Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII.
Arg. An examination of Mr. Baxters Doctrine about the nature and uſe of the Moral Law, upon what grounds, and in what ſenſe and degrees the righteouſneſſe thereof is required under the Goſpel, what relation it hath to the Covenants, and each of them. His Paradox of ſincere, not perfect obedience required under the New Covenant; and his extravagancies about all the reſt of theſe particulars diſcovered.
THe three following Theſes, viz. the 28, 29, and the 30th, I purpoſely pretermit without examination, not that there is nothing in them which deſerveth exception againſt it, but becauſe whatſoever therein calls for examination by the touchſtone of the Word, is either not controverted between us and the Papiſts about the point of Juſtification, or elſe hath been ſaid, and anſwered before; or thirdly will offer it ſelf againe more properly to bee anſwered in the following part of this Tractate, where we ſhall find Mr. Baxter ſpeaking it out more fully then he hath done here in theſe Theſes, and their explications.
To the 31 Theſis, pag. 154. as it is conſidered in, and by it ſelf, I have nothing to object: but to the Explication thereof, pag. 155. & deinceps, I have ſomewhat to ſay, yet not altogether by way of exception againſt it, but partly alſo for the ſubſtration of ſome grounds to anſwer him in things which in the following part of this Treatiſe hee hath to deliver; accordingly as he layes down here for delivering them. His words therefore I firſt tranſcribe, beginning at pag. 155.
B. That the Morall Law is yet in force, I will not ſtand to prove, becauſe ſo many have written of it already. See Mr. Anthony Burgeſſes Lectures. But to what ends, and in what ſenſe the Goſpel continueth that Law, and commandeth perfect obedience thereto, is a queſtion not very eaſie.
1. Whether Chriſt did first repeal that Law, and then reeſtabliſh it to ſ…me other ends? So ſome think.
2. Or whether he hath at all made the Morall Law the preceptive part of the New Covenant? and ſo whether the New Covenant doth at all command us perfect obedience? or onelyonly ſincere?
3. Whether the Moral Law be continued onelyonly as the precepts of the Old Covenant, and ſo uſed by the New Covenant meerly for a directive Rule?
To the firſt I anſwer:
1. That it is not repealed at all I have proved already; even concerning the Covenant of Workes it ſelf; and others enough have proved at large of the Moral Law.
2▪ Yet that Chriſt uſeth it for other ends, and for the advancement of his Kingdom, I grant.
What is here meant by the Morall Law muſt bee firſt underſtood, before there can be any well-grounded conſenting, or diſſenting in judgements about the force in which it yet ſtandeth. Both the word Law, and the word Moral, have their ambiguity, and are uſed in divers ſenſes.
1. The word Law is taken ſometimes onelyonly for a rule, or guide, or directive, to give us light to diſcern between truth and falſhood, good and evill, lawfull and unlawfull; to which alſo may be added, a power therein to command duty, and to prohibit, what is contrary to duty. Sometimes it is taken in a larger ſenſe alſo, comprehending all theſe things in it, and withall a promiſe of reward to the performers, and commination of penalty to its tranſgreſſors. Here I conceive Mr. Baxter taketh the word Law in the former ſenſe onelyonly, becauſe pag. 156. in anſwer to the firſt queſtion, he diſtinguiſheth, and puts a difference between the Covenant of Works, and the Morall Law, ſo plainly, as if he did, totidem verbis, tell us that hee underſtands by the Morall Law, the rule and precepts of Holyneſſe, and Righteouſneſſe, as conſidered apart from the pactionary Adjunct of life and death going with it.
2. The word Morall alſo hath its divers ſenſes; ſometimes Divines take it in a larger ſenſe, for all whatſoever pertaines to manners; and then by the Morall Law they underſtand all the Commandements, or Rules which God giveth for the regulating of our manners, in reference to the qualifications of the mind, and the outward operations alſo: Whether thoſe Commandements bee either of naturall, or of poſitive right, written in mans heart at his creation, or had their firſt poſitu…e in time from the word, and lips of God. Sometimes in a ſtricter ſenſe, for that which doth eminently above other things concern the life and manners. And then by the Moral Law they underſtand ſometimes the Decalogue, or Law of the ten Commandments: Sometimes the Law of Nature, or naturall Righteouſneſs imprinted in mans heart at his firſt creation.
Here taking it for granted, that Mr. Baxter meaneth by the Morall Law, the doctrine of the Law conſidered as a rule of Righteouſneſs, not as a Covenant of Works:
If 1. he mean by the Morall Law all Commandements both of naturall and poſitive right; I deny the Morall Law ſo taken to be in the whole, and in every part now in force.
If 2. he mean by it the Decalogue, or Law of the tenne Commandements, as it was given upon Mount Sinai in time, ſo himſelf knoweth it to bee the judgement of many Divines, that it bound the Nation of Iſrael alone, was not at all given to the Gentiles, doth not at all bind us that are not of the Na…ion of Iſrael; othe…wiſe then it clears up to us the Law of Nature written in our hearts, which d…th bind us; or as the duties thereof are required of us in the New Teſtament, by the Lord Chriſt, whom we acknowledge to be our King. See Zanchius, Tom. 4. lib. 1. cap. 11. Theſ. 1. Where he fully handles, and confirms this aſſertion; adding moreover, Sic etiam inſignes Theologi omnes ſentiunt. i. e. All Divines of note a…e of this judgement. Withall, that there are ſome things contained in ſome of the ten Commandements, not pertaining to the jus naturae, ſave in their genus, and that ſomewhat remote, I know Mr. Baxter will not deny; and if I thought any elſe would queſtion it, it were eaſie to be demonſtrated. But if he mean by the Morall Law, the Law of Nature, as aforeſaid, as it is written in the heart; yea as it is further illuſtrated▪ either by the book of the Creatures, or by the Decalogue, as it is epitomized in Tables of ſtone, and explained and amplified in both Teſtaments; ſo I grant the Moral Law to be ſtill in force; viz. as a directive of Moral obedience ſtill.
What Mr. Baxter addeth, [viz. to what ends, and in what ſenſe the Goſpel continueth that law, and commandeth perfect obedience thereto, is a queſtion not very eaſie] is to me a ſtrange ſpeech, in many reſpects. For 1. I cannot ſee how the queſtion can be difficult to him that will not Nodum in ſcirpo quaerere, make the plaine wayes of God rugged, by filling them up with bryars and thorns. To the ſame moſt honourable ends, and in the ſame ſenſe is it continued, for, and in which it was firſt given; I mean to the ſame ends in general, though not in every far remote particular. Firſt to make his glory elucent in this Microcoſm, this choice peece of his Workmanſhip: Man is the glory of God, ſaith the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 11. 7. How? but as he bears the image of God, not onelyonly in rule and dominion, but alſo in wiſdome, holyneſs, and righteouſneſs, to manage that authority, and rule wherewith the grace of God hath inveſted him. And this glory of God upon man is by ſo much the more conſpicuous, by how much the more perfectly he reſembles God in wiſdom, righteouſneſs, and holyneſs.
Beſides it was both given and continued, to direct and enable man in ſome meaſure to render to God his Pepper-corn (as Mr. Baxter terms it) in teſtification of his homage, and thankfulneſſe, both for the favours received, and for the favours promiſed: without the guidance of the Morall Law written without us, yea within us alſo, we ſhould, though our affections were never ſo ſweetly ſanctifyed, for lack of ſound illumination, preſent God with wild grapes in ſtead of grapes, with an abomination inſtead of due obedience and devotion. And are not theſe ends as requiſite in the ſtate of mans Renovation, as they were in the ſtate of his innocency?
Yea further, unpoſſible was it, that Chriſt ſhould not continue the Morall Law, no leſſe unpoſſible then it is for God to be unrighteous, or not God: He came to fulfill all righteouſneſſe, not to deſtroy any one branch of naturall and eſſential righteouſneſs. The Morall Law is the image of God, in which we may read the nature of God: The rule and platform is in God himſelfe originally, this is but an extract from it, and abſtract of it. Chriſt came to reſtore it, not to quench it, to ſet it up in man to perfection, not to deface it by any diminution: For ſo ſhould he have abaſed the glory of his Father, ſhining in his living image.
And laſtly, not to have commanded perfect, but a maimed obedience thereto, had been againſt the rule of righteouſneſs, which bids us to render to every one his due, his whole due; To God the things that pertain to God; yea the whole that pertains to him. All is but a Pepper-corn to a whole kingdome of Grace held, and of glory expected from him; and ſhould not Chriſt require the payment of a Pepper-corn whole and entire, without diminiſhing, or dividing it?
But the truth is, that the queſtion is difficult to bee anſwered, without cruſhing Mr. Baxters Goſpel Juſtification by Works, not in reference to Chriſts Goſpel Juſtification by free Grace; with it the Commandement of perfect obedience to the Morall Law ſweetly cohereth. The command of perfect obedience to the Morall Law, as a condition of Juſtification, leaves all men hopeleſſe of Juſtification, ſure to condemnation for ever. Becauſe none can perform the condition in this life. But when we are juſtified freely by the blood of Chriſt; and then by way of anſwering the grace of our Juſtifier with our reall thankfulneſs, we are bidden to render our obedience more and more perfectly, not ſlacking our endeavours, untill we come to full perfection: Though we attain it not in this preſent life, yet our not attainment doth but encreaſe our ſelf-abaſement, and make us feele that Chriſt is our all, and we are nothing; but doth in no wiſe deſtroy our Juſtification, or leſſen the joy of the Holy Ghoſt, and peace of conſcience, which are bottomed only, and wholly upon Chriſt, and not upon our ſelves at all.
Now let us ſee how he will make the queſtion difficult to us, as it muſt be to him.
Firſt, ſaith he, it is a queſtion, Whether Chriſt did firſt repeale that Law, and then re-eſtabliſh it to other ends? So ſome think.
A meer windy queſtion of ſuch as delight to play with God in contempt, as the Froggs with Jupiters Log. Where are thoſe ſome thinkers? No leſſe rationally might they feign that the Lord Jeſus pluckt down his Father Joſephs houſe, & re-edified it to this other end, that men might goe in and out no more at the doors, but at the windows.
Mr. Baxter waſheth his hands clean from having a finger in this pye. Nay, ſaith he, I have proved already, that it is not repealed at all, even concerning the Covenant of Works it ſelf. i. e. That Chriſt is ſo farre from taking from us the perfect rule of righteouſneſſe, that he (however hee be called a Saviour) yet hath left all men, without ſaving any, to be damned for their unrighteouſneſs. But what he hath proved before, I ſuppoſe, we have diſapproved, and that ſufficiently, before.
Yet, ſaith he, that Chriſt uſeth it (i. e. the Morall Law, without the ſeparable adjunct of the Covenant of Works thereunto annexed) to other ends I grant. He grants that which none demands of him. But what title he hath to make ſuch a grant, he ſhews not. And I think it will coſt him ſo much labour as will make him ſweat under the ſaddle, before he be able to ſhew to what other ſubſtantial, and not meerly circumſtantiall ends it now ſerveth, beſides thoſe to which it ſerved at the firſt creation thereof in mans innocency, at leaſt after his principles, that holdeth the workes thereof now under the Goſpel to tend to Juſtification.
But from this he paſſeth to a ſecond queſtion which he makes hence to ariſe.
B. Queſt. 2. Or whether he hath at all made the Morall Law to be the preceptive part of the New Covenant, and ſo whether the New Covenant doth at all command us perfect obedience? or only ſincere?
To this he anſwereth.
B. 1. That the Morall Law, as it is the preceptive part of the Covenant of Works, is but delivered over into the hands of Chriſt, and ſo continued in the ſenſe before expreſſed, ſeemes plain to me.
2. That the Morall Law doth therefore ſo continue, to command even beleivers, and that the perfect obeying of it is therefore their duty, and their not obeying, their ſinne, deſerving the death threatened in that Covenant.
3. That Jeſus Chriſt hath further m…de uſe of the ſame moral Law, for a direction to his ſubjects, whereby they may know his will. That whereas our ſincere ſubjection, and obedience to Chriſt is part of the condition of the New Covenant; that we may know what his will is, which we muſt endeavour to obey, & what rule our actions muſt be ſincerely fitted to & guided by; he hath therefore left us this moral Law as part of this direction, having added a more particular enumeration of ſome duties in his Goſpel: That as when the Old Covenant ſaid, thou ſhalt perfectly obey: the moral Law did partly tell them wherein they ſhould obey: So when the New Covenant ſaith, thou ſhalt obey ſincerely, the moral Law doth perfectly tell us wherein, or what we muſt endeavour to doe.
Before he pretended a purpoſe to ſpeak of the Moral Law in it ſelfe, and as conſidered without the Covenants; but finding quickly that his Babel will not tower up out of ſimples, he is forced either to let all fall, or elſe himſelfe muſt returne to his compoundings and confoundings again, now mixing the moral law with the olde, and by and by with the New Covenant, as a part ſometimes of the one, and ſometimes of the other; as if it were a Noun Adjective which cannot ſtand by it ſelfe. When contrariwiſe the moral Law is the rule of righteouſneſſe, complete in it ſelfe, the very image of Gods Nature, and Will, to which every reaſonable creature is bound to conform, that it may be like to God himſelfe, and ſo illuſtrate either to other the ſplendor of Gods glory inviſible in himſelfe, but ſhining forth in their perſons and performances. But the Covenants are ſeparable Adjuncts of the moral law, when annexed to the moral law, being free and voluntary Acts and Statutes of God, which hee might pro imperio, by the Soveraign authority which hee hath over his creatures, either have, or not have added to the moral law, at his pleaſure: The Old Covenant making out to men the way of Salvation in ſtrict, yet equal and uncorrupt Juſtice: The New Covenant, his way of ſaving ſinners, and juſtifying the ungodly, by free grace, when in juſtice they were loſt and unrecoverable. The one of theſe is by the perfect fulfilling of the moral law; the other without reference to the moral law at all, freely by the redemption which is by Jeſus Chriſt.
Here now, if both Covenants were ſilenced, and annihilated, yet the moral law would abide firm ſtill, it would as well without Covenant as by Covenant, ſpeak out mans duty and obligation, both unjuſtified and juſtified, in his ſtate either of integrity or infirmity, to be wiſe, holy and righteous, as God made him, and to act perfectly according to the perfect principles of acting firſt created in him; even without life and heaven before him to allure him, or death and hell behind him to enforce him. And ſo the moral law is no part of either Covenant eſſentially, that it cannot be ſeparated from it without its nullifying. Nay it was in God from all eternity, and ſhall be in him ſtill, when all Covenants conditionall ſhall have their expiration.
Yet let us follow Maſter Baxter, to ſee what buſineſſe hee will make in the dark, having thus obſcured the clear light of this doctrine by his mixtures and confoundings. Hee gives many anſwers to this 2 queſtion.
1. That the moral law, as it is the preceptive part of the Covenant of workes, is but delivered over into the hands of Chriſt, and ſo continued in the ſenſe before expreſſed, ſeems plain to me. How clear are this mans eyes? I can ſee no plainneſs in the anſwer, or any part thereof. It is all intricate, and almoſt incomprehenſible to our dull underſtanding.
For 1. I ſee not how the moral Law is the preceptive part of the Covenant of works. It contains in it I confeſſe the precepts of all good, juſt and holy operations, as it is the rule of all theſe. But how it is the preceptive part of the Covenant, being a diſtinct thing from it, the Covenant being added to it, and not it to the Covenant, I ſee not.
2. How it is delivered over into the hands of Chriſt, and in what ſenſe, is hard for me to apprehend. Is it taken out of God in whom it was originally and eſſentially, & ſo put into Chriſts hands, that it is no more to be found in God? or is that unperfect remainder of it which abode ſtill in the Syntereſis, or minde and conſcience of lapſed man, taken thence and put into the hands of Chriſt, that it is no more to be found in man, but that after Satan had felled down the ſtemm and branches thereof, Chriſt at laſt hath forced thence the very root thereof alſo, that there may be no more ſprouting even of an unperfect righteouſneſſe in any man, ſaving by ſome light and mover from without him? Or is it ſo put into Chriſts hand to diſpoſe of its being and office, that if he ſay the word, that which was ſhall bee no more natural or moral righteouſneſſe, much leſſe the perfect rule thereof; or that which was mans duty, and his conformity with the nature of God, if Chriſt will, ſhall be ſo no more? All theſe are ſuch abſurdities as cannot poſſibly drop from Maſter Baxters learned pen. Or is it delivered into the hands of Chriſt to bee the diſpenſer and diſpoſer of it in relation to i…s end, whether the natural righteouſneſſe which it preſcribeth ſhall be effectual, and of neceſſary uſe to mans juſtification? This indeed were an intolerable abſurdity for one of us, that have our ſtations here below under Chriſt, to bee regulated by his doctrine, to utter: But for M…ſter Baxter that hath ſoared upward in his Aenigmatical and Metaphyſical learning unto the ſphere of Saturn, high above the Sunne of righteouſneſſe and his light, it is no abſurdity to deliver it. It is but the language of Rome, that the righteouſneſſe of the moral law muſt under the Goſpel ſtill juſtifie us, as when we were perfect in Adam, though then in him we could, but now we cannot perform it. And why ſo? not becauſe Chriſt hath declared by his word that he will ſo have it, but becauſe the holy Mother Church, that hath the power to make the word of Chriſt to dance into all formes and ſenſes after her interpretations, hath ſo decreed. If this be Mr. Baxters meaning, & that it appears to him to be a plain truth, why doth he not make it plain to us that we may ſee it with him, but onelyonly ſaith it, as a cathedral doctor without adding illuſtration or confirmation to it?
3. What he meaneth by that which he next ſaith, viz. and [it is] ſo continued in the ſenſe before expreſſed, is not plain to me, where this ſenſe is expreſſed, whethe… in the former part of this anſwer, & then it muſt be continued by Chriſt, to be the preceptive part of the Covenant of works ſtill: or in the queſtion, and ſo it is continued by Chriſt to be the preceptive pa…t of the New Covenant; or in ſome one or more paſſages of the foregoing part of this his treatiſe, & ſo we ſhall be ſtill uncertain of the ſenſe, becauſe we c…nnot tell, and he doth not tell us where it is expreſſed. And for us to ſeek after a man in his ſenſe, who wilfully hides himſelfe and his ſenſe in the darke that wee may not finde them, were but a ſenſeleſs peece o… w…rke, eſpecially when wee know it will nothing better our ſenſes in caſe we ſhould bee ſo luckie as to finde his. I ſhould gheſs that hee means the ſenſe expreſſed in the former part of this anſwer, and ſo it will be examined in that which hee addeth in his ſecond Anſwer, viz.
2. That the moral Law doth therefore ſo continue &c. as before. What elſe ſhould he mean in ſaying it doth continue, but that as he had ſaid in the former clauſe of the firſt anſwer, viz. to be the preceptive part of the Covenant of workes? or why doth he ſay, it doth therefore ſo continue, but that his therefore bids us to fetch the cauſe from the ſame anſwer, becauſe Chriſt, into whoſe hands it is delivered, hath ſo continued it. And if ſo, to what purpoſe is all this reaſoning? Tends it to affirm that it was poſſible for Chriſt conſidered either as God, or as our mediator, to reſcind and deſtroy the eternal and immutable Law of naturall and eternall righteouſneſſe? or that it would have falne to the ground with its own weight, if it had not been delivered into Chriſts hand to ſuſtaine it? Or that it would not bee in it ſelf the rule of Righteouſneſſe for ever, except Chriſt had aſſumed our nature, in it to give it a ſecond birth and ſtabliſhment? Or that the Morall Law had loſt its power and righteouſneſſe when we had loſt ours, and ſo it needed no leſſe then we, a reparation? Nay whether man had ſinn…d, or not ſinned, been redeemed, or not redeemed, the Morall Law was, and is ſtil the ſame. What the Pſalmiſt ſaith of God, Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and world were formed, from everlaſting to everlaſting, thou art God; Pſal. 90. 2: So may I ſay of the moral Law, whereſoever it is, and as farre as it is truly held forth and fully too, whether by Chriſt or by Moſes, by the Old or by the New Teſtament, by the creature, by the conſcience, by the Philoſophers Ethicks, or by any other way or means whatſoever; before the mountains and world were formed, from everlaſting, to everlaſting it hath been and is the perfect rule of Moral righteouſneſs ſtil. Neither ſhall it ceaſe ſo to be when world and mountains are diſſolved: but then we ſhal ſee perfectly in the face of God himſelfe what we now ſee in his either more or leſſe perfect images, & be perfectly configured thereunto. In the mean time evenbeleivers have this as one of their great priviledges, to be free f…om ſin, and ſervant, of Righteouſneſſe: Ro. 6. 18. and ſo the Law of Righteouſneſſe continueth to command both beleevers and unbeleevers, and the perfect obeying thereof is the duty of both, and the not obeying their ſinne, deſerving the death threatened in the Old Covenant: But ſo that beleevers having fully done their Law in Chriſt, and being freed from the Old Covenant, though ſtill in a ſweet conjunction with the Moral Law, Rom. 7. 22. have no more their hated irregularities imputed to them, but fully forgiven for Chriſts ſake. Thus the Word of God, and Doctrine of Chriſt runne ſmoothly, and clearly, why doth Mr. Baxter not finde, but make whirlpooles, and ſtoppages therein, to offend, and drown poor ſoules, that cannot yet ſwim in the deep? Good ends have ſtreight wayes leading to them. Mr. Baxters crooked windings, argue him not to have a ſtreight and upright meaning. His unuſefull therefore, and therefore, put out of joynt that which God hath ſo compacted, as that it ought not to bee diſ-joynted. And if wee would know what hee aimes at in his circumlocutions to circumvent the ſimple in theſe his two firſt anſwers, let us but follow him to the next, and we ſhall in part finde it.
B. 3. That Jeſus Chriſt hath further made uſe of the ſame moral Law, for a direction to his ſubjects, &c. ut ſuprà.
What he ſaith in this his third anſwer to the ſecond queſtion, of the uſefulneſſe of the moral Law for direction to Beleivers, is granted. And this is one great prerogative which Beleivers have, that the moral Law, which in relation to unbeleivers hath the curſe of the Old Covenant, as a ſcourge and ſword annexed to it to take vengeance of them for their tranſgreſſions, is to them that are in Chriſt a peaceable, ſweet and unarmed counſeller. But in the opening hereof Maſter Baxter ſhews himſelfe to bee himſelf, in foiſting in two of his unauthentick paradoxes or falſities (call them which ye will) & the ſame ſo finely with ſlight of hand interwoven in his diſcourſe, that his craft might not be eaſily eſpyed; but being eſpyed, every one that knoweth Maſter Baxter, may know them to be from his Artifice ſo inſerted. viz. 1. That obedience to Chriſt, in the performance of all the duties which the moral Law preſcribeth, is part of the condition of the New Covenant. 2. That the Goſpel, or New Covenant doth not require of men perfect, but ſincere obedience onelyonly. Both of theſe his ſubtilty layes down not as poſitions here firſt aſſe…ted, and conſequently here to be proved: But as aſſertions before proved and granted, upon which he is now ready to build his other geere and t…aſh which he hath in readineſs to j…yne to theſe as a ſuperſtructure. Whereas our ſincere ſubjection, and obedience to Chriſt (ſaith he) is part of the condition of the New Covenant: And where again, When the New Covenant ſaith, Thou ſhalt obey ſincerely, putting there this voice of the New Covenant in oppoſition to the voice of the Old Covenant, which (as he tells us) ſaith, Thou ſhalt obey perfectly. Here is a pretty ſlight to broach errors, a creeping into men to perſwade them in deſpight of their teeth that he and they are of one mind: That he proved, and they granted it yeſternight when they were all faſt a ſleep, and none of them ſpake or heard any thing. Which ſhall we think this man to have more ſtudied, Machiavil, or M…ldonate? If Bellarmine were alive, hee would even ſhake off his red Cap with laughter, to ſee a ſon of his ſo much more witty, and crafty then his Father.
But to the matter it ſelf.
Firſt concerning obedience to the Morall Law, that it is part of the condition of the New Covenant.
1. I demand where it was before proved, yea where in direct words aſſerted, that it is here taken up as a point granted? Hee gave cauſe enough indeed to bee ſuſpected of it throughout the foregoing part of this Tractate, but not evidence enough to be impleaded for it. This is Magiſterially to command Faith, as one that ſpeaketh by the authority of an infallible ſpirit, and not Miniſterially to teach, as one that ſubjecteth himſelf and his Doctrine to the tryal of Gods Word.
2. I demand whether he means not by the condition of the New Covenant, the condition upon which, and for which God will juſtifie the performer? Yea that condition which he had before termed a righteouſneſſe perfect, and meritorious in its own worthyneſs to Juſtification? If this be not his meaning, then Maſter Baxter eats up again to day what he ſpit out yeſterday. But this can in no wiſe befall the animoſity of his ſpirit. If it be his meaning, then doth he pronounce even our legal righteouſnes, which conſiſts in the fulfilling of the Morall duties of the Moral Law, as well as our Evangelicall righteouſneſſe (as he termes the perſonall righteouſneſſe which is conformed to the rule of the Goſpel) to bee meritorious to Juſtification. And not any one of the Popes themſelves have ſpoken higher language then this, to deifie man in his own righteouſneſſe.
3. I would be informed, if the performance of the duties of the Morall Law, in obedience to Chriſt doth juſtifie, why the ſame performance in obedience to God, doth not juſtifie alſo? Is not obedience due as well to the Father, as to the Son? or is not Juſtification as much from the Father as from the Sonne? The ſame honour is due to both, and the ſame work of grace effected by both. Neither can I ſee any more worth in Morall Righteouſneſſe Morally performed (for I finde not Mr. Baxter as yet ſpeaking further of it) in obedience to the Son, then in the ſame done to the Father by way of obedience to him. But of this point we ſhall have a more proper place and occaſion to ſpeak more fully afterward.
2. Concerning the ſecond, that the Goſpel doth require but ſincere, not perfect obedience, I might alſo enquire,
1. Why Mr. Baxter doth here take it up pro conceſſo, for granted? He had indeed put it in the queſtion to which he is anſwering, but had ſaid nothing for the ſolution of it, except peradventure by the art of Ventriloquie, he ſpake ſomething under the Table, that he might not bee heard, when hee ſaid in his firſt anſwer to it, That the Morall Law is continued by Chriſt in the ſenſe before expreſſed, meaning by thoſe words, the expreſſions uſed in the ſaid queſtion, that under the New Covenant the Morall Law commandeth not perfect obedience, but onelyonly ſincere, or at leaſt the Goſpel having the Morall Law for its preceptive part doth ſo. If I knew that to be his meaning, I have ſomewhat to ſay to it. In mean while, be it, or be it not his meaning, is every thing that Mr. Baxter hath once imagined in his brain, or ſpoken under a buſhel, by and by to be taken up for a granted principle in Religion, upon which he may make a ſuperſtructure of what he pleaſeth?
2. Why doth he not alledge thoſe Teſtimonies of the New Teſtament which aſſert onelyonly a ſincere, and not a perfect obedience? Why doth hee ſuffer us poor ſoules to continue in darkneſſe for lack of his light communicated to us? Is it in the outſide, or the inſide of his Teſtament that this myſtical doctrine is contained? I acknowledge the promiſes of Gods free grace are made …ut in the riches thereof to them that are in Chriſt, that God for Chriſts ſake will accept their ſincere volitions, and performances, according to the ability which they have, and not reject them for want of the ability which they have not. That not onelyonly the infirmities of their obedience, but their very ſins, and diſobedience is blotted out, and ſhall be no more imputed to them, &c. But this in no wiſe denyeth perfect obedience to be their duty ſtill. Yea much more their duty under the Goſpel, then under the Law, becauſe there is a greater obligation of greater, and more benefits upon them under th… Goſpel then under the Law, binding them to yeeld back perfect love and obedience to their Benefactor.
3. What ſhall we think of thoſe Texts in the New Teſtament, which require of us to be perfect, 2 Cor. 13. 11. Jam. 1. 4. Yea perfect as God is perfect, Mat. 5. 48. reproving weakneſs and infirmity, and commanding a going on to perfection, Heb. 6. 1. as compared with the precedent Chapter in the latter part thereof? Yea if perfection were not the duty of a Chriſtian, and unperfectneſs and infirmity his ſin; why doth the Apoſtle ſo much groan and grieve under the remainder of his naturall infirmities, and preſſe on to perfection? Rom. 7. 14, to the 24. Phi. 3. 12-14. Or is ſuch unperfectneſs a ſinne onelyonly in reference to the rule of the Law, and not the rule of the Goſpel; for that the Law doth, but the Goſpel doth not call for perfection? This is both contrary to the Scriptures alleaged, and doth withall make the Goſpel to allow imperfections. And (to uſe Mr. Baxters own expreſſions, which calleth the Goſpel a Law) what the Law forbids not, we take the ſame to be approved by that Law. If any ſhould ſay that the Goſpel doth not require perfect, but ſincere obedience, ad aliquid, in relation to this, or that particular end; it might in ſome caſe be a truth. But Mr. Baxter layes it down poſitively in it ſelf, that the Goſpel requires not perfection. And this can in no wiſe be defended.
4. Is not this Doctrine a ſluce to let into the hearts of men a whole flood of carnal ſecurity, idleneſs, improficiency, contempt, or neglect of all the means of growth in grace, each man ſetling himſelf upon his lees, with this Apology, that they are already ſquared to the minde and rule of the Goſpel, are ſincere, have the truth and true being of Faith, knowledge, and ob…dience: This is all which the Goſpel requireth, they are even with the rule, why ſhould they ſtretch themſelves further to be beyond it? This is a brand which Mr. Baxter inureth upon our, or rather Chriſts doctrine of Juſtification by Faith alone. Is not himſelfe guilty?
5. I would be informed what he meanes by ſincere obedience. It is very requiſite that hee which vends new Doctrines in new terms, ſhould be exquiſite in expreſſing, and explaining his terms and words. Sincerus, ſay the Etymologiſts, eſt quaſi dicas ſine cera, as honey pure without the mixture of any wax in it. That which is moſt pure and ſimple, without any mixtures, or taintures. And Sincerity is uſually put in oppoſition, 1 to hypocriſie, or 2. to corruption, or ſinful pollution. As ſincerity of obedience is put in oppoſition to that obedience which is done in hypocriſie, or with ſiniſter, and ſelf ends; ſo ou… Saviour denyes the ſincerity of the Scribes and Phariſees, and chargeth them frequently in the Goſpel with hypocriſie, for their ſtrict walkings, devotions, almſdeeds, &c. that they might bee juſtified by ſuch perſonall righteouſneſs of their own. This hee calls hypocriſie, and denyes to be ſincere obedience, becauſe it aimed not ſimply to the glory of God, but to their own ends, their own juſtification. But this I take to be Mr. Baxters main end of obedience, to do it that we may bee juſtified by it. And then according to the doctrine of the Lord Chriſt, it is not ſincere, but hypocriticall obedience. Or if we take hypocriſie to conſiſt in profeſſing, and practiſing holyneſs and obedience outwardly, but to baſer, and worldly ends, lurking ſecretly in the heart, viz. profit, honour, applauſe, and praiſe of men, &c. which is there of the aliens from the Covenant of Grace, that cannot pleade a ſincerity this way. I have lived in all good conſcience before God unto this day, ſaith Paul of himſelf, in reference to the time wherein he was yet a Saul, inſinuating the Morall ſincerity of his heart in oppoſition to hypocriſie and baſe ends in his obedience while hee was yet out of Chriſt, that even then he ſerved, and obeyed of good conſcience, and according to the meaſure of the light of Gods Word ſhining, as farre as it ſhined in his conſcience, Act. 23. 1. Yea hee did in ſincerity according to the dictate of his conſcience, whatſoever hee did againſt Chriſt: I thought verily, ſaith he, that I ought to doe many things againſt the Name of Jeſus, &c. which things alſo I did, Act. 26. 9, 10. It is …hat whereof the Apoſtle gives his teſtimony to the greateſt bulk of his kinred and Nation that rejected Chriſt. They have a zeale of God, ſaith he, &c. Rom. 10. 2. of God, therefore ſincere in oppoſition to baſe ends in all the ſervices which they performed; and a zeal; this importeth an high degree of their obedience, and ſincerity of obeying. Who is there of the carnal, and ignorant multitude, but can profeſſe the like ſincerity in their publick worſhip, and private performances, without propoſing to themſelves any baſe and ſiniſter ends therein? And doth the Goſpel preſcribe onelyonly ſuch a ſincere obedience, which is attained without any Goſpel, or Goſpellizing of the heart? Or if we take ſincerity in oppoſition to all mixture of the fleſh and corruption, in our obedience; in this caſe the ſincerity muſt be either perfect or unperfect: If perfect, then the Goſpel requireth the moſt perfect obedience, contrary to the aſſertion of Mr. Baxter. For what can be more perfect then that which is pure, and free from all contamination of the fleſh, wholly ſpirituall? But where is the man to bee found that can practically perform the duty? That Apoſtle which had laboured more abundantly then they all, profeſſed himſelf not to have compaſſed it, but that in the pureſt and livelieſt operations of the Spirit in him unto good, there was a counter-working of the fleſh in him, hindering the good which he willed, and turning it into the evill which he hated, &c. Rom. 7. 21-23. And the ſame he profeſſeth alſo to be the caſe of all other the Saints of God, Gal. 5. 17. So that a perfect ſincerity he cannot mean, both becauſe he denyeth that the Goſpel injoyneth perfect obedience, and perfection of ſincerity in this kinde is the higheſt pitch of the perfection that is in the moſt perfect obedience: And withall becauſe he tels us in the next anſwer, pag. 158. He knows not to what end Chriſt ſhould command us that obdience, which he doth never enable any man in this life to perform. And this hee hath layd downe for a maxime, That whatſoever Chriſt hath commanded, or teſtified, if Mr. Baxter cannot find out, and fathom a good reaſon for it, and of it, meddle with it who liſteth, he will have nothing to doe with it. Or if he mean an unperfect ſincerity, that, according to Mr. Baxter, is none at all. For if the righteouſneſſe of our perſons and actions bee, much more the ſincerity of our righteouſneſſe and obedience muſt be, not a being, but a modification of a being, which doth not admit of magis and minus, but muſt be perfect, or none at all. Yea what an abſurdity is it to affirm, that he, whoſe office it is to perfect his Elect, Heb. 10. 14. that doth not only begin, but finiſh his good work in them, hath commanded that which is unperfect? Hee may be truly ſaid to wink at our unperfectneſs, to forgive our imperfections; but to ſay he commands that which is unperfect, is to deny the perfection of his commands, and ſo to lay imperfection to his charge, as well as to our own. Beſides he may according to his cuſtom, if he be put to tell us what ſincerity he means, fall to diſtinguiſh it, into a Phyſical, or Metaphyſicall ſincerity, into a Morall, and an Evangelical ſincerity, ſo that although wee find many of his Meaſhes, yet ſhall we never find his Fourm: So full of doubles, and falſe leaps are they that deale not ſincerely in handling the doctrine of Chriſt, ſwaying and waving it hither and thither, to make it not ſubſervient to the advancing of Chriſts kingdom, but of their own inventions. Let Mr. Baxter labour rather practically, and feelingly to know the power of Chriſtian, and ſpiritual ſincerity within his heart, then to make uſe of the Word to make intricate the plain doctrine of Scriptures, and henceforth we ſhall finde that which we have hitherto unſucceſſefully ſought after, ſincere dealing in his diſputes. It is not all this while denyed, that the Goſpel requires ſincere obedience, but affirmed, that it calls for both ſincere, and perfect obedience.
I much doubt I ſhould ſlander Mr. Baxter, if I ſhould ſay that hee means by ſincere obedience, ſincerely Evangelical obedience. For hee will not bee known to know what that is. It is beſides the Orb of Philoſophers, Scholaſticks, and Sophiſters, in which he moveth. But if beyond our beleef he meane ſo, then I ſhall conſent, and ſpeak with him, When the New Covenant ſaith, Thou ſhalt obey ſincerely, i. e. purely, according to the Goſpel rule, which teacheth us to fetch all our guidance, in every work of obedience to make it Evangelical, from the Word of Chriſt; all our ſtrength to doe it from the Spirit of Chriſt, all our acceptance from our union to Chriſt, preſenting all, and our ſelves withall to God, through the mediation of Chriſt, doing all not to attain Juſtification by all done, but to glorifie God with the fruits of our thankfulneſs, for the prizeleſſe gift of Juſtification conferred upon us in, and through Chriſt. When the New Covenant (I ſay) hath taught us to obey in a ſincerely Evangelicall manner; here now the Moral Law ſteps in, and tels us (as Mr. Baxter ſaith) wherein, and what we muſt endeavour to doe. i. e. What be thoſe duties of Moral holyneſs, and righteouſnes, which being in this Goſpel way performed, doe receive a higher title then Moral, and become Evangelical, Chriſtian, and ſpiritual obeying. If Mr. Baxter mean, or will mean thus, we will go hand in hand wi…h him, or (what ſhall be more proper) give him his due precedency, and follow him.
The next anſwer (put in numb. 4.) whether it be alſo an anſwer to this ſecond Queſtion, or intended as an anſwer to the third Queſtion (which elſe paſſeth without anſwer) or elſe to both queſtions; runs in theſe words.
B. But that the Moral Law, without reſpect to either Covenant, ſhould command us perfect obedience; or that Chriſt as the Mediator of the New Covenant ſhould command us, not onelyonly ſincere, but alſo perfect obedience to the Morall Law, and ſo hath made it a proper part of his Goſpel, not onelyonly as a directory, and inſtruction, but alſo as a command: I am not yet convinced, (though I will not contend with any that think otherwiſe.) My reaſon is, becauſe I know not to what end Chriſt ſhould command us that obedience, which hee never doth enable any man in this life to performe. If it were to convince us of our diſability and ſinne: That is the worke of the Law; and the continuing of it upon the old terms, as is before explained, is ſufficient to that.
But I judge this queſtion to be of greater difficulty than moment.
The multiplication of nice and unneceſſary queſtions hath been one ſpecial means to bring a darkneſs upon the doctrine of the Word in thoſe parts thereof, that in themſelves are clear and full of light. It ſufficeth me to know, what hath been a little before proved, that the Moral Law, both with reſpect, and as conſidered in it ſelf, without reſpect to either Covenant, hath been ever, is, and ſhall be ever the perfect rule and directory of Moral obedience; And that Chriſt, as the Mediator of the New Covenant, hath not diſſolved, or made voyd any part of the Morall Law, or of the Righteouſneſs and duty which the Moral Law requireth, in reference to either the ſincerity or perfection in performing the ſame; but contrariwiſe hath avouched the contrary, and denounced, that whoſoever ſhall break one of the leaſt of theſe commandements, and teach men ſo; i. e. as I conceive, ſhall take liberty by the abuſe, and miſunderſtanding of the New Covenant to neglect, or be remiſs in any part or degree of that righteouſneſs which the Law requireth, and teach others the ſame remiſneſſe alſo, The ſame ſhall be leaſt in the kingdom of heaven. i. e. A uſeleſs and unprofitable Teacher in the Goſpel Church. This ſufficeth me to know, and this the Scripture plainly affirmeth and fully confirmeth. Mat. 5. 17. 19.
But whether the Moral Law to them that are under the New Covenant, and truly in Chriſt, be onelyonly a rule and directory, or elſe a commander alſo? Or whether Chriſt hath made the Moral Law a proper part of his Goſpel, theſe are things Heterogeneous from the former, and firſt deviſed by thoſe diſtinctionary Sophiſters that to ſtrengthen their doctrine of merits and workes of ſuperogation, have diſtinguiſhed between the precepts and counſels of Chriſt. Sure I am, that the Goſpel in its ſtrict and proper ſenſe, conſiſts not at all in bringing precepts, but life, grace, righteouſneſs, peace, joy, holineſs, liberty, and ſalvation from heaven, and whatſoever elſe tendeth to the perfect and never ending welbeing of poor ſouls, together with an alſufficient light and direction how to attain all theſe, and manage them being attained, to the advancing of the glory of the grace of the giver. This is properly the ſumme of the Goſpel, and the precepts intermixed with the doctrine hereof, no otherwiſe proper to the Goſpel, than as they are furtherances to the attainment of them, and lights and helps to direct us how to ſtand fixed in the enjoyment of them, and walk holily, honourably and worthily in the ſtrength and comfort of them. Yet it cannot bee denyed but that ſtill the Law Moral is a perfect rule of all perfect Moral righteouſneſſe; and that Chriſt hath expunged no part of it, but commands all, yea writes the righteouſneſſe of all in the hearts of beleevers, that they might will all, and delight to doe all, not onelyonly after the Moral, but after the Evangelical rule, through Chriſt, for whoſe ſake their unperfect ſervices are accepted with God as though they were full and compleat. This hath been cleared before in our examination of Maſter Baxters ſecond Anſwer to the ſeeond Queſtion, and expreſs Scriptures alleadged for confirmation thereof. Neither can wee think that the many infinite benefits freely conferred in the way of the Goſpel upon us, do exempt us from, but are obligations upon us unto the fulfilling of all righteouſneſs: or that it is our bondage, but our liberty to be free from ſinne, and the ſervants of righteouſneſſe. The nature of the commands being now altered under the Covenant of Grace, from what they were under the Covenant of workes. Then they proceeded from meer ſoveraignty and power, now from tender Grace and Love. Then had they a ſting in the tayle, the curſe and hell to inflict, in caſe there were not full performance. This ſting and curſe is now carried away in the body of Chriſt, no threat of it to them that are in Chriſt, but the thing commanded for the compleating of our perfection, which conſiſts in our conformity with the will and nature of God, with this dammage annexed, that the leſſe perfectly we perform, the father off we are yet from our deſired perfection. There the Lord commanded his ſervants, here the father his dear Children. There man was commanded to work in his own ſtrength, here the treaſury of Chriſt is opened, and the power of his Spirit offered, and we commanded to receive our fill, and in the ſtrength of what we receive, to mount higher and higher untill we come to full perfection.
The reaſon that Maſter Baxter bringeth, why he cannot bee yet convinced that Chriſt commands perfect obedience to the Moral Law, were from another reaſonleſs, but from Maſter Baxter it is but a diſcovery of himſelfe to be himſelfe, i. e. an admirer (I had almoſt ſaid adorer) of his own wiſdome. Becauſe (ſaith he) I know not to what end Chriſt ſhould command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to performe. What more lofty arrogance? he muſt be admitted into Chriſts privie Councell, and have communicated to him what ends Chriſt hath in giving his commands, elſe will he caſt be hinde him his precepts as void and vain. He ſhould have left to Socinus and his followers thus to have argued, who make humane reaſon the rule and bound of their Religion. Had he ſaid, he is not yet convinced, becauſe he yet meets not with any punctual teſtimony of Scripture that expreſsly affirms it, this would have at the worſt but implyed ſome inadvertency in his reading the Scriptures. But not to deny that the Scripture ſaith it, and yet not to be convinced, becauſe he ſeeth not to what ends Chriſt ſhould doe what the Scripture ſaith he hath done; this is no leſſe than the advancing the authority of his reaſon above the authority of Gods Word: and an attributing of power to his own blindneſſe, of ſilencing and fruſtrating the authority and truth of the Scriptures.
But who is more blinde than he that will not ſee? Or what hinders Maſter Baxter from ſeeing what ends Chriſt had in commanding that perfection which we cannot attain in this life fully to performe? Is it not becauſe he terminateth and boundeth Chriſts ends in all that he did, ſuffered or commanded, to man, as both the circumference and center of all, and had no aim to his own glory, and the glory of his father that ſent him, therein? How many honourable ends of Chriſt in this caſe may there bee gathered from the Scriptures.
1. That God might be herein glorified. Herein is my father gloryfied, that ye bear much fruit. Jo. 15. 8. The more fruit wee bear, and the more perfect, the more is God glorified in us. Therefore is the perfection of our fruit-bearing commanded, that God may be ſtill more and more glorified by our greater & greater fruitfulneſſe; every one being forced to magnify the wonderfull operation of Gods grace in Chriſt, that hath enabled that which was erewhile a dead ſtock, to bring forth againſt nature ſo much and ſo good fruit. Even as an …xpert penman, or Maſter in writing, to get honour by the proficiency of his Schollers, doth not bring down, and leſſen the perfection of his letters which he writes for their coppy, to their feebleneſſe and unableneſſe in writing, (ſo ſhould they continue unskilfull and unable ſtill) but ſets before them a perfect coppy, commanding and teaching them to follow it, and by degrees even to match it; and by this means the more perfectly they write, the more honour comes to the Maſter.
2. To hold us in a conſtant intercourſe and communion with himſelfe by faith. Were we perfect, or had we attained all that is required of us, we ſhould be wholly apt to ſettle our ſelves upon our own bottoms, and worke either not at all, or elſe in our ſtrength. But when we ſee our ſelves deficient in what we ought to be, and nothing in our ſelves, or any where elſe, out of Chriſt to ſupply us, that without, or out of him we can doe nothing, this keeps us in a diligent and conſtant union with him, to abide in him as the branches in the vine, to ſuck from him ſap and life more abundantly for the producing of more abundant growth and fruitfulneſſe in us: and thus the communion beeween Chriſt and …s is more and more pe…fected, and he more and more honoured, when we fetch all our vertue and ſtrength from him.
3. To keep us in continual ſelfe-denyal, and to daſh to nothing Maſter Baxters idol of Juſtification by our own inherent righteouſneſſe; which when we finde to come ſtill ſhort of the pe…fection injoyned, and ſinfull in its defectiveneſſe, we ſhall be forced to with-hold our confidence from it, and with the Apoſtle to ſhake it off (in reference to Juſtification) as dung and loſſe, that we may win Chriſt, and be found in him &c. So making Chriſt our All, and our ſelves nothing to our own happineſſe, Phi. 3. 8. 9.
4. To awaken us out of our carnal ſlumberings, and contentation in our poor beginings and ſlight pittances of knowledge and righteouſneſſe already attained, and to ſtirre us on with a holy agility towards perfection, in our motions. It was this that wrought thus with the Apoſtle Paul. Knowing perfection to be commanded, and ſeeing himſelfe yet in a ſtation ſo ſhort of it, it makes him to cry out, I have not yet attained, I am not yet perfect, [therefore] forgetting thoſe things that are behind, that are already done and attained, and reaching forth to the things that are before, not yet attained, I preſſe toward the marke, [of perfection.] Phil. 3. 12, 13, 14.
For theſe and many other ends (that might bee added) doth Chriſt command perfection, though not fully attainable in this life.
Maſter Baxter expreſſes himſelfe to be able to finde but one, and that but a ſeeming end or reaſon in this caſe, and that hee blowes off as inſufficient. If it were (ſaith he) to convince us of our diſability and ſinne, that is the worke of the Law; and the continuing of it upon the old termes, as is before explained, is ſufficient to that. Sundry failings are there in this paſſage of his, making it inſufficient to the end for which he uſeth it.
1. That it makes the Law, becauſe it convinceth of ſinne, to be the onelyonly means ordained of God to convince us of ſinne. When contrariwiſe the Lord Chriſt tells us, that the Spirit of Grace ſhall, under the Goſpel alſo, convince men of ſinne, Joh. 16. 8. and that with a more effectual conviction than ever the Law, as the Law, could work. It ſhall ſo convince men of ſinne, that it ſhall convince them of righteouſneſſe alſo, of damning ſinne in themſelves, and of ſaving righteouſneſſe laid up for them in Chriſt. This the Law could not do; Therefore is as a Covenant of workes (for ſo Maſter Baxter here takes the Law,) neither the onelyonly, nor the chiefe means ordained of God to convince of ſinne.
2. That it makes the Law, upon it old terms, to be ordained of God, in a ſpecial and proper manner to convince of ſinne. This indeed was the office of the Law, as given to Iſrael upon mount Sinai, upon other and new termes: But upon its old and firſt terms as it was given to Adam, this could not be the next and proper end of the Moral Law. For Adam received it while he was yet innocent and without ſinne, and in that ſtate of his, the Law could not convince him, was not appointed to convince him of ſinne, having not all ſinned.
3. That it makes the Law upon its old terms, i. e. (according to Maſter Baxter) as a Covenant of workes, ſufficient by it ſelfe to conviction, without any need of Goſpel convictions to bee uſed. When contrariwiſe all the convictions of the Law ſo conſidered can worke but deſperation and death in the convinced. They are the convictions of the Goſpel, and Spirit of Grace working by the Goſpel, that are effectual to converſion and life.
For concluſion he ſaith,
B. But I judge the queſtion to be of more difficulty than moment.
And I anſwer, that the difficulty of the queſtion is not from the Word of God, but from him and his fellowes, which fill with knots hard to be looſed, the leading thread which Chriſt hath given us all diſplayed. As for the Moment of the queſtion, let him crack at his pleaſure among fooles; yet the wiſe muſt needs ſee and acknowledge it ſuch, as if he loſe it, he loſeth one of his chiefe pillars (though it be but a paper pillar) to bear up mans perſonal righteouſneſſe to juſtification. For if it be proved that Chriſt requireth perfect obedience under the Goſpel, down falls all the perfection, meritoriouſneſſe and efficacy of mans righteteouſneſſe to Juſtification. And ſo he muſt begin all again, and fit himſelfe with better pillars next, if any where from Rome or Jury they are to be had, this proving rotten and unuſefull. That obedience which in relation to both Covenants, to Law and Goſpel too, is ſinfully unperfect, cannot bee of any power to Juſtifie.