Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 24
CHAP. XXIV.
Arg. Mr. Baxters new Modell of the cauſes of Juſtification examined; and firſt his diſpute about the efficients, and the materiall and formall cauſes thereof.
MR. Baxter in his 56. Theſis diſputeth very Logically, though but little Theologically, of the cauſes of juſtification, and becauſe he thinks them all Athenians whom he hath a luſt to corrupt, viz. ſuch as ſpend their time in nothing elſe but in telling or hearing ſome new thing, Act. 17. 21. therefore looking aſide from that which all the ſoundeſt, i. e. (with him) the Antinomian Divines have ſaid upon this Argument, and diſdaining it with a ſquint eye as too ruſtick, and not enough pretty and dialecticall; himſelf preſents me with a new caſe and order of cauſes from the forge of his fancie, viz. ſome ſole and ſome ſociall, ſome ſingle and ſome double, ſome proper and ſome improper cauſes, ſome cauſes that are cauſes, and ſome cauſes that are no cauſes; without further particularizing take him thus in his own words,
B. Theſis 56.
By what hath been ſaid it is apparent, that juſtification in title may be aſcribed to ſeverall cauſes.
1. The principall efficient cauſe is God.
2. The inſtrumentall is the promiſe or grant of the new Covenant.
3. The Pr…catartick cauſe (ſo far as God may be ſaid to be moved by any thing out of himſelf, ſpeaking after the manner of men) is fourfold.
1 And chiefly, the ſatisfaction of Chriſt.
2 The interceſſion of Chriſt, and ſupplication of the ſinner.
3 The neceſſity of the ſinner.
4 The opportunity and advantage for the glorifying of his juſtice and merciemercy.
The firſt of theſe is the meritorious cauſe: the ſecond, the morall perſwading cauſe: the third is the objective: and the fourth is the occaſion.
2. Materiall cauſe properly it hath none, if you will improperly call Chriſts ſatisfaction the remote matter, I contend not.
3. The formall cauſe is acquiting of the ſinner from the accuſation and condemnation of the Law, or the diſabling the Law to accuſe or condemn him.
4. The finall cauſe is the glory of God, and of the Mediator, and the deliverance of the ſinner.
5. The Cauſa ſine qua non, is both Chriſts ſatisfaction, and the faith of the juſtifyed.
It muſt be granted that he is not a man of delicacies, hath a dull eye, and dry brain, whoſoever is not enamoured with ſo fair a ſhew of cauſes, like a cup-bord of rich glaſſes ſet in artificiall order, and able to dazle the eye of the beholder; what pity is it that any one of them ſhould meet with a knock and be broken, and ſo the beautifull order in which they were placed, be on a ſuddain marred; yet if ſuch a thing ſhould fall out, it were no great wonder. Pretineſſe and ſtrength are rarely twins, and we ſpeak of prety things but rarely, long in the preſent tenſe, before their periſhing by weakneſſe forceth us to take up another tone, and to tell that there was ſuch a delicate toy, but if we ſeek it, the place thereof is not to be found. It is poſſible ſuch a ſtroke may befall the image that Mr. Baxter hath here ſet up in imitation of that of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 2. 31, 32, 33, &c. it hath clay in the feet, cannot goe without halting, if it meet with a ſtone to cruſh its toes, it may poſſibly fall all to ſhivers. Himſelf ſeems to doubt of it, therefore prepares himſelf to defend it, as ſeeing, it cannot defend him or it ſelf. So ſaith he in the Explication.
B. Here it will be expected that I anſwer to theſe Queſtions,
1. Why I call the Goſpell the Inſtrumentall cauſe?
2. Why I call Chriſts ſatisfaction the Meritorious cauſe, and the Cauſa ſine qua non?
3. Why I make not Chriſts righteouſneſſe the Materiall cauſe.
4. Why I make not the imputation of it the formall cauſe?
5. Why I make not faith the Inſtrumentall cauſe?
6. Why I make it only the Cauſa ſine qua non?
To theſe Quaeries it will be expected (ſaith he) that he anſwer. But what if other beſides theſe exceptions be made, though it be in his power to deny his anſwer, yet it is not in his choice or authority to reſtrain any from excepting.
1 Perhaps ſome may except why he in aſſerting God to be the principall efficient cauſe of Juſtification, lets it paſſe ſo nakedly without an adjection of any of his attributes; ſo leaving it doubtfull whether it be the grace or the juſtice, the love or the hatred, the mercy or the wrath of God that is the efficient of Juſtification. We may eaſily anſwer our ſelves as to this queſtion, It is not Gods, but Mr. Baxters juſtification whereof the cauſes are here aſſigned, ſuch as the Scriptures are unacquainted with, a juſtification of his own deviſing, defining and diſtinguiſhing, himſelf and none before himſelf (that I know) was in every point acquainted with it: No marvell then if he ſpeak differingly in ſetting forth the cauſes of his, from our Divines in laying down the cauſes of Gods juſtification. And indeed it is a difficult queſtion to determine whether his juſtification (if it were at all granted to be of God) might challenge more properly the love or the hatred, the grace or the juſtice of God for its womb: It being a juſtification that leaves all men under the curſe, under the wrath of God, both in life and in death, untill the very day of Judgment, (as we have found him diſputing moſt profoundly in and under his 9. Theſis.) A juſtification that gives only a titular title without actuall and abſolute poſſeſſion of any greateſt or leaſt benefit to the juſtifyed, [which according to Mr. Baxter is the ſame thing as if we ſhould ſay to the unjuſtifyed,] A juſtification more unpoſſible to be apprehended and held, then was the firſt juſtification by works, that was held forth upon poſſible tearms, exacting from a living man only continuance in the works of life; this upon unpoſſible (as reſpecting our preſent ſtate of infirmity) offering to a dead ſoul righteouſneſſe and life, upon condition the dead ſoul will quicken and ariſe from the dead to fetch it thence, whither if it come it muſt ſtill abide empty as it came, untill the day of Judgment, and then Mr. Baxter will come again to tell us more of his minde whether it be at all attainable. I do not at all injury the man in ſaying he offers juſtification to a dead ſoul, &c. upon condition the ſoul will quicken it ſelf. For let there be found but one clauſe in his whole book that implyeth a concurrence and effuſion of grace from God, more to the quickning and juſtifying of Peter and Paul, then of Cain and Judas, of the damned then of the ſaved. Or what doth he leſſe that brings in works to juſtification, then deſtroy grace, to ſet up juſtification after the order and rule of ſtrict juſtice? Or when Mr. Baxter is ſo exact in enumerating the Procatarcticall or outwardly moving cauſes; to what purpoſe doth he jumpe over the Proegumene or inward moving cauſe, viz. the grace, love, and mercy which is within God himſelf, but to impriſon it in darkneſſe and eclipſe its glory, that mans righteouſneſſe might have the praiſe which pertains to God alone?
2 It may be alſo queſtioned, why amongſt all the cauſes of juſtification here aſſigned, there is no mention made of union and communion with Chriſt; when as our Divines following the rule of the Word, makes our union with him the very chief cauſe and ground of our being juſtifyed or declared to be juſtifyed according to the Goſpell juſtification, 1 Joh. 5: 12. Phil. 3. 9. 1 Cor. 5. 19. and a multitude of other Scriptures which they alleadge, and if there were the leaſt need I might here quote a ſcore. What elſe but an evill eye, maligning the praiſe of God and of his Chriſt, ſuppreſſeth in ſilence and ſuffers not to appear in the chain of the cauſes of juſtification this link of union with Chriſt. Is it not that he will make our faith and works yet out of Chriſt the cauſe of our union with Chriſt, and not this the ground of the other?
3 To come to thoſe queſtions which Mr. Baxter anſwereth becauſe he conceives it will be expected.
1. About the inſtrumentall cauſe, we queſtion not what he goes about to anſwer why he cals the promiſe or grant of the new Covenant, or the Goſpell, the inſtrumentall cauſe of juſtification actively conſidered? but 1. Why he makes it the only inſtrumental cauſe, of juſtification howſoever conſidered? For this grant and promiſe doth by it ſelf no more juſtifie the beleevers then the infidels, the juſtifyed then the unjuſtifyed. Doth not God alſo make the ſpirit his inſtrument of juſtifying, by declaring and unfolding the doctrine of the Goſpell, and evidencing and witneſſing to the ſoul remiſſion and juſtification, together with the love and grace of God from which this juſtification floweth? Why doth he ſtifle the working of the Spirit from having to do in this great work, except either with the Sadduces he denies the being, or with the Socinians the divinity and divine operation of the Spirit, or elſe to leave open a door to let in juſtification by the fleſh not by the Spirit, by the ſtrength of mans free will without the preventing helps of the Spirit of grace? Or as juſtification is taken paſſively for our being juſtifyed in our ſelves, why is not faith put as an inſtrumentall cauſe alſo? But this Mr. Baxter will anſwer anon, and I ſhall wait on him to hear how ſatisfactory his anſwer is.
2. Whether in his anſwer to the Queſtion as he puts it, when he makes a mans leaſe or deed of gift, and a Kings pardon to have their force from the hand and ſeal annexed to it, is it not much more implyed that the grant of the Goſpell without hand and ſeal put to it is not a ſufficient inſtrument to the juſtifying of any man. For the grant of the Goſpell is made to the world indefinitely, but when faith as the impreſſion of Gods hand upon the ſoul, and the Spirit witneſſing and ſealing to the conſcience thou art the perſon to whom the juſtification generally propoſed in the Goſpell doth particularly belong, and ſo are applyed by God as true acceſſary evidences to the grant of the Goſpell, to terminate juſtification upon the ſoul of man, can Mr. Baxter deny theſe being acts of God diſtinct from the word of promiſe, to be inſtrumentall to juſtification as properly and fully as the ſaid promiſe and grant?
3. To his Procatarctick cauſes which in the Theſis he giveth [viz. ſo far as God may be ſaid to be moved by any thing out of himſelf, ſpeaking after the manner of men, ſaith he] I aske
1 Whether God may be moved in his will, by any thing out of himſelf? If ſo, whether then ſomething out of God do not give magis & minus, increaſe and diminution to God? For every change of Gods will is a change of God himſelf, and what ſhall it avail any to be juſtifyed by a mutable God that to day will juſtifie, to morrow unjuſtifie againe, being apt to take impreſſion of change from things without him? yea if a God mutable, then in truth no God, but one of the Pagans Idols or Puppets. Or how little doth his additionall cauſe help him, [to ſpeake after the manner of m…n] he ought not to ſpeak a lie for God to pleaſe men; much leſſe to lie againſt God, to faſhion himſelf to the manners of men, fooliſh or wicked men. If he ſay God cannot be moved by any thing out of himſelf, how can he excuſe himſelf from being a ſlanderer of the moſt high God, by deviſing and aſſerting here 4. cauſes out of God moving him to juſtifie us, having before wilfully ſuppreſſed in darkneſſe the riches of Gods grace within himſelf alſufficient without any auxiliary ſtrength from the creature to move him? How prepoſterous is he herein to the order of nature, making the fruit to bear the tree, and not the tree the fruit? What leſſe doth he in making Chriſts ſatisfaction and interceſſion, the ſinners ſupplication and deſire of ſupply, and the opportunity or advantage, for the glorifying of his juſtice and merciemercy, the cauſes of Gods will, and gracious willings, when contrariwiſe Gods gracious will is the cauſe of all theſe?
2 Whether he jears at the invaluable means of our ſalvation, or elſe that he thinks himſelf matching cocks for the game, that he counterpoiſeth the higheſt perfections of Chriſts mediatorſhip with mans vanity? how unſufferable is it to ſee him putting into the one ſcale a precious pearl, into the other a peppercorn or cherry ſtone? To match Chriſts interceſſion with the ſinners ſupplication? To make the feebleneſſe of man, a collaterall and concauſe in the ſame order and degree of efficacy to juſtification, with the vertue of Chriſt glorifyed? It is to be acknowledged that the nothingneſſe of the one is of as full validity as the omnipotency (if I may ſo terme it) of the other to beget new love, new purpoſes, new acts in Gods will. This is that which God himſelf cannot do, not becauſe it is a work above his power, but beneath his nature and perfection, to work or to be capable of the working of any new impreſſions or changes in his will. Nevertheleſſe this excuſeth not Mr. Baxters vilifying of Chriſt in mating his interceſſion with the ſinners ſupplication, as if the former were a ſtar of the ſame magnitude with the latter: like that profane fellow that twiſted together Religion and Cheeſe.
3 Not to trifle away time upon every trifling word of Mr. Baxter, I demand of him why (ſeeing in the Explication, pa. 215. he acknowledgeth that Procatarcticall or [outwardly] impulſive cauſes have properly no place with God] he doth yet in his Theſis here fetch about again his four impulſive cauſes to marke them with ſeverall names in their foreheads in Ariſtotles print? is it not a teſtimony under his own hand that he will rather play and dance about God as if he were a meer may-pole, then loſe the oſtentation of one leaſt peece of his wit and art?
4 Though I mean not to contend about the meritorious cauſality of Chriſts ſatisfaction, becauſe in this he hath as well many orthodox writers as Papiſts ſpeaking in the ſame tone with him: nevertheleſſe I ſhould deny his aſſertion unleſſe he he will grant me theſe 4. or 5. ſuppoſitions.
1. That ſo far as juſtification is an act eternall and immamanent in God, Chriſts ſatisfaction is not the meritorious cauſe of it.
2. If in ſome other reſpect it be the meritorious cauſe, that God doth therein merit from himſelf. For the ſatisfaction made to him is of his own proper money, himſelfe paid the price in delivering his Sonne for our ſinnes, the body which Chriſt offered for us was given him by the Father to offer in our behalf.
3. That this merit muſt in no wiſe hinder, but that the entire benefit of juſtification muſt come to us freely without money and without price.
4. That it is but unproperly termed merit even then when it reſpecteth the diſcharge which God giveth into a mans conſcience, it being ſo called metaphorically as our ſtate in ſin is conſidered as a ſtate of debt, which when Chriſt our ſurety hath paid for us he hath ſo far merited only, as the payment of our debt may be ſaid to deſerve that we ſhould receive a full acquittance from the debt. In which Mr. Baxter goeth yet further, that it was ſo paid, that the Creditour might have choſen to accept it for ſatisfaction, much more to have given us a full acquittance and diſcharge. So that in relation to him and his principles, it is leſſe properly merit, then to another.
5. That Chriſts ſatisfaction is more properly to be called Gods foundation of this our new relation of juſtifyed perſons, upon which he hath inabled himſelf to juſtifie us in merciemercy, without any ſeeming diminution of his juſtice and truth. Theſe things granted me, I diſmiſſe Mr. Baxter with his meri…orlous cauſe.
5 When he cals Chriſts interc…ſſion and the ſinners ſupplication the morall perſwading cauſe, &c. I demand whether there were ſuch a totall deficiency, or ſo great a ſcarcity of morall reaſon in God, that it needed a begetting or quickning by perſwaſions from without him? or whether he were ſo flinty a… that without ſtrong perſwaſive reaſons he could not be induced to melt out his mercy in juſtifying us? How then was he in Chriſt reconciling the world to himſelf before all ſuch actuall interceſſion and prayers? 2 Cor. 5. 19.
6. The like might I ſay of his objective and occaſionall cauſes; that objects and occaſions have their being and qualifications from Gods either directive or promiſſive providence, that they may ſerve to his eternall and abſolute volſitions and purpoſes; not that they work any new thing in the will and purpoſes of God, for then like the Maſſe-prieſts ſhould they be the creators of their Creator.
4. To his ſecond Queſtion, Why he cals Christs ſatisfaction, both the Meritorious cauſe, and the Cauſa ſine qua non; If he had not, I ſhould not have made it a queſtion. But becauſe he delighteth both to put the queſtion and to anſwer it, I ſhall not permit his anſwer wholly to paſſe without a ſhort reply.
B. Pag. 215. That it is the Meritorious cauſe I know few but Socinians that will deny.
He muſt needs mean few Baxterians, that are not alſo Socinians, i. e. few of them that with him deny juſtification to be an eternall immanent act in God. For Mr. Baxter himſelf whether he be, or be not a Socinian, will and muſt grant, that if juſtification be, and as far as it is an eternall immanent act in God; Chriſts ſatisfaction neither is nor can be the Meritorious cauſe thereof. But as we look to the juſtification, as in time applyed and declared to the ſoul and conſcience which Mr. Baxter calleth the juſtification of the new Covenant, and the Scriptures juſtification by faith, of this juſtification I will not contend with him, but Chriſts ſatisfaction (though no where in the word totidem verbis ſo termed) yet may enough properly be termed the Meritorious cauſe.
But why he will alſo have it called the Cauſa ſine qua non, a blinde man may eaſily ſee his reaſon; what elſe doth he drive at but to put it in the ſame order of Cauſality with faith and good works, which alſo in the whole ſequele of this Treatiſe is with him the Cauſa ſine qua non, and conſequently to make Chriſts ſufferings and mans qualifications collaterall cauſes of Juſtification? Hereunto pertaineth his extolling the cauſe ſine qua non, and exalting the praiſe thereof above other cauſes,Pag. 216, 217. not ſo much to attribute it to Chriſts ſatisfaction, as preparatively to deifie and equalize with Chriſt the meritorious perfection of mans righteouſneſſe, which he is bringing in as a rivall of Chriſt for the honor of juſtification; and herein he will rather turn Cynick then leave the praiſe of man in his juſtification any one inch beneath the praiſe of Chriſt. For hereunto pertaines his Quare me non laudas qui dignus ſum ut accipiam? Plus enim eſt meruiſſe quam dediſſe beneficium? If God be to be praiſed for giving juſtification, why not I that am worthy to receive it? for it is more honourable to have deſerved then to have given a Benefit. How well this agreeth with that which he hath in and under his 24, 26, & 27. Theſes, I leave the Reader to conſider; and how fully he ſpeaks it out in the following doctrine of this book, we ſhall ſee more fully afterward. Yea when he here puts Chriſts ſatisfaction in the ſame kind of cauſality with faith and works, which he here cals the Cauſa ſine qua non, elſewhere the conditions of juſtification; and Theſis 62. pronounceth faith to be the principall, and works the leſſe principall condition; what place doth he leave for Chriſts ſatisfaction, but to be a footſtool to our faith and works?
Ob. Yes he reſerves the entire praiſe of merit ſtill to Chriſts ſatisfaction alone.
Anſw. Not ſo, for though in words he ſometimes aſſerteth Chriſts ſatisfaction to be the merit of our juſtification, yet he makes the worthineſſe of our own righteouſneſſe to be that which makes both Chriſts merit and juſtification merited to be ours, and ſo we out-merit Chriſt, deſerving not only juſtification but Chriſt the meriter, and the merit of Chriſt to be made ours: In this he is worſe then the Papiſts. They give the praiſe of our m…rit to Chriſt; he hath merited (ſaith they) a power …o our works to merit. This man contrariwiſe, that neither Chriſts merits, nor juſtification the fruit of it becomes ours, untill we by our merits and worthineſſe have put our ſelves into the poſſeſſion of it; ſo according to the Papiſts the efficacy of mans merits depends upon Chriſts merits: according to Mr. Baxter the efficacy of Chriſts merits (as to this or that juſtifyed perſon) depends upon a mans own merits, as in the fore quoted Theſis he manifeſteth himſelf: Let all men judge whether his ambition bends not to be more then an approver, even an eminent improver of Popery.
5. To his third queſtion ſomewhat alſo. In the Theſis where he gives us the order of the cauſes of juſtification, to ſet up his own, not Gods juſtification, he ſaith,
B. Materiall cauſe properly it hath none; if you will improperly call Chriſts ſatisfaction the remote matter, I contend not.
And in the explication pa. 214. againſt what he had ſaid in the Theſis, he ſuppoſeth it will be queſtioned.
B. 3. Why he makes not Chriſts righteouſneſſe the Materiall cauſe?
And pag. 217. He thus anſwers the queſtion:
B. Chriſts righteouſneſſe cannot be the materiall cauſe of an act which hath no matter. If any will call Chriſts righteouſneſſe, the matter of our righteouſneſſe, though yet they ſpeak unproperly, yet far neerer the truth then to call it the matter of our juſtification.
We have here as elſewhere a Momus among the Gods, a curious and carping Critick againſt not only Eccleſiaſticall but Canonicall writings alſo, no farther owning what they ſpeak then as they ſpeak it in a dialecticall dialect, ſo ſetting Ariſtotle above Chriſt and weighing all the ſentences of the Goſpell in the ſcales of Logicall terms and maxims, and Socinus-like ſubmitting all the truths of the Goſpell to reaſon, yea to the rules of Ariſtotles logick or reaſon; Juſtification is an act ſaith he, and there is no matter of an act, ergo, it hath no materiall cauſe. Chriſt therefore and his Apoſtles, yea all the Doctors of the Church that ſpeak after the Scriptures, are dunces, delivering a vain Theologie not truely Theologicall, becauſe not after the Peripateticks precepts totally Logicall.
But what law of Medes and Perſians can binde the holy Ghoſt never to mention juſtification but ſtrictly under the conſideraration of an act? Will Mr. Baxter deny it ſometimes to be uſed in a paſſive ſenſe? Or what he ſaith of faith Theſis 62. may it not more truly be affirmed of juſtification, That as a whole Country oft takes it name from the chief City, ſo may all the privileges and benefits of the Goſpell from juſtification, ſo that when it is named all the reſt are implyed and named under it? The thing in queſtion I acknowledge, (Mr. Baxter granting what he grants) is not of great moment; but the ſupercilious haughtineſſe of the man puft with the opinion of his ſecular learning ſo high as to puf and pif at ſo many excellent Divines for learning and holineſſe, to many of which he is not worthy to be an Amanuenſis, is unſufferable. I ſhall therefore as briefly as I can expreſſe upon what grounds our Divines and how far they make the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt the matter of our juſtification, as near as I may upon good probabilities conjecture.
The Doctrine of juſtification by Chriſt, is no where in the four Evangeliſts held forth under the name of juſtification or juſtifying. Many both Parables and clear doctrines that proceeded from the lips of Chriſt, do indeed in other words fully diſplay it; ſpecially John the Evangeliſt, who made it more his task to record the doctrine then the acts of Chriſt (becauſe he ſaw thoſe hiſtorifyed ſomewhat largely by the other three Evangeliſts which had written before him,) Eagle-like mounting on high to the contemplation of his Celeſtiall and Divine nature and doctrines, very exactly ſets it forth but under other words, naming it Life, eternall Life, everlaſting Life; He that beleeveth in the Son hath everlaſting life, Joh. 3. 36. Is paſſed from death to life, Joh. 5. 24. Hath eternall life, Joh. 6. 54. My fleſh which I give for the life of the world, Joh. 6. 51. And ye will not come to me that ye may have life, Joh. 5. 40. Except ye eat my fleſh and drink my bloud, ye have no life in you, he that eateth me ſhall live by me, Joh. 6. 57. In all which and many other texts of this Evangeliſt none can deny but by life is to be underſtood chiefly, if not only, life in law, the life of juſtification, not that of glory which is to be received above, but that of grace here. For ſo thoſe Scriptures point out a life here in this preſent world enduring everlaſtingly to all eternity, and not a life here only to be hoped for, and hereafter to come into our fruition. Neither do I find the word [juſtifie] uſed but once by Luke in the Acts of the Apoſtles. Nor yet at all in any one of the Epiſtles of the Apoſtles (St. James only excepted in one Chapter) but by the Apoſtle Paul alone. Yet the ſubſtance of juſtification was the chief doctrine in▪ all their Epiſtles handled, but the ſame ſet forth under the name of Salvation, ſaving, life, and other phraſes which our Saviour himſelf uſed. And theſe phraſes alſo doth St. Paul uſe as equipollent with the word Juſtifying in all his Epiſtles.
Now the reaſon why this Apoſtle more then the reſt treats of this doctrine under the name of [juſtification] I conceive to be this: Becauſe he was forced to handle it by way of controverſie againſt the falſe Apoſtles, ſome profeſſing, ſome rejecting Chriſt, that taught juſtification and ſalvation by the works of the Law in part, and not by faith only; whom therefore he muſt needs in his diſputes treat with in their own tearms and words. Their Argumentation againſt the Apoſtle (as may be gathered from the Apoſtles anſwers) ran in this tenour and to this effect, That righteouſneſſe alone which juſtifyeth or maketh a man perfectly righteous, ſaveth. But the righteouſneſſe of the Law, is that righteouſneſſe alone which juſtifyeth or maketh man perfectly righteous, at leaſt by procuring proper righteouſneſſe to him: therefore that alone ſaveth.
The Apoſtle here granteth the propoſition, that no other righteouſneſſe but that which juſtifyeth or maketh a man perfectly righteous ſaveth: But denyeth the aſſumption, that the righteouſneſſe of the Law only or at all juſtifyeth or maketh a man perfectly righteous: Becauſe only the perfect doers of the law are perfectly righteous, not the hearers. But no man can perfectly do it. And contrariwiſe proveth that the righteouſneſs of the Goſpel which he cals the Righteouſneſſe of God, the Righteouſneſſe of faith, the Righteouſneſſe of God by faith, which conſiſteth in Chriſts ſatisfaction imputed to us, is the Righteouſneſſe which juſtifyeth and maketh perfectly righteous, becauſe it cleanſeth from the guilt and freeth from the imputation of all ſin and unrighteouſneſſe. Rom. 1. 17. & 3. 5, 21, 22, 25, 26. & 4. 3, 5, 6, 11. & 5. 17, 18, 21. & 9. 30. & 10. 3, 4, 6. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Phil. 3. 9. In all which places and in many other the Apoſtle having rejected the righteouſneſſe of works from being, aſſerteth the righteouſneſſe of God in Chriſt by faith, to be the righteouſneſſe, the matter and ſubſtance of the righteouſneſſe by which we are juſtifyed. This he illuſtrateth Rom. 5. 19. by a compariſon between Adam and Christ, Adams diſobedience and Chriſts obedience, As by the diſobedience of one man, many were made ſinners: ſo by the obedience of one ſhall many be made roghteous: the ones diſobedience was not only the merit, but alſo the matter of our ſin, as far as ſin is capable of matter, the very ſin it ſelf, which being imputed to us as being in him, without any perſonall and actuall ſin of our own, makes us ſinners. So the obedience of Chriſt in offering himſelf a ſacrifice for ſin, and giving ſatisfaction to Gods juſtice in obedience to that poſitive command of the Father which required it, was and is not only the merit, but alſo the matter of that righteouſneſſe which being imputed to us (as being in Chriſt) without any perſonall obedience of ours added to it, conſtituteth us righteous and juſtifyed in Gods acceptance, or is that for by and in which the Lord pronounceth us juſt and juſtifyed to our own conſciences. Such is the frequent diſpute of the Apoſtle about the ſubſtance and matter of that righteouſneſſe by which we are juſtify ad, which he concludes not to be a righteouſneſſe inherent in us, but this Righteouſneſſe inherent in Chriſt, but imputed to us and apprehended by faith to juſtification; whom God hath ſet forth as a propitiation for our ſinnes through faith in his blood, Rom. 3. 25. And this is all that I finde our Divines to mean in ſaying the righteouſneſſe or ſatisfaction of Chriſt is the materiall cauſe of our juſtification defending againſt the Papiſts as the Apoſtle did againſts the Phariſees, that the matter of the righteouſneſſe which God accepteth and imputeth to us in juſtifying us, or unto righteouſneſſe and juſtification, is this righteouſneſſe of Chriſt only, not the righteouſneſſe of works. Mr. Baxter in rejecting the phraſe, 1. As rude and not Logicall; 2. As at the beſt unproper; doth firſt, accuſe the Apoſtle; and ſecondarily, them that follow his Apoſtolicall doctrine and phraſe, of this rudeneſſe and impropriety of language: One of them ſpeaks out the minde of the reſt, Deus juſtitiam, i. e. Obedientiam & ſatisfactionem Sevarpius …rſ. Th eol. … juſtif. …. 925.Christi noſtram facit ac pro nostra ducit, &c. atque ita nos antequam justos pronunciet juſtos facit; God makes the righteouſneſſe, i. e. the obedience and ſatisfaction of Chriſt ours, accounts it for ours, &c. and ſo before he pronounceth us he maketh us righteous. Let us be rude with the Apoſtle as long as we ſtand fixed in the doctrine of grace with the Apoſtles. That Mr. Baxter ſpeaks more Logically after the Sophiſters, and captivates himſelf to their learned errours (however he may applaud himſelf therein) we conceive it to deſerve more pity then envie.
6. To his fourth Queſtion I ſhall ſpeak but little, becauſe I underſtand him but little. Neither have I that edge upon my dull brain to diſcern whether in his acuteneſſe he doth more contradict others or himſelf? or what other leaſt cauſe he hath to contradict (granting what he grants) ſave …ly the ſpirit of contradiction. The formall cauſe of juſtification in his Theſis we have thus;
B. The formall cauſe is the acquitting of the ſinner from the accuſation and condemnation of the law, or the diſabling the law to accuſe or condemn him.
The queſtion that he conceiveth will be put to him here to anſwer is;
B. Why he makes not the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe the formall cauſe?
To this he anſwers, p. 218.
B. That imputation is not the forme is undeniable. The forme gives the name: eſpecially to actions that have no matter. Imputation and Juſtification, denote diſtinct acts; and how then can imputing be the form of juſtifying, &c.
Here before I can underſtand the depths of Mr. Baxter, I muſt be reſolved by him in ſome Queries.
1. Whether juſtification hath its being before it hath its form? For the form doth more unexceptively give the being then the name; and is in order of nature before the thing formed or named.
2. If not, Whether then there were ever a juſtifyed man (after the tenour of the new Covenant) upon earth, or ever ſhall be ſuch? For if the acquitting of the ſinner from the accuſation and condemnation of the Law, or the diſabling of the Law to accuſe or condemn, be the form of juſtification, then is juſtification unformed and without being (according to Mr. Baxter) untill the day of Judgment. Untill then he binds all hand and foot under the threatnings and curſe of the Law; as we have ſeen in and under his 9, 11, 12, & 13. Theſis, and how long after he doth not yet certifie us: ſo that if this be the form of juſtification, then after his principles there neither is nor ſhall be either juſtification or any juſtifyed perſon as long as the world laſteth, either in heaven or upon earth. Except Mr. Baxter will ſay the law is ſo dealt with by Chriſt, as Cnipperdoling was by John a Leyden, of the higheſt magiſtrate and judge made tormentor or hangman, depoſed from being any longer a righteous Accuſer, Judge or Condemner of guilty perſons; and made an Executioner and Tormentor of them whom no Law accuſeth or condemneth.
3. Whether the Law accuſeth or condemneth of any thing elſe but of ſin? And if not, Whether Gods acquitting the ſinner from the Lawes accuſation and condemnation, be not his acquitting the ſinner from all ſin that might expoſe him to the Lawes accuſing and condemning? This Mr. Baxter muſt grant except he will ſay a man may be acquitted from the Lawes, yet left unto the Devils accuſation and condemnation, as he ſeems before to hint. But this is no other acquitting but from the frying-pan into the fire, from a juſt accuſer and Judge, into the tyranny of an unjuſt ſlanderer and deſtroyer. Such a juſtification with its form we decline as damnation it ſelfe: if Mr. Baxter can with his Sophiſtry charm the Devill, let him grapple with him.
4. Whether the imputation of righteouſneſſe and the not imputing of ſin be not the ſame thing, neither an act diſtinct from the other, but each connoting and implying the other? For ſo he anſwers the queſtion, denying imputation to be the form, viz. imputation of righteouſneſſe, without the adject terme of diminution, the righteouſneſſe [of Chriſt] knowing well that ſome of the moſt conſiderate of the Antipapiſticall Divines place the form of juſtification, in the imputation of righteouſneſs, not in the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe (viz. which he hath done) Theſe two Quae…ies he muſt grant us, except he will ſinke from his own principles, and contradict himſelf.
5. Whether then there be any difference between Mr. Baxters form of juſtification, and that form which he impugneth? Whether the acquitting of the ſinner from the Law, from ſin which expoſeth to the Lawes accuſation and condemnation, be not the ſame thing in ſubſtance with Gods imputing of righteouſneſſe, and not imputing of ſin to him? What hath the one of theſe (ſave words alone) more or leſſe in it then the other? They muſt be Mr. Baxters Lynces eyes that are buſied in the ſpeculation of Democritus his Atomes and Platoes Ideas, that can diſcern the difference, my blunt fancie is uncapable and uncomprehenſive of it.
B. I believe (ſaith Mr. Baxter) that this imputing doth in order of nature goe before juſtifying.
And doth not the form in order of nature go before the thing formed? how elſe doth the form give it its ultimum eſſe? This more proves then denies imputation to be the form.
B. And that the righteouſneſſe ſo imputed is the proper ground whence we are denominated legally righteous, and why the Law cannot condemn us.
This alſo makes more for us, then for him. He tels us before that the forme gives the name. Now to be Legally righteous in Mr. Baxters phraſe, is to be righteous in the righteouſneſſe of Chriſts ſatisfaction. He that is ſo, is juſtifyed in title of Law, (as Mr. Baxter termes it, and here treats of it) if then it give denomination of legally righteous, it gives the name of juſtification in title of Law; (except he will ſay that a man is legally righteous in Chriſt before Gods gracious act makes him ſuch) if ſo, then is imputation the form of juſtification becauſe it gives it its name. He concludes well;
B. It is a vain thing to quarrell about the Logicall names of the cauſes of juſtification, if we agree in the matter.
Yet ſee I no other ground that Mr. Baxter hath to take up this quarrell againſt the whole ſtream of Proteſtant Divines in refuſing and oppugning the form of juſtification which they give, but to quarrell about names and words. The form which he ſubſtituteth in place of theirs, being the ſame with theirs in ſubſtance, and differing only in Logicall not Theologicall names and words. Unleſſe ſome will ſay there is a reall as well as a nominall difference between the diſabling of the Law to accuſe of ſin, and Gods not imputing ſin; i. e. between the Lawes acquitting, and Gods acquitting from ſin; between the Lawes not imputing unrighteouſneſſe, and Gods imputing righteouſneſſe; which is all one as if I ſhould put a difference between the pardon that diſables the Law of the Land from accuſing and condemning of a malefactor, and a pardon which acquits him from the offence which the ſame Law had power to accuſe him of, or between the not accuſing or condemning of a man, and the not imputing any thing to him to his accuſation and condemnation.