Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
That Text of Jer: 31. 31, 32, 33, &c. opened, and Mr. Baxters eluſions by which he would evince that it proveth not a free and unconditionall Covenant anſwered: with ſome other Argumentations with Mr. Baxter about the ſame Question.
I Now come to that Teſtimony of Jer. 31. 31, 32, 33. cited in Heb. 8. 8-10. againſt which Mr. B. ſo much excepteth. That New Covenant there mentioned is called the New Covenant, not in oppoſition to the Old Covenant made in the beginning with Adam, but in oppoſition to that Covenant made two thouſand and ſix hundred years after at leaſt, with Iſrael upon Mount Sinai. And that Covenant upon Mount Sinai is called the Old Covenant, not in oppoſition to the Cov: of Grace made [if not from eternity according to Mr. B. yet] by Mr B. acknowledgment almoſt 3000 years before, and in thoſe thouſands of years oft held out afreſh and renewed: but in oppoſition to the Covenant of Grace as it is now held forth in a new form and adminiſtration under the Goſpel. So that the two Covenants there mentioned, are termed Old and New, not for their differing in ſubſtance, but for their different wayes of adminiſtration. The Church of Iſrael then, and the Churches of Chriſt now, are and were under the ſame Covenant of Grace in ſubſtance; but the Church then under a legall and the Church now under an Evangelicall and ſpirituall adminiſtration thereof. That was the old, this the new adminiſtration, and in reſpect hereof the ſame Covenant then and now, are termed the Old and New Covenant. This is evident from the Text, It ſhall come to paſſe (ſaith the Lord) that in thoſe dayes I will make a New Covenant with [them] not ſuch as I made with their Fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Aegypt, which my Covenant they brake, though I were an Husband to them, ſaith the Lord. But this is the Covenant that I will make with [them] in thoſe dayes, I will put my Lawes in their minds, &c. And I will be their God, &c. And they ſhall not teach every man his neighbour, &c. For I will be mercifull to their unrighteouſnes, and their ſins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Here Mr. B. muſt
1 Grant that the Old Covenant in this place mentioned, was the Covenant of the Law given in the Wildernes. For this is expreſly affirmed where it is ſaid to be made with their Fathers when the Lord took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Aegypt.
And 2 Notwithſtanding Iſrael being under the Covenant, they were not either wholly under a Covenant of works, or beſides the Covenant of Grace. For the Apoſtle maketh theſe two phraſes, to be Aliens from the Common-wealth of Iſrael, and Strangers from the Covenant of Promiſe, to ſound one and the ſame thing, Epheſ. 2. 12. and telleth us that the Law which was 430 years after, could not null the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Chriſt, ſo as to make the Promiſe of no effect: but that after the addition of this Legall Covenant, that Goſpel Covenant made with Abraham, and them i… him, of bleſſednes by Chriſt the ſeed of Abraham, ſtood firm unto them ſtill, Gal. 3. 17. This alſo will doubtles be granted.
3 That therefore the Goſpel Covenant in this Scripture promiſed, is called a New Covenant, not in oppoſition to that made with Abraham, for that is the ſame with this here promiſed, onelyonly that was confirmed of God in Chriſt to come, this in Chriſt already come; and yet in oppoſition to that legall adminiſtration of it, and additory Covenant of the Law 430 years after annexed.
4 That this additionall Covenant was that Pedagogy of the Law under which the Apoſtle affirmeth the Jewes (though Lords of all) to be kept untill the coming of Chriſt, in the third and fourth chapters to the Galathians. And it conſiſted partly of Ceremoniall Lawes and typicall Ordinances pointing to Chriſt that was to come, and obſcurely teaching Chriſt and Faith in him: partly of the Morall Commandments, the obſervation whereof was injoined as a condition of attaining that bleſſednes before promiſed to Abraham in Chriſt, yet ſo as this condition, If ye will obey, was ſtill in the hand of a Mediator, ſatisfying for diſobedience, becauſe no perfect obedience could be fulfilled. This Pedagogy or leading of the Jewiſh Church by the hand while it was a child in the knowledg of the myſtery of ſalvation by Chriſt was needfull, it could not well be without the typicall Ordinances, which by Lectures read upon them by their teachers, might diſcover and ſeal up much of Chriſt to them. Neither could it well be without the promiſes and threats of the Law, while yet the Grace of the Lord Chriſt was veiled to them, that in the light joy and brightnes thereof they could not as the Saints now run the race of Gods Commandments of pure love without ſome mixture of ſervile fear.
5 It will hence then follow that the New Covenant here promiſed is termed a new Covenant, becauſe exempted from that additament of the Law.
1 From the Ceremoniall Law, which in its revealing of Chriſt veiled him, and let out but a dark ſhadow of him and the grace that is by him, ſo that there was need of a large expoſition upon every figure, Circumciſion, Paſſeover, Sacrifices, &c. Brother to teach Brother, and one Neighbour another what theſe things meant, and yet at laſt both teachers and learners remained exceeding dark in the myſtery of Chriſt. But it is otherwiſe with us under the Goſpel. The ſhaddowes are vaniſhed and we have the very body which is Chriſt, Col. 2. 17. Our eyes have ſeen, we have heard with our ears, and our hands have handled the bread of life, 1 Joh: 1. 1. All is made out to us cleerly by the Doctrine and Spirit of Chriſt. The Law (by which the Prophet ſpeaking in the tone of the Iewes, and in a phraſe which under that adminiſtration they beſt knew, underſtandeth the Goſpel and Law of the Spirit of life) is written in our hearts, revealed and ſealed up to our Conſciences. We need not ſay, Who ſhall aſcend up to Heaven, or who ſhall diſcend to the deep? &c. But the word is nigh thee even in thy mouth and in thy heart, this is the word of Faith which we preach, Rom. 10. 6-8. So that there is not ſo much need of brothers teaching brother, &c. becauſe all is held forth not in the ſhadow but in the clear light.
2 From the conditions of the morall Law, yea from all conditions which made that former adminiſtration of the Covenant terrible, becauſe conditions could not be performed. The New Covenant ſaith the Holy Ghoſt, ſhall be abſolute, not ſuch as was made with their Fathers, that might be broken; but free and abſolute, all begun and ended by the meer grace of God, I will teach, &c. I will be their God, and they ſhall be my people, I will be mercifull to their unrighteouſnes, and their ſins and iniquity will I remember no more. I am not ſo happy as to expreſs my ſelf in few words, nor ſo either reckles, or evilly ſubtle, as under a pretence of brevity to leave things in ambiguity for ſelf-ends. This I conceive to be the meaning of this text, and in theſe five Poſitions I have (ſub calculo melioris judicij) expreſſed what yet I conceive to be the truth about the Covenant of Grace, 1 between God and Chriſt, 2 between Chriſt and man.
To this laſt thing handled, that the Covenant of Grace in its preſent adminiſtration is free and not conditionall, otherwiſe then I have before granted, the Apoſtle giveth purpoſely his ſuffrage, affirming the Covenant made to Abraham is that which now ſtands in force, that the Law was but a temporary additament to it, to remain onelyonly till the promiſed ſeed ſhould come, he means ſo to remain as to make the Covenant conditionall. The Law therefore being in this reſpect done away, the Covenant abides free and abſolute. In thee, in thy ſeed, all Nations ſhall be bleſſed, Gal. 3. 8, 16, 17, 18. This Covenant is free, abſolute, laden with no ſuch conditions as might make the hope of bleſſednes uncertain.
The evaſions which Mr. B. uſeth to elude the authority of this Scripture, are meerly Sophiſticall, having no footing upon other Scriptures, and totally croſſing the purpoſe of the Holy Ghoſt in this Scripture. It conteineth not (ſaith he) the full tenor of the whole New Covenant. Where then ſhall we find it, if not where the Holy Ghoſt undertaketh profeſſedly to declare both what this New Covenant is not, and what it is? This is the Covenant ſaith the Holy Ghoſt, Nay it is but a peece or morſell of it, ſaith Mr. Br. whom ſhall we beleeve? him that ſpeaketh from Heaven, or him that (at the beſt) ſpeaketh but from the earth? But either ſo called (ſaith Mr. Br.) becauſe it expreſſeth the nature of the benefits of the New Covenant as they are offered on Gods part, without mentioning mans conditions (that being not pertinent to the buſineſs the Prophet had in hand.) A moſt impudent fiction, yea it was the whole or chief thing he had in hand; was it not to ſhew the difference between theſe two under-covenants, that under the Law, and this under the Goſpel? But how doth it ſerve to this purpoſe to expreſſe the nature of the benefits of the New Covenant? Did not the Elect under the Law partake of the ſame benefits in nature though not in meaſure, with the Elect now? Or is not this one of the differences which he makes betwixt the Covenants, that the one was hedged about with hard conditions, the other free? Or els, ſaith he, it ſpeaketh onelyonly of what God will do for his Elect, in giving them the firſt grace, and enabling them to perform the New Covenant. Ridiculous; though right in the Monkes tone. For did not God give the firſt and ſecond Grace too, to the Elect under the Law as well as to the Elect under the Goſpel? Where then is the difference hence, to give a new name to the preſent Covenant? But laſtly, ſaith he, It is a production and belongs to the will of purpoſe, not to his legiſlative will. Now he hits the nail upon the head. He makes a very Aſſe of this diſtinction, and loads him with all ſorts of traſh. It is to be doubted it will ſhortly get a gawld back, and kick his Maſter in the leggs. Predictions and Promiſes, becauſe they are not perteining to Gods legiſlative will, muſt henceforth give neither fulture to our faith nor light to our judgments. The reſt that he hath upon this Theſis hath nothing of moment in it calling for an anſwer.
Theſis 15. B. p. 92. Though Chriſt hath ſufficiently ſatisfied the Law, yet is it not his will, or the will of the Father, that any man ſhould be juſtified or ſaved thereby, who hath not ſome ground in himſelf of perſonall and particular claim thereto; Nor that any ſhould be juſtified by the blood, onelyonly as ſhed or offered, except it be alſo received and applyed; ſo that no man by the meer ſatisfaction made, is freed from the Law, or Curſe of the firſt violated Covenant, abſolutely, but conditionally only.
I annex this Poſition becauſe it is homogeneous with the many former, and though Mr. Br. would ſeem in the Explication to diſtinguiſh the matter of it from that which the former Aphoriſms conteined, yet is it not onelyonly of the ſame kinde but of the ſame ſubſtance alſo with it, and what hath been ſaid in anſwer to that which went before might ſuffice as an anſwer to this alſo. Yet becauſe it delights him to ſpeak the ſame things in a variation of words, let us ſee whether the words which he here uſeth have more …fficacy in them to his purpoſe then the former.
We finde here as we did in ſome of the former Theſes, a fardle of ambiguities, and phraſes of a doubtfull ſenſe, which puts us into an uncapacity of anſwering his meaning, becauſe he ſo ſpeaketh that he will be ſure we ſhall not be able to prove what is his meaning.
Firſt when he ſaith, It is not the will of Chriſt, or will of the Father, he leaves us unreſolved whether he mean the will of purpoſe or the will of precept, that if we anſwer to the one, he may evade by a pretence he meant the other. If he will be underſtood of the former, when was he rapt up into the third Heaven to ſearch what ſecret purpoſes and decrees are hidden in the boſom of the Father or of the Son? Or if he hath it by revelation, why doth he not ſhew how and when it was given him, and whether in an ordinary or extraordinary manner? Or if he mean that will, how ſhall he take it up to be the rule of his judgment, which in the very laſt words to which I anſwered, and ſo often elſwhere, he abandoneth from being the rule of other mens judgments? If he mean the latter, the will of precept, why holds he us ſuſpended in the expectation of alleaging the precept, and arguing forth his Concluſions thence, that if ſatisfactory we may ſubmit to it, if otherwiſe we may except againſt it?
Secondly when he tels us of Juſtification denying any living ſoul to have it only by Chriſts ſatisfaction, without ſome ground in himſelf of particular right and claim thereto, and except it be alſo received and applyed, &c. he leaves us doubtfull whether he meaneth Juſtification as compleated in Chriſt, or as evidenced alſo to our own conſciences. If the former what will he then conclude of periſhing or dying infants, that they are all unjuſtified, and in reſpect of the puniſhment of loſs remedileſly damned, and ſo with his brethren ſhut them up for ever in that dark priſon which is termed by them Limbus infantum? If the latter, and that he will give us leave to take his words in Scripture-ſenſe, we will not quarrel with them; but this in the Explication he ſeems to explode.
Thirdly when he tels us of ſome grounds of claim in our ſelves to Juſtification, which in the following words he ſeems to determinate to conſiſt in our receiving and applying thereof, and in the Explication, p. 93. he calls ſomwhat of man intervening to give him a legall right to it, annexing that we are ſaid to be juſtified by Faith; in all this he mixeth together falſhood and ſubtilty with his ambiguity: putting himſelf into that poſture wherein the Papiſts have painted and feigned Eraſmus, hovering between Heaven and Hell, ſometimes mounting on high, ſometimes ſinking low again, but pitching neither above, nor beneath. In ſuch a motion we here find Mr. B. as he is in his gradation further making out the Myſtery of Romiſh iniquity for a Law, ſoaring ſtill higher towards the very top of it, and ſinking lower from the Orb of Chriſtian verity? So by that ſomething of man that muſt enright him to Juſtification, he muſt mean ſomething more then Repentance and Faith, which he had before concluded neceſſary to Juſtification, Theſ. 14. Els were he upon a retreating not a marching poſture. Nevertheles how ſubtlely doth he d…wb and paint to gull the ſimple, and catch them that are made to be taken, by putting fine words upon his courſe purpoſes, telling them that we are juſtified by Faith, and that there is required on our part but receiving and applying of Chriſts merits; as if he were as innocent as a Dove, and had none of the Serpent in him; when contrariwiſe the ſequele of his Tractate proclaimes him, by that which he calls here ſomewhat of man, to mean at the full with the worſt Papiſts, mans works to the totall excluſion of Gods grace. In mean while his words leave it doubtfull here what this ſomewhat of man is, and whether it be the hand or the heel that muſt receive and apply Chriſt to Juſtification? His Diſciples are not yet enough moulded (he thinks) to receive the Dragons voice in his own tone; they muſt be accuſtomed to bear the Calf daily untill he become an Oxe that he may be born then too, and at length we ſhall finde the inſtruments which Mr. B. appoints to receive Chriſt, to be inſtrumentall onelyonly to puſh him from us. However he concludes thus (becauſe he will have it ſo) That no man by the meer ſatisfaction made, is freed from the Law and Curſe, &c. abſolutely, but conditionally onelyonly, i. e. not at all. And this he hath ſaid over and over already, and there needs no further Anſwer then that which hath been before given: So that where he repeats this Aſſertion again in the Explication, That Chriſt doth not juſtifie by the ſhedding of his blood immediately, without ſomwhat of man intervening, &c. adding that All the Scriptures alleaged p. 79. do prove it. I grant what he ſaith, for I finde no Scripture there alleaged. But if he mean p. 89, & 90. what I ſaid there I ſay here again, he ſhall not miſſe of an anſwer to them when he comes to alleage them again in their proper place, and declares how he will argue from them. Yet becauſe the man is delighted to deliver firſt in generall what he will after deliver again in particulars, I ſhall ſay ſomething alſo in generall to his generall aſſertion, That Chriſts ſatisfaction juſtifieth not without ſomething of man intervening to give him right to it. Let us ſee what the Scripture ſaith for or againſt it.
The Apoſtle ſpeaking of mans redemption and juſtification, and ſhewing the cauſe why ſome have, and ſome have not their part in it, affirmeth and proveth, that it is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God that ſheweth mercy, Rom. 9. 16. By the willing, is to be underſtood all the good qualifications and operations of the ſoul; by running all the good works of a mans life and practice, as all confeſs. When the Holy Ghoſt excludeth every ſomewhat of man within the man, and every ſomewhat of man without man, from conferring any thing to Juſtification, what other ſomewhat remaineth of man to intervene, &c? Let it be judged whether Mr. B. doth not purpoſely fight againſt Scripture?
Again, Rom. 5. 6, 8, 9, 10. When we were yet without ſtrength, (viz. to any ſpirituall operation) Chriſt dyed for the ungodly, while we were yet ſinners Chriſt dyed for us, and we were juſtified by his bloud: while enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Here the Reſult of the Apoſtles reaſoning diſcovers to us two things to our purpoſe. 1 That according to the minde and language of the Holy Ghoſt Chriſt dying, and by his death ſatisfying for any mans ſinns, and that mans juſtification, and reconciliation to God by that ſatisfaction, are equipollent terms, holding forth one and the ſame thing. For ſo the Apoſtle here uſeth juſtification and reconciliation as words of the ſame ſenſe and weight. And Ameſius manifeſtethAmeſ Med. Lib. 1. c. 27. Sect. 22. in what reſpects they muſt needs be taken for the ſame thing, and makes both the ſame with Chriſts dying for him. So that every perſon for whom Chriſt hath by his death made ſatisfaction, is effectually juſtified and reconciled to God (I mean) in Chriſt, though poſſibly not yet in his own apprehenſion. 2 That we are thus juſtified and reconciled to God, while ungodly, while ſinners, while enemies, while without ſtrength to that which is good. What ſomewhat of man can there be in ſuch, to enright them to juſtification, unleſs any will ſay, their impotency, ungodlines, ſin and enmity ſhall do it? Such contrariety is there between Mr. Br and the Spirit or word of truth. There needs not much deliberation to determine which to follow. But he proceeds,
Bax. p. 93. Let all the Antinomians ſhew but one Scripture which ſpeaks of Juſtification from Eternity.
And what if it be but one of all, or one that is not an Antinomian that ſhews it, will Mr. Br harken and ſubmit his judgement to that Scripture ſo alleaged? I ſay in like manner: Let all the Antichriſtian Jeſuits, or Mr. Br. or his Mr Grotius, ſhew one Scripture which aſſerteth onelyonly a conditionall and not an abſolute Juſtification purchaſed to us by Chriſt, I will hear and ſubmit, though I ſee not then how to be ſaved. As to his Challenge I ſhall ſpeak in a more proper place.
Bax. I know God hath decreed to juſtifie his people from eternity, and ſo he hath to ſanctifie them too, but both of them are done in time: Juſtification being no more an immanent act in God, than ſanctification: as I ſhall ſhew afterward.
I ſhall therefore wait on him untill he hath the leiſure and pleaſure to ſhew it. In the mean while, why doth he Conclude ſo hotly and peremptorily before-hand that which he brings nothing ſave his own bare affirmation to prove. He ſaid not unwiſely which ſaid; Let not him that girdeth on his armour boaſt as he that putteth it off, 1 King. 20. 11.
Bax. The bloud of Chriſt then is ſufficient in ſuo genere, but not in omni genere; ſufficient for its own work, but not for every work. There are ſeverall other neceſſaries to Juſtifie and ſave, quibus poſitis, which being ſuppoſed, the bloud of Chriſt will be effectuall.
Qui non vult intelligi debet negligi. He that will ſo ſpeak that he may not be underſtood, is worthy to paſs without an Anſwer. If he mean that the bloud of Chriſt is ſufficient to compleat our juſtification before God, and that this is its own work; But that there are other neceſſaries to juſtifie us in our ſelves and our own apprehenſions, which being ſuppoſed the work is ended; I will abſtein from all contradiction. If he mean otherwiſe, and will not expreſs himſelf. Hony ſoit Qui male penſe.
Bax. p. 94. Not that it receives its efficacy from theſe, nor that theſe do add any thing at all to its worth and value, no more than the cabbinett to the jewell, or the applying hand to the Medicine, or the offenders acceptation to the pardon of his Prince. Yet without this acceptation and application, this bloud will not be effectuall to juſtifie us.
Theſe words would ſeem to plead a good meaning in Mr. Br to them that neither are acquainted with the glozings of the Papiſts, nor with that which followeth in this Treatiſe of Mr. Br. He might be thought by this his ſmoothing to attribute our Juſtification wholly to Chriſts ſufferings, and nothing to any thing in our ſelves, ſave to faith only, nor to Faith, but as it is appointed of God to be inſtrumentall for the accepting and receiving into our boſoms Chriſts merits and the benefits thereof. The like fine words we ſhall finde oft falling from the pen of Pelagius, Papiſts, Arminians, &c. But both of him and them I may ſay what the Lord once ſaid of Iſrael; This people hath well ſpoken in all that they have ſaid: O that there were in them ſuch a heart &c. Deut. 5. 28, 29.
He proceeds and oppoſeth to the Authority of our Apoſtle Paul, the authority of his St Grotius, at the hearing of whoſe ſophiſticall learning, all the doctrine of Paul muſt fall broken and ſhivered to the earth, no leſſe than the Ark of God did before the great Dagon of the Philiſtims.
Bax. Cum unuſquiſ que actui ex ſua voluntate pendenti legempoſſit imponere &c. as may be there read at large. p. 94.
The ſumme of all is this. Becauſe our juſtification is an act proceeding from the meer and free will of God and of Chriſt, it was therefore in their power, after payment made by Chriſt, and accepted by the Father in our behalf, to covenant, and accompliſh our diſcharge, either forthwith or a long time after, either ſimply or upon Conditions. Therefore it is Covenanted between the Father and the Son that we ſhall be, after ſatisfaction made, not forthwith, but in proceſſe of time, juſtified, and then alſo not purely or abſolutely but conditionally. A mad Argumentation. For A poſſe ad eſſe non valet Conſequentia. It is as if I ſhould argue God could have ſupported Mr. Br and his Mr Grotius in the truth of the Goſpel. Ergo he hath preſerved them in the truth. What judicious man that hath conſiderately read their works, would not hiſſe at ſuch an argument? But he adds the authority of Auſtin.
Bax. As Auſtin. He that made us without us, will not ſave us without us.
O that Mr. Br had ſtood as Auſtin, pillar-like to beare up the Grace of God entire in the whole buſines of our ſalvation, againſt all the ſophiſms of Pelagius and his followers. We ſhould in no wiſe have excepted, againſt Auguſtines words in Mr. Baxters mouth uttering them in Auguſtines ſenſe. We make not men ſtocks and ſtones, nor deny the operation of their wills moved by Gods Spirit in the way to happines.
Yet the ſentence it ſelf alleaged out of Auſtin, (I doubt) is perverted by Mr. Baxter, as it hath been by ſome before him. I have been told that in Auſtin it is read intorrogatively; and bears the force of an affirmative, thus; He that made thee without thee, will he not ſave thee without thee? which is equivolent to this (if it were ſaid) he will ſave thee without thee. For the truth of it I have been directed to his Serm. 11. de verb. Apoſtoli. where though I finde it not totidem verbis, yet the full ſenſe and ſubſtance thereof I finde. The Father treating of thoſe words of the Pſalmiſt [He made us without us, or not we our ſelves] improves them by the annexion of other Scriptures againſt Pelagius, demonſtrating that he alſo ſaves us when we were loſt without us. To this effect his ſentences are full and manifold. Perditos nos per nos, reficit nos qui fecit nos. Again, Ipſe fecit nos & non ipſi nos, ut ſimus populos ejus & oves paſcuae ejus. Again, Homines ſumus ipſe fecit nos, fidel…s ſumus & jam juſti, ipſe fecit nos & non ipſi nos. Again, Ipſe fecit nos, & antequàm eſſemus omninò ipſe fecit nos: & factos & lapſos ipſe juſtos fecit nos, & non ipſi nos. Nondum erat [homo] & factus eſt: offendit & ſalvus factus. Again, Quis prior dedit ei & retribuetur ei? Si Dominus retribuere vellet, nihil niſi paenam debitam retribuiſſet. Nihil dederunt ut eis, retribueretur, pro nihilo ſalvos fecit illos. In a word, as all this is directly againſt Mr. Baxter, ſo is there no one title in the whole Sermon for him, but all proving not in Mr. Baxters ſophiſticall way, but ſeriouſly and profoundly from cleer and invincible Scriptures, our ſalvation to be onelyonly Gods work, not his and ours together. If nothing elſe ſhould be ſaid, that which Auſtin in this one Chapter hath ſaid, is enough to bury Mr. Baxters doctrine in the dirt for ever.
Bax. He never maketh a relative change, where he doth not alſo make a reall.
True, but whether the relative, or the reall change hath the precedency in order, is the queſtion. Whether our reconciliation or juſtification go before ſanctification, or follow it as the fruit thereof.
Bax. Gods decree gives no man a legal title to the benefit decreed him, ſeeing purpoſe and promiſe are ſo different.
True, but altogether beſides the queſtion.
Bax. A legall title we muſt have before we can be juſtified; and there muſt be ſomewhat in our ſelves to prove that title, or elſe all men ſhould have equall right.
If he ſpeak of our being juſtified in our ſelves, or having our Juſtification evidenced to our ſelves, or our brethren, we conſent with him. If he mean otherwiſe (in the ſenſe often mentioned) what he ſaith here is that which he hath often ſaid, but it remaineth yet to be proved. There is ſomewhat elſe (as hath been oft ſhewed) beſides Mr. Brs ſomewhat in us, that differenceth man from man, that all have not equall right. And this is ſomewhat in Chriſt; not ſomewhat in us.