Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 21
CHAP. XXI.
Arg. Mr. Baxters Reaſons and Diſpute examined, by which he endeavoureth to refute Juſtification as an Immanent Act in God, and from Eternity.
B. A great queſtion it is, whether Remiſſion and Juſtification be Immanent, or Tranſient Acts of God: The miſtake of this one point was that that led thoſe two moſt excellent, famous Divines, Doctor Twiſs, and Mr. Pemble to that errour, and pillar of Antinomianiſm, viz. Juſtification from Eternity. For ſaith Doctor Twiſs often (All acts immanent in God are from Eternity: But Juſtification and Remiſſion of ſins are Immanent acts. Therefore, &c.
By [Immanent in God] they muſt needs mean Negatively, not Poſitively: For Acts have not the reſpect of an Adjunct to its Subject, but of an Effect to its Cauſe.
Now whether all ſuch Immanent Acts are any more Eternall then Tranſient Acts, is much queſtioned: As for God to know that the world doth now exiſt, that ſuch a man is now juſt, or ſanctified, &c. Gods fore knowledge is not a knowing that ſuch a thing is which is not, but that ſuch a thing will be which is not. Yet doth this make no change in God, no more then the Sun is changed by the variety of creatures which it doth enlighten and warm, or the glaſs by the variety of faces which it repreſents, or the eye by the variety of colours which it beholdeth. (For whatſoever ſome ſay, I doe not think that every variation of the object maketh a reall cha…ge in the eye, or that the beholding of ten diſtinct colours at one view doth make ten diſtinct acts of the ſight, or alterations of it; much leſs doe the objects of Gods knowledge make ſuch alterations.) But grant that all Gods Immanent Acts are Eternall (which I think is quite beyond our underſtanding to know) yet moſt Divines will deny the minor, and▪ tell you that Remiſſion, and Juſtification are Tranſient Acts; which is true, but a truth which I never had the happineſs to ſee well cleared by any. For to prove it a Tranſient Act, they tell us no more, but that it doth tranſire in ſubjectum extraneum, by making a Morall change on our relatio, though not a reall upon our perſons, as Sanctification doth. But this is onelyonly to affirme, and not to p…ove, and that in generall onelyonly, not telling us what Act it is that maketh this change. Relations are not capable of being the patients, or ſubjects of any Act, ſeeing they be but meer Entia Rationis, and no reall beings. Neither are they the immediate product, or effect of any Act, but in order of Nature are conſequentiall to the direct effects. The proper effect of the Act, is to lay the foundation from whence the Relation doth ariſe▪ And the ſame Act which layeth the foundation doth cauſe the Relation, without the intervention of any other. Suppoſe but the ſubjectum, fundam entū & terminus; and the Relation will unavoydably follow by a meer reſultancy. The direct effect therefore of Gods actuall Juſtification muſt be a reall effect, though not upon the ſinner, yet upon ſomething elſe for him. And thence will his paſſive Juſtification follow. Now what Tranſient Act this is, And what its immediate real effect, who hath unfolded, I dare not be too confident in ſo dark a point. But it ſeemeth to me, that this juſtifying tranſient Act is the enacting, or promulgation of the New Covenant, wherein Justification is conferred upon every beleever. Here paſſing, and enacting this grant, is a tranſient Act.
2. So may the continuance of it (as I think.)
3. This Law, or grant, hath a Moral improper action, whereby it m…y be ſaid to pardon, or juſtifie, which properly is but virtuall juſtifying.
4. By this grant God doth,
1. Give us the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to be ours when we beleeve.
2. And diſableth the Law to oblige us to puniſhment, or to condemn us.
3. Which reall foundation being thus laid, our relations of [Iuſtified and pardoned in title of Law] do neceſſarily reſult.
A matchleſſe and egregious diſpute, able to tum all the immanent Acts of God into Tranſient, yea, if ſpell'd backward, to turne all his Tranſient Acts into immanent; of force enough to extort from Gods boſome all that wa… in him from eternity, that it ſhall abide in him, or with him no longer.
Here is Doctrine fitted to purpoſe for his ignorant babes▪ and tender lambs of Kederminſter, for whoſe ſake and uſe, this worke (if wee will believe the Author) was chiefly publiſhed: No leſſe proper for them, than the Scripture in the Latine tongue by his holy mother appointed, for the illumination of them that cannot read the Engliſh, or their Country language. What a ſupereminent meaſure of the Spirit hath this man received above Chriſt himſelfe, above Paul, the moſt learned of all Chriſts Apoſtles? Chriſt was annointed with the Spirit to preach the Goſpel to the poor. Luke 4. 18. Iſa. 61. 1. And had received from the Lord God the tongue of the learned, to ſpeak a word in ſeaſon to the weary. Iſa. 50. 4. This mans Spirit carries him aloft in the Aire, to clowd the Goſpel from the poor, and to darken with his vaporous Sophiſtry the things which God hath hidden from the wiſe and prudent, but revealed to babes: and uſeth the tongue of the learned to amaze and intangle, not to refreſh the weary. Paul deſcended from all excellency of ſpeech and of wiſedom, to the capacity, or rather incapacity of the weak Chriſtians in the Miniſtry of the Goſpel, 1 Cor. 2. 1, 2. and fed the babes with milk 1 Cor, 3. 1, 2. And even, then when he ſpake wiſedom to the perfect, becauſe perfect; it was not the wiſedome of the World, or of the Princes [for learning] of the World, but the Myſterious and hidden wiſedom of God; and this he ſpake alſo not in the words which mans wiſedome teacheth▪ [which the ſubtile S…phiſt…rs made u… of] but which the Holy Goſt teacheth, comparing ſpirirituall things with ſpirituall. 1. Cor 2. 6, 7. 13. This man, caſting away the words which the Holy Ghoſt teacheth, and uſeth in the holy Scriptures, ſends his poore lambes to feed, and ſeek ſpiritual paſture in the thorny Copſes of his Maſter Ariſtotle, and his Saint Suarez, Saint Vaſques, Saint Fonſeca's Metaphyſicks, and Metaphyſical Jeſuitical Divinity, or in Seraphical Scotus his Quodlibetary learning; all which underſtood juſt ſo much of the Spirit and myſtery of the Goſpel, in this greateſt point of Goſpel Doctrine [Juſtification] as the unlearned people of Kederminſter do of this and the like peeces of this tractate of Mr. Baxter.
As for the matter it ſelf, he that underſtands it not, ſhall be as much endoctrined by it, as he that underſtands it. For my own part, I profeſſe I ſee nothing in it of any more force to refute the opinion which he here oppoſeth [Eternal Juſtification, or Juſtification as an immanent Act in God] than there is in a Peacocks Feather to daſh out all the teeth of a Lion. For ſhould wee grant to him all that he here ſaith (the thing in queſtion onelyonly excepted) That immanent in God muſt be underſtood, not Poſitively but Negatively, for that Acts have not the reſpect of an Adjunct to its ſubject, but of an effect to its Cauſe; that Gods juſtifying a man when he believeth, argues no change in God, any more than is found in the Sunne, glaſſe, or eye, by the variety of creatures, faces, colours, ſet before them; as he mentioneth: what of all this? What will he conclude at length againſt that which he ſaith Doctor Twiſſe maketh the Major of his Argument, [vizt. That all immanent Acts in God are from Eternity.] will he deny it? Nay, but diſtruſting the weakneſſe of his reaſoning, he doth rather grant it. But grant (ſaith he) that all Gods immanent Acts are eternal, (which yet I think is quite beyond our underſtanding to know) This is the reſult of all his Argumentation, as to the Major; It is true, notwithſtanding any thing I have ſaid, or can ſay againſt it, onelyonly I think it is beyond our underſtanding to judge whither it be univerſally true or no.
As to the Minor of Doctor Twiſſe his Argument, (vizt. That Remiſſion and Iuſtification are Immanent Acts) he diſputes with as little dexterity as to the Major. Moſt Divines (ſaith he) will deny the Minor, and tell you that they are but tranſient Acts. Be it ſo. But what have thoſe moſt Divines to ſay for the diſappr… ving of the Minor? 'Tis true (ſaith Mr. Baxter) what they ſay, but I could never have the happineſſe to ſee, or hear it well cleared by any. For to prove it tranſient they tell us no more, but that it doth tranſire in Subjectum Extraneum, By making a moral change on our Relation, &c. But this (ſaith he) is to affirm and not to prove. What then doth Mr Baxter himſelf to ſupply what is in his moſt famous Divines deficient? This onelyonly: he tels us a tale of a Tubb, about relations how they are made up, and thence hee brings in his Conjectures to make clear how this change of our relation is made up, that our Pactional Juſtification, or Juſtification according to the New Covenant is a Tranſient Act of God; which I was never ſo happy, or unhappy in my ſlender reading, to find any one that denyeth. And all this being granted, yet may it ſtand as a firm foundation, that Remiſſion and Juſtification are immanent Acts in God, as hath been before, and ſhall be, (if there be need) more fully afterward ſhewed.
He that readeth Mr. Baxters diſpute, muſt acknowledge that I do him no wrong in this Epitomizing of it. And let every rationall man judge whether the heat of the man in promiſing ſo confidently before pag. 93. and in charging all his impetus, or impotent impetuouſneſs here, as againſt the Pillars of Antinomianiſm, be anſwered with ſtrength of reaſon to beat down what he would have down, Gods Eternal acceptation and approbation of his beloved ones in Chriſt Jeſus. Thus feeble are the moſt Nervous armes in fighting againſt God, and ſo vain in their imaginations (as the Apoſtle ſaith) do they become, who whet their wits upon the threſhold of humane literature to diſpute againſt God.
But after this generall view of his diſpute, it ſhall not be impertinent to take notice of the particulars alſo therein encloſed.
And 1. Why doth he call Doctor Twiſſe and Maſter Pemble, Moſt excellent famous Divines?? Doth he ſo ſtile them for the excellency of their Philoſophick Scholaſtick learning? He ſhould then more properly have termed them Moſt excellent famous Philoſophers, or Schollars: Except he will alſo make Ariſtotle (becauſe he in his foreign makes the Treating of God, one part of that Doctrine which is to be handled in that Science which is commonly called Metaphyſicks) to be a Theologer or Divine alſo▪ Or for their abundant knowledge in the Doctrine of Chriſtian Religion, together with their great ability and faithfullneſſe to teach and maintain it againſt the Adverſaries thereof? Much more proper had it been then, for him to have followed the Genius and policy of the chief Prieſts (as in other things he doth) that would not ſay any thing to the Praiſe of Iohn, that his Baptiſm or Droctrine were Divine and from Heaven, fearing, leſt the Lord Jeſus ſhould then urge upon them; Why then did yee not believe him? Mat. 21. 25. For ſo Maſter Baxter here opens his boſome to the dint of the like reproof. Were they excellent? Why doth not he cloſe with them in their excellency. No one of the Papiſts or Arminians, againſt whoſe Sophiſms and impoſtures, theſe two Champions ſo excellently and famouſly propugned the truth of Chriſt; hath more deviated from their doctrine, i. e. the Doctrine of Chriſt which they defended, than Maſter Baxter: how is not then himſelf in famous in reference to that for which he pronounceth them famous? Or in granting them at the higheſt, the name of Theologers, doth he not inure upon himſelf the brand of a Theologaſter? But peradventure he thus inſignizeth them in reſpect of the opinion that others have of them, though in his own accompt, or in compariſon with himſelf, he knowes not whither to terme them Cranes or Pigmies. Or it is a peece of that ſubtlety which elſewhere he uſeth frequently, to abuſe the ignorant with a conceit, that all which he delivers is orthodox, becauſe of his pretending himſelf to be an admirer of ſuch, in whom verity and Godlines with profoundneſs in learning are met together. Or laſtly, Ambition of popular glory and praiſe, might invite him ſo to magnify them; The greater the Champions are with whom he Combateth; The more glorious he may conceive his victory to be, if he return out of the field Conqueror; And he might expect that the leſſer and lower rank will be as mute as fiſhes, when they ſee the Claſſicall Doctors of higheſt eſteem once battered by his diſputations. Two Kings could not ſtand before him, how ſhall we ſtand? 2. Kin. 10. 4. ſo &c. However it be, all that know them, and him, will conclude certainly that hee doth in no wiſe ſo ſpeak of them, becauſe he can ſay of them in the words of John, whom I love in the truth. 3. Jo. 1.
But note ye, out of the ſame mouth, in the ſame breath come Bleſſing and Curſing. The Kiſs and the ſtab of Joab go together. Majeſtically rather than Magiſterially he mounts them to the top of the Stage, to hurl them down thence in the ſame Mom…nt headleſs. Maſter Pemble long ſince while he was yet a young man, ſl…pt in Chriſt. But Doctor Twiſſe not untill of late in a venerable old age was laid in the grave, and Maſter Baxter a Punie to him, throwes his curſes after him, that he was erroneous, hereticall, yea, one that ſet up the Pillar of that which he calls and deteſteth as the worſt of Hereſies, [Antinomianiſm] Dared he but to have whiſpered ſo while Doctor Twiſſe was yet living? It is come to paſſe what I conceived, and intimated to divers of my friends at the firſt coming abroad of Doctor Twiſſe his works, that during his life we ſhould finde none that would write againſt him, but after his death, there would be many cenſurers, though never an anſwerer of him. Our eyes have ſeene ſince his death brought forth into the light thoſe Tractates, which while he lived, dared not come forth out of the womb of darkneſſe: And thoſe mouths now open after his death, to ſnarl at him, which for fear of him were as faſt ſhut while he lived, as the Egyptian doggs at the preſence of an Iſraelite. Exo. 11. 7. yet may ſome take it to argue an ignoble Spirit in Maſter Baxter, ſo to tread on the neck of a dead Lion, having not ſo much as looked thorow the Grate upon him while yet living; and to ſeek honour by the Conqueſt of them,
Quorum Flaminiâ tegitur cinis atque Latinâ.
But there is but little harm, where there is but barking onelyonly without biting. And how little impreſſion upon Doctor Twiſſe his either Doctrine or reputation, Maſter Baxters ſugillation hath made, we have in part, and in generall ſeen already, and may yet take notice more particularly.
2. Then when in oppoſition to Doctor Twiſſe his Major propoſition, [vizt. All Acts immanent in God are Eternal] he tells us that [Immanent in God] muſt needs be taken Negatively, not Poſitively;
§. To ſpeake more ſcripturally, than Metaphyſically.
I anſwer, I ſee no ground of ſuch a neceſſity: but that it may be underſtood as well poſitively, as, yea rather poſitively than Negatively. What is immanent in God, but abiding or reſiding in God, or (to uſe the Scripture terms) hidden in God? Eph. 3. 9. Col. 3. 3. Yet ſo that when it is revealed, it abides notwithſtanding, and hath its immanency in God ſtill. Approbation, Acceptation, accounting us juſt, and loving us in Chriſt, are Acts of Gods Knowledge and will; and both before and after, we have the revelation thereof to our ſoules; they are immanent and abiding in God f…om everlaſting to everlaſting. Are there not imm…nent Acts in the ſoul of man? much more in the minde and will of God. What man knoweth the things of a man, but the Spirit of man which is in him? Even ſo none knoweth the things of God, but the Spirit of God, ſaith the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 2. 11. By the things of God, and the things of a man, I doubt not but it will be granted, that we muſt underſtand the apprehenſions, volitions, purpoſes, and aff…ctions (if I may ſo ſpeak) of God and of men. And are not theſe things in God, as well as the things of God? So they are as properly termed Acts immanent in God in a poſitive ſenſe, as actually abiding in God, as in a Negative, in oppoſition to their Tranſiency and termination upon a ſubject without God: The latter is not onelyonly, or ſo much denyed, as the former affirmed. And thus our juſtification is poſitively and depoſitively immanent in God from eternity. Poſited in the boſom of God the Father, as in the Cabbinet of his counſells: and depoſited in the hand of God the Son, as in the hand of a faithfull Mediator and ſurety for us upon his undertaking to make ſatisfaction, which God the Father accepted as preſent ſatisfaction made for our ſinns.
3. The reaſon which he annexeth, to prove that Acts are not poſitively immanent in God, is inſufficient and reaſonleſſe. For Acts (ſaith he) have not the reſpect of an Adjunct to its ſubject, but of an effect to its Cauſe. As if Acts and effects could not alſo abide and remain in their cauſe. Maſter Baxter (no doubt) hath read Bellarmine, Arminius, and Corvinus, in their diſputes againſt the Doctrine of the reformed Churches: ſuppoſe now an act of approbation hath paſſed within him ſo far, as that their Faith is become his Faith alſo, but ſecretly and not fully yet manifeſted to the World: Is not this approbation an Act of Maſter Baxter? if ſo, is it not alſo an immanent Act abiding in himſelfe within his owne minde, as well poſitively the r…ſiding, as negatively not tranſient upon thoſe Writers to produce any new relation or paſſion in them? Himſelfe, and his Maſter Grotius concurre, That the effects of efficient voluntarie cauſes do not alway immediately follow them; That God hath decreed from eternity the tranſient Juſtification of the Elect in their own conſciences, yet the execution thereof follows not untill they beleeve. Theſ. 15. and its Explication, and here againe pag. 177. I demand now where this decree, this act lyeth hid untill the execution thereof? It muſt be either no where, and conſequently null, and annihilated, or elſe abide ſtill, and bee Immanent in God, and ſo what was in God from eternity, is immanent in him from eternity, and continued untill the full execution thereof; That very pactional Juſtification, which is by Faith, being nothing but the execution of the decree of God from eternity. For beſides our eternal Juſtification in Chriſt before mentioned, we acknowledge alſo an eternall decree in God to declare and evidence his Elect juſtified in their own conſciences. i. e. in time to ſend forth his Spirit into them, and by his Spirit to work Faith in them, and ſo to draw them unto Chriſt, and by the evidence of Faith, and evidence of the Spirit to declare themſelves to themſelves to be juſtified, and pardoned for ever.
As for that of the reſpect of the Adjunct to its Subject, wee leave to Maſter Baxter, and his friends the Arminians. They indeed make Pardon and Juſtification to bear the nature of Adjuncts, yea ſeparable Adjuncts, and Accidents of God, which may adeſſe, vel abeſſe ſine deſtructione ſubjecti, that God may hate one day even to damn, and love the next day to ſave, and the third day convert this love into hatred againe, and ſo conſequently change more frequently then the Moon, and yet be G…d ſtill. Such ſhall we find Mr. Baxters doctrine, ſuckt out by kiſſing from the lips of the Arminians: But I forbear to ſpeak further of it here, reſerving it for its proper place.
4. As to the inſtances which he giveth, to make queſtionable whether Imanent Acts are eternall; viz. For God to know that the world doth now exiſt, that ſuch a man is ſanctified, or juſt, &c. Gods foreknowledge is not a knowing that ſuch a thing is, which is not, but that ſuch a thing will be, which is not. I anſwer that foreknowledge doth ſtill imply, and connote knowledge, though knowledge doth not ſo imply foreknowledge. He that perfectly in every reſpect foreknew an Ecclipſe, in every point of its time, meaſure, &c. knew it alſo perfectly, and could as fully, and perfectly contemplate, and ſpeak of it in its fruition as preſence, future, and preſent, it was, and is one to him. Much more in God, who hath created time for the meaſure of his creatures, not his own being and motion. Paſt, preſent, and future are much to us, whoſe exiſtence, duration, and motions, are ſpanned, and ſpinned out by moments. But to God who is eternall, dwels in eternity, is eternity, not circumſcribed with place or time, there is nothing former, or latter, no ſucceſſion, of preſent to paſt, of future to preſent, but all at once, and at one view apparent to his eye, or knowledge: So that albeit he ſpeakes oft in Scriptures to our capacitie of ſucceſſion of times, as if he together with us did act within the bounds thereof (elſe if he ſhould ſpeake ſtil in reference to things of old, and things hereafter [to us] as the eternall I AM, not I was, or I will bee, our weakneſs would be beneath the comprehenſion of what he ſaith) Yet theſe circumſtances of time doe adde nothing to, take nothing from, nor properly ſquare with him that is above time, without the precincts of time, comprehends time, and temporary things within himſelf, and is not comprehended, or touched by them. The now exiſtence of the world, the now ſanctification of ſuch a man, are n…w, and new in the knowledge of the Creature, not the Creator. Or let Mr. Baxter deny the world in that form, ſtate, extent, fulneſs, &c. in which it doth now exiſt; or the now either ſanctified, or juſt man, or the meaſure and nature of his Juſtification, to have been from all eternity, as apparent to Gods knowledge, as it is in this now, or preſent time of us his creatures.
5. The compariſons or ſimilitudes which hee bringeth of the Sun, the glaſs, the eye, though they may have ſome appearance of freeing God from change in taking new notions into his knowledge in time (which notwithſtanding is but an appearance) yet is there nothing in them from which to argue to the acts in general which are immanent in God. Theſe do but ſet forth the reſpect of natural cauſes, and their natural effects, either to other, therefore are in a capacity to illuſtrate onelyonly thoſe acts that flow naturally, and therewithall neceſſarily from God: Not thoſe that proceed from the liberty and freedom of his will, (which Maſter Baxter call Morall Acts, and Morall Cauſes) For of theſe there can be no Cauſe aſſigned but the free will of God. And if they ſerve not Maſter Baxters turn in this reſpect, they become utterly unuſefull to him in the point of Juſtification. Yet to this end doth he drive, that God doth juſtifie and unjuſtifie, pardon, and unpardon, change his will from love to hatred, and from hatred to love, to will the ſalvation of the ſame man at one time, and his damnation at another, without any change of his will, or in himſelf: The abſurdity and impoſſibility whereof we ſhall afterward ſhew, when Maſter Baxter in his following Theſes gives me cauſe to do it. So much of what he ſaith by way of anſwer to the Major, or more properly what he ſaith to leave it unanſwered. For after all he concludes, But grant that all Gods immanent Acts are Eternall. And this is as much as if he had ſaid; All that hath been ſaid is of no force to refell it, Therefore I grant it.
As for his anſwer to the Minor [That Remiſſion and Iuſtification are immanent Acts in God] though he ſpeak much, yet is it nothing to the pupoſe.
Firſt he tells us that moſt Divines will deny it, and tell you that they are tranſient Acts; which is true. An irrefragable Argument, moſt will ſay it, Ergo it is true. True, becauſe moſt Will ſay it, though hitherto poſſible they have never ſaid it. And how knowes he they Will ſay it? …eradventure he puts ſo much confidence in his following diſpute, that he accounts all will be captivated by it into his opinion. O… if he mean the moſt Divines have ſaid it, hee queſtionleſſe means partly the Jeſuiticall Divines, (for ſo Bellarmine indeed, with others of the ſame School aſſerts:) or elſe more primarily the Arminian Divines, ſpeaking in this point what they have learned of Socinus, who is as great with them as was Simon Magus with the Samaritans. Yet even theſe alſo, though they ſome…imes deny, yet do they alſo ſometimes (when it may make for their advantage) affirme Juſtification to be an immanent Act in God.
2. Who is there that ſees not his ſophiſtry in ſhifting from him this propoſition in ſtead of anſwering it? Doctor Twiſſe… his propoſition is, Juſtification is an immanent Act in God. To ſubvert this, Maſter Baxter beſtirrs himſelf to prove a ſeemingly, but not really contradictory propoſition, viz. That Juſtification is a Tranſient Act of God. A fallacy which in the Schools is called Ignoratio Elenchi. And the reaſoning of Maſter Baxter here, is as proper and powerful, as if Maſter Baxter ſhould affirm that Apollo was above a hundred years old; and I to overthrow his concluſion, ſhould aſſert, and prove, that Apollo had never a beard. There is no contradiction between theſe two aſſertions; A man may be old, and yet be without a beard: So to affirm that Juſtification is a tranſient, doth not contradict, that Juſtification is immanent in God. For both are true, and may concurre without daſhing either in the other. The Eternall Juſtification depoſited in Chriſt, upon the Covenant made between the Father and the Son is immanent in God. But that Juſtification, which according to the tenor of the New Covenant made with man, is declared and evidenced by God unto the Conſcience of man, is a tranſient Act of God: So that the affirming and confirming of the latter, doth not contradict the former, but is a meer ſophiſm, an foreign, a flinching to another queſtion; which I take to be in ſubſtance the ſame with the before named fallacy.
And ſo Maſter Baxter doth but Oleum & Operam perdere, toyl much & catch nothing in diſputing ſo profoundly and Metaphyſically, pa. 175. about the Doctrine of Relation, and pa. 176. to make out, according to that Doctrine, a poſſible, probable, Tranſient Juſtification, which is a concluſion that is granted him without diſpute. And yet the grant of it doth not at all weaken the Minor propoſition of Doctor Twiſſe, That Remiſſion and Juſtification (in the ſenſe oft mentioned) are Acts immanent in God. The Subjectum, Fundamentum, Terminus, together with the Ratio Fundandi, are no more wanting in Gods Eternall juſtifying us in Chriſt, than in his Temporaneous juſtifying us declaratively and evidentially to our own Conſciences, and might be no leſſe confidently upon as good grounds of Reaſon particularized; if we delighted (as Maſter Baxter doth) to bring Gods Acts under the rule and meaſure of the termes of humane Art and learning. Which notwithſtanding, if wee either would not or could not do, our Faith ſhould in no wiſe ſtumble, but having the infallible word of God for its foundation (which we have before ſeen, notwithſtanding all that Maſter Baxter hath ſaid againſt it, to be for us,) it ought on it to reſt, contemning all the pillarage of humane reaſon and wiſdome, to lean thereon for ſuſtentation.
In like manner the whole ſumme of Maſter Baxters diſpute, pa. 177, 178, 179, 180. ſpent in raiſing and overthrowing an objection ſo raiſed, about a thing never queſtioned, is altogether impertinent to the queſtion in hand. None denies the concluſion, or objects againſt it in that manner, or any thing at all to the ſubſtance of it: So that Maſter Baxter doth here but make knots to looſe them, and fight againſt the Air, which never accepted of a Combat with him. Neither is there any other, or new thing in this peece of his diſpute, that hath not had before a ſufficient examination and Anſwer.
At length, pa. 180, & 181. he doth in a manner unſay all that he hath ſaid, and confeſſe that his whole diſpute, is little to the purpoſe, and therefore doth more than half grant the queſtion to them whom he hath made his adverſaries; For theſe are his words.
B. The ſecond kind of Gods acts, which may be called Juſtifying, is indeed immanent; viz…. his knowing the ſinner to be pardoned and juſt; His willing and approving hereof as true and good: Theſe are Acts in Heaven, yea, in God himſelf: but the former ſort are on earth alſo. I would not have thoſe Acts of God ſeparated which he doth conjoin. And he ever doth theſe laſt with the former. But I verily thinke that it is eſpecially the former tranſient legall Acts, which the Scripture uſually means, when it ſpeakes of pardoning and (conſtitutive) juſtifying, and not theſe immanent Acts: though theſe muſt be looked on as concurrent with the former. Yet moſt Divines that I meet with, ſeeme to look at pardon and juſtification as being done in Heaven onelyonly, and conſiſting onelyonly in theſe latter immanent Acts. And yet they deny juſtification to be an immanent Act too But how they will ever manifeſt that the Celeſtiall Acts of God, (vize. his willing the ſinners pardon, and ſo forgiving him in his own breſt; or his accepting him as juſt) are tranſient Acts, I am yet unable to underſtand. And if they be immanent acts, moſt will grant that they are from Eternity. And then fai… fall the Antinomians, &c.
I know not of two things conſiderable in theſe words of Maſter Baxter, which is more conſiderable, either the power and victory of truth againſt his will convincing his Conſcience, or his hatefull and deſperate deteſtation of the truth, when his Conſcience is convinced thereof. The conviction of his Conſcience, that it is the truth which he hath here oppugned, is ſufficiently manifeſted in this, that he confeſſeth
1. That Gods knowing the ſinner to be pardoned and juſtified, his willing and approving hereof to be true and good (and a little after) his willing of the ſinners pardon, forgiving him in his own breſt, and accepting him as juſt, to be Celeſtiall Acts, Acts in heaven, yea in God himſelf, indeed immanent.
2. That he ſeeth not how they can ever be manifeſted to be tranſient Acts.
3. And if immanent Acts, moſt will grant (and himſelfe hath nothing to contradict) that they are from Eternity. His willfull hatred of this truth ſo confeſſed, is plainly enough hinted in theſe words. Then fair fall the Antinomians, i. e. then in deſpight of the Devill, yea malice it ſelf, the Aſſertors of this truth abide unquenched, yea untouched. This torments his ſpirit, and makes him to gnaſh with the teeth in fury, like him that cryed; O Galilaean, thou haſt the Victory.
He will not have thoſe acts of God to be ſeparated which he doth conjoyn. And who ever ſeparated, or was ſo madd as to divide Gods Knowledge and Will from his either immanent or tranſient Acts? that hath ever ſaid that God in imputing our ſinnes (in reference to puniſhment) to Chriſt Jeſus, in forgiving, abſolving, and accepting the ſinner, hath done either he knowes not what, or that which he would not, willeth not? But to conjoyn what the Lord hath divided in point of time, his conſtitutive juſtifying us in his own breſt thorow Chriſt before time, with his declarative juſtifying us in our own conſciences in time, were to confound heaven and earth, eternity and time, together in one. The queſtion is not, whether when God hath by a tranſient act juſtified a ſinner, he knoweth and willeth his juſtification? But whether God did not both knowingly and willingly ſo juſtifie and pardon him through Chriſt, within his own breſt from eternity? or whether Gods accepting him in Chriſt, and knowing him to be ſo accepted, be begotten in the will and mind of God now in the end of time, and ſo God is not the ſame God in his Knowledge and Will, which he was from eternity?
He verily thinks that the tranſient Acts of God are meant in thoſe Scriptures which ſpeak of juſtification by faith, (for ſo I conceive he would be underſtood.) And I verily think that he is not enough ſound in his head-peece, whoſoever thinks the contrary. For it were a mad contradictive propoſition to ſay, whoſoever doth, or ſhall beleeve, ſhall be juſtified in himſelfe before he had a ſelf, or being. But this is no nearer to the matter in queſtion, than the North is to the South pole.
As for that barr of God in heaven, that hee concludes with, where his Angelical and Seraphical Doctors that better know the way thence than thither, ſaw at their laſt coming thence, God fitting and tranſacting theſe things before his Angels, we are bidden to wait untill he ſhall have the leiſure after he hath ſpoken once more with Lucians Icaro-Menippus, and enquired of him the certainty thereof, and then we ſhall hear the dream interpreted.
This is the ſumme of his noble diſpute againſt juſtification, as an act immanent in God from Eternity. And now I appeal to the reader, comparing together his bigg and ſwelling promiſes with his curt and inſubſtantial performance; after his challenge of all the Antinomians, his promiſe to ſhew that there is no ſuch thing, his charging the doctrine with the ſcandalous terms of errour, and pillar of Antinomianiſm, & his undertaking to prove it ſuch; upon due examination to judge,
Quid tanto dignum tulit hic [Promiſſor] hiatu?