Baxters Aphorisms, Part 2 · Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII.
Whether there be any validity in Mr. Brs Apologizing for his Doctrine, that it is not derogatory from the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt.
THe 4th part of his vindication is to free his doctrine [of Juſtification by works] from being derogatory to Chriſt and his righteouſneſs. Here unto his endeavours bend in many parts of this his Tractate. In ſtead of all, I ſhall mention onelyonly two or three places which Comprehend the ſumme and whole of all the reſt.
Bax. pa. 307. The Righteouſneſs which we muſt plead againſt the Lawes accuſations, is not one grain of it in our Faith or works: but all out of us in Chriſts ſatisfaction.
Again, Appendix pa. 78. Our dooing [or works] are required, not to be any part of our Legall Righteouſneſs, nor any part of ſatisfaction for our unrighteouſneſs; but to be our Goſpel Righteouſneſs, or the Condition of our participation in Chriſt, who is our Legall Righteouſneſs, and ſo of all the benefitts that come with him.
What his meaning is he expreſſeth Aphor. Theſ. 79. pa. 313. in a Syllogiſm, thus:
This Doctrine is no whit derogatory to Christ and his Righteouſneſs: For
He that aſcribeth to Faith or obedience, no part of that work which belongeth to Chriſts ſatisfactory righteouſneſs, doth not derogate in that from that Righteouſneſs.
But he that maketh Faith and Obedience to Chriſt, to be onelyonly the fullfilling of the Conditions of the New Covenant, and ſo to be onelyonly Conditions of Juſtification by him, doth give them no part of the work of his Righteouſneſs: Seeing he came not to fulfill the Goſpel, but the Law.
Ergo—&c.
I ſhall ſpeak onelyonly to the Syllogiſm, becauſe in it is fully Comprehended all that Mr. Br. hath to ſay for the vindication of his doctrine from ſo fowl a ſcandal and blemiſh. And here I ſhall in the firſt place onelyonly minde the reader of what hath been before Copiouſly (in its place) manifeſted, that Mr. Br. takes up this Feat of arguing from the Papiſts, who to Clear their doctrine of Merit and Juſtification by works, from being derogatory to Chriſt and his Merits, do plead againſt us, That they in no wiſe leſſen the Merits of Chriſt, by teaching that good works do Merit and Juſtifie: But that herein they advance the Merits of Chriſt in aſcribing to them this ſoveraign vertue and power, to give validity and worth to mans good works to Merit and Juſtifie. Nay the Hereticks (ſay they) degrade the Merits of Chriſt, in teaching that mans works cannot Juſtifie or Merit, as if there were not force enough in Chriſts Merits to enable them to it. Whether theirs or Mr. Brs Argumentation have more ſhew of reaſon to ſupport it, I leave to the intelligent reader to judge.
2 The whole Argument is Sophiſticall and fallacious: 1 In that his Argument is not full and wide to the proving of his poſition. The poſition which by this Argument he pretends to Confirm, is in his own words, that This doctrine [of his] is no whit derogatory to Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs. But his Argument is ſhapen onelyonly to prove, that his doctrine doth not derogate from Chriſts righteouſneſs, not that it doth not derogate from Chriſt himſelf. Were it granted that it doth not derogate from Chriſts righteouſneſs, yet it follows not that it doth not derogate from Chriſt, any more than if a man ſhould aſcribe all due praiſes to Mr. Brs learning, but ſhould deny his honeſty, Charity, Chaſtity, verity, or other like vertue in him; yet becauſe he doth not derogate from the learning of the man, he doth not derogate from the man himſelf in any of his accompliſhments. Mr. Brs doctrine may derogate from Chriſt in veiling his grace, mercy, and fullnes in other Conditions required to the Compleating of his Mediatorſhip, though it did (where it doth not) aſcribe to his Righteouſneſs its due praiſe and fullneſs. 2 In that he playes with equivocation of words: For to ſhun the deſerved hatred which the Papiſts doctrine incurreth from the Saints of Chriſt, he delivers their doctrine not in theirs but in the Arminian phraſe, putting under the name and in ſtead of [good works] Obedience to Chriſt: For this is an equivocall phraſe, and as oft as it is uſed in the New Teſtament in order to Juſtification, it is the ſame thing with Faith, and differs not a whit from it. The obedience of Faith, obeying of the Goſpel, and obedience to Chriſt, ſignifying nothing elſe but the deniall of our ſelves and our own righteouſneſs, and our truſting in Chriſt alone for Juſtification and ſalvation, as Chriſt and his Goſpel Command; in oppoſition to the voyce of the Law that [knowing nothing of Chriſt, ſpeaking nothing of faith] ſaith, Doe and work that thou mayeſt be ſaved, Gal. 3. 12. But Mr. Br. takes this obedience to Chriſt not in that Goſpel but in this legall ſenſe, for the fulfilling of the Moral works which the Law requireth, to intereſſe us in the juſtification which is by Chriſt, and ſo deceives his reader with the homonymy of the phraſe. 3 In putting a reſtricting in his Argument, upon the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which in his poſition that he was to prove was left at large and in generall, Chriſt and HIS Righteouſneſs: but in the Argument he putts a limitation upon it in the Major, That Righteouſneſs, which alſo he explaineth to be onelyonly the Satisfactory Righteouſneſs, of Chriſt: as if there were no other but that righteouſneſs in Chriſt, & whoſoever derogates not from it could not derogate at all from Chriſts righteouſneſs. I may ſubſcribe to the righteouſneſs of Mr. Br. in ſome Acts of his, though I onelyonly deſire but finde it not in other. Many other Acts of righteouſneſs were required in Chriſt (even as he is our Mediator) beſides that by which he gave ſatiſfaction to Juſtice for our Sinns, without which his ſatisfactory righteouſneſs becomes unavaileable to us. And he that derogates not from the one, may derogate from the other. Yet ſee we the boldneſs of our Sophiſter, what he reſtreigneth in the propoſition about Chriſts righteouſneſs, in the Aſſumpeion he leaves indefinite, looſe, generall, and without reſtriction again, not [that] righteouſneſs, but [HIS] Righteouſneſs: ſo making his Argument, by his fallacy of four terms, to run four-footed. 4 By begging the queſtion in Calling good works (which with him is the ſame with Obedience to Chriſt) the Condition of the New Covenant and Juſtification by Chriſt. Well doth he put it upon himſelf, ſaying, He that maketh them ſuch, for neither God nor Chtiſt ever made them ſuch. 5 His Activity and Liegerdemain, which he uſeth to draw off his reader from Conſidering the palpable ſophiſtry uſed in this Argument. This he ſeeks to do by giving and proſecuting in the explication of this Theſis, a ſeeming reaſon that he bringeth to prove his aſſumption; viz. that Chriſt came not to fullfill the Goſpel but the Law, and then ſpending his whole explication about it. When (not to ſpeak how equivocall and ambiguous the phraſe is, and in its moſt literal and grammatical ſenſe the aſſertion altogether falſe) we utterly deny, either that Chriſt hath fulfilled the works of the Law or the Goſpel in our ſtead, otherwiſe than by giving ſatisfaction by his death for our infirm and maimed fulfilling of them; or that works done to juſtifie us are as all works of the Goſpel, but are contrariwiſe wiſe wholly works of the Law; or that Chriſt hath any more ſatiſfied for our infirmities in fullfilling the works of the Law than of the Goſpel, in that ſenſe in which Mr. Br. diſtinguiſheth them. It was his part not to ſay but to prove ſoundly his aſſertion, if he would not have it exploded for a new and vain fancy, rather than to have anſwered in his explication, objections of his own making that ſcarce touch upon the matter in queſtion.
This might ſuffice as a full anſwer to his Argument, to have proved it in ſo many particulars to be unargumentall, no argument, or a faulty argument, not a Syllogiſm but a Para-logiſm. Yea not to leave an occaſion to any of excepting that the propoſitions of the ſyllogiſm may have ſome force in them or either of them apart from other, to his purpoſe; I ſhall afford the labour to examine them alſo.
To the Conſequent of the Major I have many things to ſay. 1 That it is (as the whole Argument) ſophiſtical, a meer declining of not a ſpeaking to the queſtion; The word [in that] is foyſted in beſides the queſtion, and makes that which is ſaid unſaid, as altogether beſides the queſtion. That which he undertakes to prove, is (in his own words) that His doctrine is no whit derogatory from Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs. To prove this ſee how groſſly he acts the Sophiſter to be gu…le fools, in ſtead of a Logician to ſatisfie the intelligent. He that aſcribeth (ſaith he) [to works or] obedience, no part of that work which belongeth to Chriſts ſatisfactory Righteouſneſs, doth not derogate [in that] from that Righteouſneſs. No leſs true than the Goſpel, but ſo farr from the queſtion as the earth is from heaven. For who ever queſtioned whether the not aſcribing to works that which belongeth to Chriſts ſatisfactory righteouſneſs, be a derogating feom that righteouſneſs? Yea it were madneſs in any to queſtion it. For if the not aſcribing ſhould ſo derogate, then God, Chriſt, Spirit, Word, Apoſtles, Prophets, all Proteſtants, yea all animate and inanimate Creatures without underſtanding, ſhould be guilty of derogating from Chriſts ſatisfactory righteouſneſs. For none of theſe aſcribe to works any part of that work which belongeth to that righteouſneſs of Chriſt. How palpable is this cheat which Mr. Br. would put upon us? He that doth not aſcribe &c. doth not derogate in that, i. e. in his not aſcribing to mans works what belongs to Chriſt, from Chriſt. By the like Argumentation might Joah clear himſelf from the guilt of murther Committed upon two better men than himſelf; and Chriſts Tormentors themſelves from having any hand in his death: Thus might they learn of Mr. Br. to plead; They that wound not, that keep a mans head from wounding, do not in that take away his life. True, the not wounding of the head was not prejudiciall to the life of them whom they ſlew. But the wounding and piercing of their bodies and ſhedding out their bowells, made them as actually murtherers, as if they had alſo daſhed out the brains of them whom they ſlew. It was not what they did not, but what they did that Conſtituted them guilty of murther. So it is not Mr. Brs not aſcribing but his aſcribing to works that derogates from Chriſt. Shall we thinke that Mr. Br. ſlumbered and doated into this fallacy? Is he a puny that he ſhould need to be taught how to expreſs himſelf in an argument? Nay all muſt ſee that he knows it to be a heterodox and deſperate Concluſion which he mainteineth, that no honeſt and holy means can pillar up; therefore tramples all ingenuity under-foot, running over it to fetch patronage from his Sophiſtry. And even herein bewraies the high thoughts that he hath of himſelf, that all his flies are Eagles, and his groſſ…ſt Conceptions oracles; and his abaſing of all others, that they are ſo blinde as not to ſee, and ſo blunt as to be all taken in his rook nets.
Or if we take his meaning thus, That his doctrine in making Works a Collaterall with Faith to Juſtification, (which he would ſay plainly if he meant not fraudulently, and had not his own judgement and Conſcience ſuggeſting to him the weakneſs & falſhood of ſuch an aſſertion) becauſe it aſcribeth no part of the work of Chriſts ſatisfactory righteouſneſs to works, doth not derogate from Chriſt and his righteouſneſs: Then I deny both the Conſequent and Conſequence of the Propoſition. For 1 It derogates from him and it a full potency and efficacy to juſtifie any one, untill it be animated and enlivened by our own works to do it, leaving it all feeble & dead to produce its effect untill our obedience as its Concauſe gives life to it. And this is Contradictive to the doctrine of the Apoſtle, who aſſerteth the efficacy and actuall efficiency of Chriſt and his righteouſneſs to juſtifie us yet ungodly, Rom. 4. 5. yet without ſtrength [to work] yet ſinners, yet enemies, and ſo workers againſt him, Rom. 5. 6, 8, 9, 10. 2 It derogates from it its glory, in parting and dividing our Juſtification between his righteouſneſs & our righteouſneſs; ſo aſcribing part of the praiſe to man which ought to be attributed full and entire to Chriſt. This alſo is contrary to the doctrine of the Apoſtle, that excludes works under every notion from having to do in the buſineſs of Juſtification, to exclude Boaſting, leſt any man ſhould boaſt, or glory in himſelf, Rom. 3. 27. & 4. 2. Eph. 2. 9. But that He that glorieth may glory in the Lord, 1 Cor. 1. 29, 30, 31.
Nay it doth not onelyonly derogate from, but totally deſtroy and nullifie the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as to us and our juſtification. For ſo firſt the Apoſtle teſtifieth, Chriſt is become of no effect to you, whoſoever of you are juſtified by the Law, Gal. 5. 4. And to be juſtified by the Law, or by the works of the Law, are with the Apoſtle the ſame thing, as hath been oft ſhewed before. Yea to ſeek juſtification in any part or degree by the works or obedience which the Law requireth as a Condition of Juſtification, is to ſeek to be Juſtified by the Law. Works being the Condition of Juſtification by the Law and not by Grace. 2 Becauſe it obſtructeth the way of Juſtification which Chriſt hath made and ſends poor ſouls to ſeek it in a way that is impervious, by which there can be no acceſs to Chriſt his righteouſneſs. For the righteouſneſs of Chriſt is given of free Love, pure grace, meer mercy; as a free Gift, Rom. 5. 15. Freely offered and received, Rev. 22. 17. Without money and without price, Iſa. 55. 1. He is the worſt Simoniak that ſeeks to buy this gift of the Holy Ghoſt for money, to make it his by his own Merit and obedience. Whoſoever is admitted to it, ſuch a one is rejected from it: For Chriſt came to call not the Righteous but ſinners to repentance. The Publicans and Harlots enter when theſe are excluded. They ſhall come from the Eaſt and from the Weſt &c. From all parts of Paganiſm and Barbariſm, that ſhall ſit down with Abraham, Iſaac, and Jaakok, in the kingdome of God, in the poſſeſſion of gra…e and righteouſneſs by Chriſt: but theſe that think themſelves in their own righteouſneſs to be the children of the kingdome ſhall be caſt out with the Jewes, into whoſe doctrine & manners they are naturallized. And juſtly, For he that worketh, i. e. brings works to inright him to Juſtification, Challengeth it as Debt from Gods Juſtice, as the fruit of his own work & Merit that God oweth to him, not as a free gift from his grace, Rom. 4. 4. Who will envie to him the fruit of his deſervings? This is Condemnation from the Tribunall of Juſtice where no fleſh can be juſtified; when they which [work not] but beleeve on him which Juſtifieth the ungodly, i. e. which bring Faith alone without works as Coadjutors to put them into the actuall and ſenſible poſſeſſion of the righteouſneſs which is by Chriſt; theſe even theſe alone ſhall be juſtified at the throne of grace, Rom. 4. 5. Why? theſe ſeek it in the way where God is preſent to give it: The other in a way wherein God never was, never will be preſent to beſtow it.
Laſtly I deny the Aſſumption alſo. It is falſe that Mr. Br. making (ſo as he doth it) Obedience or Works the condition of Juſtification by Chriſt, doth not give them any part of the work of Chriſts righteouſneſs. For it belongeth to Chriſts righteouſneſs by it ſelf alone, and to Chriſt by his Mediatory righteouſneſs alone to perfect for ever the Juſtification and ſalvation of his redeemed ones, Heb. 10. 14. And that without any acceſſary help of their own righteouſneſs, John 13. 10. But Mr. Br. ſo parteth juſtification between Chriſts righteouſneſs and our righteouſneſſe, as that he makes them equally concurrent to our ſalvation and juſtifying: That Chriſts Righteouſneſs without ours can no more profit us, than ours without Chriſts: yea makes Chriſts righteouſneſs wholly unprofitable to every man, till by the ſerving and deſerving of each man it be purchaſed and made uſefull to benefit him. And ſo by making the efficacy of it the fruit of our Merit, he diſ-robes it of its honour and ornament, derogating from it its all-ſufficiency by it ſelf to perfect us, that he may arrogate to our righteouſneſs what is ſtoln from his. But how farr this doctrine of his derogates both from the grace of God, and merits of Chriſt hath been oft diſcuſſed. After all that hee hath ſaid to the defacing of both, here he wipes his mouth, and ſaith it was never foul: and will have his Reader conclude, that when his face of Chriſt is ſpittled, yet if it be from Mr. Brs. lips touched with a Cole from Bellarmine and Arminius, it is a bleſſing of him.
This one truth I acknowledg, implyed, though not expreſſed in this Argument of Mr. Br. that he acknowledgeth himſelf to be the man that hath made obedience or works condition of the New Covenant, or of juſtification by Chriſt. In this I contradict him not. It is of mans, not of Gods making, it's a creature of his own, not created by God, at leaſt not by God aſſigned to this uſe and end. It being therefore not formed to his hand, but a graven image, the work of his own hand, we leave him (ſith he will do it) alone without us to perſiſt in worſhipping it.