Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 23
CHAP. XXIII.
Arg. Mr. Baxters distinction of Justification in Title of Law, and in Sentence of Judgement examined, together with other distinctions equipollent to this. Whether beſides the preſent there be alſo a future Juſtification? and whether it be begun and perfected together at once.
I ſhould wholly have paſſed over the 37, 38, 39, and 40 Theſes, with their Explications, as meerly ſhady imaginations, voyd of all reality and ſubſtance, without ſtopping to give them one word of anſwer: (For why ſhould wee talke of Pictures that have no life in them?) were it not that it is Maſter Baxters drift to carry us through theſe wayes of his own chalking, wholly from Chriſt, under a pretext of leading us to Chriſt the Juſtifier. To fruſtrate therefore his deceit I ſhall ſpeak ſomewhat to theſe paſſages of his Tractate alſo.
Theſ. 37. pag. 183. B. Iuſtification is either in title, and the ſenſe of Law, or in ſentence of judgement: The firſt may be called Conſtitutive; the ſecond Declarative; the first Virtual, the ſecond Actual.
Lawyers have layd it down for a Maxim, Non eſt diſtinguendum ubi Lex non diſtinguit. i. e. We are not to diſtinguiſh of any point in the Law, where the Law it ſelf hath not made a diſtinction. If the Laws of men are not, much leſſe are the Laws, and Word of God to be violated with mens bold diſtinctions: For this is no leſſe then to bring Gods ſacred Oracles into a ſubjection to mans vain fancies. Let Mr. Baxter ſhew any Scripture that gives footing for the diſtinguiſhing of Juſtification into that which is in title of Law, and that which is in ſentence of judgement, into conſtitutive and declarative, or virtuall, and actuall Juſtification. Theſe are the inventions of wanton wits in theſe latter times, whoſe endeavour it hath been to tear in peeces, and thereby wholly nullifie Gods Juſtification, and to put many Juſtifications of their own in ſtead thereof. We deny not a conſtitutive and declarative Juſtification in ſome ſenſe, but in Mr. Baxters ſenſe we deny it. It is granted that the Satisfaction which the Son by promiſe gave, and the Father accepted for the ſins of the Elect, according to the Covenant between the Father and the Son, before more then once mentioned, did conſtitute the Elect juſtified in Chriſt before they were born; who notwithſtanding were not declared juſt to their own conſciences before they actually beleeved; nor to others until they manifeſted their Faith by their Works. But Mr. Baxter explodes this conſtitutive, and declarative Juſtification, as an unſufferable abhomination, and will not have his virtuality, and actuality to theſe applyed. And let him alleage any one Scripture that calls the ſentence of life (unto thoſe that ſhall bee ſaved by grace) that is to be pronounced in the laſt day, Juſtification: Or if he cannot, but that the juſtification of the New Covenant, wherever it be mentioned in the Word, be that which is in this preſent life, who ſees not that his diſtinguiſhing here tends to the ſubverting of Scriptures, and of the both virtual, and actual Juſtification which the Scriptures ſpeak of?
B. The Scripture ſpeaks of it many times as a future thing, and not yet done. Rom. 3. 30. Mat. 12. 37. Rom. 2. 13. Explic. pag. 185.
This is all that he bringeth, or can bring for Juſtification in the day of Judgement; and this all is nothing. It followeth not becauſe theſe Scriptures ſpeak of Juſtification as of a thing to come, ſaying, they ſhall be, not they are juſtified; that this Future tenſe doth point out the day of Judgement. If I ſhould ſay, Mr. Baxter ſhall dye, I ſhould not be accuſed for ſpeaking an untruth; but if any will needs confine that [ſhall] to the day of Judgement, that Mr. Baxter ſhall then dye, who would not laugh at the abſurdity of the conſequence? That of Mat. 12. 37. By thy words thou ſhalt be justified, and by thy words thou ſhalt be condemned; and that of Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers, but the doers of the Law ſhall be juſtified; ſpeak of Juſtification after the tenor and covenant of the Law, not of Grace; therefore pertain nothing to the preſent purpoſe. Hee ſhall but Dare verba, damnably deceive with words, that teacheth men to ſeek for Juſtification by the righteouſneſs of the Law conſiſting in deeds and words. Whoſoever indeed ſhall neither in word or deed be found a tranſgreſſor of the Law actually or originally, ſhall be juſtified by his words and deeds. But this man muſt be ſought for out of a happier generation then thoſe of the race of Adam; elſe (if we except Chriſt alone) we muſt return our Non eſt inventus. That of Rom. 3. 30. ſpeaks indeed in the Future tenſe, but may be as properly rendred, by the word [will] as [ſhall] (though the difference be not very conſiderable) thus, It is one God which will [or ſhall] juſtifie the circumciſion by faith, and the uncircumciſion through Faith. The Apoſtle here meaneth no otherwiſe, ſpeaking here in the Future, then what he had ſaid before in the Preſent Tenſe of Juſtification. And it is as if he had ſaid, God hath decreed and declared his method of juſtifying both Jews & Gentiles to be one and the ſame. As long as there remain, or ſucceed any upon earth of either part to be juſtified, the purpoſe of God abides firm to juſtifie as wel the one as the other by faith, and no one of either ſort by Works; neither circumciſion, nor uncircumciſion ſhall avail, or hinder any thing, but Chriſt, faith in Chriſt ſhall bee all unto all in this buſineſſe, as long as the world endureth. And what is there then in this Text to p…ove Mr. Baxters declarative Juſtification in the day of Judgement? Not that wee deny the adjudging of life in the day of Judgement to all that in this life were juſtified; but the Scriptures terming this laſt ſentence by the name of Juſtification, whatſoever is ſaid of Juſtification by Faith or Grace, is ſtill to be underſtood in this life. And the whole reaſon that Mr. Baxter hath here to coyn a Juſtification in the day of judgement, is to lay a foundation of Popiſh Juſtification by Works; as by the ſequele of this his Treatiſe will more fully appear. Elſe would we not contend with him about meer words, did they not tend to a deſtructive end; and that we are taught by him elſwhere, That no advantage is to be given to the Papiſts in the point of Juſtification. To ſay that the laſt ſentence of judgement ſhall declare to Men and Angels that the Elect were juſtified in this life by faith in him, is according to the voice of the Word. But to ſay that they ſhall be then fully Juſtified, as if their Juſtification had not been before compleated, is to out-throw the Bar two foot beyond the Papiſts for the maintenance of their ſelf-juſtifying, and to ſpeak more for them then they had wit, or graceleſneſſe to ſpeak for themſelves.
Hence it is that in the beginning of his Explication, pag. 183. he forbears to mention other diſtinctions which are common in others, and may be found in Mr. Bradſhaw, Mr. John Goodwin, and Alſtedius, becauſe (ſaith he) they are not ſo neceſſary and pertinent to my purpoſed ſcope, which is to deſtroy Juſtification by Grace, and erect in place thereof Juſtification by Works. It is a ſuperlative praiſe that he giveth theſe men (how wel deſerved by ſome of them I know not) that they are travelling another way from him, their faces are toward Jeruſalem, and he cannot obtain a word of direction from them, but muſt truſt to his own Compaſs to guide him to Rome.
What he hath more in the Explication, is but the interpretation of his own dream: And I have not ſuperſtition enough to keep me awaked, and attentive to dreams, and their interpretation.
Neither is there any thing elſe in his 38 Theſis, and its Explication, but a further forming of the ſame Chimaera▪ and notional Nothing, created out of his brain in the former Poſition, and its Explication. Or if there be any thing beſides, it hath been examined in the precedent Chapter.
With no leſſe ſilence might I alſo paſſe by the 39 Theſis, and its Explication, as being of the ſame nature with the former; ſaving that there are two things that wee may glance our conſideration upon, before we paſſe further, leſt that we ſhould ſeem to look aſide from any thing that hath an appearance of weight and ſtrength in it to confirme his doctrine, of a Juſtification, or pardon of ſin in ſentence of Judgement, contradiſtinct from that which he maketh to conſiſt in Title of Law. To make evident, that beſides the Juſtification here, there ſhall bee another Juſtification in the day of Judgement, hee addeth theſe two things unto what he had before ſaid.
1. An explication of the form of future Juſtification, and Pardon.
2. Another Text of Scripture, beſides the former, to evince it. The former he hath in theſe words of that his Theſis, That it ſhall be an acquitting of the ſinner at Gods publique Bar.
B. From the accuſation and condemnation of the Law pleaded againſt him by Satan. For pag. 189. in the Explic. the accuſation of his guilt will be managed againſt him by Satan hereafter, from which accuſation he ſhall be then acquitted.
Who is there now that can doubt of a Juſtification after this life, when he hath heard ſo graphicall a deſcription of it? But how came Satan and Mr. Baxter to be of ſo great acquaintance, that either ſhall know the others purpoſe about the Judgement to come? I had thought the Devill had made known onelyonly to his friends, not to his adverſaries, what he means to do to morrow, much leſſe what hee meanes to doe in the day of Judgement. I ſhould have conjectured that he is more taken up with the horror of torments that he ſhall ſuffer, then with the thought of further actings in that terrible day. Neither did I until now finde that Satan ſhould be an accuſer of others, having not what to ſay for the defence of himſelf, being accuſed by others, as the author of their ſinne and miſery in the day of Judgement. Neither can I find yet that the Scripture teacheth any ſuch thing, that Mr. Baxter ſhould be able to ſay, he hath received from the Lord what he doth here diſcover to us. It muſt be from ſome Apocrypha's, or out of the left ſide of the Romiſh Legend that hee hath borrowed this doctrine, where I ſhall leave him to dig out more traditions to maintain his bold aſſertions, that have no pillarage from Scripture to ſuſtain them.
The latter, vizt. the Text of Scripture which he alleageth to the ſame end wee have in the beginning of the Explication thus.
B. There is alſo a twofold pardon, as well as a twofold Juſtification, one in Law, the other in ſentence of Judgement. So Act. 3. 19. Repent, that your ſins may be blotted out when the time of Refreſhing comes, &c. Lo here a Juſtification, or pardon of ſin, in, or after our glorification begun.
But Mr. Baxter knows that Eraſmus, and the old tranſlation otherwiſe render this Text, making the latter clauſe thereof Ecliptick, or unperfect, which is thus to be ſupplyed, Repent &c. that your ſins being blotted out, when the times of refreſhing ſhall come forth from the preſence of God, [What then? wee muſt ſupply] Ye may have your part in the eternall refreſhing and joy: This rendring of the Text even the moſt ſolid Expoſitors that follow the other reprove not, but ſpeak honourably of it; much more thoſe that take it up. And if we ſo underſtand the Text, it hath no ſhew of affirming a forgiveneſs of ſin, but glorification onelyonly after the judgement day. Yea I have found none, untill Beza's new Tranſlation of the Teſtament, that otherwiſe underſtood the text, or ſince this tranſlation that hath reprehended the former as faulty, but all both before and ſince making that the ſenſe of it. Yea the word foreign, which our Tranſlation renders [when] both Beza and all the Orthodox Expoſitors render fo foreign, after; thus reading the Text; [not when, but] after the times of refreſhing ſhall come. And this Mr. Baxter will not deny to be the proper meaning of the phraſe. And will he notwithſtanding ſay that the times of refreſhing, that is, of everlaſting joy, come firſt, and then the forgiveneſs of ſinne follows? Mr. Baxter is not ignorant that the word [foreign] in the original may be as properly rendred [have, or are come] as [ſhall come] And ſo many learned Tranſlators and Expoſitors of this Text have underſtood it, viz. of Chriſts firſt coming in the fl…ſh. And then without any ſupplement the Text is full in it ſelfe, and runneth thus; Repent, &c. that your ſins may be blotted out, ſeeing that the times of refreshing are come forth from the preſence ef God. Let Mr. Baxter cite any one either Scripture, or Greek Writer, in which [foreign] ſignifieth [when] otherwiſe I cannot ſee the leaſt ground upon which hee can blame this, or uphold that Tranſlation which he taketh up.
3. The tranſlation which a learned and godly friend gives, rendring the [foreign] [that] foreign, i. e. to this end that, bears great force with me, as beſt agreeing with the conſtant uſe of the Scripture. And ſo the Text is thus to be read, Repent, &c. that your ſins may be blotted out (and that the times of refreſhing may come, &c. (upon you.) In this ſenſe is foreign taken, Mat. 6. 5. Lu. 2. 35. Act. 15. 17. Rom. 34.
In which ſoever of all theſe ſenſes the words be taken, this Scripture favours not at all Mr. Bax. neither hath his ſecond juſtification or pardon in the day of judgement any patronage from it.
Yea the vanity of this diſtinction of pardon & juſtification, into that wch is in Title of Law, an… that which is in ſentence of judgement, this declarative, that conſtitutive, is evident to as many as underſtand evidences. For the whole tenor of ſcriptures which ſpeakes of the laſt judgement, tendeth to manifeſt it to be a pronouncing of eternall glory to the Saints, becauſe they were juſtified and before pardoned, perfectly righteous, in that ſin was not imputed to them in this life, not a pronouncing of pardon to them that they may be thereby received into glory. Let there be any Scripture produced to evince the contrary. Or why will Maſter Baxter have the ſentence of the judge and Saviour in the laſt day called a declarative juſtification and pardon? To whom ſhall this his ſentence declare it? to God? He knoweth who are his, and whom he hath juſtified and pardoned in himſelf, and thorow Chriſt before the World was made, therefore needs no ſuch declaration. To themſelves? They had in this life the word of the Goſpel declaring, the truth of Faith evidencing, and the ſpirit of grace witneſſing it to them; and whether at the very inſtant they ſhall be affirmed to have come in ſpirit from the flames of Purgatory, or from under the Altar in Heaven to reaſſume their bodies (for Maſter Baxter keeps himſelf reſerved in this treatiſe what he thinkes thereof) yet their ſeparation from the reprobates hath enough declared them to be juſtified; ſo that they need no… any further declaration to be made therein to themſelves.
Or laſtly to the World? This might be ſomewhat uſefull to the World, and to themſelves while they were in the World: but is now utterly uſeleſſe, when they ſhall no more return to the World. Neither is there need of a voice to declare it to the World, where their inſtantaneous rapture up to Chriſt in the air; to ſit with Chriſt in judging the World, ſhall fully enough demonſtrate it. And no more doth this Scripture uphold this Juſtification, as in other termes he propoſed it, calling it Actuall, as diſtinct from that which he terms virtuall. All theſe are but windy notions, to fill up the dictionary of his diſtinctions which have no footing in the word. And when all theſe are fardled together, they will quickly be conſumed with the fire of Gods jealouſie, and little ſteed Maſter Baxter to diſpute out his juſtification by works in the day of judgement.
No leſs vaporous is that which he hath, Theſ. 40. and in its Explication, where he diſtinguiſheth moſt learnedly between a barre, and the bar, between a Wooden and an Iron Bar, between a Bar, and a Bar of judgement, a primary and ſecondary bar, a direct and a Conſequential Bar, and all with ſuch ſagacity and profoundneſſe, as paſſeth all the wiſedom of the Holy Ghoſt in the ſcriptures to make out unto us. pa. 190, 191, 192, 193.
B. Theſ. 40. When Scripture ſpeaketh of Juſtification by Faith, it is to be underſtood primarily and directly of juſtification in Law title, and at the bar of Gods publick judgement, and but ſecondarily and conſequentially of Juſtification at the bar of Gods ſecret judgement, or at the bar of Conſcience, or [at the bar] of the World.
And in the explication he diſputeth about
B. The Forum Dei, and the Forum Conſcientiae, the Bar of God, and the Bar of Conſcience; the Bar of God, and the Bar of the World; the Bar of Gods ſecret judgement, and the Bar of his publick judgement; the Bar in heaven before the Angels, contradiſtinct, I ſuppoſe, to the Bar in hell before the Devills.
At laſt he gallantly gathers together all theſe diſperſed bars, juſtifying and unjuſtifying, pardoning and condemning us, in ſome ſenſe at all the barrs, and in ſeverall ſenſes at ſeverall barrs, according as his wit and Sophiſtry doth give him utterance.
And to what purpoſe is all this, but to tickle witty, wanton, and ſophiſtically phantaſticall brains, flattering them off from the ſimplicity, plainneſſe, and ſoundneſſe of the Gopſell into a diſputative, fangled, and wordy formality of religion, having the ſpirit and power of Conſcience, and the word that ſhould regulate it, enervate and evapored in to meer froth and bubbles, by this queſtionary, diſtinctionary, and colorative ſhew of learning. In the mean while, all theſe barrs are by the ſubtlety of this Artificer made uſe of, to bar out the poor and ſimple for whom Chriſt hath dyed, from the due comfort of their juſtification, obſcuring to them the Doctrine of grace, ſending them from Bar to Bar for pardon and peace, and leaving them unſetled, and hovering to their very dying day, yea, till they come to the bar of Chriſt at the judgement day, where if they be followers of this mans Doctrine, they ſhall appear no leſſe uncertainly and tremblingly before the great judge than the reprobate men and Devills. For untill then all the former barrs (according to Maſter Baxter) miniſter no abſolute pardon or acquittance to any ſoul, ſo free from the Curſe, but that we are left under the curſe; acquit conditionally, that is, leave us faſt bound to hell as it found us; looſe the finger to day, that it may bind us up hand and foot to morrow. Such and ſo pretiou… Goſpel doth this learned Scribe draw out of his Treaſury among his Keder minſterians, as by that we have already ſeen, hath been in part manifeſted; and by that which followes in this Treatiſe will more fully appear.
When contrary to all this Sophiſticall winding, circling and labyrinthicall Mazes, the Scripture ſpeaking of Juſtification and condemnation after the tenor of the Covenants, makes onelyonly two Barrs of judgment, the Bar of juſtice according to the Law, and the Bar of grace or Mercy-ſeat, according to the Tenor of the Goſpel or New Covenant: affirming all that are judged at the one condemned, and all at the other juſtified. That as ſoon as we are convicted of death, and vengeance onelyonly due to us at the former, we are carried out in the Spirit of Chriſt thorow the conſecrated way of his purifying blood, to ſeek remiſſion of ſinnes at the latter, the Throne of grace; the all gracious Father, from the bar of grace pronounceth to our conſciences peace, and pardon, and joy which ſhall never be taken from us. This is the ſole and allſufficient Juſtification which the Scripture ſpeakes of, ſpeaking properly of juſtification. The ſubject hath heaped up Treaſons againſt his Prince; For this cauſe the Law apprehends and arraigns him. The Princes Son pittieth and mediateth, and by Mediation obtaines a pardon from the Prince, and brings it under hand and ſeal, puts it into his hand for life, while ſtanding at the Princes Law bar, he was by Law condemned, yea condemned himſelfe. The pardon thus freely given, he cannot but gratefully embrace. He queſtions not, none can queſtion that findes him guilty in Law, from what bar the pardon came. Hee was a dead man in Law. It muſt therefore needs be from free Grace, meer Mercy that the pardon came. The receiver acknowledges it, pleads onelyonly the grace of the pardoner, not any righteouſneſſe of his facts, or innocency in the things whereof he is accuſed, or deſe…ts of former ſervice, or purpoſes of future loyalty, for his life. Such is the juſtification which the Goſpell holds forth. The multiplication of Barrs which Maſter Baxter maketh, at which …his New Covenant juſtification is tranſacted; is a confection of fancied Beares, Bulls, and Bubbles, to diſtract poor Soules from the plain way, and ſound Comfort of Juſtification.
B. Theſis 41. pa. 194.
That ſaying of our Divines, [that juſtification is perfected at firſt, and admits of no degrees] muſt be underſtood thus, That each of thoſe Acts which we call juſtification, are in their own kind perfect at once, and that our Righteouſneſſe is perfect, and admits of no degrees. But yet as the former Acts called, Juſtification, do not fully and in all reſpects, procure our freedom ſo they may be ſaid to be imperfect, and but degrees to our full and perfect Juſtification at the laſt judgement.
Here Maſter Baxter advanceth himſelfe not ſo much as Doctor and Moderator, as Popelike to command and impoſe a ſenſe, yea his ſenſe, upon that which the Divines in generall of all the Churches have ſaid, That ſaying [that Iuſtification is perfected at firſt, and admits not of degrees] muſt be underſtood thus: &c. very Magiſterially at the beſt; for what if not all of them, yea none of them meant ſo, would be ſo underſtood? This nothing hinders, though they will not, yet they muſt be thus underſtood. What neceſſity or authority lieth upon them and their writings, that they (will they, nill they) muſt be underſtood, or upon us, that although we know them to mean otherwiſe, yet we muſt ſo underſtand them? No other power or reaſon from Heaven or Earth is here ſpecified, beſides Maſter Baxters placitum, his pleaſure, he ſo defineth, ſo determineth. How fair doth he bid for Peters Chair, and Golden Pantofle?
Jupiter in caelis, Caeſar regit omnia terris.
What authority the Pope challengeth over all the Canonicall Scriptures, and the penmen thereof, the ſame doth Maſter Baxter over the Eccleſiaſticall writings, and the Authors thereof. It is but one ſtep higher to the Triple Crown. But ipſe dixit, and we muſt be ſilent, elſe Maſter Baxter will be angry, and crown us with the fooles Cappe, and put upon us the Ignoramus and Dulman.
Wel…, how muſt they then be underſtood? viz. that each of thoſe Acts (ſaith he) which We call Iuſtification, are in their own kind perfect at once, and that our Righteouſneſſe is perfect, and admits not of degrees.
H…re I crave leave of the Magiſter, to put ſome few qu…ſtions.
1. Whom hee meanes by the word [Wee] when he ſaith, which we call juſtification? doth he not mean Chiefly, yea onelyonly himſelf? if not, let him name any of the Divines which deny againſt the Papiſts, the Magis & minùs, or degrees of Juſtification, but denies alſo againſt the ſame Papiſts, the twofold juſtification, and maintaines againſt their Sophiſms, juſtification to be but one, one onelyonly juſtification? I acknowledge my ſelfe not to be, that I am not ambitious to be Librorum helluo, I have in ſacred Doctrines but one Maſter. Yet as many of our Divines as I have read, diſclaim and deteſt this twofold juſtification, not onelyonly as a Popiſh, but alſo as a new and Jeſuiticall invention, deviſed for the perverting and ſubverting of that juſtification which is by grace. That this man therefore takes upon him to affix his Index expurgatorius, not to their words, but to their meaning, that they muſt be underſtood in another ſenſe than they meant, becauſe he will ſo have it, is not onelyonly to uſurp to himſelf a power above the Pope, but above God himſelf alſo, who doth not, cannot make that which was not to have beene the meaning of any man in what he hath ſaid.
2. When he ſaith they muſt be thus underſtood, I demand what the neceſſity is, either ſimple and abſolute, or reſpective and ſecundum quid? a Neceſſitas praecepti. or Neceſſitas Medij. If ſimple, and the duty injoyned by ſome precept, where is that precept of God or man to force the underſtanding to believe a lie? if reſpective, or in order to ſome end to which ſuch a miſunderſtanding ſubſerveth as a mean; let us know what that end is, whether good or evill? if evill, we muſt not do or think one evill, underſtand falſely againſt underſtanding and Conſcience, for the promoting of another evill. This is worſe than deviliſh, for he can ſay, video Meliora,—Deteriora ſequor Or if good, their damnation is j…ſt that report (ſaith the Apoſtle) we ſay, [much more that would have us ſay] let us do evill that good may come thereof. Ro. 3. 8. Or muſt Maſter Baxters will or peremptory concluſion ſtand in ſtead of a Divine precept to neceſſitate and determinate our underſtandings to a falſe principle? Get thee behind us Satan, wee owne no ſuch Maſters.
3. When he ſaith, we muſt underſtand Each of thoſe Acts [i. e. Gods juſtifying us firſt in title of Law, ſecondly in ſentence of judgement] are in their own kinde perfect (not in the reſpect that either hath to other, but that the latter addeth a perfection which was wanting in the form…r) I might demand firſt, who beſides the Wee in Maſter Baxters mouth hath called the latter, Juſtification? But of this already. 2 What new thing, as an encreaſe or further degree of Juſtification, doth the latter Act adde to the former? He acknowledgeth that the former (which is the ſole New Covenant Juſtification) doth acquit from Accuſation and condemnation, Theſ. 38. yea from all guilt and obligation to puniſhment, pa. 189. and all this at once, not by degrees, as in this Theſ. 41. what new things, or farther degree doth the latter feigned juſtification adde to this? Himſelfe attributeth no more to this which he calls juſtification in Sentence of Judgement. This (ſaith he) acquitteth from Accuſation and condemnation, Theſ. 39. where now is the Magis here, or the Minus there? the moſt Eagle and L…ncean eye cannot diſcern it in the ſubſtantialls, we muſt therefore ſeek it in the circumſtantialls of juſtification. This he ſeemes to place in two things.
1. The former only in Title of Law, the latter in ſentence of judgement at the bar.
2. The former to be from the accuſation and condemnation of the Law ſimply, the latter from the ſame accuſation and condemnation pleaded by Satan. This is the whole difference which he putteth, as may be ſeen by comparing the 38, and 39 Theſes together. To the firſt, I demand whether the Juſtification in this life be not an acquitting by ſentence of judgement at the bar? Whether it be not a ſentence of abſolution pronounced to the ſoul and conſcience of a ſinner drawn to Gods bar, and there impleaded, and confeſſing it ſelf guilty of ſin, and of condemnation? Who was there ever of them whom Mr. Baxter vouchſafeth to call our Divines, that held otherwiſe? Where then is the difference? Yes, ſaith Mr. Baxter, this latter is at the publique bar. I anſwer, ſo is the former even that bar of God, at which all that ever have been, are, or ſhall be juſtified, have, and ſhall have the ſentence of Juſtification pronounced to them.
Object. But this latter ſhall be at the great and grand generall Aſſizes, before all the hoſt of heaven, earth, and hell; whereas the former was but between God and the ſoul.
Sol. This is nothing elſe but a publick▪ declaration to the world, what God had before granted to the ſoul; which indeed in judicatures of men, which are mutable, and deny oft in publick what they had before acted in ſecret, may be of ſome conſequence to him that is ſo publickly acquitted; but in reſpect of Gods judgement, who cannot be inconſiſtent with himſelf, and whoſe acts in ſecret are as unreverſible as thoſe in publick, here is nothing added to the bulk of juſtification, nor any thing (but the ſolemnity of the manifeſtation of it after the man is before compleatly juſtified) to the circumſtances thereof.
To the ſecond I have ſpoken before, that Satans managing of the accuſation and condemnation of the Law is more properly, if not onelyonly in this life, and let Mr. Baxter prove (if he can) any ſuch accuſation that hee ſhall manage againſt us in the day of judgement: If he can prove it, the thing proved proves no addition or encreaſe which ſhall be then made to our preſent juſtification, becauſe here alſo we are acquitted againſt all accuſations pleaded by Satan. If he prove it not, then there is in this reſpect a magis in the circumſtance of juſtification here, beyond that imaginary juſtification in the day of judgement.
4. When he addeth, that we muſt underſtand our Divines affirming our Juſtification to be perfect at firſt, and to admit of no degrees, that they mean our Righteouſneſſe is perfect, and admits not of degrees, I demand which righteouſneſs himſelf meaneth? that which he calls our Legal, or that which he calls our Evangelical righteouſneſſe? or both? If the firſt, Chriſt made Righteouſnes to us, this is indeed the righteouſneſs, the whole, and ſole righteouſneſs, the Goſpel righteouſneſs which we have given to us unto Juſtification, a righteouſneſs without us, which admits not of degrees: And this righteouſneſs is fully given us in this life, and not reſerved to be given us in the day of Judgement. This [muſt] we are content Mr. Baxter ſhould put upon our underſtandings, that in this ſenſe we muſt underſtand our Divines. But this hews in peeces what Maſter Baxter addeth in this Theſis, making the Juſtification here unperfect, and to have but degrees toward our ful and perfect Juſtification at the laſt judgement; for if ſo, the imperfection here, and the perfection there muſt be either in the righteouſneſſe given (as I conceive) or in the act of giving the righteouſneſſe. Not the former, for Chriſt, whole Chriſt (according to Mr. Baxter) is the righteouſneſs given in this life. Neither will he, I ſuppoſe, affirme that we ſhall have a doubled Chriſt, or two Chriſts given us for righteouſneſs at the laſt judgement: Nor the latter; For I will not entertain ſo ſlanderous a thought of Mr. Baxter, to thinke he will ſay, that God gives Chriſt but unperfectly and ſeemingly here, but there perfectly, and really: Nay hee gives Chriſt perfectly and really here; There he will but own and manifeſt his former gift, and grant.
Object. But the former acts of Juſtification do not forthwith and fully bring a total freedom, and glorification after them, as doth this laſt at the laſt judgement.
Sol. This is not ad idem. Mr. Baxter here flirts from the queſtion, which is of Juſtification it ſelfe, to the conſequents, and effects of juſtification, which are total freedome from inherent ſinne, and from all ſorrow, glorification, and in truth alſo the ſentence of life at the laſt judgement, which is not another juſtification, but the fruit and effect of our preſent juſtification. The ſupreme power of the Nation grants to Mr. Baxter great immunities, and a large demeans to be entred upon at the next general Aſſizes for the County, and withall appoints the Iudge of the Aſſizes openly to proclaim it. The Iudge doth according to his commiſſion, and Mr. Baxter taketh poſſeſſion, by the vertue of the aforeſaid grant: will he ſay the former grant was unperfect in compariſon of the Iudges proclamation at the Aſſizes, becauſe it put him not into the preſent poſſeſſion? are not as well the Iudges proclamation, as his entry, the effects of the former grant? But how far, and in what reſpects the poſſeſſion of the effects of juſtification is ſuſpended, hath been before examined. I… he mea…s that which he calls our Evangelical righteouſneſs, conſiſting in Faith, and Goſpel obedience, Theſ. 20. that we muſt underſtand this righteouſneſs to be perfected at once, and not to admit of degrees, this were totally to confute, and confound himſelf in wha… hee hath written, and all the Papiſts his darlings in what they have written about the point of juſtification; and would put the lye upon moſt paſſages that remain to be examined in theſe his Aphoriſms. This therefore I cannot conjecture to be his meaning. I would he could as wel diſcharge himſelf of doubleneſs as of ſillineſs, and ſimplicity.
In the 42 Theſis hee ſeemes to have had a purpoſe to have brought ſomewhat againſt that which they, whom he calls [our Divines] do aſſert of the perfecting of Juſtification at once, in the due and proper ſenſe of their own meaning; and to yeeld forth ſome ſhew of reaſon, that (contrary to their aſſertion) Juſtification begun admits of many ſteps and degrees one after another tending to the perfecting thereof. To this end he brings in a whole legend of ſtairs mounting up from the bottom to the top of Juſtification. A ſack full of Heterogeneous bugbears, like that army of Solomon whereof Mahomet ſpeaks in his Alcoran, conſiſting of men, beaſts, angels, devils, creeping, flying, ſwiming, crawling, and hopping creatures, all marching together in ſo comely and harmonious order as confuſion and ataxie can deviſe: with ſuch an army comes Maſter Baxter here againſt our Divines, with a catalogue of God and Chriſt juſtifying, Men juſtifying, Angels juſtifying, ſelf juſtifying, acts juſtifying, paſſions juſtifying, relations juſtifying, qualities juſtifying: One taking it from anothers hand, and each amending what the other had left defective; ſo that at laſt the ſinner ſo ſhifted from hand to hand, after many hundreds, perhaps thouſands of years, is at length fully juſtified; or if he be a peece of knotty timber, perhaps comes not at laſt to bee fully juſtified. I ſhall leave the Reader to view the Aphoriſm in Mr. Baxters book; I hold it not worthy the tranſcribing; ſo i… ſeems doth Mr. Baxter too; for reviewing his company, of the whole number, which are no leſs then tenne, he retaines onelyonly two, viz. Juſtification in title of Law, and that in ſentence of judgement, about which his former Theſis was occupant, disbanding all the reſt, and ſo leaving the cauſe as raw and unconfirmed as he found it.