Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 14
CHAP. XIV.
That which Mr. Baxter brings to confirm the matter of this his Doctrine, examined and found both fallacious and empty: And what he addeth to mitigate the aſperity (viz. That we perform theſe conditions not by our own ſtrength, but by the grace of Chriſt) evidenced to be a meer ſhift borrowed from the Papiſts.
Mr. Baxter after he hath thus made a flouriſh and nothing but a flouriſh to explain and defend his phraſe, and make odious the phraſe of Scripture; now proceedeth to confirm the matter of his doctrine. Let us ſee whether there be any thing Logicall or Theologicall, and not meerly ſophiſticall? He hath confeſſed before, p. 109. that ſome who are not Antinomians (but Orthodox Divines) have ſtartled at the expreſſions of his 19 and 20 Poſitions, as conteining in them ſome ſelf-exalting horrid doctrine, therefore will he ſay ſomething thereto, by way of explication and confirmation. Now having ſaid ſomething as bad as nothing to take off contention about words; what doth he add for the confirmation of the matter of his doctrine? He was to have proved 1 That Goſpel righteouſnes, or the righteouſnes of the New Covenant conſiſteth not in the imputation of the righteouſnes which is by Chriſt to us, but in our own actuall and perſonall faith and obedience. 2 That we muſt be righteous in our ſelves firſt, and then after be made righteous by Chriſt. 3 That the righteouſnes of the New Covenant is not ſufficient to juſtifie and ſave, but onelyonly to give us right to the righteouſnes of the old Covenant, which doth actually and immediately ſave and juſtifie. 4 That thoſe gifts of grace, vertues, and endowments, that are required to our ſanctification are not the fruits but the cauſes of our juſtification, and conditions of our intereſt in Chriſt, and conſequently that our ſanctification hath a priority and goes before juſtification. Theſe were the points in which he acknowledgeth himſelf to be down-right oppoſed by ſome and ſtartled at by others. What doth he now ſay for the ſilencing of theſe down-right oppoſers and ſtartlers? Juſt ſo much as he that would confute all that Bellarmine had written, in three words, viz. Bellarmine thou lieſt. Or what brings he for the confirmation of thoſe his aſſertions wherein he is ſo oppoſed? Nothing but a fardle of ſophiſticall fallacies, conſiſting of begged principles, and homonymies of words. Firſt he cluſtereth together many Concluſions, without either premiſſes or proofs.
The righteouſneſſe of the New Covenant then being the performance of its conditions; this is his firſt Concluſion, which by the word (then) bearing the force of (therefore) he would inſinuate to lean upon ſome foregoing premiſſes, when contrariwiſe, there is not ſo much as a peble of four grains to ſuſtein it, not a word laid as the foundation thereof. It is the thing in queſtion, we deny it, he brings nothing to confirm it beſides his bare affirmation, which to us is no more then a pillar of ſtraw to bear up a Caſtle.
And its conditions being our obeying the Goſpel or believing. This is his ſecond Concluſion, taken as granted, when contrariwiſe his oppoſers utterly deny it. And here he plaies alſo with an homonymy of words, as if faith and obeying the Goſpel, which in the Apoſtles ſenſe are, ſo in his ſenſe alſo were, the ſame thing, covering his poyſon untill the feat be done by it. It muſt needs be plain that on no other terms do we partake of the legall righteouſnes of Chriſt. I will not ſay that ſelf-confidence hath made the man mad, but rather that he thinks all the world mad and in ſuch a ſottiſh ſlumber, that none can put a difference betwixt mid-day and mid-night. It is plain, by what light? by what argument? It is the thing in queſtion, and none untill Mr. Br. ever held forth this aſſertion in theſe his expreſſions. Yet it muſt be plain, viz. becauſe he hath ſaid it, ſo plain as a New world created in Mr. Br. fiſt, he that can ſee what is not, may ſee it. We deny both the righteouſnes which is by Chriſt to be a legall righteouſnes, and our own qualifications to be the terms and grounds upon which he is made to us Righteouſnes. And let the world judg whether he ſhew himſelf a Chriſtian Teacher or an Antichriſtian Impoſter, who having promiſed a confirmation of his ſtrange and before unheard of doctrine, brings nothing but flouriſhes of words to charm fools, not one argument or Scripture to ſatisfie the wiſe and conſcientious. Himſelf ſeeth the groſnes and palpablenes of his deluſions, and left his Reader ſhould ſtay in his meditations upon it to ſee it alſo, he haſteth to annex a fourth Concluſion, very plauſible to them whom he hopes to beguile, wherupon, as on a Croſs he naileth the picture of an Antinomian to crucifie him, that with this pleaſant ſpectacle, he may divert his Readers eyes from the nakednes and nothingnes of what went before, to the beholding of a new object ſet before him.
To affirm therefore that our Evangelicall or New Covenant Righteouſnes is in Chriſt and not in our ſelves, or performed by Chriſt and not by our ſelves, is ſuch a monſtrous piece of Antinomian Doctrine that no man &c. ut ſupra. Which is as much as if he had ſaid to his Reader, if upon the bare authority of my words (when I have no one good Argument to prove them) thou wilt not become a rank Papiſt; I will regiſter thee for an Antinomian, and make thee out to the world ſuch a Monſter that all ſhall abhor thee as unſufferable. With this Thunder-bolt he knows he ſhall ſhake into an Ague all thoſe that Nicodemus-like are Diſciples of Chriſt, but ſecretly for fear of the Jewes. Should they be ſuſpected of the leaſt tang of Antinomianiſm, they ſhould never more have a good look from the Scribes and Phariſees.
But he is not forth with an Antinomian whom Mr. B. ſo termeth. If Pythagoras his tranſmigration of ſouls into new bodies were Canonicall, I ſhould conclude that the ghoſt of one of thoſe ghoſtly Fathers of the Councell of Conſtance had crept into Mr. B. body. They to make John Huſs odious, painted an ugly Devill in paper, and crowned John Huſs therewith when they carried him to the ſtake to be burned, at the view whereof the people exulted in his death, as if they had ſeen ſome Witch or rather young Devill burned. So deals Mr. B. here with them which are truly Evangelical, inures upon them the black brand of Antinomianiſm, ſo to make truth in their mouth hatefull as well as the perſons.
But is it decreed that they are all Antinomians that hold, and that it is a monſtrous piece of Antinomianiſm to hold, that our Evangelicall or New Covenant righteouſnes is in Chriſt not in our ſelves, performed by Chriſt and not by our ſelves? If ſo, I much queſtion whether there will be found any one (ſave Mr. B. alone) in all the Reformed Churches that are or have been, but muſt bear the imputation of a monſtrous Antinomian. I will not be over confident of Socinus, Arminius, Grotius and their followers, becauſe I take them not for members but troublers of the Reformed Churches. For my part I know no difference about this point between the Orthod…x and Antinomians: Both conſent 1 That our Goſpel-righteouſnes wch worketh effectually to our Juſtification is in Chriſt, not in our ſelves, (ſave by imputation.) 2 That our Goſpel or New Covenan… righteouſnes in reference to our ſanctification, is in Chriſt radically, but in us by derivation and influence, actually to ſanctifie us. 3 That our faith, repentance, obedience, holines, good works (though flowing from Chriſt himſelf into us) are the Goſpel or New Covenant Righteouſnes, not by which we are juſtified, but by which we are ſanctified. And let Mr. B. or any of his Diſciples produce that Orthodox man that ever called this doctrine Antinomianiſm, or that hath not ſhunned the contrary doctrine as Popiſh and Antichriſtian.
Yet Mr. B. finding himſelf bound by promiſe to prove many things (as was ſaid before) that his fallacious dealing might not be too notorious and ſhamefull, he chooſeth one of the many (leaving the reſt untouched) to ſpeak ſomething to it, (as he had ſaid) though not to prove it. And in that which he ſaith, there is nothing to confirm his own aſſertion, but a meer reviling abuſing & abaſing of them that aſſert the contrary, under the falſe imputation of Antinomianiſm. And here he comes upon the ſtage like Hercules Furens, who in a Phrenſie taking his Wife and Children to be a Lioneſs and her Whelps, falls upon them fiercly with his Clubb and envenomed Arrows untill he had utterly deſtroyed them. So Mr. B. in ſomewhat a like fit, not finding reall Antinomians, but making in his fancy, imaginary Bug-bears and phantaſms of them, curſeth them with Bell Book and Candle for ſaying that Chriſt hath fulfilled the conditions of the New as well as of the Old Covenant, and that our Evangelical righteouſnes is not in our ſelves but in Chriſt. At the ſuppoſition of ſuch aſſertions, (which none ever laid down in theſe terms) the man is in a rage, beats the wind, and flings duſt in the Aire, cryeth Blaſphemy, hereſie, impiety, and enumerates Abſurdities upon abſurdities ariſing from ſuch doctrine, all which I am not at leizure to tranſcribe, (it being all ſuperfluous and not to the purpoſe) but may be read at large pag. 111, 112, 113, of his Tractate. More proper ſhall it be for me here to make out Mr. B. either willing or unwilling miſtake herein, and then all his abſurdities will …ither vaniſh into winde or return upon himſelf.
Firſt then as we deny not Faith in the Lord Chriſt, to be inſtrumentall to apprehend to our ſelves Chriſt for our juſtification, and a declarative evidence to our own ſouls that we are actually juſtified by him; (as before hath been granted) ſo we affirm it to be hereticall and popiſh doctrine which Mr. B. doth here pag. 111 deliver, in aſſerting repentance, obedience, ſubmiſſion, &c. and afterward all other vertues and good works, to be conditions of the New Covenant, viz. by which as by our Goſpel righteouſnes we are, and without which preceding, we cannot be juſtified. For all theſe (in Mr. B. ſenſe) as Auſtin from the tenor of the Goſpel ſaith Non precedunt juſtificandum, ſed ſequuntur juſtificatum: are not the precedents but fruits of juſtification.
2 We affirm Repentance, Obedience, Charity, &c. and all good works which the Goſpel requireth, to be originally and materially the works and duties of the Law. Nature and naturall conſcience it ſelf ſuggeſting to every of us both the reſt, and withall in caſe of offence committed againſt God or man, to repent of it, to ſorrow for it, and at our utmoſt to make ſatisfaction for the offence. Yea even Faith in Chriſt, is in generall required by the Old Law and Covenant. We in no wiſe aſcribe to the Goſpel a creating of new points of righteouſnes, or injoining of new duties which the Law did not at leaſt in generall bind us unto, (this opinion we leave as proper and peculiar to the Socinians) But a modification ſpiritualizing and appropriating the righteouſneſs and duties which the Law in generall commanded, to the now preſent lapſed condition of man, to Gods preſent offers of grace, and our preſent neceſſities. Yea herein we have Mr. B. conſenting to us, who, Theſ. 30. and its Explication delivers his judgment herein to be fully one with the ſtream of Orthodox Divines. So that if we ſhould affirm that Chriſt hath beleeved, repented, ſorrowed, &c. for us and in our ſteed: it would not thence follow, that we pronounce Chriſt to have performed the conditions of the New but onelyonly of the Old Covenant for us.
3 Yet are we far from affirming that Chriſt in the moſt ſtrict and proper ſenſe hath ſo beleeved, repented, &c. for us, that we ſhould be taken to have beleeved, repented, &c. not in our ſelves but in him and by him. But the reaſon why we neither affirm nor hold it, is not becauſe that theſe are our Goſpel righteouſnes or New Covenant conditions of righteouſneſs and life in the ſenſe before oft mentioned, for we have denyed and do ſtill deny them to be ſuch: But 1 becauſe it is in queſtion whether the active righteouſnes of Chriſt be imputable to us for juſtification; And 2 if it were, yet were it an unchriſting of Chriſt to affirm him to have been ever in ſuch a ſtate and condition, that he had need of repentance or faith to the remiſſion of ſins. He took indeed our nature not the ſinfulnes of our nature; had our ſin imputed to him, or (as the Scripture phraſe expreſly ſpeaketh) laid on him, Iſa. 53. 6. to ſuffer and ſatisfie for it: but had no ſin of his own to repent of and mortifie, then had there not been vertue in his Prieſthood & ſacrifice to have expiated ours. And to ſay that he actually repented, ſorrowed, beleeved, &c. for the pardon of our ſins, we confes is a harſh, unproper and Catachreſticall locution. Yet we ſtill hold that the flawes and infirmities of our faith and repentance as well as our other iniquities were laid upon Chriſt, that he hath ſatisfied divine juſtice for them by his ſufferings; and that therefore God imputeth them not to us being once in Chriſt. Otherwiſe though they are parts of Goſpel righteouſnes to ſanctification, the ſin and infirmity that is in them, in not ſquaring fully with the Law their rule, would bring upon us condemnation.
Theſe things premiſſed, all the abſurdities which (to make the aſſertion odious) Mr. B. layeth upon us for affirming our New Covenant righteouſnes to be in Chriſt in the ſenſe mentioned and explained, and denying our faith, repentance, obedience, &c. to be our New Covenant righteouſneſſe to Juſtification; vaniſh into ſmoke. For
1 It implyeth not (as he ſaith it doth) blaſphemy againſt Chriſt, as if he had ſin to repent of, for we utterly deny that Chriſt hath beleeved or repented for us, otherwiſe then by ſatisfying juſtice for our not repenting, beleeving, &c. home to the rule of the Law.
2 Nor doth it imply that Jewes, Pagans, and every one ſhall be ſaved, becauſe Chriſt hath fulfilled the conditions of both Covenants for them, ſo that they are culpable in neither. For Chriſt hath not ſatisfied for the breach of (much leſs fulfilled) that which Mr B. called the conditions of the New Covenant, as ſuch conditions, &c. but as precepts of the old Covenant or Law of works. Or ſhould I ſay Chriſt hath ſatisfied onelyonly for the Elect, will M. B. contradict?
3 If it ſhould follow hence that the Elect then are righteous and juſtified (viz. in Chriſt) before they beleeve; this would not ſound as an abſurdity to any other beſides them to whom truth is an abſurdity, as hath been before ſhewed.
4 Neither if it would follow hence that beleeving is needleſs to justification, would it alſo follow, that it is needleſs to any other uſe? This cannot fall from any other but a prophane mouth and ſelfſeeking man, that will have nothing done out of love and obedience to God, to glorifie him, but all out of ſelf-love for his own benefit onelyonly. But I have before proved faith to be needfull to juſtifie us, to bring home into our own Conſciences the benefit and evidence of our Juſtification, even Faith acting in us, therefore Faith ſo acting in us is alſo needful to this as well as to other uſes, though Chriſt hath ſatisfied for the infirmity of it in reference to the Law.
5 It were no abſurdity to confeſs the ſaved and the damned to be alike in themſelves and by nature (before Juſtification) but that the difference is onelyonly in election and Chriſts intention. Untill then the Holy Ghoſt pronounceth both to be Children of wrath by nature, Eph. 2. 3. both to be ungodly, Rom. 4. 5. what then is the difference in themſelves? But their beleeving and Juſtification puts a difference in their relation firſt, and then in their qualifications alſo, the one becoming ſanctified, the other remaining unholy ſtill. The reſt that is contained in this fifth place hath been objected before, and before anſwered.
6 What he ſaith in the ſixth place proceeds from the heat of paſſion and height of ſelf-confidence, not from ſtrength of reaſon, or evidence of Scriptures. Which of all the Lawes and precepts of Chriſt had Juſtification for its end, ſave that of Faith? Or who hath confounded Law and Goſpel, and overthrown all the Lawes and Precepts of Chriſt, by removing Faith from operating in its office to this end? Who hath contradicted the whole ſcope of Scriptures by denying Chriſt to be made under the Law, to have fulfilled the Law, to have born the curſe of the Law, or its impoſing upon all the neceſſity (of duty) to perform our ſelves whatſoever the New Covenant requireth of us to Juſtification or Salvation? But that all which Mr. B. would make conditions of Juſtification, muſt be ſuch becauſe he will ſo have it, notwithſtanding all his bombaſticall noiſe of wo…ds, his great Cry and little wooll, will not be gr…nted him. When he brings us his large tranſcript of New Teſtament Scriptures, I doubt upon due examination they will be found to make not for but againſt him.
What he inſtanceth, p. 113, 114, 115. of Mr. Saltmarſh, I cannot deny it, neither will I defend it. I remember that I did once read this paſſage in him, and it was the ſame in ſubſtance, as Mr. B. here tranſcribes him. It is not a grain or two of ſalt that can make his Argumentation there, enough ſavory: unleſs he mean by Chriſts repenting, beleeving, &c. his ſatisfying of Gods juſtice by his expiatory ſacrifice for the failings of our Faith and Repentance, at they held not up to the Lawes perfection, I diſlike it no leſs then Mr. B. But can we conjecture that Mr. Saltmarſh himſelf was not the firſt that diſliked it and all the reſt both good and bad of what he wrote in that Tractate? I have been told by ſome of his godly acquaintance, that the man had a naturall impotency of crazines in his brain. And the whirlwind of imaginations wherewith he was carried to a haſty taking up of opinions, and no les haſty hurling away of them again; the much of the top, and the little of the bottom of wit, the flaſhes of nimblenes, and the want of ſolidity and depth which he ſhewed in his writings, his inconſiſtency with himſelf, with others, with the Scriptures; his ex…reme mutability and roving from Tropick to Tropick without ſettledneſs any where, do in great meaſure prove the report to be true. And if ſo, he is to be pittied though his infirmities are not to be patronized. However this extravagancy of his into ſo looſ and careleſs expreſſions, doth neither juſtifie Mr. B. Tenents, nor ought to …rejudice the Truth from which Mr. B. or any other hath erred. Neither doth Mr. B. captiouſnes ſo null my charity as to ente…ain the leaſt conjecture that ever Maſter Saltmarſh meant or thought that Chriſt had ſinne to repent of, or beleeved to obtein the pardon thereof.
Here now wee finde Maſter Baxter returning from his irefull purſuit of his imaginary, not reall Antinomians, and of a dead mans Ghoſt that could neither ſee nor hear him. And when hee reviews what he had written, hee ſees it neither holpen nor amended by his hot words ſpent upon the wind. He had affirmed, that there is a two-fold Righteouſneſſe neceſſary to our Juſtification; one, the Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to us, the other a perſonall Righteouſneſſe, or Righteouſneſſe of our owne, inherent in our ſelves: And to this our own Righteouſneſſe had attributed an equall power with the Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to our Juſtification, if not a power above, and ſuperiour to it. This aſſertion of his he perceives to ſavour ſo much of humane arrogance, and (to uſe his own words) to be a ſelf-exalting, horrid Doctrine, of ſo high a nature, and ſo contradictory to the whole Tenor of the Goſpel, that a ſhort affected brawl with No-bodies, and dead men, cannot turn away the hatred which all that know and love the Lord Jeſus muſt needs conceive againſt it. Hee is therefore in a ſtreight, cure it he cannot, revoke it he will not: Therefore in ſtead of a better ſhift, he poſteth to the Monks & Jeſuits, & borrows their either, Cowl, or Cloak, to cover the deformity of it. And good reaſon have they to ſtead him, for it is their cauſe in his hand, viz. Juſtification by our own perſonal Righteouſneſs, that hath ſtreightened him. Let us now ſee what he brings from them to us, to make their aſſertion from his pen tolerable.
B. Theſ. 21. 115. Not that wee can perform theſe conditions without Grace: (for without Chriſt we can doe nothing) But that he enableth us to perform them our ſelves; and doth not himſelf repent, beleeve, love Chriſt, obey the Gospel for us, as he did ſatisfie the Law for us.
B. Explication. This prevention of an objection I adde, becauſe ſome think it is a ſelf-aſcribing, and derogating from Chriſt, to affirm our ſelves to bee but the Actors of thoſe duties, though we profeſſe to doe it onelyonly by the ſtrength of Grace. But that it is Chriſt that repenteth, and beleeveth, not we, is language ſomewhat strange to thoſe that have been uſed to the language of Scripture, or Reaſon: Though I know there is a ſort of ſublime, Platonick, Plotinian Divines ſprung up of late among us, who think all things to bee but one, &c.
We find in Scripture, that as Chriſt hath his Mystery, ſo hath Antichriſt his Myſtery alſo: And that this latter is a Myſtery of iniquity, 2 Theſſ. 2. 7. and Myſtery, Babylon the great, &c. And it is ſomewhat myſterious and ſtrange that the materials of this Babel-building will not hold and cloſe together without Babel ſlime to cement it. Mr. Baxter would fain have fortified, and faſtened together the gaping chinks of this Babel with his owne morter. But it will not hold, therefore is he forced ever and anon to make uſe of the proper ſlime which the former Builders have left for them that come after to repair; ſo doth hee in this place. None of his own ſHifts and tricks could hide the menſtruouſneſs, and monſtrouſneſs of his Doctrine; this Pall from Rome doth it no leſs perfectly then the Fig-leaf Aprons covered the nakedneſs and filthineſs of our firſt Progenitors from the eye of God. It ſounded before ſo dreadfully, as it was enough to make the ears of a true Chriſtian to tingle at the hearing, that Our own righteouſneſſe muſt goe foot by foot with Chriſts righteouſneſſe to our Juſtification; but that which Mr. Baxter brings here from Rome, takes off the ghaſtlyneſs, and makes all ſmooth, and himſelf in what he hath ſaid no leſs amiable then he that had the Lambs horns, but the voice of the Dragon, Rev. 13. 11. How ſhould it bee otherwiſe when all the glory is aſcribed to Gods Grace and to the Spirit, and Power of Chriſt? ſo ſaith he. Wee are juſtified in part by our own righteouſnes indeed, [yet] Not that we performe in this Righteouſneſſe [which he termeth theſe conditions] without Grace, (for without Chriſt wee can doe nothing) but hee enableth us to perform them, &c. And in the Explication: This prevention of an objection I adde, becauſe ſome thinke it a ſelf-aſcribing, and derogating from Chriſt, to affirm our ſelves to bee the Actors of theſe duties, though we profeſſe to doe it only by the ſtrength of Grace. Now when Mr. Baxter hath thus ſayd and profeſſed, what reaſon can there be given why he ſhould not bee thought as honeſt and innocent as the proudeſt Popiſh Prelates, Jeſuits, and Friars, that in anſwer to this objection which Mr. Baxter preventeth here, have ſaid and profeſſed the ſame thing over and over many hundred times? In ſtead of them all (which even to name with their words abbreviated, would fil a volumne) I ſhall mention ſome few only. Firſt the Popiſh gloſſe thus ſpeaketh, Opera noſtra, quatenus noſtra Gloſa ordinaria in cap. 6. ad Rom. ver. 23.ſunt, vim nullam Juſtificandi obtinent; quatenus verò non à nobis ſunt, ſed in nobis à Deo facta ſunt per Gratiam, Juſtificationem promerentur. i. e. Our works as farre as they are ours, have no power to juſtifie: but as farre as they are not from us, but wrought of God by Grace in us, ſo they deſerve juſtification. In the ſame manner our Engliſh Jeſuit Campian is recorded in the diſpute which hee had with ſome of our Engliſh Divines to have ſought an evaſion: Opera quidem legis (ſaith he) quatenus ſine fide & gratia Campian▪geruntur, nihil habere quod ad juſtitiam conferant: Caeterùm opera ſanctorum Hominum cùm ejuſmodi non ſint, ſed fide & gratia referta, ideo juſtificari dicuntur verè coram Deo, ex operibus ſuis, non tamen tanquam ſuis. i. e. The workes of the Law, as they are done without Faith and Grace, have nothing to contribute to Juſtification; nevertheleſs the workes of godly men are not of that kind, but repleniſhed with Grace and Faith; therefore are they ſayd to bee juſtified by their workes, yet not by workes as theirs [but as wrought by the grace of God in them.] So alſo Vega the Monk, Duplex eſt Juſtificatio, altera ex gratia operandi infuſa; Andr. Vega de Juſt. vag. 751.altera ex debito Legis, ſecluſa Gratia: Excluditur ergo Juſtificatio illa quae fit ſecluſa gratia: non Juſtificatio illa quae fit ex operibus gratia adjutis, &c. i. e. There is a two-fold Juſtification, one of the Grace to work infuſed into us, the other of the debt of the Law without Grace [to enable.] That Juſtification is excluded which is [ſought after] without Grace, not that Juſtification which is of good works holpen by Grace. And Hoſius, toHoſius. elude that of the Apoſtle, We are not juſtified by works; Verum, inquit, ex operibus iis quae legis ſunt, aut quae liberi Arbitrii noſtri propria exiſtunt; quae cum laborant imperfectione, nihil ad juſtificationem conferunt. i. e. It is true (ſaith he) of thoſe works which are of the Law, or done in the ſtrength of Free-will only, which in regard they have their imperfection, cannot avail to Juſtification. But as for ſuch works as flow from our Free-will, as it is ſet in operation by the over-powering of Gods Grace, He concludeth otherwiſe. Not to trouble our ſelves with what theſe Sophiſtical pratlers ſpeak every, and each of them ſeverally let us take them collectively in one bunch and body, as Mr. Pemble in his Treatiſe of Juſtification brings them in both head and tayle, great and ſmall, thus diſputing againſt Juſtification by the righteouſneſs which is in Chriſt, without any righteouſneſs of our own intermixed. Againſt this Doctrine they have two exceptions (ſaith Mr. Pemble)Pemb. Treat. of Juſt if page 37.
1. That we are not juſtified by any work of our own (viz.) that we our ſelves do by our own ſtrength without the help of Grace: But yet we may be juſtified by ſome work which we doe (viz.) by the ayd of Grace; ſuch is the work of Faith.
2. That wee are not juſtified by any workes of our own, i. e. by any works of the Law; but by a work of the Goſpel, ſuch as Faith is, we may be juſtified.
By this time it is enough evident that Mr. Baxter fights the Popes battel with the Popes weapons, that as he maintaines the Popes cauſe, ſo he rankes and files himſelf with the ſouldiers of the Popes Army; who then can give any reaſon why hee ſhould not be thought as ſure a friend either to Chriſt, or at leaſt to Antichriſt, as are the Prieſts and Jeſuits? OnelyOnly if for no other, yet for this cauſe Mr. Pemble deſerves the brand of an Antinomian, (which in the following part of his Tractate Mr. Baxter gives him pag. 173.) for diſgracing this ſophiſticall ſhift which is common to other Papiſts with Mr. Baxter, telling us in the forequoted place, that this diſtinction of works done without Grace, and works done by Grace, was deviſed by one (and conſequently followed by others) that had, or have neither Wit nor Grace; being a trick to elude the force of ſuch Scriptures, as exclude indefinitely all works from Juſtification, &c. A ſpightful ſpeech, thus at once to caſt dirt in the faces both of Mr. Baxter, and all his fratres, or Fryars of the holy Mother Church of Rome. No marvel if Mr. Baxter, though he ſmooth him ſomtimes for his own ends, yet doth carry him in mind to fit him a penny-worth for it, when he thinks he hath caught an advantage againſt him.
Nevertheleſſe though Mr. Baxters ingenuity and plaine dealing ſeldom keep him company in this diſpute and controv…rfie, yet his ſubtilty and ſophiſtry fail him never. In his former poſitions before examined, he affirms, that beſides the imputed righteouſneſs, we muſt have a perſonal righteouſneſs inherent in our ſelves, as abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation and juſtification: Here now to make that his aſſertion ſufferable, he minceth it in its termes, and in this Theſis calls it a performance of conditions, and in the Explication, an Acting of Duties, what before he had called juſtifying righteouſneſſe: Yea further tels us, that ſome think it a ſelf-aſcribing, and derogating from Chriſt to affirm our ſelves to be but the Actors of thoſe Duties; though we profeſſe our ſelves to do it only by the ſtrength of Grace. When contrariwiſe the queſtion is not about either the requiſiteneſſe of Goſpel duties, nor about the ſtrength by which they are to be performed; (herein if Mr. Baxter meaneth as he ſpeaketh, wee are agreed) but about their office and end to which they are to be performed; whether theſe duties are conditions of our Juſtification, and that the end of our performing them ought to be, that we may be juſtified by the righteouſneſs which conſiſteth in their performance? Doth hee meane to tune up a Palinodiam, to recant and eat up his former aſſertions, that he doth here ſo lenifie the roughneſs, and correct the extravagancy both of his words and matter before delivered? Nothing leſs, but hee throws ſugar after his poyſon, both that it may goe down the more quietly what he hath given already to his unwary Readers to drink, and that they may be ready without ſuſpition to drink deeper, and more deadly draughts of the ſame poyſon, which thorow the whole ſequele of this his Treatiſe he makes his buſineſs to temper for them. I ſhall there anſwer more fully where he ſpeakes more fully. In the mean time all may ſee his dealing here to be not faire and logicall, but fallacious and ſophiſtical.
He tels us in the concluſion of his Explication, that He will not digreſs from his intended ſubject ſo far, as to enter here into a diſquiſition of the nature and workings of that Grace which doth enable us to perform theſe conditions, but refers us to Parkers Theſes de traductione peccatoris ad vitam.
What that Mr. Parker, or his work is, I know not. But that Mr. Baxter will not here deliver his own judgement, I think he doth well. For if his judgement in the doctrine of Gods Grace working unto mans converſion, and ſanctification, be not more ſound then about the operation of the ſame Grace to mans Juſtification, his ſilence will be farre more acceptable then his beſt argumentations, to chaſte ears, and ſpiritual minds. And little cauſe have we to expect any good from him upon that ſubject, becauſe that although there are many who extoll the power of mans Freewill to his converſion, even to the clouding of the glory of Grace, that do notwithſtanding hold faſt the doctrine of Juſtification by Chriſt alone, without any intermixture of our own righteouſneſſe: Yet I know no one ſort or ſect of men that part our Juſtification between Gods righteouſneſs imputed, and our own inherent, but that the ſame alſo, about the doctrine of Free-will, are wholly Popiſh, if not Pelagian alſo.
In the bulk and body of his Explication, wherein he inveigheth againſt thoſe whom hee in termes of abaſement calleth ſublime, Platonick, and Plotinian Divines, when as they account themſelves eſſentially God himſelfe; he hath not us diſſenting from him.