The Life of Justification Opened, Chapter 31
CHAP. XXXI.
Gospel-obedience is not the Condition of Justification.
THough, as we heard, Mr. Baxter himself will not say, that Gospel-obedience is the Condition of Justification; yet he recommendeth a book to us to peruse, to the end we may receive much light in the knowledge of the Gospel, I meane the discourse of the two Covenants formerly mentioned, wherein this is asserted with great confidence: And though this be sufficiently confuted by what is said; yet we shall in short take some notice of the grounds of this Mans Confidence, & give some remarks upon what he saith.
He tels us pag. 132. That the sense, in which the Apostles did assert it, (i.e. Justification by Faith without the works of the Law) was, that faith Iustifieth without works, antecedent to beleeving (This is what Bellarmin & other Papist's say) & without works, as the works of a literal observation of Moses law, which was opposed by the jewes to faith. This is but his fiction, and its grounds may come to be considered afterward. But what is this Faith? It is a Faith (saith he) that hath Repentance, Regeneration & sincere Obedience in a holy life for its inseparable effects. Then (1) this Faith is not fruite of Regeneration, because Regeneration is an effect of it. (2) Then upon a mans sincere Beleeving, he cannot be said to have passed from death to life, & be freed from Condemnation, nay not untill all the effects of faith be produced. And this he expresseth more clearly within a line or two, calling Regeneration & new obedience parts of the Condition; thus making men able to Regenerat themselves, with some help of the Spirit, according to his former doctrine.
Passing his inveighing pag. 134. & forward, against the orthodox doctrine, concerning Justification by faith alone; and loading it with Socinian reproaches, wherein he bewrayeth more acquaintance with Popish, Socinian & Arminian Principles & Consequences, than with the Gosp. I doctrine, either in Theorie or pract…ce, I proceed to examine his grounds, which he laieth down Chap. 7. pag. 140, 141. and prosecuteth to the end of that Chapter. His grounds are Ten in number.
The first is. That works of Evangelical obedience are never in Scripture opposed to God's grace in reference to Iustification & Salvation. Ans. (1) Here we have the fundamental errour of his whole discourse hinted to us; when he putteth Justification & Salvation together, making all that is antecedently required unto Salvation, to be also antecedently required unto Justification; or he must acknowledge no justification, untill Salvation come; (2) A perfect contradiction to this ground of his we have Ephes. 2: 8, 9, 10. for by grace are ye saved, through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast: for we are his workmanshipe, created in Christ Iesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them. Here grace is opposed to works, to good works, unto which we are created in Christ Jesus, & in which we are to walk, and that in reference to the Salvation, that is in justification. The man was so wise for his own unhallowed ends, as never once to take notice of this place. He cannot but grant, that Works & Grace are opposed to other: but he giveth us a very sceptick evasion, telling us, that then by works we are to understand either works antecedent to conversion, or as they are denyed (I think he would have said deemed, or some such thing) to merite, at the hands of God; or the works of the Law of Moses, as erroneously contended for by the jewes; or the works of the Law as Typical & as opposed to things typified; or the works of the Law, as the Law is in its rigour opposed to the milder oeconomie of the Gospel. And yet all this will not helpe the matter, for Paul tels us, that even Abraham was not justified by his works, but by faith, in opposition to works Rom. 4: 1, 2, 3. And Abraham's works here excluded from Justification, can be reduced to none of these heads of works here mentioned; They were not works antecedent to Conversion; for in opposition to these it is said, his Faith was reckoned unto him for Righteousness, long after his Conversion. Nor did the holy father dreame of any merite in his works, nor were these the works of the Law in any of the senses mentioned; for Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness, even when he was in uncircumcision. Rom. 4: 9, 10, 11. &c.
He taketh notice of Tit. 3: 5. not by works of Righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he s…ved us: but giveth us p. 143. this glosse. This change of their condition was not effected, or so much as begun among them by any reformation of their own, till the Gospel came to work it (which is meant by the appearing of the kindness & Love of God vers. 4. & is of like import with. Ch. 2: 11, 12. Ans. By what either Law or Reason he restraineth that appearing of the kindness, & Love of God, mentioned vers. 4. to the Gospel, I know not. (2) And though the Gospel were here understood, that would not help the matter; for the Text saith, that after this did appear, he saved them (that is Justified in the first place, as we see vers. 7.) according to his mercy, & not by work of Righteousness. (3) These works are called works of Righteousness; But no works of their own, before Conversion, can be so called: can the works of such as are foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving diverse lasts & pleasures, living in malice & envie, hateful & hating one another, be called works of Righteousness? and yet such were these, before the kindness & Love of God reached them, as vers. 3. showeth. He thinks the same answere may be given to 2. Tim. 1: 9. And so we think, the same reply may suffice.
His 2. ground is p. 114. That Paul, in speaking agaist Iustification by works, giveth sufficient caution not to be understood thereby to speak against Evangelick obedience in the case. That is, not to speak against justification by Evangelick works; which were to say, he took much paines for nothing; for if he had but said, that the Ceremonial Law was abrogate, he had sufficiently confuted justification by the Ceremonies, if that had been all the Law he meaned. But how proveth this man, what he here alledgeth? He adduceth Rom. 3: 31. But I wonder how did the Apostle by his doctrine establish the Ceremonial Law? In the Spirit of it (saith he) in as much as in preaching Iustification in the Gospel way, he preached in plaine precepts, the necessity of that spiritual purity unto Salvation, which was but darkly taught by the Ceremonial Law. Ans. (1) Then this man supposeth, that he is establishing the Ceremonial Law, by his doctrine in this book; for he thinks, that therein he is preaching up Justification in the Gospel way. (2) Neither did the Ceremonial Law more darkly, nor doth the Gospel in more plaine termes preach the necessity of spiritual purity, as the Condition of Justification: So that this Author beggeth what he cannot prove. (3) But that this is the Moral Law, hath been frequently shown above; as also it hath been shown, how & what way it was established, by the doctrine of just…fication without works; so that we need not regaird his saying; that by the doctrine of justification by faith, they established the moral Law, both in the letter & Spirit of it, in teaching the necessity of Evangelical obedience to it, after a more spiritual & forcible manner, than had been taught before. For this saith nothing for their pleading for obedience to this Law, as a Condition of Justification; which is the thing, he should have said: And if he know not, how Justification without the works of the moral Law, can consist with necessity of Obedience to the Moral Law, upon Gospel grounds, he is ignorant of the Gospel, and hath been more educate in Socinus his School, than in the orthodox Church.
He citeth to the same purpose Rom. 10: 4. & tels us, that Christ was the end of the Law in his doctrine, having taught that Righteousness of living, which the Law itself taught, but in a more excellent spiritual & effectual manner. Which is a very Socinian like gloss, but no way suiting the words, nor the scope of the Apostle, as the very reading of them may evince, & the following words vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. may put beyond all question, His citeing thereafter pag. 146. Rom. 7: 4. Gal. 2: 19, 20. is to no purpose; for in neither of these, nor any where else, doth he cry up holiness, performed in any manne… whatsomever, as a Condition of Justification; and this our Author should show, or he doth nothing: for we are not against the necessity of holiness, but see more Sure, more Comfortable, more Heart quieting, more Divine, and more Gospel-like grounds, whereupon to presse holiness, than any he discovereth in all his book, or can, according to his principles.
His 3. ground is p. 147. That Regeneration or the new creature, as including Evangelical Obedience, is opposed to works of the Law, in the business of mans Iustification, as well as Faith is, & as well as the grace of God it self is. And this he thinketh to prove from Gal. 6: 15. as Schlightingius the Socinian did before him cont. Meysner p. 148. But one thing is to be proved, to wit, that the Apostle is speaking this, in order to justification, and so contradicting all the former disput he had; which neither Reason, nor Religion will allow us to think, nor do the words, nor any Circumstance of the words, nor any thing of the scope, or of the threed of the Apostles discourse give the least countenance hereunto.
His 4. ground p. 148. is also from Schlichtingius ubi supra. That Evangelical obedience as well as faith, & together with faith, is opposed to the works of the Law, in reference to Iustification & Salvation. Gal. 5: 6. Ans. He supposeth here, that Circumcision is the same with the works of the Law, while as these that were crying it up at that time, took it only for a privilege, which might be keeped together with Christianity; and therefore the Apostle told them vers. 3. which they did not take notice of, that by their taking on that badge of circumcision, they made themselves debtors to do the whole Law (2) All that is required in reference to Salvation, is not required in reference to Justification. (3) Faith working by Love denoteth the right & the livly Faith, which only is Justifying & Saving, but bringeth not in all Evangelick Obedience under Love, as sharing with faith, in the same prerogative of justification, as was shewed above.
His 5. ground p. 149. is. That Evangelical Obedience alone is opposed to the works of the Law, in reference to Iustification. And this he confirmeth by 1. Cor. 7: 19. borrowing it from Schlightingius, the Socinian, where only two things are wanting, to make this passage a confirmation of his Assertion, one is, that by Circumsion here is meaned the keeping of the Law: and what shall then be understood by Uncircumcision? The other is, that the Apostle is speaking this in reference to Justification, contrary to the whole context.
His 6. ground ibid. is. That faith itself is an act of Evangelical obedience. Unto which we need say nothing here, having said so much above, to shew, that Faith in the matter of justification is not considered as an act of Gospel-obedience, but as an Instrument, laying hold on the Righteousness of Christ, the Cautioner.
His 7. ground is p. 152. That by Gospel-obedience Christians come to have a Right to Salvation Revel 22: 14. This foreign liberty (as it is translated 1. Cor. 8: 9.) Power or privilege, as it would seem to import 1. Cor. 9: 18. & elsewhere, is no proper Right; for all that can be called proper Right, the Saints have it through the purchase of Jesus Christ; his blood & his blood alone, hath bought the inheritance to us: And hereby we see the true tendency of this Man's doctrine, even to give us heaven as that, which we have bought with our labour & obedience; that is, to give us heaven by a new Covenant of Works, which Christ hath procured to be made with us. But this Right, is but a liberty to take possession of the crown of life purchased by Christ, & promised, at the end of the journay, in the way, wherein the Lord hath appointed us to walk towards the possession thereof: And can only prove, what we deny not, to wit, the necessity of Holiness, in order to the actual injoyment of life: But what saith this unto justification? He will not have us put any difference betwixt them, alledging that, such as do, are more curious & nice in distinguishing, than Paul was. And why so? Paul cals Iustification, the justification of life. Rom. 5: 18. Therefore Justification & Glorification is one & the same, & have every way the same conditions: Ans. It followeth not. He citeth next Rom. 8: 30. which clearly maketh them distinct. What more? He (i.e. Paul) proves that men shall be justified by faith, because it is written, the just shall live by faith Gal. 3: 11. & with him to be justified & blessed are all one Gal. 3: 8, 9. Rom. 4: 7, 8, 9. Ans. What that from Gal. 3: 11. can be made to prove by him, I know not. And as for the next, it will prove as much, that is, just nothing. He might as well inferre, that Poverty in Spirit, Mourning, Meekness, Hungring & Thirst…ng after Righteousness, Mercifulness, Purity in heart, Peacemaking & Suffering of persecution, were all the same with glory, because of what is said. Mat. 5: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Yet he proceedeth at this rate, & tels us p. …54. That Paul useth Righteousness, or Iustification & life, as Synonimous termes Gal. 3: 21. Ans. As if Justification were not a state of life, unless it were the same with Glory. We have shown above, what a life it is. And (saith he) Iustification & Condemnation are put in direct opposition to eachother Rom. 5: 18. & 8: 33, 34. Ans. And what then? In short (saith he) Salvation as well as justification is promised to beleeving Ioh. 3: 16. Act. 3: 31. Heb. 10: 39. & therefore both must be the immediat effect of faith. Ans. Himself answereth all this, by adding if we take Salvation, as begun here in this life, as the Scripture represents it to be Ioh. 5: …4. 1. Ioh. 3: 14. & 5: 12. He would further prove it from Iam. 2: 14. As if in one Chapter the Apostle could not speak, both of Justification & Salvation, unless he would make them both one thing: But though there be a life begun in Justification, that shall at length end in Glory, we see no ground to say, for all that he hath brought forth, that they are so the same, as to require the same previous Conditions: How profitable so ever Mr. Baxter account this Treatise to be, yet I cannot think, that he shall approve of this, which yet is the maine designe of the book.
His 8. ground p. 156. That the promise of forgiveness of sins is sometimes made unto Evangelical obedience. This he goeth about to prove from 1. Ioh. 1: 7. Where the Apostle is shewing the Advantages that such have, as have fellowship with God through faith in Jesus Christ, evidenced by their walking in the light (as is clear from vers. 6. and this in particular, that as they will be dayly failing, so they will have ready accesse to the blood of Christ; to get all their sins cleansed away. Neither is the Apostle here speaking of the first Pardon granted, when persons are translated into a state of justification, but he is speaking of such▪ as are already in that State. He cite…h next to this purpose 1. Pet, 1: 2. & addeth they were not elected to the benefite of being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, without obedience. Making that a condition of being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, which the Apostle mentioneth, as a distinct medium, to which they were elected, in reference to eternal life, the supream end, as to them: And he might as well say, they were not elected to the benefi…e of obedience without being sprinkled with the blood of Christ: and that too agreeth more with truth.
His 9. ground p. 157. is. That to forgive injuries is an act of Evangelical obedience to that precept Mat. 11: 25. And yet without this, men cannot be pardoned & so not justified Mark, 11: 25. Mat. 6: 15. & 18: 35. Ans. Though men cannot be pardoned without this, it will not follow, that therefore it is a part of the condition of Justification: but only proveth, that this must be present, as an evidence of their acting Faith on Jesus Christ, in truth & reality, in order to pardon: And these passages are explications of the fift petition of the Lord's prayer, the sense whereof is well given in our larger Catechisme §. 194. in these words, which we are the rather emboldened to ask. & encouraged to expect, when we have this testimony in ourselves, that we from the heart forgive others their offences.
His 10. & last ground is. That Repentance is an act of Evangelical Obedience Act. 17: 30. & yet pardon of sin, which is essential to justification, is not to be obtained without it. Luk 13: 3, 5. Ans. Of Repentance we have said enough above Chap. XXV. I wonder how he can to this end cite Luk 13: 3, 5. where no mention is made of Remission of sins; but perishing threatned to all, that will not repent.
I shall not here meddle with his mis representation of our doctrine, in the following pages, nor with the grounds & reasons of the preference he giveth, unto his way, seing, by all that he speaks, he bewrayeth utter ignorance of the Gospel truth, which we owne, & of its true Tendency to promove Gospel holiness, beyond any other way, what somever, hatched by Papist's & Socinians, that may be little or nothing beholden to Iesus Christ, for Grace here, or for Glory hereafter. And his Insinuations, as if we did not presse Repentance & Holiness, is little to his credite, or to the credite of the cause he maintaineth, seing the contrarie is so well known, to say no more.
Nor shall insist on the grounds he layeth down, to overturne the whole argueings of the Apostle in this matter, seing they are, upon the matter, the same, that others have laid down, and have been before spoken to: for from a tedious discourse concerning the mistaking apprehensions of the jewes, about the Law & the works thereof, in order to justification, to very little purpose, he inferreth p. 117. that doubtless Paul's denial of Iustification & Salvation to be by the Law, is to be understood in the very same sense, in which the incredulous jewes, against whom he disputed, did hold these so be attainable thereby: Forgetting with all, that what Paul wrote, was dictated by the Spirit, & so that for the use of the Church unto the end of the world. But sure, if no other works were here understood, than this Author will have here understood, it could be of little use to the Gospel churches, after the subject of the question, the Ceremonial Law, it self is taken away: And had it not been a shorter & most effectual way to have confuted the jewes errour here, simply to have proven (as he doth elsewhere) the abolishing of that Law? Beside, we finde many things spoken of this Law, against Justification by obedience to which the Apostle disputeth, that cannot agree to the Ceremonial Law, as hath been several times touched. But let us hear what the true question was. We must understand him (saith he) to deny a freedom from the eternal punishment to be attainable by legal Sacrifices: & also to deny that the promise of eternal life was made upon Condition of literal Circumcision, & a literal observation of the Mosaical Law. Ans. If this had been all to what purpose, I pray, did the Apostle laboure so much to prove, that not only the jewes, but that the Gentiles also were under sin, Rom. 1. & 2. The Gentiles were not, nor yet were to be under the Law of Ceremonies. (2) How could the Apostle inferre, that by the deeds of the Law, there should no flesh be justified, from his proving, that both jewes & Gentiles were guilty of the breach of the Moral Law, whereby every mouth was stopped, & all the world become guilty before God Rom. 3: 10-20? (3) did only the Law of Ceremonies give the knowledge of sin? Himself proveth the contrary pag. 57. (4) did the curse only belong unto the Ceremonial Law? or did Christ only become a Curse, in reference to the breaches of that? Gal. 3: 10.
He will not so much as yeeld p. 119. that Paul doth, on the bye, deny Justification by other works: And that meerly because it would destroy his fabrick of a Iudaical Socinian justification: though he pretend, that thereby the Apostles doctrine would be made inconsistent, not only with the Faith of the holy men of old, but also with his own doctrine: But neither did the holy men of old express the Condition of Justification (which he confoundeth with the Condition of the Covenant of mercy) by loving God & keeping his commandements; nor doth Paul speak any such thing, as we have seen, what ever he with Socinians & Arminians say.
He giveth us another character (which also we heard from others before) of the works, by which Paul denied men were justified, calling them such works, which were apt to occasion boasting Ephes. 2: 9. Rom. 4: 2. But thus he quite perverreth both the sense of the words, scope & argueing of the Apostle; for the Apostle cleareth that it is by grace we are saved: & not by works, upon this very account, that if we were saved or justified upon the account of any of our works, man should boast Ephes. 2: 9. Not of works; why? lest any man should boast, manifestly declaring that all works were laid aside, in this matter, & that for this end, that no man should have any occasion of boasting: & this is not spoken, as every one may see, to qualifie, or specifie the works that are excluded; these words carry nothing of a restriction in them: The same is cleare also Rom. 4: 2. If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory▪ shalll the meaning be, Abraham was not justified by such works, as give ground of gloriation? then the meaning lyeth not in the words, but the words do expresly crosse & contradict that sense, unless we shall suppose them to have no sense: to speak nothing of the following vers. 3. where beleeving is mentioned, & not another sort of works, to wit, such as give no ground or occasion of boasting, which, in this case of justification, no man can describe unto us, or tell us what they are.
He tels us p. 122. that the meaning of these words Rom. 3: 28. Therefore we conclude &c. is no more but this, viz. That a man is justified in the Gospel way But not only is that in the general included; but that Gospel-way is particularly expressed, to be by faith without the deeds of the Law: And consequently his Popish, & Socinian way is diametrically opposite to the Gospel-way.
He goeth about to explaine to us p. 124. &c. what is meaned by their own Righteousness, that is so frequently set in opposition to the Righteousness of God, & tels us, that it was so called upon a threefold account. 1. Because they sought the pardon of their sins by their own Sacrifices. Ans. And why not also by their works of Obedience? Sure. neither Abraham, nor David sought for pardon upon any such accout, & they renunced other works, than these. Is that all the Righteousness that Paul renunceth Phil. 3: 9? Was he then occupied about Sacrifices? Some thing else sure is understood. 1. Cor. 4: 4.
2. Because (saith he) they did not think Regeneration, or Supernatural grace necessary to the obtaining of it. Ans. And truely, all the Regeneration & Supernatural grace, which he thinks necessary, is but that a Pelagian, Iesuite & Arminian will think necessary, & no more, as we saw above. But doth he think, that Abraham, or David had any such apprehensions? & yet even their works are excluded from justification. Was that the Righteousness that Paul called his owne Phil. 3: 9? I think for shame he will not say it. And what meaneth Paul to say 1. Cor. 4: 4. I know nothing by my self, yet am I not hereby justified. This sure, must include works done by supernatural Grace; & after Regeneration.
3. Saith he. Because it was a way of seeking to be justified of their own devising, & not of God's appointing. Ans. This is very true, but it is not the whole truth in this matter: And his way is of the same Nature, no more consistent with the Gospel methode of justification, through the Righteousness of God by faith, than theirs is; for the Imputed Righteousness of Christ he rejecteth with contempt: True justification he is ignorant of; He knoweth no Faith, but what is Popish & Socinian. His New Covenant is but a new edition of the old. His Regeneration is Pelagian. His Good Works are but works flowing from a Principle of Nature, aided with a common divine assistance.
Let us now in end hear, what is the result of all his discourse. It is to shew; That they were the works ef the Law, as exclusive of Faith in Christ, & his death: & Not those, which are the immediat effects of Faith in Christ, in his death & in his doctrine. But the Gospel tels us, that in the matter of Justification, all the works, of the Law, are exclusive of faith in Christ, even Abraham's works David's works: & Paul's works; & therefore they were all laid aside, & justification was only looked for through Faith.
Thus we have seen, what a Gospel this is, which Mr. Baxter recommendeth to us, the consideration whereof may move some to say.
Noscitur ex socio, qui non dignoscitur ex se.