Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 15
CHAP. XV.
Whether men in Scriptures are ſaid to be perſonally Righteous, becauſe they perform works and duties, as conditions of the new Covenant, ye a only for this? Master Baxters reaſons by which he labours to make it good, examined.
Theſis 22. BAx. page 118. In this fore-explained ſenſe it is, that men in Scripture are ſaid to be perſonally Righteous: and in this ſenſe it is, that the faith and duties of beleivers are ſaid to pleaſe God: viz. as they are related to the Covenant of Grace, and not as they are meaſured by the Covenant of Works.
Explication.
Thoſe that will not acknowledge that the Godly are called Righteous in the Scripture by reaſon of a perſonal Righteouſneſſe, conſiſting in the Rectitude of their own diſpoſitions and actions, as well as in regard of their imputed Righteouſneſſe, may be convinced from theſe Scriptures if they will beleive them. Gen. 7. 1. and 18. 23, 24. Job 17. 9. Pſal. 1. 5, 6. and 37. 17, 21. Eccleſ. 9. 1, 2. Ezek. 18. 20. 24. and 33. 12. 13. 18. Mat. 9. 13. [To theſe he addeth, as may be there read, a multitude of Scriptures more, which unleſſe it were to better purpoſe, it is not worthy the labour to tranſcribe.] To this he further addeth.]
That men are ſometimes called Righteous in reference to the Lawes and judgements of men, I acknowledge: Alſo in regard of ſome of their particular actions, which are for the ſubſtance good; and perhaps ſometimes in a comparative ſenſe, as they are compared with the ungodly: as a line leſſe crooked, ſhould be called ſtreight in compariſon of one more crooked. But how improper an expreſſion that is, you may eaſily perceive. The ordinary phraſe of Scripture hath more truth and aptitude then ſo. Therefore it muſt needs be, that men are called righteous, in reference to the New Covenant onelyonly. Which is plain thus, Righteouſneſſe is but the denomination of our actions or perſons as they relate to ſome rule. This Rule, when it is the law of Man, and our actions ſuit thereto, we are then righteous before men. When this rule is Gods Law, it is either that of Workes, or that of Grace. In relation to the former there is none Righteous, no not one; for all have ſinned and come ſhort of the glory of God. OnelyOnly in Christ who hath obeyed and ſatisfied, wee are Righteous. But if you conſider our actions and perſons in relation to the Rule of the New Covenant, ſo all the regenerate are perſonally righteous: becauſe they all performe the conditions of this Covenant, and are properly pronounced righteous thereby. Neither can it be conceived how the works of beleivers ſhould either pleaſe God, or be called righteouſneſſe, as they relate to that old Rule, which doth pronounce them unrighteous, hatefull and accurſed.
All this (in its ſubſtance at leaſt) might be granted to a conſcientious man, that meaneth as he ſpeaketh, hating all equivocations and mentall reſervations. For it being firſt granted to us (what is here granted) That men are called in Scripture, Righteous, ſometimes in Regard of their imputed Righteouſneſſe, ſometimes in reference to the lawes and judgements of Men, ſometimes alſo in regard of ſome of their particular actions, which are for their ſubſtance good: and ſometimes in a comparative ſenſe, as they are compared with the ungodly: The 3 laſt of theſe conſiſting in the Conformity of perſons and actions with the Lawes of God, or of men, though not a perfect Conformity: upon this firſt yeelded to us, we could without any prejudice to truth grant back again to ſuch qualified men as are before mentioned, that ſometimes men are called [perſonally] Righteous, in reference to the New Covenant, i. e. in regard of their inchoat ſanctification, and an inherent righteouſneſſe flown out of Chriſt into them, by means of their union unto Chriſt; for which (though not yet Complete and perfect in them,) they are, à parte praeſtantiore, termed Righteous.
But to Maſter Baxter, whom we have as the wolfe by the ears, prepared if we hold him, to bite at our hands, if we let him go, to fall upon our throats, or invade our face and head; if we deny him what he would have, to bite at us; if we grant it him, to improve it againſt Chriſt our head; we grant nothing, wee can grant nothing, becauſe in all that he ſpeaketh, he means not as he ſpeaketh, but covers under fine words fallacies and falſities.
Firſt then, we except againſt his Theſis, that it is a meer fardle of Amphibologies and Equivocations. That he ſo delivers all, that he will be held to nothing. For firſt, when he ſaith In this fore-explained ſenſe it is, his meaning was (no doubt) to leave us doubtfull, or at leaſt to leave himſelfe this advantage, that wee ſhould remain uncertain where to find him. If we ſhould fetch the explanation from the next Theſes, he might except that his meaning was of ſome of the more remote Theſes; if from the remote, he would fly to the next; or if wee ſhould draw the ſenſe from both the next and remote Theſes, he might evade thus, that he meant not any thing that was ſaid in any of his Theſes, but ſomething in the explication of ſome of them. And thus wee might purſue the wild-gooſe long enough, before wee ſhould finde her pitching.
Secondly, When he ſaith, Men in Scriptures are ſaid to be perſonally righteous, his purpoſe was to leave us in the like doubt, whether he means the Righteouſneſſe of juſtification, or the Righteouſneſſe of Sanctification; and himſelfe the like advantage to fly from the one to the other, as may moſt further his ends.
Thirdly, when he ſaith again, And in this ſenſe it is, he leaves us as knowing as before, what ſenſe he meaneth, himſelfe hath not yet concluded what the ſenſe ſhall be, ſaving in general, ſuch a ſenſe as upon all occaſions may ſerve to his purpoſes.
Fourthly, When he ſaith, That the faith and duties of believers are ſaid to pleaſe God. viz. As they are related to the Covenant of Grace, and not as they are meaſured by the Covenant of works; he had a project to leave us uncertain, whether by the word They and They twice uſed, he means thoſe beleevers, or thoſe duties and works. And upon this hinge runs the queſtion in great part between us and the Papiſts, whether the works make the perſon, or the new relation of the perſon make his works accepted.
And in the Fift place no leſſe ambiguity is there in the phraſe, Related to the Covenant of Grace, not to the Covenant of works. For in many reſpects may a perſon or thing be related to either Covenant, and he tells us not in what reſpect he meaneth.
Now though from the whole ſcope of his worſt we may aſſure our ſelves that he would be underſtood in the worh, i. e. in the Popiſh ſenſe, in reference to all theſe things which he delivers in ſuch words as may bear a manifold ſenſe: yet becauſe the man delights to dance in the dark that he may not be yet taken, wee will neither croſſe his humor, nor befool our ſelves in dancing after him, untill he ſhall diſcover himſelf and his meaning in the light.
To the explication I except, that it is full of extravagancies, equivocations, contradictions, ſaying and gainſaying, doing, and undoing, mentall reſervations, and in all of fallacious ſubtilties. Firſt he racks & rakes together Scriptures in heaps to prove that a mans eyes are in his head, not in his heeles; I mean, to confirm that which no rational man ever denyed, viz. that ſometimes men are called righteous by reaſon of a perſonal righteouſneſſe &c. what an extravagancy is this, ſo ſtrongly to fortifie, where there is no fear of an aſſault? But there lurketh here a twofold fallaciouſneſſe and ſubtilty of Maſter Baxter. 1 a trick to delude his inconſiderate readers that view his words running, without any ſtay or ſtopping to conſider with an opinion that he hath all the Old and New Teſtaments on his ſide, in that hee can ſpit Scriptures ſo ſwiftly and numerouſly for himſelfe. 2. a feat to ſcrew into the mindes of unwary men a conceit, that all theſe Scriptures, (which he confides they will not examine) doe hold forth juſtification by our own perſonal, or inherent righteouſneſs. Which they do no more prove, then a crow upon a ſheeps back proves the ſheep to be a crow, or a red hat forced upon Maſter Baxters head proves him to be a Cardinal: Yet this muſt hee mean and aim at, elſe (to uſe the very ſame words which he before uſed againſt Maſter Saltmarſh) his Argumentation is no more to the buſineſſe that he hath in hand, then a harp to a harrow. For it is not the righteouſneſſe of ſanctification, but of juſtification that is the ſubject of his diſpute.
2. He is liberal in his conceſſions, grants us firſt that the Scripture calls men righteous ſometimes in regard of their imputed righteouſneſſe; and when they are ſo called in reſpect of their inherent righteouſneſſe, it is ſometimes in reference to the lawes and judgements of men; Alſo [ſometimes] in regard of ſome of their particular actions which are in their ſubſtance good: (viz. therein conformed to the law.) And ſometimes in a comparative ſenſe, as they are compared with the wicked, &c. Yet with one flat contradiction recalls all again, thus, Therefore it muſt needs be that men muſt be called Righteous in reference to the New Covenant onelyonly. Who ever heard untill now of ſuch a concluſion from ſuch premiſſes. If becauſe we are ſometimes in Scripture called righteous in regard of imputed Righteouſneſſe, which (according to Maſter Baxters Divinity) is our legal righteouſneſſe, and in regard of theſe other waies which he mentioneth, none of which relateth to the New Covenant, how doth it follow hence, Ergo, men are called righteous in reference to the New Covenant onelyonly? In this, his Logick is no leſſe myſtical then his Divinity. I can ſee no other ground of ſuch an argutation in ſtead of an Argumentation, But this; Maſter Baxer hath granted, and laid the premiſſes, Ergo, earum contrarium verum eſt, i. e. Therefore the contrary to what he ſaith muſt needs be true. But paradventure he drawes the concluſion not from thoſe conceſſions; but onelyonly from the words next & immediately going before, viz. The ordinary phraſe of Scripture hath more truth and aptitude then ſo, Therefore &c. Did he not grant that the Scriptures do call men righteous in all the former mencioned reſpects? what is it then that he here ſaith The ordinary phraſe of Scripture hath more truth &c. Are ſome Scriptures more true then others? And therefore doth he reject that which is affirmed by the leſſe true, & conclude that which is affirmed by the more true Scriptures? or can hee deny the Scriptures ſometimes to call men righteous in the former reſpects? No marvell if he doth ſo prophanely wreſt and abuſe the Scriptures, when he takes them for ſuch falſe and uncircumciſed things, that in his account they need alſo an inherent truth and righteouſneſſe to juſtifie them.
I ſhould here prove, that men are called Righteous, not in reference to the New Covenant onelyonly. But let him firſt bring his proofs to confirm the contra…y, and I ſtand waiting to anſwer him. This he attempts to do in the next words: Wherein wee ſhall find him bringing nothing elſe but ſome vain and looſe propoſitions, fallaciouſly and ſophiſtica…ly diſpoſed, laying them down as known principles, when they are the very things in queſtion (for the moſt part of them) yet Confirming them with no other authority than his own bare affirmation and Negation, as if every paradox muſt be taken as ſacred and undiſputable, when he hath, and becauſe hee hath delivered it. It is plain thus (ſaith he;)
B. Righteouſneſſe is but the Denomination of our actions and perſons, as related to ſome Rule.
He had before ſaid in the Explication of Theſ. 16. pag. 96. That Righteouſneſs is no proper real being, but a Modificatio entis, the Modification of a being. This he means alſo here in calling it the Denomination of our perſons and actions as related to ſome Rule. But what end hee hath in degrading Righteouſneſs from the honour of a poſitive reall being more then other virtues, I do but yet kenn at a diſtance, and not fully comprehend. This wee clearly ſee that he takes the chair, and challengeth to himſelf a Magiſterial power to create and deſtroy what his Cap thinks fit in Philoſophy, Logick, and Divinity. A famous Doctor, long verſed in more ſublime, and profound ſtudies, and by means thereof having let ſlip ſome of the poor elementary rules of Grammar, having once by a miſtake broken Priſcians head, being admoniſhed, thereof is ſaid in great haſte to have anſwered, He would make a New Grammar, that ſhould conform to the incongruity of his words, ſeeing his words were unconform to the congruity of Grammar. Such is the animoſity of Mr. Baxter, where his opinions agree not with the rules of Philoſophy, or Divinity, there he damns and annihilates the old, and with the breath of his mouth creates a new Philoſophy, and Divinity, that ſhall be ſubſervient to his opinions, and ſo God-like,
Diruit, aedificat, mutat quadrata rotundis.
This he doth here in defining, or deſcribing righteouſneſs, denying it a poſitive, and reall being; herein puffing off all the Claſſicall Philoſophers, and Divines. Philoſophers; for Ariſtotle affirmeth, that all [Philoſophers] call Righteouſneſſe, foreign. Such an habit by which men are apt to practiſe juſt things, and by which they act and will juſt things. And to them he gives alſo his aſſent, calling it further foreign, not onelyonly a virtue, but a perfect virtue, citing and approving that Proverbial verſe,
foreign
That all [or every] vertue is complexively [or comprehenſively] in Righteouſneſs. Yea the moſt perfect virtue, foreign; and again it is (ſaith he) foreign, the moſt excellent of virtues, foreign, not a part of virtue, but virtue in the whole. So ſpeakes he of Righteouſneſs in the general, and as in the next Chapters he diſtributes it into its ſpecials, he makes virtue the general of thoſe ſeveral Righteouſneſſes.
In the ſame manner the choiceſt of all the learned and Orthodox Divines that I have met with, make Righteouſneſs thus taken in its largeſt ſenſe, to ſound, and to bee one and the ſame thing with virtue it ſelf. Some call it bonitatem, probitatem, & integritatem, goodneſſe, honeſty, and integrity; others, rectitudinem virtutis, the uprightneſſe, or rectitude of Virtue, defining its ſpecials by Virtue, when they aſſign the next and immediate genus; by habitus, when they aſſign the remote genus. And are not Virtues, and either naturall, morall, or infuſed Habits, Poſitive, and Reall Beings? Muſt all other Philoſophers and Divines vaniſh to nothing, when Mr. Baxter comes with his Denominations, Modifications, or rather Noddifications?
Nevertheleſſe though we deny to him that Righteouſneſſe is but a bare Denomination, or dead notion; yet we grant to him that true righteouſneſs both of Mens Actions and perſons muſt relate to ſome rule. What will follow hence?
B. This Rule, when it is the law of Man, and our actions ſuit thereto, we are then Righteous before men.
True, and yet latet anguis in herba, under this truth there lurketh a fraudulent falſhood. Mr. Baxter hath his reſtrictions to promote, but not to prevent a falſhood. The thing that he pretends to prove, is, That men are called Righteous [in Scripture] in reference to the New Covenant onelyonly. There he finds the word onelyonly to make a falſhood. Here he cannot find it, will not finde it; for if it bee brought in place, it will reprove him of falſhood to all men. Is it for mens actions ſuiting to the Lawes of men onelyonly, that they are called in Scripture righteous before men? He would be ſo underſtood; for if it be not onelyonly for this, if at all for their outward and appearing conformity to the Law of God, they are called Righteous before, or in the account of men, his concluſion is deſtroyed by this prop which he brings to ſuſtain it. And yet he dares not to ſay, onelyonly for this they are called Righteous before men. For he knoweth whole ſtreames of Scriptures would bee brought …o confute ſo bold an aſſertion. But he proceedeth.
B. When this Rule is Gods Law, it is either that of Workes, or that of Grace: In relation to the former there is none righteous, no not one, &c. ut ſupra.
This, and that which followeth is all ſophiſticall, fallacious, and catching.
Firſt the diſtinction which he here maketh of the Law of God, that it is either the Law of Works, or Law of Grace, is ſomewhat a ſtrange phraſe to chaſte ears, that deſire to hear Scripture Doctrines delivered in Scripture termes, that oppoſe Grace to the Law, and are not wont to call it a Law.
Secondly, it is contrary to Mr. Baxters doctrine and Goſpel: for howſoever he in words talketh of a two-fold Covenant of Works and of Grace, to beguile ſuch as deſire to be beguiled; yet really hee labours to bring all under a Covenant of Works, making mans own righteouſneſſe the condition of both, ſo altering the name, but retaining the nature and power of the firſt Covenant ſtill; as I have before evinced from his diſputes, and himſelf will in the following part of his book diſcover more fully.
3. There is an ambiguity in the word Rule, he manifeſteth not how farre his meaning therein in reference to the Law extendeth, whether for a direction onelyonly what is good, and what is evill, wherewith God will be ſerved, and what is it that offendeth him, teaching us to perform the one, and to ſhun the other: Or whether alſo for a direction how far, & in what degrees the good is to be done, and the evill ſhunned, that we may bee juſtified and ſaved thereby. Though we may without much difficulty ſmell his meaning herein, yet becauſe he reſerveth it for another place clearly to expreſſe himſelfe, we alſo will reſerve it for the ſame place to make him a full anſwer.
4. He playeth his uſuall game of equivocation, in telling us, that In relation to the former there is none righteous, no not one. This is not that which is concluded, and nothing ought to be in the concluſion, which is not alſo in the premiſes. The concluſion (as we have ſeen) is that none is called righteous, &c. The proof here is, that none is righteous. Theſe phraſes much differ. A man may be called righteous, in reference to the rule of the Law, though he be not abſolutely righteous, in every particular thereof to Juſtification; and himſelf acknowledgeth that in many reſpects the Scripture calleth men righteous, in reference to the Law of Works, who notwithſtanding ſhall never be juſtified by the Law of Works; as a little before in this Explication we have ſeen. Concerning the Righteouſneſſe which is by the Law, I was blameleſſe, ſaith the Apoſtle, Phil. 3. 6. And, I have lived in all good Conſcience unto this day, Act. 23. 1. Lo even while Paul was yet a Saul, a hater, a perſecuter of the Goſpel Righteouſneſſe, yet he is termed, and called Righteous, blameleſly Righteous, conſcientiouſly righteous, in relation to the Law of Works. Or when Judah ſaith of Tamar, She is, or Saul of David, Thou art more righteous then I; and Solomon of Joab, Two men more righteous then himſelf, Gen. 38. 26. 1 Sam. 24. 17. 1 Kings 2. 32. Were theſe here called Righteous in reference to the righteouſneſs of the Goſpell, and not of the Law? Or when the Lord by his Prophet calls them righteous which turned from their righteouſneſſe, and periſhed in, and for their wickedneſſe, Ezek. 3. 20, 21. and 18. 20, 24, 26. and 33. 12, 13, 18. was it an Evangelical, or a legal Righteouſneſſe, that gave them the denomination of Righteous perſons? When Iſaiah calls all his, all the peoples Righteouſnes, menſtruous or filthy Ragge…, and Paul his Righteouſneſſe, Dung Iſa. 64. 6. Phi. 3. 9. yet both ſuch as gave them the denomination of Righteous men, Mr. Baxter himſelf will not ſay, that theſe were the righteouſneſs of the New Covenant: I could heap, and hoard up Scriptures to the ſame purpoſe which call men righteous in reference to the Law of Works: But in what reſpects men are called ſo in Scripture; for an unperfect righteouſneſs is not the thing in queſtion. Not that they were juſtified by it, is certain; but in whatſoever other reſpects, it deſtroyeth Mr. Baxters concluſion, that men are called Righteous in relation to the Covenant of Grace onelyonly; and ſhews the inconſequence of his Argumentation, that becauſe none is perfectly righteous, viz. to Juſtification in relation to the Law of Works, Ergo, in no other reſpect is he called Righteous according to the Covenant of Works.
What he addeth, OnelyOnly in Chriſt, who hath obeyed, and ſatisfied, we are Righteous. This we embrace as our Goſpel Righteouſneſs, and Mr. Baxter alone without company, or ſuffrage of Prophet, or Apoſtle, Ancient, or Modern Writers, affirms to be our legall Righteouſneſs. But hitherto we finde it an affirmation without confirmation. It follows.
Bax. But if you conſider our actions and perſons in relation to the Rule of the New Covenant, ſo all the Regenerate are perſonally righteous, becauſe they all perform the conditions of this Covenant, and are properly pronounced Righteous thereby. Neither can it be conceived how the works of Beleevers ſhould either pleaſe God, or be called Righteouſneſs, as they relate to that old Rule, which doth pronounce them unrighteous, hatefull, and accurſed.
He proceeds ſtill in his ſophiſtry without any the leaſt particle of Scripture, or any thing elſe, ſave the wind of wit and words to prove what he would have us to beleeve. It behoveth him that will faſten and ſcrew into the judgements of men new, and ſtrange Doctrines, that never ſounded before (at leaſt in the ſame phraſe of words) in their ears, to bring irrefragable Arguments to confirm it. But ſuch paradoxes and prodigies both of doctrines and words, doth Mr. Baxter here hold forth, as were never before heard of, but in uttering them he is a Barbarian to us, and we Barbarians to him, in not underſtanding them, yet brings nothing elſe but his own word to promote them. The myſteries of his ſophiſtry are ſo deep, that our woodden wits cannot ſink to the bottome to comprehend and underſtand it.
Firſt, what means he by the Rule of the New Covenant? Doth he put the New Covenant here in the Paſſive, or in the Active, and Poſſeſſive ſenſe? i. e. Doth hee meane by the Rule of the New Covenant a rule extrinſecall, and without the New Covenant, to which the New Covenant muſt bee conformed, that it may bee regular; or a rule in the New Covenant, and by it made out to us, whereunto wee muſt bee conformed? If in this latter ſenſe, then whether without, or elſe with reference to ſome end? if to ſome end, whether then to Sanctification or Juſtification? I cannot ſo much as conjecture that he puts the phraſe in the firſt ſenſe, that he tels us here of a Rule to which the New Covenant muſt be conformed, becauſe it is altogether alien from the ſcope of his diſpute; and beſides how we ſhould be related to a rule with which the New Covenant muſt ſuit, I cannot ſee; for ſuch a Rule I ſhould conceive to be immanent in God, and ſo hid from us, that we cannot perceive how to regulate our ſelves by it. This then he cannot mean.
2. Neither doe I conceive that his meaning is, that we are to be conformed to the Rule which is contained in, and manifeſted by the New Covenant, without reſpect to any end to which the rule directeth; that we ought to be thus and thus qualified, and thus to act onelyonly, becauſe the Goſpel ſo biddeth, without reference to the end of ſuch qualifications and actings: For neither is this any thing to the purpoſe of his diſpute. Neither in this ſenſe can ſuch qualifications and actings be in any ſhew of reaſon called, what Mr. Baxter here calleth them, Conditions of the New Covenant: For they are Conditions (if at all Conditions) in reference to ſome ends, without which the end cannot be obtained. Or what ends doth the New Covenant immediately point at, more then either our Juſtification or Sanctification?
3. If he mean the Rule of the New Covenant for Sanctification. 1. Then I ſhall demand of him, whether the Law of Works be not the rule of the matter and ſubſtance of thoſe qualifications and actions which conduce to Sanctification, even under the New Covenant; and whether the Rule of the New Covenant or Goſpel doe extend any further then to the Modification of thoſe Qualifications and Actions, directing to the Mediator from whom to derive thoſe Qualifications and Actions, and by, and through whom to preſent our ſelves and them unto God? 2. And then, whether in reference to Sanctification, men may not be called Righteous, as having their righteouſneſs relating to the rule of the Old, as well as the New Covenant? I cannot be ſo uncharitable to think that Mr. Baxter; having poſitively affirmed that beleevers are in part under the Curſe of the Law, will deny them to be alſo in part under the rule and direction of the Law; if he ſhould, hee muſt brand upon himſelf the due infamy of Antinomianiſm, which he unduly and falſly chargeth upon others. 3. And yet this will in no wiſe advantage his cauſe: For we grant him, that in reference to the inherent righteouſnes of Sanctification, men are called Righteous in the Scriptures by a perſonal righteouſneſſe. But what is this to that righteouſneſſe in our ſelves equally neceſſary to the righteouſnes which is in Chriſt, to Juſtification, which he had in the former Theſes aſſerted, and here goes about to prove or illuſtrate?
4. If he mean the rule of the New Covenant to Juſtification, (which ſeems to me unqueſtionable, though hee will not fully expreſs himſelf) then
1. I demand of him, how our actions relate to this rule? Is it, that themſelves, i. e. our very actions may be juſtified by it? This he condemneth, Theſſ. 25, and its Explication. Or that they may Juſtifie us, as conditions of our Juſtification? This moſt probably is his meaning, which when he confeſſeth, he confeſſeth himſelf worſe then Popiſh; for the Papiſts aſcribe Juſtification not to actions indefinitely, but to ſome good works onelyonly. When he ſpeaks more broadly then they, let him ſhew himſelf without a vizard under the name and notion of a Papiſt, and he will not want anſwerers or anſwers.
But upon this ſuppoſition let us ſee what he inferreth; So all the regenerate are perſonally righteous, becauſe they all performe the conditions of this Covenant, and are properly pronounced righteous thereby. Let us now collect together what in probability is the whole ſumme of his diſpute. Leaving what he hath ſaid to deny that men are called Righteous in reſpect of Juſtification, by the rule of the Law, becauſe wee doe not, cannot perform the conditions of the Law (unto which I have already anſwered) here he endeavours to prove, that they are called Righteous onelyonly in reference to the rule of the Goſpel; and if we draw his reaſoning into a ſyllogiſm, it runs thus.
All that perform the conditions which the Goſpel, or New Covenant preſcribe unto Juſtification, are perſonally righteous thereby, and properly ſo called.
But all the Regenerate perform the conditions which the Goſpel, or New Covenant preſcribe unto Juſtification.
Ergo, All the Regenerate are perſonally righteous, and properly ſo called thereby.
If Mr. Baxter ſaith not this, either he ſaith nothing, or I underſtand nothing of what he ſaith. But if this be his meaning, then as to his Propoſition or Major,
1. I except againſt the ambiguity of the termes, they want explication. What he means by conditions, I know not; for if wee grant one, yet ſhall wee grant but one Goſpel condition of Juſtification, viz. Faith in Chriſt Jeſus. When therefore he puts the plural number for the ſingular, untill he ſhall certifie us what he meaneth, we muſt leave him uncerta in what wee will anſwer. Again, it is doubtful what he meaneth by perſonally Righteous: if he mean thereby the ſame thing with that which our Divines call inherently Righteous, and put in oppoſition to imputed righteouſneſſe, we deny the propoſition as falſe and Popiſh. But if he means by perſonal righteouſneſſe the Juſtification of our perſons by the blood of Chriſt apprehended by Faith, we gainſay not his propoſition, but pronounce it to be utterly beſides his purpoſe, which is to prove a twofold righteouſneſs, one in our ſelves, the other in Chriſt neceſſary to ſalvation. Yet that this is not, but the former is his meaning, he makes evident by the word [thereby] i. e. by ſuch performance. And if righteous by his owne workes and performance, hee needs not to ſtep further to Chriſt for another righteouſneſs, to make him more then righteous, exorbitantly righteous, righteous in a way of ſupererogation. He that hath juſtified himſelf, needs no other Juſtifier. Chriſt came not to call the righteous, but ſinners to repentance.
As to the Aſſumption, or miner Propoſition, I except that it labours of the ſame ambiguity in the word [conditions] with the major, ſo that untill hee tell us how many thouſand, and what conditions he meaneth, I muſt be dumb inſtead of anſwering.
To both Propoſitions, I except that there lyeth a fallacie in the word [perform.] No living perſon can perform any thing ſo as to be juſtified, and bee termed abſolutely righteous by ſuch performing. Yet every Regenerate man doth perform that upon which he may reſt confident that Chriſt is made of God Righteouſneſs to him, and ſo have his Juſtification evidenced to his own conſcience. But if Mr. Baxter will change his termes, and call (after the tone of Scriptures, and Orthodox Writers) Chriſt our New Covenant or New Goſpel righteouſneſs, and our performings or works, our legall righteouſneſs, then lo how neare I ſhall cloſe with him. I ſhall ſay with him, that all which perform, are righteous; but in what ſenſe? Righteous in a proportion anſwering the proportion of their performings; if they perform perfectly, then perfectly righteous; if unperfectly, and ſinfully, then ſinfully, and unperfec…ly righteous. Whatſoever elſe Mr. Baxter would hence elicite, in doing it hee proſtitutes all his integrity to ſophiſtry and fallacies. The reſt hath been ſaid, and anſwered before, in, and upon the former clauſes of this Explication.
Yet as if he had ſpoken all this out of Peters chair, which is as free from errors as an Iriſh cabbin from Lice, ſo he holds forth his golden foot triumphantly to tread on their necks, as being all laid proſtrate before him, whoſoever have ſince the beginning of the world, ſaid any thing contrary to this doctrine which he hath brought to light now at the end of the world. Thus diſdainfully exulting over them,
Bax. pag. 121. Two ſorts among us therefore diſcover intolerable ignorance in this point. 1. Thoſe that commonly uſe and underſtand the words [Righteous, and Righteouſneſs] as they relate to the old Rule; as if the godly were called righteous (beſides their imputed righteouſneſſe) onelyonly becauſe their ſanctification, and good works have ſome unperfect agreement to the Law of works; as if it were a ſtreight line which is in one place ſtreight, and in another crooked; much leſſe that which is in every place crooked in ſome degree. I have been ſorry to hear many learned Teachers ſpeak thus.
In theſe words wee finde firſt groſs contradiction, whom he accuſeth in one breath of intollerable ignorance, in the next breath he applaudes to be learned Teachers. If intollerably ignorant, how learned Teachers? If learned Teachers, how intollerably ignorant? Doth hee not contradict himſelf? unleſſe hee will thus ſolve it. That in compariſon with others they are learned Teachers, but as compared with himſelf, they are intollerably ignorant. This indeed is implyed in the next words, compaſſing the learned Teachers, I have been ſorry to hear many learned Teachers ſpeak. Others that were taken for learned ſaw no infirmity in them, But I have been ſorry to take notice of their nakedneſs, and babiſhneſs in learning. So doth the light of Moon and Starres vaniſh before the Sunne. Let us next take notice whom hee calleth intollerably ignorant, and for what.
1. Thoſe that commonly uſe, and underſtand the words, &c. ut ſuprà. The Crab-fiſh cannot, will not ceaſe to goe fideling, and crooked, though his damme intreate him to take ſtreight ſteps. Can Mr. Baxter in a caſe of this nature deale ſimply, and ſincerely? Shall we conclude (becauſe hee ſaith it) that many intollerably ignorant learned Teachers have ſaid, and maintained, that the Godly are [in Scriptures] called Righteous (beſides their imputed righteouſneſs) OnelyOnly becauſe their Sanctification and good works have ſome imperfect agreement to the Law of works, Credat Judaeus Apelles, or Quaerat peregrinum: I am too much acquainted with his fallacies and falſifications to beleeve it. It were a m…er contradiction, for how that ſhould bee called Sanctification which hath onelyonly ſome imperfect agreement with the Law of Works, I ſee not; I never met with that man that hath profeſſed himſelf to have ſeen. We doe not place Sanctification in ſome outſide conformity of the utter man, and his viſible works onelyonly to the Letter of the Law, but in the actuall infuſion of the Holyneſſe and Righteouſneſſe of the Law into mans heart, working a reall change of the whole man from the image of Satan, unto the image of God. Whom the Lord Jeſus hath juſtified, and by his blood reconciled to God, ſo changing their relations: Them alſo he ſanctifieth by his Spirit, and reformes to the image of God by the alteration of their qualities, which though it be but inchoate and unperfect at the firſt, yet is it more and more conſummate and perfited untill the day of the Lord Chriſt. So that here is not onelyonly the Law without, to rule and direct, but the holyneſſe and righteouſneſs of the Law, and Chriſt by his Spirit as the root thereof, wrought by Goſpel grace in the heart, and diffuſed through the whole life; and the ſame conformed not onelyonly to the Law, but the Goſpel alſo, as before hath been mentioned. In reſpect of this ſanctification, though yet but unperfect, wee indeed affirme the godly to bee ſometimes called Righteous, yet not righteous to Juſtification, but in regard of the life of Righteouſneſſe new begotten and inherent in them.
But it is obſervable how ſubtlely he ſlanders the Orthodox Teachers, with a fault which is his, not theirs, how hee would condemn them for men, attributing too much to the Law and Workes, becauſe they call thoſe virtues, and good works which the Law commandeth, a righteouſneſſe with which the godly do ſerve the Lord, in, and through Chriſt Jeſus. When himſel… affirmes the ſame to be the very Righteouſneſſe by which they are juſtified. For if he be demanded whether the perſonall Righteouſneſſe which he contendeth to bee neceſſary and effectual to Juſtification, ought not to have at leaſt ſome unperfect agreement to the Law of God, he anſwers affirmatively, and fights ſtrongly for it in the ſequele of this Treatiſe. Let him be demanded whether any other ſuppoſed Righteouſneſſe that the Law command not, can be our perſonal righteouſneſſe to juſtifie us? This he… denyeth. What then is the difference betwixt him and them This onelyonly, that they will not ſay with him, that his righteouſneſſe (ſo unperfect as hee here termes it, and which in the laſ… words of the former Section he pronounced unrighteous, hatefull, and accurſed) is the perſonall righteouſneſſe by whic… men are juſtified before God. If you ask how ſuch workes ſhould juſtifie, being ſo unrighteous and accurſed? yes, ſaith he, as God hath appointed them to be the conditions of the New Covenant, the performance whereof juſtifieth and maketh us perſonally righteous before God. Here now is a heavenly Goſpel. Such conditions and ſuch a juſtification, if the one bee accurſed much more the other. And where is Gods Righteouſneſs, if hee will not juſtifie but upon accurſed conditions?
Thoſe that will not, have not conſented to this doctrine of his, he calls intolerably ignorant. Let him now name any one either Divine, or underſtanding Chriſtian in any of the Churches that have ſhook off Popery, and not ſuckt it back again, conſenting with him in this doctrine; elſe it is not his humility that is diſcovered, in calling all the godly and learned that are, or have been in any of the Churches of Chriſt, intolerably ignorant. Satis pro imperio; enough Magiſterially out of doubt.
What he talks of the ſtreight, crooked line, hath its dependence onelyonly upon the fallacious definition which hee before gave of Righteouſneſs, making it a mear empty notion, not a vertue or gif of Gods grace; which definition falling, this compariſon fals with it. For if we grant unto Righteouſneſs a real being, Maſter Baxter himſelf will not deny but, as one ſparke of fire under a vaſt heap of aſhes is as true and real fire as if no aſhes were there; ſo one ſpark of righteouſneſs, (I mean living Righteouſneſs) under a whole body of infirmities, is as true and truly Righteouſneſs as if no infirmities were there; And if God vouchſafe to call a man righteous in reference to that poor pittance of Righteouſneſs, rather than unrighteous for the whole maſs of his corruptions: what art thou O man that replieſt againſt God? is thine eye evil becauſe he is good?
B. Moſt they ſay to maintain it, is in this ſimple objection. If we are called holy becauſe of an unperfect holineſſe, then why not Righteous, becauſe of an imperfect righteouſneſſe?
Anſw. Holineſſe ſignifieth no more but a dedication to God, either by ſeparation onelyonly, or by qualifying the ſubject, firſt with an aptitude to its Divine employment, and then ſeparating, or devoting it: as in our ſanctification. Now a perſon imperfectly ſo qualified, is yet truly and really ſo qualified. And therefore may truly be called Holy ſo farre. But Righteouſneſſe ſignifying a conformity to the rule, and a conformity with a quatenus, an imperfect rectitude, being not a true conformity or rectitude at all, (becauſe the denomination is of the whole action or perſon, and not of a certain part, or reſpect) therefore imperfect Righteouſneſſe is not Righteouſneſſe, but unrighteouſneſſe: It is a contradiction in adjecto.
Object. But, is our perſonal Righteouſneſſe perfect, as it is meaſured by the New rule?
Anſw. Yes: as I ſhall open to you by and by.
I could here heap up a multitude of orthodox writers that do call our perſonal Righteouſneſſe by the title of (evangelicall) as ſignifying from what rule it doth receive its name.
The words of the Poet are here verified by Maſter Baxter, mali bonos malos eſſe volunt, ut ſint ſui ſimiles. Hee is angry with the ſimplicity of the godly and orthodox that they are ſingle and ſincere in their diſputes, and would have them double and crafty like himſelfe. In this ſenſe I acknowledge the Argument which he ſaith they bring, and is moſt they ſay to maintain their aſſertion, is a ſimple objection. They have more to ſay for the maintenance thereof then all his ſophiſtry can ſubvert. And this argument though ſimple, yet is not ſilly or weak, but ſtrong and ſound againſt all his batteries. It is drawn à pari. If there be a parity between righteouſneſſe and holineſſe to give a denomination of holy and righteous perſons, then the argument is firme, and men may be as properly termed Righteous in reference to a righteousneſſe not yet perfected, as holy in reference to a holineſſe not perfected: at verum prius, ergo & Poſtorius. The former is true, therefore the latter alſo. Maſter Baxter denyeth the aſſumption, and goes about to ſhew a diſparity in this caſe between righteouſneſſe and holineſſe: making holineſſe to be either onelyonly a ſeparation of a thing or perſon to holy uſe, without an infuſion of a new qualification to fit him for holy employment, or at leaſt the qualification of ſuch a perſon firſt alway, and then a ſeparating of him afterward, as if uſually the conſecration or ſeparation by the blood, did not go before the new qualifying of him by the Spirit of Chriſt, (this indeed is not ſo ſquaring with the Popiſh Canon, as his way.) But to let paſſe this, & touch onelyonly upon that wherein he oppoſeth righteouſneſſe to holineſſe. Holineſſe he grants to be a qualification, and conſequently to have a real Being. This here he denyeth, as before, of righteouſneſſe. A meerly fallacious evaſion; for righteouſneſſe hath no leſſe a real being than holineſſe (as hath been before ſhewed.) And the Scripture gives its Teſtimony, making Righteouſneſſe and true Holineſſe, as it were the two eſſentials of the New Man, which is created after God, i. e. in anſwer and conformity to that eſſentiall Righteouſneſſe and Holineſs that are in God himſelfe. Eph. 4. 24. And what els doth Saint Peter mean in affirming the Saints to be Partakers of the Divine Nature, but by the infuſion or creating of Righteouſneſſe as well as Holineſſe in them, by which they are reformed to the nature of God, which is Holineſs and Righteouſneſs. 2 Pet. 1. 4. And no more is it a true Holineſs, than this a true Righteouſneſs which are not both in ſome meaſure conformed to the Law of God. And becauſe they are both alike real beings, or qualifications: Therefore what Maſter Baxter ſaith of Holineſs may be no leſſe truly ſaid of Righteouſneſs alſo. That a perſon imperfectly ſo qualified, is yet truly and really ſo qualified, and therefore may truly be called Righteous ſo farre. What he doth Philoſophari to the contrary of Righteouſneſs, is againſt both Philoſophy and Divinity, as hath been before manifeſted.
When he hath once opened the perfection of this Righteouſneſs according to the new rule: we ſhall there and then examine it as in its due time and place.
Let him name but one of the heap and multitude of thoſe Orthodox writers, that call our Perſonal Righteouſneſs [Evangelicall] in his ſenſe, elſe let him give us leave to conclude, that hee makes no conſcience of heaping together falſities in multitudes to Ecclipſe the truth. But who are in his account Orthodox writers, though he doth not expreſsly tell us, yet he hath made it eaſy for us to judge.
So farre of the former ſort of intolerably ignorant, viz. the learned teachers. He proceeds to the latter.
Bax. pag. 123. The ſecond ſort that ſhew their groſs ignorance, of the nature of righteouſneſs, are the Antinomians (and ſome other ſimple ones whom they have miſled) who if they doe but hear a man talke of a righteouſneſs in himſelfe; or in any thing he can doe, or making his own duty either his righteouſneſs, or conducible thereto; they ſtartle at ſuch Doctrine, and even gnaſh the teeth, as if we preached flat Popery, yea as if we cryed down Christ, and ſet up our ſelves: The ignorant wretches not underſtanding the difference between the two ſorts of Righteouſneſs: That of the Old Covenant, which is all out of us in Chriſt, and that of the New Covenant, which is all out of Chriſt in our ſelves (though wrought by the power of the Spirit of Chriſt.)
In this, and that which followes, there is nothing but dirt and wind, all unworthy of the labour to tranſcribe it, much leſſe deſerving an anſwer to bee given it. I ſhould therefore have paſt it by with diſdainfull ſilence, were it not for the reſpect which I have to the weakeſt ſort of Readers, which ordinarily are more affrighted with high and bragging words, then wrought upon by ſound reaſons from the Word of God: For preventing of deluſion to ſuch, I ſhall therefore ſay ſomewhat, and there will not bee need that I ſhould ſay much.
Firſt then I undertake to maintaine, that although there be no man upon earth that hath in words pretended more hatred againſt Antinomians, then Mr. Baxter, to make them hatefull to ſuch as are fooliſhly apt to hate without a cauſe; yet is there no other man upon earth that hath in reality and ſubſtance ſo much honoured and magnified them as Mr. Baxter. He makes them, even them alone to be the ſound Chriſtians, the advancers and maintainers of the pure Goſpel of Chriſt againſt all the falſities and portentous lyes of Antichriſt, rayling againſt them as the onelyonly hinderers of the total ruine of Chriſts Kingdom, and the advancing of the Kingdome of Antichriſt in the roome thereof as Paramount. Theſe he affirms here to be he men ſupereminently zealous for Chriſt, who if they doe but heare a man talke of a righteouſneſs in himſelf, or any thing that he can doe (viz. as ordained, or powerful to juſtifie; for ſo is his meaning, or elſe he ſaith nothing) or maketh his own duty either his (Juſtifying) Righteouſneſs, or conducible thereto; they ſtartle, &c. as if we preached, &c. ut ſuprà.
O noble ſpirits! theſe are the men indeed (as farre as wee can judge) baptized with the Holy Ghoſt, and with fire. Let me not live one moment longer then the Grace of Chriſt ſupports me in ſuch Antinomianiſm. Such have been all the holy Orthodox Reformers, Martyrs, Teachers, and Saints, in all the Churches from Luther unto this very day, ſuch were the Apoſtles. Let them be accurſed that preach another Goſpel; I would they were cut off that pervert this Goſpel, ſaith the Apoſtle. Theſe all are at once Anathematized by Mr. Baxter for Hereticks, for daring to be bold in ſpeaking for Chriſt, when himſelf is impudent to ſpeak for Antichriſt. But tuſh, all theſe were but the Angels of the Churches, this man is mounted higher, to take the Chair among the Seraphims, or Seraphicall Doctors: Therefore pittieth the childiſhneſſe of this lower order, that they have not more ſublime apprehenſions. The ignorant wretches (ſaith hee) not underſtanding the difference between the two ſorts of Righteouſneſſe, that of the Old Covenant, which is all out of us in Chriſt, and that of the New Covenant, which is all out of Chriſt in our ſelves. Oh intolerable ignorance of all the worthies that have lived in all ages ever ſince God had a Church upon earth, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Paſtors, and Teachers, that none of all theſe could ſee that which never was, never ſhall be! Yea the moſt holy Father, Chriſts Vicar, with all his Cattell, Cardinals, Biſhops, Schoolmen, Monks, and Jeſuits, could but kenn it a diſtance unperfectly, untill Mr. Baxter (Cui meliore Luto finxit praecordia Titan) having lighted his Torch from him that fell as Lightning from heaven, brings it here as cleare and viſible as the man in the Moon to our view. What Lyncean eyes hath he! one of Platoes ſcholars no doubt, that had higher ſpeculations then others, and could ſee Ideaes, which this man hath diſcerned more clearly then all his elder brethren that have ſtudied, and even ſpent themſelves in the contemplatioa of them. But let us leave the man, Narciſſus like, in his amorous doting on his beauty and righteouſneſs, while wee preſent our ſelves before the Lord, who is preſent only in Chriſt, reconciling the world to himſelf.
The objection about Ahab and Nineveh, and the anſwer thereto given, wherwith the Explication of this Theſis is cloſed up, I paſs by as altogether impertinent to this queſtion of Juſtification by our own perſonal righteouſnes; except either the Objector or the Anſwerer, i. e. Mr. Ri. or Mr. Baxter wil ſay, that either Ahab or thoſe Ninevites, were ever truly juſtified.