Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 27
CHAP. XXVII.
Arg. Whether the ſinner be juſtifyed only by the act, not the habit of faith? And whether it be not ordained to this uſe by reaſon of the uſefull property which God hath infuſed into it, to receive Chriſt? Whether and in what ſenſe a man may be ſaid [properly] to be juſtifyed by faith? In which alſo ſome things are intermixed about Mr. Baxters foreign Credere, and conditions of Juſtification.
B. Theſ. 57.
IT is the act of faith which juſtifyeth men at age, and not the habit: yet not as it is a good work, or as it hath in it ſelf any excellency above other graces: but
1. In the neereſt ſenſe directly and properly as it is [the fulfilling of the condition of the new Covenant.]
2. In the remote and more improper ſenſe, as it is [the receiving of Chriſt and his ſatisfactory righteouſneſſe.
It is not for nothing that Mr. Baxter puts here a reſtriction upon juſtification by the Act of faith, limiting it to [men of age:] Are then elect infants that die before they attain age and ſtrength of reaſon to put forth their faith into act, juſtifyed only by the habit of faith? It ſeemeth then that the hue and crie hath apprehended the foreign credere, as to them, and laid it faſt from juſtifying them. Again, if they are juſtifyed by the habit of faith as a habit of inherent grace, (though not ſuch as he here denyeth to have an excellency above other graces) what difference doth he put between Juſtification and Sanctification? Doth he not ſpeak the ſame things here with the Papiſts? Yea in a higher dialect then any of them? For they grant to Infants juſtification only by the waſhing of Chriſts bloud conferred upon them in Baptiſm, without any qualification of their own. But this man (if he thus ſay) juſtifies them by an inherent righteouſneſſe of their own. But if Infants are juſtifyed without the act of faith, and yet not by its habit, how are they then Juſtifyed but by that which he calleth Chriſts own juſtification as a publick perſon at his reſurrection? which notwithſtanding he utterly denyed Theſ. 42. and its Explication: and if they are ſo juſtifyed, will it not follow then that juſtification by the act of faith is Gods declaring and mans applying of his juſtification to his preſent comfort and full aſſurance? (which Mr. Baxter explodeth as an unſufferable concluſion) But dying Infants are to have no uſe of this preſent comfort and full aſſurance, therefore it ſufficeth them to be juſtifyed in Chriſt, though not in themſelves. Laſtly, or do they depart hence unjuſtifyed, becauſe without actuall beleeving and receiving of Chriſt, and ſo ſhall be juſtifyed in the day of judgment, becauſe at the reſurrection they ſhall actually beleeve? What a crie do the poor ſouls in the interim then make in that Limbus inſantum? And why may not then (according to Origen) all the Devils and reprobates in hell be then juſtifyed and ſaved alſo, becauſe then they may actually beleeve, and (according to Mr. Baxter) the condition of juſtification laſteth untill that day.
B. Explication, That faith doth not properly juſtifie through any excellency that it hath above other graces, or any more uſefull property, may appear thus:
To the excellency of faith above other graces I have nothing to ſay. But to the reaſons which he brings to deny the more uſefull property of it, I ſhall ſpeak briefly.
B. 1. Then the praiſe would be due to faith.
No more then when God gives us meat, the praiſe of our nutriment and life is due to our teeth, becauſe they have a more uſefull property to grind and chew the meat, then our eyes or ears.
B. 2. Then love would contend for a ſhare if not a priority.
This is only ſaid and not proved, or declared upon what grounds love ſhould contend.
B. 3. Then faith would juſtifie though it had not been made the condition of the Covenant.
1. We denie faith to be the condition of the Covenant in Mr. Baxters ſenſe. If he would have ſpoken directly to them againſt whom he argueth, he ſhould have ſaid, Then faith would have juſtifyed though it had never been appointed and given of God as an inſtrument to receive Chriſt the juſtifyer. And then we ſhould anſwer,
2. That it is ſo much as if he had ſaid, Then our teeth would have nouriſhed and preſerved life, although God had never appointed and given them to us as inſtruments to chew the nouriſhing meat. And thus the Caveat that he addeth becomes uſeleſſe, viz.
B. Let thoſe therefore take heed, that make faith to juſtifie, meerly becauſe it apprehendeth Chriſt; which is its naturall eſſentiall propertie.
For none affirmes faith to juſtifie meerly becauſe it apprehendeth Chriſt, without conſidering alſo Gods ordering and fitting it to this office, together with his promiſe, and the virtue laid up in Chriſt to juſtifie all that do by faith ſo apprehend him.
B. That it is faith in a proper ſenſe that is ſaid to juſtifie, and not Chriſts righteouſneſſe onelyonly, which it receiveth, may appear thus,
1. From a neceſſity of a twofold righteouſneſſe, which I have before proved, in reference to the twofold Covenant.
2. From the plain and conſtant phraſe of Scripture, which ſaith, he that beleeveth ſhall be juſtifyed, and that we are juſtifyed by faith; and that faith is imputed for righteouſneſſe. It had been as eaſie for the holy Ghoſt to have ſaid, that Christ only is imputed, or his righteouſneſſe only, or Chriſt only juſtifyeth, &c. if he had ſo meant. He is the most excuſable in an errour, that is led into it by the conſtant expreſſe phraſe of Scripture.
3. From the nature of the thing. For the effect is aſcribed to the ſeverall cauſes (though not alike) and in ſome ſort to the conditions, eſpecially me thinks they that would have faith to be the instrument of juſtification, ſhould not deny that we are properly juſtifyed by faith as by an inſtrument. For it is as proper a ſpeech to ſay [our hands or our teeth feed us,] as to ſay [our meat feedeth us.]
I ſhall not have need to ſpeak much to this paſſage, becauſe Mr. Baxter hath before ſaid and I have anſwered to the greateſt part of it in examining his 23. Theſ. with the explication thereof. Here as there I ſhall defend againſt him, that it is not faith as it is righteouſneſſe, but Chriſts righteouſneſſe by which we are ſaid to be juſtifyed.
The firſt reaſon which he brings to evince the contradictory and contrary concluſion, hath been there examined, and I will not here actum agere.
To the ſecond, 1. He ſhould have quoted that Apocryphal Scripture which ſaith, He that beleeveth ſhall be juſtifyed (as if he were not already juſtifyed:) I finde it not in the Canonicall.
2. Thoſe Scriptures which ſay we are juſtifyed by faith, ſay not that we are juſtifyed by it as it is our righteouſneſſe, or any part of our juſtifying righteouſneſſe; and thoſe that ſay it is imputed to us (as Mr. Baxter will have it) for righteouſneſſe, have been ſufficiently ſpoken to under Theſis 23. And by the way Mr. Baxter is not ignorant that the originall text may be more properly rendred unto or to righteouſneſſe then for righteouſneſſe, and that the old tranſlation and moſt of our Proteſtant Divines ſo render it, neither have I met with any one that declares his diſlike of that verſion. And from the text ſo read what Mr. Baxter can ſuck out to ſtabliſh the righteouſneſſe of faith not as the ſame but as a collaterall with the righteouſneſſe of Chriſts ſatisfaction to juſtification, I underſtand not.
3. To his Only, only, and only, I anſwer,
1 That it is not the firſt time that Mr. Baxter hath taken the boldneſſe to teach the holy Ghoſt to ſpeak properly and fully.
2 When the holy Ghoſt ſaith, That the bloud of Chriſt cleanſeth from all ſin, 1 Joh. 1. 7. that whoſoever is waſhed [therein] needs no other waſhing, Joh. 13. 10. that he is the Lamb of God that taketh away the ſins of the world, Joh. 1. 29. that by his one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are ſanctifyed, by taking away their ſins and iniquities, Heb. 10. 14, 17. That he is made of God righteouſneſſe to us, 1 Cor. 1. 30. that he was made ſin for us, that we might become the righteouſneſſe of God in him, 2 Cor. 5. 21. That he is all in all, Col. 3. 11. Will Mr. Baxter elude all theſe and a whole century more of the like Scriptures with this evaſion; yea Chriſt hath done, and is all this in part to us, leaving the other part of righteouſneſſe not perfected by him to be ſupplyed by faith his collaterall to our juſtification? Or when it is ſaid, There is ſalvation in no other, nor any name elſe given us under heaven by which we may be ſaved beſides Chriſt, Act. 4. 12. and the Apoſtle profeſſeth it his whole labour to be found in Chriſt, not having his own righteouſneſſe which is of the Law, but the righteouſneſſe which is through the faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſſe which is of God by faith; ſo making Chriſt put on for righteouſneſſe, the righteouſneſſe which is through the faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſſe which is of God by faith, not ſeverall kinds of righteouſneſſe, but one and the ſame righteouſneſſe which he oppoſeth there to his own inherent righteouſneſſe which he excludeth: are not theſe ſpeeches equipollent to that which Mr. Baxter requireth, the Chriſt only, or the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt only? It is but a flouriſh wherewith he concludes this argument, about the conſtant expreſſe phraſe of Scripture. For let him either produce one Scripture that affirmeth faith by any inherent righteouſneſſe in it ſelf, or of her own conveyed into us to contribute ſomewhat to our Juſtification, or elſe confeſſe his errour to be derived from the ſcriblings of Bellarmine, Socixus, Grotius, and Arminius, where this Doctrine is to be found, and not from the Scriptures of Gods inſpiration that are wholly againſt it.
To his third reaſon I can ſay nothing becauſe I underſtand nothing of his meaning therein; or if I doe underſtand it, nothing needs to be ſaid, becauſe it hath nothing for himſelf or againſt us. But to that which he addes of his thinking.
1. Let him ſay whether by them that (he ſaith) would have faith to be the inſtrument, &c. he doth not mean all the Proteſtant Churches, both Lutherans and Zuinglians or Calviniſts, as they are by ſome diſtinguiſhed: whether the beſt that have oppoſed them herein have not been the Arminians, and from what Rome or Hell theſe firſt drank in their opinion, he is not ignorant having fiſhed in the ſame pools after them.
2. When he thinks theſe ſhould not deny that we are properly juſtifyed by faith as an inſtrument: I anſwer,
1 If they will not deny it, will Mr. Baxter with them confeſſe it?
2 The word [properly] is vox aequivoca; a phraſe may be ſaid to be proper, as it is enough fit and proportioned to declare the meaning of the ſpeaker, and in this ſenſe we deny not that faith as an inſtrument ſubſervient to the principall efficient, doth ſo properly as an inſtrument can, juſtifie us in our ſelves or to our own conſciences.
Again, it may be ſaid to be proper in oppoſition to a tropicall way of ſpeaking: and in this ſenſe we cannot ſay that faith doth ſo properly juſtifie, ſpecially in that extent wherein Mr. Baxter and his Maſters will have it to juſtifie, without a trope in the phraſe of ſpeaking, which I would ſhew if it were pertinent to the queſtion.
I ſhall ſpare to tranſcribe at large his next ſection which he puts under n. 4. of his Explication. Becauſe if he meant ſingly and preciſely as he ſpeaks, all might be granted in a poſitive ſenſe without prejudice to our cauſe or advantage to his; viz. that faith doth directly and properly juſtifie in and to themſelves thoſe that were before juſtifyed in Chriſt, as it is (in a good ſenſe) the condition of the new Covenant, and a means or inſtrument of Gods ſtamping by his commandement and promiſe to the attainment of this juſtification. For this denyeth not that truth which before he kicked at, that faith doth ſo juſtifie alſo in regard of that uſefull and eſſentiall property which it hath above all other gifts of grace, to be inſtrumentall to apprehend Chriſt for righteouſneſſe. Nay even for this cauſe hath God either ordained and commanded faith to this end, becauſe it hath this property, or becauſe he hath ordained and given to it this property, therefore he not only requireth but alſo concurreth with it to bleſſe it, even it alone to this end. Here to determine peremptorily whether of theſe acts of God, his qualifying of faith for, or his commanding it to this uſe, is more and leſſe direct or proper to the end, or whether they are coordinates thereunto, I fear may proceed more from a headie raſhneſſe then from the modeſty of Chriſtian wiſdome; eſpecially becauſe I take juſtifying faith to be more then a naturall or morall virtue, (which Mr. Baxter poſſibly will deny) viz. an infuſed habit qualifyed by God himſelf that infuſeth it with this peculiar property to cleave unto Chriſt and receive him.
But by the way it ſhall not be impertinent to ſhew in ſome particulars what mentall Reſervations Mr. Baxter hath in his words, not eaſily appearing to a curſory reader.
1. When he ſaith,
B. Faith juſtifyeth, as it is the fulfilling of the condition of the new Covenant.
His meaning is, that it only ſo far juſtifyeth as it fulfilleth the condition. But throughout our whole life, according to his principles, we are but fulfilling, have not fulfilled the condition of the new Covenant, therefore throughout our whole life we are but in juſtifying not juſtifyed. And then conſequently (if it be true what moſt of our Divines conclude) that in the next life there ſhall be no uſe of faith (becauſe vinon and fruition are proper to that ſtate) beleevers ſhall not be juſtifyed at all, becauſe the condition was never fulfilled.
2. When he ſaith,
B. Becauſe God hath commanded no other means, nor promiſed juſtification to any other, therefore it is, that [faith] is the only condition, and ſo only thus juſtifyeth.
The reader that doth but catch here a little and there a little of his doctrine, would think him by what he here findeth: no leſſe Orthodox in the point of Juſtification then Luther or Paul himſelf: that he explodes all works, all inherent righteouſneſſe from bearing the leaſt part with faith unto juſtification: whereas contrariwiſe he ſpeaks not here of the faith of Gods ſtamping but of his own coining; of a faith that brings in all good works, that is it ſelf all good works to juſtification; attributes no more to faith then he doth to any other part of our inherent righteouſneſſe, nor any thing to faith it ſelf as uſefull to juſtifie, but as it is our whole inherent righteouſneſſe, or at leaſt a part of it: as partly by that which hath been, but principally by that part of his treatiſe which remains to be examined, appeareth. The reſt of this Section I let paſſe without examination.
I come now to the fift and laſt Section of his Explication, pag. 230.
B. 5. That faiths receiving Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe is the remote and ſecondary and not the formall reaſon why it juſtifyeth, appeareth thus.
We finde verifyed in Mr. Baxter that of the Poet, Dolus an virtus quis in hoſte requirat? having profeſſed open warre againſt the doctrine of all the Proteſtant Churches, yea of the Goſpell of Chriſt, he manageth it more by ſtratagems then by valour. We finde him here perverting in ſtead of rightly ſtating the queſtion, thereby to get advantage to anſwer what he will and to what he pleaſeth. The queſtion controverted between us and the Papiſts firſt, and in theſe latter times the Arminians alſo, is not whether Gods inſtituting of faith in Chriſt, or elſe the acting of faith ſo inſtituted, be the one the formall, and the other the remote reaſon why it juſtifyeth? But whether faith ſo inſtituted of God to be the mean or inſtrument of our Juſtification, doth juſtifie by vertue received from Chriſt its object, or elſe by its own vertue, as it is a good work, or as it is an act of righteouſneſſe performed in obedience to Gods commandement? That which they maintain is that faith juſtifyeth by vertue of its object Chriſt, denying the Papiſts work and the Arminians act. If Mr. Baxter did labour more for truth then for victory, we ſhould not finde in him ſo much fraud and ſo little of ſincerity. It is not Chriſts but Antichriſts kingdome that is maintained by the pillarage of ſhifts and ſophiſms. Let him not aſtoniſh the poor Saints of Chriſt with words that they cannot underſtand, obſcuring the truth with needleſſe terms of art; his poor flock of Kederminſter, for whom he affirmes himſelf to have compiled this work, are in all probability as well acquainted with the formall and remote reaſon why faith juſtifyeth, as they are with Hocus Pocus his Liegerdemain. In this point let him either confute the aſſertion of our Divines, or maintain the adverſaries aſſertion; here he doth neither directly, but beats the aire and makes a great noiſe to little purpoſe. Yet let us ſee how well he proveth his own aſſertion.
B. Suppoſe Chriſt had done all that he did for ſinners, and they had beleeved in him thereupon without any Covenant promiſing Juſtification by this Faith, would this Faith have juſtified them? By what Law? or whence will they plead their Juſtification at the Bar of God?
This ſuppoſition is not full, there muſt be another ſuppoſition antecedaneous to this ſuppoſition. A true ſuppoſition that will ſhew the invalidity of this feigned one. Suppoſe that upon a foregoing Covenant between the Father and him, Chriſt hath done all this for his elect whom he knoweth by name, and ſo Chriſt in their names hath given and God hath taken full ſatisfaction for all their offences, and hereupon Chriſt hath received in their behalf a full acquittance and diſcharge: Who now ſhall lay any thing to their charge? It is God that juſtifieth, Rom. 8. 33. under this ſuppoſition they are for ever freed from pleading at Gods Bar: They have there an Advocate to plead for them, Jeſus Chriſt the righteous, and he is the Propitiation for our ſins, 1 Joh. 2. 1, 2. Sits at the right hand of God with the effectuall Oratory of his pretious bloud making interceſſion for us, Rom. 8. 34. ſo the ſuppoſition of Mr. Baxter extends no further then this, if without any Covenant promiſe of Juſtification by Faith in Chriſt, could they by beleeving in him have had the beeing and comfort of Juſtification within their own ſouls? Unleſſe God had by ſome other way ratified and ſealed this benefit to them, I acknowledge they could not: yet had their juſtification been ſtill nothing the leſſe firm before God in Chriſt. But now by the promiſe of the New Covenant, through Faith they have the ſweetneſſe and joy thereof in themſelves alſo.
B. But ſuppoſe Chriſt having done all that he did for us, that he ſhould in framing the New Covenant have put in any other condition, and ſaid [whoſoever loveth God ſhall by vertue of my ſatisfaction be juſtified] would not this love have juſtified? No doubt of it. I conclude then thus: The receiving of Chriſt is as the ſilver of this coin, the Goſpel promiſe is as the Kings ſtamp which maketh it curraut for juſtifying. If God had ſeen it meet to have ſtamped any thing elſe, it would have paſſed currantly.
We cannot ſo ſuppoſe, for one abſurd ſuppoſition being granted a thouſand more will follow after: Mr. Baxter begins too low in his ſuppoſitions. Let him here advance a ſtair higher with us, and ſuppoſe firſt a truth, before he ſuppoſeth that which is falſe and unpoſſible in reſpect of that truth that muſt neceſſarily be preſuppoſed: viz. That God before his Covenanting with man had decreed within himſelf (Salva Juſtitia, without obſcuring at all his Juſtice) to make known on the veſſels of mercy (i. e. in juſtifying and ſaving miſerable ſinners whom he had before prepared to glory) the riches of his glory, i. e. the praiſe of the glory of grace, Rom. 9. 23. Epheſ. 1. 6. that himſelf and his free grace ſhould be all, and man nothing to his juſtification and ſalvation; and to the end that his juſtice might appear ſtill in all its luſtre, had taken full ſatisfaction from his own Son: here to manifeſt the freeneſſe of his grace, the all to our happineſſe reſiding in his meer mercy, and the nothing in our ſelves, I ſee not what other condition or means beſides faith God could have put, out of which mans proud heart would not have arrogated ſomething to himſelf to have ſwoln therewith, and ſo the glory of Gods grace, ſhould have been obſcured. Or doth Mr. Baxter ſee farther then the Apoſtle? He tels us, It is of Faith that it might be by Grace, Rom. 4. 16. If by other means it might have been, and yet by grace there would be a notable flaw in the Apoſtles arguing, which limits it to faith that it might be of grace. To the ſame purpoſe are thoſe many Scriptures in which he affirms it to be by faith that all mans boaſting may be excluded, implying that if it had not been only by faith, there would have been ſomething of man in it clowding the glory of Gods grace, and giving to man occaſion of boaſting that there is ſomething of his own to his juſtification, and ſo to glory partly in himſelf and not wholly in the Lord. So Mr. Baxters arguing, If God had put ſome other condition, no doubt it would have juſtified; is one and the ſame with this; If God had acted againſt his own purpoſe, and betrayed the glory of his Grace, no doubt it had been betrayed. But the former ſuppoſition is no leſſe abſurd then the latter. And almoſt ſo much at the full, Mr. Baxter, either to toll on his Reader into more ſnares which afterward he layeth, by his magnificent elogies of Gods grace, or from the throws and checks of an accuſing conſcience; ſpeaketh in the following part of this Section. Yet ſo that he cannot ceaſe from the interweaving of mans works with Gods grace unto Juſtification: which becauſe he doth more fully and groſſely in the following part of this Tractate, I ſhall here forbear to anticipate what there is to be ſaid by way of anſwer to him. The next Poſition is of neer cognation with this; his words are theſe:
B. Theſis 58. The ground of this is; becauſe Chriſts righteouſneſſe doth not juſtifie us properly and formally becauſe we beleeve or receive it; but becauſe it is ours in Law, by divine donation or imputation.
This is plain in it ſelf, and in that which is ſaid before.
How this is plain in that which is ſaid before, we have before examined; how it is plain in it ſelf we are here to examine. To omit how after Mr. Baxters Principles the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt can be ſaid to be ours by divine donation and imputation, when he holds it no otherwiſe by Gods donation ours, then the wilde Gooſe is his: his, if he can catch her, and as long as he can hold her: ſo his as it is every ones elſe as well as his if they can take and hold her. For ſhe is the worlds Gooſe, and proper to no one before one hath taken her, and no longer that ones then while he holds her, if he let her go ſhe is the worlds Gooſe again. If Mr. Baxters righteouſneſſe be ſtabliſhed upon ſuch a law, donation, and imputation, let it be his, not mine, I ſhall not contend with him for a ſhare in it, becauſe the Lord offers me a righteouſneſſe of a better Covenant eſtabliſhed upon better promiſes, Heb. 8. 6. But to let this paſſe; When M. Baxter ſaith the ground of this is; what meaneth he by this? That no doubt that went before in the former Poſition. But in it are many things, and which of them is plain upon this ground in his meaning I cannot eaſily judge, becauſe to my underſtanding no one of them is upon this ground plain. Nay upon this ground no man living is juſtified in this world. For it is not ours, ſaith he, by beleeving and receiving it, but by divine donation; And this donation he will not have to be confirmed, untill all the conditions be compleated, and that is not untill the world be ended. But to give my beſt conjecture of his meaning, I think he will be underſtood that the two laſt clauſes of his former Theſis are plain upon this ground, viz. 1. That Faith doth juſtifie▪ properly as a condition, &c. 2. Improperly as it doth receive Chriſt. The ground ſaith he is this, becauſe, &c.
Here by the way we may take notice of the mans ſubtilty and ſophiſtry, in ſhifting from one tearm of Art to another, Theſ. 57. he tels us that faith doth [properly] juſtifie thus, and [improperly] thus; but in the Explication, he foyſteth in the word formally and formall, pag. 230, 231. and here Theſ. 58. puts both together, properly and formally, as if there were no other proper cauſe and reaſon but the formall cauſe and reaſon of a thing, and that every proper cauſe were the formall cauſe. And thus whatſoeverr Scripture ſaith illiterately, Chriſt himſelf after Mr. Baxters proper language, ſhould not be a proper cauſe of our juſtification. And who ſees not the end of this his project? If he be put to it, he layes a ground for the diverting of the whole diſpute from the Scriptures, unto Philoſophy, Logick, and the Metaphyſicks, where there may be a cavill about the nature of the formall cauſe, ſo long untill both ſides be out of breath, and in the end both parties be as wiſe to Juſtification as in the beginning. This is the calamity of the Church in theſe times, that they which hold themſelves the chief Doctors and eminent lights thereof, darken every ſacred truth with the miſt of humane Learning caſt upon it, in ſtead of clearing it to the comprehenſion of Gods babes and ſucklings. No marvel then if the juſtice of God hath ſtirred up among us ſo many Earth-born and Earth-bred Meteors, perſons of no learning, (Ranters and Enthuſiaſts I mean) like Balaams Aſſe to rebuke the madneſſe of theſe Prophets. And doubtleſſe either by theſe or ſome other the Lord will prevail againſt them, if they ſhall not ceaſe to pervert with Elymas the plain ways of God.
Now to the matter it ſelf about which his ſophiſtry hath bin occupant. In theſe two Poſitions, viz and 57, & 58. Mr. Baxters aym is at two aſſertions of the Proteſtants to ſmite them through, viz. the inſtrumentality of Faith, and the vertue which it deriveth from Chriſts it object, to juſtifie and to ſet up his foreign Credere or act of beleeving under the name of a condition of the New Covenant without any reſpect of inſtrumentality that it hath to apprehend Chriſt, or any vertue that it receives from Chriſt apprehended to juſtifie. This he doth in the laſt words of the 57. Theſis, telling us that faith can be ſaid only in a remote and improper ſenſe, as it receiveth Chriſt, to juſtifie; where by receiving he ſhaketh and ſhifts off the inſtrumentality of faith, and by Chriſt the vertue of faiths object, into a remote and darke corner as not working at all or very obſcurely in our juſtification. But his act of beleeving he exalteth as the proper and formall reaſon of faiths juſtifying. This he illuſtrateth in the Explication pa. 230. Suppoſe Chriſt had put ſome other condition of the new Covenant, as Love, Patience, Temperance, Mercy, &c. that could not be inſtruments of receiving Chriſt, nor have Chriſt their object to draw vertue from him: ſhould not either of theſe notwithſtanding though neither inſtruments nor in a capacity to have Chriſt their object from which to have drawn vertue, by their own act have juſtifyed? So faith being the condition of the new Covenant doth by its act juſtifie. So argued he under Theſ. 57.
But doubting of the validity of his reaſons there either to weaken ours, or to ſtabliſh his own aſſertion, he addes this Theſis more fully to confirm what he had there endevoured.
The ground of this is (ſaith he) becauſe, and becauſe; as is before expreſſed.
I anſwer, there is no ſufficient ground laid for the confuting of ours, or the ſtrengthning of his tenent. For be it that Chriſts righteouſneſſe be ours by divine donation or imputation, how doth he build his opinion upon this ground, that the act of faith as being the condition, &c. doth properly juſtifie? He muſt ſhew his meaning in words at length and not in figures, before he ſhall win us to build with him ſtraw and ſtubble upon the ground; that is good and fitted to bear a good ſtructure. But very remarkably doth he here diſpute in oppoſing Gods donation or giving, or our beleeving or receiving of Chriſts righteouſneſſe as if they could not both conſiſt together in juſtifying us, at leaſt properly. Then it ſeems we are properly juſtifyed by the donation of Chriſt without his foreign credere or act of faith. Yea then are we properly and formally juſtifyed in Chriſt before we yet beleeved: For he will not denie that Gods donation of Chriſt (at leaſt in his ſenſe) is before our receiving him. And thus with one breath he will throw down all that before with ſo much labour he hath built.
But let us ſee how from this ground he batters our aſſertions, and what force there is in his battery. If we look to the Protheſis of his Theſis alone, the argument in ſubſtance runs to this Tenour, Faith doth not juſtifie us either as an inſtrument, or by vertue of Chriſt; or Chriſts righteouſneſſe its object; becauſe it doth not juſtifie us as an inſtrument or by vertue of its object. Who can ſhake his buildings that founds them on ſuch firme ground? That this is the force of his reaſoning is evident to them that obſerve him, that by the word [receiving] he excludes the inſtrumentality, and by [Chriſt] excludes the object of faith from any proper acting to juſtifie us, as I ſaid before. But we will annex the Antitheſis to his Protheſis, and ſo fill up his Theſis, and then ſee what ſtrength there is in the whole to his advantage, or our diſadvantage. What he muſt prove in his and refute on our part, hath been already declared. Only in the forecited Protheſis he begs the concluſion, that he ſhould have proved. Therefore we muſt lay his whole argument from the donation or imputation alone: yet will we put his Argument fully thus, If Chriſts righteouſneſſe doth not properly juſtifie us becauſe we beleeve or receive it, but becauſe it is ours in Law by Gods imputation or donation, then faith doth not juſtifie as an inſtrument or by vertue of Chriſt its object, but as it is an act containing the condition of the Covenant. But the former is true, therefore the latter alſo.
I deny the aſſumption as to the former member thereof, the beleeving and receiving, &c. And Mr. Baxter brings not ſo much as a gry to prove it. And as to the latter member, Gods donation, &c. I deny the conſequent of the Major, Though Chriſts righteouſneſſe juſtifie us properly, becauſe it is ours in Law by Gods donation or imputation, yet it followes not that either faith as an act or condition doth ſo of it ſelf juſtifie, or that it doth not juſtifie as an inſtrument and by vertue of its object, or as ſome ſay, its correlate, or as others by the communion that it puts us into with Chriſt: this I prove thus, not from terms of art, but from the authority and teſtimonies of the moſt high God.
1. From the relation between the brazen Serpent the Type, and Chriſt Jeſus the Antitype; Joh. 3. 14. The brazen Serpent was of Gods donation to Iſrael; ſo alſo was the Soveraigne power that was infuſed into it to heal; but the eyes of the wounded Iſraelites muſt be directed unto, and fixed upon the Serpent for cure, and then vertue iſſued from it to heal. So was the ſon of man lifted up with vertue in him to heal. Chriſt with this vertue is of Gods donation, yet this donation hinders not, but that our faith as an inſtrument muſt be directed to, and fixed upon him alone for juſtification, and ſo that juſtifying vertue or righteouſneſſe in him comes from him upon us to juſtification. It is no more the act of faith that of it ſelf becauſe a condition (if indeed a condition) doth it, then the act of the eye▪ cured the wounded without vertue drawn by it from its object.
2. From the cure of the woman which had the bloudy iſſue, Marke 5. 25. it will not be denyed that the vertue by which ſhe was healed was of divine donation, yet it was brought home to her not by the inſtrumentall ſervice of her hand touching Chriſts garment; for the multitude touched his garments and thronged him, yet had no benefit by it, verſe 31. But her faith apprehending Chriſt himſelf, ſo ſaid the Lord, Thy faith hath made thee whole, verſe 34. yet not the act of faith as a condition, but faith as an inſtrument by which the poor woman drew vertue from Chriſt its object, Jeſus perceived that vertue had gone out of him, verſe 34. So it was not the vertue of the foreign or act of beleeving, but of Chriſt beleeved on, which wrought the cure: ſuch are the operations of Chriſt and faith in the cure of the ſoul as here in the cure of the body.
3. From 1 G…r. 30. 31. Christ is of God made unto us Righteouſneſſe, viz. to Juſtification, That he which glorieth may glory in the Lord. God hath made him righteouſneſſe, but how to us, or our righteouſneſſe that it may be of his donation to us? Mr. Baxter muſt anſwer, by faith, elſe farewell his condition; but if by the act of faith as our righteouſneſſe in fulfilling …he condition, or otherwiſe then an inſtrument to apprehend the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to juſtification, then have we ſomewhat of our own righteouſneſſe wherein to glory, all would not be the Lords that we might glory in him alone.
4. To this I might add alſo the phraſe which the Apoſtle uſeth, that we are juſtifyed foreign, by faith, through faith, as an inſtrument; and never foreign, for our faith, or upon our faith as for a cauſe or upon a condition fulfilled, as ſome of our Divines have well obſerved.
I proceed to the next poſition.
B. Theſis 59. Juſtification is not a Momentaneous act, begun and ended immediately upon our beleeving, but a continued act; which though it be in its kind compleat from the firſt' yet it is ſtill in doing till the finall juſtification in the judgment day.
All this together with moſt of the Explication may be granted as being capable of an Orthodox ſenſe.
1. That juſtification as an act immanent in God is ſuch as is here deſcribed is confeſſed. But Mr. Baxter is deaf in this ear.
2. That our juſtification in Chriſt is ſuch (in ſome ſenſe) we alſo grant, but neither will he liſten to this.
3. Therefore if he would take off all ambiguity of his words, and declare his ſenſe to be the ſame with the ſound, we would grant to him alſo that ſuch is our perſonall juſtification in our ſelves, which he owneth only for juſtification. For as it is an act of God it is never interrupted or diſſolved till the day of judgement, though as it is taken Paſſively, there may be many interruptions of our ſenſe and apprehenſion of it.
But his Theſis is faced like Janus, lookes two wayes at once, is ſet forth in ſuch words as will more properly admit of an evill then a good ſenſe. And that he ſpeaks them after the Remonſtrant, not the Proteſtant dialect, is too probable though not infallibly evident, from theſe reaſons, to be meant in an evill ſenſe.
1. Becauſe he delivers it in the Arminian phraſe. For ſo his St. Epiſcopius, Juſtificatio eſt actus continuus qui eſt Epiſcop. Diſp. 22. Theſ. 12. de Juſtif.& durat, quamdiu durat ipſius conditionis requiſitae praeſentia, interrumpitur vero ſemper & toties quoties actus praestantur ejuſm…di qui cum vera fide & conſcientia bona conſiſtere nequeunt, i. e. Juſtification is a continued act which is and dureth as long as the preſence of its requiſite condition continueth, but is interrupted ſo often as ſuch acts are done which cannot conſiſt with true faith and a good conſcience. To the continuance of juſtification Mr. Baxter here ſpeaketh the ſame thing with him, and though as to the interruption of it he ſpeaks here as out of a cloud, yet compare with this his 45. Theſis and you will have the whole of Epiſcopius from the pen of Mr. Baxter.
2. Becauſe his words do ſeem here to ſuppoſe a Magis & minus in its active acceptation or ſenſe. It is not begun and ended immediately, ſaith he, but is ſtill in doing [in a way of perfecting] untill the judgment day.
3. His reſtriction added to the compleatneſſe or perfection thereof at the firſt. It is compleat at firſt, ſaith he but in its kind, which reſtriction makes the compleatneſſe of juſtification incompleat, and its perfection imperfect till the day of judgment, as himſelfe hath expreſſed himſelfe before Theſis 41. Theſe things from the poſition it ſelf. From the explication will follow.
4. The heartleſſe and comfortleſſe proof that he brings to prove the continuance of this juſtifying act, making it to reach only to the Genera ſingulorum, not to the ſingula generum: to ſuch a kinde of men, not to any ſingular man, or individuall perſon upon earth: to Beleevers, but not to this or that beleever. So that the holieſt Saint if at any time his faith in ſome temptation faint, and cannot be brought to ſenſible acting, is left deſtitute of all comfort from the Goſpell or new Covenant after Mr. Baxters principles. It juſtifieth onelyonly ſo long as faith actually receiveth Chriſt; if faith through infirmity ceaſe to act, he gives the diſtreſſed ſoul no comfort that God continueth to juſtifie.
5. From the firſt uſe of inſtruction which he draweth from this poſition. This ſheweth us (ſaith he) in the firſt place, with what limitation to receive the aſſertion of our Divines, that remiſſion and juſtification, are ſimul and ſemel, performed: his meaning is, that we muſt underſtand them in this aſſertion to deal as Mr. Baxter is wont, viz. to ſay one thing and mean another. Not to think as they ſpeak, but to equivocate and retaine a mentall reſervation within themſelves. That our juſtification is begun and perfected both at once and together, but all this is but ſuo genere, in its kinde; that is, conditionally, even as the Uſurer frankly and freely forgave to his debtor all that he owed him, but with this limitation that if he were not paid the whole debt to day, he would caſt him in priſon to morrow there to lie untill he ſhould pay the whole forfeiture.
But becauſe Mr. Baxter is diſpoſed here to liſp and not to ſpeak alowd and plain his minde, we ſhall leave him to his humour, and proceed to hearken to him where he ſpeaketh plainly and without parables.
Mr. Baxters APHORISMS EXORIZED AND ANTHORIZED: OR, An Examination of, and Anſwer to, a Book written by Mr. Rich. Baxter Teacher of the Church at Kederminſter in Worceſterſhire; ENTITULED, Aphoriſms of Juſtification.
THE SECOND PART.
By JOHN CRANDON an unworthy Miniſter of the Goſpel of CHRIST at Fawley in Hantſhire.
LONDON, Printed by E. C. 1654.