Baxters Aphorisms, Part 2 · Chapter 14
CHAP. XIV.
Mr. Baxters laſt Argument drawn from the Teſtimony of many approved Authors Examined and Anſwered.
HIs laſt Argument is drawn from the teſtimony and authority of many eminent Divines in the Proteſtant Churches, which he ſaith have taught and publiſhed this doctrine before him. This Argument is principally urged not in the Aphoriſms, but the Appendix. And although Mr. Br. tell us, App. p. 111. that he alleageth them (not to confirm his doctrine, but) to ſhew that he is not ſingular, but hath the concurrent judgments of others therein: And App. p. 167. & 188. that he doth it to ſatisfie them which charge him with ſingularity, not as an appeal to man: Yet it is too evident that his purpoſe herein is to abuſe the leſs knowing and conſidering part of his Readers with this more then with the moſt of his other Arguments. Great names he knowes doe make deep impreſſions upon the fancies of men that have much of affection, but little of judgment. And that theſe look not ſo much to the matter as to the men. Could they think Mr. Br. hath here ſaid no more then theſe and theſe confeſſedly pious and learned Worthies have ſaid before him, they will take him for a blaſphemer that ſhall ſay againſt him. Therefore he muſters together ſo many choyce veſſels and pretious ſervants of Chriſt, truſting to the either imbecility or credulity of his vulgar Readers, that either they cannot or will not examin and compare theſe and Mr. B. together, and then Mr. Br ſhall be taken to be of the ſame ſpirit with Dr. Preſton, Dr. Twiſſe, Calvin, Pareus, Perkins, and the other renowned Divines whom he alleageth, and then alſo it muſt be all truth that he hath ſaid, after ſuch men, and whoſoever ſhall oppoſe him muſt be brought forth to be ſtoned.
But where is the mans ſincerity that will be juſtified by the morall ſincerity of his obedience and works? Was it not wholly baniſhed from him, when he cited theſe men as concurring in judgment with him, when he knowes them all to deteſt his aſſertions againſt which we except, more then death it ſelf, and that many of them have jeoparded, and ſome of them laid down their lives and blood to give teſtimony to the contrary Aſſertions? Or will Mr. B. name any one of theſe at whoſe judgment his doctrine ſhall ſtand or fall, as true or erroneous? Why doth he thus abuſe the ſimple, thereby diſcovering his impudent fallaciouſneſs to the intelligent, with whom elſwhere he ſeeks chiefly to ingratiat himſelf? But come we to the Teſtimonies which he alleageth.
Bax. 1 Mr. Wallis, Faith is an accepting of Chriſt offered, rather then a beleeving of a Propoſition affirmed? App. p. 111.
Who hath denied this? Or what is this to Juſtification by works? It may poſsibly be ſomething to the Queſtion not conſiderately there propoſed; but nothing at all liſting with that concluſion, to which all the reſt which he delivers are but preparatives.
Next to Mr. Wallis he alledgeth Dr. Preſton, at the end of the ſame page. The ſix firſt Poſitions wherein he affirms him to ſpeak the ſame thing with himſelf, I ſee no ſound reaſon why any ſhould except againſt. But if Mr. B. or Dr. Preſton, or Paul, or an Angel from heaven ſhall deduce erratick and erroneous Concluſions from thoſe Premiſſes, they are not to be heard, but reſiſted at the face. None of the worſt Hereticks but agree in ſome principles with the moſt Orthodox, yet this nothing hinders but that the aſſertions in which they diſſent may be altogether pernicious.
How far and how unanimouſly all the Proteſtant Churches maintain the ſeventh point wherein Mr. B. affirms this pious and learned Doctor to agree with him, hath been before fully expreſſed, in the examination of the fourth Argument. So that it is uſeleſs here to run over ſo many paſſages of the Author, from p. 112. to p. 117. of the Appendix, to declare that this one man ſaith what all the reſt ſay and hold with him, viz. That juſtifying Faith is an accepting of Chriſt as Lord and Saviour. But what is this to the ſubſtance of the queſtion to which Mr. B. anſwereth?
Where it is objected to Mr. Br Qu. 14. that he ſo layeth this poſition, that he may thereby lay a ground-work for Juſtification by works? Doth Dr. Preſton to this end make Chriſt as Lord the object of Juſtifying Faith? or any where affirm him to be offered as a Law-giver or Commander of morall works and duties, to our juſtifying? Much leſs doth he affirm that ſuch works have any thing to do with Faith in juſtifying.
A notable skill hath Mr. Br in confounding when he ſhould divide and diſtinguiſh, and in diſtinguiſhing when there is no need; as either may ſerve to his purpoſe. He knowes that Dr. Preſton when he treats of the New Covenant, comprehends under it the whole doctrine and all the Promiſes of Grace made Yea and Amen in Chriſt; as the ſame Chriſt is given to us not onelyonly to Juſtification, but alſo to regeneration, illumination, ſanctification, and whatſoever the Grace of the Eternall Father hath made him to us. And when he treats of Faith, he handles it as the inſtrument by which not onelyonly Juſtification, but alſo all the other benefits of Chriſt may be made ours, in receiving Chriſt the treaſury & ſpring of all appropriated to us. Therefore in deſcribing the New Covenant he deſcribes it in generall as the womb of all the bleſſings which are attainable by Chriſt, and not of Juſtification and Salvation alone. And in deſcribing Faith he deſcribes it as the inſtrument by which we apprehend and appropriate to our ſelves, not onelyonly Chriſt as righteouſneſs and ſalvation, but alſo as wiſedome and ſanctification, yea all that tends to the perfecting of a poor ſinner, to our ſelves. Therefore is it that he ſpeaks more largely of the Covenant, and treats more fully of it then needed, if he had been to ſpeak of it onelyonly to Juſtification and Bleſſedneſs: and that he ſpeaks of Faith more largely, and mentioneth other acts of it then are required to this one end: And neceſſarily muſt he ſo do, elſe ſhould he have maimed both the Covenant of Grace, and the Faith of Chriſt. Here whatſoever Dr. Preſton ſpeaketh of the Covenant and Faith in generall, of which ſome part belongeth to the intereſſing of us to ſanctification and other bleſſings which are by Chriſt, Mr. Br to beguile his Reader, confoundeth and confineth to Juſtification, as being ſpoken of it alone. When contrariwiſe the Doctor doth enough cleerly expreſs the diſtinct benefits of the Covenant, and the diſtinct acts of Faith receiving the diſtinct benefits; in the very words which he alledgeth out of him, App. p. 117. Thou ſhalt receive the gift of Righteouſneſs wrought by him, for an abſolution for thy ſins, and for a reconciliation with me: [This is our Juſtification] And thereupon thou ſhalt grow up in love and obedience towards me [This is our ſanctification.]
But ſuppoſe he ſhould have affirmed that Faith, as it cleaveth to Chriſt, not onelyonly for the ſprinkling of his blood for Juſtification, but withall for the effuſion of his ſpirit to ſanctification, and the ſhedding forth of his beams for illumination, and the ſtretching forth of his Almighty arm for ſupportation, &c. doth in all theſe acts juſtifie: as ſome Divines do ſeem to ſpeak, though (without prejudice to their reputation) not enough adviſedly: yet both he and they are ſo far from making either the moſt ſpiritual knowledge and wiſedom, which are the immediate fruits of illumination; or love, righteouſnes, and holines, and their acts or works which are the immediate fruits of ſanctification, to be in any reſpect uſefull to juſtification; that they utterly deny, peace, joy, and hope, the immediate fruits of Juſtification, to be any way effectuall and uſefull in this buſineſs. But I find not Dr. Preſton any where laying that ground-work, much leſs erecting ſuch a building on it.
To the five laſt points if Mr. Br hold them in that which I have expreſſed to be Dr. Preſtons ſenſe, yea which himſelf expreſſeth to be his own ſenſe, I have nothing to ſay againſt him. The tenth onelyonly excepted, to which I muſt be alſo mute, becauſe neither doth Mr. Br alledg what the Doctor ſaith, and I have not that Treatiſe of his to inform me.
But all this is but a playing with holy things, he might as well have ſaid Dr. Preſton conſents with him in confeſſing there is a God, a Chriſt, a Juſtification, a man, a ſinner to be juſtified, as have ſaid moſt of what he hath here ſaid. We expected he ſhould have produced teſtimonies of other Divines ſpeaking in common with him, what he ſpeaks in common with the Papiſts, in oppoſition to the doctrine of the Proteſtants.
In his Appendix, p. 167. and thenceforth to the end of the Book, he brings a new ſupply of Teſtimonies, which he intituleth
Bax. Sayings of excellent Divines; added to ſatisfie you who charge me with ſingularity.
I ſhall examine ſo many of them as have any ſhew of agreement with Mr. Br in thoſe things wherein he fights againſt the doctrine of the Proteſtant Churches.
Bax. 1 He alleadgeth Dr. Twiſſe his diſcovery of Dr. Jackſons vanity, p. 528. What one of our Church will maintaine that any one obteins actuall Redemption by Chriſt without Faith? eſſpecially conſidering that redemption by the blood of Chriſt, and forgiveneſſe of ſins are all one. Eph. 1. 17. Col. 1. 14.
How prettily would he here inſtill into the thought of his Reader, that Dr. Twiſſe is a man of levity, here a ſubverter of Antinomianiſm, whereof in his Aphoriſms, p. 173. he complained him to be a Pillarer? that here he ſubverteth Juſtification from eternity, whereof elſwhere he is an aſſertor? Nay here he ſpeaketh of the Juſtification which is by vertue of the New Covenant, of the obteining of it actually to our ſelves. This neither Papiſt nor Proteſtant, neither Dr. Twiſſe no… Mr. Br ever affirmed to be without Faith.
Bax. 2. Biſhop Hooper cited by Dr. Jackſon. Chriſt onelyonly received our infirmities and originall diſeaſe, and not the contempt of him and his Law. Expounded by Dr. Twiſſe againſt Dr. Jackſon, p. 584.
His meaning in my judgment is onelyonly this, that Chriſt hath made ſatisfaction for the imperfection of our faith and holineſs, although we continue therein untill death: But he hath not made ſatisfaction for the contempts and hatred of his word, &c. in caſe men do continue therein unto death.
Here is nothing of that which Mr. B. hunts after, that Chriſt hath ſatisfied for no offence, no infirmity committed againſt the New Covenant, but this alone is the ſum of it, that they ſhall have no benefit by Chriſt, no one ſin committed againſt the Law or Goſpel pardoned to them, who live and dye impenitent and unbelievers. According to that of our Saviour, Jo. 8. 24. Therefore I ſaid unto you ye ſhall dye in your ſins, for if ye beleeve not that I am he, ye ſhall dye in your ſins.
B. 3 Alſtedius Diſtinct Theol. cap. 17. p. 73. The Condition of the Covenant of Grace, is partly Faith, partly Evangelicall obedience, or holineſs of life proceeding from Faith in Chriſt.
1 In how different a ſenſe from Mr. B. the Proteſtants take the word Condition hath been before expreſſed. 2 But in that ſenſe in which they [that uſe it] take it, it is one thing to be the condition of the New Covenant, another to be the condition of Juſtification, which is but one of many benefits of the Covenant of Grace. Had Alſteed in the Explication of himſelf affirmed holineſs of life a condition of juſtification, we ſhould have had it at the full from Mr. B.
About the ſecond thing wherein he alledgeth this mans teſtimony, I know no man queſtioning Mr. B. Neither is his next Teſtimony alledged from Sadeel, any thing of all the things wherein Mr. B. joyneth with the papiſts againſt the Proteſtants, therefore I ſpare the labour to tranſeribe it.
B. 4 Rivet in diſputat. de ſatisfactione. God was not bound to accept the ſatisfaction performed by another though ſufficient, &c. Therefore there was a neceſſity that a Covenant ſhould intercede, and God himſelf propound a Mediator.
That there muſt an agreement intercede on his part who was ſatisfied, without which the ſatisfaction had been in vain.
Idem. ibid. Theſ. 4, 5, 6.
The act which in ſatisfaction God performeth, is of a ſupreme judge, relaxing his own Law and transferring …he penalty of it upon another: ſo that in this relaxation Gods ſupreme dominion may be obſerved, &c. And by the transferring the penal…y from the ſinner, and exacting it of the ſurety; the relation of a party offended, as ſuch, is rem…ved from God, &c. J…. 4 12.
God did relax his Law as being poſitive, and ſo relaxable, it is abrogate, &c. The reſt is off from the Qu…ſtion.
To what purpoſe he here produceth the Teſtimony of this famous Doctor, except it be to declare his conſent with himſelf and Grotius, that the Law is not abrogated but relaxed onelyonly, by means of Chriſts mediation; I know not. If ſo Rivet hath nothing for him, but much directly againſt him. 1 He affirms what no rationall man ever denied, that the Grace of God is free and not bound. How elſe ſhould it be Grace? 2 Yea it is free not onelyonly from Co-action, but from abſolute neceſſity alſo. OnelyOnly the purpoſe of God being preſuppoſed, that he would ſo ſave by grace as that no one title of his juſtice ſhould fall, it was neceſſary there ſhould be the interceding of a Covenant and a Mediator. But is this to any other purpoſe then what he concludes with, viz. [to fill up the vacant pages, p. 188.] 3 That there muſt alſo an agreement or Covenant to this end paſs between the Father and …he Son; is ours not his doctrine. 4 The relaxation of the Law in paſſing this Covenant between the Father and the Son, is the common doctrine of all proteſtants, as alſo that this is an act of Supream dominion of God that is under no Law. But when this Covenant is ratified, ſo that Chriſt becomes the undertaker, and God the accepter of ſatisfaction in relation to them for whom the ſatisfaction is made, ſo that the penalty of the Law as to their ſins, is transferred upon Chriſt: whether the Law be not ſo abrogate to them, that they are no longer under the Curſe of it, is the thing in queſtion. And here Dr. Rivet gives his verdit for us againſt Mr. B. That to theſe the Law is abrogate, and God no more ſtands in the relation of a party offended againſt them. What more proper ſword-man could he have brought forth to have hewn in pieces his own Cauſe?
B. 5 Dr. Twiſs, vindic. grat. and againſt Cotton, & conſid: of Til. Syn. Dort. &c.
What doth he mean by citing the Teſtimony of this Doctor ſo frequently, and catching fragments from him, whom he knows in the whole bulk of his works to deſtroy what himſelf would ſet up? yea though he complains againſt him for erecting the main pillar of Antinomianiſm, will he at length become his Diſciple and build pillars with him. Dr. Twiſſe doth enough waſh his hands from Mr. Br doctrine, even in theſe paſſages here cited from him, as I could fully manifeſt. But becauſe I ſee the task would be tedious to examine particularly every particular teſtimony which he citeth: The ſame perſons ſpeaking in ſeverall of the quoted places the ſame thing, and many ſpeaking no more then one at once hath ſaid before: I ſhall therefore abridge my ſelf, in ſhewing in generall the diſſenting judgment of thoſe writers from him, however he would deceive his Reader with a credulous opinion that they conſent with him. This will be done with an eaſie labour: when contrariwiſe to ſpeak ſingularly to every ſingular teſtimony, would not yeeld forth fruit worthy the labour.
Firſt then all the Teſtimonies of Dr. Twiſſe, Append. p. 172, 173. That of Junius, p. 173. of Pareus, Piſcator, Aretius, p. 174. Dr. Willet, p. 179, 180. Mr. Burges of Juſtification, p. 187. are here compiled to tell them that are no friends to the doctrine of grace, (though it alone muſt befriend them if they will be ſaved) that all theſe Divines conſent with him in his doctrine, fi…ſt of a univerſall conditionall redemption or juſtification purchaſed by Chriſt, without any more effectuall ſatisfaction made to the juſtice of God for them that ſhall be ſaved, then for them that ſhall be damned: and ſecondly that morall obedience and good works are Concauſes or Collaterall conditions with faith to juſtification.
To manifeſt how faithfull he is in theſe his allegations, I ſhall briefly expreſs what the judgment of all Proteſtants is about theſe points, that the adviſed Reader may judge whether theſe diſſent from the reſt and prepared the way for Mr. Br to proſecute his Aſſertions.
1 They grant that the promulgation of righteouſnes & life is to be made univerſally & conditionally to all. God knoweth who are his, but the Heralds of his grace know not. Therefore by the command of Chriſt they are to teſtifie this word of life to all without exception, promiſing upon condition of beleeving, in the name and by the word of Chriſt, righteouſneſs and ſalvation. In mean time they meintein, Chriſt hath ſatisfied onelyonly for thoſe that the Father hath given him, ſo effectually as that by vertue of Chriſts purchaſe they ſhall receive power from above to beleeve unto ſalvation.
2 They are wont oft to uſe the word ſalvation (as the Scripture alſo doth) for glorification hereafter: and ſo take it as a diſtinct thing from juſtification: and involve into the condition of ſalvation more then into the condition of Juſtification.
3 By the word Condition they underſtand oft all the neceſſary antecedents, and ſometimes alſo the neceſſary conſequents either of juſtification or ſalvation. But ſo as they term ſuch Antecedents the conditions, without which going before thoſe ends cannot be attained, and thoſe Conſequents the conditions without which following we cannot attain the certain knowledge that we are juſtified and inrighted to glory.
4 That as oft as they ſpeak of conditions of juſtification, they mean the juſtification of the New Covenant, not the juſtification immanent in God, or that which Mr. B. calleth Chriſts own juſtification as the publick perſon, Aph. p. 195.
5 They utterly deny morall obedience and good works to be in any other ſenſe a condition of juſtification, but as it is a conſequent thereof to evidence it. Mr. B. indeed, as if he had not enough injured Mr. Burges, by making him in ſome kind a Patron of his Whimſies, in prefixing his name to this his Book, Dedicating it to him as above others an eminent Fautor of ſuch doctrines; would willingly here alſo draw him quaſi obtorto collo, to be the Founder of this his Jeſuiticall error, as he makes him out, App. p. 187, 188. But I have before ſhew'd that the preaching of repentance and the preaching of Faith for the remiſſion of ſins, are in Goſpel language one and the ſame thing. If Mr. Burges mean otherwiſe (but ſo as law confident of the contrary) I ſhould put no difference in the authority of Mr. Br and Mr. Burgeſs in this aſſertion. The ſame force he uſeth to draw Dr. Willet to be of his part, p. 180, 181. where indeed in one clauſe the Doctor ſeems to me to have verified that proverb, Quando que bonus dormitat Homerus: yet without giving thereby any advantage to Mr. B. yea he ſpeaks directly oppoſit to him.
6 They deny all cauſality of good works to ſalvation.
7 Much more a concauſality in the ſame kind with Faith, and the ſatisfaction of Chriſt.
8 Moſt of all, that they in any rationall ſenſe merit it.
9 Or that as they make up the inherent righteouſneſs of man to be a Collaterall with the ſacrifice of, or righteouſneſs which is by Chriſt, to Salvation; ſo that we are ſaved by works, for works, as by Chriſt and for Chriſt. All this dirt they leave to Mr. B. to lick off from the nailes of the Ieſuits, bidding defiance againſt it as a Curſed doctrine. What they underſtand then of works as a condition of Salvation, is in this comprized; that to ſalvation already attained, they have the relation of an adjunct conſequent, and effect: But to the ſalvation hereafter to be attained, the relation of an Adjunct antecedent and diſponent, as alſo of an Argument confirming the hope and aſſurance thereof. They expreſs themſelves uſually in the phraſe of that Father, (though poſſibly miſunderſtood by ſome) Via regni ſunt, non cauſa regnandi, which ſome do, all ſhould thus conſtrue (not that they are the way to the Kingdom above, Chriſt alone being this way, but) they are the way of the Saints which are Chriſts ſpirituall Kingdom: according to that of the Apoſtle, We are ſaved, not by works, for &c. God hath ordained us to walk in them, Eph. 2. 8-10. in the way of ſanctification are they to be found, not in the wayes of iniquity and prophanneſs, who are inrighted by Chriſt to ſalvation.
Let now the vaſt difference and contrariety in ſo many particulars between M. Brs. and theſe Divines opinions, about this Queſtion be conſidered, and then let it be judged whether Mr. Br. had not taken his leave of all baſhfulneſs, when he would impoſe on his Readers an opinion, that he delivers upon this Argument nothing but what they had taught before him.
2 The Teſtimonies which he cites from Calvin, p. 175. Perkins, p. 177. do only affirm that the inherent righteouſnes of ſanctification doth ſometimes give the name of righteous perſons to beleevers, in the Scriptures, and this none denyeth. But here is no mention made that we are termed right…us from the righteouſneſs of our own works, as or becauſe they are the condition of our juſtification, which is Mr. Br. Tenet. Calvin indeed rightly aſcribes it to the imputed righteouſnes of Chriſt, from which originally and radically our own unperfect righteouſnes is owned of God, and our ſelves righteous in doing it. But in no wiſe affirmeth that this our unperfect righteouſnes hath any finger in the procuration of Chriſts righteouſneſs to be imputed to us. But conſequentially given a flat denyall of it, which is the thing queſtioned in Mr. B. As for Mr. Perkins, he hath in the place alledged nothing relating to the queſtion. So that he doth an unexpiable wrong to the name of theſe famous men, to father them with this his error.
3 That which he citeth from Perkins, p. 176. & 178. and from Zanchy, p. 179. from Dr. Davenant, p. 181. Molinaeus, Scharpius, and Pareus, p. 185. and Mr. Burgeſs, p. 186. are nihil ad rem Nothing to the doctrines of Mr. Br that are queſtioned and charged as Popiſh, &c. He commits a Paralogiſm in detorting them into his opinions from which they are abhorrent. It is a meer ignoratio Elenchi, to bring theſe writers as concluding with him contradictorily to our Concluſions, who ſay nothing againſt us or for him. As thoſe of Scharpius and Pareus, p. 185. where he makes th… wherein they affirm the ſubſtance of the New Covenant [in generall] to conſiſt, to ſpeak for him in contradiction to what we conclude of Juſtification, that is but one ſpeciall part of that Covenant: as if all that is affirmed or denyed of the former are ſo alſo of the latter. The falſhood whereof I have before manifeſted. Although Mr. Burgeſs in his Teſtimony alledged, p. 186. ſpeaks more againſt Mr. Br then for him, yet I make not his Concluſion a part of my Creed, as being too peremptory, and boldly fettering the hands of Gods grace to Lawes, which God hath not impoſed upon himſelf: viz. That Remiſſion of ſins is given us onelyonly in the uſe of thoſe Graces, [which he had before named.] Had he ſaid [ordinarily, or moſtly] in ſteed of [onelyonly] I ſhould not have excepted againſt him. But I take him to be ſo pious and learned, that upon a review he will relax and diſpenſe with his [onelyonly] as not bottomed on the Scriptures there alledged, or any other. The like may be ſaid to the like ſpeech of Molinaeus, p. 185. if he mean ſo univerſally as Mr. Burgeſs ſpeaketh. But perhaps neither of them by remiſſion of ſins mean Juſtification, but a quid diſtinctum from it, if ſo then they ſpeak nothing to Mr. Brs purpoſe. The other fore-cited Teſtimonies out of Perkins and Zanchy, labour of the ſame fallacy, having nothing againſt us in thoſe points in which Mr. Br. profeſſeth himſelf an adverſary to us.
4 But it ſeems he moſt triumpheth in the teſtimony of Mr. Ball. Him he magnifieth and exalteth with ſuparletive praiſes, more then all the great Theologers whom he alledgeth before and after him, as if all the reſt were but Sycamores to this Cedar: [This great, leaaned and holy Divine as almoſt England ever bred,] and why ſo ſuper excellent? for …ooth he goes on in Grotius [that Caſſandrian Papiſt] his own words tranſlated. And which is there of the D…vines which England hath bred, that can be praiſed for ſo illuſtrious an act beſides Mr. Br. and him? I envy not the praiſes of the man, yet this act of his meriteth it not, no not from Mr. B. For as far as he tranſcribes him, p. 182. Mr. Ball no further fo…lowes Grotius then to Gods relaxing of the Law to take ſatisfaction from Chriſt in our ſteed: But if he had alſo aſſerted that after ſatisfaction actually taken, they which in Chriſt have ſatisfied, are yet all their life-time under the Curſe of the Law to bear it in their own perſons; would Mr. B. have hidden it? Yet this is the thing in queſtion between Mr. B. and the Proteſtants, whether after the giving and receiving of ſatisfaction for our breaches of the Law, the Curſ of the Law be either nulled, or els onelyonly in part relaxed, as to our bearing it.
Yea if he …e as M…. B. ſtiles him, then have we the teſtimony of ſo great learned and holy a Divine as almoſt England ever bred againſt Mr. B. himſelf not being able to deny any one almoſt that England ever bred, which hath written more directly and contrarily to Mr. B. then this man in his Tractate of Faith, about Juſtification. If elſwhere he contradicts himſelf, I ſhall oppoſe Ball againſt Ball, yea Ball in afflictions, when he lived by Faith and had nothing elſe but Chriſt apprehended by Faith to ſupport his troubled ſoul, to Ball n…w raiſed to a proſperous ſtate in the world, and wh… ſeeing the Court infected with Popery Socinianiſm and Arminianiſm, and no other bridge to preferm…nt ſo effectuall as ſome ſhew of bending at leaſt to theſe wayes, might poſſibly as far as Conſcience would permit him, make uſe of the language there held moſt authentick. I ſay of the language, for I cannot condemn his doctrine alledged in his three following Teſtimonies it taken in a good ſenſe. But his ambiguities of words ſeem to ſpeak him out to have had a levell to ſomewhat els beſides the ſupporting of the truth; and yet his Conſcience ſeems to hold him bound from ſaying any thing manifeſtly againſt the truth. Mr. B. may poſſibly tickle himſelf with his words, but his matter duly pondered gives him a ſting ſufficient to perſwade him to forbear laughter. Let the unbiaſſed judicious Reader, add conſideration to his reading and then judge.
The reſt of the teſtimonies which he hath here cited and quoted I let paſſe as altogether beſides the queſtions which Mr. B. hath ſet in agitation between himſelf and all the Proteſtant-Churches.
And thus at length have his Arguments been examined which he brings to confirm his Juſtification by works.
He hath many things tending to the confirmation of ſome other Paradoxes ſcattered in his Aphoriſms, beginning at p. 123. of his Appendix, and ending at p. 164. but becauſe thoſe things are handled by way of diſputation againſt others, and Mr. B. as a challenger doth call out there by name Mr. Owen and Maccovius to a Duell with himſelf, each after other, expoſing them to the world as baſe and ſilly Animals in what they have ſaid, except they come forth into open field to make it good: It ſhall be both impertinent and uncivil in me to meddle in a buſineſs to which others and the ſame far more worthy and able, are called as to their peculiar task: I ſhould not be excuſed by any herein from being one that loveth foreign, to be buſie in another mans office, ſpecially ſeeing I know not what theſe challenged have done or are doing in the defence of themſelves and the doctrine which they have aſſerted. Were it that their reputation alone, and not a truth of Chriſt wch they had undertaken to defend were here clouded by Mr. B. I ſhould think it no fault in them to paſs it by in contemptuous ſilence: but ſeeing Mr. B. endeavours upon their ruines to erect his mounts againſt the City of the living God, to deſtroy it, or at leaſt ſpoyle it of its principall immunities; denying the full juſtification of the Lords redeemed ones in this world, & holding them under the curſ and wrath of God both in their life and death: I perceive not how they can be ſilent, without betraying the truth of God which they once undertook to defend. Since this was written I underſtand Mr. Owen hath fully vindicated himſelf, and learnedly defended all that Mr. B. had laid on his ſcore.
Thus far to his Arguments that he hath brought to prove Juſtification by works. I find no more, nor in theſe have I hidden any thing but ſet them forth in their fulleſt ſtrength.