to it to show) have been alleged by the Monks and Jesuits against us, and been answered over and over a hundred times by our Divines; why doth he here urge them as Scriptures of his own collection, and require an interpretation to be given to them that might manifest they hold not forth Justification by works? how doth he abase the Ministers his readers, for whose seducing he hath compiled this Book, by imprinting within himself a supposition, that their Libraries consist only of Aristotle and Schibler, and that they are as ignorant of the controversy between the Papists and us, as they were born? Else if he supposed they had read such controversies, he would not have called for an interpretation of these Scriptures as now first alleged by himself. Simplicity in handling the truths of Christ is necessary to declare the heart upright. If Mr. Baxter had possessed such a jewel within his bosom, he would have exploded all tricks of subtlety and craft with an Anathema Maranatha; and told us plainly, these Scriptures have been urged by the Papists for their justification by works, that the Protestants have said somewhat to elude the force of such Scriptures by forced interpretations of them, but against every interpretation of every such Scripture, he thus and thus excepteth, and desireth these exceptions of his to be answered, else he cannot be convinced but that works cooperate with faith to Justification. But in the midst of a room that is hung with a thousand candles and torches, to cry out, O that some one would give me one spark of light in this dark dungeon! this is no less than to pronounce all save himself within the room blind, that in the midst of light they see nothing. Or otherwise to pronounce all these lights darkness in comparison of his more shining light. Let not Mr. Baxter so contemn all the Antipapisticall worthies as smoking snuffs in comparison of his beams; nor think all his yoak-fellowes in the Ministry at the present to be such glow-worms and slimy sots, that being thus spitted with his base▪ esteem of them, they should be insensible of it, and go away rejoicing, as sprinkled with his holy water. 3 Why doth he only quote Scriptures and bring for himself and against us only Arithmetical figures and cyphers, without the words of those Scriptures, and telling us how they make for him & against us? would he have us to understand that he means to argue from them no otherwise then the Priests and Jesuits have done before him? we might then answer all in a word by sending him to those precious servants of Christ who have answered the Argumentations of these Priests and Jesuits from these Scriptures. Or is it to straighten us with a doubtfulness, what to answer, because we know not how he will argue from these Scriptures? and to reserve to himself an advantage to except against all our answers, that we have not spoken to the purpose, he meant not so, but thus and thus to have argued from these Testimonies. What better answer to such a roving disputer, then to leave him roving, until he will cease from circling, and fall upon some point wherein he will declare himself that he would be answered? This I should do, had it been my only purpose to have answered Mr. Baxter; but because my aim was and is least to grapple with him, (from whom I expect nothing better but many things worse, after all wiser men's endeavours than mine, [and could show reason for it]) but chief to preserve the single hearted Christians free from his infection; I shall not wholly pass by, without examination, these Scriptures, that none by the misunderstanding of Scriptures may be carried into anti-scriptural errors. 4 But how seasonable is the Caution that he gives us, to take heed of giving any uncommodious or forced interpretation to those Scriptures which the Papists, and after them the Socinians have urged for their justification by works? As if all our Divines and Martyrs for Christ in these last 200. years have abused the Seriptures with false interpretations, and so have been Apostates from Christ in departing from Rome: and that the Jesuits and Socinians have been the only sincere interpreters of Scriptures: when contrariwise all that have but looked over the pale into their writings, find nothing so sacred, no Scripture so plain which they do not violate and distort with their Sophistical cavillations. That Hell itself hath in no age vomited out any brood of heretics that can parallel these in audacious abuse and violation of Scriptures; yet while Mr. Baxter fights with their Arguments and maintains their assertions, he calls upon us, Take heed, abuse not Scriptures. 5 Why doth he not produce first, (seeing he professeth himself a Protestant and Anti-papist) those manifold and clear Scriptures which all the Protestant Churches allege for stablishing of justification by faith alone, and the expelling of works from having any part with faith in this work, and answer their Arguments drawn from such Scriptures; before he brings in the Scriptures which the Jesuits have mu●●ered up against their assertion? At lest why doth he not declare as well what the Protestants have to say for themselves, as what the Papists have to say against them, that both sides may be heard? But to make a roar on the one side, and to exhibit the other party as mute as fishes, having nothing to say, or reason to give for their own Religion, nor to gainsay the adversaries in opposing it; is this fair and Christian dealing? Thus to stifle our cause, or rather the cause of Christ in darkness, and to imprison the light by which we have walked from the time of Luther until this day, what doth it argue in him less than what Christ tells us, He that doth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds which are evil should be reproved? Joh. 3. 20. These things thus premised, let us come now to the Scripture, making it the Judge and touchstone in this Controversy: But so, as that it shall be requisite for me to supply what Mr. Baxter hath left untouched, what Scriptures our Divines bring to prove justification to be only by faith, and to deny all cooperation of works therein. And herein I shall put limits to myself not letting out all that they produce, (for so should I offend with immoderate length) but some particulars, that the weakest reader may see, what Mr. Baxter would not give him to see, that our Churches are not destitute of strong grounds for the bearing up of their faith and assertions. And when this is done, I shall descend to examine the force of those Scriptures quoted by Mr. Baxter, to see whether they make for him, and against us. I shall begin from the reasoning of the Apostle Rom. 3. 20. etc. having before proved both the Jews by and under the Law, and the Gentiles without the Law, to be guilty before God; he concludes, Therefore by the deeds of the Law, there shall no flesh be justified, etc. and ver. 21. The righteousness of God [viz. to justification] is manifested without the Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (to wit, a righteousness which the Law is ignorant of, the righteousness or life which is by faith. From this righteousness the tenor of the Law or legal Covenant turns aside, telling us, he that doth them shall live in them, Gal. 3. 11, 12.) ver. 22. Even the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe. Lo here it is denied to be by the most righteous works which the most perfect Law of God himself prescribeth, and attained by faith only, ver. 24. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is by Jesus Christ, what can be said more fully? It shall not be impertinent to annote briefly out of Zanchy, what he hath upon Hier. zanch De natura Dei Lib. 4. Cap. 2. Th. 2. this verse more largely: when the Apostle saith we are justified by his grace, Per Gratiam intelligit gratuitum Dei favorem, omnibus nostris exclusis, sive naturalibus, sive supernaturalibus dignitatibus, saith he; i. e. by Grace the Apostle meaneth the free love or favour of God, excluding all parts and pieces of our worth both natural and supernatural: and addeth, that the Apostle still opposeth grace to all our works, and to all our inward virtues wrought in us by the holy Ghost himself, [as well as to our legal and moral righteousness] yea to faith itself as it is a work, as is manifest to every one that hath with any consideration read this Epistle. Therefore saith he, he excludeth all works, that he may conclude our Justification to be by grace alone. Yea more, the Apostle (saith he) not contented to say we are justified by grace, addeth thereto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his grace, that is, by the grace which is in God, not by any gift of grace infused by him into ourselves, that it might be wholly of God and not of ourselves at all in the least part. Yea not contented with all this he addeth freely, to notify that there is not required any work or qualification on our part to put us into the possession thereof, for so it should not be wholly by the free and naked favour of God, as he terms it. And lastly he addeth by the redemption which is by Jesus Christ, by this work of Christ excluding all ours; hitherto that profound Zanchius. Neither cannot it be freely by the redemption of Christ, if our qualifications and conditions be brought to interest us to it, for so should we be in some kind purchasers and not receive it freely. The Apostle proceeds, ver. 25. Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, etc. The whole thing of God's ordination to make the redemption, propitiation and remission of sins which is by Christ, actually ours to our comfort, is here assigned to be saith in his blood, and not any foregoing, concomitant, or subsequent virtue or duty of ours annexed to it; and all to declare his righteousness. Ver. 26. His righteousness (he saith again) that he may be just and the justifyer of him that believeth in Jesus. If Mr. baxter's fancy stand of the Legal righteousness in Christ, and the Evangelicall righteousness in us; the Apostles assignation of the end of Gods justifying us by Christ should be maimed. For he should have said, To declare, to declare I say his righteousness, and our righteousness, that he might be just and a justifyer, and we might be just and justifyers of ourselves. And then we are to expunge the next verse, Where is boasting then? it is excluded; by what law? of works? nay but by the law of faith. For boasting should not be at all excluded, if our works should bear a part with faith in justifying: so should we have matter of glorying in ourselves still. How full is the Apostle here in the confirmation of Justification by faith without works? had he seen what the Papists and Mr. Baxter over their shoulders would have objected against it, he could not have spoken more punctually. Yet as I know what the Papists say for themselves, so I am not ignorant what Mr. Baxter will except for himself. But I reserve the Examination thereof for another place where he goeth about to purge his doctrine from all contrariety that it hath to the doctrine of the Apostle, and from any derogation from the Grace of God. A second Testimony or authority from Scripture we may draw from Rom. 4. 1, etc. I shall be short in it. The Apostle here denies, 1 Our father Abraham the father of the faithful himself to have been justified by works, for than he should have whereof to glory, ver. 2, 3. But as Abraham was, so all the faithful are justified by faith without works; or to render the words of the Text, By faith and not by works. Here Mr. Baxter hath no evasion, as in the former Chapter, viz. that the works of the Law only are denied, for Abraham was under the promise, not under the Law, nether was the Law then given; and the promise, under which he was, was without all condition of works; so that the Apostle here excludeth works indefinitely: I mean not good and evil works, for no man ever brought evil works as evil to be thereby justified. But good works, whether Legal or Evangelicall, all acts and deeds both of natural and infused righteousness and holiness. 2 In affirming of him that worketh, i. e. that seeketh justification by works, that the reward is reckoned of debt to him, that he requires it as due, and shall not receive it if it be not found due in Justice; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifyeth the ungodly, his faith is imputed to righteousness, i. e. as hath been already evinced, Christ by faith apprehended is of the free grace of God made righteousness to him. When Mr. Baxter therefore claps his bundle of works upon the shoulders of faith to officiate with it to justification, he teacheth us to reject the grace of God, and to exact at God's hands both the righteousness 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 works peep up with faith to justify in any degree, faith is destroyed, grace rejected; works alone stand pleading for justification and salvation at the bar of God's 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 righteousness of justification to be a righteousness without works, a blessedness 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 God's 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 believers, he addeth, that the promise might be sure to all the seed etc. which is of the faith of Abraham: as before he had said, that he might be the father of all them that believe, that righteousness might be imputed to them also: even to them which walk 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 believe in him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, ver. 24. In all which places though faith and believing 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 completely proving the same. The whole stream of the Gospel runs this way; We that are Jews by nature [in covenant with God] and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law, etc. Gal. 2. 15, 16. By the position of faith works are here deposed. By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, 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 showeth mercy, Rom. 9 16. Not by works of righteousness 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 believe 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. Believe 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, than 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 God's righteousness and our righteousness, Rom. 10. 3. The righteousness of faith and the righteousness of works, Rom. 9 30, 31, 32. Phil. 3. 9, 10. and the consenting harmony of Scriptures that so oppose Law and Gospel, faith and works, God's grace and man's righteousness, Moses and Christ, the righteousness which is by promise, and that which consists in doing, God's 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 cannot have any place in or to our Justification, because righteousness and life are merely 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 righteousness of works, Paul knew nothing by himself, wherein he was not perfectly sincere, and sincerely perfect, yet deems not himself to be thereby justified 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, than had man somewhat at least, whereof to glory before God; but he hath nothing whereof to glory, therefore etc. Rom. 4. 2. That it is by imputation wholly, therefore cannot be from any inherent good in ourselves, Rom. 4. 3, 4. That if flows wholly from faith's object or correlate, not at all from any virtue of faith as a qualification inherent in us: much less therefore from any other qualification or work of ours whatsoever. To which I might add their many other reasons proving that works cannot justify. 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 blessedness, but rejecting them that are of works to the curse, Gal. 3. 7, 8, 9, 10. Yea by the same absolute and unconditional 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, imforming and giving life and virtue to it; an act apprehending Christ as its object in whom all its virtue lieth; the cloud or darkness in which Christ dwelleth, as God was formerly in a cloud or darkness upon mount Sinai and in the Temple: or as all our Divines say, the hand by which we receive Christ made of God righteousness 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 righteousness 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 rend. In the Covenant of grace there is nothing smelling of a Simoniacal 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 natural 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 righteousness 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 righteousness 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 go before such union and communion, declaring not producing the sin and condemnation which are from Adam, or the righteousness 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 justify or save: For we are God's 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 God's end in saving or justifying us from sin. But the means do always 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 enabled to do good works. That God hath ordained before that we should walk in them being saved or justified, not that we should be saved or justified by them. That the righteousness of God [by which we are justified] 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 expressly 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 believing is not the only condition of the New Covenant; but several 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 believing, 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 believing as either a bare or a clothed act or work) than he teacheth the same doctrine for which the Apostle anathematised 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 Gospel. For neither did they deny faith, but Mr. baxter's bare faith, faith without works to be effectual to justification. Against this assertion common to him and them, if there were no other Scriptures contradicting, but what I have alleged, no arguments brought by our Divines to subvert it, and to establish the contrary doctrine, but what have been here expressed and implied; (all which are scarce a drop of their full bucket) yet doth Mr. Baxter declare any finglenesse of heart, or sincere aim to advance the glory and truth of God, in suppressing all this and all the rest in silence, so to beguile his more Logical than Theological readers (whom he knows to be more acquainted with Sophistry than Divinity, with exotic scribble then Canonical Scriptures) with an opinion that the stream of Scriptures run 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 lenify his self-arrogating assertion. In the interim to manifest the simplicity of our gudgeons that are apt to swallow the most portentous errors if offered to them involved in fine terms of logical notions, among whom some that erewhile did prosecute with bell, 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 enriched themselves with the spoils 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 kiss the lips of Mr. Baxter which hath blessed with plausible words the doctrine which before they detested as cursed; and withal to show how degenerate these are from our ancient worthies, who as Champions of Christ have defended this article of justification against the whole rabble of Antichrist; I shall declare how little difference they were wont to put beteen merits and conditions, that though they held somewhat to differ in the sound, yet held them to be one in substance, and still concluded against the Papists that there is no place for works in the office of justification, either as merits or conditions thereof; but that when the Scripture saith we are justified without works, all works both of Law and Gospel, are excluded from being any way subservient to justification, either to the beginning or finishing thereof, either as meriting it or conditioning us for it. I shall mention only some few (lest I should seem to attribute much to the authority of men) yet so that these few speak out the mind and deliver the common judgement of all the rest. First, I shall produce that famous Martyrologist Mr. Fox, what he speaketh to this purpose in that book of his De Christo gratis justificante. Having alleged that testimony of the Apostle Rom. 4. 16. It is of faith that it might be of grace, to the end that the promise might be sure, etc. he addeth, Atqui quonam modo firma, nisi sit gratuita? Fox de Christo gratis. Justif. p. 127. aut quo modo gratuita, si quoquam modo ex operibus? i. e. But how is the promise sure, except it be free? or in what manner or respect free, if in any manner or respect it be of works? Thus he excludeth works in all respects either of causality or conditionality from justification. Again, Duo sunt promissionum genera, plurimum inter Idem ibid. p. 221. se diversa: alterum ad legem spectans certis adnexum conditionibus, alterum Evangelii proprium sine omni legis conditione gratuitum, i. e. There are two kinds of promises [made in Scripture] much differing either from other: the one legal, tied to certain conditions; the other Evangelicall or proper to the Gospel, free and without all conditions of the Law, not tied to any conditions as the legal promises are. Unto him I annex Dr. Fulk, in that Sermon of his which Mr. Fox translated out of English into Latin, and annexed to the end of that Tractate of his own . Isaac not Ishmael (saith he) had the inheritance: Quia nimirum unica ad hanc Dr. Fulkii concio. p. 13. haereditatem perveniendi via patet, per solam promissionem, solam misericordiam, solam fidem. Ishmael vero juxta carnem natus est, Isaac per promissionem. Haereditas autem sola nititur promissione; promissio vero nulla meritorum pactione, sed sola Dei misericordia perficitur, i. e. Because there is opened one only way to the inheritance, viz. by promise alone, mercy alone, faith alone. But Ishmael was born after the flesh, Isaac by promise. But the inheritance is grounded upon promise only, and the promise is accomplished without any paction [or condition of works] by the sole mercy of God. And a little after, Certissimos se haeredes sciant two, qui ad Isaaci exemplum ita se comparant, Id. ibid. p. 19 ut nullo alio ad eam titulo adnitantur, nisi sola Dei promissione; quique non nisi gratia solum ad eam adspirant: qui denique fide eam sola amplectuntur; non meritis, non operum studiis, viam ad eam affectant, i. e. Let them know themselves to be most certain heirs, who after the pattern of Isaac, do bend to it upon no other title but the alone promise of God: and who aspire to it by grace alone: and lastly, who embrace it by faith only, and affect not the way to it, by merits or any endeavours of their own works. And anon after, Quemadmodum legale justitiae foedus Id. ibid. p. 22. exquisitam omnibus modis innocentiam ita flagitat, ut nullam veniae spem largiatur delinquenti: ita Evangelica altera illa icta nobiscum pactio misericordiae, justitiam nobis gratuitam exhibet, nullamque exigit operum adjunctam conditionem, i. e. Even as the legal covenant of justice so requires of us an innocency in all respects exquisite, that it gives no hope of pardon to the offender: So that other Gospel's Covenant of mercy made with us, holds forth to us a free righteousness, and requires no additory condition of works. And in the next page he affirms the promise or covenant of the Gospel to be gratuitam omnibus nullisque impeditam Id. p. 23. conditionibus, free to all men, or from all, and entangled with no conditions. In the third place I annex Mr. Calvin that great light shining from the hand of Christ upon all the reformed Churches. Ind justificare dicitur fides (saith he) quod oblatam in Evangelio justitiam recipit & amplectitur; Quod autem per Evangelium dicitur offerri, eo excluditur omnis operum consideratio, i. e. Faith is hence said to justify because it receiveth and embraceth the righteousness offered in the Gospel. But in that it is said to be offered in the Gospel, hereby all consideration of works is excluded: and so works in all considerations either of causality or conditionality totally rejected. And having proved this from the difference which the Apostle putteth between the Law and the Gospel, Rom. 10. 3, & deinceps, he addeth, Videsne ut legis & Evangelii discrimen hoc faciat, Calv. Just. lib. 3. cap. 11. §. 17. quod illa operibus justitiam tribuat, hoc citra operum subsidium gratuitam largiatur? i. e. Ye see what difference he maketh between the Law and the Gospel, that the Law attributeth righteousness to works, the Gospel gives it free without the assistance of works. An excellent place (saith he) and that which will extricate us from many difficulties, if we understand, cam quae datur nobis per Evangelium justitiam legis conditionibus solutam esse, i. e. that the righteousness which is given us by the Gospel is cleared from the conditions of the Law. And then speaking of the opposition that the Apostle maketh between the Law and the Promise, Gal. 3. 18. It cannot be denied (saith he) that the Law hath also its Promises, and therefore there must be something in the Promises of the Gospel distinct from those of the Law, else could there be no such opposition; and concludes that the difference is this, that the Gospel's promises are free, ac sola Dei misericordia suffultae, quum legis promissiones ab operum conditione pendeant, i. e. and leaning upon the sole mercy of God, when the promises of the Law depend upon the condition of works. Likewise in the next Section from that of Gal. 3. 2. Hab. 2. 4. we are not justified by the Law, because the just shall live by faith, he addeth, that this argument cannot stand, unless it be consented unto in calculum fidei non venire opera, sed prorsus Idem ibid. §. 18. separanda esse, i. e. that works have nothing to do, in the borders of faith to justify, but must be wholly separated from it, and proceeds, that the Law and faith are here opposed. Therefore because works are required to the righteousness of the one, ergo sequitur ad hujus justitiam non requiri, it follows therefore that they are not required to the righteousness of the other; and further in the same place, Herein the Gospel differs from the Law, quod operibus non alligat justitiam, sed in sola dei misericordia collocat, that it binds not righteousness to works, but placeth it in the sole mercy of God. And, Fides sine operum adminiculo etc. Faith without any proppage of works resteth wholly upon mercy. And that wherewith he concludes this Section; That the righteousness by which we are justified is not ushered into our possession by works, nec operando nos eam consequi, sed vacuos accedere ut eam recipiamus, i. e. not that we attain it by working, but come with our hands empty of all works to be filled with it. With those agreeth Ph. Melanchthon, Evangelium offert remissionem per imputationem justitiae & vitam aeternam sine conditione legis aut operum nostrorum, i. e. the Gospel offers remission by the imputation of righteousness, and eternal life without condition of the Law or our works. Again, Vulgo imaginantur homines Evangelium esse promissionem conditionalem: at ab hac imaginatione abducendi▪ sunt, i. e. Men must be drawn off from that vulgar imagination that the Gospel is a conditional promise. And upon Rom. 4. Credens est salvus sola fide sine operibus; Neque nostra obedientia aut causa est aut conditio propter quam accepti sumus coram Deo, i. e. He that believeth is saved by faith only, without works; Neither is our obedience either a cause or a condition for which we are accepted before God. So Zanchius in Hos. 2. 21. Notandum est hanc esse simplicem & Evangelicam sine omni conditione promissionem: Hic nihil exigit Deus sed simpliciter promittit quod velit ipse, etc. This is a simple and Evangelicall promise [which is] without all condition; where God requireth nothing but simply promiseth what he pleaseth. As for Luther it is superfluous to cite him being every where so full both in the positing and confirming of this doctrine; let but his Sermon upon Tit. 3. 5. be read; he shall be there found calling it devilish doctrine, and the teachers thereof Hypocrites, who teach salvation to be far off (and not already attained) and to be sought for by works: concluding, Quicunque salutem non ex mera gratia per fidem ante omnia opera, etc. whosoever receives not salvation out of mere grace, by faith, before all works, he shall never be saved. I had a purpose to have annexed the Testimonies of some more of the Chieftains against Antichrist, but there is no need. Mr. Baxter for his part is not a Zizca, warreth not by other men's eyes, seethe and knoweth against whom he leveleth, is not ignorant that all, especially the more ancient and unsophisticated worthies of all the Churches, speak the same things and in the same tone with these against the Papists. Neither was it my purpose to deal at all in this passage with Mr. Baxter, but to show the vanity of some Pharisaical, Cabalistical, Sophistical, but little scriptural and Theological Rabbis, who with anti-evangelical spirits, (partly to set up again a Babel or Babylon of works, as a mount against Antinomianism, as they term the liberty and purity of the Gospel; and partly in a prostrate devotion wherewith they sacrifice to every Barbarism and Aphorism of exotic arts, to which they must submit though it be to the denying of the whole word of God, for fear they should not be reckoned Scholars:) are ready to gallop after Mr. baxter's Sophistical Lectures into the very Lateran of Rome, not knowing whence they run nor whither, whose company they leave, and whose they follow; such levity and giddiness hath taken their headpieces; that as having gotten a professed Protestant Divine to lead them into the worst sink of Popery, they run with head and shoulders, thronging who shall be foremost: so no doubt, if under the profession or misprision of a Jesuit Paul himself should descend to preach again and maintain the Doctrine of the Gospel in all its verity, power and purity, (and not in a dialectical phrase) they would throw it back in his face, as Jesuitical and devilish. For without such lightness and emptiness it were impossible for them to be so suddenly and easily whirled into an applause of an assertion so grossly and palpably Popish and Damning, by a peevish veneration of the learning and holiness of the Penman thereof. As if among the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees, and Popish Monks and Jesuits, there were not to be found in depth of Learning, and strictness of Legal righteousness many to whom this man may possibly serve, and but serve as a shadow. But it sufficeth here to have manifested that the Doctrine of Mr. Baxter is totally the same (in this particular) with the doctrine of the Jesuits. Or if in any respect we shall find it in what remains to be examined, not wholly the same; I doubt not but in every such difference which we shall meet with, to demonstrate that it is far worse than theirs. Or if it be not so, let him produce any one knowing man within any of the Protestant Churches (except he will make the Concision of Socinians and Arminians the true Protestants) that hath ever taught or held this doctrine. CHAP. III. The first Argument for Justification by Works, drawn from Scriptures examined. The Scriptures [cited] prepared to Mr. Baxters' hand by the Papists; and the Protestants answer to all the Arguments drawn from those Scriptures by the Papists, by him concealed; and the abhorrency of those Scriptures from the conclusion, which they are brought to prove, demonstrated. HAving in part supplied what Mr. Baxter would have buried here in silence, some of the Scriptures and Arguments from Scriptures which are brought by the Protestants to remove works from having concurrence with faith in the business of justifying; let us now examine the Scriptures which he quoteth to prove their cooperation with faith to justify. Here (as I said) we meet not with words but figures; partly therefore because he maintains the same assertion with the Papists, partly because the Scriptures which he quoteth are all such as the Papists have urged before him against us, so that he hath taken them up at the second hand, as they were collected to his hand by the Friars and Jesuits, himself not expressing how he would argue from those Scriptures; I conceive it is his desire that we should understand he means so to argue as his Masters have done before him. My labour therefore here will be the less, because the labour of so many before me hath been so full to manifest how alien and improper these Scriptures are to descend what these men would have defended by them. For why should I say again what so many worthies have said, until Mr. Baxter shall make it his task to prove some infirmity and insufficiency in that which they have spoken? All that Mr. Baxter here saith he doth almost wholly transcribe out of Bellarmine, giving us a compendium of what Bellarmine hath at large, and so Mr. Baxter here is but Bellarmine abridged. Let us lay them together, and 1 They jump in one common conclusion, That the bare act of believing, saith Mr. Baxter, faith alone, saith Bellarmine, Thes. 60. is not the only condition of Justification; but many other duties, etc. One of these duties according to Bellarmine first, and after Explicat. p. 234. him according to Mr. Baxter here, is Repentance. In this alone they differ that Mr. Baxter puts Repentance as the first, and Bellarmine puts it as the fourth in order after Faith, and concurring with it in the pardon of sin, and salvation. The Scriptures which Mr. Baxter allegeth for repentance are some from Bellarmine, some from Bellarmine's fellows. To this place I referred those Scriptures which Mr. Baxter quoted, Thes. 14. pa. 90. beginning with Mark. 1. 15. to prove repentance a collateral with faith. All which are here quoted over again saving these three, Act. 20. 21. Revel. 2. 5. & ver. 16. all which three Scriptures speak no less home to his purpose, then if he should thus argue: Kederminster is in Worcestershire, ergo, it supports Paul's Church at London. Act. 20. 21. The Apostle having affirmed himself to have dealt faithfully in preaching all that was profitable to them, to evince it, gathers into two heads the sum of all his doctrine which he had testified among them, viz. Repentance toward God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ: what is there in this to prove repentance a concomitant with faith to justify? is every profitable doctrine effectual to justify? A man's food and garments are both profitable to him, shall I therefore concude either that his garments do nourish him, or his meat cloth him? Revel. 2. 5, Christ admonisheth the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, To repent and do his first works, else will he come and remove his candlestick out of its place, except he repent: what is this to justification? will he say that the removing of the candlestick out of its place, was either the justifying of the unjustifyed, or unjustifying of him that was before justified? And Revel. 2. 16. Christ calls upon the Angel of the Church at Pergamos, Repent, or else I will come to thee quickly, and will fight against them [viz. the Balaamites and Nicholaitans mentioned in the two former verses] with the sword of my mouth. Surely Mr. Baxter must fly from the latter and rational meaning, and follow the precepts of Origen in fishing after the Spirit, or an Allegorical sense of these words, to make them speak any thing for his justification by repentance. All the rest Scriptures quoted in the 14. Thesis', we have again in a bunch here pa. 235. in the explication of his 60. Thesis to prove the same thing. And here why doth he deal worse than Bellarmine, in attributing justification which he makes to consist in pardon and salvation, to repentance, without manifesting, as Bellarmine doth, what he means by repentance? This is but to strive about words and leave the matter in darkness. As for the other particular Scriptures here quoted, if I should particularly examine them, we should find not a few of them (as the three former) coming no nearer to the question in hand then Tiber doth to Thames. As for all such of them as have the least show or sound of speaking for him, he hath them in part from Bellarmine whom he here followeth, and in part from other Jesuits and Friars that controversally handle the Popish justification against us. I refer therefore the reader to inform himself from the many answers of the many Protestant Theologists which they have extant against Bellarmine and the rest of that generation; from whom, if truth and soberness be dear to him, it is almost impossible but that he must receive satisfaction. Yet something shall I speak in general of these quoted Scriptures. As many of them as do hold forth the promise of life upon condition of repentance to sinners, or to sinners if they repent (all the rest quotations being altogether besides the purpose:) [These all] speak of a legal or of an Evangelicall repentance. Of a legal repentance consisting merely in a feeling of, humiliation and contrition for, hatred against, departing from sin; and applying of the endeavours to all moral virtue and obedience. This is a merely moral repentance derivable from the strength of natural conscience illuminated by the Law and common knowledge of Gods will and nature. In this sense is the word taken in most of the Scriptures quoted from the old Testament, and some also possibly of those that are quoted out of the new. But then the life by these Scriptures promised is not the life of justification, or of spiritual and supernatural blessedness: but that which the administration under the Law is wont to call life, viz. 1 The fruition of the land of Canaan, which prefigured the life and rest both of grace and glory. And 2 Of the blessings of health, honour, peace, plenty, safety, and other temporal benefits promised to the obedient in the Land of Canaan. This is clear to him that will see, from the 18 of Ezek. where so often mention is made of life and death, Turn and live, if ye turn not ye shall die: what is here meant by this life and death, may be understood from that proverb cursedly used by the Jews whereof mention is made in the beginning of the Chapter; The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge: the fathers have sinned, and death is inflicted upon the children for their father's fault. This gave occasion for the delivery of all the doctrine comprehended within this Chapter, in which God throughly vindicateth his justice from inflicting death upon the children, righteous children, for their wicked parents offences; showing how justly they died which died, and lived which lived, in reference to their own not their father's sin and righteousness: what then was this death here denounced, or the setting of the teeth on edge, but the plague, famine, sword, which had been upon them in the Land, and their captivity and exile now upon them in Babylon out of the Land of their inheritance? these temporal evils are the death here affirmed to be inflicted, and denounced to be continued upon them. The life promised upon condition of their repentance, and turning from their evil ways, was their restauration to the land, and blessings of the land of Canaan again. The same is evident from the words of Moses, in Deuteronomy, where Moses having in the name of God, pronounced the many blessings and whole confluence of secular happiness to the obedient, and to them that after much transgression and many curses for their transgressions should repent and turn; and denounced curses upon curses, a whole deluge of judgements, and temporary afflictions one on the neck of another against as many as should disobey the Commandments, etc. cap. 28. & cap. 29. he doth cap. 30 15, 19 Call heaven and earth to witness that he had done his duty in setting before them life and death, good and evil, blessing and cursing, inplying the life and death here mentioned consisted chief in outward prosperity and adversity, stroking and striking. That these were the apples and the rods to allure and terrify them yet in their minority and under a pedagogy, until faith should come and the Sun of righteousness shine in its splendour, that they might walk by faith, and not by feeling, act from love, and not from fear, from the Spirit of adoption, and not of bondage: so that this shady life promised to a legal repentance, is nothing to the life of justification, but so far beneath it, that it is in no capacity to be used as a proof about it. These therefore serve not at all to drive on Mr. Baxters' conclusion. In the second place, Those Scriptures which he quotes that offer life upon condition of Evangelicall repentance do not make for him any more than the former. For Gospel's repentance, is taken either in a large or strict sense, in the more large sense it is the same with conversion or regeneration, and oft times equipollent and the same thing with faith, (though some little consider it to be so.) And this is as oft as repentance is put for the one and whole thing required on our part to put us into the actual and sensible possession of the grace and life of the Gospel, as Mat. 3. 2. Mark. 6. 12. Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. The sum of their preaching was Repent, so Luk. 13. 3, 5. Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish. & 24. 47. and many other of the Scriptures which he quoteth. In all these places repentance containeth primarily the change of our relation, and but secondarily of our qualifications and manners. It is a quidam motus, in which acti agimus, being moved by God's Spirit we move; the terminus a quo in this motion is self, our self-righteousness and self-confidences, from which we turn no less then from our polluted self, sinful self, and sinful ways. The terminus ad quem is God, the grace of God inviting us. The medinm per quod is the Lord Christ through whom we have access to the Father for remission first; and then for sanctification also. And as the scope of the Gospel requires us to understand in such Scriptures repentance in this sense, so neither do the two Greek words, rendered in Latin Resipisc●ntia, in English Repentance, refuse this sense. For what is that change of the mind, of the judgement, wisdom and will, when it is taken for a Theological virtue, but a change of these in reference to happiness? A renouncing of and departing from nature's groping and erring directions, by our own works and righteousness to seek for blessedness; and a cleaving to the directions of the Gospel pointing out Christ as the alone way to it? For instance, Paul while yet impenitent and unconverted, walked by the light of his natural conscience, as it was informed and awaked by the Law, and by this rule walked as a strict Pharisee; touching the righteousness which is in the Law blameless, Phil. 3. 5, 6. and looking (as Mr. Baxter doth) upon the doctrine of free grace, and righteousness freely imputed, as upon a licentious doctrine, was carried with full sails of zeal totally to destroy it: I verily thought with myself (saith he) that I ought to do many things against the Name of Jesus, etc. which thing I also did, etc. Act. 26. 9, 10. Now when the Lord Christ met him in the midst of his raging madness, so working upon his heart that he now believed in Christ whom he had erewhile persecuted, received him and rested on him for righteousness, whom he had erewhile blasphemed: What will ye call this obedience to the faith, this closing of his heart with Christ in stead of further dashing against him? was it not his conversion, his repentance? or is the promise of life (I mean the life of justification) made to any other repentance besides this? In this sense therefore repentance is not a quid distinctum, a thing distinct from, but one and the same with justifying faith; or if it be objected that it is somewhat larger than justifying faith: I shall not contend but acknowledge that it comprehends whole faith, both qua justificat, & qua sanctificat, to justification and to sanctification. Yet this hinders not but that these two phrases, repentance to life or remission of sins, and faith to life and the remission of sins, are in the language of the holy Ghost one and the same. Where repentance is taken in a stricter sense, and some of the Scripture, which he quotes seem to promise remission of sins or life to it; we must necessarily understand of every such Scriptures that it speaketh of the repentance which is actuated in our first conversion and calling, or after it. That which is in our first conversion or calling, when it is taken in a strict sense, is not as in the former sense put as the whole thing required on our parts, but seems in words a coordinate with faith to interest us in the righteousness and life which are by Christ. Such are these Scriptures, Repent and believe the Gospel: repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ, Mark. ●. 15. Act. 20. 21. and many other. But in these, repentance and faith together make up no more than in other Scriptures, either faith alone or repentance alone in their large sense import: and so repentance is taken for self-denial, self-abhorring, self-subduing, and faith for embracing Christ: both these are repentance or faith in their larger sense. To no other end doth repentance cast and empty out self but to be filled with Christ, nor doth faith receive Christ until self be let out and evacuated that it may receive him. See we it in Paul, his casting away his Phi. 3. 8, 9 own righteousness as dung and loss, and putting on of Christ, to win and wear him for righteousness, were two concurrent acts either of one faith or one repentance, (for we may use after the holy Ghost, either term indifferently) and repentance here is no distinct thing from faith, nor faith from repentance, and in naming these two the holy Ghost nameth not two gifts of grace, but two acts of the same gift of grace in us; so that hitherto the Scriptures which Mr. Baxter quotes to prove that repentance as a really distinct thing from faith justifyeth, do wholly fail him. For (as our Divines well say against the Papists) though these two acts must needs cooperate together, viz. the casting out of self and the receiving of Christ; yet it is the latter alone that doth properly and instrumentally justify by receiving the justifyer and his righteousness; the former act doth but disponere materiam (as one saith not too catachrestically) doth but put a man as it were in a justifiable posture and capacity, doth but obi●em tollere, pluck out and cast away the bar that might fasten the door against Christ's entrance; and this it doth not as a distinct virtue from faith, but as a subservient act of faith to its receiving of Christ. Lastly, those of the forequoted Scriptures which speak of repentance in a strict sense advantageous to life after conversion, and that which the Papists and Mr. Baxter call the first justification, (as 2 Cor. 7. 10. and some other) [these] speak of repentance indeed really distinct from faith, being an effect or fruit of faith. But this repentance is in no other sense called repentance to life, then as by it the Saints sometimes recover the sense and comfort of their justification, that had for a while laid fainting in them; or as it is empowered from above to repair, confirm and increase the life of sanctification in them. And this is besides the question in hand, [whether repentance justifyeth.] I shall therefore pretermit to speak further of it. And thus have we one file of his Scripture quotations examined, and do find that all which he would thence deduce to confirm a collateral officiating of repentance [as a thing really distinct from faith] together with faith to justification; stands him in no stead at all. The second duty which he nameth as an equal condition with faith, of our justification, is praying for pardon, and forgiving Pag. 230. others. In this though he follow Bellarmine, yet he holds not himself to Bellarmine's words, but having overtaken him, runs beyond him. Bellarmine thus speaketh, having mentioned before two things that justify, Thirdly, (saith he) Spes obtinendae veniae, est etiam dispositio ad justitiam et remissionem peccatorum, i. e. Hope of forgiveness is also a disposition to righteousness and the remission of sins. Mr. Baxter outruns him and saith, that praying for pardon, and forgiving of others too, are conditions of pardon; but suppose that I do hope and pray for pardon, and forgive others too, shall I then be forgiven? Mr. Baxter will not promise that, but if I do that, (caeteris paribus) then forsooth I may hope well: but what is this sensus compositus, or caeteris paribus? viz. if I do this and all that else is to be done, i. e. all the duties which either Law or Gospel commands me. But I demand, if all this be done, am I then justified? Neither will he grant me this: I am then conditionally justified, as I was before I did any thing; yea more, I am now a probationer for justification, and upon my bene se gesserit, my good behaviour, I am justified for an hour possibly until I be unjustifyed again: but if I do all and never cease to do all either while I am living, etc. or when I am dead; there may be possibly a day, (when there be no more days) when I may (if all things faith well) be justified. But further that all may faith well, will he tell me what the caeteris paribus, the rest conditions are, that I may perform them all and not miss in number? Thus far possibly he will condescend, to make known some of them, and to give me some generals of the rest, and make known the materia prima in which the substantial forms lurk, yea the genera and the species that are such subalternatim, but the species specialissimas & infimas together with their individuals, he either will not or cannot particularise the seed of Mr. Baxter in this kind is more numerous than the seed of Abraham, more than the stars of heaven, than the sands of the sea for multitude; yet if one be wanting, I am as far from justification as if I had nothing: So blessed a man will Mr. Baxter's conditions make me. But let me on the contrary part demand of Mr. Baxter, Suppose a person truly in the Covenant of grace, vitally in Christ, if he have never a one of these additory conditions actually moving in him, is not his justification and glory as certain as another's that hath all the conditions? Mr. Baxter dares not deny the supposition to be possible; for than shall he exclude all dying Infants from the kingdom of heaven, which in another book of his it is said he flatly denyeth) the consequent therefore cannot be denied, that justification before God is as sure without as with these conditions; and so no condition at all to be granted of our justification, save that which may assure and declare it to ourselves. What misspent time will it be then to bawl about two or three of many decades and centuries, yea myriads of conditions, by disputing whether they be conditions; when if we know not and have not all the rest it shall go as well with those that have none of them, as with them that have all to one? I had almost said, when these all brought as conditions (in Mr. Baxters' sense) to God's tribunal will without doubt condition him that brings them, to condemnation. But because Mr. Baxter and his disciples may be angry if we hear not what so great a Master saith, for our own safety we will attend to hear what Scriptures he allegeth. The first he brings from the prayer of Solomon, 1 King. 8. 30, 39 Hear (Lord) thy servants when they shall pray towards or in this place, and forgive them, and give to every man according to his ways. What will hence follow? either, ergo whosoever prayeth in or towards Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem shall be forgiven, so far as forgiveness consisteth in giving to every man according to his ways; or shall be forgiven as to the famine and pestilence, etc. ver. 38. mentioned, so as he pray caeteris paribus though he be never forgiven as to hell fire: or, ergo there was a time when prayer for pardon was a condition of forgiveness, viz. when the Temple stood at Jerusalem, if prayer were made in it or towards it; but now since the desolation of the Temple this condition for the space of 1600. years, hath been out of force. Let him conclude better for himself from these premises if he can; I can conclude no better thence to the maintenance of his assertion. And it is worthy of consideration to take notice how extremely the Apostles logic and Mr. Baxters' logic do differ. From the like promise of salvation made in Scriptures to them that pray for it, the Apostle concludes that we are justified and saved by faith; thus, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall Rom. 10. 13, 14. be saved. How then shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? His argumentation runs thus, Whosoever do [rightly] call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved: but believers only call [rightly] upon the name of the Lord: ergo, believers only shall be saved. He argues here from the effect to the cause, from acceptable prayer, to faith from whence it floweth; concluding, that salvation is promised to prayer, not as it is an act performed in its self, but as it is a fruit of faith, ascribing all the furtherance unto salvation by prayer, to faith that breathes it out, and all the efficacy which faith hath to salvation, to the Lord [i. e. the grace of God, or Christ the Mediator] believed in. So making faith to be that which, in the virtue of its object, saveth; and not prayer either in its act, or in respect of the spiritual disposition of the heart to pray. And with the Apostles argument from prayer to faith, I might also argue to manifest that the Scriptures which Mr. Baxter quoteth to prove that forgiving of others is a collateral condition with faith to justification or forgiveness, have no force in them to prove such a conclusion. viz. Mat. 6. 12, 14, 15. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors, for if we forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly father will also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their trspasses, neither will your heavenly father forgive your trespasses. Mat. 18. 35. So likewise shall my heavenly father do to you also, if ye from your hearts forgive not every man to his brother their trespasses. The like also in Mar. 11. 25, 26. When ye stand praying forgive, etc. as in the former Scriptures Luke 6. 35. Forgive and ye shall be forgiven. Isa. 5. 15. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him. Joh. 14. 13, 14. Whatsoever ye shall ask in my Name I will do it, etc. 1 Joh. 5. 15. Whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. The rest have nothing of sound, much less of substance to the purpose for which they are quoted. How much these Scriptures together with those of the former bunch that were intended by Mr. Baxter for the foisting in of Repentance, and of the next bundle that he would have to force in all the works of love and obedience into the office of justification, may prevail with some simple and ignorant persons, I know not. For these not being able to compare Scripture with Scripture, and spiritual things with spiritual, nor to search into the pith and bottom of Scriptures, are carried (as the Apostle saith) with every wind and sound of doctrine, whither their seducers will. But I do not comprehend what Mr. baxter's design is, who having compiled this work chief, if not only, for the reading of the Learned, should fardel up together these Scriptures to deceive such: for the very quotations will send them not only to the Scriptures, but also to the Commentators upon these several Scriptures, where they must needs find him and the Jesuits so wresting from them the same doctrine, and Mr. Baxter so fully answered in their answer to the Jesuits that his Readers will not be able to decide which is the verier Jesuit, he, or those whom he followeth. I had a thought therefore to transmit the Reader to the Commentators. But to manifest to the simple how little there is in substance in these quoted Scriptures, making for Mr. Baxter, I shall interpose these few things. 1 That the Scriptures are all of God's inspiration, consenting together in o●e harmony, no where dashing either against other, no more than God their Author dasheth against himself: so that we must necessarily conclude that neither all, nor any one of these Scriptures doth in its proper and genuine sense, contradict those before alleged Scriptures of justification by faith, and not by works; by faith, without works; by the righteousness of faith, and not by our own righteousness; by the law of faith, in opposition to the law of works, etc. as before. If then these Scriptures should bring in justification and remission but in part by our own works and righteousness, Scripture would here be set in commotion against Scripture, and God against God. 2 Mr. Baxter doth here make this work of forgiving and praying for forgiveness, as also in the next place all love, obedience, and the works thereof not simply conditions of justification and forgiveness, (which in some sense far from Mr. Baxters, some of our Theologists admit) but collaterally and in the same relation with faith; and this is the highest top of Papal presumption, not the worst of Jesuits speak more derogatorily to the depressing of God's grace, or more proudly to the exalting of man's works, worth and righteousness. 3 From this doctrine of his it would follow that praying and forgiving others must be such a condition of justification, that where it is there is justification, where it is not there is not justification, the positing or not positing of the one including the sum of the other: for so it is with faith; He that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned, Mark. 16. 16. so Joh. 3. 36. Will Mr. Baxter say so of forgiving others, and praying for forgiveness? are all that do it justified? dares he to say it? No otherwise, but with his caeteris paribus, and sensu composito, if he doth this and all things else which a Christian should do. And thus I might also make every civil and indifferent Action the condition of justification. A man's sleeping by night, and working by day, his eating when he is hungry, and drinking when he is thirsty, his improving of his ground● before he sows them, and sowing them when improved, and reaping them when the crop is come to maturity; all these and the like may be as well called conditions of justification, for these also caeteris paribus, when all things else are done which a Christian should do, do stand as full in strength to justification as those works which Mr. Baxter particularizeth; yea this caeteris paribus, makes sin, guilt, ungodliness, perdition, etc. more properly conditions of justification, than any of those which Mr. Baxter nameth; for without the actual being of those none can be justified in Christ before God: For Christ Came not to call the righteous but sinners to Repentance, Mat. 9 13. He hath shut up all under guilt, under sin, that the promise of righteousness by the faith of Jesus Christ might be upon all that believe, Rom. 3. 19, 22, 23, 24. He justifyeth the ungodly, Rom. 4. 5. And saveth that which was lost, Mat. 18. 11. Are these duties to be performed coordinately with faith that we may be justified? surely rather than those which Mr. Baxter nameth, for these still go before, but those of Mr. Baxter, (as far as they relate to it) do follow justification. 4 The scope of these Scriptures is to urge upon all that draw near to God in prayer, to purge out all hatred and purposes of revenge against their brethren from their hearts, and the argument by which this duty is pressed, is, that else it (as also any other reigning sin allowed within the heart) will make both their persons and prayers an abomination to the Lord. God will not hear, will not forgive such as bring, while they bring such a devil in their hearts before him; they shall departed without any more answer of peace to their souls, than they are disposed to give to their brethren against whom they are provoked. From these Scriptures therefore we may gather how they are qualifyed which are forgiven and justified, not by what qualifications and works they have obtained justification. That whosoever hath tasted of the pardoning grace of God, the same by beholding in Christ the glory of God's grace as in a glass is transformed into the same image of grace, love, mercy, goodness, pity, etc. towards his brethren, as himself hath found in God, and sees shining forth upon him from the face of God through Christ, 2 Cor. 3. 18. That in whomsoever this mercy and goodness of God appears not, whatsoever he boasteth of faith, and devoutness in prayer, yet it is certain that he is empty of justifying faith, and of the justification which is by faith: and so we have here some description of the justified and unjustifyed, not a precept of duties by which the unjustifyed may attain to be justified. 5 The three last quotations of Mr. Baxter, do subvert utterly all that he built by the former quotations: For these Scriptures affirming it to be not indefinitely prayer, but the prayer of faith which saveth and obtaineth forgiveness; that not the ask simply, but the ask of the faithful in Christ's Name is prevalent; that not every one, but we know that whatsoever we ask we have our petitions granted; do manifest that whatsoever virtue is in prayer it floweth from faith, prayer itself is a dead work unless faith enliven it, and all our works of mercy and forgiving, dead works, until faith becomes the living root from which they derive life, or rather hath breathed out the life which it hath sucked from Christ our life into them. That it is Christ's name and mediation that makes all accepted with God, and that not to all, but to those peculiar ones of Christ that are in union and conjunction with Christ, it being a privilege peculiar to true believers that is here mentioned under the word we, we have it (saith the Apostle) the world hath no part in it. Esau's forgiving, saul's confession of sin, and Simon Magus his prayer for forgiveness, may (as in Mr. Baxters' last quotation Act. 8. 22.) perhaps, be so far heard, and forgiveness obtained from the Lord, as to the exempting of them from some temporal vengeance, but not to interest them in the justification of the Gospel: If the cries and works of any of these dogs bring them in to partake of the children's bread, it is but in man's judgement alone; before God it was their faith and cleaving to Christ, yea being in Christ by faith, that of dogs made them children, and partakers of the Gospel's privileges. So these Scriptures in no wise prescribe (as I said) the duties by or for which we are, but delineate the Acts and qualifications of those that are justified by Christ. So much in general to the sum of these Scriptures; as for the meaning of the several Scriptures, and how Mr. Baxter argues from them as the Papists; how the Sophisters (for so our men fitly term the Papists) endeavour from them to prove justification by works, and the Protestants answer and confute them; I leave to the Reader to fetch from the Commentators themselves, whom they shall find to speak fully, as Mr. Baxter knoweth but concealeth, not daring to enter the Lists with them. The third duty which he brings as coofficiating with Pag. 236. faith to justification, is a complexion of duties, the whole swarm, the vast mountain of duties, all that men and Angels can devise to be duty: yet that he might declare how he can measure and contain so huge an Ocean in his fist, he crusheth them so together as that they may be held in the concave of two Eg-shels, love and sincere obedience, and their works. Fain would he have followed Bellarmine as his shadow at every turn; but he finds his genius somewhat differing from Bellarmine's: The Cardinal was for prolixity, Mr. Baxter is for brevity. Bellarmine puts love in the fourth place as operating to justification with faith, and thence proceeds to more. But Mr. Baxter follows him here to love, and weary to go after him any further in particulars, shakes hands in love with him and parts from him with good leave in respect of his method, but in his matter to hold with him throughout the work. The first Scripture which he quotes is the first which Bellarmine allegeth; thus, B. Luk. 7. 47. (though I knew in Pinks interpretation of that.) It seems Pinks hath given the right interpretation of that Text which all the Protestants give. But Bellarmine interprets it otherwise, and must not Christ mean as Bellarmine will have him? The words of the Text are these, Wherefore I say unto thee, her sins which are many are forgiven, for she loved much: But to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. What doth Mr. Baxter hence conclude? the same with Bellarmine, her much love was the ground of the forgiveness of her many sins, and so her love went before her justification and forgiveness, which followed as the fruit or consequent thereof. Bellarmine and his fellowrs put authority and holiness upon this interpretation, else would not Mr. Baxter who makes right reason the foundation and rule of his Religion, forswear his wit and reason to follow it. For it is evident from the Text to all that are not sworn enemies to the truth, that the Lord Jesus reasoneth here from the effect to the cause, and not from the cause to the effect: from the woman's great love, that many sins were forgiven her causing this love; not from the greatness of her love as from the cause why so many sins were forgiven her. So runs the Text, Which will love most, he to whom the creditor hath forgiven 500 pence, or he Ve. 41, etc. to whom he forgave 50? The answer was, I suppose he to whom most was forgiven. Thou hast well said (saith the Lord) so it is with this woman, she loves much because much was forgiven her; Who sees not here the forgiveness to be the cause of the love, not the love of the forgiveness? Or will Bellarmine which affirms this woman to be Mary Magdalen, or Mr. Baxter after him, say that while she was yet a Harlot and had seven Devils in her, that she loved Christ much? how good was it to be possessed of a whole legion of such white Devils that breathed into the soul possessed, such strong love of Christ? But why then said Christ to her Thy faith hath saved thee, ver. 50. did her faith only save her, but her love justify her? This is one piece of Mr. baxter's new Divinity, and with him I leave it. Let him learn modesty and truth from Soarez himself a Prelate among the Papists: Oportet advertere in hoc quod dicitur quoniam dilexit multum: non prius dilexisse multum, & magnam dilectionem causam fuisse tantae remissionis; sed vice versa, quoniam remissa sunt ei peccata multa, ideo dilexisse multum: Soarez in locum. He adds Mat. 5. 44. Luk. 6. 27, 45. Love your enemies, etc. That ye may be the children of your heavenly Father, etc. What will Mr. Baxter hence conclude, but that our love, etc. is the cause or ground of our Adoption? That we love God first, and then he us afterward? That not his grace but our righteousness makes us his Children and him our father? But contrariwise Christ here exhorteth the children to be like the father; directs his words to the already Adopted, so to put on the image and resemble the nature and operations of their heavenly Father, that they may be, i. e. declare themselves to be the children of the heavenly Father. Like that of Joh. 13. 35. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye love, etc. And that of 1 Joh. 3. 10. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil, he that loveth not, is not of God, etc. So love on our part doth not make but manifest us to be the children of God. But remarkable is his next quotation Joh. 15. 12, 17. This is my commandment, that ye love one another, ergo love justifyeth; as good as if I should argue, Christ commanded Peter to angle and take a fish: ergo Peter angling and catching a fish justified him. As if whatsoever Christ commanded, he commanded to justification. And as full to his purpose is 1 Cor. 2. 9 Eye hath not seen nor e'er heard, etc. what the Lord hath laid up for them that love him: ergo, my love was the condition of Gods laying up for me: as if God had not laid up for me before I loved him. How agrees this with that which after he annexeth, Mat. 25. Inherit the Kingdom prepared for you before the beginning of the world? and Rom. 8. 28. All things shall work together for good to them that love God; [who are they?] such as are called according to his purpose, if called then justified, and who denyeth the riches of Gods grace dispensing all things for the good of his justified one's that love him? But what is this to loves justifying? And rare logic from the next two Scriptures, Grace be with them that love the Lord Jesus, Eph. 6. 24. And he that loveth him not, let him be Anathema Maranatha, 1 Cor. 16. 22. Ergo, love to Christ justifyeth in rank and life with faith: when I make my love the ground or condition of God's grace, and cease to make the grace of Christ the foundation of my love to Christ, then will I expect that Mr. Baxter will justify me, until than I shall be in his account Anathema maranatha. Again, God hath promised the Crown, the Kingdom to them that love him, Jam. 1. 12. & 2. 5. Ergo, Justification is a Crown and Kingdom, and love will then justify when it brings us to the Crown and Kingdom, until than we are unjustifyed. He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, Joh. 14. 21. Ergo, our love to Christ begets love in the Father, and ergo, the love of the Father is our justification; and what else Mr. Baxter will, for he concludes, quidlibet e quolibet. I love them that love me, and they that seek me early shall find me, Prov. 8. 17. Ergo, God doth not love us until we love him, nor seek us till we seek him, and so God is moved by us, not we by him, and perhaps justified (for of this he speaketh) by us before we are justified by him. That I may cause them that love me to inherit substance: and I will fill their treasures, ver. 21. Ergo; our justification is in our chests and purses, and our love prevails upon God and Christ to fill them up to the brim with this golden justification. I know not whether I may lawfully follow him in his non sequiturs and playing with the sacred Oracles of God; surely neither Lucian, nor Corn: Agrippa with his Ass, could ever treat of holy things more ludibriously, or expose the sacred word of God to more scorn than this man doth: were it out of weakness that he doth it, he were to be pitied: But who knoweth not if Mr. Baxter knoweth not what validity or invalidity there is in every Argument to prove? Where was conscience then in quoting so many Scriptures which are no more proper to prove that to which they are applied, than they are to demonstrate a world in the Moon? he knoweth the most of them have neither sound nor show that way, and those that have some show have but a show, and being thoroughly urged to his present purpose would neither prove what he would have here proved, but contrariwise crush in pieces some of his former assertions, which are the pillars of the whole structure made in this book, and falling will necessitate the ruin of the whole fabric. All this he saw, therefore stopped at the quotation, without alleging or applying the Scriptures quoted. If the man were no more happy in in his Philosophy then in his Theology, he should have very little thanks from Rome. And it is to be doubted his esteem will be the less there for his pretending to be a Scripturist, and overturning, or at least shaming with his fingering of Scriptures, the specious frontispiece which he had erected by his Sophistry. Unless possibly this may advantage him that he shows the same genius and spirit in arguing from Scriptures, with those holy Fathers and Friars; for so profoundly do we find them arguing, Thou art Peter and upon this rock, etc. Mat. 16. Ergo, the Pope is Christ vicar and vicegerent, etc. Master, or Lord, Here are two swords, Luk. 22. 38. Ergo, the Pope hath both swords of Ecclesiastical and Civil power committed to him; God made two lights, the greater to rule the day, the lesser the night, G●n. 1. Ergo, the Pope's power is so much more excellent than Kings and Emperors, as the glory of the Sun surpasseth that of the Moon. I beat down my body and keep it in subjection, 1 Cor. 9 Ergo, we must do penance, and whip and scourge our backs when there is occasion. Every man's work shall be tried by fire, 1 Cor. 3. Ergo, there is a purgatory of fire to be passed thorough after men are dead. With hundreds more of the same kind and worth, wherein it seems Mr. Baxter here would imitate them to ingratiate himself into their favour. As for the residue of Mr. Baxters' quotations in this place, they are for the most part, if not all, urged in another place, to prove works the condition of our glorification and future salvation, and until than I forbear to answer them. But lest any in the interim should stand doubting at any of the Scriptures h●re quoted promising either love, or life, or grace, or glory, to men thus and thus qualifyed, and conceive that such qualifications are the ground and condition together with faith to in right us in that which is promised; I think it fit to premonish by the way (what all Protestant writers have ●maintained and cleared against the Papists) that the ground of our right in such selicities promised, is not the qualifications or works of the person, but the new relation of the person so qualifyed, his union with Christ, justification and adoption before God. Such promises not being made to all, but to the Saints in Christ so doing; I shall clear it up to you by a similitude. Isaac promiseth his son Esau his blessing, but bids him go a hunting and bring him venison, and then in eating it, he will bless him: what was that which enrighted Esau to the blessing, that was the ground or condition upon which Isaac would bless him? the venison caught and dressed? nothing less; for if a 1000 others should have presented him with a 1000 pieces of venison at several times, all dressed and fitted to his appetite, the blessing should have been reserved entire for Esau, and they all have been sent away empty; as appeareth by his dealing with Jacob presenting his made venison, how agreeing so ever the dish was to the palate of the old Patriarch, yet he will examine thoroughly who it is, whether his very son Esau that brings it, before he gives the blessing: It was not then the venison, but the sonrship, yea primogeniture of Esau that was the ground and condition of Isaac's promise to bless him. So is it also to his justified and adopted one's in Christ, that the Lord saith, Ask and ye shall have, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you, Run and ye shall obtain, Overcome and ye shall be crowned, Love and I will love you, Be merciful and I will be merciful to you, Humble yourselves and I will lift you up; and a thousand more such promises of grace, as far as they hold forth spiritual and saving blessings, they are the children's bread, dispensations of God within his own family; no stranger hath part in it, or right to it. Let the world, those that are not beloved, ask, seek, knock, run, fight, etc. the Lord may possibly out of the goodness of his providence, infiniteness of his wisdom and bounty of his nature, reward with corporal and temporal good things, their carnal and temporal endeavours, but until by the spirit of adoption they are through faith united to Christ, they have no right by the new Covenant to make claim to the spiritual and saving blessings promised; neither are they any otherwise to be ratifyed to any but as they were beloved of God in Christ before there were any such qualifications and motions in them, as Mr. Baxter calls conditions; as hath been before declared. Yea suppose that Esau could not have brought the venison to his Father, had been hindered or drawn aside from seeking it, or seeking could not find it, or finding could not have taken and brought it; should the promise and purpose of Isaac to bless him, for this cause have failed, He performed not the condition, he shall therefore be bereft of the blessing? Nothing less: for the general and fundamental ground and condition, the relation of a son, of the firstborn son, stood still fixed; unto which the good will of the Father, and the blessing in the Father's purpose was entailed. In like manner, though a child of God fail in some of the works and qualifications which Mr. Baxter calls conditions of the new Covenant, yet this makes not the promise of the Covenant, or the beneficence of the Covenanter promising, to be void, because these are grounded, (so far as they are grounded out of God) upon Christ, our union unto Christ, and new relation to God in Christ. All which I doubt not shall be made manifest in its own place; only what hath been said I thought fit to be said by the way, for the prevention of doubts and perplexities that might engage the weak reader, before we come thither. I should here have put an end to what I had to say to his first Argument drawn from Scriptures, having spoken to all that in this place are quoted, saving those which he brings again elsewhere, for which place I have put off my examination of them: But that p. 310. he comes with a new supply. Lest therefore I should make another work of it there, or minister occasion to any of saying that where his Argument is most fortified, there I eat and shrink from answering, I shall examine here also what force such of those Scriptures as have not been here quoted and examined, have to prove justification by works; and so much the rather because he tells us there, that the assertion is evident from these following Scriptures. B. Mat. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Justification and Condemnation seem here by our Saviour's testimony to depend upon the sinful and blameless use of our tongues, Ergo, upon works. We may grant all in our Saviour's sense without advantaging Mr. baxter's cause or endamaging our own. For the Lord Christ here directeth his words to those Legal, Jewish, Pharisaical Justiciaries who stuck fast to the righteousness of the Law for justification, and in zeal thereof blasphemed (as in the precedent part of the Chapter upon which this dependeth is to be seen) Christ and his Gospel. This blasphemy Christ here reproveth and smiteth with a weapon fetched out of their own Armoury: Even your own law forbids such evil words and blasphemies, holding forth Justification and Condemnation not only upon condition of good and evil works but words also, so that there is nothing spoken of the justification of the New but of the Old Covenant only. A reprehension and commination pat to them to whom it was denounced, the threat of the Law to them that refused the Gospel, and were and would be under the Law. But this is nothing to the justification of the new Covenant, that follows the rule of the Gospel. The next Scripture not contained and examined in the former sardle of quotations is, B. 1 Joh. 1. 9 If we confess our sins, God is faithful to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from our iniquities. Here confession another work seems to be a condition of forgiveness and justification. 1 If we look strictly to the words, Mr. Baxter must hence argue only, that our confession is a condition of God's faithfulness, as if God either cannot or will not be faithful except we confess. But let us give Mr. Baxter the largest advantage that he can claim in the meaning of the words, that God is positively and not hypothetically or conditionally faithful; and that of his faithfulness he will forgive and cleanse, if we confess. In this sense then whereas the Apostle speaketh affirmatively not negatively, (if we confess he will forgive; not, if we confess not, he will not forgive) I do 2 Demand whether confession be so a condition of forgiveness that whosoever confesseth shall be forgiven. This Mr. Baxter will not affirm, without his caeteris paribus, whereof the Text speaks not a word, expressly or implicitly for him, and if he conclude negatively he concludes not from the Text but his own fancy. Obj. But if you deny forgiveness upon confession made, you deny what the Text affirmeth and so fight against the word itself, denying what it clearly affirmeth. Answ. True, if we deny it to them to whom the Text grants and promiseth it: But the Apostle speaks here not to the unjustifyed and unforgiven, but to the Sants forgiven and justified already, and the Emphasis of the proposition or promise is in the word we, if we that are in Christ confess, God will hold faithful in keeping Covenant with us, and forgive. So that this is a consolation to the Saints against all their daily infirmities. They have a privilege above all the world besides, If they sin they have an advocate with the Father, etc. through whom when they confess and bewail their sins, the grace of God will by his Spirit testify and seal to their consciences the forgiveness of them. 3 To descend without the Text to Mr. baxter's conditio sine qua non, there must be more than a grain of salt to make his assertion savoury, that without confession there is no forgiveness. For if by it he mean that of the Apostle, Confession with the mouth, he shall exclude many thousands from justification whom the Scripture excludeth not. 4 I grant to Mr. Baxter that some of our Divines have affirmed (though I fear somewhat rawly and inconsiderately) that confession is a condition sine qua non, of forgiveness, yet far from Mr. Baxters' sense; viz. with these three limitations whereof Mr. Baxter will not endure the test. 1 Of the forgiveness which is by the new Covenant, or as it is declared and sealed up to our consciences; Not of the forgiveness which was laid up in the hands as laid up in the hands of Christ, and ours in him before we believed or confessed. 2 Such a condition as is not in the same relation with faith, as Mr. Baxter makes it: the very naming whereof they detest as absolutely contradicting the nature and authority of the Gospel. 3 Such a condition as explodes the caeteris paribus & sensu composito of Mr. Baxter so that though they speak somewhat of Mr. Baxters' words, yet they are at a defiance against his sense and meaning. How and in what sense they will have it a condition, is no place here to treat. It hath been a digression to say any thing of it, because it is utterly besides the Text to which alone here I was to speak. B. Act. 8. 22. Repent of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. This Scripture I passed by in the former heap of his quotations, as possibly a mistake in the quotation; but finding it here again, and afterward in a third place, I see the man means as he quoteth, and cannot enough marvel what he can fish from this Scripture to prove any thing of man's works a condition of justification. If the word [If] here make or argue a condition, it must be on Gods not on man's part, that man must repent and pray upon condition that God will forgive, else not, if forgiveness be not the causa sine qua non of repentance and prayer. But this is nonsense to have God upon terms, if he will have any duty from us. He must therefore mean on the other side, God will forgive upon condition of prayer and repentance. But how he will persuade this Scripture to say it, is past my capacity to comprehend. Here is no promise (himself grants there is but an half-promise) of forgiving on God's part, [Append. pag. 79.] and nothing mentioned as a condition on man's part. But contrariwise duties of natural righteousness commanded or counselled to a natural man, upon such cold encouragement as the Scripture affords to the carnal devotions of carnal men carnally performed; If perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven. If Mr. baxter's Assertions be but so sound as his Arguments, neither will serve for good Bell-mettall. B. Act. 3. 19, Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, etc. How far repentance is a condition hath been discoursed of, and discussed already. B. Act. 22. 16. Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Is then Baptism a condition so necessary that without it there is no washing away of sin? And must the Popish Tenent be found writrens in Mr. Baxters' Calendar with red letters, Sacramenta opere operato conferunt gratiam? or doth Baptism prove ineffectual to all that do not, cannot, call upon the name of the Lord? Then whether Mr. Baxter be more against himself or against the Protestant Churches, who can decide? More modestly speaks even Bellarmine, which makes the desire of receiving the Sacraments a condition of justification, expelling from forgiveness them that desire them not; this man rigorously and cruelly shakes into condemnation those that do not, because they have not opportunity to receive them though their desire be unfeigned: or if he doth not so, this Scripture proves not Baptism to be the condition sine qua non. As for calling upon the name of the Lord, I have before spoken to. B. 1 Pet. 4. 18. If the righteous be scarce saved, where shall the wicked and ungodly appear? I should be in a Labyrinth of doubts how he would argue hence for himself, were it not that elsewhere he explaineth himself in his book, thus, If the righteous be scarce saved by all their strive, how shall they be saved that strive not at all? We deny not the duty of striving in holy things, yea of striving for salvation; though in Mr. Baxters' sense we deny it. Yet the meaning of this Text as appears by its dependence upon the verse precedent, is, If the corruptions and unbelief of heart be so great in the very Saints and believers, that they must pass through the purifying fire of God's judgements more and more to perfect them before they be made vessels of honour in the Kingdom of glory; or that they need the scourge of God's correction to whip them back to Christ, that they perish not by following their own thoughts: What then shall become of the wicked, which are wholly full of corruption and unbeleef, without any spark of faith, and whom the Lord hath given up to a spirit of slumber, like Bastards without all Chastisements hindering, to roll themselves into ruin? B. Rom. 6. 16. His servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness. The Apostle here speaketh of the righteousness (not of Justification but) of Sanctification, except we will say, he here digresseth from that which he makes the subject of this whole Chapter. But whether he means the righteousness of justification or of sanctification, yet the obedience he here speaketh of is that which cap. 1. ver. 5. he declares himself to have received commission and Apostleship to preach, viz. obedience to the faith, the sum whereof is faith in Christ Jesus. What he would infer from his two last quotations, 1 Pet. 1. 2. 22. Let him that can understand, declare and make answer to it. I yield that his profoundness condemns my shallowness. I dare not contradict him in what he would, because I have not the wit to imagine what he would say. It seems he had determined such a number of quotations, and took at adventure those that came next to his view to make up that precise number. Any other Scriptures besides these being (as to my apprehension) no less pat and proper to his purpose then these. CHAP. IU. The vanity and ridiculousness of Mr. baxter's second and third Arguments discovered: The former that, Because faith is the more principal, and works the less prinpall condition of our Justification; and that all other duties are in some respect or other, reducible to faith, therefore we may be said to be justified by other works and duties, yet to be justified by faith alone. The second drawn from a wide and irregular definition of faith that it containeth all works in its belly, therefore whosoever is justified by those works, is justified by faith only. A second Argument he draws from an anticipation of an objection, which he prevents by turning the edge of it against the objectors and applying it to the strengthening of his own assertion. The objection that he sees in readiness against him, is, that this doctrine of justification by duties and works, wholly overthroweth that highest and most fundamental Gospel doctrine of justification by faith alone. This he denies, and affirms Thes. 62. p. 238. that although we be justified by a thousand duties besides, B. Yet faith may be called the only condition of the New Covenant, i. e. of justification. True, if Mr. Baxter give the denomination, but the question is not, what things may be called, but what they are. A woe is pronounced to them that call or put light for darkness, and darkness for light, good for evil, and evil for good, etc. I shall no further press the unaptness of the phrase, Mr. Bauter, declaring in that which followeth, his meaning to be, that faith may be the only condition notwithstanding; which he proves thus, B. 1 Because it is the principal condition, and the other but the less principal. And as the whole country hath oft its name from the chief City; so may the conditions of this Covenant from faith. 2 Because all the rest are reducible to it; either being presupposed as necessary antecedents as means, or contained in it as its parts, properties or modifications, or else employed as its immediate products or necescessary subservient means or consequents. I speak first to the latter of these two arguments, because he speaks first in the explication to the confirmation of it. It is almost as wise an argumentation as I knew once used by some homebred, course-spun sons of a Country farmer, who having heard that their father upon a day was sworn Constable at the Court, made merry at home, concluding from their father's Constableship that they were all Constables and must rule the Parish, because they were his sons and dwelled in house with him: or as that of the Athenian boy that boasted himself to be the ruler of Athens, thus proving it, that he ruled his mother, and his mother swayed his father, and his father being Lord Maior that year swayed Athens. Yea more of reason, at least less of reasonlesnesse is there in both these arguings, then in that of Mr. Baxter; theirs concluded only the sons to to partake necessarily of their father's office: this man makes all that are in any respect of kindred, yea of any relation to faith for such their relation to partake of the office of faith to justify. For so he reasoneth, all the rest are reducible to faith as Antecedents [going before it] means [to obtain it] or parts, or properties, or necessary adjuncts and modifications, or products [effects] or consequents. What then? Ergo, these all in regard of their alliance or affinity to faith, justify and bear a part with faith in its office of justifying. And yet when these justify as much as faith, we must understand that faith justifyeth alone: Because what all these allies of faith do, that faith itself may be said to do. This is indeed Logic to prevail with his Kederminsterians, or rather such of them as know no difference between Logic and Garlic. It is as if I should dispute thus, God made choice of David before all and any other of the sons of Abraham to be King and to rule over Israel; therefore all the progenitors of David as well Tamar, and Ruth, and R●hab, as Judah, Pharez, and Booz, yea more specially Jesse the father of David, and all the brethren of David, yea all the sons and generation of David to Joseph the Carpenter; (let me dilate myself more boldly) all the tribe of Judah, which were flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone; nay all Israel which were allies to him, and met with him in one common father Jacob; these all partaked of David's kingship, and were partners with him in the office of ruling, because they all were one way or other reducible to David as going before him, or following him, etc. and yet when all these were Kings with David, nevertheless David was King alone. Or thus, The eye only of all the members of the body is appointed to the office of seeing, nevertheless the head that holds and gives influence to it, the eyelids that cover it, the veins that convey nutriment to it, the cheeks, nose, lips, and teeth that are contiguous to it, the hands and feet that are guided by it, etc. all these and many more do partake of the office of seeing together with the eye, and when all these do see as well as the eye, yet the eye doth see alone, because all the rest are reducible in some way of alliance to the eye. If Mr. baxter's dispute be not one and the same with this in its grounds, then is all my reason gone out of my head into my cap. And at such arguing, Agelastus that laughed 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 principal condition and the other less principal. And as a whole County, etc. Here 1 I would demand in what respect according to Mr. Baxter, Mr. Baxter can make faith the more principal, and the rest qualifications and duties the less principal conditions. Not in respect of their nature, for if one be, all are spiritual 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 affirms the rest to perfect what faith hath but begun. In what respect then is faith the more principal? Mr. Baxter shows not, because according to his principles, it is beyond my principles to conceive that he can show. 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 principal condition, etc. what will follow hence for Mr. baxter's 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 itself? much less to other duties in faith employed? 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 privileges and charter of the chief City. This may indeed be, where potentates that have the absolute Lordship of both, grant to both the same privileges. Yet than the privileges 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 daubing; 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 God's name and worship elsewhere saving at, and equalise 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 righteousness and works from being privileged together with it to this office and work; it is no less than a forsaking of God and of Christ to perform the most holy duties or to produce the most Celestial qualifications in the least part to justify 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 charm 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, Similes 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 justify, other duties are employed under the word faith as justifying together with it; much less that all other duties justify, yet faith alone justifyeth. If he would reason by them home to his position, he must reason to this Tenor. 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 myself of all my Soldiers, and so enter into the possession and government, and all the honour and profits thereof, by myself alone and one Counsellor to serve and assist me in the managing of the said government: If now by virtue of this Commission I enter, not having disbanded the said Army, but carry it in with me, some under a pretence of guarding my person, others as my individual 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 Traitor, not as a loyal Trustee to the power which hath deputed me. Who will not laugh at it as a sophistical or rather ridiculous plea, when he hears me maintaining that I entered with that one Counsellor alone, for all the rest are employed in him, some as his right, some as his left hand, some his parents, some his children, some his friends, some his servants, etc. and so I have but him alone in having so many thousands with him? So the new Covenant gives me Christ with justification and blessedness in him, with this Commission and proviso, that I disband my own strength and righteousness, 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 Traitor 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 tenor 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. baxter's 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 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 calls 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 tried by Scriptures. Let us now bring his doctrine to the touchstone. I shall not repeat all or any of the Scriptures before alleged, or that might be further alleged against him. One arrow out of that holy quiver, one Scripture out of the whole body of Gospel's doctrine shall suffice to smite to the heart, to death itself, 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 yourselves, it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast: For ye are God's 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 Justified, if there should be any that will deny, yet Mr. Baxter will and must affirm, unless he will beat in pieces one of the chief pillars of the fabric erected in this book, and overthrow what he hath built. In this truth he must join 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 righteousness of the Gospel, are excluded from bearing any part with faith in our justification. 4 That the not justification by works doth in no wise hinder the believers 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 justify, but for the new created and justified in Christ to walk in them. 6 That to teach otherwise of works, the very works of Sanctification, is to depress God's grace, and to extol man's boasting and vainglory. 7 Even these gospel works and righteousness 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 justify. I challenge Mr. Baxter and all his Legal and anti-evangelical 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 God's mouth blown to the curse, as in many things I shall by God's help show afterward. At the present what he speaketh of works comprehended in faith to justification is here shaken off as a Sophistical, fantastical, anti-scriptural dream, the holy Ghost here by the positing of faith, in express words rejecting works, Gospel works, all that Mr. Baxter makes a part with faith in that which he calls Evangelicall righteousness, 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 Gospel 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 God's appointment help with saith to justify us before God. This we have found to be an usual feat of Mr. Baxter, where his assertions are confident and peremptory, but his proofs of them light and shady, to devise in such case some witty passage wherewith to divert the considerations of his reader, from the shame and nakedness 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 emptiness and nothingness 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 several 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 justified by faith alone. When he hath spoken all by mere 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 with him (though these are necessary) because all these are necessarily employed: Even so when we are said to be justified by faith only; or when it is promised that he which believeth shall be saved, all these forementioned duties are employed and included. How ecliptic is falsehood, 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, arms, 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 works 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, wild, vast, confused and incircumscriptive definition of faith, begotten of his own brain, and now first as an overgrown monster born into the world, and baptised by the father of it with the name of justifying faith. This definition he giveth, Thes. 70. pa. 279. I put this in the third place, not because Mr. Baxter doth so, (for he hath many things between the former and this) but because of its cognation, if not identity with the former. No doubt he saw the former argument more to shame then help his cause, therefore in likelihood he brings it here again in another mode and form, if so paradventure it may relieve him. Thus then runs his definition. B. Faith in the larg●st sense as it comprehendeth all the condition of the new Covenant, may be thus defined: It is when a sinner by the word and spirit of Christ, being throughly convinced of the righteousness of the Law, the truth of its threatening, the evil of his own sin, and the greatness of his misery hereupon, and withal of the nature and offices, sufficiency and excellency of Jesus Christ, the satisfaction he hath made, his willingness to save, and his free offer to all that will accept him for their Lord and Saviour, doth hereupon believe the truth of his Gospel, and accept of Christ as his only Lord and Saviour, to bring them to God their chief good, and to present them pardoned and just before him, and to bestow upon them a more glorious inheritance, and do accordingly rest on him as their Saviour, and sincerely (though imperfectly) obey him as their Lord, forgiving others, loving his people, bearing what sufferings are imposed, diligently using his means and ordinances, and confessing and bewailing their sins against him, and praying for pardon, and all this sincerely, and to the end. Sponte Cretizantem quis neget esse Cretem? Never more dubiousness in the most dubious Oracles of Apollo Delphicus, then in this definition, if indeed it be a definition, because Mr. Baxter so calleth it. He so speaks all, that by all he might astonish some and deceive others, yet if he be questioned, his words bind him to nothing, but that he may go off and on at his pleasure. The subtilissimus Doctor could not more warily have provided himself with evasions so sure that if all the world together should endeavour it, none can catch him. 1 If we demand of him whether he speak of faith quae Justificat, & qua Justificat, which Justifyeth, and as it Justifyeth? he leaves us here at a loss, and will no● tell us. 2 In saying, Faith as it comprehendeth all the condition, etc. and by all the condition understanding all the duties which the Law requireth, if he be demanded whether there be a faith which comprehendeth all these? or if so, whether as parts of itself or things reducible to it? or if the latter, why are all these, or how, more comprehended in faith, than faith and all other of the rest (in his sensu composito) comprehended in any one of the rest? or if in the former sense, whether it be a faith of Gods making, or of Mr. baxter's making, made in the defining, and defined in the making? To no one of these our doubts that he leaves upon us by his ambiguity of speaking, hath he one word to resolve us; so that where to find an answer to him he leaves us uncertain. 3 If we should ask him [where he saith in the beginning of of the definition, It is when a sinner, etc.] whether he means that the quando is the genus of faith? or whether it be a regular definition of an act or habit to posit when it is, and not what it is? and if so, why doth he not define it by a certain rather than by an indefinite time, by Anno Mundi, or Anno Domini, or Imperii, or Regni, etc. that from the Chronicle we may seek and find it? Or if by his quando we can find out the time, how shall we find and know the thing? Be it that we can hit the time when all that followeth is done, and so upon Mr. Baxters' authority conclude that then faith is, yet do we not remain so uncertain as at first, what it is, that we may make use of it to justification? he speaks nothing to certify us; that from what he saith, we might take the occasion to consent with him or dissent from him. 4 If we would know from him of all those things at whose being, positure and acting, he tells us faith is, whether they include faith constitutively, or else but declaratively, whether faith consists of these, as the whole of its parts, or the genus of its species, or the compound of its simples; or else whether all these do but declare and evidence the truth of faith in a man? If declaratively alone, how then do those things which only declare faith, any more than declare and evidence Justification by faith? and how then holds his conclusion hence, that we are justified before God by these, because so justified by faith? Or if constitutively as many several parts and ingredients, they make up (as it were the body of) faith; how then doth the holy Ghost oppose faith and works, even to the excluding either of other, (about the point of justifying) as in other Scriptures, so in that before mentioned Text, Eph. 2. 8, 9, 10. Is there a conflict of flesh and spirit, Jacob and Esau, Christ and Eaxter, in one and the same body and bowels of faith, either to destroy the other [as to Justification?] or if faith be made up of works, and the holy Ghost doth so frequently in Scripture reject, yea accurse works from the justification of the new Covenant, how is not faith itself which is nothing else but a body and bundle of works, accursed from justification also? In none of these ambiguities that he hath left in his Thesis, doth he speak one word to satisfy us. Lastly, where he saith that faith is, when all these duties are done, sincerely to the end, if we demand him whether he mean tha● when there is an end of doing them, or of the man that doth them, that then faith hath its being and not till then, and so all other duties act in justifying while we live, and faith after all when we are dead? or whether he means that as long as these duties are done, faith is; but when they ar● not done, or when they cease to act, faith is not, but loseth its being: Fuit Ilium & ingens gloria Teverorum; I had once a faith and a ravishing joy in believing, either while I was under sufferings for Christ's sake, but now my sufferings are ended, and I am no more persecuted, my faith is expired; or while I waited on all the ordinances of Christ: but now my sick bed, or prison, or banishment, intercepts me from many of Christ's ordinances, My faith is lost? which of these ways, or in what third sense he will be understood, let him that can conjecture; but in respect of any thing that we have under his hand in the Thesis, he is yet free to choose his meaning; so that in all that he saith here, he hath armed himself against all exceptions, by saying it so that we shall not know his meaning. Only thus far we may speak with Augustine, Si non vis intelligidebes negligi. What is not an understandable Argument, we shall contemn as no Argument. But his illustration and proof may possibly follow in his Explication. Thither also we will follow him to examine which one of all these things delivered here so ambiguously, he doth there plainly illustrate or prove, it runne● thus, pa. 281. B. This is the condition of the New Covenant at large: That all this is sometime called faith, as taking its name from the primary, principal, vital part, is plain hence. Of the condition enough hath been said before, we look for proof. That all this is sometime called [I mean in Gods not Mr. baxter's Scriptures] faith, we also will say it is plain, if he make it plain by his. Hence, viz. B. 1. In that faith is oft called [obeying of the Gospel] but the Gospel commands all this, Rom. 10. 16. 1 Pet 1. 22. & 4. 17. 2 Thess. 1. 8. Gal. 3. 1. & 5. 7. Heb. 5. 9 1 In all these Scriptures obeying of the Gospel is one and the same thing which in other Scriptures is called the obedience of faith, i. e. obedience to that Gospel's doctrine which requireth to rest upon Christ alone by faith for righteousness and life without any intermixture to attain the same, called obedience to the Gospel, to distinguish between the Gospel and Legal way of justification. This Mr. Baxter knoweth well, therefore he gives us the quotation without the words of these Texts, most of them being such, as if there were nothing else said in the whole Word, even these are enough to subvert as pernicious his assertion. 2 The thing in question is not whether the Gospel command these duties, but whether it commands us to do them that we may be justified by such deeds? and whether because the Gospel commands them, it doth therefore call them faith? or that all which is to be done in obedience to the Gospel, is straightway to take up either the Nature or Name of faith? 3 How doth he contradict himself here, in what he had said before, Thesis' 31. pa. 154. where he affirmed the Commandments of the Gospel (in relation to these duties) to be the establishment of the Moral Law, and the perfect obedience in the Law commanded; and that this is but an adjunct of the new Covenant [or Gospel] and not a proper part thereof? Will he say then that all the works which the Moral Law commandeth are faith? or by the Gospel Metamorphosed from works into faith? B. The fufilling of the conditions of the new Covenant, is oft called faith, etc. But these forementioned are parts of the condition of the new Covevenant; Ergo, they are employed and included in faith, Gal. 3. 12, 23, 25. A wretched Argument lame in every foot, in which one principle is begged to maintain another. Neither of the premises nor yet the conclusion, having any soundness either as they are considered a part, or all together. Or if he could have proved either proposition from Scripture, would he have suffered them to pass under his bare affirmation alone? The Scripture annexed prove only an opposition between faith and works, the Gospel and the Law; but are as far as heaven from earth, from proving either of the premises. Neither doth the conclusion infer what it should from the premises, i. e. what is contained in them. I should in particulars show the deformed nakedness of the Syllogism, if it did not enough show itself without my help. How rotten must the cause needs be, which puts so profound a man to such miserable shifts, and absurd arguings, to defend it where there is no opposer? What follows in the same S●ction, is all one as if he had said, not so, but so, etc. because I have over and over told you so, and what I have told you must needs be true. The other things in the explication are not to this question. Lest any should except that I wrong Mr. Baxter in calling these two latter, his second and third Arguments [to prove justification by works] when he doth not so call them, though he doth so use them: I have prosecuted the matter of them wholly as considered in itself, without any further reference to the conclusion, then as himself in express words applies them to it. CHAP. V. The fourth and great Argument of Mr. Baxter examined, and the inference, that because Christ as Lord as well as Saviour is the object of justifying faith, as justifying, therefore we are justified by works as well as by faith, is confuted. And withal proved that Christ as our Lord dying for us, and not as Lord and a Lawgiver is the object of faith as justifying. Mr. Baxters Reasons to prove the contrary, answered. HIS fourth Argument is drawn from the Object of Faith, and the due qualification of the same Object. It runs thus, as by his disputes compacted and compared together, appeareth. B. If Christ be the object of justifying faith, as such, not only in his Priestly office, as our Redeemer and Saviour, but also in his Kingly office our Lord and Ruler, than other works and duties of obedience are as much required as faith in justifying us before God. But Christ is the object of justifying faith as such, not only in his Priestly but also in his Kingly office, as our Lord as well as our Redeemer and Saviour; Ergo, other works and duties of obedience have so much to do injustifying as faith. [He saith affiance, which whether i● at all differs from faith, and whether he means not the same with faith, we shall see afterward, if it be necessary.] The Assumption he lays down and goes about to prove Thes. 66. and in its explication beginning pa. 255. The consequent of the proposition he hath and endeavours to confirm in and under Thes. 72, 73. This one of all his Arguments hath the Dominical letter on it; it is the wood, the rest are but the hay and stabble of his building; his sacra anchora, if this hold not, the man with his vessel, and all the trash-treasure therein must perish upon the Rocks. All the rest of his Arguments are but bubbles in comparison of this bottle-glasse. Therefore he attributes much to this, glorieth in it, and only doth not fall down and worship it. It was hinted before here and there in all his discourse, but here he manageth it with all his strength and art. I shall speak first to the Assumption, because he first puts and endeavours to prove it. And here now appears what his end was in laying a third opinion of the righteousness of Christ to justification, besides the active and passive righteousness: viz. a righteousness meritorious for us, and not imputed to us; after he had been 10. years for the passive righteousness only, as he notifies to us, pa. 54, 55. The ground it seems of altering his judgement is, because that opinion would not subserve to his justification by works; which he hath so pertinaciously determined to set up, that whatsoever of sacred or humane Authority he meets with opposite to it he shoulders it out of the way; and whatsoever occurs out of any sink and puddle making for it, he takes up as a treasure. But the meritoriousness of Christ's Legislative and Kingly office to satisfy for our sins, being laid as a groundwork, he thought (it seems) would tend much to the exalting of the works done by the Commandment of King Jesus, to justification: therefore he took it up from Grotius, and made use of it as a paved way to Justification by works, which here almost from the same grounds he urgeth. And so we see that from the very beginning to the end of this Tractate, all that he hath, conspireth and aspireth to this end [justification by works,] and to elude all that the Gospel hath against it. But let us come to examine his Assumption to this Argument and what he brings for it. B. Thes. 66. Christ is not in any one part or work of his office alone, the object of justifying faith, as such; but Christ in his entire office considered, is this object. viz. as he is Redeemer, Lord, and Saviour. In a good sense we might grant him both all this and all the substance of all the Arguments which he brings to prove it. For none of the Protestant Churches have▪ denied, but maintain, 1 That all the offices of Christ are needful and cooperating to, and in the work of Mediatorship; that Christ not only as our high Priest, but also as our King and Prophet made satisfaction for us, and makes his satisfaction effectual to us. 2 That the object of justifying faith is Christ in all his offices King, Priest, and Prophet. 3. That these offices of Christ are not to be severed by us, because counited and coworking in him. He lays not down, nor puts from him any one of his offices when he either justifyeth, sanctifieth or illuminateth, etc. but doth all and every of them, as Lord, Saviour and Teacher. Yet when all this is granted to him, his cause is never the stronger, nor ours at all the weaker. Nay he declares himself guilty of the fault wherewith he chargeth the innocent, viz. of separating Christ's offices, holding him forth to us as redeeming us only as our high Priest, governing and giving Laws to his Church only by his Kingly office, enlightening us in the truth only as our Prophet: when contrariwise we teach that Jesus Christ, i. e. the Anointed of God, in all his offices, and anointings, is made unto us of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption; not wisdom in one only of his offices, righteousness in another, etc. but all in all, as the Scripture witnesseth, 1 Cor. 1. 30. Nevertheless we deny not but some acts and benefits of Christ are to be attributed more properly and peculiarly to one than another office of Christ, yet so that the cooperation of the other offices therein is nor wholly to be denied. But this we deny, that there is any other fountain opened for the washing away of our sins but the blood of Christ only; or any other satisfaction made to the justice of God but by the sacrifice of Christ alone; yet so as this blood and sacrifice as they are primarily our high Priests, so are they our Kings and Prophets also, howbeit the blood and sacrifice of one Christ alone. And herein we follow the Scriptures leading thread which affirm not only the Priest to have died for us, but our Prophet or Shepherd also: I am the good Shepherd, and give and lay down my life for the sheep, Joh. 10 11, 15. He came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many, Mat. 20. 28. viz. to seal the doctrine with his blood which he had taught with his lips, and to make the way through the veil of his flesh, through his blood, which he had taught to be the only way into the Holiest to the Father. And as the Shepherd so the Lord and King also; It was the LORD, that was betraye●▪ 1 Cor. 11. 23. crucified, 1 Cor. 2. 8: killed, Act. 3. 15. and rais●● again, 1 Cor. 6. 14. Even the Lord of glory and Prince of life. Therefore it is that the holy Ghost calls it the Lords death, 1 Cor. 11. 2●. The Lord's body, and the Lords blood, 1 Cor. 11. 27, 29. And needful was it that Christ as Lord and King with all his power should thus grapple with sin, death and hell, on our behalf; how else should he have vanquished them, and having spoilt these Principalities and powers, made a show of them openly, and triumphed over them? Col. 2. 15. And without this victory his death had been to us vain, our enemies had remained unconquered, and ourselves unransomed. The strong man had not been driven out by a stronger than he, Luk. 11. 21, 22. Thus we neither divide nor separate the offices of Christ one from another, but conjoin them all in the death and passion of Christ, by which alone we believe and teach that the Lord, Priest and Prophet, Christ Jesus hath made satisfaction for our sins. But we utterly deny that which Mr. Baxter drives at, that Christ as our Lord, that is, as a Lawgiver, and [to speak in Mr. Baxters' words, Thes. 31.] as he doth establish the moral Law commanding perfect obedience, and forbidding every sin, as exactly as under the Covenant of works; is the object of justifying faith, as justifying. This was that great and principal article which Luther with so much vehemency defended against the Papists, viz. that Christ is Luth. in Gal. Cap. 2. 20: & alibi. no Moses, no Exactor, no giver of Laws [in reference to justification] but a giver of grace, a Saviour, etc. pronouncing it an accursed ●and hellish doctrine which the Papists taught, that he justifyeth as a Lawgiver, that they which so paint him out, make him not a Christ but a Fiend or Devil. The state of the question than is betwixt him and us, not whether Christ as Lord as well as Saviour; but whether by the sacrifice of himself for us, or else by giving Laws and Commanding all duties of obedience to us also; be the object of justifying faith, as justifying, i. e. whether our faith by obeying Christ in the works of righteousness as well as by cleaving to Christ crucified do justify? We maintain that the death of Christ, or Christ dying for us, is alone offered to our faith for justification: he contrariwise, that Christ as commanding the duties of obedience is the object of faith as justifying. Our Assertion that Christ suffering for us is the alone object of justifying faith, as such; may be confirmed by many Arguments. One Argument may be drawn from the offerings and sacrifices of the old Testament, and the sacraments both of the old and new Testament. Such as these have exhibited, or do still exhibit Christ to us for redemption or justification, such is our faith still to receive him. But these all have exhibited and do exhibit Christ, not as a Lawgiver, but as an offering or sacrifice for our sins: therefore under this notion our faith is to receive him to justification. So all the sacrifices, circumcision, paschal Lamb, etc. under the old Testament, directed the faith of men to Christ's sacrifice to the blood and wounds of Christ for purging, etc. Or if any will say (as he may truly say) that circumcision typified also the renovation of the heart by the Spirit of Christ, himself may answer himself that this was to sanctification, and not to justification. 2 The whole stream of the Gospel leads our faith to Christ crucified or dying for justification. As the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness, so shall the Son of man be lifted up, [viz. upon the cross] that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, John 3. 14, 15. I determined to know (i. e. to preach among you for your knowledge) nothing else but Christ, and him crucified, 1 Cor. 2. 2. If I be lifted up I will draw all men to me, (signifying what death he should die.) Joh. 12. 32, 33. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, etc. Joh. 6. 47,- 58. Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 4. 25. Being justified by his blood, Rom. 5. 9 The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin, 1 Joh. 1. 7. The Lamb of God [sacrificed] that taketh away the sins of the World, Joh. 1. 29. Having made peace through the blood of his Cross. Col. 1. 20. And reconciled us in the body of his flesh through death, Ver. 21, 22. Having redemption through his blood even the sorgivenesse of sin, Col 1. 14. He hath purchased his Church with his blood, Act. 20. 28. Having boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way, which he hath consecrated through the veil of his flesh, Heb. 10. 19, 20. He was wounded for our sins and bruised for our iniquities, and by his stripes we are healed, Isa. 53. 5. God forbidden that I should glory in any thing but in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, Gal. 6. 14. I might even weary the Reader with allegations of Scriptures every way as pertinently and properly making Christ dying for us the object of faith as justifying. And I challenge Mr. Baxter and all his admirers, to produce one Scripture proving Christ as a Lawgiver to be the object of our faith to justification. If they cannot do it, let it be acknowledged as an audacious and daring presumption in Mr. Baxter, from his own authority, without and against the Word, to lay it down here as a position and principle of Religion. 3 If the death and sufferings alone of Christ (and not his giving of Laws and commanding duties of righteousness) be the sole and entire satisfaction which he hath given to the justice of God for us, than Christ in his death, and not at all in his Laws and Commands of such duties, is to be made the object of our faith for justification. But the former is true: therefore the latter also. Both the consequent and consequence of the Proposition must needs be granted by all Protestants (though not by Remonstrants and Socinians) which hold the imputation of the obedience of Christ to us by which he hath satisfied God's justice; that he for us and we in and by him have done our law: that his satisfying obedience is by imputation so fully made ours to justification as if we had done it ourselves; which is the doctrine of all Protestant Churches. But Mr. Baxter hateth this phrase of imputation of Christ's obedience, will not, cannot admit it; for than he destroys and pronounceth all at the best to be erroneous whatsoever he hath spouted out for sacred doctrine; he grants the imputation of nothing else but our own faith and works to justification; so that after his principles the consequence is not so clear. Let us see therefore whether also after and upon his own grounds, it may stand firm and undeniable. 1 Then, Mr. Baxter Thes. 18. affirms our Legal righteousness (as he calls it) i. e. that righteousness by which the Law is satisfied for our breaches of it, to be in Christ; and in calling this Legal righteousness ours, and the satisfaction therein made ours, he doth imply that the satisfaction of Christ is the thing that being made ours is that which justifyeth us. This he speaks out yet more plainly, pa. 218. telling us that Christ's satisfaction must be made ours, else we cannot be justified: that so far as by imputation no more is understood then the bestowing of Christ's satisfaction on us, so that we shall have the justice and benefits thereof as truly as if we had satisfied ourselves; in this sense he granteth the imputation of Christ's satisfactory righteousness; and thus according to his principles, that act, or those acts of Christ by which he made satisfaction for us, or rather Christ in these acts is to be made the object of our faith as justifying. According to this rule pa. 54. he makes the Active righteousness of Christ (considered as such) part of the satisfaction together with the Passive: and to lay a ground for that which he here inferreth, pa. 57, he affirms that among other parts of Christ's righteousness or Active obedience, his assuming of the humane nature, his establishing and sealing the Covenant, his working miracles, his sending his Disciples to convert and save the world, his overcoming death and rising again, etc. (which were all works most proper to his kingly office) to have been meritorious and satisfactory. And all this to lay a foundation for what here and Thes. 72. he buildeth, viz. Christ as a Lawgiver as well as a Redeemer is the object of justifying faith as such, and that obedience to his Laws as well as faith in his sufferings, hath to do in our justification. We find then Mr. Baxter making Christ in his Legislative righteousness upon this ground alone to be the object of justifying faith, as therein he in part satisfied for our disobedience. Therefore hoc nomine and in this respect must the consequence of the proposition stand firm with him, viz. If only the death and sufferings of Christ and not at all his Legislative righteousness, be the sole and entire satisfaction, etc. then Christ in his death only and not, etc. is to be made the object of faith as justifying. For in that righteousness alone by which Christ satisfied, is faith to apprehend him to justification, by his own rules. The Assumption than remains alone needful to be proved, viz. that Christ's death and suffering alone is the entire satisfaction. This is clear to them which will not wilfully retain beams in their eyes, from these Scriptures which affirm the life of Christ sacrificed for us to be the Ransom, Mat. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 6. The Price by which we are purchased and redeemed from thraldom. 1 Cor. 6. 20. & 7. 23. The propitiation for our sins through faith in his blood. Rom. 3. 25. 1 Joh. 4. 10. i e. that one and only act of Christ by which our sins are expiated, the justice of God satisfied, and his wrath appeased, so that we find him now a God propitious and gracious to us. But if we will hear the Scriptures speaking at large and articulately confirming this position, that the satisfaction made by Christ is begun, continued and perfected merely and wholly in and by Christ's sufferings, in steed of many Testimonies which the Scripture affordeth, I shall pitch upon two disputes only of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The former in cap 9 beginning at the 11 and 12 verses. That Christ being become an high Priest, etc. by his own blood entered once into the Holy place, having obtained for us eternal Redemption. I need not explain the words for the edification of any that hath but read the Scriptures, and taken but overly into his consideration, how that which was yearly under the Law figured in the act of the high Priest the type, was at length effectually accomplished by Christ the Antitype. Again, ver. 13, 14. If the blood of Bulls, etc. sanctified to the purifying of the Flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, which by the eternal Spirit offered himself to God, without spot, purge your conscience from dead works? etc. An undeniable virtue and efficacy in the blood of Christ alone, without any further acts of Christ himself to purge the conscience, e. i. to absolve and justify, is here affirmed. And further ver. 15. He is the Mediator of the new Covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Testament, they which are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, i. e. the eternal inheritance promised, by means of Christ's death, and not by his Legislative righteousness. And ver. 26▪ Christ now once at the end of the world hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. What sin? All sin according to that of John, The blood of Christ purgeth from all sin, 1 Joh. 1. 7. And if from all sin, what sin is there left for Christ's giving of Laws to put away? or what of justification left out for it to perfect? or of full satisfaction not made, for it, to complete? Lastly, ver. 28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. How did he bear them, but as the Apostle saith, He hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us? Gal. 3. 13. and in bearing them on our behalf he satisfied justice on our behalf. And this is affirmed to be by offering himself for us, not by giving Laws to us, or enjoining duties upon us. His second dispute is chap. 10. where the Apostle having mentioned the feebleness of the sacrifices offered by the Law, to take away sin, brings in Christ offering himself to accomplish what these could not, and declaring his ready obedience to fulfil that will of God written in the volume of God's book to offer himself a sacrifice for sin, with a Lo, I come: by this will of God (saith he) we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, ver. 5,— 10. He saith not, we have our consecration to be holy, by the commands of Christ, etc. but by the offering of his body. And that by sanctification is to be here understood purification and justification; I think it will not be denied: However ver. 12. it is added, that he having once offered sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God, his sitting down and resting argues his work the work of our redemption and justification perfected in every degree and number. His rest is as God's rest was from the beginning, than the work of Creation, now of Redemption being made absolutely perfect, the rest followed; and where had this work its beginning, progress and perfection? In his once offering of sacrifice for sins for ever. Nothing here of Christ's Law-giving and rule from the bottom to the top of the work of Redemption or Justification. The sacrifice alone satisfied, so far all things of man are here excluded, as that nothing else of Christ is required. As it is more fully yet expressed ver. 14. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. His perfecting Mr. Baxter will not deny to be his making of perfect satisfaction for them, and this is done by one offering of Christ. Will Mr. Baxter be so audacious as to oppose the holy Ghost with his Nay, telling that there must be somewhat else besides this offering, viz. Christ's Law-giving as part of the satisfaction made for us. Lastly, to put all out of doubt, and besides the bounds of cavilling, what the Apostle should mean here by sanctifying and perfecting, this also is unfolded in plain words, ver. 17, 18. viz. The taking away of their sins and iniquities: And where the remission of these is, there is no more offering, etc. satisfaction is made to the full and no need of any addition for the perfecting thereof. I acknowledge there are many things required to condition Christ that he might be an effectual offerer and offering, else could not the redemption and justification which are by him have been completed; or the satisfaction made for us been perfect. Yea that after the work of satisfaction, as formerly of Creation finished, and a total resting from any further addition to it, yet the Father worketh and the Son worketh hitherto in the business of governing and preserving of what is so created and repaired: yet this doth not at all hinder but that full satisfaction is made by the alone offering of Christ. And here once more I call upon Mr. Baxter and all his adherents to bring forth any one testimony of Scripture, to prove that either Christ's Law-giving or any other act of Christ, besides this one of offering himself a sacrifice for sin, is by the Scripture in whole or in part affirmed satisfactory to God for our justification. Let them not as Mr. Baxter before doth from pa. 54. to pa. 61. bring their peradventures, and may▪ bees, and possibles, and verisimilies, (for are the conjectures and results of a working and selfconceited brain, to be laid as a foundation whereon to build an Article of our faith?) But let them bring the oracle of the Word testifying either that Christ hath done, or God hath required of him or accepted from him such and such works in part of satisfaction. Else our ears will be deaf to hear man's prattle, being attentive in such matters only to the voice of the holy Ghost. This shall suffice for the opening and confirming of ou● Tenet, until it shall be further opposed. Now let us hear what Mr. Baxter hath to say against us, or for the proof of his Assumption. B. Pa. 255. That Christ as a Saviour only, or in respect of his Priestly office only, is not the object of justifying faith; But that faith doth as really and immediately receive him as King, and in so doing justify; this I prove thus, If he mean otherwise then I have before declared to be the judgement of Protestants, and (as he terms them) godly and learned Divines, of singular esteem in the Church of God, pa. 53. and one of them to be of more authority than many writers and readers, Appen. pa. 12. he feigneth an Adversary, and beats the wind. But against our Assertion as I have explained it; or for his Assertion setting up the commands of duty by Christ together with the sacrifice of Christ's death, to be the object of faith as justifying, if he say any thing we are to examine it. As for the rest which he speaks besides the purpose, we shall look on it and neglect it. B. 1. The Gospel doth not reveal Christ's offices as separated: but as they are revealed, so they must be believed. This makes not against us, but against himself. We make Christ in his offering himself for us our Melchisedek, King, Priest and Prophet; he divides in restraining the Kingly office only to giving of Laws, etc. and not at all acting mediatorily in his death. B. 2. Neither doth it offer Christ in his Pristly office only as separated form his Kingly: though it may sometimes press the acceptance of him in one respect; and sometimes in another: but as he is offered, so he must be received. We grant him all, but what hence will result to his use? B. 3. Scripture no where tieth justification to the receipt of him as our Priest only; therefore we must not do so. Scripture every where affirmeth God's justice to be satisfied by the blood of Christ, and sends our faith to that fountain alone for purging; therefore we must do so. B. 4. How commonly doth Scripture join his offices together, calling him our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Hath Mr. Baxter in a dream met with any bugbear that doth otherwise? B. 5. If we receive him not as King, we receive him not as entire Saviour; for he saveth us, not only by dying for us, but also by reducing us really into communion with God, and guiding us by his Laws, and protecting and perfecting us by his government, and subduing our enemies. 1 The husband is in some sense said sometimes to save the wife, and the wife to save the husband; and the Ministers to save themselves and others, 1 Cor. 7. 16. 1 Tim. 4. 16. Must therefore the husband, or wife, or Minister be made the object of saving or justifying faith as such? ● The question is not here how many acts of Christ, of men, of ourselves, are instrumental to our salvation, but what act of Christ hath satisfied for our sins, by the application whereof we are constituted actually righteous, are pardoned and justified before God? This we maintain to be Christ's offering himself to God for us, and let Mr. Baxter disapprove it. 3 We deny not that Christ hath other operations by which to perfect and sustain the justified to eternal life; yea to prevent our faith, infusing it, and directing it to himself crucified, and satisfying for us; and to follow it by supporting it and holding us fixed by faith to himself thus satisfying for us, and to stabish his Kingdom within us in peace, righteousness and joy in the holy Ghost; yea that in these Christ must be made the object of our faith for our confirmation, dependence and comfort: But as justifying and fetching from him the matter of justification, or rather the righteousness by which we are justified, it must know nothing else but Christ and him crucified; as before hath been proved, and we wait to hear from Mr. Baxter or any of his disciples, one Scripture to confute it. B. 6. His Kingly office is a true part of his entire office of Mediatorship: Now the sincerity of acts in Moral respects lieth in their true suitableness to the nature of their objects: As God is not truly loved except he be loved entirely; so neither is Christ truly received, except you receive him entirely. It is a lame, partial faith, and no true faith, that taketh Christ only in the notion of a deliverer from guilt and punishment without any accepting of him as our Lord and Governor, though I believe that the hope of being pardoned and saved is the first thing that moveth men to receive Christ, yet do they being so moved, receive him as their Lord also, or else they do not receive him sincerely. Sound without substance, no more to his purpose then if he had said nothing. What one Protestant ever held it a sincere faith that apprehends Christ to justification, and not for illumination, and sanctification also? will it then follow that illumination and sanctification are justification? or that faith as these ways acting doth justify? Then also my hand in feeding clothes me, and in clothing feeds me. B. 7. The exalting of his Kingly office is as principal an end of his dying and becoming Mediator, as is the saving of us, and exalting of his Priestly office; see the 2. Psalm, & Rom. 14. 9 To this end he both died, risen again, and revived that he might be the Lord both of the dead and the living; and therefore the receiving of him as Priest alone, is not like to be the condition of our justification. An invincible argument! he that will not be swayed by it, let him continue in his wits still. As if whatsoever thing God had an end to exalt by Christ's death must be the object of faith as justifying. God intended by it to exalt his elect; are the elect therefore the object of justifying faith? Besides we say not that the receiving of Christ as Priest alone justifyeth. B. So that if Christ put both into the condition, we must not separate what he hath joined. Himself (as I have showed) separateth: we join them together in Christ's passion, and in the rest of his acts and benefits. B. But the main ground of their error who think otherwise, is this, They think acceptance of the mercy offered, doth make it ours immediately in a natural way, as the accepting of a thing from men, and so as if he that accepteth pardon should have it, and he that accepteth sanctity should have it, etc. But Christ (as I have showed) establisheth his office and authority, before he bestoweth his mercies, and though accepting be the proper condition, yet doth it not confer the title to us as it is an accepting primarily, but as it is the Covenants condition: If we we should take possession when we have no title in Law, God would quickly challenge us for our bold usurpation, and deal with us as with him that intruded without the wedding garment. There is more ado then come in, and sit down, and take what we have a mind to: God hath put all his Sons offices into the condition, to be received and submitted to: Either all or none must be accepted. And if all be in the condition, than the receiving of all must needs justify upon the grounds that I have laid down before. It is not a new thing to see heresy usurping the chair to condemn truth of error. The reasoning here is wholly carnal and natural, besides the rule of the Gospel. When he calls faith a natural way of receiving the mercy offered by Christ, and our own worth and works (implyedly) the spiritual way, how doth he put light for darkness, and darkness for light, giving to the truly spiritual, cause of renewing that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2. 14. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, etc. Can Heaven and Hell be more opposite either to other than the Apostles doctrine to Mr. Baxters? The Apostle calls the way of faith alone, the Spirit, and the way of works superadded to faith for justification, the flesh, Gal. 3. 3. Is it Flesh or Spirit in Mr. Baxter that makes him a contradictor of the holy Ghost speaking by the Apostle. The way of faith is the way of grace, supernatural, Flesh and blood cannot reveal it unto us, but our Father which is in heaven. But the way of works is beneath grace, dictated by nature itself, therefore natural, but so that all the force of nature cannot effectuallize it to justification. It is a slander that he puts upon the Orthodox whom he hateth, therefore represents them as Noddies, and Simpletons, pretending that they teach faith to be nothing but an accepting of pardon, and accepting of holiness, [&c.] Nay we make neither pardon, nor holiness, nor the [&c.] but Christ Jesus the object of our faith, adhere and cleave to him for all, yet not confounding his benefits, or the means by which he applieth them, but wait by faith at the several sluices by which he conferreth his several benefits, to receive the washing away of our guilt by the effusion of his blood, and holiness or sanctification by the effusion of his Spirit and not contrariwise holiness by his blood, and pardon by the effusion of his Spirit. So we repair by faith to Christ for all, because in him as in the spring is all; yet so as that in coming to him alone that hath all, we come to the Sun of righteousness for light, to the fountain for life, and to the Spirit of sanctification which flows from him for holiness. He cries against separation, and makes it (as I have showed) for union, and makes confusions. Where doth he mention any office or operation of faith to sanctification? or use of sanctification but to justification? or what is faith with him but a compound of all endowments, works, and duties? And thus he confounds faith and works, Christ's righteousness, and man's righteousness, moral honesty, and Gospel's sanctification, of all together making up one linsy-woolsy justification or righteousness to justification, which the Spirit of God never revealed, but the spirit of Mr. Baxter hath hatched. What he speaketh of Christ stablishing his office, either is above my understanding, or else is not at all to his purpose. And what of accepting as under the notion of accepting, or as under the notion of a condition, hath been enough spoken to in what was before said about the instrumentality of faith. All that followeth is wholly averse from, and adverse to the doctrine of the Gospel, Jewish and Popish. For what means he by our title in Law, and the wedding garment, but the whole furniture of works and duties done in obedience to a supposed legislative authority of Christ? Without these and before these to take possession, i. e. to dare to adhere to Christ for justification is usurpation, and an incurring of God's vengeance for usurping: Thus beating off from Christ sinners, chief sinners for whom Christ hath died. How doth the spirit of the rejected Jew's work upon this man? when they heard of righteousness and Act. 22. 21, 22, 23. salvation offered to the Gentiles, a common and profane people that were not holy, how did they stretch their throats, and rend their clothes in a zeal against this indignity? So this man hearing of the justificition of Publicans and sinners, hath his eye evil because God is good: tears himself with anger, crying, usurpation, vengeance, hellfire; why? because they had not put on the filthy rags of man's righteousness, which he calls the wedding garment, and thereby gotten title to Christ before they were so bold as to believe in him, and girded on their own gaol-clothes first, and then have put on Christ upon them, that their own righteousness might have been nearest the heart, and Christ's righteousness at a further distance, as having no efficacy but from our own righteousness effectuallizing it. Unto all this I shall use only that oracle of the Lord Christ, The Publicans and harlots enter into the Kingdom of God before these Pharisaical justiciaries, and whited sepulchres. Let Christ alone be my wedding garment, I leave all that unrighteous righteousness which Mr. Baxter would wrest out from the Kingly office, entire to Mr. Baxter to complete his righteousness to justification. I know no other title to the justification of the new Covenant, which the chief sinners must look after before they possess it, but the grant of grace in the new Covenant, and their closure by faith with Christ, in whom God presents himself to justify and reconcile them to himself. One voice of my Bridegroom, crying, Whosoever thirsteth, i. e. is dry and empty of all good in himself, let him come to me, and whosoever will, let him drink of the well of the water of life freely, Rev. 22. 17. is of more force with me then ten thousand contradicting voices such as this of Mr. Baxter, There is more ado then come in, and sit down, and take what we have a mind to: If this man had the imaginary place of Peter to be Porter of heaven, how quickly would he forfeit his place by repelling those whom alone Christ will have admitted, and admitting those that Christ will have repelled? Christ admits believers, not doers, this man rejects all believers that are not doers before they are believers. The rest that he saith here is sacrificed to his Goddess the Lady Condition. A deity that the Scriptures never knew; nor yet all the whole University of Athens. They erected an Altar indeed to the unknown God, Act. 17. 23. see the depth of Mr. Baxter, he hath found the Antipodas which the old Mathematicians wrote of, but could never find: the deity which the learned Athenians worshipped, but worshipped they knew not what. This Goddess Condition by some help of the Socinians and Arminians hath M. Baxter brought to light, and invested her with more glittering ornaments than they had wit to do; only he hath not yet built a Temple, and there enthroned her, for all men to fall down with him and worship her. Yet of this Almighty power he proclaims her that she binds the hands of God and Men: the one cannot give, the other cannot receive without her mediation. Neither the eternal Father, nor the eternal Son can show the least mercy to a poor sinner, nor the sinner partake of one crumb of mercy from the Father by the Son, unless this great Lady Condition say Amen to it; so high and so to vast a bigness hath the Man already stretched her. Yet is he still adding, and in this place he is nailing in the offices of Christ into her bulk. But because this Colossus is only from his own brain, and nothing of God's Word brought to own one piece of it, let us leave him admiring if not adoring his fabric or figment, and refer ourselves to answer when he brings any thing from God's Word. We have seen by this time the invalidity of the Assumption of Mr. Baxters' Argument, and of all the Reasons which he brings to prove it; either to give proppage to his own assertion, or any way to shake and weaken ours. I am to examine also the consequent and consequence of his Proposition. And here I deny both that other works and duties are required with faith to justification, and all consequency hereof from this supposition that Christ in all his offices is the object of faith as justifying. This Mr. Baxter layeth down first in and under his 72. Thesis', pag. 266. & deinceps. His Thesis runs thus, B. As the accepting of Christ for Lord, (which is the heart's subjection) is as essential a part of justifying faith, as the accepting of him for our Saviour: So consequently sincere obedience (which is the effect of the former) hath as much to do in justifying us before God, as affiance (which is the fruit of the latter.) The Antecedent of this Position is nothing else but the reassuming of his former Assumption with a short explication and a short obscuration added to it. His obscuration in this, that he names justifying without the adjection there used [as such] we will understand him here meaning what there he speaks, else we run from the question. His explication, that here he unfolds what he meant there by accepting Christ for Lord, viz. the heart's subjection, [to Christ's Legislative power, or his commanding of woeks and obedience.] In this sense we deny still that the accepting of Christ for Lord is an essential part of justifying faith, as such. And all that which he seems further to bring for the confirmation thereof, pa. 287, & 288. is but the saying over again of what he had said before, and a little prattle of Physical and moral Philosophy, which is as fit to explain to us the mystery of Christ, faith and justification; as a net is to hold fast the wind: and yet if all his reasoning thence were granted, his cause is as naked and weak with it as without it. The rest is nothing but words, his own words, his bare affirmations, wherewith we have been so much wearied, that the very thought of them is offensive. We expect God's word, let him bring it, or hold his peace. The consequent of this Thesis, which is also the consequent of the proposition of the Argument which we are here examining; he puts here more fraudulently than I rendered it there, viz. that sincere Obedience doth as much justify as affiance, that, as the fruit of our accepting Christ for Lord and Lawgiver, as much as this, which is a fruit of accepting Christ for our Saviour. How slippery is falsehood, and how full of evasions? Let him speak positively and plainly, hath such obedience any thing to do in justifying us? I should not lie if I should say, I have conquered so many Armies, taken so many Towns in, and brought so much gold from the West-Indies, as Mr. Baxter: yet though I speak no lie, I cannot be excused from speaking vanity in saying it; for neither of us have done it. But let us see whether there be more positiveness in his poofs then in his affirmations. In his 288. pag. thus he speaketh to it. B. That obedience is as near a fruit of faith as affiance, is evident; if you take it for the obedience of the soul, in acts that are no more remote from the heart than affiance is: and so is the obedience of our actions external, in its formal respect (as obedience): though not in its material, because the imperate acts are not all so near the fountain as the elicit. If by this profound reasoning there be any that will not be persuaded to be a Christian of Mr. Baxters' painting, let him continue to be not only almost but altogether a Christian of Christ's making, and he shall never sustain damage thereby to his conscience or salvation. The question is not here how near or how remote a fruit of faith, obedience is, but whether the nearest or most distant fruits thereof, considered (as Mr. Baxter doth) as our acts or deeds; nor yet whether these acts as close to, and remote from the heart, nor whether imperate or elicit acts, but whether such acts are at all appointed of God to justification? We deny it, and Mr. Baxter brings nothing to prove it. Yet not to suffer the less exercised and informed Reader to departed unsatisfyed, nor to roll up in darkness and silence any truth of the Gospel, proper here to be cleared; I shall manifest in what respect Mr. Baxters' assertion may be here warily granted. Christ as Saviour, and satisfier, i. e. by the sacrifice of his death, hath made a way for sinners to God, yea made himself the way, and is in respect thereof made to us of God, righteousness. This he did principally (not only) as our high Priest, the other offices were not excluded. This was not the whole work that he was sent to do. He must bring into the way also that he hath made, all that are to be saved in it and by it, Joh. 10. 16. And having brought them he must also enable them to bring forth fruit to God by being their sanctifier, Joh. 15. 5. Rom. 7. 4. 6. in these works he acteth principally as our Prophet and King. To bring us into communion with him, and into that way which he hath made through himself to righteousness and blessedness, as our Prophet he teacheth, and as our King commandeth, but as Priest, Prophet and King effectuallizeth his teaching and commands by his Spirit: In this respect his commands to us of coming by faith into union with him, of adhering to him, and reposing ourselves wholly upon him for righteousness and life, we grant that Christ as our King commanding, as far as we look to the thing commanded, viz. faith in his blood alone for justification, is an eminent instrument of our justification; and as he effectuallizeth the merits of his death to us may not be unproperly made the object of our faith as justifying. But in his other forementioned operations upon us by his Word and Spirit, not only to teach and command, but also by his infinite power to enliven us to bring forth fruits of so great a salvation, and to walk worthy of it in all holiness and righteousness, and exactness to fulfil all duties and works of Christian obedience; In this he is to be made indeed the object of justifying faith, or (which is the same) of sanctifying faith, yet not at it justifyeth, but as it sanctifyeth. We should not a little maim both the office of faith, and the benefits which we have by Christ, if we should restrain them all to justification. Nay Christ is made unto us as well sanctification as righteousness; and faith adhereth as fast to Christ for the one as the other: else is it not a legitimate but bastard faith. Nevertheless Christ is not in the same respect the object of faith as sanctifying, and of the same as justifying. Because this is Mr. baxter's supereminent Argument, in which himself seems most to trust, and by which so many learned Ministers do even profess themselves staggered and astonished: I shall omit nothing unexamined that he speaketh in the affirming or confirming of it, lest any should take occasion to say that the strongest part thereof is not, because it could not be, answered. Therefore have I left out nothing of what he hath said to the other Proposition; though many things were unworthy of Animadversion. To the consequent of this Proposition, he speaketh more in his next two Theses, viz. 73. & 74. what is inserted in these two Aphorisms, more fit to be examined under another notion; I shall here forbear to transcribe, leaving it for its proper place. What is to the present purpose, he thus expresseth, B. Thes. 73. pa. 289. Faith only doth not justify, in opposition to the works of the Gospel, but those works do also justify. Thes. 74. Both faith and works justify in the same kind of causality, viz. as Causae sine quibus non, or mediate and improper causes; or (as Dr. Twisse) causae dispositivae, etc. The like may be said of Love, and of others in the same station. These are but mere affirmations, and contain no reasons to confirm, only in the latter Thesis, seemingly at least, is produced the authority of that Antinomian Dr. Twisse: but with so fine a conveyance as that he may be kept in or left out at pleasure if Mr. Baxter be dealt with to make good his allegation of him. He knows the name and authority of Dr. Twisse to be great and amiable, as an eminent servant of Christ, and patron of his truth. He concludes therefore that his assertions will be swallowed with the more facility having such an authority to sweeten and fortify them. Therefore so interserteth his Testimony, that his Reader may suppose Dr. Twisse to affirm works to be causas dispositivas of justification. I neither have read all that Dr. Twisse hath written, neither do I so far trust my memory, as to deny it flatly and peremptorily. Yet by knowing Dr. Twisse aright, I am as confident that Bellarmine hath taught the righteousness of justification to be merely by imputation, and our justification only by faith, as that Dr. Twisse hath any way affirmed works in this or any other respect to prevent or operate to our justification. If he did, why doth not Mr. Baxter quote the place, as elsewhere he doth very diligently when the Testimony of the Author makes for him? or why in the end of his Appendix, where he sucks out of Dr. Twisse and others, all that he thinks may make for his advantage, doth he not cite this so pregnant a Testimony? But he hath left to himself an evasion, that when he hath beguiled whom he can with such an authority, being found at last, he can answer his meaning is, the term or phrase, (viz. causa dispositiva) upon some other, not to this Argument, is that which Dr. Twisse useth. I find him indeed calling works causas sine quibus non; or dispositivas salutis, of our salvation or glorification, never of our justification: And so far is he from attributing under this term what Mr. Baxter attributeth, that he seriously abandoneth it. So he expresseth himself, Vind. Lib. 1. Par. 2. Sect. 2. Proxime finem. Vix majus p●ceatum est quam justificationem quaerere ex operibus: and almost in the next words, Nullum opus Deo gratiu● & acceptius est, quam sibi & justitiae suae in negotiosalutis renunt iare, et in Christo unice confidere. But come we now to that which he speaks for confirmation, the first part consists in prefacing. His own conscience telling him that it is a Pharisaical, Popish principle which he hear positeth, he forelayes his Proem to the proof thereof thus; B. I know this is the doctrine that will have the loudest out-cries raised against it: and will make some cry out, Heresy, Popery, Socinianism, and what not? For mine own part the searcher of hearts knoweth, that not singularity, affection of novelty, nor any goodwill to Popery, provoketh me to entertain it; but that I have earnestly sought the Lords direction upon my knees, before I durst adventure on it, and that I resisted the light of this conclusion as long as I was able; but a man cannot force his own understanding, if the evidence of truth force it not, though he may force his pen or tongue to silence or dissembling. That which I shall do further is to give you some proofs, etc. First, here a word to such Ministers as being more the disciples of men then of Christ, and better versed in Sophistry then Divinity, do only not deify Mr. Baxter, maintaining all his doctrine in this book to be the doctrine of all the Protestant Churches. Why do they anger the man in charging him with so low a spirit, that he hath nothing but what is common with him and the most eminent lights in the Church? will not he be offended at it? doth he not here in some kind pronounce himself a dissenter? and that what he here asserteth is that which the Protestant Churches detest as heresy? doth not himself even before experience what acceptance his book would have, as it were proclaim himself in this point departed from us into the Tents of Papists and Socinians? As to Mr. Baxter, 1. We have before granted to him that he gives no cause of suspicion that affection of singularity and novelty hath drawn him into this opinion. For he is not herein singular, nor is his doctrine new, but such as the Pharisees in Christ's time, and the false Apostles in the Apostles times, and the worst of Heretics from thence unto our days have unanimously pestered the Church with. Yet in this I appeal to Mr. Baxter whether some affection of repute by being a deviser of a new way and new Arguments for the confirmation of this old Popish, Socinian doctrine hath not possessed him? 2. Whether the searcher of all hearts witness for him that no good will to Popery in general provoked him to trouble the Church with his doctrine, I will not judge: But if good will to this part of Popery that consists in justification by works, (unto which if all the rest garbage of Popery be compared, it is insufficient to counterpoise it in mischief) did not provoke, let him show what hath provoked him to it. Is it in hatred to the Papists that he hath laboured so stoutly to maintain their Kingdom? Is not this the pillar of all Popery? and if this be demolished, what is there of all their heresies but will fall after? 3. As to his sincerity in this business in following conscientiously his judgement; I know, I find in myself, the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately evil, who can find it out? I search only my own not another's heart, that is out of my orb, and beyond my fathom. But I should give the more credence to Mr. Baxter speaking of his own sincerity in this business, did I not see him forsaking the fountain, and digging to himself cisterns, deriving from every puddle of Papists, Arminians, Socinians and Atheists, both his tenants, and all fallacious Sophistry to maintain them, leaving the pure word of God, and tossing it either from him, or for himself at his pleasure. 4. As for his prayer if presented to God after his own principles as an Act helping to justify him, and no further, through the mediation of Christ, then as the same mediation take efficacy (as to him) from his own works and worth; no marvel if the justice of God fling it back as dirt in his face, and left him to that de luding spirit which worketh by those false Apostles whom he had studied so many years, having spent but a few days upon the Scriptures as himself confesseth. So the Pharisee after his praying departed from the presence of God, unjustifyed, unregarded. Such devout Protestations may possibly take impression upon the weak and ignorant: But Satan in the vizard of an Angel of light, and Satan in his own ghastly visage, is to them that are strong in the faith, the same Satan and alike shunned. Besides when men rest not satisfied with the sacred truth of the Word, but will as it were rake the very dung of God's enemies for quaintifies of knowledge which the Word hath not; if they are blacked no marvel, for their delight is to dwell with Colliers. And God hath threatened to send them strong delusions that they should believe a lie, etc. 2 Thes. 2. 10, 11, 12. Yielding them up to wax worse, deceiving others, being themselves deceived or self-deceivers, 2 Tim. 3. 13. He promiseth some proofs of what he saith, and one argument he puts in this explication, thus, B. If faith justify as it is the fulfilling of the condition of the new Covenant, and obedience be also part of the condition; then obedience must justify in the same way as faith: But both parts of the Antecedent are before proved. An Herculean Argument, as soon may a man wrest the Club out of Hercules his hand, as make void the conclusion which is inserred by this Argument. If my eye discerneth colours upon condition it look diligently upon them, and my hand doth enrich me upon condition that it stretcheth forth itself to receive a Prince's beneficence, and my heel be put into the same condition with my eye and my hand, than my heel doth discern colours in the same way with my eye, and enrich me in the same way with my hand: But both parts of the Antecedent are as firmly proved before, as the both parts of Mr. Baxters' antecedent. Ergo the conclusion is as very a blank as Mr. baxter's. If Mr. baxter's oft saying of the same thing doth prove the thing to be true, than this cannot be denied to be a truth. For who can number the times that he hath kissed and spit in the mouth of this Ashteroth Condition, setting it up cheekmate with Christ himself in justifying us. For Thes. 56. he yokes together Christ and faith in the same way of causality to justification, and here and every where faith and obedience or works, so that Christ, faith and works are collaterals in justifying, how? as they meet together in this one Great Colossus condition, or causa sine qua non. Christ is the condition, (even in his satisfaction) and faith is the condition, and works is the condition: so that Condition (it seems by him) justifyeth more than works, or faith, or Christ: for neither works alone, nor faith alone, nor Christ, alone doth justify. But this mouth-almighty Condition, when like Bel and the Dragon, she hath eaten up and swallowed into her bowels, Christ, faith, and works; doth of, and by herself alone justify, such a Justifyer, and such a Justification. I should speak more seriously, if Mr. Baxter had ministered to me more serious matter whereof to treat. Chaff is wont to be exposed to the wind when the Wheat as more substantial is allotted to a more substantial handling. The rest of his Arguments which he brings in other Theses, I shall examine by themselves. CHAP. VI The fift Argument answered, and the dispute of St. James Cap. 2. opened, and the Reasons drawn thence to prove justification by works, refuted. THe former was Mr. Baxters great Argument, the fift in number is like to it, yet not so much hugged and honoured by him as the former, because that was his own, born of his own brain: This he takes up as fully form by the Papists to his hand and use, so that he is not to have the entire honour of it, but every petty Monk and Sacrificer will challenge his part therein. This is indeed their great and sole Argument against the Protestants. The rest they bring is unworthy the hearing. This therefore Mr. Baxter here, that the Popish cause may stand and ours fall, Atlas-like, puts his shoulder and whole strength under to support. B. Thes. 75. pa. 292. The plain expression of St. James should terrify us from an interpretation contradictory to the Text, and except apparent violence be used with his Chap. 2. 21, 24, 25. etc. it cannot be doubted but that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. Eusebius, Hierom. I mean not here to seek an evasion by pleading that this Epistle in the primitive times of the Church, before the controversy about justification by faith, or by works and faith was in agitation, was questioned by some and denied by others to be of divine authority. Or that * Erasmus, Luther, Musculus, Cajetan a Cardinal of the Romish some great Divines of these latter times have not received it into the Canon; or that among those that embrace it as Canonical, it is much disputed what James is the Author of it? For (besides the Syriac interpreter that weakly attributes it to James the brother of John who in the cradle of the Church was slain with the sword by Herod, Act. 12. 1, etc.) some name James the son of Alpheus the Brother of Christ, and one of the 12 Apostles: others, James surnamed Oblias, or the Just, (of whom J●sephus writeth, the Author of it; & adhuc sub judice lis est: Or that the matter, method and (if I may so speak) spirit of this Epistle, sounds not in one harmony with the rest parts or books of the new Testament, but rather after the writings of the books under the old Covenant, or after such as stuck still to the old Covenant, as Philo Judaeus and others: (all which Mr. Baxter better knows to have been by many objected, than I know how satisfactorily to answer it) By these and other reasons some have expunged it from the Catalogue of Scriptures which are of divine inspiration, and have reduced it into the kind and number of writings that are usually termed Ecclesiastical; in a good sense, not disagreeing any where from the Canon, yet not of that dignity as to be accepted as a part of the Canon itself. I shall leave these things to be disputed by others, and examine the testimonies which Mr. Baxter hence allegeth what and how far it makes for him, as the authority of the holy Ghost himself. Here it is remarkable that Mr. Baxter who follows the Jesuits every foot and inch in the interpreting of this and all other Scriptures from which he would with them set up justification by works, like a man made all of zeal, perks up to terrify us from an interpretation contradictory to the text, and from using apparent violence to it; implying that all the Protestant Churches and Saints which have stood in the defence of the faith of Christ against the Papists, now almost 200. years, have dealt thus sacrilegiously in robbing this Text of its due sense: And the Friars and Jesuits alone (good men) have stood up as the fast friends of Christ, to maintain this truth of Christ, and the spirit and meaning of this Scripture, against the violation of the sacrilegious hands of these heretical Protestants: And that himself is now at last stirred up by the Spirit that hath wrought so powerfully upon the Jesuits, to vindicate and set forth the true meaning of this Text, with the same fidelity and sincerity which they his Masters have used before him. Therefore to excite all men to gaze on his ingenuity and sincerity, and to admire him as the one alone man among Protestants raised up to undeceive all the Churches that have so long strayed from the holy mother Church, he thus like wisdom itself uttereth his voice. B. Pag. 297. I dare not teach the holy Ghost to speak; nor force the Scripture; nor raise an exposition so far from the plain importance of the words without apparent necessity: but here is not the least necessity: there being not the least inconvenience that I know of, in affirming justification by works, in the fore explained sense (i. e. in the sense which Mr. baxter's sense and reason without any help of Scripture hath devised.) Men seldom are bold with Scripture in forcing it, but they are first bold with conscience in forcing it, as one M. Baxter, who with onespell, hath forced all the large and divine disputes of Paul about justification into a cherristone, and hurled it at the feet of his St. Sense, there to do homage, or to be trampled into the dirt.) After this his protestation of his integrity, zeal and tenderness of conscience in interpreting Scriptures, and the impression which he feels or feigns in his soul which the heretic Protestants have made by not expounding this Scripture in the same words which the Jesuits do: Let us see with what tenderness and fear himself in the next words speaketh of it. B If it were but some one phrase dissonant from the ordinary language of Scripture, I should not doubt but it must be reduced to the rest. But when it is the very scope of a Chapter, in plain and frequent expressions, no whit dissonant from any other Scripture; I think he that may so wrest it, as to make it unsay what it saith, may as well make him a Creed of his own, let the Scriptuee say what it will to the contrary. What is this but with the Papists to make the Scripture a nose of wax? If St. James speak it so over and over, that justification is by works, and not by faith only, I will see more cause before I deny it; or say he means a working faith. He that in all this can see one lest spark of that professed sincerity which he protesteth in himself and requires in others worthier than himself, let him make it out: I can see nothing else but fraud, doubleness and falsehood. 1 When he sayeth that it is the very scope of a Chapter, and not only some one phrase that here holds forth justification by works before God, it is the same which he hath from Bellarmine, Bel. lib. 1. de justif. cap. 15. Scopus Jacobi (saith he) fuit demonstrare fidem veram atque Catholicam ad salutem sine operibus non sufficere, etc. i. e. The scope of James [in his Chapter] was to show that a true and Catholic faith is not sufficient without works to salvation; and with as much truth and fidelity doth this man speak it, as did the other from whom he learned it. This being no more the scope of this Chapter or of James in it, then to deny the salvation which is by Christ, and to set on men to seek it by the Law. 2 That this phrase of justification by works [in Mr. Baxters' sense] is no whit dissonant from any other Scripture, whether he means difference in sound, or difference in substance, is as very a paradox, as if he had said that contradictories are not dissonant. For if this doctrine after Mr. Baxters' sense must stand as true doctrine, and for the Gospel of Christ, then must we cast away almost if not altogether all the other Scriptures of the new Testament as heretical; and limit ourselves to this alone, and to Mr. Baxters' gloss in it to learn true righteousness and the way to life. For how vain, empty and audacious his annihilating of Paul's doctrine about justification with one breath is, we shall see in its proper place; and find that he destroys the genuine scope and meaning of that Apostle in many of his Epistles to sacrifice all▪ to his imaginary scope of James in some few words here delivered. 3 When he tells us of wresting and making a Creed, etc. he proclaims to the World that all the Protestant Churches which have constantly defended justification by faith without works, i. e. by Christ Jesus apprehended by faith without concurrence of works, etc. have wrested and violated the Scripture, set up a Creed of their own in despite of the Scriptures speaking to the contrary. For what he cunningly and seemingly fastens upon one Mr. Pemble, he lays to the charge of all the Protestant Churches, there being not one of them that hath not at all times held and spoken the same things with Mr. Pemble. And so pronounceth the faith of Christ to have been no where sound, but within the confines of Rome; and that the Protestant Churches are all heretical and apostates, have rejected the faith of Christ, and sought righteousness and salvation by a Creed of their own making. 4 Nevertheless his sincerity in the very next words after his such stout pleading for the Papists, falls foul with them for making the Scripture a nose of wax: to delude the simple with an opinion that he hath no confederacy with them. Yet 5 Holds them fast by the hand telling us that he will join with them and follow James in their sense and interpretation to seek justification by works and not by faith only. But let us come to the text itself and see whether St. James will be brought to dance after St. Bellarmine and Mr. Baxter with all their piping and charming, and in this, the sincerity of these two great champions in the interpreting of this Scripture will appear. First for the scope of the Words, who can better express it then the Author? This himself declares to be the subversion of the false confidences of shady believers, who being destitute of true faith gloried in the mere shadow and profession of it, as if it should justify and save them, though it never wrought to their Sanctification, but left them to every good work reprobate. Against this pernicious delusion he bends the whole drift of his dispute, and proveth such a faith to be vain, dead, devilish; and on the contrary, that the faith which justifyeth is lively and operative in good works. This will be manifested in examining the several passages of the dispute, specially to him that will take the labour of reading but some of the many hundreds of our Divines that have answered the Arguments of the Papists hence deduced; either in their Commentaries upon this Epistle, or in handling this Controversy against them. And herein some of the learned among the Papists are more pliant to obey and less stubborn to resist the truth then Mr. Baxter. The scope of the Apostle (saith Cajetan) is to show, quod non fide sterili sed foecunda justific●mur; i. e. that we are justified not by a barren but fruitful faith. Thus do we find James himself sta●ing the question, ver. 14. What doth it profit, though a man say he hath faith and hath not works, shall his faith save him? It is against the saying and false professing of faith, that hath no force or life to bring forth good works, and not against faith ind●ed which worketh by love that the Apostle here argueth, denying to it any efficacy to Justification: this is the thing which we shall find him prosecuting throughout his whole disputation: and on the contrary part affirming faith which is living and active to good works to be also alive and effectual to justify. This will more properly offer itself to be made out in the next place. Let us then come to examine Mr. Baxters' dispute from the authority of James; Pag. 293. Br. In opening this I shall first show the clearness of that in james for the point in question. etc. This he goeth about to do by dashing in pieces all whatsoever hath been said by all or any of the Protestant Churches or Writers against the Papists in expounding this Text, thus. B. The ordinary expositions of St. James are these two. 1. That he speaks of Justification before men, and not before God. 2. That he speaks of works, as justifying our Faith, and not as justifying our persons: (or as Mr. Pembles phrase is) The Apostle when he saith works justify, must be understood by a Metonymy, that a working faith justifieth. That the former exposition is false may appear thus. This is his showing the clearness of that in St. James, viz. to anathematise all that any of the faithful servants and Martyrs of the Lord Jesus within the Protestant Churches have spoken in the Exposition thereof▪ that it may be embraced by all after the Catholic that is Romish interpretation. Two things we except against in this his clarifying passage. 1. That being very good both at confounding and dividing, as he sees either to make for his turn, he doth here by dividing seek to pervert, as erewhile by confounding we found him to obscure the truth. Why doth he make two opinions, two expositions here of that which is but one? Hath he learned of Ma●chiavel so to deal in spirituals, as he prescribes in Politics, Divide & impera? Why else should he set at division those that are united? Or make them to fight one against another, who speak the same things? Or set in opposition john against Calvin, and Calvin against john? Or David against Pareus, and Pareus against David? And so other thousands, when every of these gives both these expositions which he mentioneth, in one. Possibly as to some particulars in this question he may meet with some particular Writer urging the one only, but he knows that most, and those not the meanest, make use of both, as shallbe showed. 2. We except against him that in alleging the●e expositions, he doth subtly hid the grounds upon which the Protestants do fix these their expositions. And thus he exposeth them to the vulgar at least, as groundless dreams, shifting evasions, whereof no reason can be given on our part: That all the reason lieth▪ on the Papists part, with whom therefore he hath joined. Is this Christian, or Jesuitical dealing? Would it not be expected from him that professeth himself a Protestant and zealous Presbyterian▪ when ●e divides himself utterly from them, all them, of whose side he professeth himself to be, at least to set down their opinions and grounds thereof, and to confute those grounds; and not (as he doth) deny and fight against the conclusion without speaking a word to the premises. What he therefore fraudulently omits I shall here supply, rendering the expositions as our Divines give it and the grounds of it, and not as Mr. Baxter corrupts it. We have found him acknowledging, that if it be but some one phrase dissonant from the ordinary language of Scripture, that one must be reduced to the rest, and not all the rest to that one. pa. 297. So stands the case here. The ordinary language, yea drift of the New Testament, is to hold forth Justification by faith without works (as we have seen before) and every one that will but consideratively read as other the Evangelists, so chief the Gospel written by john the Apostle, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the Romans, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Hebrews, especially and above the rest, and withal from the rest it must needs appear. This one passage in one Epistle hath a sound of differing & but a sound Must all be reduced to this or this to all? According to the rule therefore allowed by Mr. Baxter himself, our Divines give an interpretation to this one passage, that may declare it, (though it hath a seeming,) yet not to have a reality of dissent from the rest. Because if this be Canonical and from the H. G the H. G. cannot contradict himself. In expounding this dispute of James, therefore the Protestants take notice of a two fold homonymy of words, one in the word Faith, the other in the word Justifying, both which Paul and James use, but use them the one in one, and the other in another sense, so that though they seem somewhat to differ in words, yet in sense they speak the same thing. 1. They say as when Paul speaks of Faith to justification, by Faith he means a true and lively Faith, which fetcheth power from the merits of Christ to justify, and from the spirit of Christ to Sanctify: so james here battereth under the name of Faith, a bare profession and boasting of Faith, which some Hypocrites leaned on to justify them, being wholly destitute of Faith indeed that is alive, and effectual to draw from Christ matter both to justification and Sanctification. 2. They say that as Paul takes the word justifying for remission and absolution before God, so James takes it (as oft as he requires here works to justify) for the declaration of the truth of our Faith, and justification before men. Yet let not this their distinction (if it may fitly be so termed) and exposition be taken up unless it hath sufficient grounds from the Text to bear it up. I shall begin first with the latter, because Mr. Baxter there gins. That Justification by works is by James understood the declaring us to man, to have true Faith and to be justified by it, they bring these reasons to prove. 1 James himself even in express words affirming it ver. 18 Show me thy Faith without thy works, and I will show thee my Faith by my works, where he tells us that by justifying, he means the showing or declaring our Faith, and Justification (not to God) but one to another. And thus he denieth Faith which is not showed by works, to justify i. e. to Show or declare us to men justified 2. ver. 21, where he saith, was not Abraham our Father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his Son upon the Altar? doth he speak of Gods justifying Gen. 15. 6. him, or declaring him to be justified, unto men? Not the former, for God had justified him by Faith many years before, and there was no diruption (according to Mr baxter's doctrine) in the interval, by any apostasy made by Abraham, that of justified he became unjustified; and needed here to be justified anew. How then was he justified by offering his son? Can there be any other way not repugnant to reason devised, but this; that God here by proving and bearing him up in so searching a proof and Temptation, to show so matchless an act of obedience, did declare to the world that his Faith was in sincerity, his fear and love unfeigned, so that all must be restrained from charging him with self respects and Hypocrisy, in all the professions that he made towards God; Or what less is to be drawn from those word● from Heaven Gen: 22 12. upon this act of Abraham's obedience, Now I know that thou fearest God seeing thou hast not witheld thy Son, thy only Son from me? Did not God know what was, what himself had wrought in Abraham's hart before this trial of him? doth he need outward actions to manifest to him what is in the heart within? M. B. so much cleaus to them that make all things which God doth to flow from his prescience that he will not ungod God so much as to deny that he knew as perfectly before as after trial: Why saith he then, now I know, but to intimate that now he had given a strong evidence both to the present and future generations to know that God knew, and thereby to convince men of all ages that they also must know the truth of Abraham's Faith, fear, and justification? 3. The same might be said of Rahabs' justification by works, in receiving the Messengers, and letting them forth another way. ver. 25. Did such a work as this justify her before God? or obtain to her remission of sins, and deliver her from everlasting vengeance? when there cannot be the least probable conjecture that she had then any Faith in Christ, or had ever heard of a Christ to come? Then let us disclaim that Fabulam de Christo (as one of the Popes termed the Gospel) Righteousness is by works without Faith, without Christ, and Stapletons' gloss mapleton, Anrid. p. 82 83. upon Paul's justificamur fide, i. e. non absque side, we are justified by Faith i e. not without Faith, because Faith is necessary to justification, though not without works sufficient to it; must be rejected as too Evangelicall. And then also how shall Mr: baxter's Thesis' not fall which makes works colaterals with Faith in Christ to justification? works can do it without Christ. But if all this entrench upon Blasphemy, than was she justified by works to men, to the Israelites, who by this Act toward them had so far evidenced her fidelity to them and their cause, that thereupon she was taken into Covenant with them, delivered from the ruin which befell jericho, and after as it were adopted or naturallized into the Commonwealth of Israel. Ye have one part of the exposition and the grounds of it, which Mr: Baxter concealed, that the unwary reader might despise it as groundless. Mr: Baxter opposeth it, tell● us it is false, and it may appear thus. B. p. 294. The World's justification frees us but from the world's Accusation, to which it is opposed: And therefore it is but either a justification from Man's Laws; or else a particular justification of us in respect of some particular Facts; or else an usurped judgement and sustification: for they are not constituted our judges by God: and therefore we may say with Paul, it is a small thing with me to be judged of you or of man's judgement. And so a small thing to be justified by men from the accusations of the Law of God. But the justification in James, is of greater moment as appears in the Text. For 1. It is such as salvation dependeth on. ver. 14. 2. It is such as followeth only a saving Faith. But the world may as well justify us when we have no faith at all. I therefore affirm, 1. That the world is no lawful judge of our righteousness before God, etc. 2. Nor a competent capable judge and cannot pass any certain true sentence, etc. 3. If they could, yet works are no certain Medium, or evidence, whereby the world can know us to be righteous. For there is no outward work which an hypocrite may not perform: and inward works they cannot discern, etc. So that if it be not certain that the Text speaketh of justification before God, I scarce know 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 deal with all the Churches of Christ: But I will not be a follower of him that follows not Christ in lowliness, and his Precept in selfe-deniall. His dispute here is two fold; 1 to prove that james 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 Sophistical and Fallacious. For if we grant that by the World he means the whole generation of men both good and evil (which yet can hardly be drawn 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 mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a waving the question with a false assumption that by Justification before men, we meant a raising of a Tribunal upon earth, in opposition to Gods in heaven, there to set up men to be judges, and to pass sentence of justification and remission of sins one upon another, according to the evidence of every one's works. The falsehood whereof he proves by the illegality of such a judicature, and incompetency of the judges, and evidence for it. And what is this but a Devil of his own raising and laying again? For what one rational man in any of the Reformed Churches ever dreamt of such a justification? All that we understand hereby 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 judicial 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, believeth all things, thinketh no evil, (except by strong evidence it be drawn to it) 1. Co. 13. 5. 7. In fight against this doctrine Mr. Baxter fighteth against Christ, against the Holy Ghost the Author of it, not only here, 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 ye 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 works may glorify your Father which is in Heaven, Ma: 5. 16. I magnify my office if by any means I may provoke my brothers etc. and save some of them. Ro. 11. 14. By your orderly carriage. etc. the unbeliever shall be convinced, fall down 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 evil to say of you, Tit. 2. 8. Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles, that whereas they speak evil of you, they may by your good works which they see, glorify 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 work, as it is meet for me to judge of you, because, etc. Phil. 1. 6▪ 7. I am persuaded of you things that accompany salvation, because of your works and labours of love, etc. Heb. 6. 9, 10. We give thanks to God for you, etc. 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, etc. and hundreds of the like Scriptures which testify 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 sin 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 vain. Against all these Mr. Baxter excepreth, pronouncing that man's judgement herein is illegal▪ 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 Christ's Rule, and to be deceived by Charity rightly ordered, if it may be called a deceivednesse, yet is it no sinful deceivednesse. What he produceth from the Apostle, Unto me it is a small thing to be judged of you, or of man's judgement, etc. 1 Cor. 4. 3. is nothing subservient to his turn: For the Apostle there speaketh of their unjust Censures of him, besides and against Christ's 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 follows not man's, but Christ's own knowledge of us. Thus have we found one part of his arguing vain 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 God's Tribunal. 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 man's immoderate prolixity and tediousness hath ever so much troubled me, as this man's pretended affectation of conciseness and brevity. By it, when he speaks nothing, he gets the advantage to be thought of fools, that he speaketh great and mystical 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 Delphic mystericall passages of his, than take them up to look on them. If James here take not justifying and saving for the same thing, than (to use Mr. Baxter's words) I am not certain what to be certain off. So that when he saith it is such a justification as salvation dependeth on, it is one as if he had said it is such a justification as justification dependeth on, or such a salvation as salvation dependeth on. The Apostle there speaks of a dead and barren Faith, of a profession not a being of Faith, and by an interrogation bearing the force of a strong Negation, by saying, Can Faith, [or the saying that he hath Faith,] save him? he means, and saith, it cannot save him: and that is the same with him▪ as if he had said, it cannot justify him. Here we have indeed an idle dream of Faith that cannot save. But a justification that cannot justify, or cannot save, or can justify and not save, is as far from James as near to Mr. Baxter. B. 2. It is such as followeth only a saving faith. But the world may as well justify us when we have no Faith at all. That the justification of the New Covenant in which God evidenceth by faith to us that we are justified in Christ, or the justification which consisteth in the evidencing by works to men the truth both of our Faith and Gospel Justification, so far that in charity they are to regard us as truly believing, and truly justified; do both follow either saving faith, or that which in charity to them that profess it, men are to account a saving faith: none denieth. But it will not hence follow, that works justify us at God's Judgement seat, because they follow faith that declareth and evidenceth us to ourselves to be so justified. He comes with a new supply pa. 296. B. Once more: 1. Was Abrahaem justified before men for a secret Action? 2. Or such an Action as the kill of his only Son would have been? 1. Had the Action been kept secret from men, it could not have justified him before God or men. Not before God, for no actions as actions are the ground of his justifying us (as hath been already abundantly proved.) Nor before men: for this action could not have declared the truth of his faith to them that never heard of the man or his Action. But God having ordained him to be a Father of the Faithful, and pattern of all believers to the world's end, and to confer Blessedness with Abraham, upon all that walk in the steps of the Faith of our Father Abraham. Ro. 4. 9 12. hath recorded this Action of his, to justify and magnify the truth of his Faith to all that in all ages shall believe, and to incite them by his pattern by the like eminent obedience to justify their Faith also to others. 2. We are not to inquire what the evil world will judge of such an Action, but whether Abraham, or rather the spirit of God working in and by Abraham, did not give in this Action a sufficient demonstration to convince the evil world (much more the saints chosen out of the world) of the truth of his Faith. Which conviction if the evil world will carnally neglect or cursedly oppose, it shall leave them the more inexcusable in the day of Judgement. B. Was not he the Justifier beer which was the imputer of Righteousness? but God was the imputer of Righteousness▪ ver. 23. Therefore God was the Justifier. So I leave that Interpretation to sleep. This is one of his extravagancies. He hath all this while disputed of Justification by works: what he cannot prove of works, now he proves of Faith. James saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Was it imputed to him of God, for a partial or for a perfect righteousness? If but unto righteousness in part, let him prove it, or stand guilty before God for perverting his word. If in the whole, then is there no place left for works to challenge a part. Or let him produce from James the like sentence of works imputed to Abraham to Righteousness; else he puts the handle of his Argument into our hands to retort it upon him. Abraham's Faith was imputed to him [by the testimony of james] to righteousness; Ergo [by the testimony of james] works were not so imputed to him. So [his Epiphonem] I leave that interpretation to sleep, is the only sound thing that he hath spoken to this question. For he hath said nothing that hath any power to awaken much less to rouse it: So that it may sleep, and that securely and in safety, because they are but false Alarms that he soundeth against it. The second interpretation (as Mr. Br. terms it) or as it is indeed the second homonymy or different sense of words, wherein our Divines affirm james and Paul to speak in sound one, but in meaning disagreeing either from other, is in the word [Faith] as hath been said. Paul when he attributes justification to Faith without works, means a living faith fruitful in good works. james where he denies Faith without works to justify, means a dead faith, a mere profession of faith that hath neither life nor being, much less fruitfulness in good works. That james takes the word Faith in this sense appears by these Reasons from the Text itself. 1. From the scope of his dispute which we shall find to be (as I said) to beat down the presumption of carnal professors, who reposed the hope of salvation wholly upon a bare profession of faith, though the faith whereof they boasted had no virtue to sanctification & obedience; and to prove that alone to be a justifying Faith which is alive to good works. This even Cajetan himself one of the pillars Cajetan in Jacob. of the Romish Church, giveth as the scope of the Text, as I have showed; & he further expresseth himself thus: Adverte hic prudens Lector, quod Iacobus non sentit Fidem sine operibus mortuum esse etc. Quoniam constat nos per fidem justificari, etiam sine operibus, sed sentit fidem sine operibus, i. e. renuentem operâri, vel non paratam operari esse mortuum, esse vanam, & non justificare. That is, Let the prudent Reader here note, that james means not that faith is dead without works [to accompany and help it in justifying us] for it is evident that faith justifieth, even without works: but his meaning is, that faith without works, that is, that refuseth or is not in a readiness to good works, is dead, vain, and justifieth not. Thus he makes the scope of James here to prove that an idle and fruitless faith is not a saving or justifying faith. So that we find it easier in this argument to find the truth from the very Papists than from Mr. Br. 2. From the 14. ver. where James putting the question of faith without works, saith not indefinitely, can faith, but annexeth the article to it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, can this faith save? Is there power in such a faith to save, which hath no power to sanctify? In like manner as here, ver. 20. What in our Translation is rendered faith [absolutely] is there also in the Original put with the restriction of the same article [that] faith which is without works is dead. 3. From the attributes that he gives to the faith to which he denieth justification, viz. a dead faith, ver. 17. 20. 26. A faith of Devils, ver. 19 But a dead and Devilish faith are not a true Gospel faith, but at the best a figment and counterfeit thereof. 4. From the similitude by which he illustrateth his disputation: If a man in a pretence of charity, speaks comfortable words to his hungry and naked brother, Alas poor soul be clothed, be filled, but ministereth nothing to him for his refreshing; will any call that flourish of words true charity? Is it any more than a paint thereof? So also of him that saith he hath faith, but evidenceth it not by its fruits etc. The verbal faith doth no more profit to justification, than the verbal charity to sanctification. If one of these in the mind of the Author be true charity, then according to the mind of the Author also, the other is true Faith, 5. From the object of that Faith which James excludeth from justification, Mr. Baxter acknowledgeth that the object of justifying Faith is Christ, Thes. 66. 68. and their explication. But let him show that James doth here expressly or impliedly, in any one passage of his dispute, make Christ the object of that Faith which he excludes from justification: or any other object than the Faith of a mere Heathen or Hypocrite may pitch upon, viz. general truths, that there is a God etc. else let him grant from his own principles that it is not true Faith but an unprofitable Historical Faith (as some term it) which is here excluded. Thus have our writers in answer to the Papists Cavils, expressed the mind of James in this place, or rather from himself declared what himself expresseth to be his mind and this they express (not as Mr. Baxter perverts them) by some one, but by both of these interpretations viz. of the word [justifying] and the word [Faith] manifesting out of James himself, that as oft as in this dispute he attributes justification to works, he speaks of justification i e. the declaration or manifestation thereof to men. As when vers. 21 Abraham, and ver. 25. Rahab and ver. 24. A man indefinitely, are said to be justified by works, he means they are so manifested and declared by their works to us. This is a usual phrase not only in Scripture, but in our common expressions and our common talk. I will justify what I have spoken or done; i. e. I will declare it, make it appear to be all good, true, and just: I will justify him from all that is laid to his charge, i. e. I will declare and prove him just and free from all that he is charged with. Again where he denieth justification to that dead faith that worketh not by love: that by faith he means a false profession and counterfeit of, and not the true justifying faith: and who among us ever said, that to say, I have faith, (never expressing the power and fruits of it) can justify a man? So there is nothing to be found in James crossing the Protestant, yea Evangelicall and Apostolical conclusion, that we are justified [in our consciences before God] by faith alone without works, i. e. by a living and working, not a dead faith: yet without works can we not be declared and manifested just unto men. That which Mr. Br. hath spoken against the former part of this interpretation, viz. justification before men, we have found to be either less or worse than nothing. To the other, viz. the denying of justification to faith that is a counterfeit, a false profession of faith, he saith nothing; and why? because he hath not what to say. Therefore he stifles it in darkness, will not have his Reader hear of it, for than actum est, he must run to S. Francis, or some other Saint, S. James leaves him in the mire. It is no less ludicrous than fallacious that he turns the state of the question another way, and danceth round about it, never coming to that which our Divines answer. 1. Having devised pag. 294. that we say James speaks of works as justifying our faith, not our persons, he doth pa. 296. go about to prove that works justify the person, not the faith only. And who ever denied this position? Do not we all say that the holy life declares the truth of faith, and therein justifieth (as to men) the professor of it from all hypocrisy in making such a profession? 2. pag. 297. he falls foul with the Ghost of sweet Mr. Pemble, for saying that by Faith and works james understands a working Faith. And after a sharp chiding, without examining his Reasons (the matter whereof I have before examined) at length p. 298. fetching breath, he offers him peace and friendship, upon condition that he will arise from the grave & say what Mr. Baxter saith. But despairing of that, and concluding, if he should rise again from the dead, he would still say with the Protestant Churches and Writers, that Fides solùm justificat non autem fides sola: Faith alone justifieth, but not that Faith which is alone [without works.] because that alone faith is not a true Faith; he 3. Makes a transition to fall out with all Protestant Churches, for attributing too much to Faith, in making it instrumental to justification: that when Believers are said to receive Christ, Io. 1. 12. and to receive abundance of Grace, and of the gift of Righteousness, Rom. 5. 17. we will not say they receive this Christ, this gift of his Righteousness to justification, without any receiving instrument, but make Faith the instrument by which we receive the same. p. 299. A most pernicious Doctrine to Mr. Baxters' Cause. If it stand Mr. Baxters' justification by works in the same relation with Faith as its Concause, must needs fall and tumble down to hell, for works will not be bowed into any instrumentality to cooperate with Faith in receiving Christ and his righteousness. When contrariwise, if we would say as he doth, and which we must take his word without any further demonstration, to be true, then in despite of Paul and the Holy Ghost, our justification should be parted between faith and works, and Mr. Brs. new Gospel stand, the Gospel of Grace being wholly taken out of the way as unprofitable. But in all that he saith, he diligently keeps off from speaking a word to what our Divines say in proving from James himself, that he means not true faith when he denies to the counterfeit or profession of it any efficacy to justify; and let the conscientious Reader judge whether he doth this in zeal for Christ or against him? Let none except that possibly he never read any of them that have thus expounded James. What one of them hath he then read? Nay I rather question what one of them hath he not read? or with what one thing is he unacquainted that any of them hath written? He is a stranger to Mr. Br. that will accuse him of little reading. Even Mr. Pemble himself whose words he can almost if not altogether rehearse without book, gives it as the common interpretation of Protestant Writers, so that he cannot be ignorant of it. Yet he saith nothing to it, and saith all to what none denieth. Is this sincerity in handling the chief point of man's salvation? Such as he begged from God upon his knees? or the use of that which he enjoins upon us▪ tenderness in the interpretation of Scriptures? But we must leave him in his own way because he is resolute therein. Sith he will not answer us, let us answer him, in these things which in stead of an answer to us, he would fish from the Text for himself. Br. pag. 299. 1. When it is said we are justified by works, the word [by] implieth more than an idle concomitancy, if they only stood by, while Faith doth all, it could not be said we are justified by works. We grant it doth much, yea almost all, in the justification whereof James there speaks, viz. before men. And this is that which he speaketh. ver. 21. 22. 23. of Abraham's justification by works, fulfilling that Scripture which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. How did his justification by works fulfil the Scripture which affirmed him to be justified by faith? but as this great work and fruit of his faith declared and manifested to men the truth of that Scripture, and the truth of his faith by which he was so many years before justified. B. p. 300. 2. When the Apostle saith, [by works and not by faith only] he plainly makes them concomitant in the procurement, or in that kind of causality which they have: especially seeing he saith not as he is commonly interpreted, [Not by Faith which is alone] but [By Faith only.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All is granted as before, of the justification before men. The profession of Faith, or to say we have Faith is not sufficient without declaring it by works so to justify us. Therefore saith the Apostle, Show me (if thou canst) thy Faith without thy works, and I will show thee my Faith by my works, vers. 18. B. 3. Therefore he saith that [Faith is dead being alone] because it is dead to the use and purpose of justifying: for in itself it hath a life according to its quality still. This appears from his comparison in the former verse. 16 that this is the death he speaks of. And so works make Faith alive as to the attainment of its end of Justification. We grant that the hypocritical profession of Faith which James reproveth, is as all other sin, alive to condemn the unbelievers and unjustified, but dead to the use of justifying us in our consciences before God, or outwardly before men. But that the addition of works to such a dead Faith can make it alive to justify a man before God, we deny, neither doth James affirm; though there may be some force that way to his justification before men, who are subject to failings in their judgement. In the fourth place he finds something to say for, and something against the Analysis of Piscator and Mr. Pemble. When he would depress it at the utmost, he can only say that they seem to fail in the Explication of the 22. verse about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Faiths working with Abraham's works, and perfecting by works. In this I leave the Reader to peruse Mr. Baxter, and them whom he opposeth, from thence to judge which party lays the surer ground of their interpretation. As to the question in hand, the working of both together to justify and declare his faith perfect or sincere to men, doth nothing strengthen his assertion, or weaken ours. The rest that he hath in this Section are mere words without proofs: as also his Answer given to some Objections made on our part, and the same so curt, that the best examination of them is to leave them unexamined, until he bring something to prove them. Yet what of all that he saith here hath, or seems to have force to some other end, I may possibly in its proper place call it into Examination. CHAP. VII. Argument. Mr. baxter's sixth Argument to prove justification by works, drawn from the Identity of the Conditions of justification and salvation examined. To which are added the Rules which Protestant Writers give for the Right understanding of such Scriptures as promise eternal life to men of such works and qualifications: & an enquiry into the force of those Scriptures out of which Mr: Baxter seeks to evince that eternal life runs upon condition of works. A Sixth Argument he draweth from the Identity of Justification and Salvation, in relation to the Condition of their procurement and attainment. He lays it thus. p. 310▪ B. Thes. 78. 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 s●lvation: Therefore also of our Justification. We except here against the Terms or Phrases used in the proposition, and that 1. against that which by way of distinction, he names our [FULL] Justification, implying thereby that there is an empty, or at least partial, maimed, and not full justification before God; as by what he hath oft said before, & by his own expressing himself, and his meaning in the Explication of his Thesis he makes evident. The Protestants utterly deny this 1. and 2. partial, and full, unperfect and perfect justification, acknowledging one only justification of the New Covenant, which (as an act of God) is simul & semel, perfect, admits of no degrees or increases, though as to a man's own apprehension and comfort it hath its increases and decreases. And whatever Mr. Baxter hath hitherto brought to prove on his part, we have found no less vain than is that which he seeks to prove. The Scripture is altogether ignorant of such a two fold justification, so that we leave it as Mr. baxter's, not God's justification. 2. Against that which by the like way of distinction, he calls our everlasting salvation, implying thereby a temporary salvation which is by Christ, in respect whereof the saved may be unsaved again, and so the salvation which they have by Christ become transitory, not everlasting. Both these we deny and detest as Popish, Socinian, and Arminian doctrines; what audaciousness is it in Mr. Baxter to name them, and not to prove them? to beguile his credulous Reader (not acquainted at all with Controversies) with an opinion that these things are known and granted by Protestants, who detest the hearing of them, and with unresistable arguments of Scripture oppugn the Authors of them: We shake off as prodigies in the Gospel Doctrine of justification and Salvation, the Attributes which he giveth in that sense in which he gives them. It is a bad Cause that seeks the support of Sophistry and fallaciousness to support it. Truth loves to be attended with simplicity and plainness, Let Mr. Baxter say why he puts 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. Again as to the rest of his Argument, why doth he assume and conclude otherwise than he proposed? The Proposition speaks of a Full justification, and an Everlasting Salvation, but the assumption of a Salvation only, and the conclusion of a justification only, without their Attributes of Everlastingness and Fullness, 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 plain dealing will discover the deformity of it? or for the congruity which such a kind of Argumentation hath with the cause, fallaciousness with falsehood? 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 ways, 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. We deny that in Mr. Baxters' sense there is any Full Justification as opposite to a maimed, true justification, or any Everlasting Salvation in his sense, as opposite to a true spiritual salvation, that is temporary and transitory. So that his Arguing is the same as if he should argue from Jupiter's thunder to Jupiter's lightning, or from Bellerophon's horse to Bellerophon's saddle: when all these were Fictions, had their being only in imagination, 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. Hear 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 we attain here, sometimes for the state of glory above. In the former sense we find 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 i● is said, we are [not that we shallbe] 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 eternal life, Io. 3. 36 and 5. 24. and 6. 6, 47, 54. to be passed from death to life, Jo. 5. 24. All which proveth a life, eternal life, and everlasting salvation, in this world that cannot be lost, but shall have its coronation in glory above. In this sense we 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 affirm 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 called 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 therefore 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 we 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 than 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' sense] cannot be a condition without the position whereof God doth not justify, because it follows justification and goeth not before it. And in this sense I have oft spoken before to the minor, and shall 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. We grant more in aright sense, viz▪ that in being Justified, we are saved. But what of this? B. It would be as derogatory to Christ's righteousness, if we be saved by works, as if we be justified by works. Therefore we reject both. And let Mr. Baxter look to himself 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 God's people. B. That which a man is justified by he is saved by. This is Christ's 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 be an adding of a greater happiness than we lost; and so justification is not enough thereto: yet on our part they have the same Conditions. This must be, because he will have it to be 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 itself) doth not infer it. For it being granted what he saith (but showeth 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 Christ's righteousness, to be saved as to be justified by works; will it follow for all this, that justification and salvation have the same conditions on our part? The reasoning is one and the same in reason, as if I should thus argue: Having 1. slandered the Scriptures, and said, they say what I say, I should further proceed. Therefore are we created that we may be saved; neither is there any way to salvation but by creation: It would be as derogatory to the grace of God to be created by our own working, as to be saved by our own working: Therefore though Glorification be adding of a greater happiness than we had by Creation, and so Creation is not enough thereto, yet on our part they have the same conditions. The reasoning after the Principles of true Protestants would not in its conclusion (though in its premises) seem altogether absurd. Because they affirm the absolute will and good pleasure of God, without any conditions on man's part (in Mr. Baxters' sense of Conditions) to be the alone cause both of his creating and saving us. But after Mr. Baxters' Principles it would be both absurd and odious; for so our good works must be the condition of our Creation, because they are so of our salvation, that we must be created by ou● sincere obedience, b●cause by it we are saved▪ and that our sincere obedience must go before our Creation, because they so do before our salvation, and so when we have perseveringly obeyed without a being, we shall at length be created and have a being. They that are taken with such Arguments, I doubt are in the number of them that are made to be taken, 2 Pet. 2. 12. And who can hold that which will away? Mr. Baxter saw the wall gaping and ready to fall before he had finished it, therefore hastens to plaster and dawb it, thus. B. Yet here I say still [our full Justification] because as I have showed [i. e. said] our first possession of it is upon our mere Faith, or contract with Christ. But I think our glorification will be acknowledged to have the same conditions with our final justification at the bar of Christ: and why not to our entire continued justification upon earth? These are but words comparing that which is real, with that which is but imaginary. We still deny such a full and final justification at the bar of Christ completing that which was but unperfect, conditional and reversible here upon earth. All that he hath said to prove it hath been examined and found insufficient. We look for proof indeed, and meet with nothing but words. They that are once possessed of it by faith, are fully and finally possessed of it. His peremptory and bold conclusion is now come (even upon his own grounds) to [I think;] and why had he not kept his thoughts to himself until he had known reason enough for rational men to have concluded with him: yet upon this thought he addeth, and why not to our entire continued justification upon earth? To which we need say no more in answer but this, because we must not build any Article of our Faith upon the thoughts of men, but upon the word of God. To the objection which he supposeth some may make, and to which he answereth before it be made against him, I say no more, but let him answer our real not imagined objections; and such we shall so long defend until by the light of the word we find them unworthy of defence. The Scripture which he brings to prove the perseverance of Faith to be the condition of our persevering justification runs thus, Heb. 3. 14. We are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end. Here perseverance is made a declaration and evidence of the truth of our Faith, and of our participation of or Communion with Christ at present, not a condition either of our justification or the perseverance thereof. By this it shallbe evidenced that ye are truly in Christ, and justified by him, if ye persevere, for th●se that fall away w●re but seemingly, never truly in Christ. They that are his in truth, continue so to the end. Like that v 6. We are the house of Christ, if we hold fast our confidence to the end, compared with 1 Jo. 2. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would without doubt have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. So the perseverance; or not persevering of these would manifest who had been, & who had not been truly partakers of Christ, and the house of his habitation, not the condition of their persevering justification, for than should it be for a time at least the condition of the perseverance of their justification who were never truly partakers of Christ, and consequently in Mr. Brs. phrase, had never a beginning of justification. Hitherto of what Mr. Baxter hath said to confirm the Proposition. Hence he descendeth to prove the Assumption, That Obedience is an undoubted condition of our salvation. That we may not here beat the wind, we do first understand his obedience to be the obedience of good works, else is it the same with Faith, as I have showed, and that of Faith in Scripture sense, and not in Mr. baxter's large unscriptural, and uncircumscriptive definition. So much also many of the Scripture testimonies which he allegeth here & elsewhere (which I shall reduce to this place) declare. Yea himself in many places before hath set to his hand that it is his meaning. 2. We understand him here by Salvation to mean that which he a little before calls glorification, and not simply the salvation which is one and the same with justification. But 3. We except against him, that whereas without ceasing he beats our ears even into deafness with that Roman▪ Rampant, Exotic word [CONDITION,] scarce uttering a sentence which he doth not bless or curse with it: though he know the holy Scripture hath upon this Argument not the least mention of it, that we might thence learn; that it is but borrowed from the Papists, and improved much by the Arminians, with whose common language through his familiarity with both parties, he is more acquainted than we can be who have no traffic with them: yet he will not fully make known to us the meaning of the word, whether the signification thereof be boundless, or within what limits it is bounded? whether it comprehends under it all the necessary Antecdents of glorification, or no? if so, whether it comprehends not under it as well much disobedience as obedience, and works of the Devil as of God, as the Cansas sine quibus non, we shall obtain salvation by Christ? Or whether by Conditions we must understand only Duties? and if so, whether those alone which go before, or else also those that accompany and follow justification and glorification? And withal, whether those duties as moral or as spiritual? because his Divinity being most drawn from natural Philosophers and Theologers, mounts not above Morality, tells us nothing of spiritual things that the Gospel wholly treats of, shuns the very word [Spiriall] as a rock on which all the pride of man might suffer shipwreck, and the grace of God in Christ be alone exalted. Besides how far th●se conditions are to be stretched, whether only so far as that only their absence doth hinder, but their presence doth not put or infer justification and salvation as the effects, (in which sense we are wont to take the Causa sine qua non,) or else so far that both their absence doth hinder, and their performance produce these effects? In these and many other things whereof I shallbe forced to speak in its proper place, Mr. Baxter will not impart his meaning to us, that he may take his liberty to traverse his ground, and under the name of Condition, ascend and descend, run sometimes in a wheel, and sometimes in a race, play all in sight, and least in sight, at his pleasure, reserving still to himself this advantage, to help himself with his Conditions, widening and straitening them, making them the same with, or more than his Causa sine qua non, (having kept the power in his own hand) as it shallbe most inservient to his ends. In the mean while we are permitted only to hear the humming and bombing, but not to see the buzz, whether it be a Hornet or a Beetle. What he will not himself directly tell us, we must therefore take leave to gather from his writing as well as we can. In his Explication of this Thesis, even in that part thereof which I have before transcribed, being to prove that justification and salvation have the same Condition, he tells us oft that we are both justified and saved by works. Here to follow his own exposition, he teacheth, pa. 300 that the word [By] implieth more than an idle (presence and) concomitancy, if they only stand by while the work is in doing, it could not be said, we are justified by works. That it speaks out works to have their agency and operation in procurement, or in that kind of causality which they have. And this is the same which under the 17. 18. and 19 Theses he had before delivered, of a twofold Righteousness, Christ's Righteousness, and our Righteousness, ours as absolutely necessary as his to salvation, both [in their kind] effectually procuring it. So in that which followeth in the explication, where, to be the condition of our salvation, and to have a hand in, or give right to justification, are put by him as the same thing, or as equipollent phrases. So that under the word condition, he involves all the Papists efficiency, and as much as (after their and his defining and modifying of Merits) is comprehended in their doctrine of Merits. In this sense therefore we deny Works or Obedience to be a condition of salvation. 1. Because thousands are saved without works, viz. all that have been or shallbe saved being never in a capacity to work. 2. Because the New Covenant in promising salvation makes it to follow grace and faith, not works, yea grace and faith in opposition to works, as hath been before showed, cap. 15. of justification and salvation together. And that not by the virtue of that dung and rags and filth of man's righteousness, wherewith Mr. Br. filleth the belly of his faith in the largest sense, Thes. 70. but by the virtue of Christ its object which it receiveth, Jo. 1. 12. and of the abundance of the grace and righteousness which it receiveth from Christ in receiving him, Ro. 5. 19 3. Because it is by inheritance, as by our union unto Christ we are made and adopted to be with him, children and joint heirs, Act. 26. 18. Ro. 8. 16. 17. Gal. 3. 18. Eph. 1. 11. 14. Gal. 3. 29. and 4. 30. 31. Tit. 3. 7. and elsewhere, and that of Grace freely, therefore without works. For than should it be of debt, and no more of Grace, Ro. 4. 4. and 11. 6. 4. Because if it be at all by works then wholly by works, Christ is excluded, will not profit, will be all or nothing, do all, without works, and give no place or partnership to works with him in the business of salvation, if we bring any thing of works to save us, he leaves us wholly to our works to save or damn us. If ye be circumcised, Christ shall not profit you, ye are debtors to the whole Law, i. e. If ye bring works in part to save you, ye must trust wholly to works to save you, Christ is become of none effect to you, Gal. 5. 2. 3. 4. 5. Neither can they be a condition in that way of causality to which Mr. Br. professes himself to tie it, viz as the Causa sine qua non. For 1. the property of that kind of causality or conditionality not extended beyond itself, can only by its absence, deny the effect (as in this case the want of obedience and good works can only deny them which refuse or neglect them, to be saved or have right to salvation) but by i●s presence cannot Ponere (as the say) i. e. conclude or evince the effect, that he which doth them shall live in them or be saved by them, no nor yet that they shall be saved. For if they can, it is by some other, and not by this kind of causality which Mr. Baxter attributes to them. 2 Neither doth it (as himself describes its operation in its causality to salvation) remove the impediments of salvation which are in general sin, in particular chief unbelief. If good works can remove these it may save. But it can neither remove the guilt of that which is passed by way of purging it or satisfying for it; neither is it made instrumental to put us into the possession of Christ's satisfaction and purging, for it precedes not but follows it (whatsoever Mr. Br. hath said to the contrary.) Nor can it stop the flux of sin and unbelief, but that it breaks out upon every of our good works to make them in themselves evil and damnable, and doth no further or otherwise remove, than by denying unbelief so far as we do believe, and the neglect of duties as far as we have diligence and zeal to perform them. But this cannot be called rightly the removing of the hindrances of our salvation: therefore it cannot be the Causa sine qua non of our salvation. 6. Because salvation is the gift of God's free grace, Ro. 6. 23. Jo. 10. 28. 2. Ti. 4. 8. But it is a payment of justice and not a gift of Grace, which is made the wages of works. Didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what thine is [by contract and condition of the bargain] and go thy way, Mat. 20. 13. 14. Whereas contrariwise the free gift hath no other foundation or condition but God's free love and good pleasure. He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, Ro. 9 15. So that it is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, verse 16. Many other Arguments have our Divines against the Papists about this question, which I entreat the Reader to fetch from them for his fuller satisfaction. Now let us see what Mr. Baxter brings to prove, that obedience and good works are the condition of our salvation. Yet by the way let us note, that the Argument itself which hear Bell. de ju 〈…〉 4. 〈◊〉 he seeks to confirm, is the Papists, and great is Belarmines' striving to maintain it as his great prop of justification and salvation by works. Si promissio vitae aeternae est conditionata, (faith he) ut C 〈…〉 probavimus, certè necessarium est implere conditionem, si quis salvus fieri velit, ●●e if the promise of eternal life be conditional 〈◊〉 I have proved in the first Chapter, certainly he must nec 〈…〉 fill the condition that will●e● saved. This Condition of which he speaks is the same with Mr. Baxters, viz. the Condition of works. Neither shall it be impertinent here to take into consideration some rules of our Divines for the right understanding of the mind of the holy Ghost in promising eternal life, unto persons of such and such qualifications, or that perform such and such duties, before we descend to examine the particular promises and testimonies which Mr. Br. allegeth. These are principally such as follow. 1. That they belong (so fare as to be effectuallized) to none else but such as are vitally within the covenant of Grace, under the protection of the blood of the Lamb in spiritual union with Christ. Jesus the mediator of the new Covenant according to that of the Apostle. All the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, [never effectuallized to them that are not in him] 2 Co. 1. 20. To Abraham and his seed were the promises made, he saith not his seeds as of many, but of one, and to thy seed which was Christ. viz. in him alone, and to them alone to be confirmed which are in Christ. Gal 3. 16. Therefore the blessedness which Matthew in sound of words seems to hold forth more generally Ma. 5 3. etc. Luke as the Expositor of him, or rather of the mind of Christ in those promises, contracts to the right objects or persons to whom they were to be made good, thus Jesus lifted his eyes upon his disciples and said, Blessed be [YE] poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. Blessed are YE that hunger, YE that weep etc. implying that the blessedness was to come upon them, not by the virtue of these Acts and qualifications mentioned, but upon this ground alone that they were his Disciples, by him Gospellized and received into Covenant, this is that which Augustine so much presseth in such promises to look to the Root which is Christ, and that the reward is not from their works, because they are holy, but because they are holy or Saints which wrought them, and that they are thence saints from whence righteous, not from the works but from the Faith of the workers. 2. That in such promises the qualifications or works of the persons to whom they are directed are mentioned not as the ground or foundation of the blessedness promised, but to show the method and order which God observes in bringing them to the possession thereof. Because he is holy, pure, spiritual, therefore he powers into them his purifying, sanctifying, and adopting spirit to conform them to his own will and nature, before he brings them into the full and real fruition of himself. So he promiseth all the heaven of felicities to the meek, the righteous, the saints, to them that love him, that fear him, that obey him; not thereby insinuating that he found them, but that he hath made, or will make them such, as many as he will crown at last with glory. Herein the power of that father of Spirits excelleth and exceedeth the power of the fathers of our bodies. He new creates their hearts new forms their wills, puts into them a new spirit, thereby making them as Peter saith, partakers of the Divine Nature, and to enjoy the kingdom of God within them here, before they be translated to it above. 3. Nevertheless the foundation of all these promises is not such acts and qualifications in us, but the relation of sons, in which we stand before God. Such God beheld us in Christ before we were born, such he hath made us that truly believe by the grace of the new Covenant, having begotten us to himself of incorruptible seed, 1. Pet. 1. 23. we are born of God, and have received the spirit of adoption by which we cry Abba, Father: So that our salvation dependeth not upon the virtues and good works which are mentioned in the promises, but upon this our relation of sons: if sons than heirs, etc. Ro. 8. 15. as a special friend of Mr. Br. who walks by the same rule and the same spirit with him hath acknowledged, heerin consenting with our Divines and stoutly maintaining their Assertion, at least because it seemed to give some fulture to his cause. And I suppose Mr. Br. will not here leave him whom in all the rest he followeth. 4. Yet what the Lord giveth to and hath prepared of endless glory for his children as his children, he doth ofttimes hold forth and promise to them as a reward of such gifts of grace in them, and of works which they have done, or sufferings that they have undergone for his sake. Not but that it was provided for them and promised to them, before all such works and sufferings as they were children: but for some other honourable ends, which I shall in part mention, having first instanced some promises of this kind. Before the birth of Isaac long, had the Lord of free grace promised to Abraham all blessedness corporal and spiritual, present and future, that his seed should be as the dust of the earth, as the stars of heaven numberless, that he should be blessed, and in him all nations of the earth be blessed: that the land of Canaan the type and the eternal land of Promise the Antitype should be his and his seeds for ever. Goe 12 2. 3. and 13. 15. 16. and 15. 1-6. and 17. 1-8. Yet afterward cha. 22. when Abraham had showed that notable fruit of his faith, fear, and love to God, in offering his son Isaac in obedience to God's command, God called from heaven to him by an Angel, and said. By myself have I sworn, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not with held thy son, thy only son, That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars in heaven, and as the sand etc. and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice, Goe 22. 15-18. We see here that promised as a reward of this act of obedience of Abraham, which God had by promise made sure to him before ever he offered his son, or had the son to offer. To this I might annex the harmony of Scriptures, that testifying the kingdom of glory to be prepared for them that shall enjoy it, from the beginning of the world; purchased for them by Christ's death, Mat. 25. 34. Heb. 9 15. That they were begotten to it by the seed of God begetting Christ in them, 1. Pet. 1 3. 4 and are inrighted to it by their adoption: yet notwithstanding God calls it the Reward of the inheritance, and promiseth it to them for their works and faithful service in the Lord: Nor implying thereby that the works done put them into a worthiness or capacity to receive it, (For if a thousand times more were done and suffered by them that are not in Christ, that are not adopted Children it should be nothing to salvation) but for other very glorious and spiritual ends, among which may be numbered these that follow. 1. To declare the operation of the Spirit of Adoption upon the Saints, that having the promise made, and the hop● of this eternal inheritance begotten in them freely by Grace in Christ, and the same witnessed and assured to them of mere mercy; it doth not permit them to turn the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ into lasciviousness, but stit & encourage them to all do & sufferings for Christ by the intuition of the reward: having their eyes-fixed upon the reward before them, they are animated by it to do all things, knowing that their labour is not vain in the Lord; to all sufferings concluding, that all are not worthy to be compared to the glory to be revealed to them; to rejoice in all, having an eye to the recompense of the reward. And so all their obedience is in a way of love and thankfulness for the right which is freely given them to the Kingdom, not thereby to inright themselves to it. 2. To declare God's acceptance as well of the works as the persons of his adopted ones, and thereby to hearten them to well doing, when in every act and service of love which they perform, in every suffering that they bear for his sake, he still as it were meets them, not only with his apples and flagons, but also with his Crown and Kingdom, for this and for that service renewing still the promise of it: This sets an edge upon their Love, and sublimates their Spirits to more and greater undertake. What? doth my Heavenly Father take notice of and accept so graciously these weak services, renew the Covenant, and as it were bring down Heaven and himself into me, upon such slender performances, so that I walk and work, and do and suffer not only in the hope, but even in the view and possession of blessedness! what is there so high or low, great or small, to which I should not stretch or stoop to please so good a Father? shall I receive so great a salvation so frequently set afresh before mine eye, and new ratified to me; without doing or rendering any thing for it? 3. To manifest to the evil world that God in the midst of the riches of his grace is also infinitely righteous, a Lover and Rewarder of purity, piety, holiness, righteousness, and all the works thereof. For to these his promises of life are extended, and into these he leadeth his children, new creating them to the performance thereof, having ordained them to walk therein. So that hereby the mouth of the enemies of Christ, and blasphemers are stopped from crying out against the inequality of God's ways, or charging Christ to be unjustly a friend of Publicans and sinners. Seeing that although he loves them even while they are such, and pitieth them because they are such, yet he loves them not as such, much less glorifieth them as such: But first purgeth them with his own blood, and sanctifies them by his own Spirit, and leads them forth in his own strength into all obedience both of doing and suffering, encouraging them by his precious promises in all the way of their Pilgrimage, and telling them that not least portion of all their labours or patience in the Lord shall pass unregarded or unrewarded; and in the end of all their journey crownes them and their obedience with the eternal glory promised. Yet so as that all the glory which was promised to them in that which some of the Fathers and the Schoolmen call the Viâ the Way, and that is actually conferred upon them in Patriâ, in the Country, in Heaven, was theirs by grace in Christ before the foundation of the World was laid, much more before they did either good or evil: and theirs in themselves and to their own apprehensibleness if not apprehension, at their fi●st union unto Christ, and adoption into God's Family through Christ: so that if we look to the foundation thereof in God, it is his free Grace and Love unto us in Christ. or in ourselves it is our union unto Christ, and relation of Sonship towards God in Christ. Yet so as usually works intervene, and the promises of God both to the works and workers, as for many other, so for the reasons and ends here expressed, oft renewed Now let us attend Mr. Br. to hear from him what Scriptures or reasons he brings to prove his Assumption. B. Heb. 5. 9 Christ is the Author of eternal salvation to them that obey him. This Scripture makes against him not for him. 1. If Christ be the author, then is not our obedience the ground of it, but we should be authors thereof to ourselves, at least he should be in part author of it by his, and we in part by our obedience, and so the honour thereof should be parted between Christ and ourselves. But this Mr. Br. would have to be set up as his doctrine, 2. Therefore when he is said to be such to them that obey him, it is the same as if it were said, to them that hurling away as dung their own righteousness, do believe in, and receive him alone to salvation. For so to obey Christ, to obey the Gospel, and that which Christ calleth the hearing and keeping of My word, My commandments, My say, [in so many places as that it is hard ●o number them] are equipollent terms, and hold forth the obedience to the doctrine of faith, in opposition to the obedience which the Law or old Covenant prescribeth to salvation, a seeking of salvation by the righteousness of Christ, and no more by our own righteousness. 3. If it were otherwise, yet the persons that shall be saved by Christ are here described only, and not a condition by which they are to be saved, prescribed. B. Ro. 2. 7. 8. 9 10. He allegeth not the words, and may be ashamed to quote the place to prove the salvation which is by the Gospel, to follow the tenor of works; knowing that the Apostle there goeth about to convince the Jews that the Law cannot save them, by showing upon what terms salvation runneth under the Legal or old Covenant. B. Rev. 22 14. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the City. The doing of Christ's commandments here, is the same which Heb. 5. 9 is called the obeying of Christ, and the meaning of both is there explained. Faith which Christ's commandment calls for, giveth right to the tree of life, and to all the privileges of the new Jerusalem. B. Ja. 1. 22. 23. 24. 25. What he would infer from the three former of these verses, he saith not, and I dream not. Any other three verses in the whole Bible might have been quoted as pertinent to his purpose as these, as far as my dull brain can comprehend. To the 25. if by the Law of Liberty he understands the Law of the Old Covenant, or of the Decalogue, and by blessed everlasting salvation, (as he erewhile termed it) than he prescribes salvation hence to be sought by the Law, and not by Christ, by the covenant of works, not of grace, and so the salvation of man shall stand or fall upon these terms, as he doth or doth not forget to do all that is commanded in the Law: and Christ must not be at all looked after, here is no mention at all of him: and thus to argue is worse than Popish, even Jewish. But if he understand by the Law of Liberty the Gospel, then hath it the same sense with the former Scriptures, teacheth us to seek salvation in a Gospel way, as a free gift from free grace as children of liberty whom the son hath made free, and not as children of bondage by works. He that doth th●s shall be blessed in this his deed. Some of our Expositors I know expound it another way, yet not with, but against Mr. Baxter. B. Ma. 5. 1. to the 13. To this enough hath been said a little before in this Chapter. B. Especially Mat. 5. 19 20. The former verse runs thus: Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these Commandments and teach men so to do, the same shallbe least in the Kingdom of Heaven: But whosoever shall do and teach them the same shallbe great in the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ here speaketh of Teachers under the Gospel. And the sense (as may be gathered from the precedent verses) is this: Whosoever under a pretence of the liberty of the Gospel, shall take to himself, or instill into others a licentiousness, to break the Commandments of the Law, or to neglect any of that holiness and righteousness which is the matter of the Law, that man shallbe an instrument of little, yea of no use in the Gospel Church: But whosoever shall so learn and teach Christ as in and thrrough him, to take into his own and press upon other men's affections, and practise all the duties of holiness and righteousness which the Law requireth, in a Gospel way, this man shall be an instrument of great good in the Gospel Church, as one that hath learned, and teacheth Christ to salvation and to sanctification also. If this in its substance be not the meaning of this Scripture, I know not the meaning of any one Text of Scripture. The latter which is the 20. verse is read in these words. Except your Righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. True, Theirs was their own Righteousness, the Righteousness of works which could never satisfy for or expiate their unrighteousness. Except we trample this as dung (in respect of confidence in it) to put on Christ for righteousness, who hath both satisfied, and expiated, we shall never enter into the spiritual Privileges of the Kingdom of Grace, much less into the joys of the Kingdom of glory. What is there in either of these verses to promote Mr. Baxters' salvation by Works? B. Mat. 7. 13. Enter ye in at the straight gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat▪ But straight is the gate and narrow the way that leadeth to life and few there be that find it. And will Mr. Br. take up the broad and vulgar way of expounding this broad and that narrow gate and way? That by the broad way and wide gate, are to be understood the way of profaneness, Atheism, Lust, Luxury, Carnal security, etc. and by the straight Gate and narrow way, strictness of life and conversation? unless he ride in this common Road, there is nothing to be found that will square with his purpose. But that this interpretation is wide from the scope of Christ, will appear 1. by comparing Luke with Matthew; who Luke 13 24 thus renders the words of Christ, Strive to enter in at the straight Gate, for many shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. Whence it appears that both these Gates and Ways are such as men seek to enter into life by. And was there ever that man so mad, so void of the natural light of reason and conscience, that did strive to enter into life by Profaneness, Lust, Atheism, and impure living? Doth not the Apostle tell us, that the most stupefied among the Heathen do so far know the judgement of God, as to know these things to be worthy of death? Rom. 1. verse▪ ult. ●. When it is said of the narrow way and gate, few there be that find it▪ if it should be understood of the strictness of Moral holiness and righteousness, it might well be said, few there are that enter by it, but to say, few there be that find it, is not agreeable to reason. For who is there that finds it not? The very Light of nature teacheth all men this natural way to life by the strictness and perfection of their natural and moral righteousness. And this is the greatest beam in their eye blinding them that they cannot see the strait and effectual way indeed. What then is the straight gate and narrow way to life, whereof Christ here speaketh? Let Christ himself interpret himself; I am the way I am the door, by me if any man enter, none can come to the Father but by me, Jo. 10. 9 and 14. 6. The way into the holiest, i. e. into heaven consecrated or new made for us through the vail of Christ's flesh, saith the Apostle, Heb. 10. 19 20. or let Mr. Br show that the Gospel owneth any other way to life. This is the way that few find, when Peter had seen and spoken but of a glimpse and glance of it. Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona, saith our Saviour, for fl●sh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in heaven, M●. 16. None can enter into it except the Father draw him. Jo 6. 44. Except he be taught and have learned of the Father, ver. 45. And great striving must there be against ou● own wisdom, before we can be brought to leave the way that nature hath taught to find and enter into this way which the Father revealeth. What then (say ye) is the broad way and wide gate by which men seek to enter into life? I answer M. Brs. way, the way of our own righteousness and strict carriage. It is broad and wide because all learn it from nature corrupted, which tel●s us it was the way if we had kept it, but cannot tell us that it is now blocked up to sinners, so that many, so many as seek for life by their own righteousness and works, do by this supposed way of life pass to destruction. Not but that the way of vice is a broad way also▪ bu● our Saviour speaks not here of it, but of the broad way by which men seek life but find destruction. To this effect is that of our Saviour, ●he Publicans and harlots enter into the kingdom of heaven before the strict▪ living Pharisees Ma 21. 31 By what way did these vicious livers enter but by Christ into the Kingdom? else if strictness of life had been the way to it, the Pharisees had entered before them. This is the interpretation of this Gospel text after the tenor of the Gospel, and so Mr. Br. suo se jugulavit gladio, hath brought a sword to cut the throat of his own cause. B. Ma. 7. 21. Not every one that faith Lord, Lord, shall enter etc. but he that doth the will of my Father, etc. This is the will and work of the Father's willing and commanding [as to life] that we believe on him wh●m he hath sent, Jo. 6. 29. B. Ma 7. 22. 23. Many shall say in that day, Lord we have prophesied, etc. to whom it shall be answered, I know you not, depart from me, ye workers of iniquities. Hypocrites that come with their mouths full of Works and merits to plead for Heaven shall all be shaken off, and the ground of their exclusion is this, I know you not, ye were not built upon me, had no union with me, no settled dwelling and recumbency upon me, therefore he shakes off both them and their works, as workers and works of iniquity. B. Ro. 8. 4. That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us which walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. The righteousness of the Law is perfect. And they walk not after the flesh but after the spirit, which (as the same Apostle saith) worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, i. e. (as in the following verses he expoundeth) in legal privileges, or works of their own Righteousness, Phi. 3. 3. In these the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled. They have a perfect righteousness even Christ made Righteousness to them which the Law weak through the flesh could not produce in them. B. Ro. 8. 13. If ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live. Who they are chief that in reference to life and death, do live after the flesh, and after the spirit, the same Apostle teacheth not only in the forequoted Text, Phi. 3. 3. but also Gal. 3 3. Are ye so foolish? having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? In which words I challenge Mr. Baxter, yea the whole p●ck of Jesuits, if they dare to deny that by beginning in the spirit the Apostle means their trusting wholly on Christ for justification and salvation, and by being made perfect by the flesh their seeking to perfect it by works; viz Circumcision, and with it the moral duties which the Law commandeth. If in this place ●e will take the flesh and spirit in a larger sense, yet compare we this 13 with the 1. vers of the Chapter, and it will appear here is nothing for his turn. Ver. 1. he saith, There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. But who are they? Such as walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. Let now Mr. Baxter put what sense he will upon flesh and spirit in the 13. verse, it must bear the same sense as in the 1. verse. And then if any demand why they that live after the flesh must die? the answer is in readiness, Because they are not in Christ jesus: or why they that mortify &c▪ by the spirit, shall live? Every one can answer, because they are in Christ jesus. So that in these there is no condemnation, to the other nothing but condemnation. Because he that hath the son hath life, he that hath not the son hath not life. 1 Jo. 5. 2. Here according to promise I annex what I left unanswered cap. 16. of the third bunch of Scriptures quoted by Mr. Baxter, p 236. referring them to this place to be examined as speaking more soundingly to glorification than to justification by works. I shall begin as I there left▪ at B. pa. 236. lin. 21. Mat. 10. 37. He that loveth Father or Mother more than me is unworthy of me, so of Son or Daughter. When he meaneth the same with Bellarmine (as he hath enough manifested under his 26. Thesis') let him speak out the same with Bellarmine; viz. That none shall receive salvation by Christ, but those that by works merit it, and make themselves worthy of it. Let him so express himself and he shall not want an express answer. At present while he will lurk in the dark, we will leave him in the dark. B. Lu. 13. 24. hath been before examined. Phi. 2. 12. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Whether we look to that which precedes, or that which followeth this Text, we shall find its testimony to be to Mr. Baxters' cause, what a College Brush, alias called a hatchet, to a Freshmans Gown, cutting it in pieces because it will not be cleansed. If to that which goeth before, we are bidden v. 5-11. to follow the example of Christ (as far as he was in a capacity to give himself a pattern to us in this kind) in self denial, who being in the form of God, and equal with God, took to himself the form of a servant, made himself of no reputation, abased himself to the death, to the Cross, to the Curs: and so became exalted on high above all names etc. So must we deny and abase ourselves in our relation as Christ did himself in his▪ lay all the false glitter and glory of our works and righteousness in the dust, as he did his true glory: watching with a holy fear and trembling over our backsliding heart that is apt assoon as any show of righteousness and goodness appears in ourselves and works, to departed from Christ, and to rest in it as our sanctuary: in this case is it that the Apostle requires this continual working and heaving out self from ourselves, that Christ may be our All. And that with much fear, and trembling watchfulness over our deceitful hearts, that are apt still to decline from his righteousness, and to close with our own, if there be not continual working and warring against its fleshly working in this kind. If we look to that which follows, all confidence in our own strength is prohibited, and all dependence and relying upon God's grace and power is commanded, that we stand always in a trembling fear of falling and sinking through our miserable weakness and proneness to Apostasy, and therefore keep firm and continual holdfast in the grace and power of God extended to us in Christ for our supportation; because it is God alone that worketh in us both to will and to do, of his good pleasure▪ and not of any worth or works of ours moving him. ver. 13. Such a working out of our salvation, that consisteth in working away all our own works, & righteousness, as insufficient yea as destructive to it, and in working up ourselves by the power of God into Christ; into the shelter of God's grace for salvation, we grant to Mr. Baxter. But this will not please him. Yet because the Apostle (as by the context is evident) teacheth this and no other working for salvation here, we must leave him so displeased as they are wont to be that by their own plea destroy their own cause, and minister matter out of their own mouth to be judged. B. Ro. 2. 7. 10. hath been before answered. B. 1. Co. 9 24. so run that ye may obtain▪ & 2. Tim. 2. 5. If a man strive for masteries, he is not crowned except he strive lawfully. What this running & striving [or fight is] the same Apostle teacheth us by his example. 2. Tim. 4. 7. 8. I have fought the good fight (saith he) I have finished my course▪ what means he by these? the next words declare, I have kept the Faith: henceforth etc. B. 2. Tim. 2. 12. If we suffer, we shall also reign [with him] If we deny him, he also will deny us. This is, if in despite of all sufferings or persecutions, we stand fast in the Faith, and adhere firm to Christ, we shall reign with him; But if for fear of persecution we deny him and fall from the Faith he also will deny us, that ever we had any true union and communion with him by faith. B. 1. Tim. 6. 18. 19 Charge them that are rich etc. not to trust in uncertain riches etc. that they do good, be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, laying up for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. The Apostle here forbids the rich to trust in, or to make their uncertain riches a foundation of happiness to themselves, and contrariwise admonisheth them that this trashy felicity should not hinder them from laying a good foundation of their everlasting bliss in heaven. He saith not (as Mr. Br. abusively wresteth his words, in his Append. p. 95.) that they should lay their good works as a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. For so should he have contradicted himself, 1. Co. 3. 1● 11. According to the grace of God given me, I have laid the foundation etc. For other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, Jesus Christ. So this exhortation is the same in substance with that of our Saviour, Lay not up for your selus treasure upon earth, where moth▪ and rust doth corrupt etc. but lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven where neither moth etc. B. Lu. 11. 28. Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it. Amen, For the word of God makes Christ our All, and in us all, Col. 3. 11. Search the Scriptures (or the word of God) saith the same our Saviour, for in them ye think to have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me, [not of works to have wrought out eternal life for you] yet ye will not come to me, [but to works and your own righteousness] that ye may have life, Io. 5. 39 40. B. Mat. 25. 41. 42. Go ye cursed into hell fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels: for I was hungry and ye fed me not thirsty etc. Righteous judgement. For what other cause should the cursed be sentenced to the curse, but for their unbelief and evil deeds, which brought and deserved the curse? Would he have them to be damned for their faith and good works? The rest Scriptures have been urged and examined before. Now of all these Scriptures, let Mr. Br. name but two that were not prepared to his hand, either by Bellarmine, or some other Papists in their disputes against the Protestants? or show any reason, why he mentions most of them, having no show of subserviency to his purpose, unless he thinks them hallowed by their fingering? If there be expected a larger and fuller Answer to the Arguments which the Papists draw from any of these Scriptures, I transmit to some of the many hundreds of our Divines that have answered them. CHAP. VIII. Arg. Mr. Baxters 7. Argument for Justification by Works examined, drawn from the Tenor of the last day's Judgement which he saith shall pass according to works. And these questions discussed, whether, upon whom, and in what respects the last sentence shall so pass according to Works. A Seventh Argument which he brings to prove Justification by works is drawn from the issues upon which our future Judgement shall pass in the last day. That (saith he) shall be according to works: Therefore is this also. But let him be heard speaking his own words. B. Thesis 80. pag. 317. It is most clear in the Scripture, and b●yond all dispute, that our Actual, most proper, complete Justification at the great Judgement will be according to our works, and according to what we have done in the Flesh, whether good or evil: which can be no therwise than as it was the Condition of that Justification. And so Christ at that great Assize will not give his bare will of Purpose as the Reason of his proceed, but as he governed by a Law, so he will judge by a Law; and will then give the reason of his public sentence from men's keeping or breaking of the conditions of his Covenant, that so the mouths of all may be stopped, and the equity of his Judgement may be made manifest to all; and that he may there set forth his hatred to the sins, and not only to the persons of the condemned; and his love to the obedience, and not only to the persons of the justified. This also he hath from Bellarmine & the other Jesuits & Papists. Neither is there any one besides his fourth Argument which he hath not transcribed from them: and even that also is by them somewhat hammered to his use. Nay, from the very beginning to the end of this his Tractate all is theirs as to the matter thereof: only the translating of it into English, and reducing it to his own method and order he can call his; but the substance of all is theirs [as to Justification by works,] and from them in common with the Socinians and Arminians, [as to Justification by Faith, as an Act or Worke.] This I could easily make evident by affixing but marginal quotations of those Popish and Arminian Authors to this Work, whom in every particle he followeth, as having spoken the same things before him; if I had now that which once I had, that which might be called a Library. By how much the more I admire some that make their concourse & confluence to him from all parts as to an Oracle, to learn from him that which at home by their own fire, Eckins, Hosius, Vega, etc. or the more ancient Schoolmen before them, or Be●●armin● with the Jesuits and Arminians, since them, would have taught them more at large; or which besides other hundreds of our Divines, one Chamier in his 3 Tome of his Panstratia, would have given them to understand at large, together with a large and full confutation of all [as to the Papists:] Yet see with what confidence Mr. Baxter speaketh. It is most clear and beyond all dispute, etc. What is so clear? that our proper, complete, and actual justification, etc. This is clear by Scripture. Yet neither hath he alleged or can allege any one Scripture that tells us of or teacheth any such justification. The Papists tell us indeed of a twofold Justification, but both in this life. They say Christ's judgement or sentence; or our account and reckoning, not our justification, shall thus pass in the last day. The Arminians indeed say as Mr. Baxter, and he hath learned to speak as confidently as they, proving as little as they. Now what boldness is it to call that, from a pretended clear testimony of Scripture, our Actual, most Proper, complete Justification, which the Scripture doth in no place call or bid us to call Justification in any sense or con-consideration? we would grant to Mr. Baxter the use of his own Phrase and use it with him, if he would understand by the Justification in the day of Judgement, only either the publication and open declaration of the justification before given and received; or the conferring on Believers the Glorious and eternal fruits above of their justification here; or their exemption from the sentence of vengeance which shallbe then pronounced, against & from condemnation, which shallbe then executed upon the unbelieving world: (in which sense it is sometimes indeed in Scripture called our Redemption, and the day of Redemption to the Saints, which to the world will be an evil day, a day of judgement.) But this will not satisfy him, and the Scripture grants no more: so that we cannot please him without displeasing God. Again when he saith our most Proper Justification will be at the great Judgement according to our works, and according to what we have done in the flesh, whether it be good or evil. Doth he mean first, that the measure of our justification willbe according to the measure of our works, great works, and a great and full justification; a little Treasury of works, and a little corner of justification? This agrees not with his own phrase in terming it a complete justificacation. Nor will it cohere with the definition that he gives to this justification, Thes. 39 making it to consist in Gods acquitting from the Accusation, and condemnation of the Law. This Act of God or of Christ doth not recipere magis & minus, he that hath more works cannot be said to be more, or he that hath less to be less acquitted: but i● at all acquitted, then completely acquitted; acquitting, and not acquitting being contradictories that admit of no medium, but the one or other must stand in all its force. Or 2. doth he mean that the being or not being of justification doth follow the being or not being of our Works, no works and no justification, but if works then justification? will it not hence necessarily follow both that many which have died in Christ shall be condemned? viz. all that after their union to Christ by the Spirit, departed out of this life before they had time and opportunity to do such works as Mr. Baxter after instanceth and many that never believed in Christ, never were in Christ shall be justified by Christ in the last day viz. such as have lived and died such as the Apostle Paul was before his conversion: touching the Righteousness which is by the Law blameless, Phil. 3. 6. and that of sincerity in opposition to hypocrisy and vain glory, walking in all good Conscience before God? As for faith in Christ he doth not here touch upon, and Acts 23. 1 whether any of his reasons which he brings to confirm his Thesis will infer it, we shall see in examining them. 3. When he saith that Christ at that great Assize will not give his bare will of Purpose as the reason of his proceed, etc. Let him say whether his intent in this passage were not to cast an Odium upon the Protestants, as if they so taught: And except he can produce any one man that hath so taught, and hath not still asserted that the damnation of the damned shall be for their sins, and the glorification of the glorified a free gift of God for the satisfaction which Christ hath made for them with reference to their being in Christ: Let him confess that he hath slandered them. 4. In the rest that is contained in this Thesis we find nothing but contradictions, his unsaying and gainsaying of what he had before said. A little before, pag 294, 295. to destroy that interpretation of James which our Divines bring, that when he speaks of justification by works, he means the declaring to men by works the truth of their Faith and Justification; the man is angry and cries out An usurped Judgement and Justification, I affirm, The World is no lawful Judge of our Righteousness before God; neither are they competent or capable Judges of our Righteousness or unrighteousness; neither are works a certain Medium or evidence whereby the world can know us to be righteous, for the outward part an hypocrite may perform, and the inward part, Principles and ends of the work they cannot discern. Why was it that he was so hot there against the possibility of manifesting to men the truth of our Righteousness? It was against his Cause there to own it. Here contrariwise, Justification in the last day must pass by works to declare to the World not only the righteousness & obedience of the justified, but also the equity of the Justifier, and to stop every month from speaking against either. And now the world is no longer an usurping, but a lawful Judge, not an insufficient, but a competent and capable Judge, not only of man's righteousness, but of Christ's equity in judgement, and works are become a certain Medium and evidence to manifest both to the world. How comes this sudden change? he●r it tends to the promoting of his cause to affirm it. And this altars the Case quoth Ploydon. How rightly did Mr. Baxter describe his own acting in this business, p. 291. I resisted (saith he) the Light of this Conclusion as long as I was able. It is the light of the Conclusion, not of the Premises that swayeth him. First he pitcheth upon this Conclusion, Works justify, there was light in this Conclusion, it fell out of the Lantern of the Jesuits sophistry into his bosom, and by that light he is swayed, and having taken up the conclusion in such light of its own from them, now he digs downward for day, and takes up that which erewhile he shook off as darkness, for light to illustrate and prove it. So his light conclusion is first form, and afterward he seeks for Crutches and reasons what come first to hand to support it, sacrificing here more to haste than to reason lest his idol should fall before he returns with his props to sustain it. And what if upon new thoughts we shall find all that is here said all so, unsaid again? Let us pass to his explication, peradventure we may stumble at such a stone before we come off from it. B. Explication. Hear I have these things to prove: 1 that the Justifying sentence shall pass according to works as well as Faith: 2. That the Reason is, because they are parts of the condition. For the first see Mat: 25. 21. 23. well done good a●d faithful servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord. And most plain is that from the mouth of the judge himself describing the order of the process of that day Mat. 25. 34 35. Come ye blessed inherit the Kingdom &c: [for I was hungry etc. So 1 Pet 1. 17. who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work. So 2. Co 5. 10. we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, to that he ha●h done whether good or bad. So Rev. 20. 12. 13. They were judged every man according to his works, Heb. 13. 17. Phillip 4 17. Mat. 12. 36 etc. but this is evident already. The Scriptures that he brings to prove that the justifying sentence shall pass according to works, as well as Faith are first here put and therefore first to be examined. And against his reasoning from them I except. 1. [as well as Faith] is here foisted in being wanting in the position. And why here supplied but to beguile the simple with a good opinion of his assertion as if he attributed something to Faith also in Christ's and Paul's sense. When contrariwise he teacheth that Faith hath nothing to do in this business, but in the notion of our Act, our righteousness or work, so that with him to be justified by Faith is to be justified by our own work. 2. That there is no one of these Scriptures but is alleged by Bellarmin and his fellows against the Protestants, and by them fully answered & manifested to make nothing for justification or salvation by works, scripture after scripture, no one of them pretermitted. When Mr. Baxter now stands up in Beauties' place against us, is it sufficient for him to tell us what Bellarmin hath said against the truth (as if we could not without him know it) and to leave unanswered yea unmentioned the hundreds of our side that have retorted upon him his own arguments to the subverting of his own cause, that by these Scriptures he would have maintained? If he would have another answer; ought he not to have excepted against the validety of those that have been already given? Is he worthy to hear more from us that hath stopped his ears against all that so many worthies have said already, scorning to take notice thereof? Nay when he will only allege the Scriptures, and not take the labour to tell us what or how he will conclude from them he leaves us not in a capacity to declare so much as our consent with him or dissent from him. Yet for the use of the weaker sort of readers that have not ability to make recourse to those learned works where these controversies are handled, or to understand them in that language in which most of them are written; I shall speak something in general to all these Scriptures. First of that of Mat. 25. 21. 23. or rather taking the whole parable together, beginning at ver. 14. and ending at v. 30. granting it on both sides to be the same Parable which Luke recordeth chap. 19 beginning at the 12. and ending at the 27. verse, (which very few have questioned, no one hath had cause to deny) than it suits not at all with Mr. Baxters' purpose, or his Judgement day's justification. For the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Lords coming and reckoning with his Servants, and retribution of their service is to be taken for Christ's coming to preach first in his own person, and then to set up and establish the Gospel by the Ministry of his Apostles. The servants to be reckoned with are principally the Teachers of the jews; the Talents used, or abused, are the mysteries of the Gospel revealed, though veiled under the Law. The matter of the Account is what each by his serious studies and labours had cleared up to himself and others of this Gospel and saving knowledge of Christ before his coming for the advancement and advantage of Christ at his coming. They which had spent their labours this way, received at Christ's coming a double measure of the spirit of illumination in the knowledge of Christ and salvation by him, and were entrusted with a fu●ler measure of this sacred Treasure to be the dispensers thereof to the world. But he which ●ad wrapped his Talon in a Napkin and hide it in the earth, left the Doctrine of Christ (scattered throughout the old Testament) under a veil as he found it, without searching into it, and clearing it up to others; was l●ft in the state of infidelity, rejected, and bound over hand and foot by his unbelief to perdition. And his Citizens which sent word after him, we will not have this man to rule over us, we will have a Christ, such a one as we have framed to ourselves in our own imaginations, but not this Christ; have their doom not only denounced, but executed also upon them, bring them hither and sl●y them before me. Who are these but the great Body and Nation of the jews, that professed themselves Citizens and the only Saints of God, but for their refusal of Christ, were slain and destroyed by the sword of the Romans? And so the parable comprehends in it a Prophecy of the success of the Kingdom of Grace, now in the way of erecting in its power; as to the jews: So saith Luke in that 19 Chapter, verse 11. He added and spoke a parable because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the Kingdom of God should immediately appear, by this Parable foretelling them that the Citizens, the Children of the Kingdom, the jews for their rejection of Christ should be cast out into utter darkness, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth: i e. into blindness of mind and stubbornness of heart, accompanied with all calamity and misery, as we see them undergoing until this day. This I acknowledge to be but my own private opinion▪ yet such as I could easily manifest from the Text itself (if occasion were) to be very probable, if not certainly the mind of Christ. Yet let it stand or fall, sub calculo melioris Indicii. But if we are to understand all of Christ's last Coming to judgement, it ministers nothing to advantage Mr. Baxters' Cause, but enough to ruinated it: For first the faithful Servants that shall be so richly rewarded, are such as wrought with a free spirit, and the reward which they received was a free gift, they challenged it not in St. Condition's name, and Christ confers it freely as their munificent Lord. That he mentions their service argues not either dignity or desert in their service, but the riches of his grace that having justified their persons, he had in regard their service also. The unprofitable servant cast into utter darkness, is Mr. baxter's legal man, serving with a mercenary and slavish spirit, expects nothing from Christ but in the way of justice, looks upon him as upon an Austere man, a straight Lawgiver, and a rigorous exactor of the fulfilling of his Laws; I knew thee that thou art an hard man reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed, and I was afraid, (saith he) and so did nothing because of his fear of so strict a Lord, at lest nothing to purpose, nothing to the advancing of the Kingdom of Christ in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost within himself or others. The second Scripture, Mat. 25. 34. 35. is most plain (saith Mr. Baxter) in which the mouth of the Judge himself describeth the order of the process of that day; Come ye blessed inherit etc. For I was hungry etc. The Judge's mouth describes, but why doth Mr. Baxters' mouth refuse to speak out the description which the Judge maketh of the process of that day? If he began at ver. 31. when Christ is set in his throne to call all Nations before him, to judgement, he declares the manner of the process, 1. by separating the sheep from the goats, 2. by setting the sheep at his right hand. What the sheep were himself declares, Jo. 10. such as hear his voice, his Gospel voice and are Gospellized and spirituallized by it. What he means by his right hand, the Apostle declares, 1. Thess 4 16 17. The dead in Christ shall rise first, and shall be caught up in the clouds to meet with the Lord in the air: What to do? not only to be with the Lord, but also, as the same Apostle saith, to sit with him in judgement▪ and to judge the world, 1. Co. 6. 2. This is the right hand of Christ, to which the saints perhaps shall be advanced, even before the dead out of Christ shall be raised. To this at last is annexed what Mr. Br. allegeth, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world Who seethe not here the grounds of their glorification to be, that they were Christ's sheep? the heirs of God, and his elect vessels? That they are to be convened before Christ, not as prisoners to be judged, but to be owned as his justified one's, and to receive the glorious fruits of their justification and adoption, a Kingdom by inheritance; yea to sit as partners and Commissioners with Christ in judging the world? what the Lord jesus addeth, for I was hungry &c and ye thus and thus ministered unto me; will Mr. Baxter because of the word for, conclude these offices to be the cause of their justification? then let him also conclude, that the cause of Gods showing mercy to Paul was his ignorance and unbelief. This will as well follow from those words of Paul, 1 Tim. 1. 13. I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. To his condition the proper place is to speak afterward. So the 1 Pet. 1. 17. who without respect of Persons judgeth according to every man's work, holds forth thus much to us, that God cannot be deluded or corrupted, as oft times earthly judges are, either to pervert justice for favour or carnal ends, or to take appearances for substance, but jugeth all both persons and actions according to what they are, not what they seem. In like manner, 2 Cor. 5. 10. the Apostle appeals (as may appear by the 11. and 12. verses compared with this) from the standers and censures of the false Apostles to the judgement Seat of God. They had (it seems) questioned among the Corinthians, the sincerity of both the Apostle and his Ministry: He refers all to Christ the judge. Before him we must all appear (saith he) and he will reveal who are the sincere, and which the hypocritical Professors and Preachers of Christ, they or I to take vengeance of the one, and to own the other. He maimeth that testimony of Rev. 20. 12, 13. that the force thereof may not be understood by his Reader. Let him supply what he hath cut off, the Book of life by which they which are in Christ are to be judged, which is there mentioned aswel as the other books by which the world is to be judged, and then the judgements which the Saints are to pass through will appear to be a judgement of Grace, not of strict justice; & to consist in their admission to the Kingdom after the tenor of Grace, not of Works. The other three Scriptures he seethe to have so little even of show in them for his use, that he deigns not the labour to allege the words; and let him not expect that I should still do it for him. Thus far we grant that the sentence of judgement (though not the justifying sentence) shall pass in the last day according to works. 1. The whole world that hath not heard of Christ, much less believed on him, shall be judged according to their works, to life or death, according as their works have been perfect or unperfect: yea to a measure of vengeance answering to the measure of their sins, some to many, some to fewer stripes. 2. The whole bulk of professed Christians also shall [in this respect] be judged according to their works: viz. that as their professions of and actings in Christ, were either in truth or in hypocrisy, merely formal, or else Vital and real, so shall they be either exempted from, or adjudged unto vengeance. And so the secrets of all hearts shall be then disclosed, the Sheep and Goats, Saints and Hypocrites shall then be fully separated one from the other, which until that time shall never be wholly done, nor be known to all whose works were vital, and whose dead works. 3. That the very Saints as compared one with another, shall be judged according to their works, i. e. shall be adjudged to glory in several measures above, according to the several measures of their services and sufferings here, is the opinion of many, eminent for learning and godliness; neither do their Reasons yet wholly sway me who descent from them, and will have neither right hand nor left hand, nor sun, nor stars, nor great, nor small, but all equal in one degree of glory. It is no proper place here to dispute it, but I see no reason to conclude that he which distributeth his gifts of grace here in different measures, may not so also there distribute the degrees of glory. Seeing both are by the purchase of his death, and whether by the former he puts us in a greater or lesser capableness of the later, is in question. But in any other sense, how (as he saith) the sentence of justification shall pass according to works, and that as he infers from 2. Co. 5. 10. according to works, whether good or evil, I cannot conjecture. 1. Not according to works as they are a condition, (which is the next thing he undertakes to prove) for evil works cannot be the condition of our justification, either negatively that if we have done evil, we neither are nor shallbe justified; then all must be damned: nor positively, that whosoever hath done evil, shall be justified; then all shall be saved. Nor 2. shall it pass so as that according to our good works we shall be justified, and according to our evil works we shall be condemned; then every man, at least every true Christian, should be both saved and damned. 3 Nor that we shallbe much justified if we have all good works, & little justified if we have done some evil works also, for that is the last judgement, where every man shall have a full discharge or no discharge. I must leave this as one of Mr. Baxters' Mysteries, it must die with him (as to my understanding,) unless he vouchsafe his interpretation. As for the thing itself, I utterly deny that they which are in Christ shall be so judged or justified according to their works as other men, that they shall stand as prisoners with the world at the bar of Christ, to be judged for life and death as the other, according to their works. What that the Lord Christ should then discover the nakedness, and lay open in the sight of men and devils all the sin and shame of his beloved members? That he should cast in their faces all the filth of all their original and actual pollution even when they are upon the threshold of heaven? Let it be Mr. Baxters' doctrine, my ears are abhorrent from the sound thereof. It is against the stream of Gospel doctrine, which tells us that Christ hath born their sin and curs, and done their law, therefore they are not to be called to such a reckoning. That their iniquities are forgiven and sins covered, Ro. 4. 7. That the Lord will no more remember them Heb. 10. 17. That they are not under the Law, but under Grace, Ro. 6. 14. Therefore exempted from the accusations of the Law at the Bar of Justice, where the world is to be tried, and to receive no other judgement, but what flows from the throne of grace. That there is no condemnation to them; that the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Jesus hath freed them from the law of ●in and death, Ro. 8. 1. 2. So that the Law hath no more power of judgment over them, than the laws of our Land to try an Angel of Heaven for life and death. That none can lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect, because God justifieth them, and who is he that is the judge and condemner? even Christ which is their Saviour, Ro. 8. 33. 34. That they are the sheep that shallbe first separated and set at the right hand of Christ, before he enters upon the judging of the world, and so freed from judgement by the mercy of God in separating them, as Augustine well observeth. Aug. de Consens. Evang. lib. 2. cap. 30. That they shall not come into condemnation, but are passed from death to life, Jo. 5. 24. That what to the world is the day of judgement, to these is the day of Redemption, Lu. 21. 28. They shall not come into judgement to answer for any one of their sins, as is well observed by Reverend Mr. Fox, the author of that which we call the De Christo gratis Justif. p. 336. Book of Martyrs, for (saith he) Sublatâ offensâ, tollitur simul Judicii obligatio. i e. The sin being taken away [viz. by the Lamb of God, as appears Io. 1. 29.] all obligation of judgement is taken away with it. As for the works and righteousness, which these Scriptures declare shallbe mentioned to believers in that their Jubilizing day, this speaks out the infinite freeness and riches of God's grace in covering their nakedness. and setting forth only the beauty and ornaments which he hath put upon them: but in no wise any sufficient ground or reason upon which they might expect so great a salvation. Suppose a noble and indulgent Father hath a prodigal and rebellious son, that for many years hath grieved the spirit of his Father with his impure carriage, and exorbitant outrages, to whom notwithstanding his Father's heart is no less endeared than was david's to Absolom, therefore never hath a thought of disinheriting him, but reserves his whole heritage, together with a boundless treasure entire for him; in the mean while wooing and even melting him with loving kindness into love and duty ● at length the son repenteth, becomes ashamed of his base carriage toward so good a Father, returns to him, waits on him, ministereth to him in his weakness and sickness: and his Father by his last Will and Testament gives him all, naming him therein his good and beloved son that hath done him great service, ministered to him much comfort in the time of his necessity. Will any hence gather, that the attendance of such a son on such a Father at last, is a sufficient ground and reason for the Father's settling on him so vast an estate? Can not the Father have hired a stranger for a few Crowns to have done him as much service? Doth not the mentioning of the sons good deeds which he would seem to reward with so rich munificence, speak out only the remarkable goodness of the Father, that hath buried in oblivion all the disobedience and mischiefs which his son hath committed, and will have his good parts alone to be mentioned? or if another that was not his son had done a thousand times more in his service should he have been entitled for it to the inheritance? So also in this case to attribute to the works of believers the reason or ground of their glorification because the Grace of Christ mentioneth them, is to lay the honour of Christ's Grace in the dust. They that shall be glorified, even when Christ of his infinite Grace extolleth their service done to him, shall depress themselves, that the entire praise may be his: Lord when did we thus and thus minister to thee? what ever did we of any worth that thou shouldest own it as a service to thee? what thou imputest is not otherwise our observance but in thy acceptance. It is therefore denied that the justifying sentence (as Mr Baxter terms it) shall pass in the last day either for or according to works, otherwise than hath been before granted. And if we shall not at last be glorified according to and for our works, but that Mr. Brs. proofs in this particular fail; Then is his labour lost in going about to prove the second particular that the reason hereof is because they are parts of the condition. It must first appear that it is, before we trouble ourselves to know in what respect it is so. So that we will not contend about the second particular with him, to deny what he concludeth, that works concur in the same concausality with Faith to our glorification, 1. Not to evidence the truth of our Faith, nor secondly as the righteousness which the Law requireth, not thirdly as a mere sign by which God doth discern our Faith, nor fourthly as a mere sign to satisfy the justified person himself, nor fifthly to satisfy the condemned world of the sincerity of our Faith. All this we grant, and further add in the sixth place nor as a condition (in Mr Baxters) sense of our glorification. And because none of these or other ways, therefore not at all. The Scriptures which he brings pa. 322. n. 5. that seem to hold forth the promise of glorification for our works, are of the same nature with those examined in the former Chapter alleged by him and all (as those) gathered by the Papists to his hand, and either do conclude no more than what a little before we have in this Chapter granted, or pertain to some of those ends of such promises of life which God maketh to our obedience, specified in the former chap. I shall therefore here pretermit to speak to them, because Mr Baxter allegeth them to another end here, viz to prove that the mention of these works to judgement is more than to signify their sincerity to the condemned world, as in the end of that Section he expresseth himself. And this we deny not. So that it were impertinent to examine the premises where the conclusion is granted. CHAP. IX. Whether according to Mr. Baxter, Do and live be the voice of the Gospel as well as of the Law? The question stated, and resolved whether, and in what respects Believers must act or work from life, not for life. IN the eighth place (as natural motions are strongest when they come nearest to their period and centre, so) at the conclusion of his Aphorisms, pag. 3. 4. and so onward to the end, he multiplies Argument upon Argument, or rather twisteth many arguments together in one, under the notion of Queries; The substance of all may be gathered together into this one Syllogism. That Doctrine which by necessary consequence draweth after it many intolerable absurdities, mischiefs, and soul-damning evils, must needs be a fals● doctrine. But so doth the Doctrine of justification by Faith, or by Christ instrumentally received by Faith, without the addition of works, in a concausality with F●●●h or Christ. Ergo, It is a false doctrine. The Proposition is granted him. The Assumption he goeth about to clear and make good, by enumerating the particular absurdities and mischiefs that are consequential to this Doctrine. And this he doth by way of interrogations bearing the force of strong Affirmations. I shall examine them in order. The first query he puts in these words. B. Doth it not needlessly constrain men to wrest most plain and frequent expressions of Scripture? A simple negation would here best suit with so untoward and audacious a question? Neither shall I say any more to it, but admonish the Reader to take notice, that he doth in these words frame an indictment against Christ, his Apostles, and all that bear the name of Protestants, for sacrilege in wresting the holy Scriptures. And that, 1. Though he doth not (and why? but because he cannot) bring any one Scripture which they have so wrested. 2. And thereby affirmeth plain enough to the capacity of every understanding reader, that the Papists and Arminians alone have purely and truly interpreted the Scriptures as to the point of justification, whom himself therefore followeth as their obedient disciple. And 3. shows us no reason thereof, but leaves us to conjecture what his meaning is, viz that the Scripture is no farther Canonical, than after the interpretation and sense which the holy Mother Church alloweth it. Nay we retort the argument upon him. justification by works constrains the assertors thereof not only to wrest many Scriptures, but also to destroy and nullify the whole Gospel and Salvation of Christ. Therefore it is false doctrine. This first query was but a warning piece, but who can stand to bear the force of the second? The man as if he had newly come forth of Vulcan's shop, is all fiery, spits out nothing but lightning and thunderbolts, blowing into the bottom of Hell all that stand in his way. How formidably he lays about him, they that dare to come so near may find partly in this second query itself, but principally in his Appendix pag. 76. etc. and in the highest strength of his wrath, pag. 83. and onward to the end of pag. 98. First his query here runs in these words: B. pa. 324, and 325. 2 Queen Doth it not uphold that dangerous pillar of the Antinomian doctrine, that we must not work or perform our duties for life and salvation, but only from life and Salvation: That we must not make the attaining of Justification or salvation an end of our endeavours, but obey in thankfulness only because we are saved and Justified? A a●ctrine which I have else where confuted. And if it were reduced to practise by all that hold it, (as I hope it is not) would undoubtedly damn them, for he that seeks not, and strives not to enter, shall never enter. Now if good works, or sincere obedience to Christ our Lord, be no part of the condition of our full justification and salvation, who will use them to that end? For how it can procure justification as a means and not by way of condition, I cannot conceive. In what part of the world Mr. Baxters [elsewhere] lieth in which his confutation of this doctrine is to be found I know not, I am not inquisitive to know. I have enough in this and desire not to fish in any more of his foul waters. But in pronouncing this doctrine of working and performing duties not for life, bu● from life and salvation, not to the end that we may be justified by them, but in thankfulness for our justification by Christ without works, to be an Antinomian and damning doctrine if reduced to practice; he p●rremptorily pronounceth not only all Protestant Churches and saints, but also Paul himself an Antinomian and damned. For 1. that Paul and all the Apostles of Christ do teach and urge upon all the Saints of Christ all diligence in good works and duties, and fruitfulness in obedience, in thankfulness for their justification Mr. Baxter will not, cannot deny, for if he should, he cannot be ignorant that he shall be forthwith overwhelmed with testimonies of Scriptures against him that himself must acknowledge unwrested. Yea he must quench not only the light of the Gospel, but also of reason and nature itself (which possibly are more authentic with him than Gospel) to deny that we are to be really as well as verbally thankful to God for his least, much more for his greatest benefits such as are our justification and salvation. But that the Apostle also teacheth that we are not to perform good works and duties that we may be justified and saved by them, is evident. To him that worketh (saith he) i. e. seeketh it by works, the reward is reckoned not of grace but of debt, shall be conferred on him if due in strict justice, he must expect nothing from grace. But to him that worketh not [seeks not the attainment thereof by works] his Faith is imputed to him for righteousness. Ro. 4. 4. 5. to which he addeth the testimony of David, pronouncing the man blessed to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. ver. 6, 7, 8 By Grace are ye saved through Faith, not of works, lest any man should boast Eph. 2. 8, 9 we knowing that a man is justified by the works of the Law, have believed in Christ jesus that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ for by the works of the Law none can be justified. Gal. 3 16. Not by works of righteousness which we have done but of his mercy he hath saved us, Tit. 3. 5. That no man is justified by the Law it is evident, for the just shall live by Faith. The strength of the reasoning is in the opposition of the Righteousness by which the Gospel to that by which the Law justifieth. By Faith, therefore not by our sinceerest and exactest study of the righteousness which the Law prescribeth. Gal. 2. 11. with many other testimonies, before frequently alleged. Lo here the Apostle teaching the same doctrine which Mr. Baxter damneth, a working not for justficacation by his works, but from justification and in thankfulness for it. Yea he reduceth it to practise also. [We knowing that there is no justification by works] have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified. Gal. 2. 16. I count all things dung that I may win Christ and be found in him, not having my own Righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through Phil. 3. 8, 9 the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness of God by Faith. Behold we here in these Scriptures the Apostle teaching and reducing to practise every particle of the doctrine which Mr. Baxter here d●mneth. What followeth? According to Mr. Baxter Paul is an Antinomian, and damned. Let me also be so damned with Paul the Antinomian, rather than justified in the way of Mr. Baxters' justification. Mr. Baxter cannot evade here by any sophistical interpretation of Paul's sense and meaning in these scriptures. For they which have delivered this doctrine of Paul in Paul's words, or in words equivalent profess themselves to hold it also in Paul's sense and meaning. So that Mr. Baxter in interpreting Paul's, interprets their meaning also: so that it is evident that his wrath here is against the very doctrine of Paul, though his pretence be to blow up them only which speak after him. But Mr. Baxter hath a greater authority than Paul can boast of for himself, to pronounce them all Antinomians and damned with Paul that follow Paul's doctrine, viz. the determination of the Holy council of Trent which hath thus concluded, Si quis dixerit etc. If any shall say that a man is justified by Faith alone without works, let him be accursed. Who dares now to equillize Paul's Tent to the Pope's Throne and so many Cardinals and Bishops palaces? As to the matter itself, it is all sophistical and fallatious that Mr. Baxter here delivereth. Let him bring that Antinomian to light that hath ever taught that we must not labour and strive for justification and salvation, against whom his Argument may hold good that he must needs be damned, because he that seeketh not and striveth not to enter shall never enter. Some indeed by expressing themselves too briefly have given occasion to Mr. Baxter and such as he is, to catch a phrase or sentence from them that may smell of some absurdity as considered in itself and by its self: such as is that which he here mentioneth, we must work from life, and not for life. But if the scope of the Authors in such phrases be gathered, from that which went before, and that which followeth, it will appear clearly they meant, we are not to work and perform duties to this end that we may be justified and saved by such works as works and duties, but to perform them in love and thankfulness to him that justifieth us freely of mere grace, without works, through the Redemption which is by Christ Jesus. And this is the Question between Mr. Baxter and the Papists on the one part, and the Antinomians, i e. the Protestants on the other part, whether we must perform good works and duties to be justified and saved by them and for them so performed, yea by them or for them as they are our inherent righteousness, our perfect, possible, and meritorious Righteousness? All which he affirms, and the Protestants with one consenting voice deny: as hath been before, and may after, before we part from Mr. Br. be more fully manifested. What he concludes with as a notable absurdity and inconvenience that will befall his doctrine of works, if we will not say what he saith: [viz. If good works be no part of the Condition of our full justification and salvation, who will use them to that end? For how it can procure justification as a means, and not be the condition thereof, I cannot conceive.] Besides his fallacy before noted in arguing from justification and salvation simply and indefinitely taken, to a full justification and salvation of his own devising, and so controvertibly again from this latter to that former: it concerns him to look to the inconvenience and danger, which useth and practiseth, not to us which use not good works to that end. And now is his time to consider, that his full justification, when he thinks to possess it, do not evaporate into no justification, no salvation. Now to make way for the examination of what he hath more largely to this purpose in his Answer to the tenth & eleventh Questions in his Appendix, and to show how he there fights with his own phantasm, feigns an Adversary and then quells him, falls out with his own shadow, never coming near that which he hath made to be the Question between him and the Protestant Churches, but when the Adversary is Eastward, he rides out in indignation Westward, beating every bush and wounding every bough that he meets with, proclaiming it an Adversary, and so returns at last with as much gallantry, as ever did William the Conqueror: it shall be expedient (for the disabusing of such as are apt in this kind to be abused) to premise something for the right stating of the Question here controverted. First then the do, duties, and works, about which the Question is conversant, are of two kinds, Legal or Evangelicall, such as have their foundation in that law which is of Natural and Moral, or such as are founded on precepts and doctrines of Gospel Positive right. By the former I mean such works and duties as the natural conscience (specially if helped by the written Law) can apprehend to be, and urge upon man as duty though there had never been a Christ or Gospel to add further light. By the later I mean such duties, as are only in general comprehended in the Law, [whatsoever the Lord shall at any time declare to be his will, and impose upon thee as thy duty, thou shalt observe and do] but cannot possibly be known in special to be duties, without a new revelation from heaven, such as the Gospel is. The former duties are natural, founded in Nature itself: the later supernatural, because without a supernatural manifestation they cannot be known, and without a supernatural power infused they cannot be effectually performed. All this Mr. Br. himself granteth in this his Treatise, saving the very last clause, which also because I find him not any where flatly denying, I shall forbear to prove, taking it as granted with the rest. 2. That this natural righteousness and obedience was the Condition of the Old Covenant, as to life, and so remaineth still to them that▪ remain under the Old Coveant, but so as that no man living can be saved by it since Adam's fall, but that whosoever is saved, the same is saved after the tenor of the New Covenant, i. e. the Covenant of Grace or the Gospel. This also Mr. Baxter hath frequently taught and granted. 3. That the duties of the New Covenant are of two sorts, either more or less principal; the more principal is faith, or receiving and embracing the Lord Christ, together with the justification and salvation that are by him. The less principal duties (which are also pure Gospel duties) are such as are subservient to faith, or to the receiving of Christ alone to justification, quickening, illumination, sanctification, etc. or to the retaining of him and fuller closing with him to all these & all other Evangelical ends for which he is given to us by the Father. These 3. Positions are so frequently granted by Mr. Baxter in this his Book, that I forbear to quote the places. 4. That justification and salvation, as the Scripture terms them a reward, (if indeed it doth ever so term justification, as properly and strictly taken) may be considered first as benefits already conferred and in our possession, in part or in the whole, or else as rewards hereafter to be conferred; the ground and foundation whereof was laid in our first conversion and union to Christ by faith, together with the earnest and pledge of the spirit given to us by God to assure us of our full possession of all the fruits thereof in the future. And 2. if future, the Gospel proposeth these as rewards of his free grace and benignity, or else as rewards of debt, due to our service, and for the service done to him. Neither in this can Mr. Baxter oppose or descent. 5. Then to come home and close to the Question, it remains to be expressed how far all these duties are to be done for life, I mean how far all or any kind of these are to be performed for the attaining of justification and salvation as a reward, and how far only in love and thankfulness for the reward already made ours in possession or in hope. 1. We grant, that the● which are wholly under the Old Covenant, having never the Gospel revealed unto them, are bound to seek justification and salvation by the works of the Law or natural righteousness still: but they shall never attain what they so seek, because they are impotent to fulfil the condition Yet their unableness is no prejudice to God's authority and obligation upon them. It is otherwise with them that live under the Gospel, and have the Covenant of Grace in Christ revealed to them, but have not yet so ●ffectually received Christ by f●ith as to be● justified and declared righteous within their own souls: These are indeed to seek for justification and s●lvation, yet not by the works of the Law, or legal, natural, and merely moral righteousness, for this were to reject the new Covenant or Gospel, with the justification which is by Christ, and to hold themselves fast under the old Covenant in an incapacity to be justified and saved: The best works of natural righteousness which they can perform, being but dead works of dead men, like the stinch of Carrion, offensive to the pure nostrils of God, who will therefore condemn, not justify for them. 2. They that are in Christ and have obtained justification and inchoat salvation by him, i. e. have their conscience absolved and saved from sin and obligation to vengeance, by faith in his blood, are to perform those works of natural righteousness, not for life, but from life, not to procure thereby the life of justification, (for they have it already in Christ, and to seek it more completely to be perfected by such works is as hath been before showed, to be so foolish as having begun in the spirit, [to seek] to be perfected by the fl●sh) but in duty and thankfulness for so full and free a pardon and Gal. 3. 3. absolution, which all our do, all our sufferings are insufficienr to answer; Nevertheless the intuition of so great a redemption already attained and in our possession, together with the promise of so glorious an inheritance for the future life, already confirmed to us by the seal of the spirit in the blood of Christ, are of such infinite value that we are to walk still in the splendour and glory of it, so that our spirits should be sublimated above earth and self, to dwell, and to spend ourselves, and be spent in the bosom of that Grace, from which we have received so much, and expect yet so much more of ravishing and never ending felicity. What neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man in a natural way conceived, of the riches of the incomprehensible bounty and free grace of God, being once revealed to us, and made ours in possession, or in hope, ought so to spiritualise us, so to swallow us up into the spirit that we should no longer walk after the flesh, but after the spirit, to delight in the Law of God, in all the holiness and righteousness which the Law teacheth, after the inner man. He that seeks not so to do, hath hugged in his arms a dream of Christ, not Christ himself, hath had him possibly in his fancy, never in his heart and conscience. He that hath effectually met with God in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, and there tasted the love of God, or rather God which is love, hath suffered a Metamorphosis, and is changed all into love, hath so beheld God shining in Christ, as in a glass, that he is transformed into the same image, is or would be w●olly configured to the likeness of God. Yea, we grant more, that the truly justified and adopted one's of the Lord, may perform these works of natural righteousness which the Law commandeth, with respect to and expectation of the future glory which shall be revealed to them and conferred on them for Christ's sake, as a reward of such their imperfect service; yet not a reward of debt purchased by and due to their works, but of free gift and grace from their indulgent father, who of his infinite love and bounty is wont to recompense the mites of his dear children's labours, with the talents of his grace and bounty, not because they are worthy, but because he is gracious, yea Grace and Love itself, Ro. 4 4. 5. Go ye into my vineyard, and whatsoever is right [or meet] ye shall receive, Mat. 20. 7. It must be a boundless reward what such a father shall think right and meet to bestow upon his dear children. Their reward shall be proportioned, not to the pittance of their poor service, but to the riches of their father's bounty, and uncircumscriptiveness of his treasure. The respect of such infinite treasure in their father's hand, and the riches of his love to bestow it in largest dimensions upon them, with a gracious respect to their dutifulness, and service, should serve as a strong motive and attractive to them to be still doing for him. When I was yet in my blood, he loved and cleansed me, Ezek. 16. 6, 9 When dead, he quickened me, Eph. 2. 1. When without strength to work, when a sinner, when ungodly, when an enemy, he gave his son to die for me, and reconciled me to himself: What will he now do for me so quickened, reconciled, washed, and justified, having attained strength, if I employ that strength in his service? Ro. 5. 6-10. Now we are the sons of God, but it doth not yet appear what we shall be, only we know that when he appears we shall be like him, having therefore this hope, we ought to purify ourselves as he is pure. 1. Jo. 2. 25. 3. Thus are the saints to draw encouragement to obedience, from the consideration of the reward, or rather from the infinite love and bounty of the rewarder. 3. That they which are out of Christ, (yet under the means of Grace, and Ministry of the Gospel) must perform all pure Gospel duties (which the Law requireth only in general and implicitly, but the Gospel specifieth expressly) to the several ends to which the wisdom of God hath severally related them; some to justification, some to sanctification by Christ Jesus. It is their duty to hear, learn, study, and meditate, upon the doctrine of Grace, and mystery of Christ, duly to prize and value it, to desire, gasp, cry, and pray for the effectuallizing of it to themselves, to embrace and receive Christ, to repent of their long estrangedness from him, to deny themselves, and cast away all opinion of and confidence in their own righteousness, that Christ alone may be embraced, and the dung being cast out, they may be replenished with that which is indeed the Treasure: and all this that they may be justified and saved, not by and for these duties so performed, but by and for Christ to whom they seek and strive in all these duties to come into union▪ All this the Gospel both tacitly implieth and expressly teacheth: and the Law also in general and inclusively commandeth as hath been said, Thus the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. Here still Christ is all to justification, & salvation & Faith the alone instrument to receive him. All the other actings are but subservient to Faith in this its instrumental service to make way for it. As when a treasure is offered by a munificent benefactor to a poor beggar, the grace of the benefactor and preciousness of the treasure is that which inricheth him, and the hand the alone instrument to receive it; yet must the eye guide him, the understanding prompt him, the will move him, the feet carry him, and other actings of the mind and body be subservient to him, that the hand may rerceive that which inricheth him. At length when all is done, such a beggar hath more apparent grounds of boasting that he hath been, and done somewhat to his own enriching, than the best of us that we have been or done any thing to our own Justification. For though the Benefactor hath poured upon him freely of his own mercy, not for, or upon condition of his crying, running to him, emptying his hand of what was in it before, and stretching it forth to be filled with the treasure proffered him: yet the benefactor gave him neither a heart to desire nor wisdom to value, nor light to guide him, nor feet to carry him, nor a hand to receive the treasure conferred. It is otherwise in our Justification by Christ. God freely gives it in Christ, and all the power, will, actings, and instruments by which we come into the possession of it▪ Neither when we affirm all these to be our duty while yet unjustified, do we thereby affirm that all must be done before we can be justified. The grace of God oft prevents our operation in most of these, justifying us by Faith, before we have time to put ourselves upon many of these operations. In this sense I know none that denieth an obligation upon sinners to act and work for their justification and salvation. 4 They that are justified aught to be still active and industrious in all the duties of the Gospel tending to their confirmation in the Faith, establishment in Christ, illumination in the mysteries of the Gospel, denial of themselves, and seeking to be wholly swallowed up into the Lord jesus, that they may be daily more filled and ravished with fuller assurance and comfort of their justjfication & salvation by him. This we find the Apostle making his task, Phill. 3. 8 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. And hereunto tend the many mementoes scattered by the holy Ghost in the Gospel, watch, pray, take heed, beware, stand fast, hold fast, Run, fight, strive, continue etc. All which tend to the laying not of such our labours, but Christ Jesus abou● whom these our labours are to be exercised as the foundation of happiness more and more fixedly within our souls. Whatsoever Gospel duties and labours God hath ordained for the faster settling of us upon the Rock of Righteousness, the emptying ou●selvs of our nothingness, and making Christ 〈…〉 all, those all are to be done by the saints not only from life, but also for life to be had and confirmed to them not in these duties, but in Christ more and more form and perfected in them to righteousness and salvation by these their religious endeavours. These four Conclusions I know none of the Protestant (or as Mr. Baxter terms them Antinomian) Teachers denying. Whatsoever therefore he bringeth not thwarting and opposing some of these Assertions, he doth but Oleum & operam ludere, spend time and wit to prove that which none denieth, and to oppose that which none teacheth and patronizeth. These things therefore thus premised, it is easy to answer all that he will seem to himself to have laid impregnably for justification by works in his Appendix. To begin with pag. 76. of that his Appendix, and passing over that bold peremptory Pharisaical and popish Assertion, that Do this and live, is the language both of the Law and the Gospel, together with the explication and feigned sense of [Do and live] as it is the voice of the Gospel, p. 77. (there being nothing for, but all against this doctrine throughout the whole Gospel, as hath been already fully proved) all that he brings for the confirmation of it in the sense in which he will be understood, is ineffectual to this end. All his posiions pag. 78, 79, 80. may in the sense before mentioned, be granted him, viz. 1. That a wicked man or unbeliever may and must labour to obtain the first life of Grace. 2. That a man may act for the increase of this spiritual life when he hath it. 3. That we may and must act for the life of Reconciliation, Justification, and Adoption. 4. That we may act for the assurance of both our Justification and Sanctification. 5. That we may act for Eternal Salvation. All these things are wholly besides the question, and no more either powerful or proper to prove that [Do and live] (in the sense which he affirmeth and all Protestans deny) to be the voice and Tenor or scope of the Gospel, than if he had said nothing at all. He might expect the beguiling of the simple, but not of any knowing and considerative person with this dispute of his totally alien from the matter about which he disputeth. For himself knoweth, that they which use this Phrase, [We must work from life, not for life] do in this expression. 1. Speak only of those that are already alive in Law again, i. e. justified and absolved from all their sins through faith in Christ's blood, and so delivered from the Curse and death of the Law: 2. That they mean principally, if not only the the life of Justification, reconciliation, and Adoption, that they which in respect of this life, are already alive before God of mere Grace, uniting them to Christ which is their Life, ought not to seek the same life by works, as if it were not already attained; for this were to reject Grace and Christ as insufficient to Life, and to fly to works as either alone sufficient, or without which Grace and Christ are not sufficient to it. 3. That if at any time by and under this expression they comprise besides the life of Justification, etc. here, the life of glory hereafter also; in excluding our acting and working for it, they exclude them only as our acts and works, i. e. as acts and works either of God's worship, or of righteousness and charity towards our neighbour commanded by the Law of Nature, by the righteousness thereof to live: Not those Gospel duties of God's ordination to be subservient to our union unto and receiving of Christ to be our alone righteousness by which to live. This way themselves do, and teach all, both believers and unbelievers to act for life. The sum of their doctrine about Justification and salvation breathing out itself in calling all from all iniquity to the fountain of Christ's blood for cleansing, and from all confidence in the righteousness of their own works to put on him alone for their alone righteousness at God's Tribunal. Whatsoever acting and working there is in selfe-searching, self-denial, selfe-renouncing, whatsoever in the study, knowing, desiring, seeking, coming to Christ, that they may receive and retain him to be their sole and whole life and righteousness. All this they do, and teach to be done and that for life. This way (say they) the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it (yea hold it also) by force. Nevertheless even these Actings they disclaim also as by their righteousness interessing to Christ and life in him; and will no otherwise act by these for life, but as they are ordinately subservient to Faith and to living by Faith, i. e. by Christ whom Faith apprehendeth. Even Faith itself [as an act or work justifying] they explode, leaving it to the Papists, Socinians, Arminians, and among these to Mr. Baxter which here pag. 80. of his Appendix, as elsewhere teacheth it. So the question is not, when God of the freeness and riches of his Grace, doth offer unto us Christ with Righteousness, and life in him as a free gift; whether we ought to act and work for the receiving and holding of it, or not? But whether we ought to work ordinately as God prescribeth, or inordinately as Man's mad God Reason fancieth. We only deny that when such a gift is so offered we ought to run with fist, foot, sword, and club, to force it out of God's hand as our due, (as they do which after the doctrine of Mr. Baxter and his Masters invade God with their works, to claim it as due to their righteousness;) But we teach men tolie prostrate in the sense of their own vileness, gasping after it and receiving it as a free gift of Mercy; granting man in the very first acting of his will toward Christ, and Gods acting upon him to draw him to Christ, the relation of more than a natural patient, (not pronouncing him a stock or stone as our Adversaries object to us) even of obediential subjection (as they term it in the Schools) and ever after of a free Agent to fetch life and motion from Christ by the spirit. Thus far and no further do we grant [do and live] to be the voice of the Gospel, viz. as there is a doing in receiving Christ and adhering to him; and as the will in receiving Christ, is as well an Agent as a Patient. Mr. Baxter's sense we reject, and have spoken to his reasons here brought to confirm it. And whatsoever he hath said elsewhere, hath been before examined. As to the Scriptures which he quoteth to confirm his 5. Position, p. 80. and his glorying that they prove we may act for salvation, p. 81. which as generally posited by him no man ever denied: there is no need of answering, that which they are brought to prove being granted. At length in the same pa. 81. of his App. he frameth an objection made against his doctrine thus: B. Object. But is it not the most excellent and Gospellike frame of spirit, to do all out of mere Love to God, and from thankfulness for life obtained by Christ and given us? To this Objection he gives a three fold Answer. Bax. Answ. 1. If it come not from love to God it is not sincere. But is it sincere if it come from love to God? Is there not aswell a natural love as a natural fear of God in the hearts of all both good and bad? Or was there ever any that hated God as God and good? Or that served him from hatred to him? If such a Natural or Moral Love (for I find not Mr. Baxter ascending any where higher,) suffice to make the obedience of men sincere, and because sincere, a perfect and sufficient righteousness to justification and salvation; Then all will more fitly cohere than the golden crown with the golden pantofle: a universal conditioning righteousness, with a universal conditional salvation. All shall be saved (except the Antinomian Paulites, or Protestants) if Mr. baxter's Gospel stand: if he miss, none else but they. B. 2. Yet doth not the Gospel any where set our love to God and to our own souls in opposition; nor teach us to love God and not ourselves: but contrarily joineth them both together, and commandeth them both. The love of ourselves and desire of our own preservation, would never have been planted so deeply in our nature, by the God of Nature, if it had been unlawful. I conclude therefore, that to love God and not ourselves, and so to do all without respect to our own good, is no Gospel frame of spirit. As home to the matter as his doctrine of Justification to the truth. Where was conscience when will and wit alone show themselves to beguile his Readers with mere opinions and imaginary suspicions? Who ever opposed the ordinate love of God to the ordinate and subordinate love of ourselves? When he hath degraded us from being men, yea into a state beneath Beasts and bruits, telling the world that we do not appetere bonum, desire and move unto any thing that is good, yea our chief good, thenceforth he thinks the world in stead of hearing will trample us, as other stocks and stones that have no sensitive appetite. Our doctrine is of another frame. We oppose the love of God which is from the spirit of Adoption, (not from Nature) to the servile fear which is from the spirit of Bondage: following heerin the light and testimony of the Holy Ghost, Ro. 8. 15. 1. Jo. 4. 18. And this I doubt not, to be also the meaning of the Apostle, Gal. 5. 6. where he makes the all on our part to justification, consist in Faith, which worketh by love, i. e. in faith which carrieth out the believer to work, no more in slavish fear and by a mercenary spirit, but in the freedom and spirit of Love. And whosoever will but unwind the Clew of Paul's disputation in the whole 4. Chapter, especially from verse 21. and so forward to this 6. verse of Chap. 5. shall I think have the suffrage of his own Reason for this interpretation. For the Apostle having disputed of the bondage descending from Hagar to Ishmael and his Children, from Mount Sinai to those that held themselves under the Covenant of Works [Do and live] there given; and withal of the Freedom descending from Sarah to Isaac and his seed, viz. the seed of Christ then included in and typified by Isaac, i. e. from the New and spiritual Jerusalem to all true Christians, concludes of all such We are not the Children of the bond woman, but of the free: and in 5. Chap. verse 1. exhorting them to stand fast in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made them free; And forbidding, and in the next 3 verses showing the danger of returning again under the servile yoke of the Covenant of works [Do and live] whereas by Faith and not by works, the hope of Righteousness is to be expected, he concludes in the sixth verse, that neither circumsition nor uncircumsition, (i. e. neither works, nor any external privileges of the workers) avail any thing (to life and righteousness) but Faith which worketh by love; what is that but Faith which worketh by a new principle of filial love and not from that old principle of servile fear the proper adjunct of the Covenant of works? This is to be the Children of the free not the bond woman, by the Faith of Christ alone to seek for righteousness, yet to be still working from a principle of love not of fear to bring forth fruits of sanctification to him that hath freely justified us. This man saith the Apostle hath entered into his rest as God hath entered into his rest. Heb. 4. 10. As God having consummated the work of Creation, rested and ceased from his work, because all was perfect and needed no addition; and Christ having offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever, sat down at the right hand of God, ceasing from further sufferings, because our redemption is fully perfected and nothing more needed to be added: Heb: 10. 12. 14. So every beeleever in respect of the rest of Grace, having received by Faith the righteousness which is by this one sacrifice of Christ for the purging of all his sins, sitteth down for ever at rest in the fruition and firm tenure thereof, ceasing from his own works to perfect his justification because it is already completed and nothing needeth to be added to it. All his workings henceforth is to manage so great a salvation to the glory of the Author, as God worketh hitherto and Christ worketh, for the governing and disposing to their proper ends the Creatures made, and elect men redeemed. Mr. Baxter contrariwise teacheth men so to love themselves as with love to destroy themselves, and so to seek for life as to be sure to lose it; forbidding them to enter into their Rest of Grace, and calling them back to the yoke of bondage again, not suffering them to cease from their own works, nor to do that work of God, Jo 6. 29. nor to act in the Sp. of love, but of fear and bondage. Is not he one of those hard Taskmasters from whose cruelty Christ calleth his Disciples, Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, [with the yokes and burdens which your legal Teachers impose on you,] and I will give you rest? etc. These will never permit you to have rest to your souls, Mat. 11. 28, 29. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Baxters' Conclusion of this his second Answer to the Objection, is as patt to the purpose as an Oystershell to a hungry appetite: and the love to ourselves which he teacheth, to tend only to selfe-ruining. B. 3. Thankfulness for what we have received (either in possession, title, or promise,) must be a singular spur to duty. But I pray you tell me, Have you received all the life and mercy you do expect? Are you in Heaven already? Have you all the Grace that you need or desire in degree? If not, why may you not labour for what you have not as well as be thankful for what you have? Or have you as full a certainty of ●● hereafter as you desire? If not, why may you not labour for it? All this is also totally besides the Question, which is not whether we may, but how we are to labour, whether with that most excellent and Gospel-frame of spirit consisting in love and thankfulness, or mercenarily by works? and whether in the way of Faith which the Gospel, or of natural Righteousness which the Law teacheth? Many shall seek to enter and shall not be able, faith the Master. We through the spirit wait for the hope of Righteousness by Faith, saith the Apostle: Not so, but by and for our Works, not at all by Faith, but as it is an act or work, saith Mr. Baxter, let him show his light and Authority to be greater than Paul's, before he look that we should run after him. I shall put one question to him arising from the last of his Interrogatories, which will be harder for him to resolve than a thousand such as he hath here will be to us. When he tells us we must labour for the full certainty of Heaven hereafter; is there any such certaintainty in this world attainable according to his principle of but ● conditional justification and salvation until the day of Judgements or how is it to be obtained? Let him make it out to us. If he doth it, I shall conclude, that he can also turn Heaven into Earth, and Earth into Heaven, and nothing to be impossible to him: if not, let his Reader judge whether his endeavour be to delude, or else to teach. In the next Chapter or Section, if we attend only to the sound and roar of words, Mr. Baxter appears more formidable from pag. 83. to the 98. of his Appendix, in which he presents us with thirteen Considerations, to show the vanity, and intolerable damnable wickedness of this [supposed] doctrine, which he opposeth. But the whole 'slud of his wit, wrath, and eloquence, here poured out together, runs into the dead Sea, by a desert and desolate way in which it meets with no mortal creature to wet or hurt it. For who is there of all mankind that hath said we ought not to act for life in the sense which this man suborneth, or otherwise than I have before oft expressed? Much less is there any professed Christian that hath asserted (as he insinuateth) That we must not come to Christ that we may have life, nor strive to enter in at the straight gate, nor lay violant hands on the Kingdom of Heaven, nor lay up for ourselves a Treasure in Heaven, nor seek the Kingdom of God and the Righteousness the reof, nor press on for the attainment of the Resurrection? etc. Let him be named by Mr. Baxter, that he may be brought forth and stoned which thus blasphemeth, I shall not hinder it. That which they teach is that Works are not to be performed to this end, that as works or doing as opposed to believing, by, and for their own, or our own Righteousness in doing them, they should put us into the possession of the life of justification and blessedness. If Mr. Baxter have any thing to say against this assertion, or against that which I before laid as the state of the question, it willbe taken into examination: till than I shall leave him to fight with his own shadow, having no lose time to spend in gazing upon the activity of such a Combatant. CHAP. X. Arg. The Author of the Book entitled, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, vindicated from the Aspersions wherewith Mr. Baxter defameth him and his Doctrine. Here because I am to follow, and my task is, not to leave Mr. Baxter until I have examined all that he saith to prove Justification by works; I am necessitated to fall into that which will be judged a Digression. After he hath enacted by a Law, that to say, we must not work for life, is a Blasphemy, or at least an intolerable error, and to hold it practically a necessarily damning Doctrine, that whosoever doth it must be everlastingly damned for it. (All which we acknowledge to be in some sense true after the sound of the words, though after the meaning of the Author they can never be saved which practically hold the contrary, as possibly I shall afterwards show.) Now he proceeds to indite and arraign to condemnation one Author, as guilty of this damning Doctrine, viz. The Author of the Book called, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, and many his Accessaries, viz. all those Divines that have annexed their approbatory subscriptions to the usefulness of it; so find we the man expressing himself, Aphorism. pag 330. B. When such a Book as that styled the Marrow of Modern Divinity, can have so many applauding epistles of such Divines▪ when the doctrine of it is that we must not Act for justification and Salvation; but only in thankfulness for it. This he speaketh only in general, we shall find his particulars following. To this therefore I answer only in general; 1 That it were to be desired that Mr Baxter had enured no more dishonour upon thos● Divines to whom he dedicates his book by such his dedication; than those forementioned Divines have attracted to themselves by their applauding epistles. 2 And that those Divines, with Mr. Baxter himself, could mention so many sound parts in his book, both in the matter and ends of the Author; as he hath picked out imaginary errors in the other. 3 As to the doctrine of that book which he so accuseth, I shall there examine in particulars where Mr. Baxter particularly draws it into accusation and judgement. Only by the way let me thus far excuse myself. 1 I never knew who was the Author of that work. 2. Neither have I read it otherwise than here and there a fragment as I found it lying in my friends houses; so that I could not otherwise judge of it but ex ungue Leonem, what the whole was but by that which my slender judgement told me the part which I read was, not only orthodox but singularly useful. 3 That I never knew there was a second part of it, much less saw it until Mr Baxter by his quotation thereof so told me. But that since I have gotten both parts, yet by means of other employments have not had time any further to read it but where Mr. Baxter accuseth it of error. 4. That if I knew the Author to be yet living, I should have wholly left the defence of himself to himself. It was not so much the animosity as the ingenuity of Scaliger which caused him when he heard that one had busied himself about the correcting of the errors in his writings, to cry out, Ego meos corrigam errores, I myself will be the corrector of my own errors. The same task may this Author justly challenge to himself (if living) to be himself the defender of his own writings. Perhaps he is doing it, perhaps he hath done it, I shall therefore in my uncertainty what is done, only with such brevity seek to disabuse the doubting readers of both, that I shall in no wise prevent the Author's fuller vindicating of his own or rather Gods cause in his hand. Let us then attend to Mr baxter's accusations, particularised, Append. pag. 100 and so onward. It was questioned as may be seen pag. 99 why he excepted against the Book called the Marrow of Modern Divinity? he answers there, because it is guilty of this heinous doctrine. This he gins now pag. 100 to show in particulars, alleging first the words of that book thus: B M. M. pag. 174. (he means 179) Qu. Would you not have believers to eschew evil and do good, for fear of Hell or for hope of Heaven? Answ. No indeed, I would not have any believer to do the one or the other, for so far as they do so, their obedience is but slavish etc. To which end he allegeth. Lu. 1. 74. 75. Having thus alleged the Author, he thus endeavours to accuse and confute him: B But that speaks of freedom from fear of our enemies, such as Christ forbids Lu. 12. 5. where yet he commandeth the fearing of God, and consequently even that fear of enemies is forbidden, as they stand in opposition to God, and not as his instruments in subordination. Or if it be even a fear of God that is there meant; yet it cannot be all fear of him and his displeasure: So far as we are in danger of sin and suffering, we must fear it: and so far as our assurance is still unperfect: a jealousy of our own hearts and a dreadful Reverence of God also are necessary. But not the legal terrors of the former bondage such as arise from the apprebension of sin unpardoned, and of God as being our enemy. Who ever heard any doctrine more unanswerably proved to be heinous? If any man question by what Arguments, he can easily answer himself, by this ●hat Mr. Baxter trying and finding himself unable to do it, at length grants it to be sound and good. Thus are they driven ofttimes to wound themselves who draw the Sword against the Truth. The Author of that book proveth that believers or the redeemed of Christ are no longer to serve for fear of H●ll by the testimony of the H. G. Lu. 1. 74. 75. That we being delivered out of the hands of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness etc. Mr. Baxter to evade the force of this Scripture, first contendeth that by enemies are here to be understood not spiritual but mortal enemies, wicked men and their persecutions. Now may not a blind man perceive this to be a shifting not an answer of this Scripture? 1. The ground of this not fearing is here laid to be our deliverance cut of their hands, whom else we should fear. And will Mr▪ Baxter say that Christ came to deliver his elect from the persecutions of men, and not from sin, death, hell, which were our most formidable enemies? This were to make Christ's kingdom to be of this world, and to join with the carnal jews that expected such a carnal Christ and carnal kingdom that might be eminent in the world. 2. Or hath he actually purchased to us such a deliverance? doth not experience declare the contrary? 3. Or must we so long suspend our serving of God in Righteousness and Holiness until we be actually delivered from all fear and danger of men's persecutions? For so runs the Text as well in the original as in our translation, that the deliverance is laid as the ground of the service, and that put in our possession, before this can be put in execution, at least without fear. 4. Is not deliverance here the same thing with the salvation mentioned ver. 77, which john was to preach? but that was salvation, and so is this deliverance, by the remission of sins; and consequently we must serve (who are in Christ,) without fear of vengeance and Hell. He sees that with this evasion he cannot decline the edge of this Scripture; therefore takes up the right interpretation of it at last, thus: Or if it be even a fear of God that is there meant etc. Why had he not spoken full to the point in question and said the fear of Hell? This mincing will nothing help him. All that he saith against it in this sense, is but such as is wont to proceed from the extravagancy of an astonished and self confounded man. For who ever said that a believer must cast off all fear of God and not be possessed still with a filial fear to displease him? Or that as far as he is in danger of sin and suffering he must not fear it, to shun it? Or that so far as our assurance is still unperfect [or perfect] a jealousy of our own hearts and a dreadful Reverence of God are [not] necessary? But what is all this to the serving of God for fear of Hell? How doth he daub with untempered mortar? At length he determines the question. But not the legal terrors of our former bondage, such as arise from the apprehension of sin unpardoned, and of Gods being, our enemy. I need to say no more, but where then is the fear of Hell in a believer? doth it arise from the apprehension of the pardon of his sin, and of God reconciled to him in Christ? what can be said more weakly to confute, or more strongly to confirm that which he calls a heinous doctrine? Is Mr. Baxter an adversary or an accessary to him whom he pronou●ceth the Author of this wicked, intolerable, damnable doctrine? Himself speaks more to confirm it than the person whom he opposeth. But how according to his principles, the terrors of our former bondage as he describes it, are in this life removed, neither can I see, nor he make out without contradicting himself. B. In the 180. page, He denieth the plain sense of the Text, Mat. 10. 28. Enough Magisterially if it were true what he objecteth, to say only and not to demonstrate the truth of what he objecteth. But if false, who perceiveth not the censorious spirit of the Objector? That it is false appeareth evidently: for how doth he deny the plain sense which denieth no sense at all of the Text, but only declares what he thinks to be the more principal scope of Christ in that Text, than other? And in this the context will evince that he speaketh the truth. B. In the 155. page, He maketh this the difference between the two Covenants: One saith, Do this and live, the other saith, Live and do this: the one saith, Do this for life, the other saith, Do this from life. But I have provedfully that the Gospel saith also, Do this for life. 1. Now he manifesteth wherein the heinousness of the doctrine of this Book, and the intolerable damnable wickedness of the Author consisteth: viz. in his blindness that he did not foresee what Antichristian doctrine Mr. Baxter would afterward divulge to the world, and say he had fully proved it: but for lack of this foreknowledge, doth here deliver the contrary truth of Christ prepossessing the minds of men therewith against Mr. baxter's future impostures. But 2. Let him not say he hath fully proved, but let him fully prove that doing and works as the Scriptures do oppose the same to faith and receiving of Christ, (in which sense this Author speaketh) are enjoined by the Gospel to justification of life, or the life of justification, and then let him expect that his Gospel shall stand, and the Gospel of Christ lie prostrate at his feet. 3. Because Mr. Baxter will never be able to prove this, the true Disciples of Christ will still hold this as one principle difference between the two Covenants, that the one requires us to seek life after the tenor of Justice, the other after the tenor of Grace. The one bids us to seek it by Works, the other by Faith. The one presupposeth the original righteousness given us in Adam, bidding us by it to follow after happiness, the other offereth Christ unto us as the fountain of life both of Justification and Sanctification, calling upon us to receive or believe in him for both, that both may be ours when Christ is ours. He is our life, and when Christ our life (not works our life) shall appear, we also shall appear with him in glory. This is all that this Author meaneth in this passage, as himself makes evident. If in this he be an Heretic, let me live and die with him in his Heresy. To prevent mistake, I mean here the Covenant of works in Mr. Baxters' sense throughout this his Treatise, viz. the first Covenant made with Adam. B. So in his second part page 190. his great note to know the voice of the Law by, is this, That when in Scripture there is any Moral work commanded to be done, either for the eschewing of punishment, or upon promise of any reward temporal or eternal, or else when any promise is made with the condition of any work to be done which is commanded in the Law, there is to be understood the voice of the Law. A notorious and dangerous mistake, which would make almost all the New Testament, and the very Sermons of Christ himself, to be nothing but the Law of works. I have fully proved before, that Moral duties as part of our sincere obedience to Christ, are part of the condition of our salvation, and for it to be performed. And even Faith is a Moral duty. It is pity that any Christian should no better know the Law from the Gospel, especially one that pretendeth to discover it to others. About the matter here delivered by this Author, enough hath been spoken before, in examining what Mr. Baxter hath said in many parts of his Aphorisms contrary to it. Touching the proof of the contrary Assertion, Mr. Baxter hath said no more than, nor so much as Bellarmine had said before him, and left prepared to his hand. He should therefore more properly have said, Not I, but Bellarmine hath fully proved, and therefore fully because Mr. Baxter so affirmeth. As to the Assertor of it, why doth he pitch upon this Author alone, when Calvin, Fulk, Mr. Fox, (as I have before Chap. 15. alleged and quoted them) Dr. Amesius, Medul. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 22. Se. 19 In a word all Protestant Divines from Luther till this present time, have in substance, and most of them that have occasion to pitch upon the same Subject, have even totidem verbis, delivered the same doctrine, (as to mercenary, or rewards of debt) having learned the same from the Apostle, why doth he single out this one as a singular man? Let him with Bellarmine, Stapleton, Maldonat, and the rest of that hair, roar out against all the Reformed Churches, A notorious and dangerous mistake etc. A herd of Heretics and ignorant Animals; It is pity that any Christian should no better know the Law from the Gospel, especially such as pretend to discover it to others. As to his Moral duties, and even Faith as a Moral duty to be performed for salvation; he speaks like such moral men as nature now blinded and corrupted formeth, whose principle it is, Naturam ut optimam ducem sequi, to follow Nature and natural instinct, or Reason as their best guide, knowing not spiritual things, because the Natural man cannot receive them. If he savoured so much the Gospel as Philosophy, why doth not the phrase which Christ & his Apostles use [of the spirit and spiritual things] so much delight him as that of the Philosophers [Moral and Moralities?] As much was Christ's offering himself a sacrifice and giving satisfaction to the Justice of God a Moral duty, and so not meritoricus for us, because due to God from him by the Law for himself: as Faith in Christ and other purely Gospel duties subservient unto Faith. For both these duties on Christ's and on our part are comprehended under this one general of the Law of nature: Whatsoever I shall command thee thou shalt do. I shall leave the justification and salvation by Moral Faith and Moral duties to Mr. Baxter and with the Apostle, through the Spirit wait for the hope of Righteousness by Faith. Gal. 5. 5 B. So in the next page. 191. he intelerably abuseth the Sripture in affirming that of 2. Thes. 2. 12., to be the voice of the Law, and so making Paul a Legal preacher. Is then every teacher, (after Mr. Baxters' Canon) which declares what the voice, force, curse, and condemnation of the Law is, a Legal and anti-evangelical preacher? So he affirms Paul to be if he speak out what the curse and condemnation of the Law is. Than not only Paul, but Christ also and all his Apostles are Legal not Gospel preachers. For he will not deny them to have so made out the Law in its force etc. Or when the Apostle in that quoted Stripture speaks of their Damnation which would not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness, doth he not leave them under the damnation of the Law for not embracing the Gospel? doth not the Law hereby take occasion to damn them the more deeply for neglecting and rejecting the truth? The proper office of the Gospel is not to condemn but to save. Only when its salvation is contemned it yields bacl the contemners under the greater guilt to the Law to power out on them the larger, if not largest measure of its curse and wrath. Do not think (saith our Saviour to the jews that rejected his Gospel,) that I will accuse you to the Father, there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom you trust. Jo. 5. 45. But whether the inference of making Paul a Legal Preacher, is to be ascribed to Mr Baxter or to the Author of the Marrow of Modern Divinity is easily discernible. That Author had only said that one sentence of Paul in a whole Epistle was the voice of the Law. Mr. Baxter inferreth that so to say is to make Paul a Legal Preacher; & consequentially that to preach any thing of the Law makes a Legal Preacher. Let now Mr. Baxter name one Minister within this Nation that hath taught such rank Antinomisme, as himself here that professeth himself an Antaegonist to destroy it. But we may perceive by this he will be all things, as well Antinomian as Arminian and Papist to smother the truth of the Gospel. B. And as shamefully doth he abuse 1 Co. 6. 9 10. as if the Apostle, when he biddeth them not to be deceived, were deceiving them himself in telling them; that no unrighteous person, fornicators, adulterers, etc. shall inherit the Kingdom of God. Is this Law? Then let me be a Preacher of the Law. If Paul be a legalist than will I be a legalist too. But these men know not that the Apostle speaketh of those that die such and that these sins exclude men the Kingdom as they are rebellious against Christ their Lord, and so a violation of the new Covenant. How extremely is this man in love (Narcissus like) with his own beauty, or rather fancy? Every other Visage not begotten of his seed, and fashioned to his image is an Owl with him. The words of the Author are these: [The Law saith], knowest thou not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Be not deceived, etc. 1 Cor. 6. 9 And therefore thou being a sinner and not righteous, shalt not inherit the Kingdom of God. This is all that he hath against which Mr. Baxter raiseth his hubub, a shameful abuse of the Scripture! Let him deny if he can this to be (though less principally and secondarily the voice of the Gospel, yet) primarily and more principally the voice of the Law. If not, then surely as he hath a Gospel, so also hath he a Law of his own making. Or what other ground is there why such shall not inherit the Kingdom, but because they are not in Christ? Fer whosoever is baptised with the blood of Christ to justification, is baptised also with his spirit to sanctification. And if not in Christ, then under the Law. If under the Law, then under the curse and condemnation of the Law; and consequentially under the threat of the Law here denounced. Or what should hinder the Apostle from denouncing the curse of the Law against them that are and willbe under the Law? Let Mr. Baxter have his will that the Gospel condemns them for their final unbelief and rebellion against Christ: yet doth not the Law condemn them too for all their unrighteousness, fornications, Adulteries, etc. If he deny it, we shall find him the Author of a sweet piece of Gospel Doctrine: That they which are in Christ are under the Curse of the Law, (so hath he before stoutly asserted) but they which are enemies of Christ, are exempted from it. If he confess it, than the shame returns upon himself which he lays on this Author. B. So in part. 1. pag. 189. he mentioneth a Preacher that said, he durst not exhort nor persuade sinners to believe their sins were pardoned, until he saw their lives reform; for fear they should take more liberty to sin. And he censureth that Preacher to be ignorant in the Mystery of Faith. [And putting a false construction upon his words, he descanteth over him and insulteth against him for delivering an absurdity, in saying that which he said not] Let him but add what followeth, & it will appear there is no footing for him in these his words, for all the abusive carping wherewith he seeks to disgrace him. I thinke ●sayth the Author) that Preacher was ignorant of the Mystery of Faith, for it is of the Nature of sovereign Waters, which so wash off the corruption of the Ulcer, that they cool the heat, and stay the spreading of the insection; and so by degrees heal the same: Neither did he know that it is the Nature of Cordials, so to comfort the heart and ●ase it, as to expel the noxious humours, and strengthen Nature against them. Is it not here evident that the failing which he censureth in that Minister, is his mistake of the power and Nature of Spiritual and Gospel comforts, that he dared not to speak a word o● consolation to a wounded soul, before he saw and had had proof of his reformation, (though never so much burdened with the consideration of his sin past, and gasping after Christ and forgiveness by him) for fear such spiritual comfort would carry him bacl into carnal liberty again. Nay, saith this Author▪ The Mystery of Faith, or consolation which is by faith in Christ Jesus, is like sovereign Waters and Cordials, doth not only comfort the wounded soul against the guilt, but also subdue the power, and stay the spreading of sin, strengthening the soul against the future prevalency of corruption: so that the due application and reception of it is the best furtherance, and not at all a hindrance to the reformation of the Life. This doctrine may possibly offend Mr. Baxters' palate, but I am sure it squares with the Gospel. All that Mr. Baxter hath therefore, pag. 104. 105. against the Author's words wrested into a wrong sense expresseth Mr. Baxter what he is, but in no wise weakeneth the estimation of the Author with them that are wise. ●or he doth neither explicitly nor implicitly affirm, that justifiing▪ Faith is a believing that our sins are pardoned, as Mr. Baxter untruly suggesteth▪ ●nd thence draws matter of sugillation He names the Mystery or ●aith, which is one and the same as if he had said the Mystery of Christ, or the Mystery of the Gospel, all which in holy Writ, are 〈…〉 lent ●●rme. And what he affirms of this Mystery of Faith or 〈…〉 the deeper it sinks into the heart the more it purifies 〈…〉 strengtheneth in the power of godliness. Mr. Baxter's 〈…〉 affixed to this Doctrine shall not hinder my [Amen] 〈…〉 B. Many other intolerable errors I could show you in this book▪ as his making the New Covenant to threaten nothing but present afflictions and loss of our present communion with God, pag. 208. And that we pray for no other kind of Pardon. pag. 206. 210 Contrary to Mar. 16. 16. Heb. 10. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Heb. 2. 3. Jo. 15. 2. 6. and many other places. He might more properly have said, Many other intolerable slanders his candour and conscience could have enured upon this book. For so his next words would have verified what he had said; [as his m●king the New Covenant to threaten nothing etc.] When the Author in the quoted place speaketh nothing of the New Covenant, but of the Law of Christ, by which he there declareth himself to mean the Ten Commandments, as they are now in the hand and disposing of Christ. And this Law he understands also in relation, not to the whole world, but to them that are implanted into Christ; his words being directed to Neophytus. To such (Christ having already borne the penalty of the Law in their stead) temporal and fatherly chastisements only for their purging and perfecting, are threatened in case through infirmity they transgress the Law. In this, I conceive, he alludeth to the privileges of the Covenant made with David as the Type of Christ, and his seed as the Type of Christ's seed, and so pertaining (as a Gospel liberty) no less fully to us than to them. If his children forsake my Law, break my statutes etc. Then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes; nevertheless my loving kindness will I not take utterly from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail, my Covenant will I not break etc. Ps 89. 31-34. And this is M. Brs. own doctrine when he teacheth that there is no deathly violation of the new Covenant besides final unbelief & rebellion against Christ, in and under Thes. 32. 33. 34. and 37. But the Author whom Mr. Br. calls here add parts, speaks not of final unbelief or rebellion incident to the world, but of some particular transgression of any of the Ten Commandments (as he expresseth himself) through the infirmity incident to the Saints. What fire and fury is there in this man's wrath, that having made an Adversary, will have him wounded, vel per me, though through his own heart, ani●amque in vulnere ponit. If it be an intolerable error in this man, much more in Mr. Baxter, who much more vehemently and upon slighter and slenderer grounds asserts it. The Scriptures which Mr. Baxter allegeth as contraried by this doctrine, speak eytherof such rebels▪ as when the Grace of Christ is offered them, persist in a final refusal of it, or of such hypocrites as having once seemingly tasted it, Apostatise utterly from it. And with these this Author hath nothing here to do. Only Mr. Baxter being heavily burdened with another Monster, which he had a purpose to have disburdened himself of in a Tractate of Universal Redemption, being prevented by another, must needs now and then case himself of it, and speak out how hateful to him the doctrine of the certain perseverance of the Saints in grace is. The other things which he hints and but hints at as errors in this Author, might be taken into examination, if Mr. Baxter would allege his words, and show what he excepts against in them. I see not but the passages are pure and clear enough in the Book, if he would forbear the casting in of his salt-petre to corrupt them. As he saith it was not his business to have objected, so neither was it my business to have defended, had h●e not sought under a pretence of opposing this Book, to defame many truths of Christ. CHAP. XI. Whether according to Mr. Baxter, the Doctrine of Justification by Faith without works tend to carnal Liberty, and to the driving of Obedience out of the World. IN prosecuting his second Quere, Mr. Baxter hath lead us a long race. In the rest he is more strait and short. A third Quere which bears the force of another Argument to subvert Justification by Faith without works, he so proposeth as containing another absurdity and evil likely to follow upon this doctrine: His words are as followeth: B. Aphor. pa. 325. Whether this Doctrine doth not tend to drive obedience out of the world? For if m●n do once believe that it is not so much as a part of the Condition of their Justification, will i● not much tend to relax their diligence? I know that Love and thankfulness should be enough▪ and so it will when all our ends are attained in our ultimate end: Then we shall Act for these ends no more: we shall have nothing to do●, but love, and joy, and praise, and be● thankful▪ But that is not yet. Sure as God hath given us the affections of Fear, Desire, Hope, and Care▪ so he would have us use them for the attainment of our great ends. Therefore he that taketh down but one of all our motives to obedience, he helps to destroy obedience itself; seeing we have need of every Motive that God hath left us. I shall examine here first the Quere itself; then the amplification of it. The Quere or Interrogation bears the force of a strong Affirmation. That the doctrine of Justification by Grace without Work● doth tend to drive obedience out of the world, and to relax men's diligence to good works. It must be therefore a prodigious doctrine that produceth so cursed an effect. First then I demand whom he censureth as the Authors of so direful an evil, God or men? If the Holy Ghost hath not taught men this doctrine, let the guilt of this evil be upon such men as have entertained it. But the Holy Ghost hath taught it. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is imputed to him for righteousness. But he that worketh, or brings works to be justified by them, is excluded Ro. 4. 4. ●. His is the blessedness to whom God imputeth Righteousness without works, ver. 6. Not of works but of him that calleth, Ro. 9 11. If at works, than not by Grace, if by Grace then not of works, Ro. 11. 7. By Grace through Faith not of works, Eph. 2. 8. 9 Not our own righteousness but the righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ, Phil. 3. 9 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy. And many more testimonies before in a fit place alleged, all in one harmony evincing the Holy Ghost to be the Author of this Doctrine. So that Mr. Baxter loadeth not man but God with this reproach, of seeking to drive obedience out of the world. 2. Whether he hath not taken up this slander from the Monks and Jesuits? Whether there be any of them that having written against Justification by Faith, which hath not aspersed it and our Churches that hold it, with this scandal? Or any one of the Protestant Divines which hath defended this Article of our Faith, but hath spoken fully to the vindicating of this Doctrine from this so injurious a slander? When Mr. Baxter is so much Popish that he takes up every most frothy Objection of every shaveling of that side to adore it; and so much an Anti-Protestant that he scorns to mention what on our part hath been regested in way of answer to it: why takes he up his habitation among Protestants but to corrupt and seduce them? 3. If he mean by the World the unbelievers of the World, that are strangers to Christ and the Covenant of Promise, how can it be said properly, this Doctrine tends to drive out obedience from the World? Can it drive out of the World that which is not in it? Had he said, it tends to drive out the Formality, and outside Morality, and base Hypocrisy from the World, we might have considered of it. But to tell of driving out obedience, that which God accepteth and alloweth as true Obedience, from such as would never be drawn to it, implies a kind of contradiction. 4. If he mean Spiritual and Gospel Obedience, the obedience of Faith, which consisteth in the denial of our own righteousness, and our own strength, and cleaving to Christ alone, for Justification and Sanctification; and that this Doctrine doth (not drive it out of the World, but) hinder the World from partaking of it: how doth the Wisdom of Christ, and the Wisdom of Mr. Baxter herein dash either against other? God so loved the world (saith Christ) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have life everlasting, Jo. 3. 16. He that believeth in me, out of his belly shall flow Rivers of living water, Jo. 7. 38. If I be lifted up from the Earth I will draw all men to me, Jo. 12. 32. Come unto me all that are weary and heavy layden, and I will refresh you, Mat. 11. 28. Go preach the Gospel to every Creature, he that believeth shall be saved, Mark. 16. 15, 16. This is a faithful saying, etc. that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 1 Tim. 1 15. They that receive abundance of Grace, and the Gift of Righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ: and hundreds more the like Scriptures, in which the fullness of grace and righteousness offered to the world to the chief sinners of the world freely to be given to as many as will receive and believe in Christ; is made an attractive to obedience, and not (as Mr. Baxter slandereth this Doctrine) a hindrance to it. 5. If there be any of the world that are so offended at this Doctrine, as to make it a stone of stumbling to them, and an hindrance to the obedience of faith; they are the worst people of the world, Jews, or of a Jewish spirit, Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, who having made clean the outside of the cup and platter, (though the inside be unpurged from its guilt) think themselves the alone holy and righteous persons, will not enter into the Kingdom of Grace, unless their own worth and righteousness shall usher them into it, and the Publicans and Harlots be barred out ●● unworthy: rend their and cast dust in the air like madmen, if mention be made of admitting with them the unclean Gentiles, Acts 22. 21, 23. If the Prodigal son be entertained, refuse in great wrath any more to meddle in their Father's house and service, Luke 15. 28,- 30. And will not hearken though earnestly entreated: These many years have I served and never transgressed, and shall now this companion of harlots be here with me? and these last that came in at evening be made equal with us that have borne the burden and heat of the day? Mat. 20. 12. They had their own Farms, Oxen, Wives, Therefore as happy enough at home they would not come to partake of the Lords Feast, but left it to the poor, blind, and la●●, etc. But against such the Lord hath sworn that they should not taste of his supper, Luk. 14. and the misery of this doom we see lying heavy upon that Nation to this day. Is it not enough to Mr. Baxter that he hath not himself taken heed of this Leaven of theirs, but that he must seek to sour us with it tco, that we might incur the like vengeance? 6. If there be such as turn this Doctrine into licentiousness, that because good works are not appointed of God to be the condition of their justification, will therefore relax their diligence, the fault is not in the Doctrine, but in the corruption of their hearts. They ought to conclude from Grace to duty, and not to carnal liberty: If they do otherwise, it is not because they have, but because they have not effectually drank into themselves this Doctrine. Else if all the means of Grace which carnal men abuse should be guilty of their abuse, than the death of Christ, and preaching of the Gospel must be anathematised, because he is laid as a stone at which some will stumble, and as well for the fall as the rising of many in Israel, and that is to some the savour of death, as well as to others the savour of life. The children must not lose their bread, for fear the dogs should catch after it to satisfy their rapine. The Apostle had delivered a sacred doctrine of Gospel's truth▪ Where sin abounded, Grace abounded much more, Ro. 5. 20. He seethe easily this doctrine would be abused by sensualists, therefore annexeth an Objection, Shall we continue in sin that Grace may abound? Ro. 6. 1. This use some might make of it. Doth he therefore recall his doctrine? Nothing less. Better many wretches to wantonise to their ruin, than one soul for which Christ hath died, lose such a prop of consolation. 7. The truly believing saints cannot so reason or abuse the grace of God, or relax their obedience; as for other reasons so specially for those alleged by the Apostle, in the following part of that 6. Chapter to the Romans. 8. We do not by the Preaching of this Doctrine open a door to profaneness, but following the guidance of the Scripture, make use of it as the strongest obligation to obedience: as in Answer to the next of Mr. baxter's Queres shall be manifested. Lastly, Mr. Baxters' Doctrine of justification by Works, is guilty of as many other crimes, so of this also wherewith he chargeth ours. 1. By instilling into men a supposition of a possibility and necessity of attaining such a righteousness of their own, and worthiness of their works, by the worth and merit whereof, they may deserve Christ and justification by him. The selfe-righteous Justiciaries will greedily swallow down this bait, and then little regard the obedience of faith: Will not come in to Christ but upon their own Terms and Articles. For the whole need not the Physician but the sick. Proof enough hereof we have in the Scribes and Pharisees, who if they might not be admitted as the only sons of God, wholly rejected the Kingdom of God. The very Publicans and Harlots entering before them. Such pride is there naturally in man's heart, that if they have any thing of their own, fair though but in appearance, they think the Gospel of Christ more credited by their profession of it, than themselves benefited by it. 2. By blunting the edge of men's desires after Christ, If it must be their own works and righteousness that must mediate their interest in Christ and justification by him, despair of attainment strikes them dead from further labouring and moving to this end. For what righteousness, what works, can be sufficient to such an achievement? So obedience to the Faith is nipped in the very bud, where there is a sense and conviction of a man's naughtiness and nothingness. 3. By taking off the spirits of a Christians love, joy, and alacrity, in believing and serving, when a humble and selfe-denying soul is once choked with Mr. Baxters' Doctrine, that all the benefit which he hath or can have by Christ, is to be only a probationer for justification and life, even to his dying day; that till then he is but conditionally pardoned and conditionally adopted; that God's love to him may be anon turned into hatred, his sins again imputed, and himself hurried into hell: That his safety still depends upon his own works & righteousness, no penny, & not Pater noster: that the grace of God is let to farm for fine and rent; no one promise of the word in all this his Book being alleged by Mr. Baxter (which I can remember) of any support which the believer shall receive from God in the state of Grace, but all, Self do, and self have: This Doctrine either benumbeth and freezeth up all a poor Christians love and delight in serving God, emasculating his spirits to obedience: or reduceth him under a yoke of bondage, making him to work possibly but in fear, not of love; as under the rod, or rather in the fire, fearing death and hell all his life time. And whether this be (saving in Mr. Baxters' account) obedience, or disobedience, let them that are spiritual judge. 4. By turning the very obedience of his Disciples into disobedience and rebellion. The best works done to be justified by them, and for them, are the greatest abomination in God's account, his Grace and Salvation are either denied or refused when we bring works to appropriate it to us, Rom. 4. 4, 5. what is righteousness in its matter, is sin in its end. Therefore shall we find still that whosoever are admitted to, those that seek to ingratiate themselves by their good works though done in Christ's name, are hurled off from Christ. I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. I know you not, depart from me ye workers of iniquity. More joy for one sinner that repenteth, than for ninety nine just persons that need no repentance. For a more full and satisfactory answer to the Argument contained in this Quere, I leave the Reader to the perusing of the Protestant Divines that have written upon this Subject, and abundantly refuted this calumny of the Papists: what I have here said is rather an addition to them, than a full answer to the Quere, which I leave to be fetched from them. What he speaks in the Amplification of this Quere, needeth no large examination. First, he grants, That love and thankfulness should be enough, [to hold us to obedience and duty] and will be so when all our ends are attained in our ultimate end: then we shall act for these ends no more, etc. How untowardly doth this passage, and and another passage of the former Quere hang together? what he pronounceth here, that love and thankfulness should be enough to hold us to duty, without doing for justification and salvation, and that which here should be, and hereafter shall be our perfection, the same he affirms there, if practised, will undoubtedly damn the Practiser. So according to Mr. Baxter, if a Christian endeavour sincerely to do what he should, and to come as near in this life as it is possible, to the perfection which he shall enjoy in the future, he shall undoubtedly be damned for it. Who then goes about to drive obedience out of the world? he, or they whom he opposeth? What use is to be made of the affections of fear, desire, hope, and care, to the attainment of our great ends, hath been enough discussed in the examination of the former Quere, and would be a mere Tautology here to do it again. Let it be proved once that God hath left Justification by works to be a motive to obedience, it shall be granted to be a help to the destroying of Obedience, to take down this one Motive. But if contrariwise Justification of sinners by Works, and Moral Obedience be erected not by God, but by the Devil, Mr. baxter's neither Sophistry, nor Oratory shall induce us to lean upon the Devil's crutch, both to the forfeiting of our Justification, and turning our Obedience into sin. CHAP. XII. Whether the doctrine of justification by Faith without works be a soul-cozening doctrine? or harden the people in a soul-cozening Faith? what the doctrine of Faith which the Protestant Churches hold, is? and how far from deserving this Calumny? with something about the facility or difficulty to persuade the multitude to such a Faith. HIs fourth Quere by which as by another Argument he goeth about to make odious and to destroy justification by Faith without works, runs thus: B. pag. 326. Doth it not much confirm the world in their soul cozening Faith? surely that Faith which is by many thought to justify, is it that our people do all most easily embrace, that is the receiving of Christ for their Saviour, and expecting pardon and salvation by him, but not withal receiving him for their Lord and King, nor delivering up themselves to be ruled by him. I meet not with one but is resolved in such a Faith, till it be overthrown by teaching them better. They would all trust Christ for the saving of their souls, and that without dissembling, for aught any man can discern: Are all these men justified? etc. A Chip of the same block with the former, in the use of it Mr. Baxter as he hath learned of them from whom he hath received it, levels against the very heart of Christ and his Gospel. Had he said with james that to say we have Faith and not to have works, is to cousin our souls, I should have said with him. But in that he speaketh not of a soul-cozening profession of Faith, but layeth so horrid an imputation upon Faith itself, this gives us cause to examine what Faith he meaneth, that we may be able to discern whether that Faith, or else Mr. Baxter by defaming it, go about to cousin our souls, and so embrace the true friend and reject the Cheater. This cozening Faith, according to Mr. Baxter, must needs be that which squareth not in its nature and manner of justification with the justifying Faith. viz. that Gospel's Faith which (neither as a deed and work, as a work of Moral duty, and work of our own righteousness, of our perfect and meritorious righteousness, doth begin and but begin to inright us to Christ and justification by him, leaving to either virtues and works to perfect it: but) as an instrument ordained and given us of God, by which we receive Christ alone offering up himself a sacrifice for us to be cur whole righteousness to justification, and that without works and in opposition to works. That this is Paul's doctrine and Paul's justifying Faith, I suppose hath been enough evinced before: and shall (God assisting) be more fully eleared in its due place, when I come to examine the reasons which Mr. Baxter bringeth to prove his doctrine not to be opposite to Paul's, but the same with it. Therefore in calling this Faith a soul cozening Faith, he proclaims Paul, (yea Christ himself which revealed to Paul his Gospel) a cheater and cozener: learning this calumniation from that Jewish and Pharisaical generation from which he hath derived his Doctrine. Joh. 7. 12. But the testimony of the Holy Ghost runs contrary to Mr. baxter's pronouncing them that join Works with Faith as necessary conc●uses with it to Justification, to be the couzeners, troublers, and subverters of men's souls. Col. 2. 4. Gal. 5. 12. Act. 15. 1. 24. But to vindicate the Doctrine of the Protestant Churches (and therein also the doctrine of the Gospel, both being one, and one 〈◊〉) from having any thing in it that may give footing to this 〈◊〉, that we teach a soule-couzening Faith: and to manifest that Mr. Baxter doth knowingly asperse the Doctrine of Faith, and them that held it with this slander: I shall collect into a few heads the doctrine which our Churches teach, yea which Mr. Baxter knoweth they teach, as to this Question. First then they affirm, That God hath laid up in one Christ alone all supplies for poor sinners to relieve them against all their spiritual wants: of which supplies these 2 are principal ones, righteousness to justification, and the Spirit to Sanctification. The one delivereth from guilt and condemnation; the other from the domination of sin and impotency to acceptable obedience. The former stateth the sinner Rectum in Curia▪ righteous before God again, having his sin pardoned and no more imputed: the latter spirituallizeth, quickeneth, and new formeth him again to the will and image of God in holiness and righteousness. 2 That whosoever receiveth one receiveth both these supplies from Christ, none puts him on to justification, but puts him on to sanctification also: and so becomes a new creature as well in reality as in relation: becomes inherently as well as imputatively righteous by him. 3 That it is one and the same Faith which is instrumental both to justification and sanctification, though not by one and the same but by several and different Acts. As my hand even the same hand is instrumental both to feed and clothe me, though not by the same but by different Acts. It is the will of my benefactor (to hold myself to Mr. baxter's simile) having ransommed me from Turkish thraldom and appointed me to honourable service in his house, to leave open to me both his wardrobe and his store▪ house or promptuary of provisions, with a command that I should partake freely and richly of both; that by the one I might be fitly habited and adorned, by the other nourished and strengthened for honourable service to be done to him. In both these my hand is instrumental to serve and furnish me, yet by several Acts. It neither fetcheth meat from his wardrobe nor clothing from his Pantry and Cellar, but by several Acts from both and either, what in both and either is laid up for me; yet so as all is my Lords goods, and by my partaking thereof I am put into a capacity of doing him faithful and acceptable service. I need not make the application, every one can do it for himself. The eternal King having laid down the life of his own son for the ransom of my soul, hath opened to me all his treasuries in one & the same Christ, the treasury of his blood & merits to purge me from the guilt of sin, and obligation to judgement and vengeance, so that having put on Christ crucified my Law is done, my sin forgiven, my nakedness and filthiness covered, and I stand in Christ as perfectly righteous as if I had never offended: the treasury of his spirit and spiritual gifts, sufficient to turn my water into wine, to renew my hart, and to sannctifie me throughout, that henceforth I shall hate sin no less than hell, and delight in the Law of God after the inner man, taking no less pleasure in the holiness than in the happiness which are by Christ. The eternal Father offers both together, and neither without the other. And the same spirit which draws to one draws to both. The same Faith which apprehends one apprehends both, is not a justifying except it be also a sanctifying Faith. Yet by several Acts and from several treasuries in the same Christ, the same Faith fetcheth justification from his satisfaction and new inherent righteousness from the spirit of sanctification. 4 That as justification ought and doth declare itself to the person justified by its proper and immediate fruits, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, prising Christ above all things, soul contentation in him, living and dwelling upon him, selling all to enjoy him alone to righteousness and salvation, counting all things dung and loss in comparison of him, emptying ourselves more and more of our own righteousness, of our owneselfe confidence, that he may be made out all at God's Tribunal; repairing no more to Abana●, Pharfar, no nor to Jordan itself, but to the one fountain of Christ's blood, there to Wash daily and be clean; neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem, but in Christ alone to worship that we may be accepted: So also sanctification doth and aught to show itself to us and others by its fruits▪ to ourselves by the seeds and habits of love, righteousness, holiness etc. affecting the heart within: To others by the fruits and works of the spirit manifested in the practice without, viz. all the Acts of love, mercy, goodness, sanctity, piety, charity, equity, patience, meekness, etc. as also in subduing the flesh by the spirit, mortifying every evil affection, fight against every sin, that we may show ourselves a peculiar people of the Lord, zealous of every good work. 5 That justification and sanctification by Faith in Christ do evidence either the other. He that can find himself truly justified may know himself to be no less truly sanctified by Christ, because he that is in union with Christ so as to be partaker of his justifying and saving righteousness, by being so joined to Christ is become one spirit with him, saith the Apostle. The spirit of sanctification descendeth and giveth influence from the head to the whole body and every member thereof. So on the other side, he that by being one spirit is sanctified by the same spirit of Christ, may by this evidence know himself that Christ by the same spirit is made righteousness to him, and is in the same relation to God with Christ being justified, adopted, etc. a son and heir with him to all the inheritance. Sanctification (I say) truly understood is such an evidence, (for none are sanctified but the justified, and all the justified by Faith, are sanctified) if it be sanctification indeed, it may be made an evidence of justification. 6 Yet neither all seeming peace and quietness 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 always sure evidences to a man that he is justified; because not always fruits or parts of sanctification, they may proceed from another and base principle, viz. from the deceitfulness of their heart, or self-love, and self-advancing, or from the spirit of slumber upon the conscience, or from ignorance of God's way and method of bringing many Children to glory: Nor are all seeming holiness, honesty, meekness, temperance, patience, and other like virtues, either in their habit, as they really affect the heart, or in their act, as they are with an ardent zeal for God, brought forth into practice; sure evidences of sanctification by Christ: because these also may proceed from other and base 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 soul by a moral and virtuous education, or other like subcelestial, and unspiritual principles. So that our certain and known union to Christ, and our justification and sanctification sensibly thence flowing, may be properly and unfailingly made our sound evidence of the spiritual life and acceptableness of our virtues and works: But these in themselves in no wise certain 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 moral principles, and is incident even to them also that are aliens from Christ. 7 Nevertheless, even these virtues and good works do so far evidence, that from the Negation of these, a man is certainly denied to be in Christ, or to be justified or sanctified by the faith of Christ. I mean that whosoever can allow himself in the habitual 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 dwells in a state of reign, not of bondage. Withal, these virtues 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 hue from any other Quarry, or to dip from any other Fountain than from Christ, that from his Spirit alone he daily sucketh life, as the branch from the root to bring forth fruit, and from the sacrifice of Christ's death a sweet odour to make himself and his fruit acceptable, than 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 continual waiting upon Chrih, from him alone to receive what he 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 less 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 justify. 9 The grace of God which bringeth salvation [and justification] teacheth men to deny ungodliness, etc. and to live soberly, etc. Calls 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, Judas 20. A [soul] purifying Faith, Act. 15. 9 A sanctifying Faith, Act. 26. 18. Implying its efficacy as well to sanctify as to justify, 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 virtues and good works at least in their root and seed while they are here; and if after their effectual calling they live to have time and opportunity, do not unfeignedly 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 particularising 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 express more impudence and falsehood 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 laid upon us these two accusations? To hold myself 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 thought to justify (his meaning is, which all the Protestant Churches and Divines teach) and which our people do all most easily embrace, is the receiving of Christ for their Saviour, and expecting pardon and salvation by him, but not withal receiving him for their Lord and King, nor delivering up themselves to be ruled by him. Let him now name that one Church, or one Theologist in any one of the Protestant Churches that hath so taught, and divided the receiving of Christ, as Lord and King, from receiving him as Saviour and pardoner, in justifying Faith: or else confess that he hath drunk deeply into the Jesuits prenciples, that all equivocations, frauds, lies, slanders, and whatsoever is worse than these, are all not only lawful, but also meritorious, when practised for the advancement of the Triple Crown, and the Holy Mother-Church of Rome. We do indeed divide works from Faith, and banish them from having any concausality with it in justifying: But let Mr. Br. produce one that hath divided Christ the King from Christ the Saviour, or denied him in either Title to be the object of justifying Faith: or any one that hath taught that to be a justifying Faith, which expecteth salvation from Christ, but will not deliver up the soul to be ruled by him. I challenge Mr. Br. to vindicate herein his reputation, and to manifest that he followeth the dictates of Natural conscience at least, and not of wilful malice against the truth, by naming one that hath taught any such thing. The Protestant Churches and Writers are so clear herein, that they do not divide from justifying Faith, the very Assent that there is a God, that he made the world, that he drowned it, and repaired it; that Christ was the Son of the Virgin Mary, that he was born at Bethlehem, circumcised at eight days old, disputed among the Doctors, turned water into wine, and did many miracles, or whatsoever else the Scriptures in the least things affirm to be true. All this the justifying Faith assents to, neither can it not assent to every truth of the word; yet it so assents, not as justifying. In this act it knows nothing but Christ and him crucified. Much less do they so divide, as Mr. B. here against knowledge and conscience objecteth. They so far show themselves abhorrent from it, that they utterly deny any to come to the Kingdom of glory, but through Christ's Kingdom of grace. But the Doctrine itself which here he reneweth about the object of Faith, Christ as our Lord as well as our Saviour, I have examined before in answer to his fourth Argument. Thither I send the Reader for satisfaction what the Protestants hold, and upon what grounds, here it is besides the matter to fall into a new dispute about it. It shall suffice here only to examine the new Argument which he brings to prove, that the Doctrine which holds forth justification by Faith, is a soul-cozening; but that which teacheth justification by works, is a soulsaving doctrine. For this is his meaning in what he disputeth here of Christ the Saviour, and Christ the Lord made the object of justifying Faith, as he hath largely explained himself before: And if he mean not so, all that he here saith is but a hunting after Grasshoppers in the snow to fight with them: For none is there to be found opposing what he saith in the words and phrase he useth. But himself is a sure Interpreter of himself, and we must take him as himself hath explained his meaning. And then his Argument is drawn from the easiness or difficulty of receiving the one or the other Doctrine. It must be a soul-cozening doctrine, which all are easily persuaded to be cozened with. Thus we find him expressing himself in that part of the Query which is before transcribed. Our people (saith he) do all most easily embrace it; I meet with no one but is resolved in such a faith, till it be overthrown by teaching them better. They would all trust Christ for the saving of their souls, etc. And in the following part of the Querie. B. Let any Minister but try his ungodly people, whether they will not all be persuaded very easily to believe that Christ will pardon and save them, etc. But whether it be not the hardest thing in the world to persuade them really to take him for their Lord, and his word for their Law, and to endeavour faithful obedience accordingly? Surely the easiness of the former, and difficulty of the later, seemeth to tell us, that it is a spiritual, excellent, necessary part of justifying Faith, to accept unfeignedly Christ for our Governor, and that part which the world among us will most hardly yield to, and therefore hath more need to be preached than the other. Were he a true Israelite in whom there is no guile, which speaketh, all this might be granted him. But because he hath fully declared, that he meaneth by receiving Christ for our Saviour, justification by Faith in Christ the Redeemer, and by receiving him for our Lord and Governor, justification by works, nothing can be safely granted to him. The whole sum of his Argumentation amounts to this syllogism: That doctrine of Justification which the multitude doth easily embrace, is a soul-cozening doctrine: but that which they are not without much difficulty persuaded to receive, is a soulsaving doctrine. But the multitude easily embraceth Justification by Faith alone, and not without difficulty Justification by works: Ergo the former is a soul-cozening, the latter a soulsaving doctrine. He must acknowledge that he thus argueth, or argueth nothing, or nothing to the question. To the Proposition I distinguish first about the meaning of the terms: And first about the word embracing or receiving, betwixt a vital or effectual, and a merely historical embracing, betwixt a real receiving, and an assent of the judgement that the thing is to be received: or more plainly, believing, and a man's saying he doth believe, or his profession of Faith. 2 Between that which is easy or difficult in itself, or to man's natural ability: and that which God makes easy by the concurrence, or leaves difficult by the withholding of his grace. Having thus distinguished, in whatsoever sense he takes the Terms, I deny both Consequen●● of the Proposition. For if he mean only an external assent to the verity and goodness of the doctrine, All men which have reason in their understandings, and freedom in their wills, do with the like facility choose that which is made out to them to be good, and refuse that which is made out to them to be evil. Or if he mean a vital and effectual embracing, the doctrine of Justification is alike difficult to all that are of the carnal multitude. It is a spiritual doctrine, and the natural man receiveth not, cannot receive spiritual things, 1 Cor. 2. 14. Again if he mean an easiness and difficulty in itself and to man's natural ability, The true doctrine of Justification is alike difficult, yea impossible to all effectually to receive. None can come to the Son except the Father draw him, Jo. 6. 44. But if he mean a facility and easiness of receiving by means of the concurrence of God's grace making it easy, then is it alike easy to all men that are helped alike by God's grace; and alike difficult, yea impossible to all that are left destitute of it. So that the easiness or difficulty of persuading the multitude to entertain this or that doctrine of Justification, can be no sure rule of concluding either doctrine to cozen, or to save the soul. Besides I deny the assumption in the whole and in both its parts. For how can that which is a supernatural doctrine be easily received by natural men, the whole stream of whose wisdom and will is against it: such as is Justification by Faith in the redeemed? or that which is a natural doctrine dictated by natural reason and conscience, (I mean a doctrine of natural right) be so excedent in difficulty to receive: such as is Justification by works? Mr. Br flies here to Experience to apologise for him. Try (saith he) the ungodly people, whether all would not, whether there be a man to be found that will not easily be persuaded to believe that Christ will pardon and save them: But whether it be not the hardest thing in the world to persuade them to take Christ for their Lord, and to yield obedience accordingly, etc. Not to except here against his words in which he putteth a believing that Christ will pardon and save, for a justifying Faith: (though when he doth but dream he hath taken that advantage against another, as we have seen, he insults over him as over a mock-man or puppet, and can hardly abstain from tossing him in a blanket:) Nor against the ill disposing of the parts of the Antithesis, glancing lightly over that which he would blow off into a vapour, but giving its full weight and power to that which he will have to stand: I shall take his words in that sense in which he would be understood by as many as he hath a hope to beguile. And thus to his direction, try whether all do not profess their Faith in Christ the Saviour, that they trust and will trust in his merits alone for salvation and pardon: I answer, Try the ungodly multitude whether they do not every Mother's Child profess that they embrace Christ for their Lord, and that they do and will yield obedience to him to their dying day, as well as God shall give them grace? Object. But they say and do not, profess but yield not actually this obedience. Answ. So the former also say and do not, profess a full reliance upon and receiving of Christ for righteousness, but perform it not. For if they so received Christ, they should have Rivers of living water flowing out of them, Jo. 7. 38. of carnal should become spiritual, and of unclean, holy. Nay if experience must be the judge, Mr. Brs 'Cause falleth. I have tried it, and by trial found it the hardest task to persuade the multitude to receive Christ Crucified alone, to their justification and salvation. Prove the more ungodly party, specially in the time of their distress, upon their deathbed, or otherwise when their Conscience is awaked, and the terrors of God are upon them: Seek now to persuade them to repose their affrighted souls upon Christ their Altar, to trust in the Mediation of his blood, how averse are they? they look upon Christ as a hard and strict man, a Judge, a Lawgiver, distributing strict justice to every man according to his works. And they alas have no virtue, or goodness, or holiness, to ingratiat themselves into his favour, but sin enough to incense the very jealousy of his fury against them, therefore dare not come to him because they have no worth of their own righteousness and works that they can plead for themselves. Look to the more whited Pharisees, the Saints of Mr. Brs' forming: how hard is it to persuade them to cast off their own righteousness that they may be found in Christ alone. They put on their own rags first, and not Christ at all, but upon them. They thank God they have served God from their youth up, have not defiled themselves with the filth and iniquity which they have seen in others, have had such virtues, and been full of such and such good works, therefore they doubt not but Christ will recompense them with life and salvation. But he that seeks to spoil or to persuade them to spoil themselves of the glory and power of such their virtues and good works to justification, shall find it as hard a task as to wrest the Club out of the hand of Hercules, as it is in the Proverb. Men after mine own heart saith Mr. Br. Be it so, yet that is nothing to the question, except they be after God's heart. And Mr. Brs' Argument is hereby dissolved: For it appears that it is not easy to persuade the multitude to receive Christ alone to salvation. But whether his chief scope in this his reasoning, be not to condemn all the Protestant Churches of levity and impiety, for departing from Rome so easily in thousands and ten thousands together, in so many Nations, and within so few years, by the lure of this Libertine and soul-cozening doctrine (as he terms it) I leave it to his own Conscience to judge. This himself makes evident, that in the Articles of grace and justification, he holds it a damnable schism in us so to have divorced ourselves from Rome, and applieth himself with all his strength, to make up the breach, and bring us back again. The rest which Mr. B. hath interserted, and which followeth in this Quere, is light and ridiculous, prepared for the gulling of light and ridiculous men, altogether beneath the weight and depth which is in Mr. Bax. and which he useth when he deals with men like himself, solid and serious, at least in natural and moral knowledge, such is that which he hath, p. 327. B. They all trust Christ for the saving of their souls, etc. Are all these justified? [why not?] there wants a Moral and Theological sincerity; why is that? but because they take but half of Christ. Not to speak here either of the prime piece of knowledge here taught, wherein Moral and Theological sincerity, i. e. Philosophical and Metaphysical sincerity consists, viz. in taking the whole and not the half of things: Nor secondly, of the man's fastidious scorn of Scripture-terms, and his hunting after exotic words, to dim and stifle the purity and simplicity of the Gospel: I shall come to the matter itself, and here I demand of himself, 1 Whether they which receive Christ crucified do not receive whole Christ? Christ which by the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God, saith the Apostle, Heb. 9 14. What was there here wanting of whole Christ? There was his divine nature, the Eternal Spirit offering, the humane nature himself offered, and the same in the integrity and purity of its celestial endowments: Without spot; if this be but half Christ, which is the other half? 2 Or because he understands by whole Christ, Christ in the fruits of all his offices, (as is most probable) whether he will deny them to receive whole Christ, which apply not all the several Acts and Fruits of his several offices to one and the same end, but to several ends to which his wisdom hath appropriated them. Suppose a son of some Luke, that is a Physician, a Minister of the Gospel, and a Father in his Family. If the said son shall make use of the Acts and Fruits of all these Offices of his Father, not at all to one end, but to the several ends to which they are proper; of his Art and Physic to cure his diseased body, of his Gospel-doctrine to illuminate his understanding, and heal his wounded soul, and of his provision of victuals to preserve his life, and nourish his body: and not of physic, word and bread together, for one and the same the nutriment of his body, shall this man therefore be said not to own and receive his whole Father, but half of him? Even so the Offices of Christ are various, and his actings in them tend to various ends, some to our quickening, some to our enlightening, some to our justification, some to our sanctification, etc. Do I take but half Christ, because I apply not all the Actings and Fruits of all his Offices to my Justification only, and none of them to the other honourable ends to which he hath appointed them? who can bear the absurdity? 3 Whether it be possible for any man (according to the rule and tenor of the Gospel) by a lively faith to apply to himself the satisfaction of Christ's death, and yet to remain unpardoned and unjustified? or for such a one to abide unspirituallized and unsanctfied? If not, than the reason why the multitude which profess they trust Christ for the saving of their souls (as Mr B. is pleased to phrase it) do remain unjustified, is because they profess, but have not a lively faith in his death: and not (as Mr. Br. saith) for want of I know not what Moral, Theological, decompounded, fantastical sincerity consisting in laying hold on the half of Christ, i. e. either his wounded, and not his whole parts, or Christ the Mediator, not the Mediator Christ. I can no better distinguish his meaning, sigh himself hath refused to do it. Of the same nature is that which he hath, pag. 328. B. Though some think nothing is preaching Christ, but preaching him as a pardoning justifying Saviour. Indeed among the Turks and Indians that entertain not the Gospel, it is necessary to preach his pardoning office, yea and the verity of his Natures and Commission: Therefore when the Apostles preached to Jews and Pagans, they did first and chief teach them the person and offices of Christ, and the great benefits which they might receive by him. But when they preach (as James) to be professors of the Christian Faith, they chief urge them to strive to enter, to fight that they may conquer, to run that they may obtain, to lay violent hands upon the Kingdom, etc. Either all this relates to Justification, or it is mere babble in the Air, sound without sense or substance, as much to his purpose as was his that trudged about all the Town from shop to shop to buy two pennyworth of Circumstance for the cure of his toothache. For his quere is, whether our Doctrine which teacheth Justification by faith without works, do not confirm men in their soul-cozening Faith. If all doth relate to justification, then let him that can find, help me, without help I cannot find as much as a grain of reason in all or any part of it, such reason at least as befits Mr. Br. who grounds all his Religion upon reason. To the first Clause I stand stupefied, not knowing how to preach Christ to justification, but as Christ the Justifier; to pardon, but as Christ the pardoner; or to salvation, but as Christ the Saviour. Should I preach him as a condemner to justification, as an unpardoning Judge to salvation? As to his justifying me as he is a Lawgiver, either there hath been wanting something in Mr. B. dexteriry of teaching, or in my docility to apprehend, I am yet to be taught this lesson. All that he hath said hitherto, hath made it but odious and absurd, and here he saith no more to perfect it. To that which follows, the absurdity of it doth enough confute itself. Who can endure to hear that the Apostles when they preached to Jews and Pagans did; and we, if we should be sent to preach to the Turks and Indians, must first preach Christ alone to justification, and so generate in them a soul-ct zening faith: But when once they become professors of the Christian Faith, than the Apostles did, and we must teach them better, urging them no longer to cousin their souls with faith in Christ the Saviour, but by their own works to justify and save themselves. He that delights in such a Gospel, let him be Mr. B. disciple. It seems he is angry with James for not helping him erewhile in his great exigency, that he singles out him from all the Apostles, to father him with this intolerable doctrine. But whether James give him herein any relief, hath been before examined. As for the rest of the Apostles, let Paul give the Testimony for himself and them. There is one Lord and Mediator, Christ Jesus, one Faith, one Baptism, one Lord and Father of all, Ephe. 4. 5. 1 Tim 2. 5. Not two Christ's, and two Faiths, one to cousin at first, and the other to save the soul afterward. If Paul or an Angel from heaven should preach any other Gospel then what you have heard [from me at first while Pagans] let him be accursed, Gal. 1. 8. Therefore many years after the Romans and Galathians had been professors of the Christian faith, he seeks to root them fast by faith alone in Christ, and not to start from their first principles; reducing such as went a whoring after works to help faith in justifying them, pronouncing them accursed, and Apostates from Christ, that should so fall off from their first liberty in Christ. That all obedience, yea faith in Christ to all obedience, virtue and good works is to be preached and urged upon them that profess the Christian faith, is so true, that he is but a maimed preacher of Christ that doth it not, but all to sanctification, not to justification. This is the true Preacher of Christ that preacheth Christ to good works, not works to win Christ, that seeks to bring us into Marriage-union with Christ, that we may bring forth fruit to God, Rom. 7. 4. Not that we should bring forth bastard-fruit from another, that we may be married to Christ. But this is not Mr. Brs. business, he speaks of fruit to justification. To conclude what I have to say to this Quere, It is his doctrine that teacheth a soul-cozening Faith, a Faith made up of a fardel of works and rags of our own righteousness, as in his larger definition of justifying Faith he hath described it. CHAP. XIII. Mr. Baxter's calumny, that this doctrine doth harden the Papists in their Popery, and give occasion to many learned Protestants to turn Papists, answered. HIS fifth Quere hath no show of weight in it, deserving an examination, savouring more of the Spleen than of the judgement of the Author. Nevertheless, though it declares only the stomach and indignation of the man against the truth, rather than any strength in his hand to hurt it: yet because it is form for the deceiving of the simple and unwary, upon whom sounds oft times take no less impression than actual strokes; to prevent damage to such I shall examine whatsoever may seem material in it, as I have the rest. B. pa. 329. 5. Lastly, Is not this excluding of sincere Obedience from Justification, the great stumbling-block of Papists? and that which hath had a great hand in turning many learned men from the true Protestant Religion to Popery? That by obedience he meaneth all moral qualifications and works as they are virtues and works, we have before learned from his own words: so his meaning is, that the Doctrine of Paul, and the Churches which follow him, viz. Justification by Faith, and not by works, is guilty of the damnable and pernicious evils which he here chargeth upon it. These evils are two. 1 It is the great stumbling-block of the Papists. 2 It hath carried back many learned men from the Protestant Religion to Popery. To both these I shall speak in order. 1 Of its hardening the Papists in Popery. Is it not the great stumbling-block to Papists? saith Mr. Br. I answer, 1 Was not Christ (and that in this very point of justifying the ungodly by an imputed righteousness, without any inherent righteousness of their own) a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence to the Jews; as which they were so offended, that to their eternal ruin, they reject the Gospel and salvation of Christ unto this day? Rom. 9 32, 33. 1 Cor. 1. 23. 1 Pet. 2. 8. What then? must Christ be anathematised? Nay, but let the truth of Christ stand, and man be the liar, the transgressor: It is scandalum, acceptum non datum, an offence taken, not given: And blessed is he who soever shall not be offended in [or at] Christ, Mat. 11. 6. Lu. 7. 23. But if any will be offended, and dash, the Lord Christ admonisheth him of the danger: Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder, Mat. 21. 44. 2 And as sound a reason is it that our doctrine of Justification hinders the Papists from turning Protestants, as was that of some Statists that complained against the Church of Geneva, that they hindered the conversion of Papists in those parts, by forbidding dancing; and the like grave consideration by some great Politicians in England, that the forbearing of Bull and Bear-baiting, and other sports on the Lord's day, hardened the Papists of Lancashire in their Popery. When Religion is made a mere piece of policy, and to have in it at the best no more than a dress of dreggish formality or morality, no marvel if such dirty and unspiritual means are made use of to spread it. 3 But how deep doth this effect lurk in its cause, so that only this one man's sagacity can smell it out? That the Papists in the least things will not turn Protestants, except we in the worst turn Papists. For this Article of Justification is the greatest of all the questions controverted between us and the Papists. All the rest not ingredients of, or merely relating to this, may the Papists continue in (if not of malice or wilfulness) with a possibility of salvation. They are but wood, hay, and stubble built upon the foundation, the very bvilders whereof may be saved, but so as by fire, saith the Apostle. But a Trentified Papist, by the coherent judgement of the best Divines, cannot be saved, because he holdeth not the foundation sure and pure, but mixeth man's works with the grace of God in Christ to Justification. And their judgement is grounded upon the authority of the Apostle: Ye are fallen from grace, Christ is become void [or forfeited] to you, whosoever are justified by works. An ardent love to Rome's shavelings out of doubt possesseth Mr. Br. that he doth not only wish himself (as did the Apostle) but would make himself and all us accursed, that they might be (not saved, but) damned with us. For if they reject all other their errors, and practically retain but this one, by it they forfeit all the salvation of the Gospel. 4 Nay contrariwise, as long as this Article of the Gospel was diligently preached, and stoutly maintained in the Protestant Churches, and that not with qui●ks and quiddities of humane Art, but by the nervous arguments of Scripture alone: so long the Kingdom of Antichrist more and more decayed, and they which were before marked up as slaves to that rival of Christ, broke the fetters, and came in by thousands and ten thousands, taking the Kingdom by a holy and violent force. But since the time this Doctrine hath been less preached and patronised, the Reformed Churches have been still in a languishing, and the Antichristian Kingdom in a growing condition; as Mr. Br. himself, so great a Reader, and so fully acquainted with the Ecclesiastical Histories, must necessarily grant. And why hath this stop to the promoting of the Gospel befallen the Churches, but that the Lord Christ doth herein declare his offence taken against us for not making him our all, that he also ceaseth so victoriously, as in former times to vouchsafe his presence among us? 5 But since Mr. Br. is leapt home to them, and many foot beyond many of the more moderate sort of them, in the point of justification by works, and so hath removed the slumbling-block, let him speak by experience, how many of them are come in to him to be his Proselytes, rejecting the Papacy, and other their Popish errors. Or whereas his Friends the Arminians have in this and many other of their Tenants so many decades of years closed fully with them, where is the confluence of Papists to them seen, that shaking off their former opinions and practices, profess themselves Converts? A Cardinal's Hat perhaps hath been sent, or a fat Bishopric promised to some of the most deserving men among them (in relation to the Romish Cause) to allure them to further and higher deservings of this kind. But the holy Mother Church (I warrant you) sticks where she was. If she should permit but one stone of her Fabric to be loosed, it might cause a crack in the whole. This part of the Quere I shall therefore upon these Considerations leave as reasonless, and examine the next whether there be any more reason in it. To the 2 d. That it hath had a great hand in turning many learned men from the Protestant Religion to Popery. 1 I demand whether there be not a contradiction in the Quere? How were they ever escaped from the dregs of Popery, that yet held Justification by works, which is the very root out of which all other Popish errors almost spring, and by itself alone is worse than all the rest? Or how can such persons be said to have turned from the Protestant Religion, that joined not with the Protestants in the very Foundation. Let all the Confessions of all the Protestant Churches be read, and but one produced that hath not with all defiance rejected justification by works as a foul abomination. They must needs be very learned men, that had learned this mystical Art of turning in Religion from them to whom they were not joined, unto them from whom they were never severed. 2 If any have so turned, they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would without doubt have continued with us: But they went out from us, that they might be made manifest that they were not of us, 1 Joh. 2. 19 3 Nevertheless they that are truly learned, i. e. which have the mystery of Christ revealed to them, not by flesh and blood, but by their Father which is in heaven, that have learned as the truth is in Christ Jesus, that have been taught of God, and have so heard and learned of the Father, that by his teaching they come to Christ, being drawn and given to Christ by the effectual teaching of God: these shall never turn back again; They are built upon the Rock, and all the gates of Hell shall not prevail against them: It is the will of the Father, that of all those which are thus given to Christ, he should lose nothing, but raise it again at the last day, Mat. 16. 18. Eph. 4. 21. Jo. 6. 45. 39 4 By the vanity, levity, changes and whirlings of these learned ones in humane literature, the Lord is pleased to publish to the world how vain, and of no power such learning is (while unsanctified) to true blessedness. I thank thee O father, etc. that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes, Mat. 11. 25. I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent, saith the lord Where is the wise? where is the Scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1 Cor. 1. 19, 20. Professing themselves wise, they became fools, [because] they became vain in their imaginations, Rom. 1. 21, 22. So vain, that they bring the transcendent mysteries of divine things to be tried in the scales of humane reason, and that which the Apostle saith is falsely called Science, i. e. philosophical learning. A due stroke of God's judgement upon them that will be wise without Christ, and against him; that while they will dispute, and in their disputations subject the doctrines of Faith (which can have no other foundation but the authority of the word) to the rules and principles of secular Arts, they shall with all their Art and Learning, dispute themselves out of Christ, out of Happiness. 5 No more hath befallen them herein, than God had before threatened should be the doom of such. Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved: For this Cause God shall send them strong delusions that they should believe a lie, that they might all be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness, 2 Thes. 2. 10. 12. 6 And most justly, for pride goeth before destruction. And what higher degree of pride, than that an impure worm should swell with such an opinion of his own righteousness, that he will refuse the life and salvation which are by Christ, except his own righteousness be valued at so high a rate by the eternal God, as to constitute him worthy of it? Yet such is the high spirit of these self-righteous workers, that they will enter heaven, triumphing in their own strength and righteousness, or else refuse to enter. Magis honorificum est habere aliquid ex merito (saith Bellarmine, speaking of Merit) quam ex sola donatione; ideo deus ut filios suos magis honoraret, etc. It is more honourable to have something of merit than of mere gift; Therefore God, that he might the more honour his Children, hath made a way that they should get to themselves eternal life by their own merits. To the same purpose is that of another of the same nest, Absit ut justi vitam eternam expectent, ut pauper Tapper. in. Art. Lovan. Tom 2. art. 9 Eleemosynam, multo enim gloriosius est, ipsos quasi victores & triumphatores eam possidere, tanquam palmam suis sudoribus debitam. i e. Far be it that the righteous should expect eternal life, as a poor man doth an Alms. For it is much more glorious that they should possess it, as conquerors and triumphers do the Crown due to their labours. When this arrogant conceit once possesseth M. Brs. learned men to make themselves glorious by their ecclypsing of the glory of God's grace, no marvel if we see them not so much turning as turned out among the dogs and swine. How can ye believe which seek honour one of another, and not the honour which is of God only, John 5. 44. 7 Yet for one that Mr. Br. can mention, who in hatred of this Doctrine hath made a defection from, I dare to undertake to produce hundreds that by the sweetness of it, and demonstration of the Spirit in preaching it, have been drawn to the profession of the Protestant Religion. It is a conclusion of Luther, lamenting the schisms and Controversies stirred in the Churches about lighter and lesser things: That if these had been laid aside, and this one Article of Justification by Faith alone had been by the counited labours of all the Churches, most of all (though not only) preached and continued to be preached to this day, saith he, the whole Kingdom of the Pope had by this time laid wholly shivered. How adversatively do the spirits of Luther and Mr. Br. fight either against the other? Yea of the many learned that Mr. Br. speaks of, we can find him particularising but one, his St. Grotius, pag. 331. thus, B. This Doctrine was one that helped to turn off Grotius to Cassandrian Popery. See Grotij votum, 21, 22, 23. 115. Is Grotius so turned off? most likely is it sure, that Mr. Br. will follow him, and truly we may add [if not] this doctrine, surely that which is worse hath turned off Mr. Br. to Tridentine and Jesuitized Popery: See Mr. Brs. Aphorisms, not in four pages only, but almost in all the passages of that Book and its Appendix: And thus Grotius and he make up (if not many, yet) a number of learned men turned to Popery. This shall suffice to have said to the matter of Mr. Brs. Quere; But memorable and worthy to be written upon the purest crystal waters, where he that can may read them, are the reasons which Mr. Br. annexeth, for which this Doctrine hath had a great hand in turning many learned men to Popery, viz. B. pa. 329. When they see the language of the Scripture in the forecited places, so plain [that no mortal eye can discern it] to the contrary: When Illyricus, Gallus, Amsdorfius, etc. shall account it a heresy in George Major, to say that good works are necessary to salvation: And when, if Melchior Adamus (say true) eò dementiae & impietatis ventum erat ut non dubitarent quidam haec axiom ata propugnare; Bona opera non sunt necessaria ad salutem: Bona opera officiunt saluti. Nova obedientia non est necessaria. When even Melanctons' credit is blasted for being too great a friend to good works; though he ascribe not to them the least part of the work or office of Christ: And when to this day many Antinomian teachers, who are magnified as the only Preachers of free grace, do assert and proclaim, That there is no more required to the perfect irrevocable Justification of the vilest Murderer or Whoremaster, but to believe that he is justified, or to be persuaded that God loveth him. And again, p. 331. This Doctrine was offensive to Melancton, Bucer, and other moderate Divines of our own. What of all this? and what is the issue at last? Therefore these learned men with great learning and wisdom, took the advantage Cum ratione in sanire, like a pampered horse, with a fly in his tail, to catch the snaffle in the teeth, and in great indignation to run mad to Rome. Who else but Mr. Brs. learned men could have expressed so much grace and wit? And it seems they were all fellow-students in the same School, else could not their good wits have jumped together upon so pretty a slight. And it seems Mr. Br. by his exagitation of the damnable doctrines of the Antinomians in our days, doth tacitly invite the learned to join with him in prosecuting the same learned device. As to the matter of these several particulars, somewhat, yet not much is needful to be said. 1 To that of George Major, etc. Mr. Br. here discovereth fully (what elsewhere in this his Tractate he doth not totally hid) his enmity and swelling against the first reformation of the Churches by Luther and others, that he accounts it a schismatical defection, not a due reformation. He spares the names of Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, etc. lest his spitting in their faces, should make his own odious to all knowing Christians: But the Doctrine which he reprehendeth under the names of Illyricus, Gallus, Amsdorfius, etc. he knows to be the frme which those former Divines, which all the Protestant Churches have taught and propugned. Concerning Gallus, either what he was, or what he did, I can give no account. Illyricus is reported by some to have been somewhat hot and heady in prosecuting all that he undertook; but that at any time he entered the lists with George Major, I find not. This I find, that they both lived and conversed together at Jenes in the same University, and were both adversaries to Strigelius a famous Divine, unto whom between them they procured great persecution: But Amsdorfius was one of those eminent instruments of Christ in the reformation, who bore the burden and heat of the day, was a Colleague with Luther in the University of Wittenberg at the first dawning forth of the Gospel, his yoke-fellow in the labor● and in the sufferings of the Gospel, both in prosperous and difficult times one and the same; Holding fast the same principles which were laid in his heart while a young man, even to his old age, and death, which God prolonged until the 88 year of his age. I know not any one professed Protestant that hath aspersed him for any thing that in all that time of so long a life, he either committed or omitted, as unworthy of a learned and faithful Minister of Christ, until the candour of M. Br. hath now done it. Truth it is, that George Major in his time, about a hundred years since, when Luther was dead (not daring so to do while he was living) set forth some propositions and disputations of the necessity of good works to salvation; and finding himself quickly encountered, he after more fully explained himself, or rather endeavoured to make his Doctrine the more smooth to be swallowed, by allaying it thus: That we are justified by faith only, but not saved without works. So that good works are necessary though not to justification, yet to salvation. At this his Doctrine, as all the Churches and their Ministers were much offended, so were there many that confuted it; among others Strigelius, Wigandus, & this Amsdorfius, who wrote against him his Bona opera officiunt saluti: Good works are hindrances of salvation. A proposition I acknowledge not well sounding in words; but the substance of Treatises is not to be judged always from their Titles; This work of Mr. B. hath a golden Title, Aphorisms of Justification: until a man hath read the Book, he would have supposed from the Title, they had been Aphorisms to maintain, not to destroy Justification by free grace. So on the other side the Paradoxical sound of Amsdorfius his titular position, doth in no wise deny his Treatise thereon to be orthodox, except Mr. Br. can produce any thing thence to prove that he affirms good works in themselves to be so, and not only in the sense wherein George Major affirms them necessary to salvation. Or why this Assereion stiffly maintained by George Major, should not be counted a heresy in him as well as in the Papists, or the Pharisees before them, I see no other reason but this, that then Mr. Br. having more worthily deserved than he, will be thought fit to be honoured with the Title of Doctor in the same profession. 2 To that of Melchior Adamus, I say no more, but that the Testimony of an Adversary without proofs is unworthy, or at least incompetent to bow our belief to it. What wresting and curtilating there is of their sentences, whom in this case such men would defame, is obvious to every man's notice. He should in stead of his Individuum vagum, his quidam, have named some singular persons, & at least have quoted some of their writings, in which they have propugned such assertions, that we might have searched and found whether it were so, if he would have been believed. Otherwise, if these things were only for disputations-sake handled in the Schools, this argues not the propugners to be of that judgement. 3 What he saith of Melancton and Bucer, whether it be true or false, is of the like moment. Be it that some crazy brains, or corroding sons of Momus (with whom the world too much at all times aboundeth) envied because they could not match, and sought to defame, because they envied the excellent parts of these two Worthies, was either of them so wise and learned, as to run headlong from Christ to Rome, upon it? Nay, this is a piece of learning which Mr. B. & his Grotius have of very late years learned and taught. The true servants of Christ in former times were so little scholastical, that they were ignorant in this Art. Yet whether Melancton after the death of Luther gave not some occasion to the Protestant Churches to mourn till this day for the yet remaining fruits of his timorousness, or (as Mr. Br. will have us call it) moderation, I leave to the wise who are acquainted with the passage of those times, to judge. But I never understood any such thing imputed to Bucer, or that he hath left any other but a sweet savour behind him. Nor any thing that can so dim the worth of Melancton, that his name should not be in continual veneration among the Saints: For who can say he is without his infirmities? But in the point of Justification by Faith only, he was sound till death. 4 But what he saith of the Antimonian Teachers what they preach at present, and yet are magnified for the only preachers of Free Grace, is that which startles Mr. Br. and makes him run many furlongs beyond Grotius. If his haste had not put him out of breath, he might have told us what places of England are haunted with these Spirits, that we might have shunned them. Why should a man of such animosity that scorns to look upon Colier, Hobson, Spriggs, and such like fellows, be so troubled about these unconsiderate animals which he here mentioneth: what the former three are I do not know; yet by what I have heard of them, I should think them not so inconsiderate as these, to affirm justifying faith to consist in a man's believing that he is justified, or in a persuasion that God loveth him? But that there are either more than one fountain opened for the purging away of sin, or any other propitiation for our sins set forth by God. Besides Christ alone, or any other means to effectuallize it to the chief sinners besides faith in his blood, or that the justification which is by Faith, i● (according to the tenor of the Gospel) revocable, I am so far an Antinomian of Mr. B. defining, to deny, and cannot find him so learned a Papist or Pharisee to prove it. There is nothing else which I see in this Quere which he hath not in substance said, and so hath been examined before, or else will more properly offer itself to examination in that which remaineth to be examined. And this shall suffice to have said to that one and yet Argument comprehended in his five Quere's. CHAP. XIV. Mr. baxter's last Argument drawn from the Testimony of many approved Authors Examined and Answered. HIs last Argument is drawn from the testimony and authority of many eminent Divines in the Protestant Churches, which he saith have taught and published this doctrine before him. This Argument is principally urged not in the Aphorisms, but the Appendix. And although Mr. Br. tell us, App. p. 111. that he allegeth them (not to confirm his doctrine, but) to show that he is not singular, but hath the concurrent judgements of others therein: And App. p. 167. & 188. that he doth it to satisfy them which charge him with singularity, not as an appeal to man: Yet it is too evident that his purpose herein is to abuse the less knowing and considering part of his Readers with this more than with the most of his other Arguments. Great names he knows do make deep impressions upon the fancies of men that have much of affection, but little of judgement. And that these look not so much to the matter as to the men. Can they think Mr. Br. hath here said no more than these and these confessedly pious and learned Worthies have said before him, they will take him for a blasphemer that shall say against him. Therefore he musters together so many choice vessels and precious servants of Christ, trusting to the either imbecility or credulity of his vulgar Readers, that either they cannot or will not examine and compare these and Mr. B. together, and then Mr. Br shall be taken to be of the same spirit with Dr. Preston, Dr. Twisse, Calvin, Pareus, Perkins, and the other renowned Divines whom he allegeth, and then also it must be all truth that he hath said, after such men, and whosoever shall oppose him must be brought forth to be stoned. But where is the man's sincerity that will be justified by the moral sincerity of his obedience and works? Was it not wholly banished from him, when he cited these men as concurring in judgement with him, when he knows them all to detest his assertions against which we except, more than death itself, and that many of them have jeoparded, and some of them laid down their lives and blood to give testimony to the contrary Assertions? Or will Mr. B. name any one of these at whose judgement his doctrine shall stand or fall, as true or erroneous? Why doth he thus abuse the simple, thereby discovering his impudent fallaciousness to the intelligent, with whom elsewhere he seeks chief to ingratiat himself? But come we to the Testimonies which he allegeth. Bax. 1 Mr. Wallis, Faith is an accepting of Christ offered, rather than a believing of a Proposition affirmed? App. p. 111. Who hath denied this? Or what is this to Justification by works? It may possibly be something to the Question not considerately there proposed; but nothing at all listing with that conclusion, to which all the rest which he delivers are but preparatives. Next to Mr. Wallis he allegeth Dr. Preston, at the end of the same page. The six first Positions wherein he affirms him to speak the same thing with himself, I see no sound reason why any should except against. But if Mr. B. or Dr. Preston, or Paul, or an Angel from heaven shall deduce erratic and erroneous Conclusions from those Premises, they are not to be heard, but resisted at the face. None of the worst Heretics but agree in some principles with the most Orthodox, yet this nothing hinders but that the assertions in which they descent may be altogether pernicious. How far and how unanimously all the Protestant Churches maintain the seventh point wherein Mr. B. affirms this pious and learned Doctor to agree with him, hath been before fully expressed, in the examination of the fourth Argument. So that it is useless here to run over so many passages of the Author, from p. 112. to p. 117. of the Appendix, to declare that this one man saith what all the rest say and hold with him, viz. That justifying Faith is an accepting of Christ as Lord and Saviour. But what is this to the substance of the question to which Mr. B. answereth? Where it is objected to Mr. Br Qu. 14. that he so layeth this position, that he may thereby lay a groundwork for Justification by works? Doth Dr. Preston to this end make Christ as Lord the object of Justifying Faith? or any where affirm him to be offered as a Lawgiver or Commander of moral works and duties, to our justifying? Much less doth he affirm that such works have any thing to do with Faith in justifying. A notable skill hath Mr. Br in confounding when he should divide and distinguish, and in distinguishing when there is no need; as either may serve to his purpose. He knows that Dr. Preston when he treats of the New Covenant, comprehends under it the whole doctrine and all the Promises of Grace made Yea and Amen in Christ; as the same Christ is given to us not only to Justification, but also to regeneration, illumination, sanctification, and whatsoever the Grace of the Eternal Father hath made him to us. And when he treats of Faith, he handles it as the instrument by which not only Justification, but also all the other benefits of Christ may be made ours, in receiving Christ the treasury & spring of all appropriated to us. Therefore in describing the New Covenant he describes it in general as the womb of all the blessings which are attainable by Christ, and not of Justification and Salvation alone. And in describing Faith he describes it as the instrument by which we apprehend and appropriate to ourselves, not only Christ as righteousness and salvation, but also as wisdom and sanctification, yea all that tends to the perfecting of a poor sinner, to ourselves. Therefore is it that he speaks more largely of the Covenant, and treats more fully of it than needed, if he had been to speak of it only to Justification and Blessedness: and that he speaks of Faith more largely, and mentioneth other acts of it then are required to this one end: And necessarily must he so do, else should he have maimed both the Covenant of Grace, and the Faith of Christ. Here whatsoever Dr. Preston speaketh of the Covenant and Faith in general, of which some part belongeth to the interessing of us to sanctification and other blessings which are by Christ, Mr. Br to beguile his Reader, confoundeth and confineth to Justification, as being spoken of it alone. When contrariwise the Doctor doth enough clearly express the distinct benefits of the Covenant, and the distinct acts of Faith receiving the distinct benefits; in the very words which he allegeth out of him, App. p. 117. Thou shalt receive the gift of Righteousness wrought by him, for an absolution for thy sins, and for a reconciliation with me: [This is our Justification] And thereupon thou shalt grow up in love and obedience towards me [This is our sanctification.] But suppose he should have affirmed that Faith, as it cleaveth to Christ, not only for the sprinkling of his blood for Justification, but withal for the effusion of his spirit to sanctification, and the shedding forth of his beams for illumination, and the stretching forth of his Almighty arm for supportation, etc. doth in all these acts justify: as some Divines do seem to speak, though (without prejudice to their reputation) not enough advisedly: yet both he and they are so far from making either the most spiritual knowledge and wisdom, which are the immediate fruits of illumination; or love, righteousness, and holiness, and their acts or works which are the immediate fruits of sanctification, to be in any respect useful to justification; that they utterly deny, peace, joy, and hope, the immediate fruits of Justification, to be any way effectual and useful in this business. But I find not Dr. Preston any where laying that groundwork, much less erecting such a building on it. To the five last points if Mr. Br hold them in that which I have expressed to be Dr. Prestons' sense, yea which himself expresseth to be his own sense, I have nothing to say against him. The tenth only excepted, to which I must be also mute, because neither doth Mr. Br allege what the Doctor saith, and I have not that Treatise of his to inform me. But all this is but a playing with holy things, he might as well have said Dr. Preston consents with him in confessing there is a God, a Christ, a Justification, a man, a sinner to be justified, as have said most of what he hath here said. We expected he should have produced testimonies of other Divines speaking in common with him, what he speaks in common with the Papists, in opposition to the doctrine of the Protestants. In his Appendix, p. 167. and thenceforth to the end of the Book, he brings a new supply of Testimonies, which he entitleth Bax. Sayings of excellent Divines; added to satisfy you who charge me with singularity. I shall examine so many of them as have any show of agreement with Mr. Br in those things wherein he fights against the doctrine of the Protestant Churches. Bax. 1 He allegeth Dr. Twisse his discovery of Dr. jackson's vanity, p. 528. What one of our Church will maintain that any one obteins actual Redemption by Christ without Faith? esspecially considering that redemption by the blood of Christ, and forgiveness of sins are all one. Eph. 1. 17. Col. 1. 14. How prettily would he here instill into the thought of his Reader, that Dr. Twisse is a man of levity, here a subverter of Antinomianism, whereof in his Aphorisms, p. 173. he complained him to be a Pillarer? that here he subverteth Justification from eternity, whereof elsewhere he is an assertor? Nay here he speaketh of the Justification which is by virtue of the New Covenant, of the obtaining of it actually to ourselves. This neither Papist nor Protestant, neither Dr. Twisse no● Mr. Br ever affirmed to be without Faith. Bax. 2. Bishop Hooper cited by Dr. Jackson. Christ only received our infirmities and original disease, and not the contempt of him and his Law. Expounded by Dr. Twisse against Dr. Jackson, p. 584. His meaning in my judgement is only this, that Christ hath made satisfaction for the imperfection of our faith and holiness, although we continue therein until death: But he hath not made satisfaction for the contempts and hatred of his word, etc. in case men do continue therein unto death. Here is nothing of that which Mr. B. hunts after, that Christ hath satisfied for no offence, no infirmity committed against the New Covenant, but this alone is the sum of it, that they shall have no benefit by Christ, no one sin committed against the Law or Gospel pardoned to them, who live and die impenitent and unbelievers. According to that of our Saviour, Jo. 8. 24. Therefore I said unto you ye shall die in your sins, for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. B. 3 Alstedius Distinct Theol. cap. 17. p. 73. The Condition of the Covenant of Grace, is partly Faith, partly Evangelicall obedience, or holiness of life proceeding from Faith in Christ. 1 In how different a sense from Mr. B. the Protestants take the word Condition hath been before expressed. 2 But in that sense in which they [that use it] take it, it is one thing to be the condition of the New Covenant, another to be the condition of Justification, which is but one of many benefits of the Covenant of Grace. Had Alsteed in the Explication of himself affirmed holiness of life a condition of justification, we should have had it at the full from Mr. B. About the second thing wherein he allegeth this man's testimony, I know no man questioning Mr. B. Neither is his next Testimony alleged from Sadeel, any thing of all the things wherein Mr. B. joineth with the papists against the Protestants, therefore I spare the labour to transeribe it. B. 4 Rivet in disputat. de satisfactione. God was not bound to accept the satisfaction performed by another though sufficient, etc. Therefore there was a necessity that a Covenant should intercede, and God himself propound a Mediator. That there must an agreement intercede on his part who was satisfied, without which the satisfaction had been in vain. Idem. ibid. Thes. 4, 5, 6. The act which in satisfaction God performeth, is of a supreme judge, relaxing his own Law and transferring ●he penalty of it upon another: so that in this relaxation God's supreme dominion may be observed, etc. And by the transferring the penal●y from the sinner, and exacting it of the surety; the relation of a party offended, as such, is removed from God, etc. J●. 4 12. God did relax his Law as being positive, and so relaxable, it is abrogate, etc. The rest is off from the Question. To what purpose he here produceth the Testimony of this famous Doctor, except it be to declare his consent with himself and Grotius, that the Law is not abrogated but relaxed only, by means of Christ's mediation; I know not. If so Rivet hath nothing for him, but much directly against him. 1 He affirms what no rational man ever denied, that the Grace of God is free and not bound. How else should it be Grace? 2 Yea it is free not only from Co-action, but from absolute necessity also. Only the purpose of God being presupposed, that he would so save by grace as that no one title of his justice should fall, it was necessary there should be the interceding of a Covenant and a Mediator. But is this to any other purpose then what he concludes with, viz. [to fill up the vacant pages, p. 188.] 3 That there must also an agreement or Covenant to this end pass between the Father and ●he Son; is ours not his doctrine. 4 The relaxation of the Law in passing this Covenant between the Father and the Son, is the common doctrine of all protestants, as also that this is an act of Supreme dominion of God that is under no Law. But when this Covenant is ratified, so that Christ becomes the undertaker, and God the accepter of satisfaction in relation to them for whom the satisfaction is made, so that the penalty of the Law as to their sins, is transferred upon Christ: whether the Law be not so abrogate to them, that they are no longer under the Curse of it, is the thing in question. And here Dr. Rivet gives his verdict for us against Mr. B. That to these the Law is abrogate, and God no more stands in the relation of a party offended against them. What more proper swordman could he have brought forth to have hewn in pieces his own Cause? B. 5 Dr. Twiss, vindic. great. and against Cotton, & consid: of Til. Syn. Dort. etc. What doth he mean by citing the Testimony of this Doctor so frequently, and catching fragments from him, whom he knows in the whole bulk of his works to destroy what himself would set up? yea though he complains against him for erecting the main pillar of Antinomianism, will he at length become his Disciple and build pillars with him. Dr. Twisse doth enough wash his hands from Mr. Br doctrine, even in these passages here cited from him, as I could fully manifest. But because I see the task would be tedious to examine particularly every particular testimony which he citeth: The same persons speaking in several of the quoted places the same thing, and many speaking no more than one at once hath said before: I shall therefore abridge myself, in showing in general the dissenting judgement of those writers from him, however he would deceive his Reader with a credulous opinion that they consent with him. This will be done with an easy labour: when contrariwise to speak singularly to every singular testimony, would not yield forth fruit worthy the labour. First then all the Testimonies of Dr. Twisse, Append. p. 172, 173. That of Junius, p. 173. of Pareus, Piscator, Aretius, p. 174. Dr. Willet, p. 179, 180. Mr. Burges of Justification, p. 187. are here compiled to tell them that are no friends to the doctrine of grace, (though it alone must befriend them if they will be saved) that all these Divines consent with him in his doctrine, fi●st of a universal conditional redemption or justification purchased by Christ, without any more effectual satisfaction made to the justice of God for them that shall be saved, then for them that shall be damned: and secondly that moral obedience and good works are Concauses or Collateral conditions with faith to justification. To manifest how faithful he is in these his allegations, I shall briefly express what the judgement of all Protestants is about these points, that the advised Reader may judge whether these dissent from the rest and prepared the way for Mr. Br to prosecute his Assertions. 1 They grant that the promulgation of righteousness & life is to be made universally & conditionally to all. God knoweth who are his, but the Heralds of his grace know not. Therefore by the command of Christ they are to testify this word of life to all without exception, promising upon condition of believing, in the name and by the word of Christ, righteousness and salvation. In mean time they meintein, Christ hath satisfied only for those that the Father hath given him, so effectually as that by virtue of Christ's purchase they shall receive power from above to believe unto salvation. 2 They are wont oft to use the word salvation (as the Scripture also doth) for glorification hereafter: and so take it as a distinct thing from justification: and involve into the condition of salvation more than into the condition of Justification. 3 By the word Condition they understand oft all the necessary antecedents, and sometimes also the necessary consequents either of justification or salvation. But so as they term such Antecedents the conditions, without which going before those ends cannot be attained, and those Consequents the conditions without which following we cannot attain the certain knowledge that we are justified and inrighted to glory. 4 That as oft as they speak of conditions of justification, they mean the justification of the New Covenant, not the justification immanent in God, or that which Mr. B. calleth Christ's own justification as the public person, Aph. p. 195. 5 They utterly deny moral obedience and good works to be in any other sense a condition of justification, but as it is a consequent thereof to evidence it. Mr. B. indeed, as if he had not enough injured Mr. Burges, by making him in some kind a Patron of his Whimsies, in prefixing his name to this his Book, Dedicating it to him as above others an eminent Fautor of such doctrines; would willingly here also draw him quasi obtorto collo, to be the Founder of this his Jesuitical error, as he makes him out, App. p. 187, 188. But I have before showed that the preaching of repentance and the preaching of Faith for the remission of sins, are in Gospel language one and the same thing. If Mr. Burges mean otherwise (but so as law confident of the contrary) I should put no difference in the authority of Mr. Br and Mr. Burgess in this assertion. The same force he useth to draw Dr. Willet to be of his part, p. 180, 181. where indeed in one clause the Doctor seems to me to have verified that proverb, Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus: yet without giving thereby any advantage to Mr. B. yea he speaks directly opposite to him. 6 They deny all causality of good works to salvation. 7 Much more a concausality in the same kind with Faith, and the satisfaction of Christ. 8 Most of all, that they in any rational sense merit it. 9 Or that as they make up the inherent righteousness of man to be a Collateral with the sacrifice of, or righteousness which is by Christ, to Salvation; so that we are saved by works, for works, as by Christ and for Christ. All this dirt they leave to Mr. B. to lick off from the nails of the jesuits, bidding defiance against it as a Cursed doctrine. What they understand then of works as a condition of Salvation, is in this comprised; that to salvation already attained, they have the relation of an adjunct consequent, and effect: But to the salvation hereafter to be attained, the relation of an Adjunct antecedent and disponent, as also of an Argument confirming the hope and assurance thereof. They express themselves usually in the phrase of that Father, (though possibly misunderstood by some) Via regni sunt, non causa regnandi, which some do, all should thus construe (not that they are the way to the Kingdom above, Christ alone being this way, but) they are the way of the Saints which are Christ's spiritual Kingdom: according to that of the Apostle, We are saved, not by works, for etc. God hath ordained us to walk in them, Eph. 2. 8-10. in the way of sanctification are they to be found, not in the ways of iniquity and profaneness, who are inrighted by Christ to salvation. Let now the vast difference and contrariety in so many particulars between M. Brs. and these Divines opinions, about this Question be considered, and then let it be judged whether Mr. Br. had not taken his leave of all bashfulness, when he would impose on his Readers an opinion, that he delivers upon this Argument nothing but what they had taught before him. 2 The Testimonies which he citys from Calvin, p. 175. Perkins, p. 177. do only affirm that the inherent righteousness of sanctification doth sometimes give the name of righteous persons to believers, in the Scriptures, and this none denyeth. But here is no mention made that we are termed righteous from the righteousness of our own works, as or because they are the condition of our justification, which is Mr. Br. Tenet. Calvin indeed rightly ascribes it to the imputed righteousness of Christ, from which originally and radically our own unperfect righteousness is owned of God, and ourselves righteous in doing it. But in no wise affirmeth that this our unperfect righteousness hath any finger in the procuration of Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us. But consequentially given a flat denial of it, which is the thing questioned in Mr. B. As for Mr. Perkins, he hath in the place alleged nothing relating to the question. So that he doth an unexpiable wrong to the name of these famous men, to father them with this his error. 3 That which he citeth from Perkins, p. 176. & 178. and from Zanchy, p. 179. from Dr. Davenant, p. 181. Molinaeus, Scharpius, and Pareus, p. 185. and Mr. Burgess, p. 186. are nihil ad rem Nothing to the doctrines of Mr. Br that are questioned and charged as Popish, etc. He commits a Paralogism in detorting them into his opinions from which they are abhorrent. It is a mere ignoratio Elenchi, to bring these writers as concluding with him contradictorily to our Conclusions, who say nothing against us or for him. As those of Scharpius and Pareus, p. 185. where he makes th● wherein they affirm the substance of the New Covenant [in general] to consist, to speak for him in contradiction to what we conclude of Justification, that is but one special part of that Covenant: as if all that is affirmed or denied of the former are so also of the latter. The falsehood whereof I have before manifested. Although Mr. Burgess in his Testimony alleged, p. 186. speaks more against Mr. Br then for him, yet I make not his Conclusion a part of my Creed, as being too peremptory, and boldly fettering the hands of God's grace to Laws, which God hath not imposed upon himself: viz. That Remission of sins is given us only in the use of those Graces, [which he had before named.] Had he said [ordinarily, or mostly] in steed of [only] I should not have excepted against him. But I take him to be so pious and learned, that upon a review he will relax and dispense with his [only] as not bottomed on the Scriptures there alleged, or any other. The like may be said to the like speech of Molinaeus, p. 185. if he mean so universally as Mr. Burgess speaketh. But perhaps neither of them by remission of sins mean Justification, but a quid distinctum from it, if so then they speak nothing to Mr. Brs' purpose. The other forecited Testimonies out of Perkins and Zanchy, labour of the same fallacy, having nothing against us in those points in which Mr. Br. professeth himself an adversary to us. 4 But it seems he most triumpheth in the testimony of Mr. Ball. Him he magnifieth and exalteth with suparletive praises, more than all the great Theologers whom he allegeth before and after him, as if all the rest were but Sycamores to this Cedar: [This great, leaaned and holy Divine as almost England ever bred,] and why so super excellent? for ●ooth he goes on in Grotius [that Cassandrian Papist] his own words translated. And which is there of the Divines which England hath bred, that can be praised for so illustrious an act besides Mr. Br. and him? I envy not the 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 follows 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 else only in part relaxed, as to our bearing it. Yea if he ●e as M●. B. styles 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 elsewhere 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 n●w raised to a prosperous state in the world, and wh● seeing the Court infected with Popery Socinianism and Arminianism, and no other bridge to preferment so effectual as some show of bending at least to these ways, might possibly as far as Conscience would permit him, make use of the language there held most authentic. I say of the language, for I cannot condemn his doctrine alleged 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 level to somewhat else 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 persuade him to forbear laughter. Let the judicious Reader, add consideration to his reading and then judge. The rest of the testimonies which he hath here cited and quoted I let pass 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 Duel 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 busy in another man's 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 ruins to erect his mounts against the City of the living God, to destroy it, or at least spoil it of its principal immunities; denying the full justification of the Lords redeemed one's 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. Baxter's 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 he turneth the basest metals into gold, darkness into light, death into life, deformity into beauty, and hell into heaven itself. All this he with strong endeavours labours to accomplish, while with strong confidence he 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 God's grace, Christ's merits, or the Saint's comfort; Yea to set it forth in such a splendour, that although he 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 Tyrantlike 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-denial, 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 God's unchangeable love to them, or of their sins 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 he 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 he comes to varnish over such a Grace, such a Christ, such a Gospel, such a state of believers (who are all of his own feigning) 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 believers. That this Doctrine is as smooth as Esau's hands, as free from Popery, Socinianism, from all injury against the grace of God, all-sufficiency of Christ's merits, consolation of the Saints, yea from all error whatsoever, as Lazarus was from sores, or the poor Gadaren from Devils, that had but a legion of them within him: That it agrees so harmoniously with the doctrine of Paul, as light with darkness, Christ with Belial, and the Temple of God with Idols: That in these things the Covenant of Grace consisteth indeed, therefore invites all at the consideration of the innocency and profundity of this his Gospel, to follow him in seeking a sure salvation by their own righteousness in the Curse of the Law. To insist no longer upon generals, I shall examine the particular Apologies which he makes for this his Doctrine of Justification by works, to clear it from the false imputations which the ignorant Antinomians that is (in his Construction) Luther, Calvin, Twisse, Pemble, and their followers might charge it withal. His first Task which he appoints to himself, is to vindicate it from having any smack of Popery; how so? doth not both he and they maintain in the same words that we are justified by works? this he cannot deny. But forsooth there is a great difference in this, whose pen it is that drops the assertion. The Papists do it with a quill of a Capitoline, Mr. Br. with a quill of a Kederminster goose. This altars the case saith Ploydon, & makes the same Proposition to be Popery and no Popery. But let us hear himself speaking, and multiplying his reasons why it must not be taken for Popery. Br. Aphor. p. 304, 305. How this differeth from the Popish Doctrine, I need not tell any Scholar that hath read their writings. 1 They take justifying for sanctifying, so do not I 2 They quite overthrow and deny the most real difference between the Old Covenant and the New, and make them in a manner all one. But I build this Exposition and Doctrine, chief upon the clear differencing and opening of the Covenants. 3 When they say we are justified by the works of the Gospel, they mean only that we are sanctified by works that follow faith, and are bestowed by grace, they meriting our inherent justice at God's hands. In a word, there is scarce any one Doctrine wherein even their most learned Schoolmen are most sottishly ignorant then in this of Justification: So that when you have read them with profit and delight on some other subjects; when they come to this, you would pity them, and admire their ignorance. 4 They take our works to be part of our legal Righteousness: I take them not to be the smallest portion of it, but only a part of our Evangelicall righteousness, or of the condition upon which Christ's righteousness shall be ours. Suppose all these things were true, and the difference between him and the Papists were so great and manifold, as in these particulars he pretendeth, yet all this nothing evinceth his Doctrine not to be Popish, especially among Scholars to whom he appealeth. For 1 All this would but excuse him a tanto, non a toto, that in these particulars he is not, though in many other and greater, he be Popish. 2 Though he differed from them in the premises, yet he is one with them in the conelusion. Bellarmine brings his arguments, and Stapleton his, to prove that works justify. Are they not both Papists, because their arguments differ, when their Conclusion is one? Mr. Br thinks, that in some particulars his curious wit hath prompted him with a finer and surer way of demonstration to establish Justification by works, than ever entered into the Cardinal's Cap or Cranion: Doth this deny him to be a Papist, because he speaks more for them than they could for themselves? 3 Though Beauties and Brs. way of arguing do in some particulars differ, yet is the later as great an opposite to the truth of the Gospel in his way, as the former in his. Both oppugn with their utmost strength the doctrine of grace, though they divide the battle between them, the one scaling from the North, the other from the South. 2 But it cannot be truly said, that there are truly those real differences between Mr. Brs. and the Papists Doctrine, which he here particularizeth. For 1 Though in some of these particulars he speaks not the idem, yet he speaks the Tantundem with them. 2 Where he speaks not the very idem, he speaks more grossly, Pharisaically, and adversatively to the truth than they. For the manifesting hereof, let us particularly examine those particulars in which he saith he differs from them. 1 Saith he, They take justifying for sanctifying, so do not I. 1 This speaks out their Doctrine to be more tolerable than his. For the Scripture denies not the increase of sanctification to be in part by works (which is all that the Papists hold) But accurseth them that shall attribute Justification either in its beginning or growth (if there were any such thing) to works. 2 It is not true, that the Papists make whole or all Justification to consist in Sanctification. For in their many divisions and distinctions of Justification, among the rest they have this. There is a first and a second justification. The former of Infants and new Converts conferred in baptism. This consists in remission of sins merely by the blood of Christ, sprinkled by the Spirit in Baptism upon Infants that are not of age actually to believe; and received also by Faith by believing Converts in their Baptism. The later end indeed they make to consist in the infusion of the habit of grace and sanctification: when the justified man, ex justo justior fit, is more and more justified. This will afterward be manifested: So that all Scholars must acknowledge Mr. Br. to have the Tantundem, and almost in every apex the Idem of this Doctrine. Yea worse is his doctrine in this particular than theirs. For he makes Sanctification and good works a Collateral with the righteousness of Christ in justifying. They abandon this doctrine, teaching that they are but fruits of God's grace and Christ's merits. Thus he sets up vain man as Cheekmate with Christ, they set him at his footstool, or appoint him to follow and apprehend the hemm of his garment, to draw virtue from him, though indeed to other and prouder ends than he hath ordained. Br. They quite overthrow and deny the most real difference between the Old Covenant and the New; and making them in a manner one, I build upon the clear differencing and opening of the Covenants. 1 All this is said, not showed and proved. 2 If the Papists did wholly as he saith, Mr. Br. to every particle of what he charges them with, might tune up the Poet's Epigram, Jam sumus ergo pares: Jam sumus ergo pares. In all this we shake hands. What fouler confounding of the Covenants can there be then what Mr. Br hath committed: when he makes DO, and LIVE, to be the voice of both Covenants, denying any usefulness to Faith itself in justifying, but as it is a deed and moral work. Let Babel itself be raked from end to end, there will not be found more confusion. The Papists say, doing and works, as works and doing cannot be our righteousness to justify us: But as they receive purification from the blood and grace of Christ, so they obtain acceptance with God, and become our righteousness to justify us. Christ (say they) hath merited that our fulfilling of the Law should justify us. Mr. Br. saith nay, but our fulfilling the works which the Law requireth, meriteth that we should receive Christ to Justification (as we shall see by and by) Let now any rational man judge which party doth most confound the Covenants, he that makes the works of the Law in and for themselves, as they are simply done, meritorious to Justification: or they that ascribe nothing to works but what they have from Christ. Both I acknowledge are to be abandoned; but the deeper grain of self-extolling, the more sensual lusting after the fleshpots of Egypt is in Mr. Brs. Doctrine. Let none object that Mr. Br. attributes it not to works as works of the Law, but of the Gospel, himself knoweth and hath learned that poor shift of the Papists; and that they come off handsomer with it upon their, than it is possible for him to do upon his principles. Bax. 3. They are sottishly ignorant in the Doctrine of Justification [so am not I.] This I conceive he puts as a third difference between his and their doctrine. For what he saith under this third particular, that when they say justified, they mean sanctified, that he had made before the first difference. If this be the difference, then is he much more guilty than they. I obtained mercy, because I did it of ignorance, saith the Apostle, implying that they which did it maliciously against the light of their own understandings, were excluded from mercy. He that knoweth his father's will, and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. Yet I conceive Mr. Br. means here the Schoolmen of ancient times of Barbarism: not the Jesuits, Arminians, Socinians, and other Scholastic, Phylosophick Theologasters of these later times: For these are so knowing (in Mr. Brs. account) in the doctrine of Justification, that he hath borrowed all his knowledge and doctrine from them. And why the former should be esteemed more sottishly ignorant in this than in other no less mysterial doctrines of the Gospel I know not. In thingt natural and moral indeed they wrote as learned Philosophers, so far as refined reason could conduct them. But in things purely Evangelicall (saving about the persons and natures of Christ, which they also handled more Metaphysically than Theologically) besides some fragments gathered out of Augustine, I could hardly ever meet with a sound piece in such of them as have come to my reading. There may be a time when Mr. Br. may recant his profit and delight in dipping holy waters from the muddy streams, contemning the pure fountain of the Gospel. Or if he puts the difference in the former words; Bax. 3 When they say we are justified by the works of the Gospel, they mean only that we are sanctified by works that follow Faith, and are bestowed by Grace, they meriting our inherent Justice before God. And in that which standeth as it were in a fourth place. Bax. They take our works to be part our legal, I take it only a part of our Evangelicall righteousness: or of the condition upon which Christ's righteousness shall be ours. Not to except here against his maimed alleging of their opinions, thereby feigning a distance from them, that he might allure his readers without suspicion to join as near with them as himself: Let us take it for truth what he saith of them, and then let the indifferent Reader judge. 1 Whether is the most arrogant Doctrine, the Papists that say, works that follow, and are the fruits of Faith, and are done in the strength of grace supernaturally infused into the soul do merit? or Mr. Br. that saith, works as concauses with, not fruits of Faith, that flow from no other grace, but Pelagius his moral Suasion, without any Physical renovation and change upon the will (as for distinctions sake some of our Divines are wont to express themselves) do so merit? If Mr. Br. mean any thing else by grace, he conceals it as a mystery from us, and will not throughout his whole book give one hint at it: but makes man in his own natural and moral qualifications, the meriter of his own Justification by Christ. 2 Or which ascribes most to works, they that attribute to them inherent justice, which is the lesser; or he that ascribes to them the meriting of Christ's imputed righteousness, which is the greater? Concerning legal and Evangelicall Righteousness, I have spoken enough before: And the phrase of the Papists and Mr. Br. is one and the same herein. This might suffice to take off this delusion from his Readers, that his Doctrine is not Popish. But to manifest more fully in the sight of the Sun, that every one may run reading it, and read it running, how grossly, and in how many particulars his Doctrine is Papistical, I shall draw out in a parallel his Doctrine, and the Doctrine of the Papists, setting them side by side, that whosoever will, by comparing them may determine whether there be any worse Popery from Rome itself than from Kedderminster. This I shall make the subject of the next Chapter. CHAP. XVI. The Doctrine of Mr. Baxter and of the most Trentified and Jesuitized Papists, compared together in many particulars, and found one and the same. The Doctrine of the Papists and of Mr. Baxter compared together in many particulars, in their Relation to Justification. PAPISTS. 1. THere is a twofold Justification, a first and a 2d. Justification: the one inchoate, unperfect, more properly to be termed the beginning or root of and a disposition to justification, or being justified, than Justification itself, or our being fully justified before God. 2 The first justification is by the first grace given, before all good works for the remission of sins for the mere merits of Christ to Infants by baptism, to them that are of Age by Faith. The second justification, is by new obedience and good works, by which the faithful deserve increase of Righteousness to their fuller Justification. 3 Good works are the condition of Justification, without which Christ's satisfaction is not applied to us. [Of this opinion Bellarmine affirmeth some of his fellows to be, and finds no fault with it or them, only himself takes up what seemed to him more probable. Himself also speaks to the same purpose.] The Gospel promising life upon condition of actual & working Righteousness which consists in keeping the Commandents. 4 It is false therefore that we are justified by Faith only, the Scriptures no where affirm it, let him be accursed that shall say it. Many other graces, virtues and works are required to it, viz. The fear of God, hope in his mercy, Love, Repentance, a desire to receive the Sacraments, a purpose to lead a new life, and keep the Commandments [under this l●st special they comprise all good works whatsoever.] Nay so far are both parties from this Faith, that Faith only justifieth, that Both teach we are justified by Works only. For 5 We are justified by the Act of Faith, which is a work, and a Law, so that if we are not justified by works, Faith itself must be excluded from justifying. Though we are not justified by any works (i. e.) by any works of the Law, yet by a work of the Gospel, such as Faith is, we may be justified. 6 Our Adversaries (i. e. the Protestants) consent together in this, that good works are not necessary to salvation, otherwise than by the necessity of their presence, but that they have not any relation to salvation, as merits, or causes, or conditions thereof, etc. We contrariwise say that good works are necessary to a righteous man, unto salvation, by way of [causality or] efficiency, because [they effect] or work salvation. 7 When the Apostle saith, we are justified by Faith and not by Works, there is to be understood a Synecdoche in the words of Paul, that when he saith we are justified by Faith, he meaneth [not without works, but] by Faith and works together, [so that Faith is put for Faith, & works of Faith.] 8 The good works of justified men [which effect their Justification] are absolutely just and in their Mode or manner, perfect. 9 So the perfection of our righteousness and Justification is not from Faith but from works, For Faith doth but begin Justification, and afterward it hath assumed to itself Hope and Charity, it doth [by these] perfect it. 10 Good works merit without all doubt, yet not by any intrinsical virtue and worth in themselves, but by virtue of God's promise. A promise made with a condition of work, brings to pass that he which performs the work, is said to have merited the thing promised, and may challenge the reward as his debt in Law. 11 The Heretics teach that it is impossible for a righteous man to fulfil Gods Law. The Catholics teach that it is absolutely possible for a righteous man to fulfil it, by the help of God's Grace, and Spirit of Faith and Charity infused into them in their Justification. 12 The contrary doctrine which denyeth Justification by works, and the Merit of works is a pernicious doctrine, an enemy to all good endeavours & good works, invites all to a licentiousness of sinning, and to transgress without fear or shame; what evil will he fear, or what good will he not despise, who thinks faith alone sufficient to righteousness? 13 Though a man hath received the infusion of grace, and the Spirit of Faith and Charity, and is now justified, yet he is under the penalty and curse of the Law still. For Christ hath given and God hath taken satisfaction only for the fault, but not for the punishment, so that when God hath fully pardoned the fault, he may and will inflict the punishment upon the offender. 14 Yea this punishment remains upon the Justified both inlife and death, and after death in Purgatory. 15 For the Righteous or Justified man is so under the obligation of God's Law, that except he shall fulfil it, he shall not be saved. 16 Because our Justification being still conditional, even after we are Justified, may be sometimes lost, sometimes retained, now had, and then lost, and after recovered yea and lost again, as we do hinder or not hinder the Grace of God. 17 No man can be assured of his eternal Election, that he is ordained of God to life; or of his perseverance in grace to the end; and consequently not of his salvation. For the Scripture in express words teacheth, that Salvation depends of the condition of works; But no man can certainly conclude that he shall do [much less persevere to do] all that Christ hath Commanded. 18 It cannot be that the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us in that sense that by it we may be called, and be formally righteous; although it be true that Christ's merits be imputed to us, because God hath made them ours by donation, and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins, because Christ hath taken upon him the burden of making satisfaction for us, and of reconciling us to God the Father: yet the denomination of righteous persons is from the intrinsical righteousness in themselves. 19 Though we are justified by the works which the Law commandeth, yet are we not justified by them as they are works of the Law; but as they are Evangelicall and works of the Gospel, done in the strength of Christ, and by the power of renewing grace poured upon the Elect by Christ under the Gospel. 20 Love or Charity is the form of Justifying Faith, so that when faith doth Justify, it justifieth by charity as its form which gives it its life and motion; so that if Faith justifieth, love justifieth either in an equality with it, or more than it. 21 Justifying Faith consisteth in the Assent of the judgement to all things which are written in the word of God: No other faith is required of any. But an implicit Faith is sufficient in the Laity and ignorant, which are not acquainted with the Scriptures, in whom it is enough to believe as the Church believeth, i. e. as their Clergy teacheth and believeth, though they do not explicitly and in particulars know what the Church believeth. BAXTER. JVstification is twofold, either in Trident. Conc. Sess. 6. c. 6, 7, 8. Tilet. in Apol. p. 237. & in defence. Trid. Conc. adversus Chemnitium, part 1. title of Law, or in sentence of Judgement. [In this later, having out-runn the Papists, to meet with them again, he looks back to the former, and makes it twofold thus] Justification in title of Law is to be considered either in its first point & possession, or in its [after] continuance and accomplishment: The later he makes entire, & consequently (in the way of opposition there used) the former to be put in part, Aph. p. 302. 311. The first point and possession of Justification I acknowledge to be by faith alone, without either the concomitancy or co-operation of works; jidem Ibid. for they cannot be performed in an instant: But the continuance and accomplishment of Justification is not without the joint procurement of obedience. Aphor. p. 302. The righteousness of the New Covenant [i. e. in his sense, faith, and works] is the only condition of our interest in, and enjoyment of Bel. l. 1. de purge cap 14 Sect. 4. Ratio. 4. Bell. lib. 4. the Just. c. 2. the Old. [i. e. of the righteousness of Christ to justification] Both these righteousnesses are absolutely necessary to salvation. Aph. Thes. 17. 19 60. and from thence every where until the very end of his Book. The bare Act of believing is not Trid. Conc. in the forecited place. the only Condition of the New Covenant, but several other duties also are parts of that Condition. I desire no more of those that deny this, but that the Scripture may be judge Whosoever shall reduce the contrary Doctrine Bell. de Justif. lib. 1. cap. 13, etc. into practice (viz. to seek salvation and Justification by faith only, not at all by works) it will undoubtedly damn him. Those other duties that justify are Repentance, praying for pardon, forgiving others, Love, sincere obedience, works of Love (i. e. all good works) not faith alone, or some of these works and virtues with it, but all must have their concurrence to justify, Aphor. p. 235, 236, 237. 325. Nay so far are both parties from this Faith, that Faith only justifieth, that Both teach we are justified by Works only. For We are still said to be justified by Bell. de Justif. lib. 1. Faith which is an Act of ours. Append. p. 80. Moral duties are part of the condition of our salvation; a● for it to be performed: And ev● faith is a Moral duty. [So th● Daventria. So Pemble citys the Papists objecting. Treat. of justif. p. 37. according to Mr. Brs. doctrine Moral works and duties alon● as such, are required of us to Justification, and not Faith it se● this way useful, but as a mora● work and duty, Append. p. 80. When the Apostle saith [by wor● and not by faith only] he plain● makes them concomitant in procurement, Bell. de necessitate operum ad salutem. or in that kind of Causal which they have: especially seeing ● saith not (as he is commonly interpreted) [not by faith which is ● loan] but [not by faith only.] ● the phrase [Justified by works] t● word [by] implieth more than an ●dle concomitancy: If they should on● stand by, while Faith 〈◊〉 all, ● would not be said, we are justify by works, Aph. p. 299, 300. Faith in the largest sense, as comprehendeth all the conditions See Weimrichius. l. 1. in Epist. ad Romanos, c. 3. p. 207. the N: C: is when a sinner, etc. do believe the truth of the Gospel, a● accept of Christ as his only Lord a● Saviour, etc. and sincerely (thou● imperfectly obey him as his Lord, fo● Osor. lib. 3. de Instit. n. 70. giving others, loving his people, be●ring all what sufferings are impose● diligently using his Means and Or●nances, etc. And all this sincerely ● to the end, Aph. Thes. 70. & Ap● Bel. lib 4. the Justif. c. 10. Qu. de veritate honour. operum. p. 243. This personal Gospell-righteo●ness is in its kind a perfect Righteousness: and so far we may admit the doctrine of personal perfection. Aphor. Thes. 24. The first point of Justification (and that which is but a point, the first point must needs be a very small pittance Bell. de Ju●if. lib. 1. ●ap. 20. Malden. in Matth. 9 of it) I grant to be Faith alone, but the accomplishment (i. e. the perfitting thereof) is not without the joint procurement of obedience, Aph. p. 302. In a Larger sense as promise is an obligation, and the thing promised is ●el. de Mer. called Debt; so the performers of the Condition are called worthy, and the thing promised is called Debt. Thes. ●ea all the papists, as alleged ●y Cal. Inst. ●b. 3. ca 14. ●ect. 12. & ●ap. 17. ●ect. 3. 15. 26. Yea in this Meriting, the obligation to reward is God's ordinate Justice, and the truth of his promise, and the worthiness lieth in our performance of the Condition on our part. Aph. pa. 141. As it was possible for Adam to have fulfiled the Law of works, by that Bell. lib. 4. ●le Justif. ●ap. 1. power which he had received by nature: So is it possible for us to fulfil the Conditions of the New Covenant (i. e. the righteousness which the Law requireth) by the power which we receive from the Grace of Christ. [But whether this be grace or no grace Pelagius his imaginary, or the Gospel real grace, he will not let us know, so that herein the Papists are more ingenious than he, for they express themselves plainly of effectual Grace indeed.] Thes. 27. The Doctrine of Justification by Hos. in Con●ut. pa. 140 ●b. 3. Faith only, tendeth to drive obedience out of the world; For if men do once believe, that it is not so much Canis. inprefat. in Andr. Vega Andr. Vega de Justif. in Epist. prefat. Osor. de Justif. lib. 2, & 7. as a part of the Condition of their Justification, will it not much tend to relax their diligence? And it doth much confirm the world in their Soul-cozening Faith, etc. Aphor. pag. 325, 326. It was not the intent of the Father Trident. Cone. Sess. 6. cap. 14, 16. & Sess. 14. cap. 8; 9 Bel. de Purgatorio. Bel. de Poenitent. lib. 4. or Son, that by this satisfaction the offenders should be immediately delivered from the whole Curse of the Law, and freed from the evil which they had brought upon themselves, but some part must be executed in soul and body, and remain upon them at the pleasure of Christ: And this Curse is upon not only affenders in general, but also upon the Elect, and believers, Aph. p. 65, 66, 68 Not till the day of Resurrection & Judgement will all the effects of Sin Bellarmine and all his fellows. Bel. de Justif. lib. 4. cap. 7. Syn. Trid. ib. can. 12. and Law & wrath be perfectly removed [from the believers & justified.] Believers after they be justified, are under the Law as it is a Covenant of works, [for life and death.] Aph. p. 78, 79. 82. Only a conditional but not an absolute Andr. Vega de Fide & operibus q. 2 So also Thomas Seotus. & Bellarmine. discharge is granted to any in this life. When we do perform the condition yet still the discharge remains conditional, till we have quite finished our performance, and where the condition is not performed the law is still in force & shall be executed, A. p. 82. [The justification of believers in this life is conditional, ut supra, &] Men that are but thus conditionally Bellarmine prosecuteth this Argument at large. pardoned and justified, may be unpardoned and unjustified again, for their non-performance of the conditions, and all the debt so forgiven, be required at their hands. [so that there can be no certainty of perseverance to salvation.] Aph. Thes. 44. He seems in the explication to lenify his assertion, but to it I have spoken before. Our Legal Righteousness is not personal or in ourselves, and in our own qualifications & actions etc. but wholly without us in Christ: Our Evangelicall Bel. de justif. Lib. 1. Righteousness consisteth in our own Actions of Faith & Gospel obedience. This is the only Condition of our interest in the Righteousness of Christ. Now by reason of this personal righteousness consisting in the Rectitude of their own dispositions 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 conditions procuring our Justification by Christ; [as well as in regard of the imputed Righteousness,] which he addeth but as a cipher, bringing no proof for it but all seemingly for the former, Aphor. Thes. 18, 19, 20, 22, and its explication, p. 119. etc. We are justified by works commanded This is the general vote of all Popish writers, none excepted. in the Law, yet as they make up not our Legal but our Evangelicall Righteousness, not as they are done upon legal terms, but as they are conditions of the New Covenant. This is the chief substance 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 essential 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 justify, it is said so to work (in its essential 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 etc. 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 imagine. 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 Barrels are filled with the same Herring, or not. Should I proceed to Compare also his and their equivocations, ambiguities, & mental reservations, together with their purposed and not unwary Contradictions, when to say and deny the same thing in several 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 several 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 find no end. In alleging the words of the several Authors, something here and there hath perhaps been abbreviated, some words (standing as cyphers without weight 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 authentic or books from which they are cited. Neither is there any one thing alleged in which the two parties Cohere, but what hath been still Controverted between the Papists and Protestants. Else would it be easy 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 man's righteousness, 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 battle between Michael and the Dragon he hath superexcelled, & more deserved the Scarlet Hat, Mitre, Crosier, yea Triple Crown it s●lf, than they that have and wear them; if not by his Art yet at least by his daring boldness in his undertake. This service therefore I shall do him, to manifest not only his equality with but also his ex●perancy above many of the famous Champions of Rome. That many of the brave Cardinals, Bishops, Jesuits, and Friars, of the Church of Rome are Protestant's in the point of Justification, as compared with Mr. Br: and that he showeth himself in many particular● about this doctrine, a Papist of a deeper dye than the more modest Papists, yea than some of the most Jesuitized and Trentified Rabbis 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 itself any efficacy, as it is our act, to forgive and reconcile: but all its virtue proceeds from its object, namely Christ, whose virtue 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 moral works, when Faith also is comprehended under the genus [or kind] of works; for to believe is our work: The solution is, that to believe in him that justifieth the ungodly, leaneth upon the Righteousness of another, to wit, of God through Christ: but other works do lean upon their own Righteousness; every work is in [or after] itself good, and makes him good that hath it. 4 If Faith as it is a certain Act, and of itself, should procure Righteousness, than were not Righteousness given freely. God hath not used works to justify, as he hath used Faith, that men should not boast, attributing Righteousness to the virtue or merit of works. 5 Faith is not counted to us for Righteousness, as if itself were made our Righteousness; but because it brings a Righteousness on man before God; not as it is an act of man, than Grace should be of works, for to believe is a kind of work: but of God's will, as he hath willed that Righteousness should be given to man by Faith, and the virtue of Christ upon whom man believeth, should be communicated to the believer. This is to count [or impute] Faith to Righteousness before God. 6 Whereas we attain a twofold Righteousness by Faith, an inherent Righteousness, etc. by which we become partakers of God's nature; and the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, etc. It remains to be enquired, upon which of these we ought to lean [or trust] and to account ourselves justified before God? My judgement is that we are to rest, to rest I say as upon a stable thing that firmly sustaineth, namely the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and not on the holiness and grace inherent in ourselves. For this is unperfect, etc. therefore we cannot for it be counted Righteous before God. But the imputed righteousness of Christ is a perfect righteousness, in which there is nothing that can offend the eyes of God, but all things that can abundantly please him. Upon this alone therefore are we to rest as upon a thing sure and stable, and to believe that by it alone we are justified. 7 This may undoubtedly be affirmed, and it is the opinion of all Divines, that God can justify men and make them pleasing and amiable to him, without any inherent quality or habits infused. 8 To the same purpose and somewhat more fully speaketh Bellarmine. The guilt or obligation to punishment (saith he) may be taken away without the infusion of Righteousness. For nothing hinders by how much the less God can will the not ordaining to punishment, and the pardoning of the offence, and the not accounting him for an enemy, to whom he hath not granted the gift of habitual Righteousness. 9 The Scope of James (in the second Chapter of his Epistle) is to show that we are justified not by a barren but by a fruitful Faith. 10 The meaning of James is not that Faith without works is dead, etc. For it is evident that we are justified by Faith even without works. But his meaning is, that Faith without works, that is which refuseth to work, or is no● disposed to work, is a dead Faith, vain and justifieth not. What therefore James allegeth out of Gen. 15. Abraham believed God, to this purpose he allegeth it, that he believed being in readiness to work. Therefore he saith that in the work of offering his Son, the Scripture was fulfilled, speaking of his Faith prepared to work: It was fulfilled (I say) as to the execution of that great work, to which his Faith was prepared. 11 If any where in Scripture thou hearest reward or wages promised, know that it is no otherwise due then by God's promise, freely he hath promised, freely he gives. If thou wilt abide in his Grace and Favour, make no mention of thy Merits. 12 All Papists consentingly make the Merits of Christ the foundation of man's merits, as far as he can merit. Neither Faith nor works, nor doing nor sufferings (say they) have any other virtue to merit then what they receive from the merits of Christ's death, then as they are dipped in his blood; this makes them acceptable to the Father. 13 When Christ saith of the woman, Luk. 7. 47. Many sins are forgiven her, for she loved much; it is to be understood not that she loved much, and so her much love was the cause of her great forgiveness, but contrariwise that because many sins were forgiven her, therefore she loved much. 14 To be given freely, and to be a retribution to works, are as much opposite, as that which is free and that which is from Justice, or as not due, and debt. And this way of inference the Apostle useth in the beginning of this 4th Chapter [viz. speaking of Justification by Grace.] 15 The work of Justice is wages or Reward, and this way of Justice Grace excludeth, whose work is mere gift or Donation. 16 In this verse the Apostle concludeth that Christ hath saved us from all the evil both of fault and punishment. That there is nothing of condemnation remaining to them that are in Christ, because all judgement is taken away both to the fault and the punishment. 17 It is certain that when original sin is remited, that the evils which it brought are not remitted and taken away, as all find by experience: Notwithstanding they remain not under the consideration of punishment, because the fault being taken away, there can be no desert, as to punishment, remaining. 18 I will remember their iniquities no more, saith the Lord, i. e. I will neither in this world enjoin any Penance for them, nor in that which is to come inflict any punishment for them. So hath the Holy Ghost promised that our sins shall be forgiven by the New Covenant of Grace. 19 In regard of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the danger of vain glory: it is most safe to repose our whole confidence in the sole mercy and benignity of God. Baxter. THe bare act of believing is not the only condition of the New Cardinal Contarenus in Rom. 4. Covenant, but several other duties also are parts of that Condition. The Common opinion that justifying faith, as justifying, doth consist in any one single act, is a Wretched Mistake. [by the one act of faith he means, Faith in opposition to works.] Aph. p. 235, 248. Faith itself is our righteousness, viz. our Evangelicall, as Christ is our Legal Righteousness. Itself Toletus a jesuite, upon Rom. 3. is imputed to us for righteousness, Aph. p. 125, 126. It justifieth as it is an act of ours, and as it is a moral duty, App. p. 80. & 102. Both Faith and works make up one condition, one righteousness, one perfect righteousness of our own, by Cardinal Cajetan upon Rom. 3. which we merit to be justified by God by the legal righteousness which is in Christ. [And consequently Faith doth not lean upon another's, and works upon their own righteousness, but both make up one compounded righteousness and goodness which make us righteous and good also, and by this righteousness and goodness, deservers of justification & salvation.] Aph. Thes. 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26. and scatteringly throughout the whole Book. Faith as an act of ours, and of itself, with other works, procureth Righteousness: And God hath used Toletus the jesuit up on Rom. 1. works to justify as he hath used faith, even in the same kind of causality. [So we have found Mr. Br. oft affirming as may be seen in our former quotations: Let him deny that he holds the consequents of these two Antecedents, if he will.] It is so far from being an error to affirm that Faith itself is our righteousness, that it is a truth necessary for every Christian to know, yea it both is our Righteousness, and is imputed to us for righteousness. The [very] personal performance of faith shall be imputed to us, for a sufficient personal payment [of righteousness] Idem in Rom. 4. as if we had paid the full [duty and righteousness which the Law requireth.] This is the substance of his words, though not his very words, which being continued in terms of a Metaphor, cannot without the citing of the whole similitude be expressed to the understanding, otherwise, Aphor. p. 125, 126, 129. There is a twofold righteousness attainable by Christ [at least in words] the one an inherent righteousness in ourselves, consisting in the seed and acts of Faith, Love, Holiness, etc. the other in Christ, but made over to believers, by God's Donation if not imputation. Both of these are absolutely necessary to salvation, neither is the one perfect and the other Contarenus Card. in Tractat. de Justif. unperfect, as to justification, but the inherent perfect in its kind as well as the imputed, so that both in their kinds of causality are to be rested on as things sure to support us to justification before God: and we are as truly justified by and for the inherent as the imputed righteousness, if the righteousness which is in Christ meriteth a possibility of the justification of a sinner before God, he must by his inherent and actual righteousness merit the actual application of Christ's righteousness, and justification by it, else he cannot be justified. [Mr. Br cannot deny every particle of this doctrine to be his own in words at length, & that hath been already manifested in those former & these latter quotations.] The inherent righteousness is absolutely necessary to salvation, Aph. Medina in 1. 2. Qu. 110. ●. 2, 4. Thes. 17. [Otherwise justification from eternity also would peep in, and then Actum est, etc. And if absolutely necessary, how can God justify without it?] Manum a tabula, this is enough to wipe out Bellarmine from Mr. Brs' Calendar of Saints. A whole isle of Salt is too little to season Bell. de Justif. lib. 1. cap. 16. this passage. It overthrows the great Goddess Condition so precious to Mr. Br. and erects that Image of jealousy in its place, justification an immanent act in God. For if God may justify where there is no infused righteousness, where then is the condition? Then is the justification in God, and not termined on the Conscience of the justified: but Bellarmine hath his time to deny it again, else Actum esset de Amicitia. Except apparent violence be used Ca●etan on james. with this Chapter, etc. i● cannot be doubted but that a man is justified by works and not by Faith only, Thes. 75. James saith that Faith is dead being alone, because it is dead to the use and purpose of justifying, For in itself it hath a life according to its quality still, etc. And so works make Faith alive, as to the attainment of Cajetan ●bidem. its end, justification. Works therefore justify (not only proving our Faith to be sound, but) themselves being in the obligation as well as Faith, and in the same kind of causality and procurement with Faith, Salmero on cap. 2. jac. though not in equality with it, which I prove thus. When it is said we are justified by works, the word [by] implieth more than an idle concomitancy, etc. as I have before alleged him, p. 229, 230. Mr. B. makes the promise of God an obligation by which God is bound to man, so that man may challenge God for debt; pronouncing the performers, worthy, & their performances Friar Ferur on Mat. 20. 1. merit. Yea scarce admits of any one drop of God's blessings to descend upon the good or bad which he ascribes not to some kind of man's merits, Aph. p. 137-141. Mr. B. contrariwise ascribes all the meritorious virtue of man's works to their own righteousness, leaving man so long naked of the righteousness which is by Christ, until he hath by his own strong endeavours merited it: so that according to his doctrine, the application of Christ's merits to any is the fruit of that man's merits, and not the man's merits the fruit of Christ's merits: this is clear, from the former allegations. M. Br. interprets it the contrary way, Aph. p. 236. as the understanding Reader will easily perceive. [Let all judge that have but a mite of reason, whether Soarez Bishop on the place. this man hath any awe of the Scripture which so abuseth it, yet cries out upon others as faulty. To use his own words, he may as well make a Creed of his own, whatsoever the word saith to the contrary. There is no such opposition, Justification is from the ordinate Salmero disp, 35. ad Rom. justice of God, and the fruit of the merit of our righteousness: yet a free gift of free grace nevertheless. So he declares his judgement in the forecited places. Mr. Br. directly teacheth the contrary doctrine throughout Dominicus a Soto in Rom. 4. his Book, every where solving the absurdity of his doctrine by his conditions. Nay he hath not so saved & freed us from the punishment and curse, but that they that are in Christ must bear it both Soto, Salmero, & Aquinas ● upon Ro 8. 1. in soul and body. As his alleged words before declare. Mr. B. asserts the contrary doctrine, and propugneth it with ten Arguments, which Vasquez in 3. Thom. disp. 156. cap. 3. de paenalitatibus. have been examined in the first part of this Tractate. Nay the believers sins tho pardoned, yet are but conditionally pardoned; so that they Anselm. are still in God's remembrance to inflict the curse and punishment of the Law upon them, as the curse, in life and death, giving them no full discharge till the day of judgement. The place hath been cited before. So to repose our confidence Bellarmine. on sole mercy and grace, is a soul-cozening Faith, Aph. p. 326. He must be undoubtedly damned that doth not work and obey to be justified and saved by, and for his obedience and works, ibid. p. 325. compared with p. 300. & 320. Let now not only Scholars, to whom Mr Br appealeth to judge of his freedom from Popery, but with them all rational and conscientious men give their verdict, whether he be not so clear as Pilate when he had washed his hands, was from the blood of Christ: and whether the better Divinity come from Rome, or from Kederminster. CHAP. XVIII. Whether Mr. baxter's Plea here be of sufficiency to prove his Doctrine free from Socinianism. THe second aspersion of infamy, from which he endeavours to vindicate his doctrine is Socinianism: This he goeth about to do in these words: Bax. p. 306. But what difference is there betwixt it and the Socinian doctrine of Justification? Answ. In some men's mouths, Socinianism is but a word of reproach, or a stone to throw at the head of any man that saith not as they. Mr. Wotton is a Socinian, and Mr. Bradshaw, and Mr. Gataker, and Mr. Goodwin, and why not Piscator, Pareus, etc. if some zealous Divines know what Socinianism is. But I had rather study what is Scripture-truth than what is Socinianism. I do not think that Faustus was so infaustus as to hold nothing true. That which he held according to Scripture is not Socinianism. For my part I have read little of their writings, but that little gave me enough, and made me cast them away with abhorrence. In a word, The Socinians acknowledge not that Christ had satisfied the Law for us, & consequently is none of our legal righteousness, but only hath set us a Copy to write after, and is become our pattern, and that we are justified by following him as a Captain and guide to heaven; and so all our proper Righteousness is in this Obedience. Most accursed Doctrine! so far am I from this, that I say, The Righteousness which we must plead against the Laws Accusation, is not one grain of it in our Faith or Works, but all out of us in Christ's satisfaction. Only our Faith, Repentance, and sincere Obedience are the conditions upon which we must partake of the former: And yet such conditions as Christ worketh in us freely by his Spirit. How forcible and unresistible is the power of Conscience, flying in the face of the guilty, and accusing where men applaud, or at least hold their peace? Who either of men or Angels could have charged Mr. Br. for saying that which he had not yet said? or for venting Socinian Doctrine in his writings before he had yet written? What none else can do, M. Br. is forced by Conscience to do against himself: to arraign himself at the Bar for Socinianism. Conscience is the accuser, what Patron will he retain to be his defender? Nothing out of himself can suffice to answer an accuser within himself: Therefore he fees Reason, that is his sophisticated, and sopisticall wit, art, and craft, to plead his Cause against Conscience. The first of these exceptions which these make for him against the Charge, is the abuse which some make of this imputation, laying it upon all that speak not as they. But 1. This is besides the Charge: These some had not then spoken against Mr. Br. it is the accusation of his own conscience which he should have answered, and he hnows it not to have confederated with those some of whom he speaketh. 2. I know none of those some that have laid that aspersion upon any of those Divines which he mentioneth save one; and that one I suppose would be very angry with any other man in England (M. Br. alone excepted) that should go about to rob him of that honour which Mr. Br. calls a reproach. It is for brotherhoodssake that he hears it from him. 3. But his craft herein is to befool his Readers with an opinion that he is of the same judgement with Pareus, Wotton, Gataker, etc. of whom they that are dead have as much showed their abhorrency from, and opposition against his Doctrines, as any that have lived upon earth. And those that are living, if they be consistent with themselves in their former writings (whereof I nothing doubt) are as far from Mr Br. as he is from Christ and his truth. 4. His jeer that he casteth upon them that are Adversaries to his Doctrine, terming them Zealous Divines, insinuating that they have zeal without knowledge and learning, I leave as proper to him that in that way of wisdom and righteousness which his own reason either as refined with Philosophy, or corrupted with Sophistry suggesteth, seeks for justification and eternal glory. Let us be accounted fools to the world, and no bodies in that which is falsely called science, so that we may be wise in, and zealous for that which is the power and wisdom of God to salvation. The second Plea which he makes for himself is the singleness and sincerity of his studies, bent rather to seek out what is Scripture truth than what is Socinianism, & that he thinks that Socinus his Nature, Studies, and Attainments did not so much vary from his name. Faustus, the happy, that he should be so unhappy as to hold nothing true: and consequently that neither himself is so unhappy, but that he hath learned some Truths from this happy Socinus, and perhaps such as he could never learn from Christ, his Apostles, or faithful Ministers. But 1. This may be said of Faustus the Conjurer, who by giving himself to the Devil, did not exterminate all notions of all truths from his soul. Will Mr Br. be his Disciple also? Both had the like effectual influence from Satan, neither know I which to prefer. 2. Who sent Mr. Br. to learn from such Teachers? to seek for light in darkness, or Heaven in Hell, or Scripture-Truth, in the precept of Pagans, or glosses of Papists, or Socinus his God Reason? Is it not because there is no God in Israel, that he goes to inquire of Baal-zebab the God of Ekron? 2 King. 1. 3. The Lord Jesus rebuketh, silenceth, and refuseth to hear the Spirit of lies, even when he speaks truth, Mar. 1. 23, 24, 25. and abandoneth the spiritual Devil no less than if he had blasphemed, Mat. 4. So also Paul, Acts 16. 16-18. The truth of Christ needs not any, disdains all props from Hell to sustain it. He that will not dip from the fountain, but at the pools which the unclean beasts have defiled, let him without our envy have mud and dung enough in the water which he drinketh. 3. It is much to be doubted the man's heart deceives him. Were his study so unfeigned and serious to know what is Scripture truth, he would more study the Scripture itself, and less Bellarmin, Socinus, Arminius, and such like Sophisters, whose whole study it is to corrupt all, and to leave no Scripture unperverted. 4. Had he not ploughed with Socinus his Heifers (or rather Bulls) he could never have sowed so much darnel in the field of Christ. The third Plea which he bringeth to prove that his Doctrine is free from Socinianism is, because there is one point wherein he dissenteth from Secinus. That Socinus and his followers deny any expiatory sacrifice that Christ hath offered to God to satisfy his Justice for our sins; or that there is any effectual virtue in Christ's death to purge our Consciences from dead works. But that he becomes our Saviour only in this, that [he hath given us more perfect precepts of Righteousness than were contained in the Law and the Prophets, and withal he] hath given us a Copy or pattern by his own practice to which we must be conformed: And so we must be justified (not by the blood of Christ, but) by our own obedience in following these precepts and this pattern which he hath given us. In this point Mr. Br. professeth himself so far from joining with him, that he casteth off this Doctrine with abhorrence. But this reasoning hath no soundness in it: For 1 It is the same, as if I should argue, that Goliath was not of the race of the Giants, because he had not upon each hand six fingers, and upon each foot six toes, at some of the Giants progeny had, and possibly the Giant himself. Or that Mr. Br. should seek by this Argument to prove himself no Englishman, because he dwells nearer the Severn than Thames. So also might the Jews elude the words of Christ, and Elymas the words of Paul, as slanderous, arguing themselves not to be the children of the Devil, because they had flesh and bone, so had not the Devil. They had never carried Christ aloft, and set him on a pinnacle of the Temple (fearing they might fall headlong thence themselves) so had the Devil. The seed, the Lusts of the Devil abiding and reigning in them, spoke them out to be children of the Devil, though they broke not out in them into every particular Act as in the Devil. The utmost that M. Br. can from such premises conclude is, that (though in many things else 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 Jesuits, and do bring more show 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 man's pride, and more nullifying Gods grace, than any of the Champions of the Pope had either the wit or the audacity to do until these had taught them. If then in the point he holds not with Socinus, no marvel, for than 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. He should have cleared (if he could) his Doctrine from other pieces 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 virtue that they have from the death of Christ to this end, as the Papists teach, but rather that Christ fetcheth virtue from these to justify:) 3 His doctrine of God's dispensing with, and relaxing of his Law. To which I might add in the 4 th'. place, his canonising and almost deifying Reason, and that without any adject of (renewed or spirituallized, even of) natural and sophistical reason, to which he doth so frequently in his book almost sacrifice as to the sole and sufficient Judge 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 dipped from the spring or rather puddle itself. It is but a vain piece of his sophistry to defend himself where none will accuse, and to hid 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 soured with the Leaven thereof, when he hath more fully tried the quaintness & depth of their sophistry (in which his soul delighteth more than in the plainness & foolishness of the Gospel) who knoweth whether he may not, following such a guide as reason, at length also sup up with pleasure what now he casteth off with defiance? the Apost. speaks something that may put us in fear of it, 2 Tim. 3. 13. 5 Even this error of Socinus, against which in special he protesteth his abhorrence, he doth in general maintain with as strong a Front as any of the Socinians. They say that Christ offereth salvation to all, but it is every particular man's particular faith and obedience, their actual 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 chief, 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 he useth the Tantundem, though not literally the Idem of these words, to apologise for his doctrine against other crimes imputable to it. CHAP. XIX. Mr. baxter's first Reason examined, by which he endeavours to evince his Doctrine not to be repugnant to Paul's, viz. that Paul's question in his Epistles, and his question in his Aphorisms, are not one but divers. Paul's question, what is that proper Righteousness by which we are justified from the laws malediction, which the Apostle concludeth to be Christ's satisfaction only. But Mr. Brs. and St. james his question, what is the condition of this Justification by Christ's Righteousness, whether Faith alone, or works also? We have examined what he hath to say for the vindicating of his Doctrine from Popery and Socinianism: we expected also that he should in the next place have showed, 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 clear his doctrine from all opposition to Paul and the Scriptures. This is a work indeed, which if he discharge honourably, and full up to what he promiseth, all will grant him the Laurel 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, we shall all run after him: And though some mad men may term us Papists, Socinians, Arminians, or whatsoever else, we shall 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 own words declare. B. p. 307, etc. Lastly, let us see whether S. Paul, or any other Scripture do contract (I think 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 usual 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 Christ's Righteousness. But now St. James his question is, what is the condition of our Justification by this Righteousness of Christ? whether Faith only? 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 show they never contradicted one the other? 1 He tells us he knows no one word in St. Paul or the Bible, that hath any strong appearance of contradiction to his Doctrine. To which I answer, 1 That we look not to appearances whether they be weak or strong: But if there be not strong Contradictions in the doctrine of the Apostle, and of the Gospel to his, there is no cause of dissenting from him. 2 Who more blind and ignorant than he that will not know and see? 3 No marvel if he see not while he looks thorough the spectacles of Natural reason and sophistical reasonings, whereas spiritual things cannot be discerned but spiritually, 1 Cor. 2. 14. 4 Let him examine whether the words of Christ be not verified upon him. For judgement I am come into the world, that they which see not might see, and they which see might be made blind, Joh. 9 39 But blessed be God who hath hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them to babes, Mat. 11. 25. 5 If he see not, know not, his wilful ignorance and blindness must not be made the rule of other men's Faith and Judgement, nor prejudice their happiness in seeing and knowing. It is somewhat a lofty language, he hnoweth not. What then? Therefore either there is no such thing, or no man can know it, or it is a fancy in any other to believe it. Not Mr. Br. but Christ is our ipse dixit, we draw the Treasures of wisdom and knowledge from Christ, not from Mr. Br. 2 He acknowledgeth that other men at least seem to know what he denies himself to know, Scriptures that have (if not a strong, yet) some appearance of Contradiction to him, and quotes the Scriptures, which he saith are usually quoted, viz. Rom. 3. 28, etc. Here 1 I demand of him who they are that quote, and against whom they quote those Scriptures? That they which quote them are the Protestant Churches and writers▪ and that they are the Papists against whom they are so usually quoted, he must needs confess, because he can produce none but Protestants that do, none but Papists against whom they do allege these Scriptures. For although the Arminians do enough declare themselves in their writings that they hold in common with the Papists, Justification by works, yet I could never find that they would suffer this Tenet to be brought to a dispute; but being charged therewith, they have with sacred protestations & adjurations denied any such thought in their hearts, and so never permitted these or any other Scriptures to be quoted against them about this question, still declining the dispute. It must be therefore the Papists against whom Mr. Br. saith these Scriptures have been usually quoted. And this speaks out to us in many respects what the frame of this man's spirit is. 1 The integrity and ingenuity of his Conscience, that having but 2 pages backward, verbally renounced the Papists and all concurrence of his doctrine with theirs, he useth only a short digression to smooth the face, end spit in the mouth of Socinus; and then forthwith makes a bridge of St Paul, to return and make peace, and confirm a league with the Papists, as it were stroking the shavelings and telling them. Notwithstanding all that I have said, I doubt not but ye well perceive therein the equivocations and mental reservations which I have learned from you. Still my horses are your horses, my charrets your charrets, I am as ye are, and your Adversaries my Adversaries. Mark ye well how finely I shall here divert from you the Scripture darts which the Heretics fling at you. This all may see to be the sum of his words, or at least employed therein. 2 His consistency with himself, that what erewhile he denied, here he affirms, viz. that he is not only Popish in this point, but also a patron of the Popish Cause: And thus also while he endeavours to purge his doctrine from all contradiction of Scripture, he becomes a Contradictor of himself. 3 His honesty in explaining his meaning at last, whom he pointed at throughout his Treatise under the name of ignorant Antinomians, viz. all that have quoted those Scriptures against justification by works. 4 His good will to the Protestant Religion, and to the doctrine of grace, that rather than these shall stand, he will say and unsay, join with, and borrow from Papists, Socinians, Arminians, (and why not the Turkish Koran also, or whatsoever prodigies of Doctors) that send men to blessedness by the merit of their own works. 5. His matchless worth arising out of all these, for which such a confluence of Divines from all parts of England is made to him, even such as were erewhile Zelots against Popery, Socinianism and Arminianism, until they had fatted themselves with the spoils of the friends thereof. Hath not the Lord cause to visit upon these men the breach of his Covenant, whereof they profess themselves at this day transcendently zealous? Is not this one principal branch thereof? Let others dream waking of the further exaltation of the present Ministry of this Land, I see no ground of expecting any Change but to the abasing thereof, though myself must take a share in such an abasement. With such plausibility every where is this man and every seducer received in their sowing the worst errors, if they will but pretend a zeal against supposed Antinomians: And so generally is the doctrine of grace slighted. I undertake to defend against all Opponents, that Mr. Br hath no one assertion in his whole Book about Justification by works, nor more than one, if one proof or argument to confirm such an assertion; nay scarce any word, phrase, or Apex, which he hath not received from the Papists, Socinians, or at the best from the Arminians. I acknowledge in some places he runs more in the Arminian, than Popish method and dialect, when they speak more to the extolling of man's righteousness, and annihilating of God's grace: But in no one particle is he better than they. I appeal not only to the Learned, but also to the rational among the Readers of his Book, when they looked upon its Title, Aphorisms of Justification, whether they expected not that the truth of the Gospel and doctrine of the Protestant Churches should have been stoutly defended by so Scholastic a man, against Papists, Arminians, etc. But when contrariwise they find him undertaking no Combat against them, but all for them, and making none other his Aversaries but Protestants, sometimes under, sometimes without the nickname of Antinomians: Is it not a strange piece of incredulity, when he so plainly discovereth himself, not to believe him, to whom he is a Friend, and to whom an Adversary? And a gross delusion to lick up as honey from the dirt of Mr. Brs. shoes, what they detest as poison from the lips of Bellarmin, Socinus, and Arminius? But I incur blame by digressing, therefore return to the matter. 2 I except against his quotations as done partially and unfaithfully, to beget in his weak and credulous Reader, an opinion that he and the Papists his Masters have the whole body of the Scriptures on their side to prove Justification by works; But that the Protestants can only catch here and there a sentence of Scripture that hath a seeming, and scarce a seeming to speak for them. It is a Maxim of Mr. Br. himself, that men are seldom bold with Scripture to force it, but they are first bold with Conscience to force it, pag. 297. Yet here he is bold not only to force, but to stifle Scriptures. When himself quoteth a Scripture to maintain his Popish Justification, see how he improves it in the same page: If it were but some one phrase dissonant from the ordinary language of Scripture, I should not doubt but it were to be reduced to the rest. But when it is the very scope of a Chapter, etc. no whi● dissonant from any other Scripture; I think he that may so wrest it as to make it unsay what it saith, may as well make him a Creed of his own, let the Scripture say what it will to the contrary. Lo, what a mountain he can make of a molehill, and bring all Scriptures into the belly of one, making that one of what dimension he listeth, & all the rest to say what he commands them, when he is to plead for the Papists: But here when he is ●o produce what the Protestants have to urge against the Papists, what mincing and maiming doth he use? forcing the whole body of the Gospel into a Cherristone; it is but here and there a sound without substance that they beguile themselves with. Did the man (as he pretends) seek to apprehend to himself, and sincerely to make out unto others Scripture T●u●h, we should find him faithfully alleging what the Churches of Christ have cited against Antichrist. His false dealing herein declares his hatred of the Truth, that he will not have the Scriptures shine upon it in their full splendour, that it may not be known and embraced. Nay we have the main body of the New Testament speaking for us, specially almost all the Doctrinal part of the Epistles to the Romans, Galathians, Ephesians, Colossions, Hebrews, all the four Evangelists, specially St John, as I have before shown: A breviate of Scriptures which our Divines have urged to this purpose I have before given, and it would be useless here to rehearse. 3. Even these few Scriptures which he quoteth, affirm that man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law, that if he were justified by Works, he had whereof to glory and boast himself; that if they which are of the Law be heirs, Faith is made void, and the promise of no effect. That it is of Faith that it may be of Grace; that it is by Grace through Faith, not of Works. Were there nothing else, is there not a strong appearance of Contradiction in these Scriptures to Mr. Brs. doctrine, that we are justified by Faith and Works together? 4 But see we how he evades these Scriptures and all other Testimonies of the Apostles, viz. That his dispute is, what is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law? or by which we are justified as the proper Righteousness of the Law? and this he well concludeth is neither works nor faith, but the Righteousness which is by Faith, i. e. Christ's Righteousness. But St. James his question is, what is the condition of our Justification by this Righteousness of Christ? whether Faith only? or Works▪ also? so far Mr. Baxter. Must not Mr. Br. needs be happy that hath learned so perfectly that which he calls elsewhere the Papists Feat of making the Scriptures a nose of wax, and turning them into his own complexion. Let any one now allege against him that of the Apostle, Gal. 1. 8. If Paul or an Angel from heaven shall preach to you any other Gospel than what you have received, let him be accursed. Cannot he as prettily and solidly shift the Curse from him, and retort it upon the denouncer as he doth these Scriptures upon the allegers. True may he say, but I am not Paul, nor an Angel from heaven, therefore the Curse cannot fall on me. Nay, I have made Paul to preach another Gospel since his death, thatn what he preached in his life, Therefore Paul is accursed. As good grounds hath he for this as his former arguing. But let us see whether his interpretation of these Scriptures be so solid as pretty. To that of James I have spoken before, therefore shall say little here. Only I cannot omit how unsufferable his audacious confidence is, that he thinks it enough to say, without showing, or endeavouring to show it from the Context or otherwise, this is the meaning of Paul's, and that the scope of James his dispute. No such immodesty is oft there to be found in the very Jesuits, Socinians, and Arminians. They, when they go about to pervert in stead of expounding any Scripture, labour stoutly from the Context, and from a seeming Coherence of other Scriptures, to make such a perverting exposition either probable or plausible: This man doth all pro Imperio, Sic volo, sic jubeo, etc. I say it, what man or Angel dares to deny it? Doth he think all the world to be his Diocese, that he may force (what he hath, or saith he hath upon his Kederminsterians) upon the consciences of all men an implicit Faith, that all must believe when and because he saith it? Is the infallible spirit gone out of Zedechiah, 1 King. 22. 24. or out of Bellarmine or Arminius in●o him? Or doth he execute the office of the Pope's Legate, speaking to us only that which is decreed in his unerring Chair? or hath he gotten a monopoly of Socinus his Right Reason, which is infallible? what else can he allege that his word must be taken for a Law without dispute? Or is it indeed because he finds God's word will yield him no succour, therefore he must proprio Marte militare, act in his own name, because God is not with him? So indeed it seemeth, for neither God, nor reason, nor any thing else, but a high conceit of himself will be accessary to his reasonless Conclusions, viz. that James his question is, what is the condition of our Justification by Christ's Righteousness; when James in his whole dispute there, neither expressly nor implyedly utters a word of Christ's righteousness, or if Mr. Brs Jesuito-Arminian condition, nor any thing that can easily be reduced to Christ himself. Or where doth Paul dispute only of the righteousness proper to justification, and not also of the way and means by which this righteousness may be applied to us and made ours? Or in which of his quoted Scriptures, or any other of the Apostles writings; when he excludes works, doth he exclude Faith also from its subserviency to justifying? Such peremptory dreams of a haughty brain cannot be more fitly answered than with contempt and silence. Thus should I do, were it not in respect to some pious and not unlearned men, that have taken some infection of the Epidemical disease of our times, too easily to drink down errors, differing herein only from the vulgar, that error is more appetible to them from a learned and sophistical, than truth from a plainer, though faithful hand. Let a man once have the name of a learnnd Scholar, and strict-walking Pharisee, all his Doctrines by such men are concluded to be of rare use and excellency, before they be seen whether they be white or black, from Heaven or from Hell,▪ Not a few of these men having in my hearing stood firm and up moved in the defence of the doctrines of this book of Mr. Brs. not being able to speak any thing to refel the objections made against it, but this, that the Author thereof is an eminently learned and pious man. As if Satan had not the wit to make choice of his instruments that have the most complete aptitude and power to deceive, or that the Jews had not so much to say for their Pharisees, the Papists for their Bellarmine, and the Remonstrants for their Arminius, or the Devil had forgotten his ancient subtlety when he will seduce from the verity of Christ's Gospel, to change himself into an Angel of Light, or that no damning error could proceed from a self-saving, or rather self-deceiving Pharisee. To clear up the truth to such, at lest to give their occasion to search the Scriptures by which they may clear it to themselves, I shall lay and compare together Paul and Mr. Br. in that which Mr. Br. saith was the question about which Paul disputed, that it may be made evident whether they agree, or contradict either the other. To this purpose by the way, there is to be taken out of the way a fallacy that lurketh in Mr. Brs. words, where he saith, The dispute of St. Paul is upon this Question; It is not enough to say this was A Question, except he say also it was the Question, yea the Only Question upon which the Apostle disputed in those places where he excludeth works, and inferreth Faith alone to be ordained as effectual to justification. He disputed in some of his Epistles upon many questions. To reduce what he disputed severally to the several questions, all to one, were to make nonsense of the whole. The same may be said of all men's, yea of the most Scholastic disputes of Mr. Br. himself, who is a greater Philosopher, and more studied in Logic and Metaphysics than ever the Apostle was. But I deny it to be the only or the chief question about which St. Pa●l so disputeth, what is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law? or by which we are justified as the proper Righteousness of the Law? I grant it to be one, but a less principal question upon which he disputes. But the more principal question is, in general, by what means we may be interessed into Christ, or obtain the righteousness of Christ to become ours, and so still retain it to justification? More particularly whether the Native faederal holiness of the Jews, and the privileges of the Covenant in part mentioned, Rom. 9 4, 5. & Phil. 3. 5. & Gal. 2. 15. Or their actual and personal righteousness and sincere obedience to the Law mentioned, Phil. 3. 6. Mat. 20. 12. and the 19, 20. together with all the Typical purge mentioned in the 9 & 10. Chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews? On the other side, whether all the Natural and Moral righteousness of the Gentiles, which they performed by the instinct of the Law of Nature written in their Consciences, without the help or knowledge of Gods written law, or their exemption from the Covenant of God made with the Jews, (For some of the believing Gentiles, reading the promises made of calling unto the grace of Christ them that were not God's people, or beloved before, weakly concluded that their former uncircumcision and uncovenant-ship was a special furtherance to their admission unto Christ, as may be probably gathered from Rom. 11. 19 & Gal. 5. 6.) whether any of these kinds of holiness and works of righteousness, either with Faith, or without Faith? or whether Faith alone without all, or any of these, be required as instrumental, subservient, and effectual to inright us to the Justification which is by Christ? This was the more principal question upon which Paul disputeth in the places before mentioned; Somewhat he saith to the former, but less principally, and seldom but in subserviency to this. So the question upon which Paul disputes in his Epistles, and Mr. Br. in his Aphorisms, is one and the same, but their Conclusions absolutely contradictory either to other. The one concludeth that Faith alone without man's works and righteousness; The other, that not faith alone, but Faith as a work together with all other works of righteousness do justify, and all moral duties collaterally with Faith are required to make the Righteousness of Christ ours to justification. No greater or more palpable Contradiction can be devised. Whosoever shall preach another Gospel [of Justification otherwise than by Faith in Christ without works] let him be accursed, saith Paul: Whosoever shall be practically a solifidian, trust to a bare Faith, and not work for Justification shall be Damned saith Mr. Br. If one of these be granted to be an Apostle of Christ, the other must needs be proclaimed to be the Apostle of Antichrist. But whether this which I have expressed be indeed the principal question on which the Apostle so disputeth, adhuc sub judice lis est. We are left uncertain on both hands may some say. True, and if I only say and not show it, I shall be guilty of the fault which I blame in Mr. Br. And so we may deserve both to be laughed at as Triflers. This therefore is the next thing to be added. First then if we do but consider to whom, and against whom the Apostle handleth these disputes, (for Mr. Br. reduceth them all to his Epistles) it will be more than probable to every rational man, that his most principal question is, By what means we possess and continue in the possession of the righteousness which is by Christ, to Justification? And but secondarily, less principally, and in subserviency to this question, What the righteousness is by which we are to be justified. The persons to whom he writeth were all Christians, the purest and most eminent Churches of Christ, that had received the pure doctrine of Christ by the preaching of the Apostles, viz. that (whereas sin and death and the Curse by sin reigned over all men in all the world, so that all weet Children of wrath, and every soul guilty before God) Christ was given of the Father to be the Author of Righteousness and life, by the Mediation of his death; that in him and in no other name under heaven was salvation attainable, that whosoever would believe in him should have everlasting life; should be Justified freely by Grace through the Redemption which is in Jesus Christ; and by their very receiving of him should obtain power to become the sons 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 established in this truth with the joy of the Holy Ghost abounding in them. The persons against whom he disputeth were chief if not only the False Apostles of the Circumcision, who also professed the Faith of Christ and preached it, not the unbelieving Jews, 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 Jerusalem to preach Christ, Act. 15. 24. Such as came from James, Gal. 2. 12. Such as boasted themselves to be of C●phas, to hold forth the doctrine of Peter, 1 Cor. 1. 12. Such as preached Christ of envy, strife, and contention, not sincerely, but under the lu●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, entered into the several Churches before established by the Apostles, troubling them with words, subverting their souls, teaching them that they must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, else they could not be saved, Act. 15. 1. 24. And these were of the Sect of the Pharisees which believed, Act. 15. 5. Emissary's out of those Many thousands or rather Myriad of the Jews at Jerusalem which believed yet were all zealous of the Law, Act. 21. 20. Had the Apostles dispute been against such as had apostatised from the profession of Christ, and against such unbelievers as had seduced them from trusling on Christ's imputed, to rest upon their own inherent righteousness, for justification; i● had not been besides the purpose to have it his question (as Mr. Br saith) whether it be Christ's 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 only whether Faith alone, or else their righteousness & works also together with Faith, were required to inright them to Christ's righteousness and salvation, it had been impertinent if not ridiculous to have made it his question what the proper righteousness 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 damage 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 principal question was, For he better knew his own mind than Mr. Br or myself. And first in his Epistle to the Romans having for an introduction to the question, in the three first Chapters proved both the Jews with all their legal and the Gentiles with all their natural righteousness and unrighteousness to be under sin, guilt, and condemnation, he no sooner in the third Chapter gins 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 sins, 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 blood, 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, Moral 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 effectual 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 uncircumcision through Faith. In these words is included the whole State of Paul's question. The Apostle writing to the Church that was at Rome, Consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles, endeavours to heal the divisions, Close the breaches, and settle a sweet union and Communion between them. This he applieth himself unto, first in that great and fundamental point of Christianity, viz. Justification by Christ, in which they dissented: Both Jews and Gentiles acknowledged Justification and salvation to be by Christ alone, but in this they differed. The Jews Confined this salvation by Christ to themselves alone, that to them only 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 Natural, Faederal, and personal righteousness and holiness, qualifying them for the Justification which is by Christ, of all which the Gentiles were destitute. Their natural Righteousness and holiness, that they were Jew's 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 faederal holiness, 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 distinguished from all other people, as holy to God, when all other Nations under the Sun were an abomination in his sight: Their Legal 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 personal and Actual righteousness, that in reference to this holy Law of God they had walked exactly, kept it from their youth, and touching the righteousness thereof were blameless; When contrarwise the Gentiles had walked inordinately, lawlessly after the instinct of their own nature, and lusts of their own hearts, servants to idols and devils, not to God. For this Cause they Contended that they by this their righteousness had, that the Gentiles by means of their unrighteousness had not right to the redemption and Justification which are by Christ. That the Gentiles in stead of the natural holiness before mentioned must become Proselytes, and so the ascititious or adopted Children of Abraham, becoming Jew's, must receive the seal of the Covenant Circumcision in their flesh; receive and be brought under the Law; and become personally righteous in keeping it; Else they could not be saved by Christ, Act. 15. 1, 24. Their bare Faith in Christ without their own righteousness and works could not make them partakers of the righteousness and salvation which are by Christ. And who seethe not here that Mr. Brs' doctrine is one and the same in general with theirs that were the first heretical troublers and subverters of the Church of Christ? But against this plea of the believing Jews, the Apostle layeth his Contradictory Conclusion, That both the Circumcision and the uncircumcision, they that had and they that had not all or any of these kinds of righteousness were made partakers of Justification through Christ, only by Faith in him. That our own prejacent works and righteousness are nothing to further, nor our former unrighteousness and sin any thing to hinder our Justification, but Faith in Christ is all: He that believeth is not condemned, he that believeth not is already condemned, whether he be Jew or Gentile, clean or unclean outwardly; because as he had said before ver. 22, 23. There is no difference, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. This Conclusion that Faith alone without our prejacent or concomitant works and righteousness do make the righteousness which is by Christ ours to Justification, he proveth sound in the 4th Chapter. 1 From the example of Abraham the Father of the Faithful. By what means Abraham found and obtained the Justification which is by Christ, by the same means all now obtain it that are Justified. But Abraham found or obteiaed it not by his own righteousness or works, but by Faith. Therefore so do now all that are justified. The proposition he leaves as standing so firm on its own pillars that none will dare to seek the demolishing thereof. The assumption he proves in both its members, that it was not by his own righteousness: either Natural, i. e. derived from parents and ancestors, for they were Idolaters and served other Gods, Josh. 24. 2. Or faederal in the Jews sense, for he was justified before he was circumcised, and after received Circumcision as a seal of the Righteousness of Faith, ver. 10, 11, of this 4th Chapter to the Romans: or Legal, For he was so Justified 400 years before the Law was given: Or personal by the works of righteousness which he had done: For than first he should have had matter of boasting that he had done something towards his own Justification, ver. 2. And secondly, than his justification should have been reckoned not of Grace but of debt, and so the glory thereof should have redounded to Abraham and not to God, ver. 4. And if by no one of these kinds of his own, than not at all by his own righteousness. That it was by Faith he proves by clear Testimony of Scripture, ver. 3. Therefore the conclusion stands that we are justified also by faith without works. That Faith and not any righteousness of our own makes Christ's righteousness ours. Another Argument he draws from clear and evident Scripture, witnessing that the righteousness and justification, which consisteth in the forgiveness, not imputing and covering of sin, is made ours without works, [therefore by Faith alone] ver. 6, 7, 8. When in these two Arguments none can deny but that the righteousness and Justification which Abraham obtained, and which Consisted not in the doing, but in the imputing of righteousness, and in the pardoning and not imputing of sin; is the Justification which is by Christ; and when the Apostle laboureth not at all to prove this to be The proper Righteousness to Justification, but takes it as granted and unquestioned: all must acknowledge that his question was not, What righteousness it is that Justifieth? whether Christ's? or ours? But when all his dispute is confined to this one point, to prove that this righteousness by Christ is made ou●s not at all by works, but altogether by Faith, what rational man can be so swayed by a Spirit of Contradiction, as to say with Mr. Br. that St Paul's question was not to make out, by what means this Justification by Christ may be made ours? Whosoever will see these two Arguments further and fully illustrated and amplified, together with more arguments to these annexed, let him peruse the residue of this 4 Chap. And if he return with his Reason sound, and brings not this verdict, that it is impudence not judgement in Mr. Br. to state Paul's question as he doth: Then am I a stranger both to Paul and Reason. Again, when the Apostle still insisting upon the same subject, sets forth the privileges of them that are justified by Faith, doth withal affirm that while they were yet sinners, Ch●ist died for them, and so they became Justified by his blood; and being yet enemies are reconciled to God by his death, Rom. 5. 1, 8, 9, 10. thereby implying that there is nothing of our own works and righteousness, (except sin and enmity against God be such) that doth or can Concur to our justification; so leaving justification to Faith only: it is evident that his principal question was not whether we are Justified by Christ, but whether Faith alone or works with Faith are appointed of God in order to Justification? I shall forbear to cite short testimonies from other Epistles of the Apostle, evincing this Truth: and pass to his Epistle to the Galathians in which he wholly leveleth to this mark. It cannot be denied by Mr. Br. himself that the Apostle there disputeth not of a legal but Gospel Justification, and that this is a Justification only by Christ: that when he saith, If any man, if we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel, etc. his meaning is, not a Justification out of Christ (for this should be a legal not a Gospel Justification) but any other way to the Justification which is by Christ, save that which we have preached, let him be accursed, Gal. 1. 8, 9 Herein it was agreed between the Apostle and the false Apostles, that Christ is the alone Justifier, and that salvation is only by him, and to this all the seduced one's among the Galathians assented. Else had they been Apostate from Christ to the Law, and not to another Gospel, as the Apostle terms it, Gal. 1. 6. And from their beginning in the Spirit to seek perfecting by the flesh. The question therefore was whether Faith alone in Christ, or e●●e together with it, a natural, faederal and practical righteousness after the rule of the Law, were required to the acquiring of the Justification which is by Christ. Hence is that his zealous expostulating with Peter and Barnabas for giving some occasion to the Gentiles to question whether besides Faith in Christ, some Conformity to the Law were not also needful to Justification. We (saith he) who are jews by Nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of jesus Christ, even we have believed in jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law: for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified, Gal. 2. 15, 16. The sum of his debate is as if he had said: If we that besides the supereminent prerogative vouchsafed to us to be the Apostles of the Lord Jesus, have a derivative holiness by nature and the Covenant of God, from Abraham, and withal a righteousness o● works by living up to our utmost in the highest pitch of obedience to the Law; having found by revelation from the Lord jesus Christ, that all these are nothing available, but Faith alone proper and effectual to obtain the salvation and righteousness which is by Christ; have wholly rejected all confidence in and use of these in order and reference to justification, and made our addresses by Faith alone to partake of his righteousness: why do we by our judaizing beguile the poor Gentiles that have none of these prerogatives, into a pernicious opinion of perfitting their justification by Christ, with their practical righteousness in obedience to the Law? Where it is to be noted that in one and the same verse the Apostle doth thrice expressly banish works from having any thing to do in the business of justification by Christ, and no less often attribute it to Faith and bel●leeving in Christ without all help of works. And can it be doubted what the question is about which he disputeth? To the same scope is directed all that he delivereth in the third Chapter. That he pronounceth the Galathians, foolish and even bewitched that having obtained justification already by Faith alone in Christ, they would be seduced to seek the perfecting thereof by works, Gal. 3. 1, 2, 3. That while they were ambitious to become the Children of Abraham, they fell utterly from Abraham and from the justification which Abraham found, by seeking it another way than Abraham found it, viz. by works and not by Faith only, ver. 6, 7, 8, 9 That so to seek it, was the way to meet with the Curse in steed of the blessing of Christ's righteousness, ver. 10-12. of which more may be said a little after. That the justification which is by Christ, descendeth by promise to us, and promises are the object of Faith not of works, ver. 17, 18, 22. But all this together with what the Apostle disputeth of liberty and bondage in the fourth Chapter, I leave to them that will but considerately read it, to judge whether it evinceth not that to be Paul's question which I have mentioned. Lastly, when the Apostle, Gal. 5. 4. brandisheth so heavy a denunciation against such as had suffered themselves in this point to be sedueed by the false Apostles whom Mr Br. followeth as his guides and gods. Christ is become of no effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law ye are fallen from Grace. What force had there been in this wrathful threat, if the question between him and them had been about the proper Righteousness by which we are justified? if they had held i● to be their own righteousness in opposition to Paul that held it to be the righteousness of Christ, they would have laughed at such a Commination as a merely frighting squibb or scarecrow answering, we grant all, that we are fallen from Grace, that Christ is become of no effect to us: But what damage can by all this befall us? we make not Christ our Justifier, but labour to Justify ourselves, we seek Salvation not from Grace, but as a debt in justice due to the Righteousness of our own works. The Apostle surely was not such an ignorant Antinomian, as to dispute so impotently that his Arguments might by subtle Baxterians be thus fling back as absurdities in his face: It is therefore evident that the Galathians when most sednced, ceased not to make Christ their Righteousness, but had yielded to this imposture (as the next V●rse declareth) that not Faith alone but their own works and righteousness with it, were pre-required to make them capable of the righteousness which is by Christ, and that upon this ground the Apostle denounceth them to be Apostates from Christ and Grace, because they sought by their own righteousness to entitle themselves to the righteousness which is by Christ, and sought it not by Faith alone. If any demand the reason of this Consequence, that whosoever seeketh right to the Justification of Christ by his own works, makes himself an alien from Christ, from Grace; the Apostle in part implieth it in that which he speaketh in these 4 and 5 verses of Chapter 5. But had more fully explained himself, Chap. 3. 9, 10, 11, 12. So that by comparing together what he hath said in both places, the reason of his Conclusion resulteth into all men's view: viz. that such a one seeketh the righteousness and salvation which are by Christ, in a legal not an evangelical way, by works and not by Faith, therefore is bound to bring the perfect righteousness and works which the Law requireth to make him capable of justificasion by Christ, or else falls from Christ, from Grace, to his everlasting ruin. I shall add no more upon this subject, not because the Scripture hath no more, but because I hold this sufficient, and know the morosity and humorousness of most readers in our times, preferring an erroneous conciseness, before a sound and full manifestation of the truth. But my endeavour is to please not men but Christ. I leave Mr. Br to trample his own rule, not to be bold with Scripture by being first bold with Conscience. I dare not usurp to myself his peremptory audaciousness with one breath of the mouth to destroy the whole Gospel, in saying only not showing and proving that it must be thus understood. He that can so do with holy things, bewrayeth much pride and profaneness in his heart, though he be never so much pharisaically enameled and philacterized in the outside. Let him see how he can answer God for his audacious curtness, I shall not fear the censures of men for my length in bringing to light what he hath stifled in darkness. Let my style please or displease fancies, it shall suffice me to have taken off his first Paradoxical imposture that he brings to prove his doctrine to be the same with Paul's. This is not all that he hath to say, his other Reasons or rather Sophisms follow in the next Chapter. CHAP. XXI. Mr. baxter's other Reasons to evince the same thing, Examined. Bax. 2 p. 308. PAul doth either in express words, or in the sense and scope of his speech, exclude only the works of the Law, that is the fulfilling of the conditions of the Law ourselves. But never the fulfilling of the Gospel conditions that we may have part in Christ. Indeed, if a man should obey the Commands of the Gospel with a legal intent, that it might be a righteousness conform to the Law of works; this obedience is not Evangelicall but legal obedience: for the Form giveth the Name. No less or-cu●a●ly than the Devil of old was wont to speak out of Delphos. For this also as the former is only said not showed and proved. What doth he mean by such imperious Conclusions, but out of the abounding of his humility and self-abasement to proclaim to the world that he is a God, and that the words of his lips must be made the judge of all Scriptures, and the Canon of all men's Faith? When he hath spoken we must subject both judgements and Conscience, without searching further. It is a truth, he that cannot err hath said it. Were it a Conclusion universally received in the Churches of Christ, which he here delivereth, it had been indeed superfluous to waste time and labour in proving what all grant. But when it it but a dream of his own brain sneezed thence through his Nostrils, or some spirit by his Chemistry extracted out of Bellarmine, Socinus, and Arminius their notional Fancy's; when all the pious and judicious of all the Protestant Churches have been unacquainted with it, & lay down Conclusions contradictory to it, what else but a most arrogant self Confidence, and contempt of his betters, could move him thus to spit Paradoxe●, without the least endeavours to give a demonstration of the least probability of them. Doth he th●nk his raptures so Divine, that the holiest and most judicious of all mortals must lick his spittle as Angel's food, without enquiring what substance and virtue there is in it? But this is the spirit and genius of the esuits, whom he followeth as his guides if not Gods, and against whom in this very case our Classical Divines have so much and justly complained in these latter years. S●tis est hodie Jesuit is nostris (saith Dr. Twisse) pro authoritate nescio qua, quidlibet affirmare, & dictata sua nulla probatione fulta, nobis obtrudere. i e. The Jesuits of Vind. lib. 1. par. 2. degr. 3. sect. 1. prope finem. our time think it sufficient by their own I know not what Authority, to affirm any thing, and obtrude upon us their own dictates without any proof to support them. And Chamier often, calling it their Tyranny, [Sic volo, sic jubeo, etc.] Qui cum alienam sententiam Panstr. tom. 1. lib. 1. c. 19 n. 11. adeo refellant frigide suam tamen obtrudant nulla confirmatam Argumento, i. e. which when they so coldly refel the opinion of others, yet obtrude their own without any Argument to confirm Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 6. n. 8. it. Again, Quis non miretur abijs viris null● 〈◊〉 indicatam vim consequentiae, sed relictam nobis divinandam? At haec non jam segnities est sed dolus malus. hoc eorum est ingenium, qui maxime sunt inter sophistas, nempe, ut eas occultent partes quas vident, infirmissimas. i e. Who would not marvel, that these men should conclude, without showing by any sign the force of the Consequence. But leaving us to Divine or conjecture it? This is not sloth but evil deceit. This indeed is the quality of these men that are greatest among the Sophisters, to hid those parts which they see most weak. As to Mr. Brs' distinction here (which is of the same kind with the most of those that he hath in this Tractate) between the works of the Law as they are they fulfilling of the Conditions of the Law ourselves, or as they are the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Gospel: enough were said, if I should only say what Chamier saith to the like wild distinctions of the Jesuits, Si e Scriptura, Id. To. 2. l. 8. cap. 6. n. 17. cedo locum, & cedimus: Sin e Scholasticorum somniis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. If these distinctions be taken out of the Scripture, name where and we submit; but if out of the dreams of the School men, we leave them to the Crows. But observable it is that when the most conspicuous men in Learning and all outward accomplishments, do once fall from the truth and simplicity of the Gospel, they forth with yield up themselves, not caring what stone they throw, if with it they may wound the Grace of God and face of the Lord Christ. Thus do we find Mr. Br. here contradicting himself, to choke the truth. In his former Sophistical eluding of the authority of Paul's testimony against him, we found him affirming, that where Paul and James treat of Justification, it was James his Question and not Paul's, what is the Condition of our Justification by the Righteousness of Christ? whether Faith only? or works also? But Paul's Question to be, what the Righteousness is which we must plead against the accusations of the Law? or by which we are justified as the proper righteousness of that Law? viz. whether our own or Christ's righteousness? Here now in the very nex● breath without any one word interserted, he affirms Paul's Question to be what he there denied, what the condition is of our Justification by Christ or having part in Christ? What he excludeth and what he includeth to this purpose. This is the integrity of the man, first wilfully to lay down his Conclusion, that he will pervert the Gospel of Christ, and then to say and gainsay any thing, all things, that Malice itself against the Gospel can prompt or dictate to him. And what is it that he produceth here in the second place to elude and lay prostrate Paul's authority? The notion and sound of his great God Condition, a god which neither Christ nor any of his Prophets or Apostles ever knew, much less ever named as operative in the business of Justification. Yet such a Dagon to Mr. Br. that if he fall shivered, all Mr. Brs. Divinity together with himself must fall after into the dirt. As to the matter itself, whether there be any Conditions of the Gospel? and what Condition? and how far it may be granted? all these have been so fully examined before, that unless I delighted to feed upon cram a hundred times more than bis cocta, I must here to prevent the inconvenience of nauseousness to myself and the Reader, in steed of Answer transmit the Reader to what hath been Answered oft before. As for that which he philosophizingly distinguisheth between the works and conditions of the Law, and the works and conditions of the Gospel: 1 He only saith all but proveth nothing; therefore deserves only the contempt of, not an Answer from his Reader. 2 He saith nothing but what he hath been taught by the Papists, that though we cannot be justified by the works of the Law, yet we are justified by Gospel works such as Faith is. And must the Conclusions of the holy Apostatical not Apostolical Church be Canonical to us, because he hath made them so to himself? 3 If he therefore forbears to prove what he saith because he holds it enough proved by the Papists already, and so transmits' his Reader to their Writings: We also refer the reader to the perusal of the works of our Protestant writers that have dashed into shivers all such seeming proofs of the papists, and brought to light the truth which they sought to imprison in darkness. 4 Whatsoever he fableth here of Gospel works, yet are they all legal or works of the Law which he obtrudeth upon men to Justification, or (as he here phraseth it) to acquire part in Christ, even to Faith itself he attributes not such property or power, but as it is a moral work which the Law commandeth, as we have found him speaking. 5 (to come to that in which the whole force of his reasoning here lieth) It is false what he affirmeth, either that Paul doth in express words, or in the sense and scope of his speech, exclude only the works of the Law, but never the fulfilling of the same works, as required by the Gospel (for unless he so meaneth he saith nothing) from their co-operation with Faith to Justification: or that this is the real difference between Legal and Gospel works, that whereas in matter and substance they are one, yet as they are done to justify us by their own righteousness, they are works of the Law, but as done to justify us by the righteousness of Christ, so they are works of the Gospel, or Gospel Conditions. This is nothing but the Sophistry of a brain sophisticated with strong delusions to falsify and nullify the pure word of God. For, 1 What doth he bring to prove ●●y least particle of what he saith? if he had the testimony of God and Christ on his side, would he leave their name and authority unmentioned. 2 The Apostle when he treats of Justification by Christ, doth not only exclude works of the Law, but works indefinitely and universally, any works, all works from having any power ordinate or not ordinate, to give us part in it or him, as hath been fully in its place before demonstrated. 3 His dispute every where is (as was declared and confirmed in the former Chapter) not so much what is the righteousness which by its own power and virtue justifieth, but what it is that instrumentally uniteth us to Christ for justification by him: This he denyeth to all to any works, and attributes to Faith alone, as hath been there evidenced. 4 In such places where he expressly speaketh of the works of the Law he means the Law written, as it was given and pertained to the Jews alone, as a signal evidence of God's love to them above all other Nations. This is clear from the Apostles own Testimony, Ro. 2. 12, 14. 17. & 5. 13. as also where he numbereth Circumcision, the observation of times and meats, and other ritual pieces of the Ceremonial Law, together with the moral works of the Decalogue. And will Mr. Br say that these ritual works are Conditions also of our part in Christ? 5 When he so giveth the Adject of the Law to works, calling them the works of the Law, he doth it to beat down the pride and boasting of the Jews that gloried in the Law, Rom. 2. 23. declaring to them that although the Law were one principal prerogative vouchsafed to them not to any other people, Rom. 9 4. yet the works of the Law so glorious and privilegious had nothing to do with Faith to further our Justification by Christ: but that the Gentiles without the Law had as free access to God by Faith in Christ, as they with all the furniture of the Law and its works. 6 Paul doth exclude all works under what name or notion soever, from justifying so as Faith justifieth, or to be instrumental and conditional to justification as Faith is. But Faith is instrumental or (as M. Br. terms it) conditional to receive Christ to Justification. Thereforr works are excludeded from being so conditional, or to be Conditions of the Gospel, as he phraseth it. This is apparent by those Scriptures where Paul saith, Not of works but of Faith, by Faith without works, to him that worketh not, but believeth, etc. as hath been 〈…〉 before alleged and amplified. And all this of works without the adjection of the Law, yea of works done hundreds of years before the Law (to which Paul had reference in such disputes) was given. 7 Paul denyeth to works any operation in the Justification of Abraham, or of us that obtain the same Justification with Abraham. But the works which are denied to justify Abraham, could not in Paul's sense be the works of the Law, being acted 430 years before the Law was given; and the Justification which is common to Abraham and his spiritual seed, was and is justification by Christ. So that works have nothing to do with Faith to condition us for justification by Christ. This hath been made out in the former Chapter, from Rom. 4. 1, etc. 8 And lastly, If such imperious, arbitrary, unreasonable, and unproved distinctions be hearkened to in Divinity, what one part either of Law or Gospel shall abide sacred? The whole word, as Mr. Br. the great Artificer in the Trade, somewhere complains, shall be made a waxed Nose. For with as much integrity as Mr. B. hath here used to put the greatest Article of the Gospel to a topsie turnie, may I mock at all the Commandments of the Decalogue, with a distinctionary vanity to nullify them. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. True, may I say, but God meaneth other Gods of the Pagans devising, not excluding the Gods of my own feigning. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image. That is right (said the Greeks once) but God here excludeth the graven Images which the Romans, not the painted Images which we adore. Thou shalt not steal, the thief may here distinguish, the lean Cattles are here excluded not the fat. Thou shalt not murder; the Pharisees gloss upon it was, to wit, my friends, but my enemies I may. The like might I say of the rest, yea of every Gospel truth also, and all with as good reason as Mr. Br. here deals with Paul. We are justified, or have part in Christ, not by works but by Faith, by Faith without works, saith Paul: Right saith Mr. Br. for he excludeth works only as they are works of the Law, not as they are works and Conditions of the Gospel. Yet, Vltra Sauromatus fugere hine libet, it makes me not only to wish but even to hold myself almost in a desert as impatient of the company of some of our distinctionary Rabbis, that admire and are ready to bless themselves at the wit and profoundness of such wild, barbarous, profane, & senseless distinctions of this incomparable man that hath not his Peer in England, when in this piece of his worth there is not a ploughboy so rustic but would easily whistle so profanely in this kind as he: And if the reason were given to Mr. Br. why he is in this artifice more full than others, it might be given in the Poet's words; Non tibi plùs cordis sed minùs oris in est. Bax. pa. 309. 3 Paul doth by the word [Faith] especially direct your thoughts to Christ believed in; For to be justified by Christ, and to be justified by receiving Christ, is with him all one. Though I might except in some sense against this assertion; yet because I cannot apprehend waking, what he dreams sleeping, how he will from this assertion prove that Paul either doth not exclude works from Justification, or doth not attribute it to Faith alone, I leave it unexamined: If by Receiving Christ, he means our taking him as our Lord to be obeyed in all his Commandments that we might thereby be justified, enough hath been said before in the examination of his 66, 72, & 73 Thes. in answer to the fourth Argument that he brings for justification by works: unto it I refer the reader. Bax: ibid. 4 And when he mentioneth Faith as the Condition, he always implieth Obedience to Christ. Therefore believing and obeying the Gospel, are put for the two summaries of the whole Conditions. The vanity and falsity of this assertion hath been discovered in the examination of his 62, & 70 Theses, in which is Comprehended his 2 Argument for Justification by works. What is there said being perused, will take off (I suppose) from the reader all expectation of any more to be here said to it. Only by the way all may note, 1 That what he saith here labours of the same disease with the former, it is only said not proved. We must all sit at the Feet of this Gamaleel and believe, because this great Doctor and Magister noster hath spoken it. 2 That although it be the Popish Cause which he here maintaineth, yet he with a holy Craft makes use rather of the Arminian than Popish Phrase, the more easily to beguile the simple, Calling works (not as the Papists do plainly Works, but) Obedience to Christ, and Obedience to the Gospel. How doth he fit his bait to be swallowed by gudgeons that cannot discern a line from a halter. He knows there is a generation of men that detest swine's flesh, yet feed every morning upon pistles of pork as the great ●●elicacie. Change the name, and they disaffect not the substance. 3 Yet what he here saith he hath received in matter though notion words from Stapleton the Priest and his fellows. We are just●●ed (saith the Apostle) by Faith, not by works, i. e. (saith Staplet●) not by works without faith, but by works and Faith: that is (saith Mr. Br.) [not by works or obedience out of Faith,] but by works employed in Faith. Let him that can decide which of these two is the finer Sophister and Papist. 4 And no less harmoniously do Paul's words and Mr. Brs' exposition and distinction upon them agree together, than a harp and a harrow. Paul affirms Justification or imputation of Righteousness to be without works, Rom 4. 6 Mr. Br expounds his meaning to be without works which are not, but by works that are employed in Faith. As good a distinction as if I should distinguish between the brains that a man hath out of his head, and the brain which he hath in his head▪ How great is his selfconfidence that he should think such absurd distinctions should take with any rational man, only upon this Authority, because such a Cathedral scholar hath said it? And when Paul saith so frequently, Not by works but by Faith, he should mean by Faith, works also employed in Faith? This were to affirm that Paul in the delivery of the sacred doctrine of the Gospel speaks by Contraries, and that what things he sets in opposition we must take to be in a Conjunction, so that if he had said a man seethe with his eyes not with his heels, we must understand him to mean that he seethe with his eyes and heels together, or with his heels employed in his eyes. What he addeth of believing and obeying the Gospel, that they are the two summaries of the Gospel, hath been before examined, and both found to be the same thing. Obedience to the Gospel being nothing else but the heart's submission to the voice of Christ and doctrine of the Gospel in stretching forth faith to apprehend Christ alone to Justification, illumination, sanctification, etc. resting upon him both for salvation, and for grace and power to walk worthy of it, as hath been more fully before expressed. Thus much in way of examination of the third part of his vindication, viz. that his doctrine in nothing dissents from Paul's. And in this point I doubt not but we have found Paul and him no less Cohering, than Christ and Antichrist. CHAP. XXII. Whether there be any validity in Mr. Brs Apologizing for his Doctrine, that it is not derogatory from the Righteousness of Christ. THe 4th part of his vindication is to free his doctrine [of Justification by works] from being derogatory to Christ and his righteousness. Here unto his endeavours bend in many parts of this his Tractate. In stead of all, I shall mention only two or three places which Comprehend the sum and whole of all the rest. Bax. pa. 307. The Righteousness which we must plead against the Law's accusations, is not one grain of it in our Faith or works: but all out of us in Christ's satisfaction. Again, Appendix pa. 78. Our doing [or works] are required, not to be any part of our Legal Righteousness, nor any part of satisfaction for our unrighteousness; but to be our Gospel Righteousness, or the Condition of our participation in Christ, who is our Legal Righteousness, and so of all the benefits that come with him. What his meaning is he expresseth Aphor. Thes. 79. pa. 313. in a Syllogism, thus: This Doctrine is no whit derogatory to Christ and his Righteousness: For He that ascribeth to Faith or obedience, no part of that work which belongeth to Christ's satisfactory righteousness, doth not derogate in that from that Righteousness. But he that maketh Faith and Obedience to Christ, to be only the fullfilling of the Conditions of the New Covenant, and so to be only Conditions of Justification by him, doth give them no part of the work of his Righteousness: Seeing he came not to fulfil the Gospel, but the Law. Ergo— etc. I shall speak only to the Syllogism, because in it is fully Comprehended all that Mr. Br. hath to say for the vindication of his doctrine from so fowl a scandal and blemish. And here I shall in the first place only mind the reader of what hath been before Copiously (in its place) manifested, that Mr. Br. takes up this Feat of arguing from the Papists, who to Clear their doctrine of Merit and Justification by works, from being derogatory to Christ and his Merits, do plead against us, That they in no wise lessen the Merits of Christ, by teaching that good works do Merit and Justify: But that herein they advance the Merits of Christ in ascribing to them this sovereign virtue and power, to give validity and worth to man's good works to Merit and Justify. Nay the Heretics (say they) degrade the Merits of Christ, in teaching that man's works cannot Justify or Merit, as if there were not force enough in Christ's Merits to enable them to it. Whether theirs or Mr. Brs' Argumentation have more show of reason to support it, I leave to the intelligent reader to judge. 2 The whole Argument is Sophistical and fallacious: 1 In that his Argument is not full and wide to the proving of his position. The position which by this Argument he pretends to Confirm, is in his own words, that This doctrine [of his] is no whit derogatory to Christ and his Righteousness. But his Argument is shapen only to prove, that his doctrine doth not derogate from Christ's righteousness, not that it doth not derogate from Christ himself. Were it granted that it doth not derogate from Christ's righteousness, yet it follows not that it doth not derogate from Christ, any more than if a man should ascribe all due praises to Mr. Brs' learning, but should deny his honesty, Charity, Chastity, verity, or other like virtue in him; yet because he doth not derogate from the learning of the man, he doth not derogate from the man himself in any of his accomplishments. Mr. Brs' doctrine may derogate from Christ in veiling his grace, mercy, and fullness in other Conditions required to the Completing of his Mediatorship, though it did (where it doth not) ascribe to his Righteousness its due praise and fullness. 2 In that he plays with equivocation of words: For to shun the deserved hatred which the Papists doctrine incurreth from the Saints of Christ, he delivers their doctrine not in theirs but in the Arminian phrase, putting under the name and in stead of [good works] Obedience to Christ: For this is an equivocal phrase, and as oft as it is used in the New Testament in order to Justification, it is the same thing with Faith, and differs not a whit from it. The obedience of Faith, obeying of the Gospel, and obedience to Christ, signifying nothing else but the denial of ourselves and our own righteousness, and our trusting in Christ alone for Justification and salvation, as Christ and his Gospel Command; in opposition to the voice of the Law that [knowing nothing of Christ, speaking nothing of faith] saith, Do and work that thou mayest be saved, Gal. 3. 12. But Mr. Br. takes this obedience to Christ not in that Gospel but in this legal sense, for the fulfilling of the Moral works which the Law requireth, to interest us in the justification which is by Christ, and so deceives his reader with the homonymy of the phrase. 3 In putting a restricting in his Argument, upon the Righteousness of Christ, which in his position that he was to prove was left at large and in general, Christ and HIS Righteousness: but in the Argument he puts a limitation upon it in the Major, That Righteousness, which also he explaineth to be only the Satisfactory Righteousness, of Christ: as if there were no other but that righteousness in Christ, & whosoever derogates not from it could not derogate at all from Christ's righteousness. I may subscribe to the righteousness of Mr. Br. in some Acts of his, though I only desire but find it not in other. Many other Acts of righteousness were required in Christ (even as he is our Mediator) besides that by which he gave satisfaction to Justice for our Sins, without which his satisfactory righteousness becomes unavaileable to us. And he that derogates not from the one, may derogate from the other. Yet see we the boldness of our Sophister, what he restreigneth in the proposition about Christ's righteousness, in the Assumpeion he leaves indefinite, lose, general, and without restriction again, not [that] righteousness, but [HIS] Righteousness: so making his Argument, by his fallacy of four terms, to run fourfooted. 4 By begging the question in Calling good works (which with him is the same with Obedience to Christ) the Condition of the New Covenant and Justification by Christ. Well doth he put it upon himself, saying, He that maketh them such, for neither God nor Chtist ever made them such. 5 His Activity and Liegerdemain, which he useth to draw off his reader from Considering the palpable sophistry used in this Argument. This he seeks to do by giving and prosecuting in the explication of this Thesis, a seeming reason that he bringeth to prove his assumption; viz. that Christ came not to fulfil the Gospel but the Law, and then spending his whole explication about it. When (not to speak how equivocal and ambiguous the phrase is, and in its most literal and grammatical sense the assertion altogether false) we utterly deny, either that Christ hath fulfilled the works of the Law or the Gospel in our stead, otherwise than by giving satisfaction by his death for our infirm and maimed fulfilling of them; or that works done to justify us are as all works of the Gospel, but are contrariwise wise wholly works of the Law; or that Christ hath any more satisfied for our infirmities in fullfilling the works of the Law than of the Gospel, in that sense in which Mr. Br. distinguisheth them. It was his part not to say but to prove sound his assertion, if he would not have it exploded for a new and vain fancy, rather than to have answered in his explication, objections of his own making that scarce touch upon the matter in question. This might suffice as a full answer to his Argument, to have proved it in so many particulars to be unargumentall, no argument, or a faulty argument, not a Syllogism but a Para-logism. Yea not to leave an occasion to any of excepting that the propositions of the syllogism may have some force in them or either of them apart from other, to his purpose; I shall afford the labour to examine them also. To the Consequent of the Major I have many things to say. 1 That it is (as the whole Argument) sophistical, a mere declining of not a speaking to the question; The word [in that] is foisted in besides the question, and makes that which is said unsaid, as altogether besides the question. That which he undertakes to prove, is (in his own words) that His doctrine is no whit derogatory from Christ and his Righteousness. To prove this see how grossly he acts the Sophister to be gu●le fools, in stead of a Logician to satisfy the intelligent. He that ascribeth (saith he) [too works or] obedience, no part of that work which belongeth to Christ's satisfactory Righteousness, doth not derogate [in that] from that Righteousness. No less true than the Gospel, but so far from the question as the earth is from heaven. For who ever questioned whether the not ascribing to works that which belongeth to Christ's satisfactory righteousness, be a derogating feom that righteousness? Yea it were madness in any to question it. For if the not ascribing should so derogate, than God, Christ, Spirit, Word, Apostles, Prophets, all Protestants, yea all animate and inanimate Creatures without understanding, should be guilty of derogating from Christ's satisfactory righteousness. For none of these ascribe to works any part of that work which belongeth to that righteousness of Christ. How palpable is this cheat which Mr. Br. would put upon us? He that doth not ascribe etc. doth not derogate in that, i. e. in his not ascribing to man's works what belongs to Christ, from Christ. By the like Argumentation might Joah clear himself from the guilt of murder Committed upon two better men than himself; and Christ's Tormentors themselves from having any hand in his death: Thus might they learn of Mr. Br. to plead; They that wound not, that keep a man's head from wounding, do not in that take away his life. True, the not wounding of the head was not prejudicial to the life of them whom they slew. But the wounding and piercing of their bodies and shedding out their bowels, made them as actually murderers, as if they had also dashed out the brains of them whom they slew. It was not what they did not, but what they did that Constituted them guilty of murder. So it is not Mr. Brs not ascribing but his ascribing to works that derogates from Christ. Shall we think that Mr. Br. slumbered and doted into this fallacy? Is he a puny that he should need to be taught how to express himself in an argument? Nay all must see that he knows it to be a heterodox and desperate Conclusion which he maintaineth, that no honest and holy means can pillar up; therefore tramples all ingenuity underfoot, running over it to fetch patronage from his Sophistry. And even herein bewrays the high thoughts that he hath of himself, that all his flies are Eagles, and his grossest Conceptions oracles; and his abasing of all others, that they are so blind as not to see, and so blunt as to be all taken in his rook nets. Or if we take his meaning thus, That his doctrine in making Works a Collateral with Faith to Justification, (which he would say plainly if he meant not fraudulently, and had not his own judgement and Conscience suggesting to him the weakness & falsehood of such an assertion) because it ascribeth no part of the work of Christ's satisfactory righteousness to works, doth not derogate from Christ and his righteousness: Then I deny both the Consequent and Consequence of the Proposition. For 1 It derogates from him and it a full potency and efficacy to justify any one, until it be animated and enlivened by our own works to do it, leaving it all feeble & dead to produce its effect until our obedience as its Concause gives life to it. And this is Contradictive to the doctrine of the Apostle, who asserteth the efficacy and actual efficiency of Christ and his righteousness to justify us yet ungodly, Rom. 4. 5. yet without strength [to work] yet sinners, yet enemies, and so workers against him, Rom. 5. 6, 8, 9, 10. 2 It derogates from it its glory, in parting and dividing our Justification between his righteousness & our righteousness; so ascribing part of the praise to man which ought to be attributed full and entire to Christ. This also is contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle, that excludes works under every notion from having to do in the business of Justification, to exclude Boasting, lest any man should boast, or glory in himself, Rom. 3. 27. & 4. 2. Eph. 2. 9 But that He that glorieth may glory in the Lord, 1 Cor. 1. 29, 30, 31. Nay it doth not only derogate from, but totally destroy and nullify the righteousness of Christ, as to us and our justification. For so first the Apostle testifieth, Christ is become of no effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law, Gal. 5. 4. And to be justified by the Law, or by the works of the Law, are with the Apostle the same thing, as hath been oft showed before. Yea to seek justification in any part or degree by the works or obedience which the Law requireth as a Condition of Justification, is to seek to be Justified by the Law. Works being the Condition of Justification by the Law and not by Grace. 2 Because it obstructeth the way of Justification which Christ hath made and sends poor souls to seek it in a way that is impervious, by which there can be no access to Christ his righteousness. For the righteousness of Christ is given of free Love, pure grace, mere mercy; as a free Gift, Rom. 5. 15. Freely offered and received, Rev. 22. 17. Without money and without price, Isa. 55. 1. He is the worst Simoniak that seeks to buy this gift of the Holy Ghost for money, to make it his by his own Merit and obedience. Whosoever is admitted to it, such a one is rejected from it: For Christ came to call not the Righteous but sinners to repentance. The Publicans and Harlots enter when these are excluded. They shall come from the East and from the West etc. From all parts of Paganism and Barbarism, that shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jaakok, in the kingdom of God, in the possession of gra●e and righteousness by Christ: but these that think themselves in their own righteousness to be the children of the kingdom shall be cast out with the Jews, into whose doctrine & manners they are naturallized. And justly, For he that worketh, i. e. brings works to inright him to Justification, Challengeth it as Debt from God's Justice, as the fruit of his own work & Merit that God oweth to him, not as a free gift from his grace, Rom. 4. 4. Who will envy to him the fruit of his deservings? This is Condemnation from the Tribunal of Justice where no flesh can be justified; when they which [work not] but believe on him which Justifieth the ungodly, i. e. which bring Faith alone without works as Coadjutors to put them into the actual and sensible possession of the righteousness which is by Christ; these even these alone shall be justified at the throne of grace, Rom. 4. 5. Why? these seek it in the way where God is present to give it: The other in a way wherein God never was, never will be present to bestow it. Lastly I deny the Assumption also. It is false that Mr. Br. making (so as he doth it) Obedience or Works the condition of Justification by Christ, doth not give them any part of the work of Christ's righteousness. For it belongeth to Christ's righteousness by itself alone, and to Christ by his Mediatory righteousness alone to perfect for ever the Justification and salvation of his redeemed ones, Heb. 10. 14. And that without any accessary help of their own righteousness, John 13. 10. But Mr. Br. so parteth justification between Christ's righteousness and our righteousness, as that he makes them equally concurrent to our salvation and justifying: That Christ's Righteousness without ours can no more profit us, than ours without Christ's: yea makes Christ's righteousness wholly unprofitable to every man, till by the serving and deserving of each man it be purchased and made useful to benefit him. And so by making the efficacy of it the fruit of our Merit, he disrobes it of its honour and ornament, derogating from it its all-sufficiency by itself to perfect us, that he may arrogate to our righteousness what is stolen from his. But how far this doctrine of his derogates both from the grace of God, and merits of Christ hath been oft discussed. After all that he hath said to the defacing of both, here he wipes his mouth, and saith it was never foul: and will have his Reader conclude, that when his face of Christ is spittled, yet if it be from Mr. Brs. lips touched with a Coal from Bellarmine and Arminius, it is a blessing of him. This one truth I acknowledge, employed, though not expressed in this Argument of Mr. Br. that he acknowledgeth himself to be the man that hath made obedience or works condition of the New Covenant, or of justification by Christ. In this I contradict him not. It is of man's, not of Gods making, it's a creature of his own, not created by God, at least not by God assigned to this use and end. It being therefore not form to his hand, but a graven image, the work of his own hand, we leave him (sigh he will do it) alone without us to persist in worshipping it. CHAP. XXIII. Whether the Reasons which he bringeth prove him not to be a legalist and Anti-gospeller. HIS fifth endeavour is to vindicate his doctrine from being legal and anti-evangelical: That although it hold Believers not only under the bondage, but also under the Curse of the Law, in life and death till the day of Judgement, Thes. 9 pa. 65. & p. 73. and elsewhere oft: Though it makes works the condition of the New, as well as of the Old Covenant; though he maintains that do and Live, is the voice of the Gospel as well as of the Law, Append. p. 81. Yet is he not a Pharisee or legalist, nor his doctrine ungospellike; It is purely Christian, and full of sweet and ravishing Consolation to a Believer, not the least tangue of the Covenant of works, but the odour and very marrow of the Covenant of grace in it. It would be too long to set forth in his own words all the reasons that scatteringly throughout this Book of his he bringeth to prove a probability and likelihood of truth in this his Paradox. The sum of it is this. B. 1. As to the bondage and Curse of the Law, though they that are in Christ are under it in part, yet they are not under it in the whole, as all sinners under the Law, wholly out of Christ. For they are conditionally pardoned and justified [as he frequently expresseth himself] and so there is some ground of hope, to take off the extremity of despair. And it is not the whole, but some part of the Curse of the Law that lieth upon them, p. 65. Thes. 9 Christ's death hath suspended the RIGOROUS execution of the sentence of the Law, that it doth not immediately fall upon his Redeemed ones, p. 67. though they suffer, after they are in Christ, much of the Curse in execution of the threatening of the Law, [and that not without rigour] yet is it not in its full rigour, p. 69. And Christ which hath suspended the rigour of the Curse, manageth that which lieth on them to their good and advantage, pag. 72. And is not this cordial Gospel? the balm of Gilead? and the healing of Christ's wings to a wounded soul? The force of all this hath been examined already, as elsewhere, so most copiously in the Examination of his ninth Thesis, and the explication thereof, to which for the prevention of Tautologizing here, I refer the Reader. Only let him by the way consider with me how fitly these glosses of Mr. Br. do agree with many plain and evident Sriptures. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. i e. saith M. Br. from the rigour of the Curse, not from the Curse itself, for it lieth upon us still: or from the Curse, that it shall not follow us to heaven after the world is ended; not but that until the world's end it shall torment us both dead and living. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit, Rom. 8. 1. i e. No condemnation in its full rigour, but condemnation unto, and the execution of the Curse they must bear until the day of judgement, and after that he knoweth not what will become of them. Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered, Rom. 4. 7. i e. in part blessed, and in part cursed. The blood of Christ purgeth from all sin, 1 Joh. 1. 7. i e. from all sin, not from all the curse and vengeance due to any one of our sins are we delivered. God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you all your sins and trespasses, Eph. 4. 32. Col. 2. 13. i e. hath forgiven you the fault, but not the curse and punishment. By one offering, Christ hath perfected for ever them that are sanctifird, i. e. hath laid a ground to perfect them if he will in the next world, not that he hath perfected them in point of Justification here. The time past is put for a time to come, and a certain for an uncertain time. Heb. 10. 14. They that are once purged by sacrifice, have no more conscience of sin, i. e. when they are wholly purged in heaven, not while they are but in part purged upon earth. Heb. 10. 2. Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more, Heb. 10. 17. i e. no more as forgiven to spare them: But as long as the Sun and Moon endure, I will remember to pour out the Curse and vengeance for them. We are justified by the blood, and reconciled to the Father by the death of the Son, Rom. 5. 9, 10. That is, we have right and title so to be reconciled and justified in another world, if we lose it not by the way. He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, and with his stripes we are healed, Isa. 53. 5. i e. So healed with his stripes that he shall wound us again with the strokes of his Curse so sorely, that we shall be healed no more while the world lasteth. I have sworn that I would no more be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee, Isa. 54 9 i e. I have sworn, but never meant to stand to it. I might instance hundreds more of such Scriptures, wherewith Mr. Brs. glosses and distinctions do as well agree as fire & tow together. If Mr. Br. did so much honour the very entrails of God's word, as he doth the backside of Aristotle's Topics, he would not dare so to elude and elide them. But God's authority with him must (it seems) stand or fall, as it hath or hath not approbation from Aristotle's or Socinus his Reason, being submitted to the censure thereof. And than what living plant of God can stand, where this man brings the Axe of his distinctions to fell and prepare billets in heaps for his Cole-fires? B. 2. As to the Covenant of works, though he make them Concomitants with Faith in justifying, and that the voice of the New C: is (after his Assertion) the same with the voice of the Old, Do, and Live, yet he denies his doctrine to be herein Legal: Because there is a manifold difference employed, though not expressed between the Laws and the Gospel's justifying by works. 1 The Law requireth an obedience or righteousness of works in every number and degree perfect, to justification: But he makes the New Covenant or Gospel to require only sincere obedience, or obedience perfect in sincerity for the attainment of this end, Aph. pa. 133. & 316. and Thes. 77. pa. 310. and App. pa. 76, 77. And the sincere covenanting of this obedience, or this sincere obedience covenanted, must be thus conditioned, else it is not sincere. 1 It must follow upon the knowledge of the Nature, ends, & conditions of the Covenant. 2 It must be done deliberately, and not in a fit of passion, or rashly. 3 It must be done seriously, and not dissemblingly, or slightly. 4 Freely and hearty, and not through mere constraint and fear. 5 Entirely, and with a resolution to perform the [whole] Covenant, and not with reservations, giving themselves to Christ by the halves, or reserving a purpose to maintain their fleshly interests. 6 It must be the taking and obeying of Christ alone, not joining others in office with him, but renouncing all other happiness, save what is by him, and all government and salvation from any, which is not in direct subordination to him, Append. pa. 33. These make up a sincere and perfect obedience, a sincere and perfect Gospel-righteousness, perfect in respect of Evangelicall, though not of legal perfection. For sincerity is our Gospel perfection, being a conformity to the rule of perfection, viz. the New Covenant as it is a Covenant, a perfection of sufficiency in order to its end, which is to be the condition of Justification, Aph. p. 132, 133. [Who now is there of all men that hath eyes in his elbows, but seethe distinctly a vast difference between the Laws and the Gospel's justifying by works. For it is justice which requires perfect, but Grace that requireth but sincere obedience to justification. All this is without book, the dictates not of the Holy Ghost, but of Mr. Br. and that spirit which wrought in his Masters from whom he learned it. For 1. The Scriptures which he allegeth in any part of this Treatise to make any part thereof probable, have been examined, and none of them found to speak for him, most against him. Neither do these assertions of Scripture that affirm Christ to give, or promise that he will give life, salvation, etc. to such or such qualified or working persons, [as to them that love him, or fear him, or obey him, or to the meek, the righteous, etc.] any more infer that these qualifications or works have any proper or improper causality to produce their justification; than when the Scriptures affirm him to give grace and life to Centurions, Publicans, Harlots, Sinners, Enemies, Ungodly, Chief sinners, Samaritans, Heathen, do infer, that their being such had any causality unto their justification. 2. Nay the Scriptures utterly deny the Gospel to have to do with the Law in this voice, Do, and Live, as I have before oft alleged them. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but of his Mercy he hath saved us, by Faith not of works. Not of works, but of Grace. And how poor a shift Mr. Br. useth to elude the force of these and the like Scriptures, hath been showed in the examination of his vindicating himself from being contradictive to St. Paul. 3. Yea if works in any notion or consideration be brought as coupled with Faith to promote Justification, the Scriptures affirm them to destroy the hope of Justification, and to repel the grace of Christ, by which the Believers are justified. If ye be circumcised (which in Paul's sense there is, if ye bring but this one work to forward your Justification by Christ) ye are bound to keep the whole law; Christ is become of no effect, ye are fallen from grace, and fallen under the Curse, Gal. 5. 3, 4. & 3. 10. 4. And if works or obedience in Mr. Brs. sense (which is the doing of the moral Righteousness that the Law commandeth) be not as much as adjuvant to Justification, then surely sincere obedience cannot be helpful, where obedience, yea perfect obedience is excluded. This is, and appears to be either an instinct, or a distinction of Mr. Brs. own brain, not a doctrine of the Scripture, for which way shall we turn the leaves thereof to find it? 5. Yea, how rational, or how ridiculous this distinction or gloss of Mr. Br. applied to those Scriptures which deny justification by the obedience of works, I leave both to the seeing and the blind to judge. By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, saith the Apostle, i. e. saith Mr. Br. by the perfect obedience of works, but by unperfect obedience, if sincere, we may be justified. Not of works but of grace, i. e. not of works perfectly done, but of works unperfectly, yet sincerely done: so grace and works may be made friends, that is, God's grace and man's vain glory may kiss each other as coequal workers of man's justification. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done, but of his mercy, etc. i. e. which we have done perfectly, but which we have done maimedly, yet sincerely. If some Festus should hear such a Commentary of Mr. Br. upon Paul, he would conclude sure, that one of them is beside himself, much learning hath made him mad. Either Paul, that he had not wit or words to express his own meaning, that in the whole bulk of his disputes, denying unto our works and righteousness indefinitely, all operation to Justification, & doth not as much as with a Parenthesis, in any place inform his Reader that he speaks not of Gospel, but of legal works, not of sincere, but of perfect obedience; that these are rejected from, those necessarily required to justification: Or Mr. Br. that without craving leave of Paul, by such gross distinetions goes about to make him unsay what he hath said, and the world to believe, that in all what he wrote of Justification, he meant to be understood on the contrary to what he speaketh. 6. If we bring works at all to procure justification by Christ, we do by evacuating the grace of God and merits of Christ to ourselves, oblige & put a bondage upon our selvet to fulfil the whole Law legally in its perfection, else can we never be justified, but abide under the Curse for ever. For he that worketh, requireth the reward as a debt in law, and not as a gift of grace; therefore, except his work be so perfect, as that it can in strict justice save him, he can never attain salvation, as by comparing together these Scriptures will be evident, viz. Gal. 5. 3, 4. & 3. 10. Rom. 4. 4, 5. & 9 30, 31, 32. 7. As to the rules or qualifications which he gives to covenanting and obedience that it may be sincere, they are in substance merely legal, the Name of Christ being only put in stead of the Name of God. And who is there not only of the Jesuits & Socinians, with the Arminians, from whom he borroweth most of his principles, but even of the real Antinomians, whom he pretends to oppose, who in all those particulars thinks not himself or gives not cause to all to think them as sincere as Mr. Br? what ground have we to conclude but that they know the ends, nature and conditions of the Covenant so truly, and obey with so much deliberation and as little fittishness and rashness; so seriously, without dissimulation and slightness; so freely, entirely, and singly, a● Mr. Br. doth? Thus every stigmatised Heretic in his own way, bringing with him such a sincerity of obedience, shall thereby be possessed of the investiture of Christ's righteousness, though he seek it in his own, not in God's way, by his own righteousness, and not by Faith alone, which alone God hath stamped with an aptitude and efficacy to this work. B. 2. The Law (saith he) requireth obedience and doing, by its own righteousness to justify us: but the Gospel requireth it as a Medium to acquire to us Christ's Righteousness by which we may be justified. So that the one requires works to justify us withoutt, the other the same works to justify us by a Mediator. This he saith so frequently in substance, that it were lost labour to quote the places. And it hath been almost so oft answered as said. Therefore I shall refer the Reader to the places where it hath been answered, and specially to the examination of those his disputes in which he labours to clear his doctrine from all tincture of Popery, from all contradiction to Paul, and from being derogatory to Christ, & his righteousness. Here only I add, that this doctrine is the same with that of the most legal Pharisees, against whom the Apostle so much inveigheth, wishing them accursed & cut off, for troubling the Churches therewith, Gal. 1 9 & 5. 12. For they arrogated to themselves alone part in Christ & his Righteousness, because of their own personal righteousness in the works and obedience which the Law requireth; resisting the Gentiles, & denying to them all possibility to partake in the Justification which is by Christ by means of Faith alone, except they also fulfilled the righteousness which the Law required to give them right to him and it. Yea Mr. Br. [with these] ascribes more to works than the very unbelieving Pharisees. For these claimed Justification only by their works; but he and the believing Pharisees challenged for their works, right both in the Justifier and in his justification also: For Causa causae est etiam causa causati. As far as they ascribe to their works a Causality to make Christ theirs, they make them causal to render the Justification which is by Christ theirs also. B. 3. That neither is his Doctrine legal, nor doth he ascribe too much to works, because he maketh Faith and obedience to be but a Condition, or a M●dium, or a poor improper Causa sine qua non, of our Justification, Aph. pa. 223, 224. and our doing no part of satisfaction for our unrighteousness (for this he seems to have ascribed before to our sufferings in bearing the Curse) but to be our Gospel-Righteousness, or the Condition of our participation in Christ who is our legal Righteousness, & so of all the benefits that come by him, App. p. 78. I say, that subjection and obedience justify. 1 Not as works simply considered: 2 Nor as legal works: 3 Nor as meritorious works: 4 Nor as good works which God is pleased with: 5 But as Conditions to which the free Law giver hath promised Justification and life Nay your (i. e. the Protestants) doctrine ascribeth far more of the work to man than mine; For you make Justification an effect of your own Faith, and your faith an instrumental cause of it, and so make yourself your own Justifier. And you say your faith justifieth as it apprehendeth Christ, which is the most intrinsical, essential consideration of Faith; & so faith hath much of the Honour. But while I affirm that it justifieth only as a condition, which is an extrinsical consideration, and alien from its essence and Nature, I give the glory to him that freely giveth me life, and that made so sweet a condition to his Covenant, and that enableth me to perform the said Condition, App. pag. 120, 121. All this hath been oft and fully examined before in its place also, and how little truth there is in any part or parcel thereof discovered. It would be weariness to the flesh, and vexation to the Spirit, but to look so often upon his great Goddess, his Queen of Heaven [CONDITION] as he blesseth her. O that his conscience had been so well acquainted with Christ, as his fancy is with this Idol; he would not then have pestered the Church with such an imaginary Deity, nor prostituted all that is called God at the feet of such a Proserpina. I am weary any more to attend to him, making the will of God, i. e. God willing conditional, and so the immutable God a conditional God, the salvation of Christ conditional, & so Christ a conditional Saviour; or the witness & seal of Christ a conditional seal and witness, and so the Holy Ghost a conditional Spirit of Adoption; or the gospel of righteousness, forgiveness, and life, a conditional Gospel, and consequently nulling all th●se, and pronouncing them no God, no Christ, no Holy Ghost, no Gospel. For a conditional proposition doth Nihil ponere, and after Mr Brs. principles, it is in man's righteosness to give or destroy the actual existence of every of these. But I leave to him that delights therein to bury himself in this gulf. I conceive myself obnoxious to censure for spending and spilling so many words already, to show the deformity and ugliness of this imaginary Chimaera. Here therefore it shall suffice (leaving the Reader to the perusal of what hath been said already upon this subject) to mind him of these two things. 1. That both the whole and every least fragment of all that is here collected, whether we look to the substance or Artifice used about it, is not his, but borrowed partly from the Papists, partly from the Socinians, and their Apes the Arminians, as hath been before showed: and if I shall be called thereto, I am ready more fully to show, by quoting the Authors, out of whom he hath transcribed all almost word for word, to his use: So that the Reader may consult with such of our Writers, that have answered their sophistry, if he desire to read more fully and largely upon this subject, and not expect it from me who have already transgressed (as some will judge) by my too much largeness thereon, as to Mr. Baxter. 2 That although the voice here be the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau. Sweet words, but subverting doctrine in matter and substance. Pills of poison wrapped up in gold, we except not against the gold, but the poison therein enclosed, not against the Terms of words considered by themselves, but against the pernicious doctrine which they palliate. Whether we ascribe too much to Faith by making it an instrument, see the examination of his answer to the last question which he propoundeth in the explication of Thes. 56. But how false and fallacious his flaattering words which he useth here to make tolerable, yea sweet his arrogant doctrine of Justification by works (viz. that We, that is, I and the Papists, with Socinus and Arminius, make our righteousness but a Condition, or Medium, or a poor improper Causa sine qua non, no part of satisfaction for our unrighteousness, Not as works simply considered, nor as Legal works, nor as Meritorious works, Nor as good works with which God is pleased, but as our Gospel-righteousness, and conditions to which the free Lawgiver hath promised justification and life) will easily appear to him that considereth what & how much he ascribeth to works. Though he calls works a poor Causa sine qua non, yet himself affirmeth that some Causes sine qua non, deserve far greater praise in moral respect, than some that have a proper Causality, do, Aph. pa. 216. which though in words he deny of Faith (meaning by faith all obedience and good works which he calls the several Acts of Faith, Aph. p. 126.) that it doth so deserve, Aphor. p. 224. yet in matter and substance he affirms it. And Nulla fides verbis cum res adversa loquatur. For as I have more than hinted before, 1 He maketh our righteousness of works and Christ's satisfactory righteousness, and collateral in the procurement of our Justification, the one as absolutely necessary as the other to the attainment of this end; the one to purchase a possibility of Justification, the other to render that which was but in possibility, actual and effectual to us: Both satisfactory, the one as a sufficient Fine and payment, the other as satisfactory Rent and homage, Aph. Thes. 17, 18, 19 pa. 129. 2 He puts both in the same order and kind of Causes, making our righteousness and Christ's satisfaction to be both the Causa sine qua non, Thes. 56. For although he names Faith there, yet himself declares himself under Faith to mean and comprehend obedience also. This Civility alone he vouchsafeth to Christ, that he names Christ's satisfaction before our faith or obedience, because it seems that is the elder. But in order, power and authority, to the producing of this effect, Christ hath no pre-eminence given him above man. 3 He affirms man's righteousness to be as perfect as Christ's righteousness in order to Justification, viz. both perfect [in suo genere] Christ's righteousness perfect to do its work, & man's to its work; or (as he explains himself) both perfect in the perfection of sufficiency in order to its end. So that here also is a parity, no efficiency in Christ's righteousness without man's, nor in man's without Christ's to justify. But when the two perfections meet, if neither lose its perfection, they may after the world is ended, perfect our justification, Thes. 24. p. 132. In the mean while, till our works be added to Christ's satisfaction, what he saith of faith, that he every where implieth of the satisfaction of Christ, that it is dead being alone, as to the use and purpose of justifying. And so as works make faith alive, so they make Christ's satisfaction alive, as to the attainment of its end, justification. 4 That works justify in the same kind of Causality and procurement with faith, not only proving Faith to be sound; but themselves being in the same obligation with Faith, not idle Concomitants, only standing by while Faith doth all (which some fools might imagine he meaneth, when he calls them only necessary Antecedents of Justification, pa. 223.) Nay they are Concomitants with Faith in the [very Act of] procuring it, and in that kind of Causality which they have, p. 299, 300. 5 They do all this as they are works. Even Faith itself justifieth, as it is an Act of ours, Append. p. 80. and as a moral duty, Append. p. 102. So do all other Moral duties as they are part of our sincere obedience to Christ, ibid. 6 That we are justified not only by works, Aph. p. 300. and according to our works, but also for our works, pa. 320. that good works are a ground and Reason of it, p. 221. 7 That we are justified for our works, that is, for the Merit of them. Not Merit in the most proper and strict sense, which is the performance of somewhat not due (by one that is not under the Sovereignty of him to whom it is performed) of that worth in itself, which bindeth him to whom it is done, in strict and natural justice to requite him. Such an obligation can no creature lay upon God; Neither could perfect obedience, in respect of the Law of Works (if man had continued still upright) have so merited. [But so far as it was possible for a perfect man to have merited under the Covenant of works] he may now merit also under the Covenant of Grace by his works, viz. in an improper way of Meriting: where the obligation to reward is God's Ordinate Justice, and the truth of his promise, and the worthiness lieth in our performance of the Condition on our part. [Thus far might Adam in his perfection have merited according to the Law of works, and so far may we merit according to the Covenant of Grace.] Aphorism, Thesis, 26. & pa. 138. 140, 141. Let all this be laid together, and who can but perforce acknowledge together with the horns of the Lamb, the voice of the Dragon also? and all that he hath spoken pretendedly to the diminution of works, under the fine terms of his [causa sine qua non, his Gospel Condition, and necessary Antecedents] to be really but a Cloak to hid his diminution of Christ and exaltation of sinful man? A Siren's song to draw poor souls to dash against the Rocks and be drowned in the gulf? Why had he not made our works conjunctly with Christ's satisfaction, in his Thes. 56. the procatarctick and meritorious cause of our Justification, as well as he doth the satisfaction of Christ conjunctly with our Faith [or obedience] in the same Thesis the Causa ssne qua non, thereof? Had he so done, could he have ascribed more to works under the name of a Meritorious cause, than he doth under the title of a poor improper Causa sine qua non? But by so doing he should have showed himself in the light, when contrariwise he that doth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light lest his deeds should be reproved. Let now any of his Disciples produce (I will not say one Arminian, but) one Socinian, Papist, yea or Jew, that ascribes more to works, than this man, in derogation from Christ and Grace, else let him cease to be a follower of him, or openly and ingenuously profess that he followeth him as a Jew, Papist, or Socinian, and consequently that he hath made not Mr. Br. but Mr Brs Masters his Master also in the doctrine of Justification: And that in advancing self so high, as to affirm he meriteth no less fully and properly then Christ himself hath or could have done: For, his merits are in order to God's ordinate not natural justice. But to show the vanity of his distinction here, how carelessly he eludeth the holy Scriptures as mere shadows and play-games, the Apostle denyeth man in this or that or in any sense to be justified by works. He saith not, Not by works, [as the efficient or meritorious cause, or as the Medium or Antecedent, or Condition, or Causa sine qu● non] lest any man should boast: but positively and peremptorily, not by Works as by Faith, yea not by works in any acceptation, upon any score and account. Mr. Brs chippings therefore have no more force than a chip to make the Holy Ghost to unsay what he hath said. And it is as good sense as if I should say, Man's bread doth not apparel him, as it is the maker, or matter, or instrument, or merit of his clothing, but as it is the antecedent, or medium, or condition, or Causa sine qua non of his appareling, when contrariwise it doth not at all in any sense apparel him. CHAP. XXIV. Mr. Baxter's Sophism to prove that his Doctrine of Justification by Works, doth not at all derogate from the Doctrine of Faith, examined, and found to be mere vanity. BEcause the Scripture attributeth Justification to Faith without works, and to Faith in opposition to works, excluding works and requiring Faith alone to apprehend the Righteousness which is by Christ, and denominating it the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. The Righteousness which is of Faith, Rom. 9 30. & 10. 6. in opposition to the Righteousness of works. He easily seethe that he shall be excepted against for his anti-scriptural doctrine in making Faith and works Concomitants in the same kind of causality and procurement of Justification. Therefore he makes it his sixth task to vindicate this his doctrine from all derogation from Faith, and from all unscriptural confounding of Faith and works together. To prove himself as innocent in this as in all the rest, he brings these Reasons. B. Thes. 62. 1 Because though he makes Works and Faith to be the Conditions of our Justification yet (according to Scripture phrase) Faith may be called the only Condition of the New Covenant, 1 Because it is the principal Condition, and works but the less principal: And so as a whole Country hath oft its name from the chief City, so may the Conditions of this Covenant from Faith. 2 Because all the rest are reducible to it; Either being presupposed as necessary Antecedents or means, or contained in it as its parts, properties, or modifications; or else employed as its immediate products, or necessary subservient means or consequents. All without Book, one of Mr Brs Mystics that hath no one sound of God's word patronising or favouring it. Witness Mr. Br. who neither in his Thesis, nor in its Explication hath alleged one Scripture to make it good. Is Pythagoras come among us in a new body, speaking nothing but Parables and Paradoxes, which vulgar capacities can no more comprehend than they can Plato's Ideas, or Democritus his Atoms? If so, it shall be needful for him to enjoin upon his Scholars (as he did of old) five years' dumbness or silence: Else if the mouth of a very Ass should be open, it would rebuke the madness of the Prophet, for delivering things so contradictive to the word, to himself, and to reason. 1 To the word and the Holy Ghost speaking by it, who every where opposeth Faith and works, as to Justification, making them to exclude not to infer or imply either the other. By faith, therefore not [at all] by works: not by works, therefore by faith alone. But this man puts them in a conjunction, makes Faith and works together the Condition of our justification, from thence to conclude that Faith is the only Condition, and justifieth alone. So much a greater Artist is Mr. Br. then the Holy Ghost, and so ambitious of the praise of wisdom that he thinks himself to be but a vulgar idiot, if his wisdom be not stretched Nine whole words by measure, beyond and above the wisdom of the Holy Ghost. 2 Contradictive to himself. For Aph. p. 300. He denyeth that which he calleth an idle Concomitacny of works with Faith, that they only stand by while Faith doth all, and concludes that they act together with faith in the same kind of causality to procure Justification, and so denyeth that we are justified by Faith only. Here contrariwise he denyeth all such coworking of works with Faith, but that faith may be said to be the only Condition, and to justify only. 3 Contradictive to reason also, (and yet this next to [Condition] he seems to honour as the greatest God) it must be to the Goats and sheep of the mountains, not to Christ's sheep, to men that have reason, that Mr. Br. must deliver this doctrine, That we are justified not by faith alone, but by works also, yet it stands nevertheless as a firm Maxim, faith is the only condition, or justifieth alone. If the lips were shut and sealed up, yet reason would use a ventriloquy, or force a way thorough the ears to reclaim against such an absurdity. If I should so reason of Condemnation the contrary to Justification, that when the blind lead the blind and both fall into the ditch, when seducers pervert those that are made to be taken and destroyed, and so all utterly perish and are damned; That though all are damned, yet it is but the leader and seducer alone that is damned, he for all that he hath seduced, and they all but damned in him their principal and leader: Would not Mr. Br be one of the first that would cry out at such an Arguing, as absurd and not Logical. Yet because he is a man made up of the very spirits of Reason, and brings his Reasons that his Assertion agrees with right reason according to the tenor of the Gospel: I shall produce two or three in steed of many Gospel Scriptures, and lay by them his Reasons to see how pertinently they will agree as a Commentary with the Text. The Holy Ghost tells us, Eph. 2. 8, 9 We are saved by Grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast. Mr. Br. Comments upon this Text thus, i. e. Principally by Faith lest any man should boast principally [of himself.] But not of works principally to exclude this principal boasting, yet less principally of works also that man may also boast less principally [of himself.] Or thus, according to his second reason: Of Faith and not of works unreducible to Faith lest any should boast, yet of works also that by some relation or cognation are reducible to Faith, that of such works we might boast. Shall we call this a hatchet or a Comment upon the Text. Which of these Explications is the more absurd? Or as if in this latter that runs more smoothly than the former, we might not conclude so wisely of any moral virtue or duty: When we are said to be justified by any or all good qualifications and works, we are said to be justified by Mercy or Chastity or Wisdom only, because all other virtues and works are reducible to this, by some one or other kind of relation or cognation. Again, Rom. 4. 16. It is of faith that it may be of grace, the Antithesis whereof is given, ver. 4. Not of works that it might not be of debt. The Comment which Mr. Brs first reason gives to this Text is, Nay it is both of Faith and works, works are comprehended in Faith as the less principal in the principal: So that the meaning of the Text is, that it is principally of Faith, that it may be principally of Grace, but less principally of works that [at least] less principally it may be of debt also. His second reason thus Comments, It is of Faith, that is of Faith, and works reducible to Faith, that it may be of Grace, not of works unreducible to faith, (such as are murder, witchcraft, Sodomy, blasphemy, etc.) that it may not be of debt. Again, Tit. 3. 5. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, i e. saith Mr. Br. Not principally by our works, but according to his mercy. Yet less principally by our works, and not according to his mercy. Or not by works of righteousness done by us that are not, but according to God's mercy that is reducible to Faith. What else to make of it when he hath taught me, I may divulge. I might annex many Texts of the same nature, upon which these two reasons of his set as Comments, will speak out so much of sense, as the Commentator doth in them of Conscience. But I have fully both examined and answered before, all that is comprised in this Thesis, where I took occasion to weigh every branch thereof, under the notion of his second Argument which he brings to prove Justification by works. To it I refer the reader for fuller satisfaction. B. 2 That he doth not derogate from faith, in yoking works with it in the joint procurement of justification; because he doth not ascribe to works an equal part with it in this office or business: but makes faith the more principal, and works but the less principal part of the Condition: granting our first Justification to be chief by faith, and the second Justification only, by Obedience: and ascribing the beginning or first point of Justification to faith alone, and but the continuance and consummation thereof to works. Aphor. Thes. 74. & p. 302, 311, 312. And in many other parts of his Book. All this hath been fully and oft answered before. Here only I shall entreat the reader to retain in mind what hath been before pointed at. 1 That the Gospel mentioneth not, knoweth not any such distinction of a first and second Justification by Christ, but speaks only of one justification. That this doubling of Justifications is but a juggling fancy of the Papists by them first created, and by Mr. Br. licked into a finer mode and form, for the pillaring up of their Justification by works which hath no proppage from the word. 2 That according to Mr. Brs' principles who caseth both together in one kind of causality, it cannot be discerned how [otherwise then by bare and glozing words] any pre-eminence can be given so as duly to belong to Faith above and before works in this business. 3 That even where and in what respects Mr. Br. gives a pre-eminence, it belongeth more properly to works then to Faith: Because the consummation and perfitting of Justification is so far more excellent than the beginning thereof, as that which is perfect, then that which is unperfect. And herein he equalizeth and in some phrases seems to prefer works to Faith, in their operation to perfect what is begun. 4 That the Scripture affirms not only the first but also the last point and period, the consummation as well as the beginning of Justification to be by Faith. By the Gospel the righteousness of God (viz. which he giveth us to Justification) is revealed from Faith to Faith, saith the Apostle; he saith not from Faith to works, but from Faith to Faith, that is (omitting other Interpretations partly ridiculous, and partly invalid and besides the scope of the Apostle) from Faith inchoat to Faith growing and consummate, or coming nearer and nearer to consummation. This Exposition the choicest of our Divines give, as both properly agreeing with the drift of the Text, and as owned and patronised by the like phrase in other Scriptures: From strength to strength, Psal. 88 7. From glory to glory, 2 Cor. 3. 18. which even all acknowledge to be understood, from one to another, from a lesser to a greater degree of strength and glory. So also of this phrase, from faith to faith. And thus not only the beginning but also the increase and consummation of Gospel Justification in our own Consciences before God, is here attributed to Faith, which as it groweth to more and more strength, by apprehending more and more revelations of the Gospel; so it more and more declareth and evidenceth to the soul the certainty of our Justification, to the continual establishment and increase of our peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. And thus the Magis and Minus is in us not in God; and whatsoever of increase there is, is from Faith not from works. Nay the same Apostle tells us it is a most unglorious task which this uncomparably wise and profound man undertakes, viz. to teach them that are wise to salvation to become fools thereunto. Are ye so foolish? saith he, having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the Flesh? That by the Spirit and the Flesh is to be understood Faith and works in order to Justification, cannot, will not be denied. When therefore Mr. B. teacheth men to seek the beginning of Justification by faith, and the perfecting thereof not by Faith only but by works also, he teacheth them to be foolish [O foolish] the worst fools to salvation, and to be wise only to condemnation. This is to be wise according to Mr. B. wisdom in this Tractate, that is wise after the Flesh not after the Spirit, in seeking happiness in the way of works which the wisdom of the Flesh teacheth, not in the way of Faith which the wisdom of the Spirit, the wisdom of Christ & his Gospel revealeth. But all this, together with a plain and full discovery of the vanity of this evasion, hath been in its due place before held out, which would be but a tiring of the Reader here again to be troubled with. Only the general and chief thing which Mr. Br. both here and elsewhere layeth as a foundation to his Justification by works, it shall not be amiss briefly to examine here, for the prevention of deceit to his Reader, before I put a total conclusion and period to what I have thought fit to except against this Work of his. If it prove sandy and unsound, his great Colossus of Justification by works, falls all to shivers. This is his acquaint interpretation of [faith] in all such Scriptures as ascribe to Faith (in opposition to works) our justification. That then by it we are to understand all Gospel duties, all that Christ Commandeth; not Faith in a distinct consideration from other qualifications and duties, but Faith in a collective sense, comprising all moral duties and actions within it, which is Faith and all its fruits, yea more, Faith and all that is reducible to it. And thus according to Mr. Br. so oft as we are said to be justified by Faith not by works, we must understand that the Holy Ghost meaneth, that we are justified by Faith and works done after the tenor of the Gospel, not by Faith and works done after the tenor of the Law. Behold now the unfathomed depth of Mr. Brs' wit, and the unlimited verge of his power. His wit surpassing all the wisdom of all good and Orthodox men and Angels; of whom no one had ever the reach since the world began, to find with all his searching such a bugbear sense lurking in the plain Scripture Texts of the Apostle: His power, that with the stroking of this Mercurial rod, he makes fire and water, life and death, hell and heaven, to lay down all their enmity each to other, and sweetly to coll lodge and incorporate together. Who would have thought that Paul who so seriously and sacredly professeth that he had rather in the Church to speak five words with his understanding so that he might teach and edify others also, than ten thousand in an [unknown] Tongue, 1 Cor. 14. 17, 19 And in preaching the Gospel descended to the unlearned and babes to feed them with milk, to make all plain and easy to their understandings, 1 Cor. 3. 2. should yet every where deliver the chief doctrine of the Gospel [Justification by Christ] in so dark Parables and riddles, that none could find it out, until this Oedipus inspired from Socinus and Arminius, risen up to unriddle him? For let there be named any one Protestant in any age (till Mr. Br. held out his Candle to give light to the Sun) that ever could dream of this Allegorical sense, after the principles of Origen, lurking in Paul's words? Or what hinders now but Faith may be turned into works and works into Faith, Grace into strict justice and strict justice into free Grace, the Law into Gospel and the Gospel into mere Law; since Mr. Br. hath made a reconciliation and composure between Faith and Works in the point of Justification. But whether this interpretation of Mr. B. be so firm as it is pretty and witty, hath been before examined, as elsewhere, so in the Examination of his third Argument for Justification by works, drawn from his large definition of Faith which he giveth in his Thesis 70. Here only I shall mention some phrases or names by which Justifying Faith is described in Scriptures, and leave it to the judgement of every intelligent Reader, to determine whether works can properly or in any tolerable sense be said to be comprised in faith as acting in the same kind of causality about such acts as those phrases or names imply. 1 As Mr. Br. himself in his shorter definition defineth faith, it is called our Receiving of Christ, Jo. 1. 12. and that not in that wide sense which Mr. Br. fancieth, but in that strict sense wherein Paul interprets it, viz. the receiving of Christ to be our Righteousness, or receiving abundance of Grace and of the gift of righteousness by him, Rom. 5. 16. 2 It is called the directing of the eye, or looking to Christ yea to Christ lifted up [upon the Cross] for healing. Io. 3. 14. 3 A coming to Christ for Life, Jo. 6. 37. & 5. 40. 4 The eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood to everlasting life, Jo. 6. 53-56. 5 A putting on of Christ [as a Garment of Righteousness] to cover our nakedness and filthiness, Phil. 3. 9 Rev. 3. 18. I could add many the like phrases if it were needful. But these may suffice; and who is there that sees not these to imply an instrumentality in faith to make Christ ours to Justification? Yea and that in faith only and not in works at all? for how can Charity, Chastity, Mercy, righteousness, and the several acts of these and other qualifications, of which most have our Neighbour or Brother for their immediate Object, about which in acting they are occupant; be called the receiving, intuition of, and coming to Christ? the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood, or the putting on of him for righteousness? It would seem strange to me that any man waking and not dreaming should conclude such works to be Antecedents, and not the fruits of Justification and life by Christ. Or that when faith is described by these denominating phrases, works also as couched in faith, should contrary to their nature be so denominated. Nay Faith is thus diversely named in opposition to works, yea to Gospel works. For so doth our Saviour answer and determine the question put to him, what to do [under the Gospel] that we might work the works of God? i. e. what is to be done on our part that we may be justified and saved? This is the work of God (saith he) [that is, this is in steed of all do all workings] that ye believe in him whom he hath sent, Jo. 6. 28, 29. which after he expresseth more fully to be a believing in him that came down from heaven, and that gave, and as he gave his life for the world, and giveth life to the world. All works are excluded that this believing might be reserved, sole, entire, sacred, and sovereign to receive Christ to Justification and salvation. Here at length I shall put a period to my Examination of this Tractate of Mr. Br. in which I have not wittingly let pass any one particle of all that he hath brought to the re-erecting of Justification by works, without examining the strength and force of it, which if he had done in relation to all the Arguments which the Protestant Churches and Divines have brought against it, before he adventured peremptorily to pronounce their doctrine H●torodox and Antinomistick, and the doctrine of the Papists in this point sound and holy; I am of opinion that either this work of his had never come forth to the subverting of souls and troubling of the Church, or if it had so come forth, it would have been a very abomination to all that are not made to be taken, and trampled under foot as an accursed thing. But now having begun in that manner as we see, to set up this worst piece of damning Popery, under a false pretence of love to the Protestant, and hatred of the Popish Religion. It is not to be expected but that seeing his reputation jeoparded, he will per fas & nefas, proceed to seek the support of it, though it be to the further eclipsing of the Grace of God and honour of Christ. CHAP. XXV. The Conclusion of the whole Treatise, demonstrating that although we with the Scriptures exclude works from Justification, yet we include them as necessary to a Christian life, and that no less seriously, and upon more spiritual grounds, than the Evil Workers that will be justified by them. HAving ended (at present) with Mr. Baxter, I have for the Conclusion of all, somewhat to say that may have relation to the weak reader. It is a difficult thing to remove works from justification, and not to expose ourselves therein to the Censure of babish, ungospellized, and unstablished men, that we therein banish them also from the life and practice of a Christian. When we teach that the righteousness of the Gospel is revealed from Faith to Faith: as it is written, the just shall live by Faith, [not by works:] Rom. 1. 17. And that no man is justified by the Law, i. e. by the strictest observation of the righteousness of the Law, Because it is written, that the just shall live by Faith, Gal. 3. 11. That the inheritance is by Faith, not by works, lest any man should boast, Rom. 4. 1, 2. Eph. 2. 8, 9 That it is of Faith that it may be of Grace: and if it be of grace, then is it no more of works, else grace were no more Grace; But if it be of works, then is it no more of grace, otherwise works were no more works, Rom. 4. 16. & 11. 6. That whosoever seeketh justification and blessedness by works, worketh himself out of it, and shall never attain it, because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law, Rom. 9 31, 32. At the sound of this doctrine the unspiritual man excepteth, and flesh and blood swelleth murmuringly Crying out, What profit is it then to serve the Lord? Why should I fast, pray, give alms, show mercy, study holiness and purity, deny myself the pleasures of sin, any more, when all these have no efficacy in them to justify and save? It was the Clamour of men against Paul, when he preached the riches of grace abounding the more, by the abounding of Man's sins: We will therefore sin (said they) that Grace may abound, Rom. 6. 1. And do evil that good may come, Rom. 3. 8. This doctrine of Faith makes void the Law, losing us from all obligation to perform the holiness and righteousness which the Law requireth, Rom. 3. 31. And (as Mr. Br. teacheth them further to reply against God) tendeth to drive obedience out of the world. For if it be denied that man can merit happiness by his own righteousness, he will cease to be righteous and take the bit in his teeth to run rebel. So deep an impression hath the Covenant of works yet still in man's heart, that though he be insufficient to do or to think as he ought, 2 Cor. 3. 5. yet he will have [Do and Live] to be the issue of Life and Death still. And Mr. Br. teacheth them to stop the hole of man's insufficiency with this nail (not of the Sanctuary but of Alexander the Coppersmith) because we cannot perform legal therefore Gospel-obedience shall do the work, (as if work were not work, when the Title of Gospel is written on it) and because we cannot fulfil perfect, therefore sincere obedience shall serve the Turn. Hence is it that the Popish and Arminian doctrines wherewith this Book of Mr. Br. is fully fraughted, takes every where so plausibly with, and hath such Complete acceptance among the multitude both of the learned and unlearned. It is a doctrine not above but agreeing with the principles of Nature and the natural man: even the natural Conscience suggesteth it to the unlearned, to seek for happiness by their own righteousness. And both that and the precepts of Moral Philosophy also, together with the Law of Moses, instruct the learned to seek for the Summum Bonum, the best felicity, all felicity in the way of virtue and virtuous performances. Here now when any comes to them in the name of Christ, holding forth to them the same doctrine, it kindles in them so swiftly as fire in tow, no need of the teaching of God, or renewing of the Spirit; Flesh and blood of itself gives its suffrage to it. An easy task have these teachers to persuade men and draw disciples after them, and set them in an activeness and dexterity of practising what they teach. It is easily learned to swimm swiftly with the stream, and to drop the Bowl down the hill. But to teach men to live by Faith, and yet to be fruitful in good works too: Not to seek justification and life by their righteousness, yet to be zealous of all righteousness and good works continually; hic labor hoc opus est. It is above the principles of Nature to apprehend it. He must swimm against the stream, and roll the Bowl against the Hill, walk after the Spirit and not after the Flesh, that puts it effectually into practice. Yet that our Doctrine doth not let lose the reins to the flesh, nor (howsoever carnal sensualists may abuse it to their Condemnation) in the least degree blunt the spirits of the spiritual man to well-doing, nor deny the both expediency and necessity of all good works in the life of a Christian, is evident. 1 Because although we exclude moral qualifications and works from officiating to Justification, yet we retain and include them in and unto sanctification. Our doctrine with Christ's and his Apostles, holds forth the Lord Jesus to every soul to be received both as a justifier and sanctifier; declareth him to have descended from heaven both to justify the ungodly, and to sanctify the justified. That he is made unto us of God, not only Righteousness, but Sanctification also: To justify us by an imputed and sanctify us by an inherent righteousness: The one by the effusion of his blood, the other by the infusion of his Spirit. That his office is not only to satisfy justice for us that we may live, but also to new principle and create us, that we may live to God. Not only to redeem us from all iniquity, but withal to purify us [into] a peculiar people, zealous of good works. In whom both these works are not in good measure, neither of them is in any measure, effectually accomplished. That sanctification is the purchase of Christ's blood, but the immediate effect of his Spirit; merited by his death, but Conferred and Communicated by his life as all power both in heaven and in earth is given into his hand, and as he is ascended on high to give gifts to men. That both imputed and inherent righteousness as termined and actually existent in and upon man, proceed from his union unto Christ. That Sanctification is as great and glorious a work as Justification, and our real as our relative holiness and righteousness: Neither could it be discerned so clearly how we were quickened [in Law] & raised from the dead, who were dead in sins and trespasses, and so passed from death to life, from Condemnation to salvation, by the forgiveness of sin; were we not also quickened & raised up from under the death and bondage of sin, no more to serve sin, but as alive from the dead, had our fruit [and living motions] to practical holiness and righteousness. That as well our sanctification as our Justification, is in Christ, and both from him derivable to us by Faith in him. That Faith is qualified by God to apprehend Christ both to purify us by his blood, and to sanctify us by his Spirit, and so becomes instrumental both to Justification and sanctification, yet by a twofold Act; as the Condemned Traitor extends one and the same hand to receive from his gracious Prince a pardon of his Treason, and a Commission to be his vicegerent in some Noble and magnificent office therein to serve his Prince, promote the welfare of his Country, and make his own name and person famous and precious in the eyes of all men, among whom his present virtuous behaviour and Noble achievements may wipe off and bring to oblivion the stain of his former delinquency. That one (and the same a chief) end of our Justification by Christ is our sanctification & the fruits thereof, here inchoat and increasing, hereafter Consummate and perfected. Therefore are we delivered out of the hands of our enemies, that we may serve him without Fear in holiness and righteousness, Luk. 1. 74, 75. Therefore are we dead to and delivered from the Law, by the body of Christ, that we should be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit to God, and serve not in the oldness of the letter, but in the Newness of the Spirit, Rom. 7. 4, 6. Christ hath made us Kings and Priests, or a Royal Priesthood unto God, to offer up living sacrifices acceptable to God through him, 1 Pet. 2. 5, 9 Rev. 1. 6. To our instalment therein are pre-required, the sanctification of Consecration, and the sanctification of habitual righteousness and holiness infused into us and set in actual operation in us. The former of these is done chief by the sacrificed blood of Christ sprinkled upon the Conscience, and the sacred vestments of his Righteousness put on by Faith (as was typified primarily of Christ the High Priest, and secondarily of the Priesthood of Saints under the kingdom of Christ, by the Consecration of Aaron and his sons, with the blood of the Altar sprinkled on them, and the putting on of holy vestments upon them, their own being Cast off, Leu. 8.) The latter Chief by the Spirit of Christ, in livening enabling and acting them to the work and worship for which they are Consecrated (and I know not but this may be also figured in the ordination of the Priests under the Law, by the Anointing oil in the same Chapter mentioned and used.) That differs but little from Justification as termined to this its end: This differs not at all from sanctification when it is taken in the sense wherein the scriptures often, and our Divines still use it, (when they distinguish between Justification and sanctification) viz. in its active sense, the inspiration of the habits of holiness and righteousness, in its passive sense, the same habits inspired into the soul. Whosoever wanteth either of these prerequisits to this sacred office, we grant him to be but a titular Priest, a Mock-Saint. For without Consecration to offer as a Priest speaks him an usurper: And to profess Priest and not to offer speaks him a rebel and revolter. We own no sanctification by the Spirit of Christ, which hath not Justification by his blood, in order going before it, nor any Justification or forgiveness by the death of Christ, which hath not sanctification by his Spirit, in order of nature following it. Thus we do not (as the Papists and Mr. Br. learning from the Papists object calumniously) exclude works from the life of a Christian; but assert them to be necessary to a Christian life: so necessary, that without them whosoever is Capable of working, is no Christian. Though we exclude them from Justification, yet we include them in sanctification, their habits as parts in the whole, their acts or themselves acted, as fruits thereof. Nay we do not deny in a good sense some kind of Causality which they have to sanctify, that is, to the increase of sanctification. To him that hath, it shall be given, and he shall have more abundantly. Well done good and faithful servant, thou hast been faithful in a little, I will make thee Ruler over much, etc. saith our Saviour; Ask and ye shall have, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you. The ground or earth which drinketh in the Rain which cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs [or fruit, etc.] is near to a blessing. But that which bringeth forth briars and thorns is rejected and near to cursing, etc. Heb. 6. 7, 8. with many other the like Testimonies of Scripture, which it would be superfluous here to recite. How then do we in the least measure blunt the edge of men's affections to good works, by teaching that they do not justify, when we affirm them necessary to sanctification? If Mr. Br. should affirm that Bread and Wine and other Creatures appropriated to man's nutriment, are not ordained of God to Cloth him, or that his garments are not ordained of God to Feed him; doth he therein minister to me just Cause to exclaym against him, that he fights against natural reason, persuading men never more to eat, because their meat is not appointed to Cloth them? or to walk naked because he saith, their garments are not useful to nourish them? No more Cause hath Mr. Br. or the Papists to accuse us that we banish good works from the life of a Christian, by teaching that they are not useful or appropriated to justify, but to sanctify very useful in all the particulars . How unacquainted with the frame of a Christian spirit are these objectors? Either they do not experimentally know, or else do stifle within themselves this knowledge, that a Christ-enjoying and Gospellized soul gaspeth no less for deliverance from the bondage, than from the Condemnation of sin: delights so much in performing duty to Christ, as in receiving pardon from him; groans so pathetically under the body as ever he did under the guilt of sin: Cryeth with equal vehemency of aff●ction● for holiness unto God as for happiness with him; for Conformity to him in righteousness as in glory: makes not other use of his redemption, than to run at liberty the race of obedience set before him: embraceth and delighteth in sanctifying as well as in saving grace, in the infusion as in the imputation of righteousness: labours to dispense all for the Lord and his service, whatsoever he hath received from the Lord and his free grace. Therefore whatsoever the Lord powers upon him to sanctification is received with so great joy in the Holy Ghost as that which is communicated to him to justification: and he labours to be and express himself wholly Christ's, as well as to obtain Christ wholly his. As for Mr. Brs merely Moral Men that will receive Christ neither to Justification nor to sanctification, but upon their own terms, purchasing him by Fine and rent, that the glory might be partly theirs and not wholly Christ's; It is enough that Mr. Br. hardens and subverts them in this their Moral madness wholly contradictive to the spirituallness and wisdom of the Gospel. We shall not be ensnared by all the niceties of his Arts and Chemical extracts of the spirits of his spoiling Philosophy, to involve ourselves with him in the guilt of poisoning so many souls, and turning their best righteousness and devotion into sin, by encouraging them to appropriate the same to such an end as is destructive to the glory of God's grace, and contrary to the mind and rule of the Gospel. We have one Master which is Christ, his dictates expressed by him and his Apostles in the plainness and foolishness of their preaching are so sacred and authoritative with us, that neither the most labyrinthical mazes of sophistry shall unwind us, nor the extravagancies of the most luxuriating wits, nor the most Curious plausibilities of humane reason shall (by God's Grace) unreason us so from ourselves, as to undisciple us from him. Yea though we could not in some things give a satisfactory answer to the sophisticated reasonings of these disputers against Christ and his Gospel, yet should we fit down as fools with Christ and his Apostles adoring the manifold wisdom of God revealed in a mystery, rather than be wise with these men to the world; knowing that the foolishness of God is wiser, and the weakness of God is stronger than men: And we seek wisdom and happiness from the mines of Christ's Gospel, not from the dry quarry of man's literature and inventions. 2 Though we reject it as an arrogant and presumptuous doctrine, which Mr. Br. in Common with the Papists teacheth, [That we are justified and saved by our good qualifications and works for our works, for the merit and worthiness of our good works] yet we teach and believe that they are (in respect of all that have age, ability, and time to perform them) necessary Consequents of our Justification and Antecedents of our glorification. Let a man pretend what he will of Faith in Christ; yet if by Faith he do not cleave firmly to him, to derive from him power to mortify every sin, to perform all duty: if he can allow within himself any known evil, or continue in the neglect of any known duty, without striving to get the victory in the strength of Christ's Spirit, over every such infirmity: we take such a man so far from Christ, as Christ is from Belial, A branch in Christ not bearing fruit, which is appointed to be cut off and cast into the fire, because he was never in Christ otherwise but by a formal profession, never had vital union to him, or communion with him, by the ligatures of Faith and the Spirit. For sanctification is an individual companion of Justification: And the office of Christ is to be the Author of both to all that believe. Otherwise the work of his Mediator-ship should not be completed in either one of these, and so he should not be our Christ if a half Christ only to us. And Sanctification is still begun and carried on towards perfection also (where there is time and means) in the kingdom of Grace, before its perfecting and swallowing up into glory, in the Kingdom of glory. No righteousness and holiness of man is begun in the next life: But there shall be the consummation in power, of that which here was begun in truth, though it laboured of, and languished with much infirmity. 3 We are guiltless of those Crimes wherewith Mr. Br. endeavours to defame us and our Doctrine. For 1. Neither do we teach or think (as M. Br. suggesteth) that nothing is preaching Christ, but preaching him as a pardoning justifying Saviour? Aph. pa. 328. Indeed we preach Justification to consist, if not only, yet chief in the pardon of sin through the mediation of Christ's death. That this benefit of Christ is perfected by the satisfaction which he hath made to God's justice in suffering for us, and appropriated to us by faith alone. But we deny this to be all the Gospel-grace exhibited to us by Christ, and in and through him. We hold him forth as the Light of the world also, having all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hid in him, Joh. 8. 12. Col. 2. 3. from whom are all the irradiations and Revelations of all the mysteries of Grace effectual to life and holiness, Mat. 13. 11. 1 Cor. 2. 10. And to the word and spirit of Christ we send all men for illumination. And the Life of the world, not only to restore them to life in law, by Justification, but as the Lord and principle of Life, to beget in us an inherent life active and moving to all obedience. Therefore we endeavour to send all to Christ for life, even for this life, because the whole judgement and dispensation thereof is committed to him, and he is our all [to sanctification also.] Joh. 5. 21, 22, 25, 26. Col. 3. 11. We indeed except against that Doctrine as more Legal than Evangelical, that roars & thunders Condemnation against poor Exiles in a dry wilderness, where is no water, fainting and even dead with thirst, if they do not arise, work, and fulfil their task. We require first, that the Rock be cloven with the Rod of God, that the water of life may gush out in full Rivers, and that the fainting souls be brought to drink thereof, and then called upon in the life and strength which they have hence received, to work and be doing. Yea to come to this stream often to drink, that their strength and spirits may be daily more revived, that they may become daily more enabled for, and more abundant in the work of the Lord. We have not with Mr. Br. yet learned the skill of preaching good works to make Christ ours, but follow the rule of the Scriptures, to preach Christ into the hearts of men, to make them fruitful in good works. Neither do we count all formal obedience and righteousness of men, though conscientiously, and by the guidance of Natural Conscience, performed to be either sanctification, or the fruit thereof. That only is sanctification which flows from the heart of Christ, and is infused by the Spirit of Christ. For the attainment thereof we call all men into union and fellowship with Christ; so far are we from holding that Nothing is preaching Christ, but the preaching him as Justifier and Saviour, that we hold it an empty Preachment that preacheth any good thing without Christ, or out of Christ, of which men are not taught to make Christ the Alpha and the Omega. We leave it to Mr. Br. and his brethren to urge works, duties, obedience, etc. and once in a Moon, upon an auspicious Tropic thereof, to remember Christ and grace, and tell us that all must be done by the help of grace, and without Christ we can do nothing: Yet leaving us uncertain still, whether it be the Grace and Christ of Pelagius, or else of God reconciled to us, that he speaketh. I should be too long in expressing fully how we hold forth Christ, whole Christ, and only Christ, to Adoption, protection, perseverance, strengthening, comforting, perfecting, etc. In a word, to all that is either good to be received, or good to be done. In him we teach that God will have all his fr●sh springs to reside, that without him we are nothing, can do nothing; that in him and by him we have all, and can do all things. That therefore we preach nothing but Christ, yet preach all that is to be preached in preaching him, because in him it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, Col. 1. 19 even all fullness for us: so that in him we are full, out of him mere emptiness. We would not have one beam of this Sun of Righteousness clouded, but labour to discover to our people his full glory and Sovereignty to all those sacred ends to which God hath consecrated him, that if any would have nothing of Christ to be preached but his pardoning and saving, the sin may be wholly theirs, not ours, that they will receive the skirt of Christ, and consequently refuse Christ, when we preach to them whole Christ, and all the benefits that are by him. Nor 2 do we deny an ordinate and subordinate love to ourselves (as M●. Br. slanders us no less bitingly than secretly, App. pa. 81, 82.) in teaching that it is the most Gospel-●rame of Spirit to perform duty out of mere love to God, without seeking by such duties wrought [quasi opere operato] remission of sins, redemption from Hell, and right to glory by the Merit thereof, (as he teacheth us to do, thinking no doubt, his glory shall be great, if he can there persuade where all the subtlest sons of Satan, the Jesuits have not been able.) Nay we maintain that none can regularly love himself who loveth not God above himself, and seeks not God's glory more than his own good. That whosoever in a pretext of love to himself brings his fardel of trashie works at the feet of Christ, by them to purchase to himself the benefits of his death, is of all men the worst enemy to himself, incurs rejection and expulsion from Christ and all the benefits of his death and resurrection. For he was sent to seek o●ely that which was lost, came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. He loves himself indeed, and spiritually, that for his love to God denies himself. The self-dejected Publican is acce●ted with God, when the prating Pharisee is hurled with his mouth full of works out at the door. Or is there any great difference between this and the Devil's doctrine preached to our first Parents? Ye shall be as Gods, said the Devil; Ye shall be all Christ's, Saviour's, Justifiers, saith Mr. Br. Your righteousness and Christ's righteousness shall jump together into the same kind of Causality to justify and save you. Our first Parents harkened, and seeking to become Gods, became Devils, or (what is worse) slaves to the Devil. We have all felt the smart, yet many, and that of them which are termed Angels, listen earnestly to the like hissing of the Serpent now again. We can but mourn for them, that in mad love to themselves will hasten up to heaven, by climbing high Steeples, that look fairly thither-ward, but can never heave them up to it, nay contrariwise can give them no such sustentation, but that they fall thence, and dash themselves into shivers. Yet in our doctrine is contained a wise and ordinate love to ourselves: Though we use not works as waxed wings to soar aloft to kiss the Sun, and settle ourselves in the same Sphere with him, yet we make use of our qualifications and duties to the continual increase of our sanctification: and to what greater good for himself can man's strongest love to himself aspire, than to his full and real perfection, consisting in his restitution to God's image, and conformity to his will and nature? This shall be the Consummate blessedness which we shall enjoy above, and it is a blessedness inchoate and increasing, while we pass from strength to strength in it here. Who are the self-haters and self-destroyers, the Papists or we, the success will at length evidence, and such professed Divines and Christians among us, as have not their eyes soiled with Kederminster dust and smoke, can discern already. Nor thirdly, doth our doctrine tend to drive obedience out of the world: So that we may answer Mr. Brs' question, Aphor. p. 325. [If men once believe that works are not so much as a part of the Condition of our Justification, will it not much tend to relax their diligence?] with the authority of the Apostle, who having taught his Ephesians that we are saved by grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast, Eph. 2. 8, 9 Yet concludeth, that as many as have learned Christ truly, and heard him, and have been taught by him as the truth is in Jesus: These all have learned to put off concerning the former▪ conversation, the old Man which is corrupt, etc. and to be renewed in the spirit of the mind, and to put on the New Man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness, Eph. 4. 20.— 24. If Mr. Br. had been taught of God as the truth is in Jesus, I should think he would not have put, at least upon deliberation left in print such a question and bold Cavil against the Apostle, yea against Christ himself. Object. But if good works will neither justify nor save me, why should I do them, and not take the liberty to do what I list? Answ. The voice of a Rebel against God, who if he may not serve God to his own ends, will not serve him at all, and professeth openly that he doth all that he doth in God's work, not for God's sake, but for his own sake. An Objection more deserving to be answered with a Thunderbolt, than with Scripture-reason. Yet may there be alleged many other most holy and honourable ends for which we are to do good works, though we be not justified and saved by them. These I had thought here to have particularised, but the work is swollen already to a bigness and dimension never intended at first. And this Task hath been already so fully performed by so many of our Protestant Writers in answer to the Papists, that I should but glean after them to say a little, but begin a new work, if I should say all that they have said, and might be said to this purpose. I therefore transmit the Reader for his full satisfaction to read Calv. Instit. lib. 3. Cap. 16. Zanch. Confess. Fidei pro se & sua Familia, bound with his Miscellan Vrsin. Catech. Quest 91. Catech. and his Quest. 5. upon that Question. Tylenus Synt. part 2. disp. 46. Th. 8, 9, 10, 11. where is to be read too short an abbreviation of the three former. But M. Perkins in one of his works I remember (though at present I am bereft of them all) hath the very same words of Zanchy translated into English in answer to this question. And since these, whole hundreds both of English and foreign Divines, have after Zanchy and Perkins delivered the same things in substance with them, though some more largely, some more compendiously, so that to the exercised Reader it will be superfluous for me to write any thing upon the same subject. I shall conclude all in the words of Augustine, as more needing his Apology than himself, where he useth it. Lib. de Spir. & Litera. Cap. 35. Haec egi libro isto loquacius fortasse quàm sat est: Sed contra inimicos Gratia Dei paraeùm mihi dixisse videor. Nihil que mihi tam multum dicere delectat, quam ubi mihi & Scriptura ejus plurimum suffragatur, & id agitur, ut qui gloriatur, in Domomino glorietur, & in omnibus gratias agamus, Domino Deo nostro sursum corda habentes; unde a patre luminum omne Datum optimum, & omne donum perfectum est; that is, These things have I treated of in this Book, it may be with more than enough plenty of words and language: But I seem to myself to have spoken little against the Enemies of the grace of God. And I take delight to be large in speaking about nothing else so much, as when both the Scripture doth most give its testimony with me, and the question treated on is, that he which glorieth may glory in the Lord, and that in all things we may give thanks to God, having our hearts lifted up to the Father of Lights from whom every good and every perfect gift descendeth. He it is that freely justifieth us by his Grace, To him be the praise and glory of all, and let his Kingdom come, and be speedily enlarged throughout the world, that from all parts thereof there may be a joyful acclamation of Saints, Amen, Amen. FINIS. A TABLE of the General and Chief Heads of Doctrine Treated of in this Book. A WHether the To credere or Act of believing be that by which we are justified, part 1. p. 164. and onward to p. 181. & p. 363, 364▪ Mr. Br. to show that both Papists and Arminians are met together in his own breast, teaaheth both that it is our justifying Righteousness, and imputed to us for Righteousness, his Reasons to prove it examined, ibid. p. 166, etc. More of Act, viz. Immanent and Life. A short Animadversion upon Mr. Brs' dispute of Christ's Active and passive righteousness, in order to Justification, Part 1. p. 21. to 25. Afflictions befalling the Saints, not parts of the Curse, but fruits of God's Love, Part 1. p. 35. to 37. What they are in their nature, ib. p. 44, 45 Antinomians, their first rise, original, and what their Tenets then were, part 1. p. 263, 264. Their growth, and what hath been in these latter years charged on them as errors, ib. 264,— 266. What of all wherewith they have been charged is error indeed, ibid. p. 267. to 271. & 273. Who are such in Mr. Brs' Calendar, Pref. p. 7, 8. part 1. p. 271, 272. His Fraud under this Nickname to make odious the Gospel and all true Protestants, Pref. ibid. part 1. p 274. In the midst of his Invectives against imaginary, he hath more than all men besides, honoured the real Antinomians, part 1. p. 162, 163. and declared himself really one of them, p. 277. Exotic Arts how far useful in Divinity, Pref. p. 14. to the 17. They are incompetent to be Rules and Judges, in purely Gospel matters, ibid. and in some following pages, and part 1. p. 341. What evils have followed such use and abuse of it, Pref. 24, etc. How abasingly the Scriptures▪ speak of it as so abused, Pref. p. 22, 23. More viz. Sophistry. Authority of men viz. Faith. B Bellarmine and Mr. Br. speak the same things in the point of Justification, part 2. p. 25. & 31. Bullingers' judgement of mingling profane Arts (in teaching) with the Gospel, pref. p. 42, 43. C Mr. Brs new Model of the Causes of Justification and Salvation examined, part 1. p. 314, etc. And 1 of the principal efficient Cause, ib. p. 316, 317. 2 Of the instrumental Cause, ib. p. 317, 318. 3 Of th● procatarctick Causes, ib. p. 318. to 321. 4 Of the natural Cause, and the Protestant doctrine defended against his cavils, ib. p. 323. to 327. 5 Likewise of the formal Cause, ib. p. 327. 329. The Protestant doctrine that Faith is the Instrument or Instrumental Cause of Justification, viz. God's effective and man's receptive Instrument, largely defended against Mr. Brs' Sophisms, ib. p. 330. to 348. Whether Faith be the Causa sine qua non, ib. p. 356, 357. Works cannot be the causa sine qua non, part 2. p. 110, 111. Charity the Rule of judging one another, and by what evidence it must judge, part 2. p. 93, 94. What it is to take half and what to take whole Christ to justification, part 2. p. 184, 186. What to make Christ our All in Preaching, part 2. p. 291. More, viz. Grace.— 293. Whether Justification run upon Conditions, or else be free and absolute, and in what sense it may be granted to be Conditional, pa. 1. p. 108. to 118. The numerousness and withal unprofitableness of the Conditions which Mr. Br. assigneth, part 2. p. 31, 32. His vain ascribing to Conditions, part 2. p. 26, 83, 108, 109, etc. 272, 273. His Reasons to prove it examined, part 1. p. 353, to 356. The hurtfullness of the contrary doctrine which Mr. Br maintaineth, 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. What the judgement of the Protestant Divines in this point is, part 2. p. 17 to 22. & 204, 205. The promulgation & offer of it may be granted Conditional, but once in being and possession it is absolute, part 1. p. 355, 356. The rashness 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, etc. Believers 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. etc. 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 ways popish and pernicious this his doctrine is, ib. p. 49. to 62. D Darkening in stead of clearing Truths common to Mr. Br. with the Papists, part 1. p. 5, 9, 10. The Death and blood of Christ only expiatory and satisfactory to Justification, part 2. p. 64, 65, 67. to 70. Whether Justification admit of Degrees or magis & minus, part 1. p. 286. to 291. Whether 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 personal splendour of their Authors, pref. p. 4, 5. Do, viz. Life and Live. E Whether it be Easy to persuade 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 justify according to Mr. Br. part 2. p. 4. How fare he followeth the Papists in the doctrine of implicit Faith, part 1. p 1, 2, 3, etc. 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. etc. The doctrine of the Protestants about Faith and works, part 2. p. 174. etc. What Mr. Br. meaneth by Faith or his To credere, part 2. p. 71. etc. 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, etc. 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 beginning 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 carnal liberty, not fomenters of it, par. 2. p. 162, 163, 167, 168. Mr. Brs Reasons to prove his doctrines not to be legal 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 helped by Grace justify, 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 believers ought to serve for fear of Hell, part 2. p. 155-157. Hiding, viz. Fraud. I What the judgement 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 man's Instrument, and in what sense each is such, ib. p. 332, 334, 336, to 341. Man's 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 Judgement, p. 1. p 278-280. Judgement, 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 denied, ibid. etc. Scriptures produced to prove that Works 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. Whether according to his own principles he rightly calleth Faith the more and works the less principal 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 only, 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 kind 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; virtual and Actual; examined and proved unscriptural and vain: and his reasons to prove a Justification in the day of Judgement, answered, Part 1. p. 277. to the 286. More of Justification, see Bellarmine, Repentance, Faith, Works, Condition, Scripture, Lord, Prayer, Forgiving, Love, Easie, Christ, Papists, Paul, Cozen, Grace, Causes, Reconciliation, Degrees. K. The kingdom and pardon of God and of Christ, are one and the same. Part 1. p. 228, 229. L. Whether believers are under the Law as a Covenant of works, largely discussed against Mr. Br. part 1. p. 61— to 97. Protestants reasons for the Negative, ibid. p. 62-66. Mr. Brs' Sophistry in stating the question, ibid. p. 66-70. The Law not repealed as a Covenant of Works to any, but (in a right sense) nulld to believers, part 1. p. 71-74. The vanity of the distinctions & fallaciousness of the Arguments which Mr. Br brings to prove the Affirmative. ibid. p. 75. to the 97 Many abuse the Law in preaching it first not only to kill, but then also to make alive again. Pref. p. 11, 12. Distinguishing the same works into works of the Law and works of the Gospel, viz Paul and Moral. Lawgiver, vid. Lord. Legal or Law- teacher, vid. Gospel. Secular Learning, see Arts, Sophistry, Tertullion, Bullinger. The doctrine of Faith gives not the Reins to carnal Liberty. Part 2. p. 286. to the 295 The doctrine of Mr. Br so accusing it, doth see. ibid. p. 170, 171, etc. Do and Live, whether and in what respects the voice of the Gospel; and in what sense, to work for Life, not from Life, or from Life not for Life, are either and both sound doctrine. Part 2. p. 137. to the 153. & 158. Part 1. p. 179. Whether Christ Justify as our Lord and Law giver, and that it follow thence, we are justified by works as well as by Faith. Part 2. p. 64. to the 84. How far and in what sense only the affirmative may be granted. ibid. p. 79. The question stated, ibid. p. 65. Mr. Baxters Arguments to prove the affirmative, answered, ibid. p. 71. to 84. Whether Love cooperate with Faith in Justifying. Part 2. p. 37. 40. Our Acting from Love to God, denieth not a regular Love to ourselves. Part 2. p. 293, 294. M. Mr. Brs Magisteriall and usurped Authority in saying without proving. Part 2 p. 252, 253. Marks, vid. Evidences. Metaphysics, see Arts. Mr. Brs' doctrine of Merits examined in which he shows himself as highflown a Papist as any of the Jesuits. Part 1. p. 186. to the 194. An Admonition to such Ministers as inconsiderately suck up Mr. Brs' doctrines, Part 1. p 59, 60. What the Moral Law is as considered in itself, and in what sense taken. Part 1. p. 197-199. What Relation it hath to the several Covenants. ibid. p. 201, 202, etc. Why the Gospel continues it as a Rule, and that it can be no more repealed or abrogated than God, un-Godded. ibid. p. 199, 200, 203-206. N. Novelty or Newness of words and phrases used oft for the Ushering in of errors. Part 1. p. 128, 129. O. Obscuring, see Darkening. How all the Offices of Christ concur in our Justification, yet nothing concludible thence for Justification by works. Part 2. p. 63, 64. Origen how great a Scholar, and how great an abuser of his Learning and corrupter of the Gospel. Pref. p. 33, 34. P. Whether our doctrine by excluding works from justifying, be a stumbling block to Papists, hindering their conversion, and an occasion given to many learned men to turn Papists, and therefore unsound. Part 2. p. 188— to 197. Mr. Brs' doctrine compared with the worst of the Papists, and found one and the same with theirs. Part 2. p. 215. to p. 222 His doctrine compared with such of the Papists as write more moderately, & found worse than theirs. ibid. p. 223. to the 229. Whether his doctrine contradicts Paul's, or not, ibid. p. 234. to the 258. His first Reason refuted (viz. that Paul's question was, what is the proper Righteousness by which we are justified, but his own, by what means we may attain this Righteousness, though they answer differently to these differing questions, they consent in Judgements) ibid. p. 239 to the 250. His 2 reason that Paul excludes the works of the Law, not of the Gospel, vain and Popish. ibid. p. 251. to the 257. His 3 reason that Paul under the word Faith, implieth works and obedience, vicious in the same kind with the former. ibid. p. 257, 258. It is no sound reason that Christ commands not the Perfect Righteousness of the Law, because Mr. Br seethe no Reason why he should require what he enableth no man to perform, Part 1. p. 215. 217 What Reasons thereof may be given. ibid. p. 216, 217. Perfect, See Sincere and Righteousness. Person, vid. Work. Philosophy, vid. Arts. Whether Mr. Brs doctrine be (as he contendeth) free from Popery. Part. 2. p. 209, to 215. Whether it be possible for us to perform a Righteousness perfect to Justification. Part 1. p. 194. 196. Whether and in what sense Praying for pardon, may be said to be a condition of pardoning and justifying. Pa. 2. p. 31-33 Promises see Qualify. Punish and Punishment, vid. Curse and Affliction. Whether Mr. Br hold for Purgatory Part 1. p. 54-56. Q. Promises of life made to persons so and so Qualified, describe the Justified, but demonstrate not for what they are justified. Part 2. p. 40, 41. 269. Rules given by our Divines for the right understanding of such promises to persons of such qualifications. P. 2. p. 112, etc. Quotations without the words of Scripture, or showing how he would argue thence, why so frequent with Mr. Br. P. 2. Cham 2, & 3 in the beginning thereof. R. Whether Reconciliation denotes the same thing with or different from Remission and Justification. Part 1. p. 227, 228 308, 309. Whether and in what Respects sin may be Remitted before it be committed. Part 1. p. 310. to the 313. Whether and in what sense Repentance may be said to officiat in Justifying. Par. 2. p. 26. to the 31. Scripture seemingly asserting it examined, ibid. What Legal Repentance is. ibid. p. 26. What the life promised and death threatened under the Law to this legal Repentance are. ibid. p. 26-28. What Gospel Repentance is, and how manifold. ibid. p. 29-31. Sometimes one with Faith. ibid. p. 29, 30. In what sense life is promised to it. ibid. Repentance either in its large or strict sense, how it giveth life. ibid. p. 28, 29, 30. Mr. Brs' doctrine of a twofold Righteousness, absolutely necessary to Justification, the one Legal, the other Evangelical; this in ourselves, that in Christ: and his Reasons to make good; 1 his phrase, 2 his matter, examined and refelled. Part 1. p. 119. to p. 143. His dispute that his doctrine is not derotory to Christ and his Righteousness, proved fallacious and false. Part 2. p. 259. to the 265. Whether Righteousness be a Real Being, or else but a Modification of a Being. Part 1. p. 149, 150. & 159. to 161 Whether the Scripture call men Righteous only for performing the Cnnditions of the New Covenant. Part 1. p. 144. to 163. Whether the inherent Righteousness of Believers be perfect. Part 1. p. 181, to the 186. Whether Faith as our Righteousness Justify. 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, oath e 1 12. The Scriptures which he alleged to prove works the condition of Salvation, found incompetent and invalid to prove it. ibid. p. 116. to the 123. As sound may we argue from Justification to Salvation, that it is universally conditional, 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 Controversy of Justification by works, but fallaciously. Pa. 2. p. 7, 8. What Scriptures he produceth to prove Justification by works. pa. 2. p. 25, etc. These all collected by the Papists to his hands. ibid. These several 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 sin in his people. Part. 1. p. 70. to 72. Signs, vid. Evidences. Similes 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 only. ibid. p. 208. to the 217. & Part 1. p. 270. Reasons ministering doubts of Mr. baxter's 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. Sophistical 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 Tertullia's judgement 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 with Faith to justify, 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 justify, 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. Whether when we are said to be justified by Faith, works be comprised in faith, part 2. p. 281. to 284. How apt man's nature is to put itself under the Covenant of works, part 2. p. 285, 286. Mr. Brs untoward question answered, whether if God had ordained any work or virtue to justify, it should not have done it, part 1. p. 379. etc. In what sense our Divines say, God justifieth first the person than 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.