Baxters Aphorisms, Part 2 · Chapter 15
CHAP. XV.
Mr. Baxters Plea to prove his Doctrine free from Popery, examined and refuted.
I Come now to the moſt accurate, fineſt, and chiefeſt part of Mr. Brs. Art, his Alcumiſtry, by which hee turneth the baſeſt metals into gold, darkneſs into light, death into life, deformity into beauty, and hell into heaven it ſelf. All this he with ſtrong endeavours labours to accompliſh, while with ſtrong confidence hee goes about to vindicate his doctrine from all error, all infection of Popery, Socinianiſm, Phariſaiſm, and to render it the ſame with the doctrine of Paul and of Chriſt, guiltleſs of all derogation to the praiſe of Gods grace, Chriſts merits, or the Saints comfort; Yea to ſet it forth in ſuch a ſplendor, that although hee hath hitherto deſcribed ſuch a grace of God, as by his donation was no more appropriated and peculiarized to Peter then to Judas, to the curſed in hell, than to the Saints in heaven: and ſuch a Chriſt as reigneth Tyrant-like in the Kingdom of grace, chaining up his own, all his own ſubjects and friends, under the curſe of the Law to bear the horrors and torments of it in ſoul and body all their life, yea after death as long as the world ſhall continue: though he hath taken away from the Saints (after their ſelf-denyall, repentance, building themſelves by their moſt holy Faith upon Chriſt the Rock, after their renovation and ſanctification by the Spirit) all hope and poſſibility of attaining any aſſurance of Gods unchangeable love to them, or of their ſinns irrevocably pardoned, or of their perſeverance in the ſtate of Grace, or of their indefeazable right to glory, or of their exemption from the curſe and wrath of God while they live, or of the reſt and freedom of their ſouls after death, either from the flames of Hell, or of Purgatory as long as the world ſtandeth: After hee hath taught that no man ſhall have any part in Chriſt and his benefits, which procureth it not by his own righteouſneſs, his own perfect righteouſneſſ [in ſuo genere] yea by the merits of his righteouſneſs: After that he hath proclaimed that his Goſpel brings no better tidings of joy than theſe: Yet at length hee comes to varniſh over ſuch a Grace, ſuch a Chriſt, ſuch a Goſpel, ſuch a ſtate of believers (who are all of his own faigning) with ſuch paints and fine colours, as by them to enamour all men to embrace theſe as the only true and appetible Grace, Chriſt, Goſpel, and ſtate of beleevers. That this Doctrine is as ſmooth as Eſau's hands, as free from Popery, Socinianiſm, from all injurie againſt the grace of God, all-ſufficiency of Chriſts merits, conſolation of the Saints, yea from all error whatſoever, as Lazarus was from ſores, or the poor Gadaren from Devills, that had but a legion of them within him: That it agrees ſo harmoniouſly with the doctrine of Paul, as light with darkneſſ, Chriſt with Belial, and the Temple of God with Idols: That in theſe things the Covenant of Grace conſiſteth indeed, therefore invites all at the conſideration of the innocency and profundity of this his Goſpel, to follow him in ſeeking a ſure ſalvation by their own righteouſneſs in the Curſe of the Law.
To inſiſt no longer upon generals, I ſhall examine the particular Apologies which he makes for this his Doctrine of Juſtification by works, to cleer it from the falſe imputations which the ignorant Antinomians that is (in his Conſtruction) Luther, Calvin, Twiſſe, Pemble, and their followers might charge it withall.
His firſt Task which he appoints to himſelf, is to vindicate it from having any ſmack of Popery; how ſo? doth not both he and they maintain in the ſame words that we are juſtified by works? this he cannot deny. But forſooth there is a great difference in this, whoſe pen it is that drops the aſſertion. The Papiſts do it with a quill of a Capitoline, Mr. Br. with a quill of a Kederminſter gooſe. This alters the caſe ſaith Ploydon, & makes the ſame Propoſition to be Popery and no Popery. But let us hear himſelf ſpeaking, and multiplying his reaſons why it muſt not be taken for Popery.
Br. Aphor. p. 304, 305. How this differeth from the Popiſh Doctrine, I need not tell any Scholar that hath read their writings. 1 They take juſtifying for ſanctifying, ſo do not I. 2 They quite overthrow and deny the moſt reall difference between the Old Covenant and the New, and make them in a manner all one. But I build this Expoſition and Doctrine, chiefly upon the clear differencing and opening of the Covenants. 3 When they ſay we are juſtified by the works of the Goſpell, they mean only that we are ſanctified by works that follow faith, and are beſtowed by grace, they meriting our inherent juſtice at Gods hands. In a word, there is ſcarce any one Doctrine wherein even their most learned Schoolmen are moſt ſottiſhly ignorant then in this of Juſtification: So that when you have read them with profit and delight on ſome other ſubjects; when they come to this, you would pitty them, and admire their ignorance. 4 They take our works to be part of our legal Righteouſnes: I take them not to be the ſmalleſt portion of it, but only a part of our Evangelicall righteouſneſs, or of the condition upon which Chriſts righteouſnes ſhall be ours.
Suppoſe all theſe things were true, and the difference between him and the Papiſts were ſo great and manifold, as in theſe particulars he pretendeth, yet all this nothing evinceth his Doctrine not to be Popiſh, eſpecially among Scholars to whom he appealeth. For 1 All this would but excuſe him a tanto, non a toto, that in theſe particulars he is not, though in many other and greater, he be Popiſh.
2 Though he differed from them in the premiſſes, yet he is one with them in the coneluſion. Bellarmine brings his arguments, and Stapleton his, to prove that works juſtifie. Are they not both Papiſts, becauſe their arguments differ, when their Concluſion is one? Mr. Br thinks, that in ſome particulars his curious wit hath prompted him with a finer and ſurer way of demonſtration to ſtabliſh Juſtification by works, than ever entered into the Cardinals Cap or Cranion: Doth this deny him to be a Papiſt, becauſe he ſpeaks more for them than they could for themſelves? 3 Though Bellarmins and Brs. way of arguing do in ſome particulars differ, yet is the later as great an oppoſite to the truth of the Goſpell in his way, as the former in his. Both oppugn with their utmoſt ſtrength the doctrine of grace, though they divide the battell between them, the one ſcaling from the North, the other from the South.
2 But it cannot be truly ſayd, that there are truly thoſe reall differences between Mr. Brs. and the Papiſts Doctrine, which hee here particularizeth. For 1 Though in ſome of theſe particulars he ſpeaks not the idem, yet he ſpeaks the Tantundem with them. 2 Where he ſpeaks not the very idem, hee ſpeaks more groſly, Phariſaically, and adverſatively to the truth then they. For the manifeſting hereof, let us particularly examine thoſe particulars in which he ſaith he differs from them.
1 Saith he, They take juſtifying for ſanctifying, ſo do not I.
1 This ſpeaks out their Doctrine to be more tolerable then his. For the Scripture denies not the increaſe of ſanctification to be in part by works (which is all that the Papiſts hold) But accurſeth them that ſhall attribute Juſtification either in its beginning or growth (if there were any ſuch thing) to works. 2 It is not true, that the Papiſts make whole or all Juſtification to conſiſt in Sanctification. For in their many diviſions and diſtinctions of Juſtification, among the reſt they have this. There is a firſt and a ſecond juſtification. The former of Infants and new Converts conferred in baptiſm. This conſiſts in remiſſion of ſins meerly by the blood of Chriſt, ſprinkled by the Spirit in Baptiſm upon Infants that are not of age actually to believe; and received alſo by Faith by believing Converts in their Baptiſm. The later end indeed they make to conſiſt in the infuſion of the habit of grace and ſanctification: when the juſtified man, ex juſto juſtior fit, is more and more juſtified. This will afterward be manifeſted: So that all Scholars muſt acknowledg Mr. Br. to have the Tantundem, and almoſt in every apex the Idem of this Doctrine. Yea worſe is his doctrine in this particular than theirs. For he makes Sanctification and good works a Collateral with the righteouſneſs of Chriſt in juſtifying. They abandon this doctrine, teaching that they are but fruits of Gods grace and Chriſts merits. Thus he ſets up vain man as Cheek-mate with Chriſt, they ſet him at his foot-ſtool, or appoint him to follow and apprehend the hemm of his garment, to draw vertue from him, though indeed to other and prouder ends then he hath ordained.
Br. They quite overthrow and deny the moſt reall difference between the Old Covenant and the New; and making them in a manner one, I build upon the clear differencing and opening of the Covenants.
1 All this is ſaid, not ſhewed and proved. 2 If the Papiſts did wholly as he ſaith, Mr. Br. to every particle of what he charges them with, might tune up the Poets Epigram, Jam ſumus ergo pares: Jam ſumus ergo pares. In all this we ſhake hands. What fouler confounding of the Covenants can there be then what Mr. Br hath committed: when he makes DO, and LIVE, to be the voyce of both Covenants, denying any uſefulneſs to Faith it ſelf in juſtifying, but as it is a deed and morall work. Let Babel it ſelf be raked from end to end, there will not be found more confuſion. The Papiſts ſay, doing and works, as works and doing cannot be our righteouſneſs to juſtifie us: But as they receive purification from the blood and grace of Chriſt, ſo they obtain acceptance with God, and becom our righteouſnes to juſtifie us. Chriſt (ſay they) hath merited that our fulfilling of the Law ſhould juſtifie us. Mr. Br. ſaith nay, but our fulfilling the works which the Law requireth, meriteth that we ſhould receive Chriſt to Juſtification (as we ſhall ſee by and by) Let now any rationall man judg which party doth moſt confound the Covenants, he that makes the works of the Law in and for themſelves, as they are ſimply done, meritorious to Juſtification: or they that aſcribe nothing to works but what they have from Chriſt. Both I acknowledg are to be abandoned; but the deeper grain of ſelf-extolling, the more ſenſuall luſting after the fleſh-pots of Aegypt is in Mr. Brs. Doctrine. Let none object that Mr. Br. attributes it not to works as works of the Law, but of the Goſpel, himſelf knoweth and hath learned that poor ſhift of the Papiſts; and that they come off handſomer with it upon their, then it is poſſible for him to do upon his principles.
Bax. 3. They are ſottiſhly ignorant in the Doctrine of Juſtification [ſo am not I.]
This I conceive he puts as a third difference between his and their doctrine. For what he ſaith under this third particular, that when they ſay juſtified, they mean ſanctified, that he had made before the firſt difference. If this be the difference, then is he much more guilty than they. I obtained merciemercy, becauſe I did it of ignorance, ſaith the Apoſtle, implying that they which did it maliciouſly againſt the light of their own underſtandings, were excluded from mercy. He that knoweth his fathers will, and doth it not, ſhall be beaten with many ſtripes. Yet I conceive Mr. Br. means here the Schoolmen of ancient times of Barbariſm: not the Jeſuits, Arminians, Socinians, and other Scholaſtick, Phyloſophick Theologaſters of theſe later times: For theſe are ſo knowing (in Mr. Brs. account) in the doctrine of Juſtification, that hee hath borrowed all his knowledg and doctrine from them. And why the former ſhould be eſteemed more ſottiſhly ignorant in this than in other no leſſe myſteriall doctrines of the Goſpel I know not. In thingt naturall and morall indeed they wrote as learned Philoſophers, ſo farr as refined reaſon could conduct them. But in things purely Evangelicall (ſaving about the perſons and natures of Chriſt, which they alſo handled more Metaphyſically than Theologically) beſides ſome fragments gathered out of Auguſtine, I could hardly ever meet with a ſound piece in ſuch of them as have come to my reading. There may be a time when Mr. Br. may recant his profit and delight in dipping holy waters from the muddy ſtreams, contemning the pure fountain of the Goſpel.
Or if he puts the difference in the former words;
Bax. 3 When they ſay we are juſtified by the works of the Goſpel, they mean onelyonly that wee are ſanctified by works that follow Faith, and are beſtowed by Grace, they meriting our inherent Juſtice before God.
And in that which ſtandeth as it were in a fourth place.
Bax. They take our works to be part our legall, I take it only a part of our Evangelicall righteouſnes: or of the condition upon which Chriſts righteouſneſs ſhall be ours.
Not to except here againſt his maimed alleadging of their opinions, thereby feigning a diſtance from them, that hee might allure his readers without ſuſpition to joyn as neer with them as himſelf: Let us take it for truth what he ſaith of them, and then let the indifferent Reader judg. 1 Whether is the moſt arrogant Doctrine, the Papiſts that ſay, works that follow, and are the fruits of Faith, and are done in the ſtrength of grace ſupernaturally infuſed into the ſoul do merit? or Mr. Br. that ſaith, works as concauſes with, not fruits of Faith, that flow from no other grace, but Pelagius his morall Suaſion, without any Phyſicall renovation and change upon the will (as for diſtinctions ſake ſome of our Divines are wont to expreſs themſelves) do ſo merit? If Mr. Br. mean any thing els by grace, he conceals it as a myſterie from us, and will not throughout his whole book give one hint at it: but makes man in his own naturall and morall qualifications, the meriter of his own Juſtification by Chriſt. 2 Or which aſcribes moſt to works, they that attribute to them inherent juſtice, which is the leſſer; or hee that aſcribes to them the meriting of Chriſts imputed righteouſnes, which is the greater? Concerning legall and Evangelicall Righteouſneſs, I have ſpoken enough before: And the phraſe of the Papiſts and Mr. Br. is one and the ſame herein.
This might ſuffice to take off this deluſion from his Readers, that his Doctrine is not Popiſh. But to manifeſt more fully in the ſight of the Sun, that every one may run reading it, and read it running, how groſly, and in how many particulars his Doctrine is Papiſticall, I ſhall draw out in a parallel his Doctrine, and the Doctrine of the Papiſts, ſetting them ſide by ſide, that whoſoever will, by comparing them may determine whether there be any worſe Popery from Rome it ſelf than from Kedderminſter. This I ſhall make the ſubject of the next Chapter.