Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 24
CHAP. XXIV.
Whether Justification be, and remains to be conditional, and that to beleevers during life, and the juſtified, and pardoned may be unjuſtified, and unpardoned again? A…ſo whether, and in what ſenſe, and reſpects, there may be remiſſion of ſinnes before they be committed?
Theſ. 43. pag. 196. B. The Juſtification which we have in Chriſts own juſtification is but conditional as to the particular offenders, and none can lay claim to it untill he have performed the conditions; nor ſhall any be perſonally juſtified till then. Even the Elect remain perſonally unjuſtified, for all their conditional juſtification in Chriſt, till they do b…leeve.
Theſ. 44. Men that are but thus conditionally pardoned, and juſtified, may be unpardoned and unjuſtified againe, for their non-performance of the conditions, and all the debt ſo forgiven be required at their hands. And all this without any change in God, or in his Laws. See Ball of the Covenant, page 240.
Theſ. 45. pag. 198. Yea in caſe the juſtified by Faith ſhould ceaſe beleeving, the Scripture would pronounce them unjuſt again, and yet without any change in God or Scripture, but onelyonly in themſelves: Becauſe their Juſtification doth continue conditionall as long as they live here. The Scripture doth juſtifie no man by name, but all beleevers as ſuch. Therefore if they ſhould ceaſe to be beleevers, they would ceaſe to be juſtified.
I joyn together theſe three Aphoriſmes, partly becauſe Mr. Baxter doth very little ſever them by the interpoſition of very ſhort Explications, which might have been as well ſpared as uſed, for any light they give to his Aphoriſms. But principally becauſe they all treat upon one, and the ſame Argument, conditional Juſtification.
And here I could have deſired that he had treated more Argumentatively, and leſs Magiſterially. That hee had ſtated the queſtions which he here determines into Concluſions, and by the beſt Arguments he could, have aſſayed to prove his aſſertions, which he doth here nakedly, and peremptorily lay down only upon his own bare authority to be taken up, as if it were holy, and unerring. He could not have wanted help to have handled theſe points more controverſally, having the Papiſts on the one hand, and Arminians on the others, ſuggeſting matter, and arguments to him, it being their, not Chriſts cauſe and doctrine, which he bids, and teacheth here to ſtand alone; ſo that in caſe he had met with a learned adverſary that had driven him out of this field, he might have been ſure to have been ſuccoured with a whole brigade of theſe Sophiſters, that would either have laid in the place, or recovered the field for him again. But we muſt give leave to a man that is all wiſdome, ſometimes for his recreation to be ſervant to his will: And becauſe we find him not here what we expected, we muſt take him as he offers himſelf—Stet pro ratione voluntas. Only I think it fit to ſave the labour to anſwer Arguments, when he refuſeth to make it his task to bring them: Bare negations of Concluſions being the beſt way of anſwering, where they are peremptorily, and faſtuouſly poſited, without any premiſſed reaſons from whence to draw them, or following arguments to back them. In matters of Faith aſſerted, not proved, Jack Straws negation being of equal validity to John Scotus his affirmation; onelyonly we ſhall view his words, to ſee what ſhew of reaſon there may be found in them.
In the Explication of the firſt of theſe three Poſitions, vizt. the 43. He tels us, This needs not explication. He ſaw it, and had acquaintance with it while it was yet but a notion in his brain, therefore needs not any ſpectacles to clear up unto him his own formed of spring; but for my part, ſuch is my dulneſs, that whether I ſeek for his meaning in ſome part of the Poſition, or for truth in the reſt, I profeſſe my ſelf unable to underſtand without an interpreter. Let his words be not onelyonly glanced over, but well conſidered, I might think there may be the like, though not ſo great an incapacity in anothers braine, as in mine.
The Juſtification (ſaith he) which we have in Chriſts own Juſtification, is but conditional as to the particular offenders. Let the acute wit here inform my ſtupidneſs what he meanes by the Juſtification which wee have in Chriſts own Juſtification? What is Chriſts own juſtification? or what the juſtification which we have in Chriſts own juſtification? If we underſtand not what the ſubject of a propoſition is, we cannot judge at all of the truth of the propoſition, and do in vain enquire into the predicate. We can go no further underſtandingly in this Theſis untill wee underſtand this, of which all the reſt ſpeaketh. Chriſts own juſtification may be underſtood actively or paſſively: For the juſtification by which hee juſtifieth others, or that by which God hath juſtified him. If Mr. Baxter had meant the former, I conceive he would have ſaid plainly (as he doth every where elſe) Juſtification, without adding to it Chriſts, or Chriſts own, which ſeems to be uſed to diſtinguiſh here between the juſtification here ſpoken of, and the common Juſtification whereof he treateth throughout this Tractate. If in the latter ſenſe, it may not ſuddenly appear, how poſſibly we can bee juſtified in Chriſts own juſtification. Neither can Chriſts own juſtification properly taken, be poſsibly made our juſtification: For all will apprehend (without help) by Chriſts own juſtification, the juſtification proper to his perſon, which none had, or have in common with him. Yet I conceive Mr. Baxter means here Chriſts paſsive juſtification, Gods juſtifying of Chriſt; and that theſe words here do relate to the words which he hath within the 4 number of the foregoing, or 42 Theſis, where he ſaith [4. His own Juſtification as the publick perſon at his reſurrection.] which is not enough properly called Chriſts own, becauſe it is not the juſtification of Chriſt as perſonally alone, but as myſtically conſidered.
Taking this to be his meaning, I ſhall firſt ſpeak ſomething of the meaning of the phraſe, and then examine the truth of the Poſition. 1. For the meaning of the phraſe; As the firſt Adam ſuſtained the office of a publick perſon in relation to that Commandement of not eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil, ſo that if he had obeyed we had all lived, and been juſtified in him; but in his diſobedience we all ſinned, and were condemned in him: So alſo Chriſt, the ſecond Adam, in making ſatisfaction to Gods juſtice upon the croſs ſuſtained the office of a publick perſon, ſtood in the room of all the Elect, bare their ſins as imputed to him, ſo that they all in him did their law, were in him crucified, dead, and buried, and ſuffered the paines of hell it ſelf. And as he was a publick perſon in his ſuffering, ſo alſo was he in his reſurrection; having paid the utmoſt farthing of our debt, he roſe to receive a full acquittance, or juſtification in his own, and our names for all the ſinnes for which, and all the vengeance which he had ſuffered for us, and we in him. The juſtification and acquittance then given him, and to us in his name by the Father, is that which (out of doubt) Mr. Baxter calls Chriſts own juſtification, yet was not his own ſo, but that it was every elect perſons in him.
Having the meaning of the phraſe, let us now enquire into the truth, or falſhood of the Poſition. The Juſtification (ſaith hee) which we have in Chriſts own Juſtification, is but conditional as to the particular offenders, and none can lay claim to it till hee have performed the conditions, nor shall any be perſonally juſtified till then: Even the Elect, &c. Hee ſaith much, and audaciouſly (as all may ſee) but how ſtrongly doth hee prove it? For confirmation (ſaith hee in the Explic.) there is enough ſaid under the 15, 18, 19, 20 Poſitions before.) And I anſwer, how valid and pertinent to his purpoſe that Enough which hee there ſaid is, I there examined: And becauſe he brings here no new reaſons, I may juſtly paſſe it by without giving any further anſwer.
OnelyOnly it ſhall not bee impertinent to take notice how ambiguouſly hee layes downe every clauſe of this Poſition, to corrupt with an evill ſenſe whom hee can, and to evade with the pretext of a good meaning where he cannot deceive, if eſpied, and queſtioned.
1. When he ſaith this Juſtification is conditional as to the particular offenders, & none can lay claim, &c. Though by the whole frame of this his Treatiſe, it is enough evident that he means what he ſpeaks in the worſt ſenſe; yet his words leave it here doubtful, whether he means that our Juſtification which we have in Chriſts juſtification be conditional▪ as Chriſt hath received it in his, or our names; or as he having received it for us, doth offer it to particular offendors upon conditions, upon the performance whereof they ſhall have it, with the fruit, and comfort thereof declared, and evidenced to their own ſoules. Though the former bee his ſenſe, yet knowing with what arguments hee may be encountred; That there was an abſolute, and not a conditional payment made▪ to which not a conditional, but an abſolute diſcharge is due. That Chriſt as a publick perſon ſtanding in our ſtead, received the ſame juſtification for himſelfe and us, from all the ſinnes that had been imputed both to him and us: but that he received for himſelf not a conditional, but an abſolute Juſtification; therefore for us alſo. That if particular offendors be but conditionally juſtified in Chriſt, then are they not at all actually, and really juſtified in Chriſt, and ſo the fruit of Chriſts death being ſuſpended, upon conditions, may be none at all, in caſe none performe the conditions. That it is againſt the ſtream of the Goſpel, which affirms, that even upon the croſs he hath cancelled, or blotted out the hand-writing, ſpoiled the principalities and powers, Col. 2. 14, 15. redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, Gal. 3. 13. purged the conſcience from dead works, by his blood, Heb. 9. 13, 14. That God was in Chriſt reconciling the world (while the world) to himſelf, 2 Cor. 5. 19. and made us accepted in the beloved, Eph. 1. 6. And all this, before we had a being perſonally, therefore before we performed any conditions. Knowing (I ſay) how he might be overwhelmed with arguments from the Scriptures by our Divines, as hee hath read far more copiouſly then I have time here to particularize, in their works againſt the Papiſts and Arminians, and might have been more preſſed and multiplyed againſt himſelf; and that Truth is not onelyonly unconquerable, but victorious: To prevent the inconvenience, he leaves a hole by which to eſcape, viz. Hee meant not thus: But that our Juſtification is conditional as to our claim of right therein, we are not perſonally juſtified, have not our forgiveneſs declared, and evidenced to our own conſciences till we perform the conditions. Such ſincerity and integrity is there in Mr. Baxters doctrines.
2. When he ſaith, None can lay claim to Juſtification untill he have performed the conditions, nor ſhall be perſonally juſtified till then, he leaves it ambiguous whether he mean till his faith, obedience, and good works (which with him are the conditions) be in fieri, or elſe in factum eſſe, be begun, or elſe finiſhed, and perfected, in doing, or elſe fully done. His phraſe directly points out the latter, & the whole ſtream of his diſputations in this Book concurs with it. Neither is Mr. Baxter ſuch an A, B, C, darian that he need to bee taught to ſpeak Grammatically, and to deliver in proper termes his own dictates, that we ſhould think him to ſpeak more, or leſſe then he meaneth, ſaving when he will doe ſo for his own advantage. Unleſſe therefore he meant in the latter ſenſe, and would be ſo underſtood, hee would give no advantage by his words to any ſo to underſtand him. This being then his meaning, he leaves us yet in doubt whether he joynes with the Papiſts here, in implying that it is poſſible to attain perfection of righteouſneſs, and ſo to have fully performed all obedience in this life, thereby meriting Juſtification, ſo winning it at the hardeſt, before he wear it, as we have found him in, and under his 23, 24, 26, 27, Theſes, maintaining enough fully behind the curtaine; or elſe with the Arminians, in holding that no man is juſtified in this life, and ſo confounding Juſtification and Glorification either with the other, an aſſertion worſe then Popiſh, wholly contradicting the whole …enor of the Goſpel, as Rom. 4. 10. Abraham was juſtified while yet uncircumciſed. Rom. 5. being now juſtified, now reconciled, ver. 9, 10. So Rom. 8. 30. Eph. 1. 7. Yea not to ſtay particularizing the whole ſum of the Goſpel, but becauſe both Papiſts and Arminians are his cabinet friends, that he might pleaſe both, and offend neither, it ſufficeth him to ſhew himſelf an adverſary to the truth, wherein he hath them both confederates with him, and either with the other; it being no difficulty for him to cloſe with both that differ but in words a little, but are one in ſubſtance, like Sampſons Foxes hung together by the tails in a firebrand, though their faces look ſeveral waies.
3. I might no leſs diſcover his ſubtilty in that ambiguous term of Perſonal Juſtification, as he oppoſeth it to Conditional Juſtification in Chriſt, how many ſenſes it may bear, and ſcarce ever a good one; yet in the ambiguity of the phraſe, a way left him to evade.
The 44 Theſis is ridiculous to all that deſire to ſpeak after the wiſdome of God, and not after the fallacies of men that are meere fooliſhneſſe with God. Men that are but thus conditionally pardoned and juſtified, may be unpardoned and unjustified again, &c. ut ſuprà. In this at laſt Maſter Baxter is not to be deprived of his due praiſe; that he makes his foundation and building to conſiſt of homogeneous Materialls: an imaginary foundation, and a phantaſticall building. It is as much as if he had ſaid, A fancied ſomething made up of nothing, may without the ſpilling of much blood or ſweat, be reſolved into nothing again. The Cat in the Fable, which Venus turned into a fair Virgin, becauſe ſhe would not leave to hunt mice, was quickly reformed into a Cat again. If one dream make Maſter Baxter a Holy Pope, the next dream may unpope and unhallow him again. And men that were but conditionally juſtified, may be unjuſtified again, and be altogether as well juſtified while unjuſtified, as when conditionally juſtified, and as fully pardoned while unpardoned, as when conditionally pardoned; and all the debt as fully required at their hands when it is conditionally forgiven, as when it is unforgiven again. And all this without any change in God, or in his lawes. For all theſe are not Gods, but Maſter Baxters, and his Arminians, and Jeſuits juſtifications, and Non-Juſtifications pardonings and unpardonings, forgiving debts and requiring them again. God is unchangable, His gifts and calling without Repentance. Rom. 11. 29. But theſe are Protei and Chamelions, (ſpecially when the change is from evill to worſe) and would feign to themſelves and us a God like to themſelves, that ſhould be a changeable God, no God.
It behoved Maſter Baxter to have proved from Scriptures this Popiſh Arminian Doctrine of conditionall juſtifying, and unjuſtifying, &c. from the word, that it might appear to us that the Oracles of God, and not the Sophiſtry of men had drawn him into this Topſie turnie tattle, rather than Doctrine of juſtification. Not doing this, his breath ſmells of a Pope in his belly; That his aim is to make the word of God to ſtrike ſaile to the Sophiſms of the Papiſts and Arminians, and not theſe to the word. For ſo he proceeds in the next, which is the 45 Theſis in their language.
B. Yea in Caſe the juſtified by faith ſhould ceaſe believing, the Scripture would pronounce them unjuſt again, &c. becauſe their Juſtification doth continue conditional as long as they live here, &c. if they ſhould ceaſe to be believers, they would ceaſe to be juſtified.
If the Heavens fall, we ſhall need no hobbies to catch larkes. If Maſter Baxter ceaſe to be a man, he will ceaſe to be an Impoſtour. They are ſuppoſitions of things poſſible, or impoſſible, which in both theſe his Theſes he maketh: if of poſſibles, why doth he not prove them? if of impoſſibles, what can he aim at but the deceiving of them that are made to be taken, and the deſtroying of the peace of tender and infirme conſciences? Hee turnes us over in the former poſition to Ball of the Covenant. I have it not. But if there he be the ſame Ball with Ball of Faith, there is no more agreement betweene Ball and Bax▪ than betwixt Chriſt and Belial. I heard indeed long ſince, that this Maſter Ball ſeeing faſhionableneſſe and formality tending ſomewhat to the Popiſh Outſideneſſe in Religion was the way to preferment, had before his death ſomewhat declined. But unleſſe I ſaw grounds for ſuch a thought I cannot entertain it, ſo great an eſtimation both of his ableneſſe and holineſſe hath his Treatiſe of Faith left in me. But if otherwiſe, it is not unnaturall to a Ball to roll, eſpecially down the hill. And we halt not between two opinions, we have the Lord, and not Baal for our God.
But Maſter Baxter cannot put upon us this bull, that he ſhould with a trick of the hand beguile us into an opinion, that in this Doctrine he is a follower of Baal. Nay firſt his popiſh Schoolmen and Jeſuits have taught him, and then Arminius, and his followers have poliſhed him; ſo that in theſe two Theſes he doth but ſpeak parat-like, even word for word after theſe his Maſters; as I could (if there were need) alleadge cut of the Authors whom he followeth. Yea further, the more antient Schoolmen, and the moſt learned and Metaphyſicall among the Jeſuits, blow off as baſely derogatory from the perfection of Gods Nature, the frothy poſitions which he here layeth down as Articles of Faith, which he doth not at all apply himſelfe to prove, as if they were unqueſtionable becauſe his quill hath dropt them.
He ſees his Doctrine in theſe 2 Theſes, ſuch as either hath nothing but words in it, or if any thing reall, ſuch as tendeth to the advancing of the Popiſh and Arminian Doctrines of Univerſall Redemption, Freewill, falling from Grace, &c. Therefore intreats his reader [in the Explication] to ſuſpend his judgement till another Tractate of his about univerſall Redemption come forth, which in the Poſtſcript to theſe Aphoriſms he tels us he is not certain whether it will be ever; and in his Append. pag. 164. ſeems to conclude that it will be never: And that, if I miſtake not, is upon Saint Juſtifications day, according to the Baxterian account. And in caſe it bring no better ſavour of Chriſt with it then this his Tractate, better then, then ſooner. To which time alſo if he had ſuſpended the publication of this book, I doubt not he might have obtained more then a conditional Juſtification from the guilt of ſuch a ſuſpenſion.
And For that which intimates the falling away of the juſtified, (ſaith he) he ſpeaks onelyonly upon ſuppoſition, &c. but doth beleeve that the juſtified by Faith never do, nor ſhall fall away. ibid. Explic. A larger profeſſion in reſpect to this Article of his Creed, then I expected from him, if it be ſingle and hath no flaw of rottenneſſe and deceit in it. But when we have found him calling the ſentence of judgement in the laſt day, juſtification by Faith, as well as that which is in this life in title of Law, (as he terms it) pag. 185. and makes the juſtification in this life to be meerly conditional, and conſequently either nul or reverſible, in theſe 44, & 45 Theſ. what can we think can be his meaning, when he ſaith, I beleeve that the juſtified by faith never do, or ſhall fall away; but this, that they that are ſentenced once to life in the day of judgement, and already glorified, neither doe, nor ſhall fall away. And yet for him that holds our juſtification to be ſtil but conditional untill the day of judgement, it would (I think) be a harder task to prove that it remains not conditional after the day of judgement, then for the truly Orthodox in this point to prove it to be in this life abſolute and unconditional. Were I the man that were fit to undertake ſuch a diſpute, I ſhould (as I conceive) have a great advantage againſt ſuch an adverſary; for moſt of the arguments which he ſhould bring to prove the abſoluteneſs and immutability of juſtification in the Kingdom of glory, would ſtrengthen againſt himſelf the ſame abſoluteneſs and immutability of juſtification in the Kingdome of grace. And almoſt all that he ſhould be able to anſwer for the eluding of my arguments againſt abſolute juſtification above, would ſtrengthen me to anſwer his arguments againſt abſolute juſtification here. But I hold it altogether unproper to make ſo holy a thing the ſubject of ludicrous exercitations. The Scripture is as full to prove the Saints perſeverance in grace here, as their perſeverance in glory above, and as poſſible is the falling from the latter as from the former.
Now before I wholly paſs from theſe poſitions of Mr. Baxter, to make way for the examination of other Poſitions of his which I ſhall annex to theſe in this Chapter, becauſe of the neer affinity of their matter with that which is contained in theſe: I ſhall ſpeak ſomething in oppoſition to Mr. Baxters univerſall conditional Juſtification in Chriſt, or (as Mr. Baxter termes it) in Chriſts own Juſtification.
Firſt then, whatſoever ſins, of whatſoever perſons were imputed unto Chriſt, and for which he hath made full ſatisfaction to Gods Juſtice, theſe are no more imputed, but forever remitted in Chriſt abſolutely, and unconditionally to them who were the committers thereof. But all the ſinnes of all the elect, and of them onelyonly, and not of the world, were imputed to Chriſt, and hee hath made full ſatisfaction, &c. Therefore, &c. The propoſition is clear, unleſs we will pronounce God unjuſt: For if he ſhould impute to the offender any one ſin which was imputed to Chriſt, and for which Chriſt hath fully ſatisfied Gods Juſtice, then ſhould God bee unjuſt in taking vengeance twice of the ſame ſin, once from Chriſt, and another time from the offender, contrary to the both equity of his juſtice, and infallibility of his truth, in either of which it is unpoſſible for God to fail. Or if any ſhould ſay that their ſins were but conditionally imputed to Chriſt, and that he made but a conditional ſatisfaction for them, this were totally to deny the truth, and reality of Chriſts ſufferings. It was not a conditional, but abſolute, and real ſatisfaction that he made to divine Juſtice; they were real ſtripes, real and abſolute wounds, groans, torments, death-pangs, by which he ſatisfied Juſtice: He was not conditionally, but verily made fin for us, 2 Cor. 5. 21. a Curſe for us, Gal. 3. 13. himſelf bare our ſins in his own body on the tree, 1 Pet. 2. 24. was wounded for our tranſgreſſion, bruiſed for our iniquity, Iſa. 53. 5. When all this was done abſolutely, and really, and ſo a real, and abſolute condition made, ſhall all this produce only a conditional, and not a real and abſolute juſtification in Chriſt to, and for them who in him have made abſolute ſatisfaction, ſo that themſelves in themſelves muſt make abſolute ſatisfaction again? This poſſibly may agree with Mr. Baxters Juſtice, but never with the Juſtice of God. The aſſumption is thus proved, as to his bearing, and ſatisfying for the ſins of the Elect only, and not of the world. He ſuffered not for ſuch as we call Individua vaga, certain uncertain perſons, himſelf not knowing who they were, or ſhould be. The High Prieſt, that typifyed him, offered not his ſacrifices at adventures for he knew not whom, but bare the names of them for whom he offered, before the Lord, Exo. 28. 9, 10, 11, 12, 29. And this was to be fulfilled in Chriſt their Antitype. I lay down my life for the ſheep, ſaith he, and know my ſheep. Joh. 10. 11, 14, 15. For the ſheep onelyonly, for them whom he knew to be his ſheep, he layd downe his life. And leſt any ſhould think hee ſpeakes here onelyonly of his called, and not his elect ones, he addeth, Other ſheep alſo I have which are not of this fold, i. e. of Iſrael; but of the Gentiles, them alſo I muſt bring, and they ſhall hear my voice. They are his ſheep, and he layeth down his life for them, to ſatisfie for their ſins before they were beleeving, before they were in being, and brings them home by the voice of his Goſpel afterward, ver. 16. But to the unbeleeving Jews he ſaith, Ye beleeve not, becauſe ye are not of my ſheep, ver. 26. Firſt ſheep purged, and redeemed by the blood of the Shepheard, and then beleevers afterward. And if not ſheep firſt, then unbeleevers forever. Neither ſaith he, ye are not my ſheep juſtified and reconciled by my death, becauſe ye beleeve not; but ye beleeve not becauſe ye are not of my ſheep, in the number of my Elect and juſtified ones. Juſtification, abſolute juſtification in Chriſt, ſtill goeth before faith in the ſo juſtified. Again for them all, and onelyonly, did Chriſt as our Prieſt offer himſelf in ſacrifice, for whom as our Prieſt he offered prayers to God when the offering of himſelfe was at hand; but he ſo offered his prayers, not for the world, but for them which God had given him, i. e. the elect, Joh. 17. 9. So in this part the Aſſumption ſtands firme; on the other part, that he bare and ſatisfied for all the ſinnes of all the Elect, is plain; The blood of Chriſt purgeth from all ſinne, 1 John 1. 7. by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are ſanctified, Heb. 10. 14. When it is ſaid they are perfected forever, it is included that there remaines not one ſinne unſatisfied for. And this is the priviledge of all the Elect, of all the Sheep both in being, and in futurition, both within, and without the fold, as before was manifeſted.
2. If Chriſt hath purchaſed, and we receive in this life onelyonly an univerſall conditionall Juſtification: It will follow alſo that God hath in himſelf decreed before all time onelyonly ſuch a juſtification to men; and conſequently that he neither loved, nor elected to life them that are ſaved more then the damned: For the Son was in the boſom of the Father, therefore privy to his ſecret will, to his very boſom counſels, came down from heaven not to tranſgreſſe, but to fulfill his will, Joh. 6. 38. & 4. 34. & 5. 30. was faithfull to him that appointed him, &c. H…b. 3. 2, 6. So that he acted in time according to the will and decree of God before all time. But it is falſe that God decreed onelyonly ſuch an univerſall conditionall juſtification to all, not preferring in his love and el…ction thoſe that ſhall be ſaved, before them which ſhall be damned, as appeareth Act. 13. 48. Rom 8. 30. & 9. 15—to the 25. Eph. 1. 4, 5, 6, 7. Therfore it is falſe alſo that Chriſt hath purchaſed onelyonly, and we receive onelyonly an univerſal conditional Juſtification.
3. Upon as good grounds as Mr. Baxter doth in the enſuing part of this Treatiſe argue from ſalvation or glorification to juſtification, might I alſo argue from juſtification to ſalvation, that if juſtification be univerſally conditionall, ſo is ſalvation or glorification alſo; that if one, then both run upon theſe terms dum bene ſe geſſerit, if he beleeve and obey he ſhall be juſtifyed and glorifyed, if not, neither ſhall be his protion. And when any is juſtifyed and glorifyed, his perſeverance in that ſtate depends upon his freewill, runs upon the ſame condition ſtill, ſo long juſtifyed and glorifyed as he is willing and obedient, if he ceaſe to obey he ſhall be unjuſtifyed and unglorifyed again. And thus all the fruits of Chriſts death ſhall be rolled to nothing, and Chriſt righteoſuneſſe and glory ſhall be a conditionall and mutable righteouſneſſe and glory, to day in ſplendor, to morrow in darkneſſe, and himſelf become a conditionall Saviour, a conditionall King, at one time compleat and ſitting among his golden Candleſticks, in the midſt of his glorious Temple; at another unchriſted, unkinged; a head without a body and members, a Saviour of nobodies, a King without ſubjects; ſome not at all ſubmitting to his golden ſcepter, the reſt that have ſubmitted revolting from him, ſome from the kingdome of grace, ſome from the kingdome of glory, as Adam from Paradiſe, the Angels from heaven, ſo that he ſhall be left alone, and his ſufferings and merits loſe all their fruit by means of this conditionall juſtification: There is I confeſſe no weight in this Argument as to the truly Orthodox. But it holds as firme to Mr. Baxter as his Arguments can hold to us about conditionall juſtification in Chriſts juſtification.
If he object, that the Saints in the kingdome of glory ſhall be ſo confirmed that they ſhall not fall away.
I ſhall anſwer, ſo are the Saints alſo in the kingdome of grace, and are as abſolutely fixed therein, upon the truth, love and power of God in Chriſt, as the triumphant Saints in the kingdome of glory. I doubt not to prove the one as ſoundly as he can prove the other.
I ceaſe further to enlarge my ſelf in Arguments to this purpoſe. That which I have ſaid being (as I before mentioned) ſpoken, not ſo much to prove an abſolute, and to ſhew the vanity of a conditionall juſtification by Chriſt, as to make way to that which comes after to be handled.
From the 45 then I paſſe to the 55 Theſis of Mr. Baxter, becauſe whatſoever there is in the interpoſed poſitions worthy of examination, either hath been or will come to be conſidered in a place more convenient. Only by the way we ſhall take a ſhort view of what he hath in and under the 54 Theſis; it runnes thus, pag. 209.
B. Remiſſian, Juſtification and Reconciliation, do but reſtore the offender into the ſame state of freedome and favour that he fell from, but adoption and marriage union with Chriſt, do advance him far higher.
Here Mr. Baxter gives me occaſion to put up ſome Quaeries to him.
1. Whether remiſſion, juſtification and reconciliation are equipollent termes ſignifying one and the ſame thing in ſubſtance, or ſo many diſtinct things differing each from other as well in ſenſe as in ſound? If differing things, wherein doth the difference conſiſt? he anſwers in the explication,
B. The freedome from obligation to puniſhment is called Remiſſion; the freedome from accuſation and condemnation is called Juſtification; and the freedome from enmity and diſpleaſure is called Reconciliation.
Theſe are all at once, but he ſaith, not [all one.]
Excellently diſtinguiſhed, as he that divided the word [malt] into four parts. But doth not every of theſe words imply all thoſe freedomes? doth not remiſſion free as well from accuſation, condemnation and enmity, as from obligation to puniſhment? And doth not reconciliation free from obligation to puniſhment and from condemnation as well as from enmity and diſpleaſure? And doth not juſtification likewiſe do all as well as one? I know no abſurdity to aſſert that the ſame freedome is in divers reſpects, but in the ſame ſenſe (as Ameſius well expreſſeth) called by allAmeſ. Med. lib. 1. cap. 27. §. 22. theſe names. As the ſtate of ſin from which we are freed, is conſidered as a ſtate of ſubjection to puniſhment or vengeance, ſo this freedome is called Remiſſion. As the ſame ſtate is conſidered as enmity againſt God, ſo is it called Reconciliation. As the ſame ſtate is conſidered as a ſtate of ſin and condemnation, ſo the ſame freedome from it is called Juſtification; and this alſo ſo, that juſtification is all theſe, remiſſion all, and reconciliation all, and neither any thing effectually if it be not all. All together make up one act of God by his Goſpell, and may (as I conceive more properly be called Gods act or acts [in their active ſenſe] then concomitant conſequents of one and the ſame act of God. Beſides if he take them for three differing things, I would aske him whether there be any myſterie in the order wherein he placeth them? Whether firſt we have remiſſion of ſins, then juſtificaon from condemnation, and then at laſt reconciliation? I ſpeak of priority and poſteriority in order, notin time, for ſo he ſaith they are concomitants and at once. If ſome ſuch myſtery, I would be enformed, whether by reconciliation he mean the reconciling of our love to God, or of Gods love to us? if the former, how can our love (as he teacheth) be a condition of juſtification, if in order it be not before but after juſtification? if the latter, then it ſeems Gods love is not the cauſe of our juſtification (ſeeing it doth in order follow it) but that our love to God is the cauſe and ground of it.
Or if he put theſe three as Synonyma's for one and the ſame thing, why doth he then ſo curiouſly diſtinguiſh; and (as it were) give to them, their ſeverall differencing forms, as we find him to do?
2 Whether he take them for the ſame or divers things, I enquire whether they be antecedents or conſequents of our union with Chriſt? If antecedents, whether it be poſſible for a man to be juſtifyed in the way of the new Covenant (for of this juſtification Mr. Baxter ſpeaketh) being yet out of Chriſt? or how is he then juſtifyed by faith, charity, and good works; except it be by a legall faith, charity and works? and if legall, how are theſe then our Goſpell righteouſneſſe? or have they Goſpell righteouſneſſe which are not in Chriſt? Or if conſequents of our union with Chriſt, whether then they do not preſuppoſe our union with Chriſt? and if ſo, whether the juſtifyed in Chriſt are not advanced to a far higher ſtate of freedome and honour by their being found righteous in Chriſt, then they loſt by being found ſinners in Adam, and whether their union with Chriſt be not the common foundation both of juſtification and adoption? Or laſtly is his meaning, that our union with Chriſt is the foundation not only of remiſſion, juſtification and reconciliation, which do reſtore the offender into the ſame ſtate of freedome and favor which we had loſt, and faln from: but alſo of Adoption and of a far higher advancement then that from which he fell? herein I ſhall not diſſent from him. But why then doth he ſo tranſpoſe his words as to make the ſtream of Gods operations to run backward, if not to make mans qualifications the ground of his union with Chriſt, his faith and good works by which he is juſtifyed to be if not the cauſe, yet the antecedent of this union, and not this union to be the cauſe or antecedent of his both juſtification and holineſſe? So much I thought fit to interpoſe here, that this Theſis of Mr. Baxter might not ſerve as a bridge to carry over the reader captive unto ſome fallacious untruths in the after-part of this his Tractate contained. Hence now let us paſſe to the 55 Theſis, which hath not a totall diſagreement with the former that have been examined in this Chapter, but a dependence upon them.
B. Theſis 55. p. 211. Before it be committed it is no ſin, and where there is no ſin the penalty is not due, and where it is not due, it cannot properly be forgiven; therefore ſin is not forgiven before it be committed, though the grounds of certain remiſſion be laid before.
The ſtrength and evidence of this reaſoning will the better appear if we lay by it another to the ſame tune and upon the ſame terms. It cannot be denyed to be as good an argumentation as this, if I ſhould thus argue. Before it be committed it is no ſin, and where there is no ſin, there is no penalty due, and where it is not due, it cannot properly be required; therefore the ſins that have been committed ſince the death of Chriſt, had not their penalty born by Chriſt, before they were committed, and conſequently, Gods juſtice remains unſatisfyed for the ſins of all, that have been committed ſince the death of Chriſt, and every offender is to bear the condemnation of them in his own boſome, though the grounds of certain remiſſion were laid before [in God] except another Chriſt be ſent from heaven to bear, or the ſame Chriſt again to bear the penalty of the ſins after they are committed. Whether this argumentation doth not carry in it as great, if not greater, likelihood of reaſon then Mr. Baxters, I leave to every rationall man to judge. And thus when a proud luſt poſſeſſeth us to reaſon from our own brain and not from Gods word, we eaſily reaſon our ſelves into hell.
Neither do I ſee how Mr. Baxter according to this reaſoning can ever look to be juſtifyed or ſaved, except by one of theſe two wayes, either by aſſerting his own righteouſneſſe (which hitherto with his fellowes) he hath made but a collaterall with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to juſtifie and ſave) to be at a pinch allſufficient and effectuall to perfect the work without Chriſt; as it is with partners in a Trade, and buying and ſelling of wares, what one doth both do, and what bargain one makes both muſt ſtand to it: Or elſe by canonizing the Popiſh maſſe, to offer therein Chriſt often unto God as a ſacrifice for the expiation and forgiveneſſe of his ſins when he hath committed them, ſith Chriſts offering himſelf was in no wiſe the bearing of the penalty, or ſatisfying of Gods juſtice, for his or our ſins, becauſe not then committed.
But let us ſee whether in any ſenſe the reaſoning of Mr. Baxter here, may be made good or taken up as tolerable. Not to mention here Gods forgiving of ſins as an act immanent in God from eternity. For this would but make Mr. Baxter ſtartle, he is no more patient to hear this voice, then was Caligula at the voice of Thunder; his bloud riſeth at it, as do theirs at the ſight of a Cat whoſe natures have an antipathy to that poor creature that never meant them hurt: Let us conſider forgiveneſſe and pardon in tearms and wayes as himſelf granteth a poſſibility of giving and receiving it. And
Firſt, in foro conſcientiae at the bar of God in the conſcience of man, to which he moſt limiteth and contracteth remiſſion and juſtification. May not the offender apprehend and apply to himſelf the pardon of his future (as well as of his paſt and preſent) ſins through the Lord Chriſt in ſome ſenſe?
1. In reſpect of the ſeed of all the ſins which he ſhall through infirmity commit in the time to come of his life, I mean his corrupt nature or originall defilement and ſin, from which as from their naturall ſource, all their acts of ſin ſpring, every true beleever is, and may apprehend himſelf pardoned; this the very Papiſts acknowledge, denying originall ſin and defectiveneſſe to have any mortality of ſin in it, becauſe the guilt thereof is purged from the ſoul by the bloud of Chriſt at his very firſt admiſſion and entrance into Chriſt, (as they ſay) In this reſpect I doubt not but Mr. Baxter will confeſſe that all their after acts of ſin are remitted (in their ſeed and womb) to beleevers before they be committed.
2. In reſpect of Gods not imputing them to the perſon that ſhall offend, ſo the ſins not yet committed are forgiven to every elect perſon. God hath laid on Chriſts ſcore all the ſins of the elect, committed or to be committed, and ſatisfyed his juſtice for them upon Chriſt, who in their names hath paid the penalty of all, therefore their conſciences are diſcharged, neither ſins paſt nor ſins to come ſhall be any more imputed to them. There is no condemnation to them that are in Chriſt Jeſus, Rom. 8. 1. There is dayly new ſinning, why not alſo ſubjection to condemnation? becauſe the perſon being in Chriſt, though ſubject to a neceſſity of ſinning, yet through the juſtification of his perſon is exempted from the further imputation of ſin ſo committed unto condemnation; He that beleeveth hath everlaſting life, and ſhall not come into condemnation, Joh. 5. 24. He comes dayly into the acting of new ſins; how is it that he comes not into a ſubjection and obligation to condemnation by thoſe ſins but becauſe they were forgiven to the offender before, therefore not imputed to him when committed? It is one chief priviledge of the new Covenant, Their ſins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remiſſion of theſe is, there is no more offering for ſin? Jer. 31. 38. &c. Heb. 10. 17, 18. ſpeaks the holy Ghoſt here only of ſin paſt and not of thoſe to come, that they which are within the new Covenant, have remiſſion of them? then
1. The ſame perſon hath ſome ſins forgiven and ſome not forgiven by Chriſt, that which is paſt is remitted, that which is to come is retained.
2. Then the priviledge is no priviledge, if only ſins paſt are not remembred, but ſins to come are kept in Gods memory to impute them every moment as faſt as they are committed: For one of theſe laſt milſtones tyed to the neck of the poor offender, ſinks him into hell as ſurely as if all that are removed had their weight returned upon him with that one to ſink him.
3. If God hath remitted and juſtifyed a beleever from the ſins which he hath committed, and not from the ſins which he foreknoweth they will commit, but imputeth or will impute them, then is the ſame perſon both juſtifyed and unjuſtifyed at the ſame time, and God at the ſame time both loveth the ſame perſon to eternall life, and hateth him to eternall condemnation: which were no leſſe abſurdity then to attribute two contrary wils acting in God at once, and ſo the ſame perſon be declared in his own conſcience at the ſame time both in the ſtate of life, and in the ſtate of death; of life, in reſpect of the ſins paſt forgiven through Chriſt; of death, in regard of the ſins to come not yet forgiven.
Secondly, In Chriſt, or (as Mr. Baxter terms it Theſis 43.) in Chriſts own juſtification, either all ſins are forgiven to the elect or none at all. When having done their Law, and paid their debt, Chriſt appeared in the moſt holy place, in the heaven at Gods mercy ſeat to mediate with his bloud for them, he either received acquitance from, and forgiveneſſe of all the ſins which his elect in after times ſhould commit, and ſo in Chriſt their ſins to come were forgiven, or elſe no ſin was forgiven; for as yet they were not in being, therefore neither were their ſins yet committed. But he received then in their names a full acquitance and forgiveneſſe of their ſins as hath been before ſhewed, therefore of their ſins before they were committed, and they were forgiven before they had offended. Hence ſome of our Divines thus reaſon, if ſince Chriſts ſatisfaction any ſins be imputed any more to the elect, they muſt be ſuch as Chriſt hath or hath not expiated with his bloud, and made ſatisfaction for to Gods juſtice; if ſuch as Chriſt hath expiated, then notwithſtanding that God imputes the ſin, yet the perſon to whom he imputes it is in grace and favour with God, and the full penalty of his ſin (while imputed) is paid to God: but this were injuſtice not incident to God to impute a debt which is fully paid him. If ſuch as Chriſt hath not ſatisfyed for, then the faith of an elect perſon obtains at Gods hands forgiveneſſe, or the not imputing of ſuch ſins, for which Chriſt hath not ſatisfyed Gods juſtice, and ſo there ſhall be here remiſſion without the ſhedding of bloud, and juſtification out of Chriſt; or faith and Goſpell obedience ſhall be the price and ranſome of their ſoules: All which is moſt abſurd. Therefore, the ſins of the elect yet uncommitted, are in Chriſt as fully forgiven, as thoſe that are already committed.
Thirdly, If Mr. Baxters meaning be when he ſaith [the ſin is not forgiven before it be committed] that the beleever hath not a ſingular apprehenſion of the forgiveneſſe of every ſingular ſin before it be committed, and that God hath not declared to his conſcience the forgiveneſſe of every ſingular offence, i. e. this evill which at this, and that evill which in that hour of his life he ſhall drop into: I acknowledge in this ſenſe neither are any of our ſins future forgiven, nor many of our ſins paſt. For who in this caſe knoweth (not only how oft he ſhall erre, but alſo how oft and wherein he hath erred? in this reſpect the generall pardon ſealed in Chriſt bloud to us, though it mention not every ſingular errour of our lives contained under the generall, is alſufficient for us.
But perhaps Mr. Baxters meaning is, that Chriſt hath not purchaſed to the elect a plenary and abſolute forgiveneſſe, but hath conditionally dyed for all if they ſhall beleeve and obey, and upon this condition runs the hope of pardon as to the ſins which they ſhall commit unto their lives end; their renewed ſins being dayly pardoned upon the continuance and dayly renewing of their obedience, and ſo this Theſis runs in the ſame channell with the 43, 44, & 45. Poſitions, and for this cauſe I have annexed it to them; Neither do I ſpeak any thing to this Poſition in this ſenſe here, becauſe it is prevented by what hath been already ſaid in the examination of what he hath ſaid there. And too much hath been ſaid both to thoſe and this Poſition in which nothing but Magiſteriall aſſertions without proofs are to be found.