Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 17
CHAP. XVII.
That Popiſh Luciferian doctrine of the Perfection and Merits of mans inherent Righteouſneſs to Juſtification, here taught by Mr. Br. examined. To which is added ſomething in anſwer to what he bringeth, about the Juſtification, firſt of the perſon and then of his works, and of the poſſibility of performing this perfect meritorious Righteouſneſs.
Bax.
Theſis 24. p. 129. THis perſonall Goſpel Righteouſneſs is, in its kinde a perfect Righteouſneſs; and ſo far we may admit the doctrine of perſonall perfection.
Theſis 26. p. 137. Neither can our performance of the conditions of the Goſpel, in the moſt proper and ſtrict ſenſe, be ſayd to merit the reward: ſeeing there is nothing in the value of it, or any benefit that God receiveth by it, which may ſo entitle it meritorious. Neither is there any proportion between it and the Reward. But in a larger ſenſe as promiſe is an obligation and the thing promiſed is called Debt, ſo the performers of the Condition are called worthy; and their performance merit, though properly it is all of Grace, and not of Debt, Rom. 4. 4, 10. & 5. 15, 16, 17. Hoſ. 14. 4. Mat. 10. 8. Rom. 3. 24. & 8. 32. 1 Cor. 2. 12. Rev. 21. 6. & 22. 18. Rom. 11. 6. Gal. 5. 4. Eph. 2. 5, 7, 8. Gen. 32. 10. Matth. 10. 11, 12, 13, 37. & 22. 8. Luk. 20. 35. & 21. 36. 2 Theſ. 1. 5. 11. Rev. 3. 4. &c.
I joyn theſe two together becauſe of their affinity either to other, and annex them to the former, viz. the 23 Theſis, becauſe of their dependance on it, ſtanding or falling with it; there being no new thing in ſubſtance, but in degrees onelyonly, here aſſerted. In the 23 Theſ. he had aſſerted a perſonall Righteouſneſs of our own, neceſſary and effectuall to Juſtification: Here leaſt he ſhould ſeem a younger Brother to any of the Jeſuites, he mounts himſelf Check-mate with the worſt of them in his gradations, affirming that Righteouſneſs of our own to Juſtification, Theſ. 24. to be a perfect Righteouſneſs, and Theſ. 26. a Meritorious Righteouſneſs. Hath any of the moſt zealous Children of Babylon raiſed his ſcaffolds higher, to exalt the pinacles thereof to a more ſtupendous height?
There ſhall not be need of ſpeaking much by way of anſwer to him in theſe poſitions and their explications: For he doth here build Chimaera's upon Chimaera's, and nothings upon nothing. We deny, and ſo do all the true Churches of Chriſt, any ſuch perſonall Righteouſneſs of man, as righteouſneſs neceſſary or required to Juſtification, affirming that every imagination of ſuch righteouſneſs as effectuall or ordeined to juſtifie, is a monſter begotten of the pride of mens hearts, which in the midſt of all their gawdy knowledge, never experimentally knew Chriſt, or the operation of that juſtification which is by Chriſt alone, upon their Conſciences. Neither hath Mr. Br brought any one reaſon worth a ruſh to prove ſuch a Righteouſneſs. So theſe two poſitions are anſwered in the laſt before it. There being no ſuch righteouſneſs: the blinde man may ſee that No righteouſneſs cannot be either a perfect or meritorious Righteouſneſs; The ſubject Righteouſneſs being evaporated, the accidents thereof [perfect and Meritorious] are turned to vapours with it. The Adjects ſtand not, where the ſubject is diſſolved. It can be but an imaginary dreſs that is put on upon a meerly imaginary body. Yet I ſhall look after Mr. Br in his imaginations, if peradventure there fall from him any thing here and there deſerving an animadverſion.
In the Explication of the 24 Theſis he ſpends two whole pages, viz. 130, 131, in ſpitting of wit, and playing with his imaginary perfection of perſonall Righteouſneſs unto Juſtification, as with a ſhuttle-cock, here I hit you, there I miſſed you, there you were mine, here I came ſhort of you; and when he hath taken his fill of this game, in the laſt line of pag. 131. and ſo forward in the next page, confeſſeth that all this is nothing to his meaning or purpoſe, [and yet is it full to it.] Nothing to his purpoſe or meaning, in reference to the explication much leſs to the proving of a perſonall righteouſneſs required to Juſtification, or a perfection of ſuch a righteouſneſs: yet full to his purpoſe to delight and allure to him ſuch as have nimble wits but dull Conſciences, how ſhould theſe but run after him finding more wit and art, in theſe two pages of his, than ever they met with in all the doctrine of the dull Apoſtles and Prophets, though they ſhould add to them their Maſter alſo.
Well, Haec non ſucceſſit, alia aggrediamur via. That which he hath ſaid is not home to his meaning: But that which he ſaith next ſhall come home to it. And what ſaith he? Nihil quod non dictum eſt priùs OnelyOnly that which he had ſaid before once and again. Holines is a quality, Righteouſneſs is not ſo, but the Modification of our Acts as to the Rule, viz. to the Rule of the New Covenant in point of Juſtification. Here is nothing but what was ſaid before, and hath been anſwered before in our Examination of the Explication of the former Theſis. But he adds which is not varyed ſecundum magis & minùs, alleaging Schibl. Metaph. li. 2. ca. 9. Tit. 7. Art. 2. His word Which, I conceive he will have to relate, not to the Rule which was the next Antecedent, for this ſerves nothing to his purpoſe: but to the more remote Antecedent, which he calls the Modification of our Acts, or cur righteouſnes to Juſtification, that it is not varied ſecundum Magis & Minùs. Indeed Schibler there concludes out of Ariſtotle that Relations which have their foundation in ſubſtance or quantity, non recipiunt Magis & Minùs, have no remiſſion or intenſion, but an equality, fullnes or perfection in their relation (if I may ſpeak a little unproperly to pleaſe Mr. Br.) But that Righteouſnes hath its foundation in ſubſtance he ſeems to deny, or that it hath its foundation in quantity, he ſaith but doth not prove. We ſay it hath its foundation in quality, & ſuch relations Schibler there acknowledgeth to admit Magis & Minùs. Again Schibler addeth in the ſecond place, that Relata ex parte ſui, hoc est, ſecundum eſſe relationis ipſius, non recipiunt magis & minùs. But this hinders not why in ſome yea ſundry other reſpects, they ſhould not admit it. And thus Schibler doth him no good. Yet if Schibler were for him, I ſhould except that the Holy Ghoſt is not (ſpecially in Goſpel matters) a Peripatetick, was never a diſciple of Ariſtotle, his wiſdome is a Metaphyſicks more tranſcendent above Ariſtotles Metaphyſicks, than Ariſtotles Metaphyſicks are above his Phyſicks. Therefore the Holy Ghoſt takes the liberty in Scriptures, to affirm a Magis & Minùs in Righteouſnes, to pronounce one more, and another leſs righteous in reference to the Rule, as hath been before ſhewed. Br. Therefore our Divines uſually ſay, that our Juſtification is perfect, though our ſanctification be not: and then I am ſure our Righteouſnes muſt be perfect. A meer flam & vanity of words! Our Divines (ſaith he) doth he own them? are they not ſuch as he would rather tollere than extollere? Our Divines and yet not Popiſh Divines? our Divines uſually ſay that our Juſtification is perfect. But will Mr. Br ſay ſo? Nay he ſaith pointblank in oppoſition to it. Yet even hence would he force in his Concluſion, & then I am ſure our Righteouſnes muſt be perfect. A meer ſophiſm and fallacy: we grant that the righteouſnes by which we are perfectly juſtified, muſt needs be a perfect righteouſnes. But we deny that righteouſnes to be any otherwiſe ours than by imputation, viz. Chriſts ſatisfaction. As for the Righteouſnes of our ſanctification which Mr. Br makes the condition of our juſtifying, we utterly deny either to be perfect in this life, or to have any finger in the buſines of Juſtification.
When he finds all his other ſhifts too weak to hide the nakednes of his Concluſion, at length he flyeth to his ſophiſticall diſtinctions according to his uſuall manner, to obſcure & darken what he cannot confirm & clear up in the light to be of God. B: A twofold perfection is here implyed (ſaith he) 1 a Metaphyſicall perfection of Being, 2 A perfection of ſufficiency in order to its end. Theſe two he jumbles & tumbles together, ſomtimes into a Confuſion, & then out of the Chaos that he hath made goes about to ſeparate them again into ſome diſtinct order, ſo far that if there be any that can ſee things which are not as if they were, may diſcern either from other ſo perfectly at a diſtance that he ſhal never attain the one or the other as a perfection of Righteouſnes to his juſtification. The former he makes to be the Materiall entity of a non ens, (as he had before defined Righteouſnes) the Materiall Being of that which is not a being. And this, ſaith he, is the ſincerity of our faith, i. e. of our Sanctification (for ſo he meaneth:) this is the firſt perfection of our own righteouſnes to juſtification. Let us ſuppoſe now that there is ſuch a Metaphyſicall perfection in the ſincerity of our righteouſnes and the matter thereof, what doth this make to his purpoſe, that there is a perfection in our perſonall righteouſnes to juſtifie us? I ſhall demand theſe queſtions of him. 1 Whether a Metaphyſicall perfection of Being, in the matter of our Righteouſnes be the perfection of righteouſnes which is required to juſtification? Is there not a Metaphyſicall being yea perfection of being in the matter of all the Acts of righteouſnes which the very heathen and reprobates perform? 2 Whether Sincerity be perfection of righteouſnes, any further than it is more or leſs ſincere, perfect ſincerity being a perfect perfection, unperfect ſincerity an unperfect perfection, perfect it may be in its Metaphyſicall being, that is unperfect in its degrees: But muſt there not be alſo a morall perfection in a righteouſneſs perſonall that ſhall be perfect to juſtifie. 3 Whether there be not ſin & imperfection in the beſt ſincerity of the Saints during this life, a mixture of unbeleef with their faith, of fleſh with Spirit, of doublenes with their ſimplicity? 4 Whether this mixture be not evill and a ſin in reference to the New, as well as to the Old Covenant? Why els doth the Lord Chriſt ſo oft reprove and upbraid his diſciples with the feeblenes of their Faith? O ye of little Faith, &c. becauſe of your unbeleef. Where is your Faith? and ſuch like? 5 Grant unto a man the greateſt ſincerity of Faith & holines attainable by the moſt ſpirituallized Chriſtians in this life, hath God ordeined it to be a perfect righteouſnes, or is it a perfect righteouſnes either in it ſelf, or to Juſtification? if ſo why doth the Apoſtle when he could profeſs not onelyonly his perſonall obedience as a Chriſtian, but alſo his righteouſnes and integrity as a Miniſter, to be ſo far in ſincerity, and as in the fight of God, & in Chriſt, that he knew nothing by himſelf, wherin he could accuſe himſelf as failing in ſincerity; nevertheles add, Yet am I not hereby juſtified, but he that judgeth me is the Lord, 2 Cor. 1. 12. & 2. 17. 1 Cor. 4. 4? This Mr. Br ſeeth and that his reader may not ſee the weaknes of his Metaphyſicall materiall Righteouſneſs, he therefore Confounds it with the Formality of it. Els ſhould he give every reader to retort upon him his own words pag. 121. that he pronounceth that a perfect Righteouſnes which is unrighteous, hatefull and accurſed, being a righteouſnes which in its matter is injoyned by the old Covenant, & hath for its rule in the matter thereof the Law of the old Covenant ſtill.
No leſs vain alſo is that which he diſcourſeth of the Formality of this perſonal righteouſnes, that it is a perfect righteouſnes in reſpect of its perfect ſufficiency in order to its end, which is to be a condition of our Juſtification, &c. This end (ſaith he) it ſhall attain. The tenor of the New Covenant is not, Beleeve in the higheſt degree and you ſhall be juſtified, but beleeve ſincerely and you ſhall be juſtified. So that our righteouſneſs. 1. formally conſidered in relation to the conditions of the New Covenant, is either perfect or none.
To this I anſwer that God hath ordeined no righteouſnes of ours as our Righteouſnes, to be a Condition of the New Covenant. 2. If he had ſo done, yet it follows not thence that the ſame Righteouſnes performed, is a perfect righteouſnes, though it be ſufficient and effectuall to the end to which God ordeined it to be performed. God required the uſe and ſound of Trumpets and voices to deſtroy and lay levell with the earth, the ſtrong walls and Towers of Jericho; and the waſhing in Jordan to Clean…e Naaman of his Leproſie; and the waſhing in Siloam to Cure the Man that was born blinde of his blindneſs. Theſe were ordeined as ſeverall Conditions in order to thoſe ſeverall ends; and being performed became ſufficient and effectuall to the attainment thereof. Shall we ſay then, that the performance of theſe Conditions was their perfect righteouſnes which performed them? So neither if God had appointed Faith which according to Mr. Br is ſanctification, as a Condition of our Juſtification, is the performance thereof our perfect righteouſnes. 3 This ſufficiency of that which Mr. Br calleth perfect righteouſnes in order to its end, is no more in & from it ſelf, than the before-mentioned noyces and waſhings were in themſelves, to the attainment of their ends: But the ſufficiency thereof is wholly from the righteouſneſs faithfulnes and all ſufficiency of God to fullfill the promiſes of his grace. So that what he ſaith of beleeving in the higheſt degree, and beleeving in ſincerity, is beſides the matter in queſtion; Both together if they could be performed according to the tenor of the new Covenant, not being of ſufficiency to make up a perfect righteouſnes. Therefore we conclude in Mr. Brs words, That our Righteouſnes formally conſidered in relation to the condition of the new Covenant, is ſo far from being a perfect Righteouſneſs, that it is none at all.
I have nothing els to ſay againſt that wherewith he concludes his explication of the Theſis, enumerating the many reſpects in which this imaginary righteouſnes of man is imperfect, and conſequently ſinfull; But this that it diſplayes the ſin and impudency of the man, that he will call that a perfect righteouſnes, which himſelf confeſſeth to be ſo deficient, rotten, and unrighteous.
Theſis 26. pag. 137. In the 26 Theſis he addeth to the perfection of Mans righteouſnes, merit or meritoriouſnes alſo. In my exception againſt him upon this point, I ſhal take notice, 1 of his poſition or aſſerting of this doctrine, 2 of his lenifying & mitigating the roughnes thereof, that it may go down the more gently & pleaſantly. In both which it ſhall ſuffice to ſhew that he ſpeaketh the ſame things with the Papiſts his Maſters, & that in their Tone alſo; though I do not ex profeſſo, undertake a full Confutation of the doctrine it ſelf, leaving the reader to fetch it from thoſe many Orthodox Divines that have copiouſly & unanſwerably done it againſt profeſſed Papiſts. In this I ſhall ſeemingly croſs yet really follow Mr. Brs method, putting firſt what was the firſt & primary purpoſe of his heart to hold out unto the world, viz. that our Righteouſnes is meritorious; (though in a pretty ſubtlety he puts it laſt both in the Theſis & in its explication,) and laſt that which he puts firſt, viz. his limitation & mitigation of ſo arrogant a doctrine, which he doth ſo trimly & …eatily, that if his reader be a fool it is poſſible he may think Mr. Br to deny, and not to aſſert here the doctrine of merits; though there were never any of the worſt Papiſts that hath aſſerted it higher than Mr. Br here doth. His aſſertion of merits then, runs in theſe words in the Aphoriſm it ſelf.
B: In a large ſenſe, as promiſe is an obligation, and the thing promiſed is called debt, ſo the performers of the Conditions of the New Covenant are called Worthy, and their performance Merit, though properly it is all of Grace and not of Debt, Rom. 4. 4, 10. And all thoſe Scriptures which he annexeth and I have before in adding this to the 24th Theſis tranſcribed.
1 His aſſertion of Merit in mans righteouſnes is here layd down in a Connexive propoſition, The performers of the conditions of the new Covenant are called Worthy, & their performance Merit. If both members of the propoſition be not true, if either fail, the propoſition is falſe. But where doth he mean theſe are ſo called? in the Scriptures wch he here annexeth all men will (it is queſtionles his meaning is that all ſhall) conceive. (For to ſay that they are ſo called by Popiſh Writers were to make his doctrine ſuſpected, not accepted.) But neither in theſe nor any other Scriptures are they ſo Called; therefore his propoſition is falſe. The 13 firſt Scriptures alleaged, affirm the contrary: deny all worth, all merit, in our perſons & righteouſnes, pronounce the reward, to be of grace not of debt, a gift, not a payment, given freely, without deſert: & all this ſo fully that it appears the Holy Ghoſt had an aim not onelyonly to ſtop the mouths of the mercenary Jewes then, but alſo of the Popiſh Juſticiares now, whom he foreſaw as enemies to the doctrine of Grace. And the laſt ſix Scriptures here alleaged prove onelyonly that the Scriptures call the Saints worthy, but neither in theſe nor in any other Scripture can he finde that their performances are called merit, or their Juſtification here or glorification hereafter debt.
2 By the way we may take notice of his fallacious ſophiſtry to deceive the ſimple, in making the whole worth of the performers to conſiſt in their performances, becauſe the performers of ſuch an act are called worthy, therefore there muſt be merit and worth in the performance. Which is grounded upon as good reaſon as if I ſhould ſay, The Murtherer of Ʋriah, and the abjurer of Chriſt were counted worthy of juſtification and glory. Therefore was there an unproper worth (at leaſt) in the ones murther & the others abjuration to Juſtice & ſave them. None of theſe nor any other Scriptures do affi…me (in expreſs words) the performers of the conditions of the new Covenant Worthy, much leſſe, as they are performers; and leaſt of all that the performance hath worth or merit in it.
3 Beſides there is a great difference between Gods Dignari & mans Dignū eſſe: between Gods accounting or reckoning man worthy, & mans being worthy in his own deſerts; ſo that thoſe Scriptures, Lu. 20. 35. Lu. 21. 36. 2 Theſ. 1. 5, 11. that ſpeak of Gods accounting men worthy, do not import or imply any worth in a mans own qualifications & performances: but a worth wch God hath put upon him by imputation, viz. Chriſt in them, the bloud of Chriſt ſprinkled upon their Conſcience, Chriſts merits imputed to them, they being found in Chriſt the righteous, & not in Adam the unrighteous. As the Iſraelites were accounted worthy of deliverance from deſtruction which fell upon the Egyptians in the day of Gods paſſing over Egypt; but how worthy? ſurely not in reſpect of their own righteouſnes, but in reſpect of the worth of the Paſchal Lambs bloud ſprinkled upon their door-poſts. In this ſenſe is alſo that of Rev. 3. 4. to be taken. And hereunto runs the whole tenor of the Goſpel, making not our own righteouſnes & works, but Chriſt in us the hope of Glory, i. e. all the ground and worth upon which we may Cheriſh within our ſelves a lively hope of glory, Col. 1. 27.
4 The word worthy in Scriptures oft ſignifieth, Meet, beſeeming & anſwerable to: as Ma. 3. 8. Bring forth fruits worthy of Repentance, & Eph. 4. 1. Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. & Col. 1. 10. Walk worthy of the Lord. The meaning is that we ſhould bring forth fruits beſeeming the repentance which we profeſs, & walk agreeable unto, & in ways becoming our holy vocation, & anſwerable to the Grace of God in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt: not to make our ſelves worthy of the gift of repentance, of ſo high a vocation, & of ſo glorious a Chriſt to be conferred upon us. And in the ſame ſenſe are thoſe other ſcriptures, Ma. 10. 11, 12, 13, 37 & 22. 8. alleaged here by Mr. Br, to be taken. Where thoſe that are termed worthy or unworthy of Chriſt and his Goſpel, are meant to be ſuch as carry themſelves in a way becoming or not becoming Chriſt and his Goſpel preached to them. Without any hinting at an imaginary worth or Merit in their performances that might make them deſervers of Chriſt, and the grace of the Goſpel: as is eaſie to be made out, from the very Texts here alleaged, if there were need thereof.
Thus it appears to be falſe, either that in a larger ſenſe, promiſe is an obligation, & the thing promiſed is called Debt: or that the performers of the cōditiōs are called worthy, & their performance merit, in the ſcriptures. And conſequently neither the fallacies nor the falſities of Mr Br do any thing avail him here to the ſetting up of Mans & the fruſtrating of Chriſts Merits, wch is the ſcope of his levelling.
The explication in reference to this part of the Theſis hath nothing that may be called an addition to it. OnelyOnly there pag. 141. as here in deſcribing the third kinde of meriting, he tels us, that The obligation to reward is Gods ordinate Juſtice, & the truth of his promiſe; & the worthines lyeth in the performance of the Conditions on our part. He doubted (it ſeems) that we would have taken him (notwithſtanding that which he had ſaid equipollent with this in the Theſis) to have had ſome ſeed of Chriſtian modeſty & humility remaining in him, that he had not totally forſworn all ſelf-deniall, unleſs he ſhould expreſs, & therefore hath expreſſed himſelf at the ful here, to be ful of ſelf-arrogance.
But in this doth he declare his intolerable contempt of the word, that having himſelf quoted (at the leaſt) 13 teſtimonies of ſcripture, all with one harmony affirming, that Gods Goſpel diſpenſations are free, of meer grace & mercy, without any reference to our works & righ…eouſneſs, that Gods grace & mans works or worth cannot ſtand together, but that they deſtroy either the other in reference to Juſtification & ſalvation: That mans merit in any reſpect without difference is a ſubverſion and denyall of Gods grace in all reſpects; (For all this he ſhall find that will but peruſe the 13 firſt ſcriptures wch Mr B. quoteth in this Theſis) yet he doth elude all wth this frothy diſtinction in the beginning of the ſame Theſis: True, Our Performances cannot be ſaid to Merit in the moſt ſtrict & proper ſenſe, &c. but in a larger ſenſe they may. What is this but to oppoſe the ſacred verity of the moſt high God, with the froth of mans wit? what Scripture ſhall henceforth ſtand in its venerable Majeſty & authority, if the boldnes of a corrupt worm ſhall thus puff it to nothing? Of all other men I conceive Mr Br hath moſt need to make grace alone & free Mercy his refuge: For of all that I have met with accounted Members of any of the reformed Churches, I never found any whoſe very meritorious ſervices (as he terms them) ſuch as this work of his is, have more provocation in them. But thus farr of his aſſertion which we have found full of the Leaven, or rather to be the Leaven it ſelf of the Scribes and Phariſees both of the former and latter ages. Let us ſee now how he lenifieth & ſweeteneth it, that his ſacrilege in robbing God of the honour of his grace appear not.
B: We aſcribe not Merit (ſaith he in the Theſis) to our works, as Merit is taken in its moſt proper and ſtrict ſenſe, ſeeing there is nothing in the value of it, or any benefit that God receiveth by it, which may ſo entitle it Meritorius: Neither is there any proportion betwixt it and the reward, but in a larger ſenſe, as promiſe is an obligation and the thing promiſed is debt, &c.
Yet in the explication, p. 138, he grants to man a capacity of Meriting ſomwhat at the hands of God in this ſenſe alſo, leſt he ſhould ſeem to acknowlege that there are ſome of the worſt reprobates yea devills, that have not at all merited from God; But of theſe he Concludes p. 139. that it is a poor kind of Meriting which they can boaſt of yet without ſome Merit, & that of good from the Juſtice of God he will not leave them deſtitute. But in the Concluſion of the explication pag. 141. he adds ſomewhat more to take off the harſhnes of his ſelf-aſcribing doctrine of Merit: thus;
B: This kinde of Meriting is no diminution to the greatnes or freenes of the Gift or Reward: becauſe it was a free and gracious Act of God, to make our performance capable of that title; and to engage himſelf in the foreſaid promiſe to us; and not for any gain that he expecteth by us, or that our performance can bring him.
Lo ye now, the ſtrength of this mans wit, that can blow heaven & earth into a confuſion with one breath, & with the next breath ſett both into their due place and order again. Nothing inferior is the ſlight of his wit to the ſlight and dex…erity of that head-mans hand that is reported ſo nimbly to execute his office that having cut off the head, he left it ſtanding without any wagging upon the ſhoulders ſtill. So this man hewes off the honour of Gods grace yet leaves it in all its glory without diminution ſtill. Yet let us reckon with the man a little. Can he name any one of the worſt Papiſts or Jeſuits that doth attribute Merit to mans works in a higher degree than, or doth not when he hath extolled mans Merits, ſalve the grace of God as finely as himſelf? Are not his words and theirs about Gods Grace and mans merits the ſame? Doth he add any thing here of his own that he hath not learned of them? We cannot merit (ſaith Mr Br) in the moſt ſtrict and proper ſenſe: Why? Alas, ſaith he, There is nothing in the value of our works, or any benefit that God receives by them, that may entitle them Meritorious; Neither is there any proportion between them and the Reward. Do not Bellarmine and his brethren ſpeak altogether ſo fully & more fully, ſeemingly to vindicate the grace of God from all ecclipſing by their doctrine of Merit? Merit as ſtrictly and properly taken (ſay they) muſt be, 1 Ex proprijs, 2 ex indebitis, 3 Ad aequalitatem. 1 It muſt be of ſomething of our own which we have not received; 2 of that which we were not indebted or bound to perform; 3 It muſt come up to a full proportion of equality in value with the reward which it meriteth. And thus (ſay they) no man can merit with God. For neither hath he any thing of his own to offer unto God wch he hath not received from God, nor any ſtrength to act meritoriouſly but what he hath received from above, & is inſpired by grace into him; So that Antoninus that Poſtill Schoolman, Concludes that in this Caſe that Fathers concluſion is authentick, which ſaid it before him, though not punctually in the ſame words Quùm enim Deus coronat Merita noſtra, remunerat A…on par. 4. Tit. 9. ca. 7 ante ſec:Munera ſua, quia ſcilicet ipſe dedit virtutem operandi gratis. When God Crowns our Merits, he rewards his own gifts, becauſe himſelf hath freely given us the ſtrength ſo to work. Nor 2 Can he do any thing but is his due obedience he owes it as homage to his Creator. And 3 as to proportion & equality, even Bellarmine that affirms quandam infinitatem, a certain infinitenes in mans works, not as they proceed from man, but as the Holy Ghoſt which is infinite, is the author of them, yet concludes, Nemopoteſt paria reddere Deo. Our works can never mount up to an equality with Gods bounty. In this proper ſenſe therefore all the worſt hornets of the Romiſh hive do explode Merits with as much deteſtation as Mr. Br.
In like manner what he tels us in the beginning of the explication of Merits in ſtrict Juſtice which he doth in part abandon; is but a diſtinction which he hath learned from the Jeſuits which diſtinguiſh betwixt Merits in ſtrict Juſtice, & Merits in gracious acceptance, rejecting the former, and attributing unto man a power onelyonly to perform that wch God will graciouſly accept for Merit. Yea when Calvine will expreſs what uſe the whole rabble of Popiſh Schoolmen make of this evaſion, not troubling himſelf to alleage their particular words, he contracts the ſumme of all that they all ſay into theſe words of his own: Aiunt, Non tanti eſſe intrinſeca dignitate bona opera, ut Cal. Inſt. li 3. ca. 14. ſect. 14.ad juſtitiā comparandā ſufficiant, ſed hoc acceptantis eſſe Graciae quod tantùm valēt. They acknowledge that mans good works are not worth a ruſh in their own intrinſecall worth to Merit or obtein Righteouſneſs [before God,] but that it is of Gods Grace accepting that they are of ſuch value.
And what he ſaith at the end of the explication, [that this kinde of Meriting is no diminutiō to the greatnes or freenes of the gift or reward, Becauſe it was a free and gracious Act of God that made our works capable of this title, and to engage himſelf by promiſe to us, &c.] as it is in ſubſtance one & the ſame thing which he had ſaid before, to make his doctrine appear ſufferable, ſo is it that which he hath ſuckt from the breaſts of the Holy Mother Church of Rome alſo. It is the plea of all the Popiſh Sophiſters ſaith Calvin, Qui bellè ſe abſurda omnia evaſiſſe putârunt, Inſt. li. 3. ca. 17. ſect. 3.non intrinſeca ſua bonitate valere opera ad ſalutem promerenda, ſed ex pacti ratione, quia Dominus liberalitate ſua tanti aeſtimavit, i. e. who thought that they had bravely diſcharged themſelves of all the abſurdities [which follow this doctrine] by ſaying that our works do not avail to merit ſalvatiō by their own intrinſick goodnes, but by reaſon of Gods Covenant or promiſe, becauſe he of his free bounty hath put ſuch a value upon them. And ſtill affirming that the Merit of works doth not at all Clowd Gods grace, Quia a Gratia acc…ptante habent ſuum Ibid. ca. 17. ſect. 15.valorem, i. e. becauſe it is the gracious acceptance of God that entitles them to this honour.
I ſhall inſtance no further in particulars: onelyonly in generall I affirm there is not to be found any of the moſt Trentified & deepeſt branded Papiſts, that hath in this point ſpoken more derogatorily to the grace of God, or more ſuperlatively to the exalting of mans menſtruous righteouſnes; but contrariwiſe divers eſpecially of the more ancient Schoolmen that have ſpoken more modeſtly & moderately of both, than Mr Br. So high in the conceit of his own worth & perfection, have the praiſes of his righteouſnes & vertues decanted by ſome throughout the Country, coming (as it is probable) to his ears, enthroned him. Or if it be not either the proud opinion of his own vertues and righteouſneſs, or an ambition to be eſteemed matchles and unanſwerable in any Paradox that he undertakes to maintain, or a vow that he hath made to return & bring what Proſelytes he can with him to Babylon; which hath; let him ſhew what it is that hath induced him, thus to pervert & diſturb the Churches of Chriſt with theſe Antichriſtian doctrines, by raiſing them to life again after they have ſo long layd almoſt dead and buryed therein.
But whether there be not as concinnous an agreement & uniformity, in Mr Brs doctrines of the perfection & Merit of mans righteouſnes; & yet while his righteouſnes is thus perfect & Meritorious with God, he remains notwithſtanding under the Curſe of the Law and wrath of God untill the day of Judgement, (as before he hath aſſerted) whether theſe things do not ſo trimly agree together, as a Crown on the head, and a halter about the neck, I leave to every rationall man to Judge.
That which he hath in the middle part of his explication about Merits of man which the Wiſdom (not the Juſtice) of God is bound to reward; as alſo ſundry paſſages that he hath about Merits in the ſtrict Juſtice of God; I leave as meer fopperies unworthy of reading, much more of anſwering. OnelyOnly this I affirm that he doth here equallize the merits of mans with the merits of Chriſts righteouſnes, for neither hath Chriſt merited from Gods naturall but his ordinate Juſtice, not in the ſtrict, but in the large ſenſe.
His 25 Theſis lying betwixt theſe 2 that I have coupled together, I paſſe by without any particular examination of the particulars in it, or in the Explication of it, becauſe it hath not any thing in it controverted between us & Papiſts, though what he ſaith there, be ſaid with an intention to …app up himſelf in an Antipopiſh dreſs that he may be the leſs ſuſpected when he comes to ſowr us with the leaven of the Papiſts. He ſaw theſe 2 Theſes which I have examined together, viz. Perfection & Merits of works, if they ſhould come together one in the neck of another, without any Calm betwixt them, would make ſo terrible a ſound as would be enough to waken and ſtartle all that were but ſleeping and not dead, for fear the Pope or the Devill had been come to aſſault them; Therfore to keep all quiet he interpoſeth this Theſis and its explication, in which he pulls the ears of our Divines for ſaying that God doth juſtifie firſt our perſons and then our duties and actions. pag. 134. & deinceps in the explication, telling us it is a doctrine of dangerous conſequence many wayes, and except we will take it in his, that is, in the Popiſh ſenſe, it ſmells rankly of Popery, & ſetts up Juſtification by works, from the very thought whereof he ſtarts & ſtartles away as affrighted. Notable diſſimulation, not of a learner but of one learned in the Trade,
Clodius accuſat Maechos, Catilina Cethegum.
He that affirms our Righteouſneſs equall with the righteouſnes of Chriſt to juſtification, that entitles it a perfect righteouſnes, a meritorious righteouſnes, is the firſt man in all the world that fears of the advancing of Juſtification by works, by them whom he hateth for oppugning it. If there were that which he calls danger in this phraſe or doctrine, of ſetting up ſuch a juſtification, would not himſelf be the firſt man to kiſſe it, to eat it up, to promote it? What is it that makes him to diſreliſh the phraſe ſo extremely? is it not that it inverts his order in Juſtification, that he would have the works to juſtifie the man, when contrariwiſe this doctrine makes the juſtification of the perſon to be the ground of the acceptance of his obedience? Is it not the very depth of Satan, from which he is moved to guiſe & diſguiſe himſelf, to act Satans part with all guile and ſubtlety to betray the Saints of Chriſt and the truth of Chriſt to damning Popery, and yet here and there to tranſform himſelf into an Angel of Light, a Miniſter of Righteouſnes, to blinde the eyes of the ſimple that they may not eſpy him untill they be taken in his ſnare and loſt for ever.
As for the doctrine or phraſe it ſelf, he knowes our Divines mean this onelyonly when they ſay, God doth juſtifie firſt our perſons and then our duties & actiōs, viz. That God having firſt juſtified their perſons from all the guilt that was upon them, doth thenceforth alſo juſtifie them in ref…rence to all the duties wch thorow Chriſt the Mediator they ſhall perform unto God, not imputing to them the imperfections thereof, ſo that they may reſt Confident of Gods accepting both the performers and the performance in and through Chriſt the beloved. In this reſpect and not as Conditions of the New Covenant (as Mr. Br dreameth) doth the Goſpel teach our works to be accepted of God.
There is yet one link of the Popiſh Chain wanting, without which it will be unperfect and unuſefull. If it were granted that there is, 1 a perſonall righteouſnes of Gods own appointment neceſſary to juſtification. 2 That this righteouſneſs conſiſteth in ou… own Faith and ſanctification, or good works. 3 That it is a perfect, and 4 a Meritorious Righteouſneſs: yet all this cannot be effect…all either to ſave or deceive us, unleſs it be a righteouſnes alſo poſſible for us to perform. Tha… he may not be wanting therefore to the Popiſh Cauſe in any one branch of Popiſh doctrine, he addeth this alſo.
Theſis 27 in theſe words, pag. 141. Bax: As it was poſſible for Adam to have fullfilled the Law of Works, by that power which he received by Nature; ſo is it poſſible for us to perform the Conditions of the New Covenant by the power which we receive from the Grace of Chriſt.
To which he adds in the Explication, pag 142 &c.
Bax: This poſſibility is to be underſtood not in Relation to the ſtrength of the Agent. But in the Relative ſenſe, the Conditions of the New Covenant are poſſible to them that have the aſſiſtance of Grace.
So that ſtrength which was in Adam to fullfill, was a power which he received by Nature; But the ſtrength by which we perform, is the power which we receive from the grace of Chriſt If any ſhould have asked him what that grace of Chriſt is? the man was very Coy, he could, but he would not tell, whether it were a Pauline or a P…lagian Grace; a grace equally extended both to the Elect and the Reprobats, or a grace peculiar to the Elect; a grace that comes no further than the ear, or a grace operating upon the heart alſo; &c. He had other fiſh to fry and had not the leizure to ſtay & c…ack theſe nutts now He bids us to turn over many volumes, and ſpecially Parkers Theſes, to ſearch if poſſibly we can finde what Mr. Brs judgment would be many years after in this poynt. But it is eaſie to perceive the mans meaning by his gaping in many paſſages of this book. We ſhould have had all this in rank and file in his much promiſed Tractate of Ʋniverſall Redemption, by which as by a ſecond famous atchievement he meant to endear himſelf to his holy Father, but that unluckily there is one of his own ſpirit ſtep into his Holineſſes Parlour to preſent him with this gift, and ſo anticipated this favour which Mr. Br would have had entire to himſelf; ſo that now the expected advantage being loſt, & he not uſing to open his Commodities to ſale a day before the Fayr, we might poſſibly for a couple of Capons obtein to know his meaning herein In the mean while, it muſt needs be his intent in reſerving to himſelf what he meant by grace, to pu… upon us a kind of impoſſibility to ſay readily, yea or nay to his aſſerted p…ſſibility of performing the Conditions of the New Covenant by a power which he leaves us uncertain of knowing what it is.
As for the two fold oppoſition which he puts in his Theſis, 1. between the conditions of the Old Covenant & New, 2. Between the power which Adam had by nature, and the power which we have by the Grace of Chriſt; there is nothing but a windy ſound of words therein, to deceive his reader into an opinion that he hath ſome honeſt and ſound meaning in what is here poſited or ſaid. For neither doth he make any real difference between the conditions of theſe two Covenants: but makes our own Righteouſneſſe, conſiſting in faith and works, to be the ſubſtance of the conditions of both Covenants, onelyonly he puts a ſuppoſed difference in the meaſure of them: One, an imaginary perfection of ſincerity in doeing them, anſwering to what the New Covenant requireth; the other, an abſolute and gradual perfection in doing them without the leaſt particle omitted or committed, beſides or againſt the rigorous exaction of the Old Covenant. And this is a difference made up of a mans dreaming fancy without any leaſt footing that it hath in, or ſuſtentation by the Word of God; which utterly ſhakes off all mans righteouſneſs, works, and qualifications in either, and both ſenſes, from having any thing to do in the buſineſſe of juſtification under the New Covenant, as hath been in part already, and ſhall be in its due place (if God will) more fully demonſtrated afterward.
Nor doth he mean 2 things, by Adams power by nature, and our power by Grace. Nature there, and grace here, to him are one & the ſame. For was not the power which Adam had to ſtand, a power received by Grace? what a malignant eye hath he, ſo extremely to envie the raies of Gods Grace, when they luſtre, and by their brightneſs diſcover the dimneſſe and invalidity of mans nature? He will own no longer Peter Lombard himſelfe to be the Magiſter, if he affirm (as hee doth affirm) that the power which Adam had to fulfill the conditions of the Old Covenant, was (not by grace, but) by nature; or what means he by the grace of Chriſt now? doth he under this word point out any other power than every man hath or may have, that is no more Chriſtified, or Spirituallized now, than Adam was then? yea than he was immediately after his fall? This book of his in many parcels of it doth (not obſcurely) inſinuate thus much of him; and if we judge amiſſe, it is his fault in writing ſo ambiguouſly and refuſing to explain his own meaning that miniſtreth cauſe and evidence enough ſo to judge.
But as to the thing it ſelfe here poſited by Maſter Baxter: wee utterly deny that God hath ever given, or any where promiſed to give unto the beſt of men in the ſtate of ſinfull infi…mity, ſuch a meaſure of Grace, as might put him into a poſſibility by the power which he hath received, to performe either a righteouſneſſe effectual and ſufficient to juſtification, or a righteouſneſſe perfect and Meritorious; or a righteouſnes which as righteouſnes, and by a worthineſſe in it ſelfe, can give him right and title to the righteouſneſs of Chriſt to juſtifie him. And theſe are the things which Mr. Baxter here either with the grace, or without, and againſt the grace of God contendeth for; but neither hath, nor ever will have the grace of God, from the Word of God, to prove and demonſtrate; though he bangle and bungle never ſo much with his looſe ſhifts of Sophiſtry, to give out an appearance to them that are more delighted with appearance then with ſubſtance, as if he had done it.