Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII.
Mr. Baxters doctrine of a twofold, i. e. a legal and Evangelical Righteouſnes equally neceſſary to ſalvation, or Juſtification, examined. The terms and phraſe which he uſeth diſcuſſed: and how little he ſaith to prove either phraſe or matter to be good, manifeſted.
I Shall totally pretermit the 16th Aphoriſme and its explication, not but that there are ſome paſſages therein deſerving examination, but becauſe that what is delivered in ſuch paſſages, is done very warily, and may admit of a good as well as of a bad Conſtruction; and in the following part of his book, Mr. Br ſpeaketh it out fully and plainly, that no man can doubt of his meaning; Therefore is more properly to be anſwered there, than in this place.
Neither ſhall I ſay much to the 17, & 18 Aphoriſms, becauſe they are but (as it were) a bridge of Mr. Brs making, on which to paſs over to the following matter. Yet that he may not Complain of wrong, that he is deprived of the honour of his artificiall Methode, I ſhall tranſcribe his words, and annex ſome animadverſions upon them.
Theſis 17. Bax. p. 102. Therefore as there are two Covenants with their diſtinct conditions: So is there a twofold Righteouſnes, and both of them abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation.
Theſis 18. pag. 103. Our Legal Righteouſnes or Righteouſnes of the firſt Covenant is not perſonall, or conſiſteth not in any qualifications of our own perſons, or actions performed by us, (for we never fulfilled, nor perſonally ſatisfied the Law:) but it is wholly without us in Chriſt. And in this ſenſe it is that the Apoſtle (and every Chriſtian) diſclaimeth his own Righteouſnes, or his own works, as being no true legal Righteouſnes, Phil. 3. 7, 8.
Theſis 19. p. 107. The Righteouſnes of the New Covenant is the onelyonly Condition of or intereſt in and enjoyment of the Righteouſnes of the old. Or thus: Thoſe onelyonly ſhall have part in Chriſts ſatisfaction, and ſo in him be legally Righteous, who beleeve, and obey the Goſpel, and ſo are in themſelves Evangelically Righteous.
Theſis 20. p. 108. Our Evangelicall Righteouſnes is not without us in Chriſt, as our legall Righteouſneſs is; but conſiſteth in our own Actions of faith and Goſpel obedience. Or thus: Though Chriſt performed the conditions of the Law, and ſatisfieth for our non-performance; yet it is our ſelves that muſt perform the Conditions of the Goſpel.
I cloſe up all theſe poſitions together (as it were) in one Frontiſpice, partly in regard of their neer Cognation in Nature, and partly that the profoundnes and dexterity of Mr. Br may the more cleerly appear: and that it may be here evidenced to the very ſenſes of all, what is ſaid Gen. 3. 1. That the Serpent is more ſubtle than all the beaſts of the field which God hath made.
The one part of Mr. Brs Goſpel we have found, in the former part of this Tractate, the ſumme and ſubſtance whereof may be thus expreſſed; That Chriſt Jeſus by the will of his Father, hath by the ſatisfaction made to juſtice for the ſins of the Elect, obteined that the whole Curſe and managing thereof, together with the Elect for whom he hath ſatisfied, ſhould be delivered up into his hand: And he ſheweth himſelf in this his power an unmercifull High Prieſt, holding his redeemed ones, under the Curſe, wrath, and torment in ſoul and body, not giving them deliverance untill the day of judgement. He did ſomewhat before look unto, but now really enters upon the ſecond part, which is like to the former, holding forth a juſtification in the world to come, upon ſuch Conditions as will not bring any unto, but certainly exclude all, that to this end uſe and perform them, from juſtification into condemnation. Within the Confines of theſe two eſſentiall parts of his Goſpel, he comprizeth all the riches of grace by Chriſt, which whoſoever likes it, may if he will, partake of. Such have we already found the Nature of the firſt part of his Goſpel. We are now to examine whether the ſecond part thereof be not ſuch as I have here mentioned; if not, I have wronged Mr. Br; if ſo, he wrongs Chriſt, and works againſt him ſeeking the damnation of the Elect. And by the very words of theſe four propoſitions of his, (if nothing els were to be added) he that is both orthodox and judicious, may ſomewhat judge whither Mr. Br driveth, finding him to ſet up mans righteouſnes parallell with Chriſts righteouſnes, and equally neceſſary to our Juſtification; ſo making man at leaſt a demiſaviour to himſelf, and ſo (in effect prove) an abſolute deſtroyer of his own ſoul. For whoſoever brings any thing beſides Chriſt to his juſtification, falls utterly from Chriſt, righteouſnes, and ſalvation.
Yet while he thus acts the part of one of thoſe evill workers mentiuned Phil. 3. 2. he ſhews himſelf an Artiz…n to deceive the wits of the time, no leſs than Muncer did himſelf to beguile the witles Common people in Germany. He when he was vanquiſhed, taken, and now under the hands of the tormentor, being demanded why he had ſo deluded the ſilly vulgar multitude to his own and their ruine; breaking forth into a vehement laughter, anſwered, Sic voluerunt, They would have it ſo; inſinuating that becauſe he found them little regarding the ſolidity and power of the Goſpel, but itching after novelties, he attempered and even ſacrified his ſtudies to their humour, untill he had ſubverted himſelf and them. So Mr. Br taking notice of ſome affected wits that had rather periſh and dye for ever by Art, & that which is falſely called Science or learning, 1 Tim. 6. 20. than to live and be ſaved by the ſimplicity and plainnes of the Goſpel; compoſeth himſelf wholly to pleaſe their humour, and make himſelf their darling; handles the Caſe ſo finely and artificially, that he may kill them ſoftly, they never feeling it untill they are dead and ruined for ever.
One peece of his artifice we have here in his invention of that twofold Righteouſnes of the two Covenants abſolutely neceſſary to juſtification or ſalvation: The one in Chriſt, the other in our ſelves: Chriſts righteouſnes purchaſing for us a conditionall juſtification, a poſſibility of righteouſnes & bliſs in the world to come; but the other, our righteouſnes when once finiſhed and compleated, being that which doth the deed and drives the nail to the head, making both Chriſts righteouſneſs and the juſtification purchaſed by it, to be no longer Conditionally, but actually and really ours. Provided and alwayes excepted that this cannot be in this life, and ſo the tryall of Mr. Brs doctrine by experience, can never be made untill this world be wholly ended.
This is learning indeed, ſuch as neither the dictates of men, (at leaſt totidem verbis, in ſo fine a contexture of words) nor the Oracles of God could ever teach Mr. Br. It is his own and poſſibly may continue his onelyonly to the worlds end, all men els proving themſelves too wiſe or too fooliſh to joyn with him in this his ſpeculation. We thought that the righteouſneſs according to the Covenant under which God hath placed us, had ſufficed to juſtification; he tells us nay, but we are under both the Covenant of works and the Covenant of grace too, and muſt be righteous in the righteouſnes of both. The world had not the wit untill now, nor yet Chriſt, or any of his Prophets or Apoſtles had it ever in their Conſideration to term Chriſt our legall, and our own works and qualifications our Goſpel righteouſnes: Mr. Br firſt having received it rough hewen from Papiſts and Arminians, teacheth us this piece of diſtinctionary learning. Neither did it enter ever into our thoughts that the righteouſneſs of the Old Covenant was of a more noble …ace, or that the righteouſnes which is in our ſelves could be more excellent than that which Chriſt is made to us, untill this new Doctor took the Chair to teach Myſteries, and by inverting and miſnaming Scripture-phraſe hath ſo taught.
Nevertheles it behoved Mr. Br having reſolved to keep on the triple Crown upon the Popes head, by ſtabliſhing juſtification upon works, (though it were to the uncrowning of Chriſt,) to reject uprightnes and to ſeek after inventions, Eccleſ. 7. 29. Firſt he muſt hold beleevers to be under both Covenants, els while he builds up one peece of Babylon, he ſhould pluck down another; and give his judgment againſt his holines in one point, while he acts the Champion for him in another: and adventure with all the loſs of his Cauſe, if he keep not as ſtrong hold-faſt in the Covenant of works with the one hand, as in the Covenant of grace with the other. 2 He muſt call the Condition or means of applying Chriſt to us or obteining intereſt in his ſatisfaction, our Righteouſnes, els he will not be able to evade thoſe Scriptures which aſſert our Juſtification by faith. But by this feat he thinks himſelf in a fit poſture both to anſwer this, and to bring in all qualifications and works that he pleaſeth in a partnerſhip with faith to juſtifie. True (will he ſay) we are juſtified by Faith as a part of our righteouſnes, and by all other good qualifications and works as other parts of our righteouſnes. 3 He muſt call faith and works our Evangelicall righteouſnes, having ſeen in what a ſtinking trance ſome of his dirty deer brethren in their diſputes have been left, when they would prove that good works as works of the Law do juſtifie: and how little better they have fared, who would have them to juſtifie onelyonly as works of grace, having not had enough ſubtlety to prove them Goſpel or Grace works. Need had he therefore to put himſelf upon ſtrong and ſtrange inventions that himſelf may not ſtick in the ſame mire after them. But enough in generall, let us hear him deliver his own minde in particulars.
B. Theſ. 17. p. 102. As there are two Covenants with their diſtinct Conditions: So is there a twofold Righteouſnes, and both of them abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation.
The latter member of this propoſition is grounded upon the former, the Theſis upon the Hypotheſis. As true is the latter as the former. But how true is the former, that there are two Covenants, and that they have their diſtinct Conditions? Firſt when he ſaith there are two Covenants, he meaneth two Covenants in force to the very Saints in Chriſt, that while they are under grace to ſalvation, they are alſo under the Law to the Curſe and Condemnation. This hath been his buſines to Confirm in the former part of this Treatiſe, and he owns it in the explication of this Theſis. But this is falſe as in diſapproving of his arguments before hath been proved. They are no more under the Law, who are once under grace, Rom. 6. 14. 2ly, Neither have the two Covenants their diſtinct Conditions, according to Mr. Br. For Theſ. 4. he makes the Condition of the firſt Covenant, Perfect Obedience or Righteouſnes. The ſame he makes here the Condition of the New Covenant, viz. Faith and Obedience, but both as integrant parts of our own inherent righteouſnes; as we have partly ſeen, and ſhall be forced to ſee more fully in that which is to come after. So that we grant him that as true, as there are two Covenants, with their diſtinct Conditions in force to the ſame perſons, ſo true is it that there is a twofold Righteouſneſs, and both abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation, (if by ſalvation he means Juſtification) At falſum prius, ergo & poſterius. When he brings proofs to Confirm his aſſertions, he may meet with a larger anſwer. In mean while a ſimple Negation ſtands fitteſt in oppoſition to his bare affirmation.
That which he brings in the explication to Confirm it hath been anſwered over and over before. OnelyOnly he tells us in the upſhot that He will take it as granted: To which I anſwer, that there hath been ſuch a generation of men ſtill upon earth ſo fingerative, that will needs take that which was never granted and delivered to them; ſuch is the main bulk of Mr. Brs doctrine in this book taken but never delivered to him from God or his Chriſt.
Bax. The uſuall confounding of theſe Righteouſneſſes (ſaith he) doth much darken the Controverſies about Juſtification.
And Mr. Br doth no leſs cleer the Controverſie, than an Ecclipſe the Sun-beams.
He proceeds to explain what this twofold Righteouſnes is, ſo abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation.
Bax. The legall Righteouſneſs (ſaith he) is not in us, or conſiſteth not in any qualifications of our own perſons, or actions performed by us, But it is wholly without us in Chriſt, Theſ. 18. p. 103.
The righteouſnes of the New Covenant is the onelyonly Condition of our intereſt in and enjoyment of the Righteouſnes of the old, &c. Theſ. 19. p. 107.
Our Evangelicall Righteouſnes is not without us in Chriſt, as our Legall Righteouſnes is, but conſiſteth in our own actions of Faith and Goſpel Obedience &c. Theſ. 20. p. 108.
What there is more in any of theſe three poſitions, is tranſcribed at large before. To the 18 Theſis he annexeth in the explication a diſpute againſt the Papiſts, not to Confute them as adverſaries to the truth, for joyning mans righteouſnes with Chriſts righteouſneſs unto juſtification, (for herein he profeſſeth entire Communion with them) but to admoniſh them as his loving brethren to defend this their Concluſion of Juſtification by their own righteouſneſs, not under the terms of their legall, but of their Evangelicall righteouſneſs. Becauſe the legall righteouſnes is unpoſſible, but the Evangelicall righteouſnes (according to his carving and forming of it) is eaſie to be fullfilled, and almoſt unpoſſible to be violated. Not that the Papiſts were wholly ignorant of this myſtery untill Mr. Br here teacheth them. Nay many of them had and pleaded it very artificially, before he was born. And himſelf hath learned it of them: But he as the moſt proficient of all their diſciples hath more fully improved it, ſo that now he becomes a teacher to his very Maſters, and exhorts them to learn of him the pious feat and fraud, of making uſe of this diſtinction yet further than ever they had the wit or grace to deviſe; even to all matters and purpoſes that tend to the eluding of the word of Chriſt, and the advantaging of the holy mother Church, in her doctrine of Juſtification, that is altogether Contradictory to the doctrine of the Scriptures upon the ſame Argument.
To the 19th & 20th poſitions he annexeth an explication of both of theſe and of all that was ſaid in the two former poſitions alſo. In it we ſhall finde whatſoever deſerveth a fuller Anſwer than hath been yet given to all and every of theſe four poſitions, or any thing in all or any of them conteined, not againſt but according to his own expreſſed and explicated meaning.
Bax. p. 108. Explication. The Contents of theſe Poſitions being of ſo neer nature, I ſhall explain them here together, though they ſeem ſo plain and clear to me, that they need not much explication, and leſs confirmation: Yet becauſe ſome Antinomians do down-right oppoſe them, and ſome that are no Antinomians have ſtartled at the expreſſions, as if they had conteined ſome ſelf exalting horrid doctrine, I ſhall ſay ſomething hereto. Though for my part I do ſo much wonder that any able Divines ſhould deny them: yet me thinks they ſhould be Articles of our Creed, and a part of Childrens Catechiſms, and underſtood and beleeved by every man that is a Chriſtian: I mean the matter of them, if not the phraſe; though I think it to be agreeable to the matter alſo.
Egregious Confidence and a ſparkiſh ſpirit! If the Triumphant Chariot were in uſe again at Rome, and that Mr. Br could either not get it, or not hold it, he would at leaſt give occaſion to the world to Epitaph upon him,—Magnis tamen excidit Auſis, he hath bidden fair and ſtretched wide for it. Yet there would be ſome men that would otherwiſe Comment upon his bravery of words. That they are uſually bad wares that will not go off without ſuch bravery of words. That Bragg is ſeldom the beſt Souldier. That thundering words are moſtly uſed, when there is wanting ſtrength of reaſon to ſupport a Cauſe. We ſhall in ſome meaſure be able to judge when we have examined, what ſound Arguments Mr. Br brings to Confirm his aſſertions. By the way we are to note his ſubtlety, his ingenuity, and his gallantry. 1 His ſubtlety in pretending that his Aſſertions are mainly oppoſed by Antinomians; and that all that he delivers here, is out of his pure zeal (good man) to daſh thoſe earth-born monſters that they may do no more harm. Doth Mr. Br think that none but ſtrangers in our Iſrael, none but novices in divinity, that never ſaluted the Goſpel, but at twelve furlongs diſtance, none that ever had acquaintance with this Controverſie b…tween the Papiſts and us, ſhould read his book, that he thinks to blinde the eyes of all with ſuch a mummery? Nay let him name one man in any of the reformed Churches, that hath been numbred among the Orthodox, which diſſenteth not in the Chaffy doctrine here delivered from him? Or any ſave the worſt, or a man worſe than the worſt Papiſts, that conſenteth with him to make our inherent righteouſnes the Condition to give us right to Chriſts imputed righteouſneſs? Muſt Chriſt and Paul, and all Evangelicall diſciples be rejected as Antinomians, becauſe they became not Mr. Baxters diſciples, and that before he became their Teacher? Or how could they downright oppoſe this doctrine, before he vented it in print? Was he ſo familiar with them as to Communicate to them his Manuſcripts? Or hath any other ſince the world began delivered the ſame aſſertions in the ſame words, that in oppoſing them Mr. Br ſhould take himſelf oppoſed? But he ſuſpends his ſubtlety a little to ſhew ſome though but little ingenuity, which is the ſecond thing here Conſiderable in him: Confeſſing that there are ſome that are no Antinomians who have ſtartled at the expreſſions, as if they had conteined ſome ſelf-exalting horrid doctrine. And did not this alſo ſtartle Mr. Br to reexamine what he had written before he Committed it to the Preſſe? Nothing leſs, but he looks over them with a faſtidious admiration, that they ſhould be ſo ſhallow, himſelf being ſo profound, rejecting their authority, with the like Contempt that Caeſar did Syllaes, Tuſh he was a duus Non potuit dictare, ſo he of theſe, Nequeunt Philoſophari. And thus in the third place paſſeth on to his gallantry or rather his arrogance. That his doctrines here are ſo plain and clear, that they need little explication, leſs Confirmation, That he wonders any able Divines ſhould deny them: ſhall ſuch be termed Divines? nay his very Catechumeni, the Children under his Catechiſing, much more every man that is a Chriſtian ſhould underſtand and beleeve them. That they ſhould be taken up for our Creed, why? becauſe profound Mr. Br hath delivered them; if not upon this ground, let him name that man upon earth that hath delivered or beleeved them before himſelf became the author of them. But at length he ſomewhat ſtoopeth from his bravery, and tells us that he would have the matter of them at leaſt thus taken into the Canon of our faith and Creed, if not the phraſe: though he think it to be agreeable to the matter alſo: and therefore goeth about thus to defend his phraſe and make it good.
Bax. p. 109. That there may be no contention about words, you muſt take my phraſe of (legall and Evangelicall Righteouſnes) in the ſenſe before explained: viz. as they take their name from that Covenant which is their rule. And I know not how any Righteouſnes ſhould be called (Legall or Evangelicall) in a ſenſe more ſtrict and proper, nor whence the denomination can be better taken, than from the formall Reaſon of the thing: yet I know that the obſervance of the Law of Ceremonies, and the ſeeking life by the works of the Law, are both commonly called legall Righteouſneſs: but in a very improper ſenſe in compariſon of this. I know alſo, that Chriſts legall Righteouſnes imputed to us, is commonly called [Evangelicall Righteouſneſs.] But that is from a more alien, extrinſecall Reſpect; viz. becauſe the Goſpel declareth and offereth this Righteouſneſs, and becauſe it is a way to juſtification which onelyonly the Goſpel revealeth. I do not quarrell with any of theſe forms of ſpeech, onelyonly explain my own, which I know not how to expreſs more properly, that I may not be miſunderſtood. The righteouſnes of the New Covenant then being the performance of its Conditions, and its Conditions being our obeying of the Goſpel, or beleeving, it muſt be plain, that on no other terms we do partake of the legall Righteouſnes of Chriſt. To hold therefore that our Evangelicall or New Covenant Righteouſneſs is in Chriſt, and not in our ſelves, or performed by Chriſt, and not by our ſelves, is ſuch a monſtrous peece of Antinomian Doctrine, that no man who knowes the Nature and difference of the Covenants, can poſſibly entertain, and that which every Chriſtian ſhould abhorr as unſufferable.
Here we finde Mr. Br at the very top of his gallantry and animoſity; moſt probably his fancy had ſuggeſted to him a totall rout of all terrene animals at the ſound of his precedent glorying, and polemicall argumentation; as if therefore all this viſible world were Conquered, and he were marching out of it in triumph, as Iſrael out of Egypt, not a dogg being left to move his tongue againſt him: he now challengeth the Heavens, and Calls the Holy Ghoſt ad partes, to Come to a reckoning for the impropriety of language which he uſeth by his penmen in the Scriptures. For when he ſaith, I know that the obſervance of the Law of Ceremonies, and the ſeeking of Life by the works of the Law, are both commonly called Legall Righteouſnes, and that Chriſts legall righteouſneſs imputed to us is commonly called Evangelicall Righteouſneſs: he muſt needs mean primarily that theſe are ſo Called Commonly in holy Scriptures, and but ſecondarily that they are ſo called by Eccleſiaſticall Writers, as they derive from the Scriptures a Chaſte Scripture phraſe wherein to expreſſe ſpirituall doctrines, For ſo the Scripture mentioneth onelyonly two kinds of Righteouſneſs that ever Came or ſhall Come into Competition about our Juſtification, the one a legall righteouſnes, or righteouſneſs of the Law, the other the Evangelicall righteouſnes, or righteouſnes of the Goſpel. The legall Righteouſneſs it affirms to be a righteouſneſs of works which we have done, i. e. of good qualifications within us, and good operations flowing from us; the Evangelicall righteouſneſs to be of meer grace and mercy, Tit. 3. 5. The latter it terms Gods Righteouſneſs, i. e. that which God giveth and imputeth; the former our own righteouſneſs, i. e. which is wrought within our ſelves, and acted by our ſelves, Rom. 10. 3. Phil. 3. 9. That of the Law, a Righteouſnes of works, this of the Goſpel, a Righteouſneſs without works, Rom. 4. 6. That a Righteouſneſs in our ſelves, inherent, This a Righteouſneſs in Chriſt, imputed, Eph. 2. 8. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Or let Mr. Br ſhew any one Scripture that terms the Righteouſneſs which is in and by Chriſt a legall, or that which is inherent in our ſelves an Evangelicall Righteouſneſs: or that terms any gift or qualification in man, or work and deed of man his righteouſneſs, any peece of his righteouſneſs unto Juſtification. So that his quarrell here is againſt the Holy Ghoſt for ſpeaking ſo improperly and incongruouſly in Scriptures, and Calling the Righteouſneſs which is by Chriſt Evangelicall, and the righteouſneſs which is in our ſelves Legall Righteouſneſs. But how will he Confute the Holy Ghoſt, and prove an abſurdity and impropriety in the language of the Holy Ghoſt? Forſooth, by oppoſing himſelf, his own authority and learning, to the Holy Ghoſt, and his wiſdome and authority. Himſelf he affirms to ſpeak logically, and by Conſequence, ſtrictly and properly, But the Holy Ghoſt is no ſcholar, never read Ariſtotle, therefore ſpeaks rudely, ruſtically, like one of the Rural Animals, not as an Artiſt out of the ſchools. Himſelf gives (ſcholar-like) a denomination to theſe two Righteouſneſſes, from that Covenant which is their Rule, from the Formall Reaſon of the thing: But the Holy Ghoſt for lack of ſchool-learning, gives names thereunto from more Alien Extrinſecall reſpects. This is the ſumme of his reaſoning. And is it not poſſible to requeſt from Mr. Br that he would take the Holy Ghoſt a while as a pupill into his Tuition, to read unto him ſome Logicall Lectures by which he may be inſtructed to mould a new the Scriptures into another, a Logical, inſteed of that ſpirituall and Celeſtiall phraſe in which we now finde them? Or if the Spirit of truth and wiſdom ſhould be the Teacher, not the Schollar of Mr. Br, then may we break out into Mr. Brs words againſt Mr. Br, Mo…ſtrous Doctrine, pride, reaſoning, and that which every Chriſtian ſhould abhorr as unſufferable.
But if Mr. Br be not in more haſte than good ſpeed, a word or two, we ſhall requeſt from him to be reſolved in ſome few queſtions, (before we part,) upon that which he hath here written.
Firſt, Whether it hath not been the Common ſlight of all ſubtle heretikes to make new and unuſed phraſes their harbingers to promote and make way for the vending of their new opinions and monſtrous doctrines? yea whether he himſelf had not firſt laid down a purpoſe within himſelf of broaching his doctrine of Juſtification by works and inherent righteouſneſs, and then after deviſed this new diſtinction of our legall righteouſnes in Chriſt, and Evangelicall righteouſneſs in our ſelves, both neceſſary to our juſtification? or to what other end hath he coined this novelty of words and phraſe in oppoſition to the language of the Goſpel, but to make it ſubſervient to the novelty of his pernicious doctrine, Contrary to the doctrine of the Goſpel?
2 Whether by this novelty of phraſe he doth not attribute more excellency and efficacy (as to juſtification) to mans inherent, than to Chriſts imputed righteouſneſs? For pag. 98. himſelf affi…meth, that The primary moſt excellent and moſt proper righteouſneſs lyeth in the conformity of our actions to the precept; the ſecondary leſs excellent Righteouſneſs, (yet fitly enough ſo called) is when, though we have broke the precepts, yet we have ſatisfied for our breach, either by our own ſufferings or ſome other way. Compare we with that which he there ſpake that which here he ſpeaketh, and we ſhall finde him attributing that which he calleth the primary moſt excellent and moſt proper righteouſneſs to our ſelves, viz. our Conformity to the precepts of the Goſpel; and that which he calleth the ſecondary leſs excellent righteouſneſs, to Chriſt, in and by whom we have ſatisfied for the breach of the precepts of the Law. If this be not the nullifying, ſurely it is the abaſing of Chriſt. And he that would thus veil, will be ready alſo to quench (as much as in him lyeth) the glory of Chriſts Righteouſneſs.
3 What ſhew of truth is there in that which he aſſigneth, as the Cauſe of his departing from the uſuall phraſe of Scripture to a new expreſſion of words, Calling Chriſt our Legall, and our own qualifications and works our Evangelicall Righteouſneſs, which no man ſince the very foundation of the world was laid (I think) ever ſo termed before him? They ſo take name (ſaith he) from the Covenant which is their Rule &c. and their Denomination from the formall Reaſon of the thing. To the unveiling of this Myſtery Davu… ſum non Oedipus. It muſt be ſome of Pythagoras his myſticall, and not of Ariſtotles Dialectick learning, that muſt ſo bring this about that we may finde and fathom it. For firſt how is the Law of Nature or Covenant of works the rule of Chriſts Mediation, or ſatisfaction made for us? Whether we Conſider it as it was fullfilled by Chriſt, or as it is apprehended by us to righteouſneſs, is the Law or old Covenant made with mankinde a rule or direction to him or us? Did this law at all either binde or direct the eternall Sonn of the eternall God to aſſume our Nature, and in it to offer himſelf a ſacrifice for our ſinn, and ſo make ſatisfaction to divine Juſtice? Indeed as in Chriſts ſufferings we ſee him onelyonly a patient, drawn and dragg'd to judgement and death for our iniqui…ies laid on him, ſo was his paſſion the effect of the Law. But if there were no more to be ſeen in his ſufferings, he ſhould not have been our righteouſnes either Legall or Evangelicall. For what merit could there be in a ſuffering of Conſtraint and Compulſion? But when in his ſufferings he was a voluntary agent, Called and Conſecrated by the Father to be our Prieſt, Heb. 5. 5. No man taking his life from him, but himſelf laying it down of himſelf, for us and in our ſtead, Joh. 10. 18. Thus he became the purchaſer of righteouſnes for us, and is made of God Righteouſnes to us, 1 Cor. 1. 30. But all this he did not by the rule of the Law or Covenant of works, but of the ſecret and ſacred Covenant made between the Father and him: Therefore having mentioned the voluntarines of his ſuffering in the fore quoted Joh, 10. 18. He addeth, This Commandment have I received of my Father, implying that this his ſatisfactory obedience in dying for us had its regulating not by the old Covenant of works, or any precept of the Law given to man, but by the Covenant which had paſſed between the Father and the Son in reference to man, and a ſpeciall poſitive Commandment from the Father agreeing with the tenor of that Covenant. As for our apprehending and pleading the righteouſnes of Chriſt to Juſtification, impudency it ſelf will neither affirm it to be done by the rule of the Covenant of law and works; nor deny it to be done in Conformity to the Covenant of grace and rule of the Goſpel. Or becauſe Chriſt hath born the penalty of the Lawes breach, ſhall he therefore be Called our legall righteouſnes, as from the formall reaſon of the thing? Nay both that Chriſt ſuffered, and the Father received and accepted his ſufferings in full ſatisfaction for our tranſgreſſions; That the Father ſent him to ſatisfie the juſtice of his law for us; and for his ſatisfactions ſake, he doth no more impute to us the breach of his Law; All this is the fruit of his grace and in conformity to the Goſpel and Covenant of grace; not to the Law and Covenant of works. Therefore if we give the denomination from the formall reaſon of the thing, we muſt call it our Evangelicall not Legall righteouſnes which is in Chriſt.
Touching the other oppoſite term, that any thing inherent in man, whether the gifts of grace, Faith, Repentance, Charity, &c. or their fruits and works, ſhould be called our Goſpel righteouſnes; I ſee no reaſon for it, neither can deviſe in what other ſenſe they may be ſo called, but by a Catachreſticall Ironia which names a thing and means the contrary. As the Mounteins are called Montes quia minime movent, Mounts or Movers becauſe they do in no wiſe Move: or as the Fames Auri is ſometimes called ſacra the inordinate deſire of money is termed holy, quia minime ſacra ſed prorſus, execrabilis, becauſe it is in no caſe ſacred but wholly accurſed. So in no other ſenſe may this righteouſnes in ſelf be called Goſp…l righteouſnes (in reference to Juſtification) but becauſe it is totally oppoſite to the doctrine and nature of the Goſpel, and becauſe the Goſpel doth wholly reject and abandon it. Mr. Br. peradventure may and will bring other reaſons, and where he doth it we ſhall take pains to examine them.
4 Why he calls beleeving or Faith to be our Goſpel righteouſnes, and whether it be to any other end, but with the Papiſts upon the ſame grounds to bring in good works to Juſtification alſo? If he deny this the whole ſequele of his Book will be an enditement of falſhood againſt him?