Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 26
CHAP. XXVI.
Arg. Mr. Baxters further diſpute upon the ſame Subject, examined and anſwered.
B. Pag. 223. TO the 6. and laſt Q…eſtion I anſwer, Faith is plainly and undeniably the condition of our juſtification. The whole tenour of the Goſpell ſhewes that. And a condition is but a Cauſa ſine qua non, or a medium, or a neceſſary antecedent.
Short and in compaſſe of words little is it which he here ſpeaketh, yet if we look to the matter thereof in it two things are principally to be examined.
1. That he makes faith the condition of juſtification, and what he means by that term?
2. That he cals it the Cauſa ſine qua non. He means (queſtionleſſe) the ſame thing by both, but the words differ, and he uſeth both, as by both together, ſo by either part to get advantage to his cauſe. Therefore I ſhall examine them ſeverally.
To the former I have ſpoke ſomewhat largely before in the examination of his 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 43, 44, & 45. Theſes, as he gave me occaſion in theſe ſeverall poſitions to anſwer what he there aſſerted of conditionall juſtification. I have therefore here the leſſe to ſpeak, referring the reader to what hath been ſpoken before. Yea in this point I ſhould be totally ſilent, becauſe Mr. Baxter in words ſpeaks no more here then what ſome of our moſt ſound and godly Divines have ſpoken before him (that faith is the condition of juſtification) were it that Mr. Baxter meaneth as they mean. For though in the beſt meaning of the beſt men the propriety of the terms or phraſe may be much queſtioned and give occaſion of much diſpute, yet traverſing controverſies about words, when there is agreement in the ſubſtance to which both parties drive, is in my apprehenſion a buſineſſe ſo far tending to diſtractions and breach of union among the Saints, that it is the laſt and leaſt Trade (I am confident) that ever will befall me to drive. But in this point though Mr. Baxter here ſpeaks in words what ſome of ours have ſaid, and do ſay ſtill, and that without any detriment (that I can ſee) to the Goſpell: Yet his meaning and theirs are in no leſſe antipathie then a Hawk and a Heron, and that as in other leſſer, ſo principally in theſe particulars of moment.
1. By faith they mena our application, or faith as it is our inſtrument of applying Chriſt and the grace of God in Chriſt to our juſtification; he by faith means not only the foreign credere as a part of our inherent righteouſneſſe, but as a generall and common word that compriſeth within it ſelf all good qualifications and good works whatſoever, as elſewhere, and ſpecially in and under his 70, & 71. Theſes he declareth himſelfe; ſo that he makes and under the word Faith underſtandeth all theſe as equall conditions with faith of our juſtification.
2. By condition they mean that which being once attained and once fixed upon Chriſt, ſpeaks us abſolutely juſtifyed for ever. So that in calling faith the condition of juſtification, they mean we cannot be juſtifyed without it, but having once by faith apprehended Chriſt we are by it united and joyned to Chriſt, and by force of our union with him are thenceforth abſolutely and irrevocably pardoned and accepted as righteous in Gods fight. He cals it ſo a condition as that it continues ſtill a condition, juſtifying us only conditionally and not abſolutely, ſo that it leaves our eſtate ſtill one and the ſame, no more juſtifyed and pardoned when beleevers then when unbeleevers: For by the ſatisfaction of Chriſt we are before faith cometh conditionally juſtifyed if we beleeve, and when faith is come we remain ſtill but conditionally juſtifyed if we beleeve, our ſafety being as looſe and uncertain then as before, depending ſtill upon the reſidence and abode of faith in us as before it did upon the poſſibility of its future ingeneration into us and acting in us; and that we are no longer juſtifyed then while we beleeve and obey: ſo that by beleeving and unbeleeving, obeying and rebelling we may be juſtifyed and unjuſtifyed again a thouſand times before we die, and how often after, himſelf expreſſes not. I need not mention more, theſe two differences are enough to declare that although here he ſpeak in the ſame tone with ſome of our Divines, yet his judgement no more agrees with theirs then the Pope with Luther and Calvine, Elymas with Paul, Simon Magu… with Peter, or the Scribes and Phariſees with Chriſt.
In ſtead of ſpeaking what might be further expected, I ſhall onelyonly content my ſelf here to lay open ſome of the many monſtrous abſurdities and miſchiefs that follow this doctrine.
1. It proclaims mutability in God, and alteration in his minde and will, as ſwift and ſudden as in mutable and ſinfull man. For if God juſtifie and unjuſtifie, forgive and unforgive, love and hate, as oft as belief and unbelief, obedience and diſobedience do nod and ſucceed either after other in man through infirmity, then is there no more ſtedfaſtneſſe and conſiſtency with himſelf, in God then in man: but rather God is ſwayed hither and thither in willing and nilling, love and hatred by influx from man (as the Sea by the influx of the Moon) then man by influx from God. Mr. Baxter ſees this abſurdity, as well as his fellows the Arminians, and goes about here and there, by the Arminians Sophiſms (for lack of better) to wipe off the ſtain: telling us that the change is in man the object, and not in God. God hates Paul unbeleeving and perſecuting, but loves him beleeving and obeying, the change is here in the object, not in God, No more then the Sun is changed by the variety of the Creatures, which it enlightneth and warmeth; or the glaſſe by the variety of faces, which it repreſents; or the eye by the variety of colours, which it beholdeth, pag. 174. But Aethiopem dealbat. If God love to ſalvation, and hate to damnation one and the ſame perſon, and love ſucceeds into the place of hatred, and hatred into the place of love, and God that erewhile willed the ſalvation, anon willeth the damnation, and after that again the ſalvation of the ſame man, &c. (as this kinde of Anti-Goſpellers aſſert) this is one and the ſame mutableneſſe in God, whether it proceed from a principle of inconſtancy within, or from the mutation of the object without him. It denies not the Chameleons that change their colour from white to black, and black to white, to be mutable, becauſe theſe changes befall them from outward objects the divers coloured Carpets on which they are laid. Or if he ſhall object (as do the Arminians) Here is no ſhew of change in God, for God changeth not his purpoſe of ſaving, becauſe he had never but a conditionall purpoſe and will to ſave, viz. if man will beleeve and obey; and this conditionall intent remains in God ſtill, together with a conditionall intent to hate and damn him if he perform not the conditions. I ſhould anſwer him in the words of our Divines in anſwer to the Arminians; and Mr. Baxter knows them to be beaten with ſhame out of this plea, therefore to decline the ſtrokes, I finde him not yet adventuring to make uſe of this obiection.
2. It denies (in effect and ſubſtance) the juſtification and remiſſion of any man in this life, for to forgive upon ſuch a condition, as no man hath power in himſelf to perform, is but a verball; not a reall forgiveneſſe. And Mr. Baxter will not let out one gry or iote from his lips that ſhall give hope to the ſinner, yea to the believer of any dram of grace and power, that the Lord will miniſter to the Elect more then to the reprobates for the ſupportation of their Faith: and from themſelves they have all propenſiveneſſe to fall, and no ſtrength to ſtand. In this reſpect therefore he makes the ſtate of beleevers worſe then the ſtate of unbeleevers. For Miſerrimum eſt fuiſſe beatos, To have had Faith, yea Chriſt in hand, and Heaven in hope, and then to fall from all, makes their caſe more miſerable, in the loſſe of it, then it would have been if they had never had any thing in hand or in hope.
It utterly deſtroyeth all joy in beleeving, all peace of Conſcience, all conſolation in the holy Ghoſt, while it ſets the beleever in the arms of Chriſts love, and participation of his merits and benefits, as Dionyſius placed Damocles at his table with all ſumptuous proviſions before him, Muſick, attendance, and whatſoever elſe was Majeſtical or delightful to cheer him; but with a ſharp ſword hanging by a ſingle hair over his head threatning him. No other (after Mr. Baxter) is the ſtate of a beleever, in all his moſt ſpiritual enlargements and comforts in Chriſt, there is but a ſingle hair between him and hell fire. Death is in the pot of all his contentments. Fear of imminent vengeance gives him not leave to taſte one of the ſweet morſels upon, or crums that fall from Gods table. And this is a Goſpel from hell, contrary to the everlaſting Goſpel which Chriſt brought from heaven, giving a joy that none ſhall take from beleevers, Joh 16. 22. The foundation thereof, the love of God in Chriſt, remaining immutable, impregnable; I am perſwaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, &c. ſhall be able to ſeparate us from the love of God, which is in Chriſt Jeſus our Lord, Rom 8. 38, 39.
4. Whereas there are three acts conſiderable about our Juſtification, 1. Chriſts giving; 2. Gods accepting the ſatisfaction given for us; and 3. Gods juſtifying or declaring, and evidencing us juſtified in and to our conſciences, for this ſatisfaction ſo given and accepted; I would here demand of which of theſe Faith is a Condition. If he ſay of Chriſts giving ſatisfaction, this is a contradiction; for Chriſt gave ſatisfaction before we beleeved or lived; ſo that Faith which came after could not be the Condition of an Act that went before, except he will ſay that Chriſt muſt ſo oft dye as ſinners attain to beleeve: If of Gods acceptance, then more is aſcribed to our faith then to Chriſts death for our juſtification, and faith ſhall be more then collateral with the ſacrifice of Chriſt to our ſalvation, the ſufficiency of ſatisfaction remaining only in Chriſts bloud, but the efficacy thereof ariſing from mans faith: yea and ſo Chriſt ſhould have paid our debts, and ſpilt his bloud for us at the feet of the Father without knowing whether he would accept it or no, and ſo whether there ſhould be the leaſt fruit of his death (for the juſtification of the beleevers before his death is but conditionall untill the day of Judgement after Mr. Baxter, and what may fall out as touching the apoſtaſie of their ſouls before that day is uncertain.) And it being not known of thoſe that ſhould come after him, who or whether any would beleeve and perſevere in beleeving. If of Gods juſtifying us in our ſelves, i. e. declaring and evidencing us juſtified, we do in ſome caſes acknowledge that God hides his face and evidenceth not his love in Chriſt in the ſame degree to all beleevers, but in God and in Chriſt they are ſtill juſtified, and their ſalvation is ſure. But Mr. Baxter ſhakes off this Act of Juſtification in diſdain, therefore the abſurdities which follow in his conditions in reſpect of one of the former cannot be avoided. I forbear to enlarge my ſelf further in this kinde here having ſpoken to it before, and finding a neceſſity of ſpeaking more afterward.
But it will be expected that Mr. Baxters Arguments be rather anſwered, then his concluſion denyed and oppoſed; let us therefore examine them; as far as I can finde they are in number two, by which he proveth faith to be the condition of juſtification.
1. It is plain and undenyable. This I acknowledge is a Noli me tangere, ſtrikes dead in the place, renders the reſpondent as mute as a fiſh: Let a wiſer man undertake, it is paſt my skill to anſwer.
2. The whole tenor of the Goſpel ſhews that: ſpecially ſuch Scriptures as give their teſtimony of our juſtification in Chriſt before faith entred to purifie our hearts: When we were without ſtrength, when ſinners, when enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death, and juſtified by the bloud of his Son, Rom. 5. 6, 8, 9, 10. While we were in our blood, polluted, Ezek. 16. 6. While yet unborn, and had done neither good n…r evil, Rom. 9. 11. 13. When yet of the world, and not ſerved from the common maſſe of mankinde, Joh. 3. 16. God loved us to ſalvation, While yet dead in ſins and treſpaſſes, he hath quickned and ſaved us by grace, Epheſ. 2. 5. Blotting out the hand-writing, &c. forgiving all our treſpaſſes, unto us in Chriſt while yet hanging on the Croſſe, Col. 2. 13, 14, 15. making us accepted in Chriſt the be▪ loved, Epheſ. 1. 6. putting away our ſin and perfecting us for ever by the ſacrifice and blood of Christ, i. e. in Chriſt offering himſelf and his bloud in ſacrifice, Heb. 9. 26. & 10. 14. and all this before we had a being who now live, much more before we were in a capacity of having any condition in our ſelves of Juſtification: As alſo ſuch Goſpel Scriptures as affirm this remiſſion, or juſtification unreverſible, calling it an eternal redemption, Heb. 9. 12. a perfecting of us for ever, Heb. 10. 14. ſo that there is no more condemnation, Rom 8. 1. no more remembrance of iniquity, Heb. 10. 17. no more ſeparation from the love of God which is in Chriſt Jeſus, Rom. 8. 39. and other many ſuch teſtimonies before in part quoted, and partly remaining to be alleadged if occaſion ſhall require; all which do concur in one harmony to evince Juſtification once obtained to depend upon no conditions, but to be abſolute and indefeaſable, that if any fall away, it is becauſe they only ſeemed, but never were in the number of the truly juſtified, 1 Joh. 2. 19. Whoſoever layeth all theſe together, and will not be convinced that Faith in Mr. Baxters ſenſe is the condition of Juſtification, but will beleeve the Goſpel it ſelf more then what Mr. Baxter ſpeaketh of the Goſpel; for any thing that I know, he may remain the Diſciple of Chriſt, and unconvinced ſtill.
In the Appendix, in the anſwer to the ſix and ſeven Queſtions or Objections, pag. 41. to the 46. Mr. Baxter makes it his task again to prove the juſtification of the New Covenant to be conditionall and not abſolute. But ſo poorly doth he there handle his diſpute, ſo unlike Mr. Baxter, who when Scriptures fail him, is elſewhere wont to play his game with Sophiſtry (which here doth very little help him;) that unto a diſcreet man nothing can more breed a ſuſpicion of the goodneſſe of the cauſe, then the hard ſhifts, confuſedneſſe, contradictions, and other weak devices and extravagancies, to which ſo accompliſht a ſcholar is put (even when he hath no opponent but a meer queſtion) to make it ſeem probable. How doth the man put himſelf here into a wood or wilderneſſe, ſeeking but finding no certain way out, acting his wit and ſtudy to the higheſt to expedite himſelf in a cleer way that might be viſible and plain to himſelf and others? and not finding it, he at laſt doth what may be done in ſuch a labyrinth, truſteth to groping for what he cannot ſee. And firſt he ſeems to have found in the dark a two-fold Covenant of Grace, one abſolute, and the other conditional. Firſt then he follows the abſolute Covenant, if that will or can lead him with certainty to any ſafety or ſhew of reaſon what to ſpeak of it, as he makes it contradiſtinct to the Conditional Covenant, or Juſtification; that the former which he cannot deny may ſtand as a cipher, but this be the Numeral, and only in power and force: here he is carryed in a maze of doubts and rovings, not finding where to pitch.
1. Pag. 41. Sect. the 42. he would ſhake off this abſolute Juſtification as a Propheſie and promiſe made only to the Jews, not extending to us: but here the Apoſtle meets him in the way, Heb. 8. 8, 9. otherwiſe expounding the Scripture that holds it forth: ſo that this ſhift fails him.
2. He queſtions whether the Apoſtle mention it as an abſolute promiſe, or elſe in an oppoſition to he knows not what; but foreſeeing what would herein be anſwered, he lets fall this too, pag. 42.
3. He brings ſomething which he thinks will hold water: that this abſolute Covenant of Juſtification is made with the Elect, and not with mankinde in generall. What is this to the purpoſe? He is here treating of the New Covenant as it reſpecteth Juſtification. And what one Scripture can he produce that tels us of all mankinde, and not of the Elect only juſtified? In what a ſtraight is the man, that in ſtead of diſtinctions, which were ever wont to be his Egyptian Reed to ſuccour him, he is forced to fly to confuſions for help? For ſo he confounds together here the promulgation of Juſtification with Juſtification in its beeing, or with the being of it, when theſe are different. As well might he pronounce the rich glutton to be no leſſe bleſſed in ſeeing then was Lazarus by being in Abrahams boſome, as to pronounce all mankinde juſtified, becauſe Chriſt is conditionally offered to all for Juſtification. We have granted before the promulgation and offer of Juſtification by the Goſpel to be conditionall, but the gift and beeing of it to be abſolute. Neither is there any thing in this offer to our Juſtification in Chriſt which is abſolute before and without any promulgation or conditionall offer thereof to us. Nor any thing to the juſtified and actually declared juſt in themſelves: Juſtification is no longer in a conditionall offer to them, but in its abſolute being within them. Whatſoever therefore he addeth there pag. 43, 44. is wide from the queſtion, being not limited to the Juſtification of the New Covenant which is the ſubject of his Treatiſe, which here he ſhunneth and talketh extravagantly about ſanctification, becauſe he cannot confute the abſolute juſtification, but that it doth and will ſtand, and ſtanding will not admit a conditional juſtification to ſtand with it and by it, in its beeing, though the offer thereof (before it is in beeing) be conditionall.
And this is all which at length he concludeth pag. 45. of the conditionall Covenant of Grace, which without all this circuition would have been granted him: viz. that it is propounded and offered to mankinde conditionally, if they will beleeve, and without this faith none hath or ſhall have the benefit and comfort thereof to themſelves and in themſelves, becauſe all theſe that do not or ſhall not (being in a capacity to) beleeve are reprobates, and as many as are elect ſhall come to Chriſt and beleeve in him, as hath been before ſhewed.
What he addeth for the application may have ſome pertinency to the matter there objected, but it hath none to the thing here in queſtion. Therefore I paſſe it by as not concerning us.
2. To his Cauſa ſine qua non, briefly thus.
1 In ſo tearming Faith he denyes faith to be any cauſe at all of our Juſtification, for that is but Cauſa …quivoca, or nomine tenus, or titulo tenus, hath but the name not the nature of a cauſe, hath no cauſality upon, gives no influx into the effect.
2 Neither whatſoever it be, is Faith the Cauſa ſine qua non of Juſtification, in that ſenſe as Mr. Baxter taketh and defineth it either in his ſtricter or larger definition: except he will ſay that no Infants are juſtified, who do not, cannot accept Chriſt, much leſſe ſo beleeve as in his larger definition he ſets forth faith.
3 Faith is not the Cauſa ſine qua non of our juſtification in God, no nor yet in Chriſts Juſtification (as he tearms it) for theſe are antecedaneous to our faith, and our faith not an antecedent to it.
4 At the utmoſt it can be but the Cauſa ſine qua non of Gods declaring and evidencing of our ſelves to our ſelves juſtified; and this juſtification Mr. Baxter ſo diſdaineth and ſnuffs at, that he will not own it much leſſe mention it. Yet can he not with all his Sophiſtry name any other act of juſtification in this life whereof faith can be proved to be the Antecedent, Medium, or Cauſa ſine qua non.
5 Why doth he call faith and all the conqualifications wherewith he loadeth the ſhoulders thereof, and all the works which he makes its Concomitants, the Cauſa ſine qua non, as if all theſe with their Colaterall in the other ſcale of his ballance, Chriſts ſatisfaction, did make up the one and ſole Cauſa ſine qua non of our juſtification; can none elſe be named? Beſides other, the weakneſſe and infirmity of the Law to juſtifie, as it removes the impediment of juſtifiableneſſe in Gods Court of ſtrict Juſtice: (For had there been a Law given which could have given life, verily righteouſneſſe ſhould have been by the Law, Gal. 3. 21.) and ſin which removes the ſame impediment, might more properly and ſocially then Chriſts ſatisfaction have been placed on horſeback in the ſame ſaddle of Cauſa ſine qua non, had not Mr. Baxter thought Chriſt would bleſſe, but theſe would have defiled this golden ſaddle of his own either making or appropriating to this uſe, and ſo beſpattered and undreſſed the righteouſneſſe of his Qualifications and good works that they would never more become fit to ride on horsback in proceſſion with the Holy Wafer. Thus his condition and Cauſa ſine qua non muſt be new modelled ere they will be Canonicall.
But ſee we here the mans wit which never fails him at a dead lift. What he cannot act by power he ſeeks to compaſſe by a ſtratagem. Becauſe he cannot cover the nakedneſſe of his aſſertion, he labors to make bare ours, and caſt filth in it, that having diverted the eyes of his Reader thither, he may forget the vanity of his Condition, or Cauſa ſine qua non. And thus he doth it.
B. Here by the way take notice that the ſamemen, thus blame the advancing of Faith ſo high, as to be our true Goſpel Righteouſneſſe, Poſit, 17 20. and to be imputed in a proper ſenſe, Poſit. 23. do yet when it comes to tryall, aſcribe far more the faith, then thoſe they blame: making it Gods inſtrument in juſtifying.
In examining all theſe quoted Theſes, I have ſhewed both who they are which blame him, or at leaſt his doctrine, which was born before ever he commenced ſuch a Doctor, viz. All the Orthodox Proteſtant Divines and Chriſtians; and withall for what they blame it, viz. as it is Papiſm, Socinianiſm, and at the beſt Arminianiſm. 3. To which I have alſo made out their juſt grounds of blaming it, as may be there ſeen; yet to cheat his Reader, he cals theſe, thoſe very men, as if there were ſome few contemptible Antinomians lately ſprung up: when himſelf knows them to be all the Churches of Chriſt, which ſince the Reformation have been called Proteſtants. But of what blaſphemy or evill fact doth he accuſe them? That they aſcribe more to Faith then thoſe they blame, making it Gods inſtrument in juſtifying. Yea but we have ſeen or thought we had ſeen (at leaſt) juſt grounds for their ſo doing: how doth Mr. Baxter aggravate it to make it odious?
B. 1. And ſo to have part of the honour of Gods own Act.
Fie upon the Hugonets and Lutherans! if this be true, who then will not run from them at Mr. Baxters heels to Rome? But the Scriptures make Balaams A…ſe Gods inſtrument to rebuke the madneſſe of the Prophet, Namb. 22. 28, 30. 2 Pet. 2. 15, 16. The Raven his Instrument to feed Elijah, 1 King. 17. 6. The brazen Serpent his inſtrument of healing the Iſraelites bitten with firie Serpents, Joh. 3. 14. Numb. 21. 9. The Aſſyrians his inſtruments of chaſtiſing and reforming his people, Iſa 10. 5. &c. and the very Devil his inſtrument of trying Job, Job. 1. 12. and of executing his pleaſure upon Ahab, 2 King. 22. 21, 22. Shall we now fall foul with the Scriptures, and accuſe them that they aſcribe part of the honour of Gods own acts to the Aſſe, the Raven, the Serpent, the Aſſyrians, the Devil, by affirming theſe to be the inſtruments by which God acted? Doth not the ſeebleneſſe of the means and inſtruments ſpeak out the whole honour of the action to pertain to the Lord? Was it to honour his ſlaves, and abaſe his freemen and ſubjects, the Lords Iſrael, that Solomon made the former, not the latter his inſtruments in building the Temple? Mr. Baxter himſelf muſt conclude the contrary.
B. 2. And that from a reaſon intrinſecall to faith it ſelf.
So acted the Aſſyrians and the Devill in the acts before mentioned, as inſtruments in Gods hand from a reaſon intrinſecall to themſelves. Did this increaſe their honour? Rationall men in their actions make uſe of inſtruments that are fitteſt from an intrinſecall reaſon within themſelves to produce the effect purpoſed. They ſeek not to ſpeak with their ears, or hear with their eyes, or ſee with their heels, &c. becauſe theſe have not a reaſon intrinſecall in them to ſuch effects; doe they therefore aſcribe honour to the tongue above other members, as the eyes or hands, &c. becauſe they ſpeak with the tongue and not with their eyes and hands? And do we aſcribe to God or derogate from him, when we ſay he hath no leſſe wiſdom then a man, therefore uſeth, yea maketh inſtruments both within and without fitted for his work? when the Apoſtle affirmeth the fooliſhneſſe of Preaching Gods power to ſave, he robs God of none of his power to deifie either the fooliſhneſſe of Preaching, or the Word preached, or the mortall Preacher thereof with Gods power.
B. And from a reaſon that will make other graces to be inſtruments as well as faith. For love doth truly receive Chriſt alſo.
1. Qui alterum accu…at probri, ipſum ſe intueri oportet. This trick he hath learned of Potiphars wife to accuſe innocent Joſeph of the fault whereof her ſelf, not he, was guilty. Mr. Baxter indeed makes Faith and Love con-cauſes (of one and the ſame kinde) to Juſtification, viz. the ſeverall parts that make up the body of Evangelicall Righteouſneſſe which he ſaith juſtifies us, pag. 236. na. 3. why doth he proclaim it a ſcandalous crime in us, which he faſtens to himſelf as a praiſe?
2. We affirm not faith to be Gods inſtrument as it receiveth Chriſt, nor any further to be the inſtrument of Gods juſtifying, then of his declaring and evidencing us to our ſelves juſtified: We affirm it to be our inſtrument (yet as given us of God) as it receives Chriſt. Gods as by it he evidenceth life and righteouſneſſe to be ours; ours as by it we receive Chriſt and the juſtification, yea juſtifier in receiving Chriſt. And when that Mr. Baxter ſhall make it his task not only to ſay (as here) but alſo to prove that God hath qualified love for this Office, I ſhall not doubt to undertake the task to anſwer him.
B. 4. And worst of all, from a reaſon which will make man to be the Cauſa proxima of his own juſtification. For man is the Cauſa proxima of beleeving and receiving Chriſt, and therefore not God but man is ſaid to beleeve.
Here is much of ſound to aſtoniſh fools, but nothing of ſubſtance to ſatisfie the judicious; For
1. Did we hereby make man the Cauſa proxima, yet it is but the Cauſa proxima inſtrumentalis paſſiva of his Juſtification, the next inſtrument to apply it, and that not by any thing naturally his own, but by the new hand of Faith, which God hath given him to this end. And this obſcures not but cleers up the Grace of God. Therefore by faith that it might [appear to] be by grace, Rom. 4. 16. The begger by receiving the freely given treaſure may be as properly called the Cauſa proxima of his enriching: yet hath the Benefactor that freely gave it, the entire praiſe of it.
2. Or if there were any damage herein done to the Grace of God, how much more guilty is Mr. Baxter of the fact, in making mans faith and works the very righteouſneſſe which giveth man right and title to Chriſt, and the Juſtification which is by Chriſt; yea a righteouſneſſe perfect and worthy: as he hath expreſſed himſelf before in what we have already examined. Is not this to make Chriſts ſatisfaction the remote Cauſa ſine qua non (as he cals it in this 56 Theſis) and man himſelf the Cauſa proxima ſine qua non? and if the Cauſa proxima muſt in his judgement have the preheminence, then in his judgement mans righteouſneſſe hath herein preheminence above the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.
3. Yea not only this but the very devill is the Cauſa proxima ſine qua non of our juſtification (according to Mr. Baxter) and ſo muſt in this great buſineſſe have the upper hand of Chriſt. For the Juſtification here is but a meer Embryon of Juſtification with him; which moſt times comes to nought and naught. But Juſtification in the day of Judgement is the thing conſummate and in its perfection, which (he tels us) is our acquitting from accuſation and guilt, which ſhall be then pleaded and managed againſt us by Satan. Here he makes the Devils plea and managing of the Laws accuſation, the next Cauſa ſine qua non, upon which our finall and compleat juſtification followeth. Theſ. 39. pag. 188, 189. Where now is his worſt of all, in his or in our Doctrine? Thus while Mr. Baxter fights againſt us with a ſword that hath neither edge nor point, he neither hurts us, not provides for his own defence, but by brandiſhing his weapon untowardly, wounds his own face with the hilts.
B. And yet theſe very men doe ſend a Hue and Cry after the foreign credere for robbing Chriſt of the glory of Juſtification, when we make it but a poor improper Cauſa ſine qua non.
Why and yet? All that he hath ſaid againſt them is not againſt them but againſt himſelf: and for himſelf he hath ſaid nothing. Only he hath entertained his Reader with a declamation againſt us, who expected his own aſſertion ſhould have been confirmed, he hath by all laid never a Milſtone, no nor a Cherryſtone in the way to hinder the purſuants of the foreign Cr…dere at all for its ſacriledge in robbing Chriſt. When we make it, &c. which we, with whom doth he ſide? or whom makes he to ſide with him, but Socinus, Arminius, and one or two poſſibly of their ſcholars among us, which have carried this and many other monſters in their belly long before they were delivered of them, and moſt probably have yet more behinde which have not yet ſeen the Sun. It is Mr. Baxters unhappineſſe that theſe notwithſtanding his wreſting and catching them by the heel, come to the light ſtill before him. This is that (moſt likely) which ſtifles his Univerſall Redemption in the womb. But having nothing elſe to do to make him gracious at Rome, becauſe he could not ſpeak firſt, his care is to ſpeak all bigger then they all that have ſpoken before him. Wee make it a poore improper Cauſa ſine qua non: i. e. in true and plain Engliſh, a poor perfect mer…torious righteouſneſſe, a collaterall of and no leſſe neceſſary then the righteouſneſſe of the Lord Chriſt, as in this 56, and before in and under his 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 26 Theſes he hath enough manifeſted himſelf.
B. Some think that Faith may be ſome ſmall▪ low and impulſive cauſe: but I will not give it ſo much: though if it be made a Procatarctick objective cauſe, I… will not contend.
If he mean any other difference between the impulſive, and the Procatartick objective cauſe, beſides that which is between the Generall and the Speciall, it is paſt my skill to underſtand him, or to comprehend what he denies and what he grants; no doubt either he would not be underſtood, or elſe he attributes to his righteouſneſſe of faith and good works an excitation (but not an impulſion forſooth) of the Grace of God actually to juſtifie thoſe whom he beholdethSchild. Metaph. li. 1. c…. 44. N. 24, 25, 40. fairly dreſſed therewith, and ſo the beauty of the object enamors God to love and juſtifie. And what more doe the P… piſts teach? and ſo our juſtification as Gods act is but in poſſe till our righteouſneſſe as a ſufficient cauſe brings it into eſſe or act.
Thus far of Mr. Baxters cauſes of Juſtification, in which if he hath illuſtrated or confirmed any truth of God, God is much beholden to him and Ariſtotle for it. For diſtruſting the ſuccour of the Scriptures, he hath left them, and brought nothing elſe but Logical and Metaphyſical notions and reaſons to prove all that which he hath ſaid.