The Life of Justification Opened, Appendix · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
We must not lean to any Righteousness within us, whereby to be justified.
Mr. Baxter in his Cathol. Theol. part. 2. n. 176. speaketh thus. It is ordinary (saith he) with some writers & preachers, to tell men, that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves, & with others, that at least, none which they are justified, by in any part is in them; And that it is all in Christ only: And that nature is loth to yeeld to this, but thinketh it a fine thing, to have some little part of the honour to itself: And as to the honour of a good Action, if it be but 999. parts, that it ascribeth to God, & taketh one part of a thousand to ourselves, it is a dangerous arrogation: We must have none. And it might be thought, that such as ever understood the Gospel, considered the particular expressions, used in Scripture, to abase man, yea & the whole Contrivance of the Gospel Salvation, through a Crucified Cautioner, and that such as ever understood & were acquanted with the Natural Pride, deceit, & Treacherie of their own heart; and had any experience in the devices of Satan, in & about wakened consciences, to keep them from an hearty closing with & willing accepting of, and cleanly resting upon the way of Salvation, revealed in the Gospel, should be far from condemning this saying, & from making exceptions against it. But indeed, the grounds, that Papists, Socinians & Arminians lay down, as the Basis of their antievangelick Fabrick, & Contrivance of the way of Salvation, are more favourable to Self, and are therefore the more cordially embraced by many, & more stiffly maintained. Mr. Baxter seemeth to say here, that these are different things, to say, That no part of our Righteousness is in ourselves, and that no part of our Righteousness, by which we are justified, is in ourselves, where with the Orthodox, these are but different expressions of the same thing; for when they deny a Righteousness within ourselves, it is not a denying of begun Holiness & Sanctification; but a denying of a Righteousness as the ground of justification, for all this they acknowledge to be wholly & only in Christ, the Lord our Righteousness. And to adjoine to this, the Question about the honour of a good Action, as whether that should be wholly ascribed to God, or one part of a Thousand may not be ascribed to ourselves; is neither very savourie in itself, nor pertinent to the clearing of the other.
But what answereth Mr. Baxter? This (saith he) well explained may be made sound : But thus grosly delivered, it is but a popular cheat, under the taking Pretence of self abasement & giving Christ all. Ans. I should readily feare, that Mr. Baxter's explication should be so far from making the expressions sounder than they are, that it should rather prove a Commentary corrupting the text, seing I finde him thus dissatisfied with expressions so consonant to the straine of the Gospel, to the holy genius of all savingly illuminated, and to the very language of the Saints, in Scripture. But as to his Consure, calling this no less than a popular cheat, it is sharpe, and, more befitting, in my judgment, a Papist, or a Non-Christian Socinian, than Mr. Baxter.
Yet let us hear the ground of this so sharp & so unseemly censure. The Devil (saith he) is as willing as any one, that you should have nothing honourable or praiseworthie in you; & be as vile, as he can make you. Ans. If it would not be displeasing, I would say, that this answere is a plaine cheat: for the question is not, whether we should have any thing in us, truely honourable & praise worthie, or whether we should be as vile, as the devil would make us; No protestant ever spoke so; But the question is. Whether for any thing in us truely honourable & praise worthie, we should Sacrifice to our own net, & burne incense to our own drag; or give the glory unto God, who worketh all our works in us; and worketh in us both to will, & to do Esai. 26: 12. Phil. 2: 13. The question is not, whether we should have good in us, or not? but whether we should not say, with Paul 1. Cor. 4: 4. Even when we know nothing by ourselves, yet are we not hereby justified? and whether we should not say with him Phil, 3: 8, 9. that we count all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledg of Christ Jesus, our Lord, & count them dung, that we may win Christ, & be found in him, not having our own Righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. The question is not, whether Christ be made Sanctification to us; but whether that Sanctification, be any part of that Righteousness, which Christ is made of God to be unto us? What more?
He addeth. It is God, who honoureth these, that honour him, & praiseth his Saints, as the excellent on the Earth, & his Jewels & peculiar Treasure, adorneth with his own lovely image, & partakers of the divine Nature, and members of Christ, as his own flesh. And it is Satan & wicked men that vilifie & dishonour them. Ans. This is but a Continuance of the same cheat: for it is no part of the question, whether the Saints should be vilified, or honoured? But the question is, whether the Saints should rob God of his glory, and ascribe that unto themselves, which is due unto him, be it in less, or in more? We know, the Saints are God's excellent ones, his Jewels & his peculiar treasure; but all this is through the free underserved grace of God, making them beautiful & lovely with his own graces, and partakers of his divine Nature: And therefore we say, that for all that they ought to be humble, knowing what their birth & …ativity was, and whence all this is come; and who ought to have the glory of all this; and notwithstanding of this, what is the sole ground of their justification before God, and what is that Righteousness, upon the account whereof they are justified in the sight of God.
And I have oft lamented it (saith he furder) that these very men, that hold this kind of doctrine of self-abosement, as having no part of Righteousness, nor share at all in any good work, are yet too oft so proudly conceited of their own goodness (even for holding, that they have none for which they are praise worthie) as that their pride is no small trouble to the Churches & all about them. Ans. I shall not plead for pride, or proud conceits in any: but whether such as lay down doctrinal grounds of pride, and teach men to be proud, or such as lay down contrary grounds, but do not practise accordingly, be most blame worthie; I leave Mr. Baxter to judge. One thing I would ask: How Mr. Baxter came to know, that such, as he opposeth here, were proudly conceited of their own goodness? Pride & a proud conceit lyeth most within, & is not obvious to the view of every one, especially being upon such a ground. I hope Mr. Baxter will not take upon him to judge of hearts: And if it be by their contendings for that, which they conceive to be truth: If this be an infallible mark, no man can be judged more proud, than is Mr. Baxter, none having in this matter contended by so many & so great volumnes, as he hath, since his Aphorismes come abroad, & that indeed to the no small trouble of the Churches. And further, some might think, that if Mr. Baxter did aright lament, that any were proudly conceited of their own goodness, he should not have laid doctrinal grounds for fomenting of this pride; nor moved such an objection against himself, as he doth here; for no man can rightly lament at the practice of that doctrine, which himself embraceth & teacheth.
He proceedeth (…. 177.) Whatever is of God is good: & whatever is good is la…dable or praise-worthie, & meriteth to be esteemed as it is. Ans. True, & therefore God, who is the Author thereof, should have the glory, & it should be esteemed, as it is, to the glory of God, & not to puff us up with proud conceits, or to be the ground we leane to, in order to be justified & accepted of God. He addeth (n. 178.) All the Sanctified are inherently righteous, but with an imperfect Righteousness, which will no further justifie them in judgment, save only against this Accusation, that they are unholy. Ans. Mr. Baxter then is much to blame, who will have this Imperfect Righteousness to be a perfect Righteousness, as being our Gospel Righteousness, and the Po…estative condition of our Justification & absolution at judgment, and so the immediat & sole formal ground of our Justification before God. But this answere is also impertinent; for these he here writteth against, speak not of a particular justification, from this or that false Accusation; but of that justification before God, whereof Paul treateth, in his Epistles to the Romans & Galatians, & which is a justification of the ungodly. Rom. 4: 5.
He addeth (n. 179.) There is no Righteousness, which will not justifie him, that hath it in tantum, so far as he is Righteous: for the contrary is a contradiction: for to be just, is to be justifiable. Ans. This is sick of the same impertinency with what went before: for the question is not concerning a particular Righteousness, & a particular justification, upon that account; but of a general justification, as to our state & that from the just accusation of Law & justice, under which we stand by Nature, in reference to which, all our inherent Righteo…sness, how great so ever it be, is no ground, nor part of the merite, or formalis ratio of that. Paul had no small share of this Righteousness, when he said, he knew nothing by himself: And yet he addeth▪ Yet am I not hereby justified 1. Cor. 4: 4. and we would say the same, & speak after this manner, if Mr. Baxter would suffer us.
Next (n. 181. for 180.) he saith. All the Righteousness, which formally justifieth us, is our own, or on ourselves, where it justifieth us: for to be made just or justified, in the first sense constitutivly, is nothing else, but to be made such, as are personally themselves just. Pardon of sin is made our own, Right to Christ & glory is made our own; though Christ's Righteousness was the only meritorious cause of all this; which therefore is & may be called our Material Righteousness, as that, which meriteth it, is the matter. Ans. There seemeth to be nothing here, but confusion: for (1) he speaketh ambiguously, when he saith, that all that Righteousness, which formally justifieth us, is our own, or on ourselves; for this may be true, whether by that Righteousness, he mean the Surety-Righteousness of Christ (which he doth not meane, for he is too much against the imputation of that, as we have seen) beeause we say, that is made ours by imputation, in order to our justification upon the account thereof: or whether he mean our own inherent Righteousness; but then if this be his meaning, it is false, that we are hereby formally justified, unless he mean, as before, only a particular justification, which is nothing to the point, as was said. (2) To be made just & to be justified, are not formally the same, but to such only, who Love confusion. (3) He who is made just, is but constituted justifiable, & is not eo ipso constitutive justified: But Mr. Baxter loveth his own Expressions & Explications of them. (4) When he saith that to be justified constitutively is nothing else but to be made such, as are personally themselves just, he speaketh very indistinctly; not only as confounding, being made just & being justified, as if they were formally the same; but also as not giving us to understand, what he meaneth by these words personally th…mselves just: Hereby he would seem to say, that only by something inherent in our persons, we are constituted Righteous, & are justified; and not by any thing imputed to us: And if so, the ground of all Anti-evangelick boasting & glorying in ourselves is laid. (5) Pardon of sin, as such, is neither a making a just, nor a justifying: and the same we say of Right to Christ & to Glory. (6) Christ's Righteousness, according to Mr. Baxter, can not be called the meritorious cause of our pardon, justification, & Right to Glory &c. because it is only made by him the meritorious cause of the New Covenant, wherein pardon, Right to Christ & to Glory are promised upon New Conditions, & so is made the meritorious Cause of the connection betwixt the performance of these New Conditions, & the obtaining of Pardon & that Right; so that by vertue of Christ's Merites, these New Conditions are made the proper & immediat meritorious cause ex pacto of these favours: And by this way, Man can not but boast & glory in himself immediatly, and give Christ only some remote far-off thanks, for procuring the New termes. (7) Christ's Righteousness cannot be called our Material Righteousness, any other way, than as it hath purchased the New Covenant, according to Mr. Baxter; & this being equally for all, Christ's Righteousness shall be the Material Righteousness of the Reprobat, as well as of Beleevers: And how can that be called ours, which is not ours, nor our own, nor are we by it made personally just ourselves? as he spoke before (8) According to this doctrine, Christ Righteousness meriteth to us another Righteousness, which is our own & on ourselves & by this we are formally justified: that is, according to what went before, & to what followeth, we are formally justified by our own personal inherent holiness (for of this, he is speaking only) and yet that which he here mentioneth, as the Righteousness, which formally justifieth us, is said to be pardon of sin, & a Right to Christ & to Glory, which formally is no Righteousness at all, nor no where so called in Scripture, & is but a consequent of that, which elsewhere he calleth our Gospel Righteousness, and the Condition of Justification.
He goeth on (n. 182.) He that is no cause of any good work, is no Christian, but a damnable wretch, & worfe than any wicked man I know in the world: And he that is a cause of it, must not be denyed falsly to be a cause of it. Nor a Saint denied to be a Saint, upon a false pretence of self-denyal. Ans. Of such a cause of any good work, he knoweth the objection speaketh, that should have the glory & praise thereof; and & of good works, as the ground & formal Cause of justification; which these against whom Mr. Baxter here disputeth, do deny. But we may see here, what Mr. Baxter accounteth good works; even such as the most damnable wretch, and possiblie the devil himself may do; that is a work materially good, though far different from the good works described to us in Scripture. And thus the Justification upon good works, which Mr. Baxter here meaneth, must be a Justification, that all Heathens, damnable wretches, yea & devils themselves are capable of: But this is not the justification we speak of, of which who ever are partakers shall be glorified Rom. 8: 30. We say nothing, that giveth him ground to think, that our thoughts are, that a Saint should be denyed to be a Saint, upon pretence of Self-denyal. Only we say that such as are Saints indeed will be loth to rob God of his glory, or take any of that to themselves, which is due to him alone, in so far as they act as Saints; And they should not, because Saints, glory & boast, as if their justification before God, were by their Sanctity & good works; & not of meer grace, through the imputation of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ. One thing I would ask. Doth Mr. Baxter think, that Christ's Righteousness hath merited that justification, which those damnable wretches & devils may partake of, by any good work, which they do? himself told us in the foregoing (n. 81.) that all Righteousnuss which formally iustifieth, is our own, & that to be made just & to be justified are the same, or equipollent; and to be Justified constitutively is nothing else, then to be made such as are personally themselves just. Now, when devils & damnable wretches may be the causes of some good work, that good work cannot but formally justifie them, and they thereby become constitutively justified, I would enquire, whether this Justification be purchased by Christ or not? And againe I would enquire, whether this Justification be accompanied with pardon of sin, & with Right to Christ & to glory, or not? If not, how can it be called a justification? & if it be not a justification, how can they be hereby formally justified, & constitutively justified?
He tels us next (n. 183) As God is seen here in the glass of his works, so he is to be loved & praised, as so appearing. This is, say I, good & reasonable. What then? Therefore (saith he, he that dishonoureth his work, dishonoureth God, & hindereth his due love and praise. This consequence, I grant, is good; but what is it to the point in hand? And his most lovely & honourable work (saith he) on earth is his holy image on his Saints; & as Christ will come to be admired & glorified in them at last, so God must be seen & glorified in them here in some degree▪ Neither, say I, is any thing of this to the purpose in hand. He addeth. And to deny the glory of his image is the malignants way of injuring him, & that in which the worst will serve you. And what then? He that will praise God (saith he further) as Creator & Redeemer must praise his works, of Creation & Redemption: And is it the way of praising him, as our Sanctifier, to dispraise his work of Sanctification? Ans. What maketh all this to the purpose? Must all such be guilty of this malignant wickedness, who tell men, that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves, by which they are to be justified, but that it is all in Christ only: or that say, that God must have all the glory of what good action they do? This is hard, that either we must be wicked Malignants, or Sacrilegious robbers of God of the Glory, due unto him, But I see no connexion, and Mr. Baxter hath not yet demonstrated the same. He must then prove the Consequence of this argueing.
He addeth (n. 184.) Those poor sinners of my acquantance, who lived in the grossest sins against Conscience (as Drunkeness, & horedome &c.) have been glad enough of such doctrine, & forward enough to beleeve, that there is nothing in man, that in any part can justifie him, or that is any part of Righteousness, but it is all out of us in Christ, & therefore they are as justifiable, as any. But Conscience will not let them beleeve it, as they desire, Ans. To this cannot answere, not knowing, nor having acquaintance with those poor sinners; Yet this I may say, (& others will say the same with me) that Mr. Baxter's way is that, which I finde more relishing unto carnal Souls, than the self denying way of the Gospel, which we use to preach: And that the way, which Mr. Baxter is not satisfied with, is the way, that is most pleasant & acceptable unto the truely gracious, and rightly exercised Souls. But surder, what of all this? Knoweth not Mr. Baxter that some can turn the grace of God into lasciviousness? Must therefore the mountains be removed for them?
He saith Moreover (n. 185.) It is arrogant folly to divide tho praise of any good act between God & man, & to say God is to have so many parts & man so many: for the whole is due to God; & yet some is due to man: for man holdeth his honour only in Subordination to God, & not dividedly in Co-ordination. And therefore all is due to God: for that which is Mans is God's; because we have nothing; but what we have received. But he that arrogateth any of the honour due to God or Christ, …ffendeth. Ans. If it be thus, Mr. Baxter is the more to blame, in being dissatisfied with such, as are but expressing their care, that God have all his due, and that man do not proudly arrogat to himself any of that honour & glory, which is due to God alone: And if Mr. Baxter knoweth not, that there is a strong propension in corrupt nature, to spoil God of his glory, he knoweth nothing: And wo to such, as would indulge nature in this Sacrilege. Them that honour God, He will honour. What honour is justly due unto man, in subordination unto God, none of those, I suppose, whom Mr. Baxter here opposeth, will grudge him of; but all their care is, to have God's due keeped for himself, & that is all; & it is not commendable in any, to oppose them in this.
But next he saith (n. 186.) If all had been taken from God's honour, which had been given to the creature, God would have made nothing, or made nothing good; heaven & earth & all the world would derogate from his honour; and none of his works should be praised. And the better any man is, the more he would dishonour God, & the wickeder the less. But he made all good, and is glorious in the glory, & honourable in the honour of all: & to justifie the holiness of his servants, is to justifie him. Ans. All this is little or nothing to the purpose: for such as are carefull that man rob not God of his glory, do not deny the honour due to the creature, knowing that when honour is given to the creature, upon a right ground, and in the right manner, it redounded unto the honour of the Creator: But who knoweth not, how ready the Creature is to steal into the throne of God; and how ready men are to transcend…, and transgress all due limites? And is it not saifest to keep far from such a dangerous precipice? Is it to edification thus to gratifie with our pleadings proud Nature, and to blow at this fire of corruption, that the Saints have dailyhard work about to suppress & exstinguish? Must we thus, on so small occasions, plead so stoutly for man, & pretend to plead for God too?
He addeth next (n. 187.) If these Teachers mean, that no man hath any power freely to specifie the acts of his own will by any other help of God, besides necessitating predetermining premotion; & so that every man doth all that he can do, & no man can do more than he doth; They di honoure God by denying him to be the Creator of that f…ee power, which is essential to man, & which God himself accounteth it his honour to creat. And they feigne God to damne & blame all, that are damned & blamed, for as great impossibilities, as if they were damned & blamed for not making a world, or for not being Angels. Ans. This is not a fit place to treate of that Question of Predetermination, though Mr. Baxter pull it in here by the eares; It is enough for us, that we see now, whither all that Mr. Baxter hath here been saying, tendeth, even to give unto Man, the glory of all the good he doth, of his Faith, Repentance, Love of God, obedience & perseverance, in the first, chiefe & immediat …ace; for by his own Natural Power he did freely specifie the acts of his own will, and so beleeved, when he might have rejected the Gospel, Loved God & Christ, when he might have hated both, Repented, when he might have remained impenitent, Converted himself, when he might have remained in his former state (& Mr. Baxter maketh no difference of acts here, and so his words must be looked on as meaned of supernatural acts, as well as of Natural) & that without any predetermining grace or motion of God. This glory shall we never yeeld to be due unto man, Let Mr. Baxter load the Doctrine of Predetermining grace, with all the reproaches, and absurdities, he can invent. He needs not think now to restrick his opinion of denying Predetermination unto natural acts, for as the good spoken of by those he here opposeth, is supernatural good, as such; so his discourse here is expressive enough of this: And thus the cause is yeelded unto Pelagians, Iesuits & Arminians, and the crown is put upon the head of man, and he is to honour & praise himself for what good he doth, for all began at his own self-determining power & will; and the Almighty himself could not have bowed & predetermined his will, except he had overturned the course of Nature, & destroyed that free power, which is essential to man. And thus it is made to be to the honour of God, to creat a Creature, that is absolute Lord & Master of all his own actions, & so must be the first Cause of his own actions, as to their specifick moral nature, & what is this, but to make man an independent Creature, as to his actions, & consequently a God to himself: Mr. Baxter hinteth some other help of God besides Predetermination; but what that is, he telleth us not; is it his Concourse? From this the same inconveniences will flow, that flow from Predetermination. And beside Mr. Baxter seemeth to incline more to Durandus's his opinion, & A dola's, which even the Jesuites are ashamed to owne, and his friend D. Strang doth directly confute; as loving to set man yet higher up, than they dar do. Doth Mr. Baxter think that it is essential to man to have such a free power, as that of himself he can specifie the acts of his own will, without any predetermining Motion of God? Can he then beleeve in Christ. Hope savingly in God, yeeld Christian Obedience to all the commands of God, without God's Predetermining motion upon his heart? And is that Common General influx, whereby he is preserved in his being, & his faculties & power not taken away, enough to make a man turn from Nature unto Grace, if he will be so good natured as to bow his own will, & determine himself, as he may? Why do we then condemne the Pelagians? What did or could Pelagius say more? But enough of this here.
In the following, Paragraph (n. 188.) He tels us, that some men teach, that Christ strippeth a Christian of two things, his Sins, & his Righteousness. Or that two Things must be cast away for Christ, Sins & Righteousness. And he is not satisfied with such speeches, though they be consonant to, yea upon the matter, the very same with the speeches of Paul Phil. 3: 8, 9. He faith they should speak better, if they would not deceive. And why saith he not so of the Apostle Paul also? May it serve him, that we speak, as Paul did? Nothing (saith he) is to be cast away, as evil, but sin. True; and yet the Apostle desired to be found in Christ, not having his own Righteousness; & what was a Righteousness in his eyes before; and was a Righteousness, which is in the Law, and wherein he was blameless, he now accounted loss for Christ, yea he accounted them but dung; which includeth a rejecting & casting of it away with detestation. He addeth, Righteousness truely such is good, & never to be cast away. If it be no Righteousn…ss, why do they falsly say, that we must cast away our Righteousness? Ans. Let the Apostle Paul answere this, whom it concerneth as much, as us: And let Mr. Baxter in soberness consider how this reflecteth upon the Spirit of the Lord, inspiring the Apostle to speak so. As for us, we are not very anxious in this matter, but can freely tell Mr. Baxter, that though our personal Righteousness be good; Yet in the matter of justification before God, and absolution from the condemnatory sentence of the Law, & adjudication to life, we must lay it aside, and betake ourselves solely to the Righteousness of Christ, and seek to be found in him alone, after the example of the Apostle, & according to the clear doctrine of the Gospel; And this we are resolved to do, how displeased soever Mr. Baxter be with us upon that account.
He addeth. To cast away a false conceit of Righteousness, is not to cast away Righteousness, but Sin only; indeed beside sin, we are said justly to cast away that, which would be the object & matter of sin: And the phrase is fitlier applied to a thing Indifferent; than to a thing necessary, lest it seduce. Ans. To account our Righteousness, consisting in our obedience to the Law, to be dung, as Paul did, in the business of justification, is all we plaid for, let Mr. Baxter call it a casting away of a false conceite of Righteousness, if that will satisfie him, but even in this we cast away our Righteousness, when we will not trust to it, as our Righteousness, in order to justification; or as that Righteousness, upon the account of which we expect to be justified in the sight of God. And if Mr. Baxter be afraid of Seducing here, he may know where we ground our expressions: I suppose Paul was far from seducing, when he spoke, as he did Phil. 3: 8, 9.
There is nothing so good (saith he) which may not be made the object of sin; not Christ, or his Righteousness, or God himself excepted; But we must not thus objectivly abuse them. Ans. And what is all this to the purpose? Doth he think that those teachers, he here opposeth, were enemies to holiness; or would have men laying aside all thoughts of it, and care about it when they spoke so? He may as well inferre such things from the Apostles speaches. But what is meaned secundum quid, should not be understood as spoken simpliciter. His reasoning here then is impertinent, as also is that which followeth, when he saith. So holiness & true Righteousness (inherent or imputed) may be objects of sinful pride & boasting; But it is not edifying doctrine therefore to say, that we must cast away inherent & imputed Righteousness. For we plead not for casting away every thing that may be abused, but for casting away our own Righteousness, in the matter of justification, that impured Righteousness may only take place. But how imputed Righteousness can be the object of sinful pride & boasting, he would do well to teach us; that Inherent Righteousuess may be so, we know; and to plead for justification upon that account, is to lay the foundation of sinful pride & boasting, as the Scriptures teach us.
He addeth. But yet true self deny…l requireth that we deny our Righteousness (inherent or Imputed) to be that which indeed it is not. Ans. And therefore we deny, that our inherent Righteousness is the ground, or formalis ratio objectiva of our justification: But what way Self-denyal teacheth us to deny our imputed Righteousness to be what it is not, he must be pleased to informe us; and to speak thus alike of both our inherent & imputed Righteousness, is not very faire; as if there were no difference.
Further he tels us. And so when men accounted the jewish observations to be a justifying Righteousness, in competition with, & in opposition to Christ, Paul counteth it as loss & dung, & nothing in that respect: when yet elsewhere he saith, I have lived in all good conscience to this day: And Christ himself fulfilled that Law & Righteousness. Ans. What meaneth Mr. Baxter by these jewish observations? Meaneth he nothing but their observance of the Ceremonial Law? But did Paul meane nothing but his consciencious observance of this Law, when he said, I have lived in all good conscience to this day? And did he mean nothing else, by that Righteousness, which he counted loss & dung. Phil. 3? The Apostle himself distinguisheth betwixt the Law, touching which he was a Pharisee; and that Law touching the Righteousness whereof, he had been blameless: And sure before the writting of this Epistle, he had preached down the observation of the Ceremonial Law, and was far from the observation thereof, & yet now, he accounted that same Righteousness, which formerly was gaine to him, now to be loss & dung, so that this could not be, his Ceremonial Observances; for it had been a small demonstration of his excessive desire to win Christ, to count tha…loss now, which he had before comdemned as unnecessary. Yea as unlawfull, & had laid aside, as such. So that he meaneth all that, which could be called his own Righteousness, & which is of the Law, and was not that Righteousness, which is through the Faith of Christ, and of God by Faith. And it is also observable, that the Apostle useth a very comprehensive terme beside, saying, And I count all things but losse &c. Moreover, th… jewish observances, while that Law stood in force, were useful & good, & a Righteousness, as well as the observation of the moral Law, to which they were also reducible, being enjoined by vertue of the Second Command. And if these observances could be brought (through mens corruption,) in competition, with & set in opposition to Christ, and therefore were justly accounted as loss & dung & nothing, in that respect: why ought not also moral observances be …o accounted, seing they through mans corruption, can be & are too oft brought in competition with, & set in opposition against Christ, & his Righteousness? If Mr. Baxter will yeeld to this, he needs disput no more at this rate.
He addeth. So if a man will conceit, that his common grace will justifie without holiness; or his holiness without pardon, & the Righteousness of Christ, he must deny this Righteousness; that is, he must deny it to be what it is not, & must cast away (not it, but) the false conc…its of it. Ans. We think them in an errour, who conceit, that either common grace will justifie without holiness, or holiness with or without pardon & the Righteousness of Christ: and it is not proper for him, who will not hear others saying, that Faith justifieth, to say, that holiness justifieth. And it is as improper to say, that pardon justifieth: Let him tell me, how holiness with pardon can justifie? And as for the Righteousness of Christ, all men (with Mr. Baxter) are justified by it alike, for it only purchased the New Covenant, and that it did to all alike, and is no other way imputed unto any whatsomever. And so, according to his judgment it must be denied, that Christ's Righteousness becometh the beleevers through God's imputation, & that beleevers are there with clothed, and thereupon made juridically Righteous, and then justified, or pronunced Righteous, through that imputed Surety Righteousness of Christ: this is the self-denyal that Mr. Baxter will teach us; and stead of this Surety-Righteousness of Christ, we must be clothed (according to him) with our own Gospel Righteousness, Faith & New Obedience, and upon that ground, as the only neerest formal reason; or meritorious cause, expect to be justified; because Christ's Righteousness hath purchased this Covenant, and connexion. Mr. Baxter must not be offended, that I mention the word Merite here, remembering what he saith himself (n. 194.) where his friendliness to Papists, & his displeasure at Protestants is so remarkable, in these words. [And those that reject the saying of some Papists, who in this sence say, that Christ merited that we might merite, placing our Evangelical merite in a meer subordination to Christ's, do but shew, what prejudice & partiality can do, and harden those, who perceive their errors.]
Finally he saith here. And so if any Libertine will say, that Christ's Righteousness imputed to him, will justifie him without Faith, or be in stead to holiness to him, he must deny imputed Righteousness thus to be, what indeed it is not. Ans. Though I know, the Lord hath thought good to ordaine Faith, as a mean, whereby we may be made partaker of Christ's Surety-Righteousness, and so be justified; Yet I may say, that Christ's Righteousness imputed, as being the sole meritorious cause & Ratie formali… objectiva of our justification, will justifie without Faith, as any part of that Righteousness, which we are considered as clothed with, when declared & pronunced Righteous. And though it be not in stead of holiness, as if holiness were no more required of us; Yet it is & must be in stead of that holiness & Righteousness, which was required of us in the Old Covenant & by the Law, in order to our being accepted & justified thereupon.
He tels us in the margine, that none deny. That all that are saved have inherent Righteousness; and that in tantum we are Righteous by it; That a man accused, as being an Insidel, Atheist, Impenitent, Ungodly, a Hypocrite &c. must be justified by pleading all the contraries in himself; or else perish; And that this inherent Righteousness is imperfect, and in us found with sin, & that therefore no man can be justified by it without pardon of sin, nor at all against the charge of being a sinner, & condemnable by the Law of innocency. But what is all this to the point? Must we not therefore say with Paul, that in the business of justification, we must account our own Righteousness to be but dung, and only lean to the Righteousness of Christ? What would he hence conclude? And what remaineth then (saith he) but to trouble the world with contending de nomine, whether this Imperfect Righteousness, shall be called Righteousness, & the giving of it, called justifying, or making us Righteous so far. Ans. And who, I pray, more guilty of troubling the world with these contendings, than he? But to the matter, it is no meer contending de nomine, that he hath caused, when in stead of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ, with which the Orthodox Asserted beleevers to be clothed, as the immediat ground of their justification before God, and which they by Faith were to lean to, and rest upon in order to justification, he substituteth, in its place, our imperfect holiness, & maketh that to merite justification & Salvation, as a subordinat Righteousness (so called, though indeed in this case the principal.) advanced to that dignity by the merites of Christ's Righteousness; and as all that Righteousness, which can properly be said to be ours, and to be imputed to us, as the only Potestative Condition of our Justification & Salvation, according to the New Covenant, purchased by Christ. This is something more, and a great something more, than a meer contest about a word, or a name. This toucheth the foundation of the Gospel, let Mr. Baxter think as little of it, as he will. I need not take notice of his making these two one thing, justifying & making us Righteous, and of his calling the giving of Righteousness or holiness a justifying of us, for this is but sutable to him, who would confound all.
This is all he speaketh to this matter in this place: But thereafter Sect. 5. of merite (n. 196.) he tels us, It is a great question, whether a man may trust to his own Faith, Repentance or Holiness. And I should think, that no orthodox man should once make a question about it; but should reject the very insinuation of such a thing with detestation: seing Trusting to these things is the native consequent of the Popish, Socinian & Arminian errour about justification; or of all, who speak of the Imputation of Faith &c. as our Righteousness, in stead of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. What answere giveth he? But some men (saith he) will trouble the world with unexplained words, where no sober men differ. Ans. The words are plaine enough, and need no explication, & every ordinary Christian understand their meaning; but against such, as will seek knots in rushes, and raise dust in the most clear aire, for their own ends, there is no remedie. I am afraied the point of difference shall be found such here, as that our agreement shall not be expected in …haste, unless our sobriety be such, as well make us embrace inconsistences.
Let us hear what he saith. No wise man can dream, that we may trust to those for more than their proper part, as that we may trust them to do anything proper to God, to Christ, to the Spirit, to the promise &c. And to use the phrase of Trusting to our own Faith, or holiness, when it soundeth absolutly, or may tempt the hearers to think, that they may trust them for God's part, or Christ's part, & not only for their own, is a dangerous deceiving course. Ans. It is true, no wise man will say, that we may trust to these for more than their proper part, but when we are mistaken about their proper part, & conceive them to have that place & part, which they have not, and accordingly trust unto them, do we not amisse? And Mr. Baxter maketh it their part to be the immediat meritorious cause expacto (which he otherwayes expresseth to be the Potestative Condition) of Justification & Salvation: which we say is the part of Christ & his Righteousness alone: And sure, who ever shall trust unto them for this part, which according to the Gospel is Christ's part, trust unto them for more than their proper part. Neither is it any dangerous or deceiving course, to speak thus, when the meaning is obviously known (except to such as have wit enough to darken things) to be this, that we must not Trust to Faith &c. as the price, the merite, ex pacto (as perfect obedience was under the first Covenant) of our Justification, Adoption, & Salvation. But it is a most dangerous & deceiving course to call them only Conditions, or cause fine quibus non, when in the meane time, they are made to have the same place in the New Covenant, that perfect obedience had in the old; & are made our Gospel-Righteousness, for which we are justified, yea & put in the same place, that the Orthodox put Christ & his Surety- Righteousness, that is, to be the immediat ground, formal cause, Ratio formalis objectiva of our Justification.
What more? But that really they may be trusted, for their own part, and must be so, no sober person will deny: for so to beleeve, obey, pray to God &c. & not to trust to them in their place, that is not to think, that we shall be ever the better for them, is unbeleefe & indeed distrusting God, & saying, it is in vain to seeke him, and what profite is it that we call upon him & such diffidence & despair will end all endeavours. Let every man prove his own work &c. This is our Rejoicing &c. If we are justified by Faith, we may trust to be justified by it. But the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture, & the danger of it, must make us never use it without need. Ans. As I said, all the question is concerning what is their own part: And by saying that they are not to be trusted unto, we deny them to have that part, or place in the matter of our Justification & Salvation, that others give unto them: And if there were no more, this is a shreud ground of presumption to us, that Mr. Baxter, owneth not the Orthodox doctrine in this matter, viz. That he cannot with patience heare it said, That we must not trust to our own Faith, Repentance or Holiness, but accounteth such expressions dangerous, aud deceiving. (2) It is but a wrong gloss put upon this expression, We must not trust to our own Faith &c. to make the meaning of it to be, we must not think, that we shall be ever the better for our Faith. &c. And therefore his following words are vaine, and to no purpose. (3) It is one thing to trust to be justified by Faith, which is but beleeve God, and trust in his word; and a far other, to trust in our Faith; For this is to lay our stress, & lean our weight, & found our hopes of Justification & Salvation on our weak & feckless Faith, in stead of trusting to, & relying upon Jesus Christ & his Surety Righteousness, as the only immediat ground, & as that Righteousness by & upon consideration of which, we are justified, & have a Right to Glory: And if Mr. Baxter do not see a difference betwixt these two, it is not because he cannot, but because he will not, as some may suppose. (4) He talks of the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture; but I would know, where he findeth it used at all iu Scripture? And it is well, that he confesseth there is danger in it: which two, me thinks, should be enough to make him, as great an enemie to this expression, as we are: But the truth is, according to his principles, we are as much now to Trust to our Faith Repentance & Holiness, in order to Justification & Salvation, as Adam was to trust to his perfect obedience, according to the Covenant of works; & as much, as, according to our doctrine, we are to trust to Christ & his Surety-Righteousness.