Baxters Aphorisms, Part 2 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
The vanity and ridiculouſneſſe of Mr. Baxters ſecond and third Arguments diſcovered: The former that, Becauſe faith is the more principall, and works the leſſe prinpall condition of our Juſtification; and that all other duties are in ſome reſpect or other, reducible to faith, therfore we may be ſaid to be juſtifyed by other works and duties, yet to be juſtifyed 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 juſtifyed by thoſe works, is juſtifyed by faith only.
A ſecond Argument he drawes 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 readineſſe againſt him, is, that this doctrine of juſtification by duties and works, wholly overthroweth that higheſt and moſt fundamentall Goſpel doctrine of juſtification by faith alone. This he denies, and affirmes Theſ. 62. p. 238. that although we be juſtifyed 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 darkneſſe, and darkneſſe for light, good for evill, and evill for good, &c. I ſhall no further preſſe the unaptneſſe of the phraſe, Mr. Bavter, 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 principall condition, and the other but the leſſe principall. And as the whole countrey 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 implyed 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 home-bred, 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 fathers Conſtableſhip that they were all Conſtables and muſt rule the Pariſh, becauſe they were his ſons and dwelt 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 leſſe 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 fathers 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 juſtifie. 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, juſtifie and bear a part with faith in its office of juſtifying. And yet when theſe juſtifie as much as faith, we muſt underſtand that faith juſtifyeth alone: Becauſe what all theſe allies of faith do, that faith it ſelf may be ſaid to do. This is indeed Logick to prevail with his Kederminſterians, or rather ſuch of them as know no difference between Logick and Garlick. It is as if I ſhould diſpute thus, God made choyce of David before all and any other of the ſons of Abraham to be King and to rule over Iſrael; therefore all the progenitours 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 my ſelf 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 Davids kingſhip, and were partners with him in the office of ruling, becauſe they all were one way or other reducible to David as going hefore him, or following him, &c. and yet when all theſe were Kings with David, nevertheleſſe David was King alone. Or thus, The eye only of all the members of the body is appointed to the office of ſeeing, nevertheleſſe the head that holds and gives influence to it, the eye-lids 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, &c. all theſe and many more do partake of the office of ſeeing together with the eye, and when all theſe doe 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. Baxters 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 laught only once (when he ſaw his horſe eat Thiſtles) would be tickled into a ſecond laughter.
And no more weight is there in his former reaſon, Becauſe faith is the principall condition and the other leſſe principall. And as a whole County, &c. Here
1 I would demand in what reſpect according to Mr. Baxter, Mr. Baxter can make faith the more principall, and the reſt qualifications and duties the leſſe principall conditions. Not in reſpect of their nature, for if one be, all are ſpirituall and Divine. Nor in reſpect of priority in time, for if not all yet many of the reſt are of the ſame age and birth with faith. Nor in reſpect of durance, for many of them ſurvive faith as juſtifying. Nor in its inſtrumentality to juſtification, for he denyeth any ſuch thing to be in faith. Nor in office, for in it he confounds all together. Nor in the amplitude of its object, for herein love as in other things requires the preeminency. Nor in order of operation, for he makes many of them Antecedents to faith. Nor in the perfection of its effect, for he affirmes the reſt to perfect what faith hath but begun. In what reſpect then is faith the more principall? Mr. Baxter ſhewes not, becauſe according to his principles, it is beyond my principles to conceive that he can ſhew. Yet he ſaith it becauſe it ſerves his turn here to ſay it; degrading faith at one place, and enthroning it in another at his pleaſure, for his own ends.
2 But if it be the principall condition, &c. what will follow hence for Mr. Baxters advantage? This he makes to follow, That as the whole Country hath oft its name from the chief city, ſo may the reſt duties from faith: why doth he not ſpeak plain? it may be, ſaith he; but is it ſo? where doth the Scripture give this name to faith it ſelf? much leſſe to other duties in faith implyed? Neither is the queſtion about the name but the offices of all theſe. It is rare that the Country takes its name from the chief City; yet this is not in queſtion, but whether the whole Country partake of the priviledges and charter of the chief City. This may indeed be, where potentates that have the abſolute Lordſhip of both, grant to both the ſame priviledges. Yet then the priviledges and dignities of the chief City are not its alone being common to the whole Country with it.
3 But to the very thing in hand without painting and dawbing; When the Lord hath rejected Mizpah, Shiloh, Dan, Bethel, and all other the Cities and Country of Iſrael ſaving Jeruſalem alone there to vouchſafe his preſence and to be ſought unto; it is then a rejection of God, to ſet up Gods name and worſhip elſewhere ſaving at, and equalize any other place with Jeruſalem the Metropolis. Hence is that complaint of God, Iſrael hath forſaken Hoſ. 8. 14.his maker and buildeth temples. So when God hath conſecrated faith alone and qualifyed it for the receiving of Chriſt to juſtification, having rejected all our own righteouſneſſe and works from being priviledged together with it to this office and worke; it is no leſſe then a forſaking of God and of Chriſt to performe the moſt holy duties or to produce the moſt Celeſtiall qualifications in the leaſt part to juſtifie us.
4 All that Mr. Baxter dares to conclude hence is, that works and duties may be, not that they are, conditions of juſtification. But how from theſe reaſons he will bring about that theſe all are the conditions, or condition, and yet faith the alone condition, if he had ſo many eyes as Argus, to guide him, and ſo many hands as Briareus to work with by that guidance, he ſhall be never able to effect.
Yet in the explication pa. 239. Mr. Baxter to charme his overly reader into a deluſion, pretends a proof of this Theſis by two ſimilitudes, which I forbear to tranſcribe becauſe they are not worthy of ſo much labour. For
Firſt, Similies do illuſtrate not prove. He ſhould firſt have proved, and then illuſtrated.
Secondly, They are not adequate or fitted to the queſtion, ſpeak only to a part of, and not to the whole Theſis, conclude at the beſt only that faith may in ſome caſe imply many other duties, but in no wiſe that when faith is ſaid to juſtifie, other duties are implyed under the word faith as juſtifying together with it; much leſſe that all other duties juſtifie, yet faith alone juſtifyeth. If he would reaſon by them home to his poſition, he muſt reaſon to this Tenour.
In the former, ſuppoſe a King or State give to me by commiſſion the government of ſuch an eminent City or Caſtle, but with this proviſo and upon theſe articles, that I disband the Army by which before I laid ſiege to it, remove from me all my Regiments, quit my ſelf of all my Souldiers, and ſo enter into the poſſeſſion and government, and all the honour and profits thereof, by my ſelf alone and one Counſellour to ſerve and aſſiſt me in the managing of the ſaid government: If now by vertue of this Commiſſion I enter, not having disbanded the ſaid Army, but carry it in with me, ſome under a pretenſe of guarding my perſon, others as my individuall adherents from whom I cannot be ſeparated, others to retain the Citizens within the bounds of due loyalty to me, and the reſt under a pretext of propagating the dominion of that power that hath ſo inveſted me with the government: No man will doubt but I enter as a Traytor, not as a loyall Truſtee to the power which hath deputed me. Who will not laugh at it as a ſophiſticall or rather ridiculous plea, when he hears me maintaining that I entred with that one Counſeller alone, for all the reſt are implyed in him, ſome as his right, ſome as his left hand, ſome his parents, ſome his children, ſome his friends, ſome his ſervants, &c. and ſo I have but him alone in having ſo many thouſands with him? So the new Covenant gives me Chriſt with juſtification and bleſſedneſſe in him, with this Commiſſion and proviſo, that I disband my own ſtrength and righteouſneſſe, the whole Army of my works by which before I laid ſiege to it, to make all mine by my own winning, and to enter into poſſeſſion with faith alone apprehending all from the hand of free grace. Shall I not be a Traytor if I carry the whole Army of works to take and hold poſſeſſion for me, though I▪ make never ſo golden a pretext of faith only, to which all theſe are reducible.
The ſame is the tenour of the redemption of the galley ſlave, if you will not run from the Scripture in ſtead of following it in making compariſons. But unto it I ſhall have a more proper place to ſpeak afterward, when we come to Mr. Baxters great adored Argument of receiving Chriſt as our Lord as well as Saviour; or if there be not occaſion offered there, in the interim the ſlaves future ſervice is not a condition but a conſequent of his preſent redemption.
But let us ſee now whether Mr. Baxter with this paint of that which he cals right Reaſon, do fight againſt God or Man, doth reſiſt the placits of men, or elſe the holy Ghoſt himſelf. He required before that all might be tryed by Scriptures. Let us now bring his doctrine to the touch-ſtone. I ſhall not repeat all or any of the Scriptures before alleadged, or that might be further alleadged againſt him. One arrow out of that holy quiver, one Scripture out of the whole body of Goſpell doctrine ſhall ſuffice to ſmite to the heart, to death it ſelf, all that he goeth about here with fine flouriſhes of wit to eſtabliſh. Eph. 2. 8, 9, 10. thus ſpeaks the holy Ghoſt, By grace are ye ſaved through faith, and that not of your ſelves, it is the gift of God: Not of works, leſt any man ſhould boaſt: For ye are Gods workmanſhip, created in Chriſt Jeſus to good works, which God hath before ordained that we ſhould walk in them.
That the word Saved is an equipollent here with Juſtifyed, if there ſhould be any that will deny, yet Mr. Baxter will and muſt affirme, unleſſe he will beat in pieces one of the chief pillars of the fabrick erected in this book, and overthrow what he hath built. In this truth he muſt joyn with us, though in other he eſtrange himſelf from us. The ſame Act of God being called juſtifying as it diſchargeth us from the ſtate of our miſery as conſidered to be a ſtate of ſin: and ſaving as it delivereth us from it under the conſideration of it as a ſtate of condemnation and vengeance. Mr. Baxter will grant, cannot but grant this. And then there will naturally drop from this Scrtpture theſe following poſitions.
1 That the juſtification or ſalvation of the Covenant of grace is by faith.
2 That it is not of works, but by faith in oppoſition to works.
3 That the very works which flow from our union to Chriſt, and to which we are new created in Chriſt Jeſus, even thoſe which Mr. Baxter calleth the righteouſneſſe of the Goſpell, are excluded from bearing any part with faith in our juſtification.
4 That the not juſtification by works doth in no wiſe hinder the beleevers performing of them, for they are created in Chriſt Jeſus, their hearts are new wrought by the Spirit to a holy delight in them.
5 That God hath not ordained them to juſtifie, but for the new created and juſtifyed in Chriſt to walk in them.
6 That to teach otherwiſe of works, the very works of Sanctification, is to depreſſe Gods grace, and to extoll mans boaſting and vain-glory.
7 Even theſe goſpell works and righteouſneſſe are excluded from having any part in juſtifying not only as collaterals with the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, but alſo as collaterals with faith, i. e. from bearing a part either in cauſality or conditionality with faith to juſtifie.
I challenge Mr. Baxter and all his Legall and Anti-evangelicall diſciples here to deny any one of theſe poſitions to ſpring naturally from this Text. And if the the holy Ghoſt here ſpeak all this, then by it all that Mr. Baxter ſpeaketh throughout this whole Tractate for juſtification by works is by the breath of Gods mouth blown to the curſe, as in many things I ſhall by Gods help ſhew afterward.
At the preſent what he ſpeaketh of works comprehended in faith to juſtification is here ſhaken off as a Sophiſticall, phantaſticall, Antiſcripturall dream, the holy Ghoſt here by the poſiting of faith, in expreſſe words rejecting works, Goſpell works, all that Mr. Baxter makes a part with faith in that which he cals Evangelicall righteouſneſſe, from all and any copartnerſhip with faith in ſaving or juſtifying; ſo excludes all, as that he denyeth that juſtification by grace can any more ſtand, if the beſt Goſpell works of the beſt Saints are put in any cooperation with faith in the promoting of it.
All the reſt that he hath in the explication pa. 240. and thence to pa. 243. is wholly beſides the queſtion, which is not whether works and duties be reducible to faith, or in what reſpect every particular qualification and duty ſtandeth to it. But whether reduced or not reduced, it doth by Gods appointment help with ſaith to juſtify us before God. This we have found to be an uſuall feat of Mr. Baxter, where his aſſertions are confident and peremptory, but his proofs of them light and ſhadie, to deviſe in ſuch caſe ſome witty paſſage wherewith to divert the conſiderations of his reader, from the ſhame and nakedneſſe of his foregoing Arguments. And this moſt probably was his drift and craft here, having given us but words in ſtead of Arguments to prove that works are comprehended and implied in faith, in all ſuch Scriptures as attribute juſtification to faith only; that the emptineſſe and nothingneſſe of his argumentation to make this good may not appear to the reader, he tols him a way to attend to a ſubtle and plauſible diſpute, of the relation that every good endowment and work hath particularly to faith. In which diſcourſe of his we will not examine how many things are true and how many falſe; for if they were all true they are nothing to the thing in queſtion; viz. whether in the ſeverall relations that Mr. Baxter makes them to ſtand to faith, or in any other they help with faith to juſtification, and that ſo, as that when all theſe with faith cojuſtifie, we may be yet ſaid to be juſtifyed by faith alone. When he hath ſpoken all by meer affirming without confirming, he thus indeed at laſt concludeth, pa. 243.
B. So then when you invite a man to your houſe, it is not neceſſary to bid him come in at the door; or bring his head, or arms, or legs, or cloaths with him (though theſe are neceſſary) becauſe all theſe are neceſſarily implyed: Even ſo when we are ſaid to be juſtifyed by faith only; or when it is promiſed that he which beleeveth ſhall be ſaved, all theſe forementioned duties are implyed and included.
How ecliptick is falſhood, but ſincerity open and full? No man invites another to his houſe but to ſome end, either to taſte of ſome dainties, or hear ſome good tidings, or ſee ſome excellent work, or for ſome other end. He ſhould have named the end, and we would grant him all; thus, that as much as the door, head, legs, armes, clothes of the invited, do partake with the mouth in the act of taſting, or with the eye in ſeeing, or the ear in hearing: ſo much when we are invited to Chriſt, do other duties and workes partake with faith in receiving him to juſtification.
A third argument (if indeed it be not one and the ſame in ſubſtance, and differ only in words from the former) he draweth from a wide, wilde, vaſt, confuſed and incircumſcriptive definition of faith, begotten of his own brain, and now firſt as an overgrown monſter born into the world, and baptized 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 forme, 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 righteouſneſſe of the Law, the truth of its threatning, the evill of his own ſin, and the greatneſſe of his miſery hereupon, and withall of the nature and offices, ſufficiency and excellency of Jeſus Chriſt, the ſatisfaction he hath made, his willingneſſe to ſave, and his free offer to all that will accept him for their Lord and Saviour, doth hereupon beleeve the truth of his Goſpell, and accept of Chriſt as his onelyonly 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 doe 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 dubiouſneſſe 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 goe 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 indeavour 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 loſſe, and will no… tell us.
2 In ſaying, Faith as it comprehendeth all the condition, &c. and by all the condition underſtanding all the duties which the Law requireth, if he be demaunded whether there be a faith which comprehendeth all theſe? or if ſo, whether as parts of it ſelf or things reducible to it? or if the latter, why are all theſe, or how, more comprehended in faith, then 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. Baxters 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 finde an anſwer to him he leaves us uncertain.
3 If we ſhould aske him [where he ſaith in the beginning of of the definition, It is when a ſinner, &c.] 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 then by an indefinite time, by Anno Mundi, or Anno Domini, or Imperii, or Regni, &c. that from the Chronicle we may ſeek and finde 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 certifie 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 tels 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 then declare and evidence Juſtification by faith? and how then holds his concluſion hence, that we are juſtifyed before God by theſe, becauſe ſo juſtifyed by faith? Or if conſtitutively as many ſeverall 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 it ſelf 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 ſa…isfie 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 Teuerorum; I had once a faith and a raviſhing joy in beleeving, either while I was under ſufferings for Chriſts 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 Chriſts ordinances, My faith is loſt? which of theſe wayes, 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, principall, vitall 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. Baxters 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 Goſpell] but the Goſpell 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 Goſpell is one and the ſame thing which in other Scriptures is called the obedience of faith, i. e. obedience to that Goſpell doctrine which requireth to reſt upon Chriſt alone by faith for righteouſneſſe and life without any intermixture to attain the ſame, called obedience to the Goſpell, to diſtinguiſh between the Goſpell and Legall 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 Goſpell command theſe duties, but whether it commands us to do them that we may be juſtifyed by ſuch deeds? and whether becauſe the Goſpell commands them, it doth therefore call them faith? or that all which is to be done in obedience to the Goſpell, 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 Commandements of the Goſpell (in relation to theſe duties) to be the eſtabliſhment of the Morall Law, and the perfect obedience in the Law commanded; and that this is but an adjunct of the new Covenant [or Goſpell] and not a proper part thereof? Will he ſay then that all the works which the Morall Law commandeth are faith? or by the Goſpell Metamorphoſed from works into faith?
B. The fufilling of the conditions of the new Covenant, is oft called faith, &c.
But theſe forementioned are parts of the condition of the new Covevenant; Ergo, they are implyed 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 ſoundneſſe 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 paſſe under his bare affirmation alone? The Scripture annexed prove only an oppoſition between faith and works, the Goſpell 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 ſhew the deformed nakedneſſe of the Syllogiſm, if it did not enough ſhew it ſelf 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 followes in the ſame S…ction, is all one as if he had ſaid, not ſo, but ſo, &c. 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 it ſelf, without any further reference to the concluſion, then as himſelf in expreſſe words applies them to it.