Baxters Aphorisms, Part 2 · Chapter 19
CHAP. XIX.
Mr. Baxters firſt Reaſon examined, by which he endeavours to evince his Doctrine not to be repugnant to Pauls, viz. that Pauls queſtion in his Epiſtles, and his queſtion in his Aphoriſms, are not one but divers. Pauls queſtion, what is that proper Righteouſneſs by which we are juſtified from the laws malediction, which the Apoſtle concludeth to be Chriſts ſatiſfaction only. But Mr. Brs. and St. Iames his question, what is the condition of this Juſtification by Chriſts Righteouſnes, whether Faith alone, or works alſo?
WEe have examined what he hath to ſay for the vindicating of his Doctrine from Popery and Socinianiſm: we expected alſo that hee ſhould in the next place have ſhewed, or at leaſt pretended ſome diſtance between him and the Arminians: But it ſeems he glories in it as his Crown to be reputed one of their part. Therefore leaving this, he undertakes a greater Task, an Herculean Labour in his third diſpute of this kind, viz. to cleer his doctrine from all oppoſition to Paul and the Scriptures. This is a work indeed, which if hee diſcharge honourably, and full up to what he promiſeth, all will grant him the Lawrell above all the Angelical and Seraphical Divines that have in any age made uſe of ink and paper. It is the ſole thing that we long after for ſatisfaction. Let him bleſs us with ſound demonſtrations to prove it, wee ſhall all run after him: And though ſome madd men may term us Papiſts, Socinians, Arminians, or whatſoever elſe, we ſhal gladly bear it to become his Diſciples. All what elſe he hath ſaid would be ſuperfluous to every conſcientious man. This alone would win him: But how poorly and Pigmie-like this ſuppoſed Giant diſchargeth this bold adventure, let his owne words declare.
B. p. 307, &c. Laſtly, let us ſee whether S. Paul, or any other Scripture do contract (I thinke it ſhould be printed [do contradict]) this. And for my part I know no one word in the Bible that hath any ſtrong appearance of contradiction to it. The uſuall places quoted are theſe, Rom. 3. 28. & 4. 2, 3, 14, 15, 16. Gal. 2. 16. & 3. 21, 22. Eph. 2. 8, 9. Phil. 3. 8, 9. In all which, and in all other the like places you ſhall eaſily perceive, 1 That the Apoſtles diſpute is upon this queſtion, what is the Righteouſneſs which we muſt plead againſt the accuſation of the Law? or by which we are juſtified as by the proper Righteouſneſs of that Law? And this he well concludeth, is neither works nor Faith, but the Righteouſneſs which is by Faith, that is Chriſts Righteouſnes.
But now St. James his queſtion is, what is the condition of our Juſtification by this Righteouſneſs of Chriſt? whether Faith onelyonly? or works alſo?
This is the firſt part of this his Diſpute: Let us examine what force it hath to the end for which he uſeth it, whether it reconciles Paul to Mr Br. or ſhew they never contradicted one the other?
1 He tells us he knows no one word in St. Paul or the Bible, that hath any ſtrong appearance of contradiction to his Doctrine. To which I anſwer,
1 That wee look not to appearances whether they be weak or ſtrong: But if there be not ſtrong Contradictions in the doctrine of the Apoſtle, and of the Goſpel to his, there is no cauſe of diſſenting from him.
2 Who more blind and ignorant than hee that will not know and ſee?
3 No marvail if hee ſee not while hee looks thorow the ſpectacles of Naturall reaſon and ſophiſticall reaſonings, whereas ſpirituall things cannot be diſcerned but ſpiritually, 1 Cor. 2. 14.
4 Let him examine whether the words of Chriſt be not verified upon him. For judgment I am come into the world, that they which ſee not might ſee, and they which ſee might be made blind, Joh. 9. 39. But bleſſed be God who hath hid theſe things from the wiſe and prudent, and revealed them to babes, Mat. 11. 25.
5 If he ſee not, know not, his wilful ignorance and blindneſſe muſt not be made the rule of other mens Faith and Judgment, nor prejudice their happineſs in ſeeing and knowing. It is ſomewhat a lofty language, he hnoweth not. What then? Therefore either there is no ſuch thing, or no man can know it, or it is a fancy in any other to believe it. Not Mr. Br. but Chriſt is our ipſe dixit, wee draw the Treaſures of wiſedom and knowledg from Chriſt, not from Mr. Br.
2 Hee acknowledgeth that other men at leaſt ſeem to know what he denies himſelf to know, Scriptures that have (if not a ſtrong, yet) ſome appearance of Contradiction to him, and quotes the Scriptures, which he ſaith are uſually quoted, viz. Rom. 3. 28, &c.
Here 1 I demand of him who they are that quote, and againſt whom they quote thoſe Scriptures? That they which quote them are the Proteſtant Churches and writers▪ and that they are the Papiſts againſt whom they are ſo uſually quoted, he muſt needs confeſs, becauſe he can produce none but Proteſtants that do, none but Papiſts againſt whom they do alledg theſe Scripures. For although the Arminians do enough declare themſelves in their writings that they hold in common with the Papiſts, Juſtification by works, yet I could never find that they would ſuffer this Tenet to be brought to a diſpute; but being charged therewith, they have with ſacred proteſtations & adjurations denyed any ſuch thought in their hearts, and ſo never permitted theſe or any other Scriptures to be quoted againſt them about this queſtion, ſtill declining the diſpute. It muſt be therefore the Papiſts againſt whom Mr. Br. ſaith theſe Scriptures have been uſually quoted. And this ſpeaks out to us in many reſpects what the frame of this mans ſpirit is.
1 The integrity and ingenuity of his Conſcience, that having but 2 pages backward, verbally renounced the Papiſts and all concurrence of his doctrine with theirs, he uſeth only a ſhort digreſſion to ſmooth the face, end ſpit in the mouth of Socinus; and then forthwith makes a bridg of St Paul, to return and make peace, and confirm a league with the Papiſts, as it were ſtroking the ſhavelings and telling them. Notwithſtanding all that I have ſaid, I doubt not but ye well perceive therein the equivocations and mentall reſervations which I have learned from you. Still my horſes are your horſes, my charrets your charrets, I am as yee are, and your Adverſaries my Adverſaries. Mark ye well how finely I ſhall here divert from you the Scripture darts which the Hereticks fling at you. This all may ſee to be the ſum of his words, or at leaſt implyed therein.
2 His conſiſtency with himſelf, that what ere-while he denyed, here he affirms, viz. that he is not only Popiſh in this point, but alſo a patron of the Popiſh Cauſe: And thus alſo while he endeavors to purge his doctrine from all contradiction of Scripture, he becomes a Contradictor of himſelf.
3 His honeſty in explaining his meaning at laſt, whom he pointed at throughout his Treatiſe under the name of ignorant Antinomians, viz. all that have quoted thoſe Scriptures againſt juſtification by works.
4 His good will to the Proteſtant Religion, and to the doctrine of grace, that rather than theſe ſhall ſtand, he will ſay and unſay, joyn with, and borrow from Papiſts, Socinians, Arminians, (and why not the Turkiſh Alcaron alſo, or whatſoever prodigies of Doctors) that ſend men to bleſſedneſſe by the merit of their owne works.
5. His matchles worth ariſing out of all theſe, for which ſuch a confluence of Divines from all parts of England is made to him, even ſuch as were ere-while Zelots againſt Popery, Socinianiſm and Arminianiſm, untill they had fatted themſelves with the ſpoyls of the friends thereof. Hath not the Lord cauſe to viſit upon theſe men the breach of his Covenant, whereof they profeſſe themſelves at this day tranſcendently zealous? Is not this one principall branch thereof? Let others dream waking of the further exaltation of the preſent Miniſtry of this Land, I ſee no ground of expecting any Change but to the abaſing thereof, though my ſelf muſt take a ſhare in ſuch an abaſement. With ſuch plauſibility every where is this man and every ſeducer received in their ſowing the worſt errors, if they will but pretend a zeal againſt ſuppoſed Antinomians: And ſo generally is the doctrine of grace ſlighted. I undertake to defend againſt all Opponents, that Mr. Br hath no one aſſertion in his whole Book about Juſtification by works, nor more than one, if one proof or argument to confirm ſuch an aſſertion; nay ſcarce any word, phraſe, or Apex, which hee hath not received from the Papiſts, Socinians, or at the beſt from the Arminians. I acknowledg in ſome places he runs more in the Arminian, than Popiſh method and dialect, when they ſpeak more to the extolling of mans righteouſneſſ, and annihilating of Gods grace: But in no one particle is he better then they. I appeal not only to the Learned, but alſo to the rationall among the Readers of his Book, when they looked upon its Title, Aphoriſms of Juſtification, whether they expected not that the truth of the Goſpel and doctrine of the Proteſtant Churches ſhould have been ſtoutly defended by ſo Scholaſtick a man, againſt Papiſts, Arminians, &c. But when contrariwiſe they find him undertaking no Combat againſt them, but all for them, and making none other his Averſaries but Proteſtants, ſometimes under, ſometimes without the nick-name of Antinomians: Is it not a ſtrange piece of incredulity, when hee ſo plainly diſcovereth himſelf, not to believe him, to whom he is a Friend, and to whom an Adverſary? And a groſs deluſion to lick up as honey from the dirt of Mr. Brs. ſhoos, what they deteſt as poyſon from the lips of Bellarmin, Socinus, and Arminius? But I incurr blame by digreſſing, therefore return to the matter.
2 I except againſt his quotations as done partially and unfaithfully, to beget in his weak and credulous Reader, an opinion that he and the Papiſts his Maſters have the whole body of the Scriptures on their ſide to prove Juſtification by works; But that the Proteſtants can only catch here and there a ſentence of Scripture that hath a ſeeming, and ſcarce a ſeeming to ſpeak for them. It is a Maxime of Mr. Br. himſelf, that men are ſeldom bold with Scripture to force it, but they are firſt bold with Conſcience to force it, pag. 297. Yet here he is bold not only to force, but to ſtifle Scriptures. When himſelf quoteth a Scripture to maintain his Popiſh Juſtification, ſee how he improves it in the ſame page: If it were but ſome one phraſe diſſonant from the ordinary language of Scripture, I ſhould not doubt but it were to be reduced to the reſt. But when it is the very ſcope of a Chapter, &c. no whi… diſſonant from any other Scripture; I think he that may ſo wreſt it as to make it unſay what it ſaith, may as well make him a Creed of his own, let the Scripture ſay what it will to the contrary. Lo, what a mountain he can make of a mole-hill, and bring all Scriptures into the belly of one, making that one of what dimenſion he liſteth, & all the reſt to ſay what he commands them, when he is to plead for the Papiſts: But here when he is …o produce what the Proteſtants have to urge againſt the Papiſts, what mincing and mayming doth he uſe? forcing the whole body of the Goſpel into a Cherriſtone; it is but here and there a ſound without ſubſtance that they beguile themſelves with. Did the man (as he pretends) ſeek to apprehend to himſelf, and ſincerely to make out unto others Scripture T…u…h, we ſhould find him faithfully alledging what the Churches of Chriſt have cited againſt Antichriſt. His falſe dealing herein declares his hatred of the Truth, that he will not have the Scriptures ſhine upon it in their full ſplendor, that it may not be known and embraced. Nay we have the main body of the New Teſtament ſpeaking for us, ſpecially almoſt all the Doctrinal part of the Epiſtles to the Romans, Galathians, Epheſians, Coloſſions, Hebrews, all the four Evangeliſts, ſpecially St John, as I have before ſhewed: A breviate of Scriptures wch our Divines have urged to this purpoſe I have before given, and it would be uſeleſs here to rehearſe.
3. Even theſe few Scriptures which he quoteth, affirm that man is juſtified by Faith without the deeds of the Law, that if he were juſtified by Works, he had whereof to glory and boaſt himſelf; that if they which are of the Law be heirs, Faith is made void, and the promiſe of no effect. That it is of Faith that it may be of Grace; that it is by Grace through Faith, not of Works. Were there nothing elſe, is there not a ſtrong appearance of Contradiction in theſe Scriptures to Mr. Brs. doctrine, that we are juſtified by Faith and Works together?
4 But ſee we how he evades theſe Scriptures and all other Teſtimonies of the Apoſtles, viz. That his diſpute is, what is the Righteouſneſs which we muſt plead againſt the Accuſation of the Law? or by which we are juſtified as the proper Righteouſneſs of the Law? and this hee well concludeth is neither works nor faith, but the Righteouſneſs which is by Faith, i. e. Chriſts Righteouſneſs. But St. James his queſtion is, what is the condition of our Juſtification by this Righteouſneſs of Chriſt? whether Faith only? or Works▪ alſo? ſo farr Mr. Baxter.
Muſt not Mr. Br. needs be happy that hath learned ſo perfectly that which he cals elſe-where the Papiſts Feat of making the Scriptures a noſe of wax, and turning them into his own complexion. Let any one now alledg againſt him that of the Apoſtle, Gal. 1. 8. If Paul or an Angell from heaven ſhall preach to you any other Goſpel than what you have received, let him be accurſed. Cannot he as prettily and ſolidly ſhift the Curſe from him, and retort it upon the denouncer as he doth theſe Scriptures upon the alledgers. True may hee ſay, but I am not Paul, nor an Angell from heaven, therefore the Curſe cannot fall on me. Nay, I have made Paul to preach another Goſpel ſince his death, thatn what he preached in his life, Therefore Paul is accurſed. As good grounds hath he for this as his former arguing.
But let us ſee whether his interpretation of theſe Scriptures be ſo ſolid as pretty. To that of James I have ſpoken before, therefore ſhall ſay little here. OnelyOnly I cannot omit how unſufferable his audacious confidence is, that he thinks it enough to ſay, without ſhewing, or endeavouring to ſhew it from the Context or otherwiſe, this is the meaning of Pauls, and that the ſcope of James his diſpute. No ſuch immodeſty is oft there to be found in the very Jeſuits, Socinians, and Arminians. They, when they go about to pervert in ſtead of expounding any Scripture, labour ſtoutly from the Context, and from a ſeeming Coherence of other Scriptures, to make ſuch a perverting expoſition either probable or plauſible: This man doth all pro Imperio, Sic volo, ſic jubeo, &c. I ſay it, what man or Angell dares to deny it? Doth hee think all the world to be his Dioceſs, that he may force (what he hath, or ſaith he hath upon his Kederminſterians) upon the conſciences of all men an implicit Faith, that all muſt believe when and becauſe he ſaith it? Is the infallible ſpirit gone out of Zedechiah, 1 King. 22. 24. or out of Bellarmine or Arminius in…o him? Or doth he execute the office of the Popes Legate, ſpeaking to us only that which is decreed in his unerring Chair? or hath hee gotten a monopoly of Socinus his Right Reaſon, which is infallible? what elſe can hee alledg that his word muſt be taken for a Law without diſpute? Or is it indeed becauſe he finds Gods word will yeeld him no ſuccour, therefore he muſt proprio Marte militare, act in his own name, becauſe God is not with him? So indeed it ſeemeth, for neither God, nor reaſon, nor any thing els, but a high conceit of himſelf will be acceſſary to his reaſonleſs Concluſions, viz. that James his queſtion is, what is the condition of our Juſtification by Chriſts Righteouſneſs; when James in his whole diſpute there, neither expreſly nor implyedly utters a word of Chriſts righteouſneſs, or if Mr. Brs Jeſuito-Arminian condition, nor any thing that can eaſily be reduced to Chriſt himſelf. Or where doth Paul diſpute only of the righteouſnes proper to juſtification, and not alſo of the way and means by which this righteouſneſs may be applyed to us and made ours? Or in which of his quoted Scriptures, or any other of the Apoſtles writings; when he excludes works, doth he exclude Faith alſo from its ſubſerviency to juſtifying? Such peremptory dreams of a haughty brain cannot be more fitly anſwered than with contempt and …ilence. Thus ſhould I do, were it not in reſpect to ſome pious and not unlearned men, that have taken ſome infection of the Epidemicall diſeaſe of our times, too eaſily to drink down errors, differing herein only from the vulgar, that error is more appetible to them from a learned and ſophiſticall, than truth from a plainer, though faithfull hand. Let a man once have the name of a learnnd Scholar, and ſtrict-walking Phariſee, all his Doctrines by ſuch men are concluded to be of rare uſe and excellency, before they be ſeen whether they be white or black, from Heaven or from Hell,▪ Not a few of theſe men having in my hearing ſtood firm and up moved in the defence of the doctrines of this book of Mr. Brs. not being able to ſpeak any thing to refell the objections made againſt it, but this, that the Author thereof is an eminently learned and pious man. As if Satan had not the wit to make choyſe of his inſtruments that have the moſt compleat aptitude and power to deceive, or that the Jews had not ſo much to ſay for their Phariſees, the Papiſts for their Bellarmine, and the Remo…ſtrants for their Arminius, or the Devill had forgotten his ancient ſubtlety when he will ſeduce from the verity of Chriſts Goſpel, to change himſelf into an Angell of Light, or that no damning errour could proceed from a ſelf-ſaving, or rather ſelf-deceiving Phariſee. To cleer up the truth to ſuch, at leſt to give their occaſion to ſearch the Scriptures by which they may cleer it to themſelves, I ſhall lay and compare together Paul and Mr. Br. in that which Mr. Br. ſaith was the queſtion about which Paul diſputed, that it may be made evident whether they agree, or contradict either the other.
To this purpoſe by the way, there is to be taken out of the way a fallacy that lurketh in Mr. Brs. words, where he ſaith, The diſpute of St. Paul is upon this Queſtion; It is not enough to ſay this was A Queſtion, exc…pt he ſay alſo it was the Queſtion, yea the OnelyOnly Queſtion upon which the Apoſtle diſputed in thoſe places where he excludeth works, and inferreth Faith alone to be ordeined as effectuall to juſtification. He diſputed in ſome of his Epiſtles upon many queſtions. To reduce what hee diſputed ſeverally to the ſeverall queſtions, all to one, were to make non-ſenſe of the whole. The ſame may be ſaid of all mens, yea of the moſt Scholaſtick diſputes of Mr. Br. himſelf, who is a greater Philoſopher, and more ſtudied in Logick and Metaphyſicks than ever the Apoſtle was. But I deny it to be the onelyonly or the chief queſtion about which St. Pa…l ſo diſputeth, what is the Righteouſneſſe which wee muſt plead againſt the Accuſation of the Law? or by which wee are juſtified as the proper Righteouſneſſ of the Law? I grant it to be one, but a leſs principall queſtion upon which he diſputes. But the more principall queſtion is, in generall, by what means we may be intereſſed into Chriſt, or obtain the righteouſneſs of Chriſt to become ours, and ſo ſtill ret…in it to juſtification? More particularly whether the Native Faederall holineſſ of the Jewes, and the priviledges of the Covenant in part mentioned, Rom. 9. 4, 5. & Phil. 3. 5. & Gal. 2. 15. Or their actuall and perſonall righteouſneſſe and ſincere obedience to the Law mentioned, Phil. 3. 6. Mat. 20. 12. and the 19, 20. together with all the Typicall purgings mentioned in the 9. & 10. Chapters of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews? On the other ſide, whether all the Naturall and Morall righteouſneſs of the Gentiles, which they performed by the inſtinct of the Law of Nature written in their Conſciences, without the help or knowledg of Gods written law, or their exemption from the Covenant of God made with the Jews, (For ſome of the believing Gentiles, reading the promiſes made of calling unto the grace of Chriſt them that were not Gods people, or beloved before, weakly concluded that their former uncircumciſion and uncovenant-ſhip was a ſpeciall furtherance to their admiſſion unto Chriſt, as may be probably gathered from Rom. 11. 19. & Gal. 5. 6.) whether any of theſe kinds of holineſſe and works of righteouſneſs, either with Faith, or without Faith? or whether Faith alone without all, or any of theſe, be required as inſtrumentall, ſubſervient, and effectuall to inright us to the Juſtification which is by Chriſt? This was the more principall queſtion upon which Paul diſputeth in the places before mentioned; Somewhat he ſaith to the former, but leſſe principally, and ſeldom but in ſubſerviency to this. So the queſtion upon which Paul diſputes in his Epiſtles, and Mr. Br. in his Aphoriſms, is one and the ſame, but their Concluſions abſolutely contradictory either to other. The one concludeth that Faith alone without mans works and righteouſneſs; The other, that not faith alone, but Faith as a work together with all other works of righteouſneſſe do juſtifie, and all morall duties collaterally with Faith are required to make the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt ours to juſtification. No greater or more palpable Contradiction can be deviſed. Whoſoever ſhall preach another Goſpell [of Juſtification otherwiſe than by Faith in Chriſt without works] let him be accurſed, ſaith Paul: Whoſoever ſhall be practically a ſolifidian, truſt to a bare Faith, and not work for Juſtification ſhall be Damned ſaith Mr. Br. If one of theſe be granted to be an Apoſtle of Chriſt, the other muſt needs be proclaimed to be the Apoſtle of Antichriſt. But whether this which I have expreſſed be indeed the principal queſtion on which the Apoſtle ſo diſputeth, adhuc ſub judice lis eſt. We are left uncertain on both hands may ſome ſay. True, and if I onelyonly ſay and not ſhew it, I ſhall be guilty of the fault which I blame in Mr. Br. And ſo we may deſerve both to be laught at as Triflers. This therefore is the next thing to be added.
Firſt then if we do but conſider to whom, and againſt whom the Apoſtle handleth theſe diſputes, (for Mr. Br. reduceth them all to his Epiſtles) it will be more than probable to every rationall man, that his moſt principall queſtion is, By what means we poſſeſſe and continue in the poſſeſſion of the righteouſneſſe which is by Chriſt, to Juſtification? And but ſecondarily, leſs principally, and in ſubſerviency to this queſtion, What the righteouſneſſe is by which we are to be juſtified. The perſons to whom he writeth were all Chriſtians, the pureſt and moſt eminent Churches of Chriſt, that had received the pure doctrine of Chriſt by the preaching of the Apoſtles, viz. that (whereas ſinn and death and the Curſe by ſinn reigned over all men in all the world, ſo that all wete Children of wrath, and every ſoul guilty before God) Chriſt was given of the Father to be the Author of Righteouſneſs and life, by the Mediation of his death; that in him and in no other name under heaven was ſalvation attainable, that whoſoever would beleeve in him ſhould have everlaſting life; ſhould be Juſtified freely by Grace through the Redemption which is in Jeſus Chriſt; and by their very receiving of him ſhould obtein power to become the ſonns of God; notwithſtanding all their former pollutions, & without all prejacent qualifications in them to purchaſe ſo great a Redemption. Such was the doctrine preached to them, and in the embracing and profeſſing of this Doctrine, and their Faith in Chriſt the alone redeemer they were firſt admitted into Chriſt gathered into Churches and ſo continued a while ſtabliſhed in this truth with the joy of the Holy Ghoſt abounding in them. The perſons againſt whom he diſputeth were chiefly if not onelyonly the Falſe Apoſtles of the Circumciſion, who alſo profeſſed the Faith of Chriſt and preached it, not the unbeleeving Jewes, for theſe ſhould not have had any ſuch audience from the Churches; But ſuch as went out from the Apoſtles and the Church that was at Hieruſalem to preach Chriſt, Act. 15. 24. Such as came from James, Gal. 2. 12. Such as boaſted themſelves to be of C…phas, to hold forth the doctrine of Peter, 1 Cor. 1. 12. Such as preached Chriſt of envie, ſtrife, and conten…i…n, not ſincerely, but under the lu…e of ſo holy a name to take the advantage to deceive, Phil. 1. 15, 16. Who not labouring to gather Diſciples to Chriſt out of infidelity as the Apoſtles had done, entred into the ſever…ll Churches before ſtabliſhed by the Apoſtles, troubling them with words, ſubverting their ſouls, teaching them that they muſt be circumciſed and keep the Law of Moſes, els they could not be ſaved, Act. 15. 1. 24. And theſe were of the Sect of the Phariſees which beleeved, Act. 15. 5. Emiſſaries out of thoſe Many thouſands or rather Myriads of the Jewes at Hieruſalem which beleeved yet were all zealous of the Law, Act. 21. 20. Had the Apoſtles diſpute been againſt ſuch as had apoſtatiz…d from the profeſſion of Chriſt, and againſt ſuch unbeleevers as had ſeduced them from truſling on Chriſts imputed, to reſt upon their own inherent righteouſneſs, for juſtification; i… had not been beſides the purpoſe to have it his queſtion (as Mr. Br ſaith) whether it be Chriſts righteouſneſs or our own righteouſneſs that we muſt plead againſt the accuſations of the Law? But ſeeing both the ſeduced and ſeducers with whom he dealeth were ſuch as profeſſed faith in Chriſt, as their juſtifier and Saviour, and queſtioned onelyonly whether Faith alone, or els their righteouſneſs & works alſo together with Faith, were required to inright them to Chriſts righteouſnes and ſalvation, it had been impertinent if not ridiculous to have made it his queſtion what the proper righteouſnes is by which we are juſtified; For this had been to decline and not to proſecute the queſtion between him and them. They would have granted him all that he concluded without the leaſt dammage to their Cauſe. Therefore his queſtion was principally, By what means we come to partake of the righteouſneſs of Chriſt to Juſtification?
2 Let the Apoſtle himſelf give his Teſtimony what his principall queſtion was, For he better knew his own minde than Mr. Br or my ſelf. And firſt in his Epiſtle to the Romans having for an introduction to the queſtion, in the three firſt Chapters proved both the Jewes with all their legall and the Gentiles with all their naturall righteouſneſs and unrighteouſneſs to be under ſin, guilt, and condemnation, he no ſooner in the third Chapter begins to ſpeak of the mean of their recovery Chriſt Jeſus, but he annexeth alſo by what means we come to have right in him. In both which he no leſs Contradicteth Mr. Br than if he had ſeen before what Mr. Br hath written ſo many ages after. Or the former he affirmeth that we are juſtified (as by Chriſt, ſo) by the Redemption which is in Jeſus Chriſt, as he was ſet forth to be a propitiation [or expiatory ſacrifice] for our ſinns, Rom. 3. 24, 25. Not as Mr. Br before ſo ſtoutly Contended, as he is our Lord, i. e. in his ſenſe our Lawgiver. Of the latter, that it is faith alone that makes this redemption and Propitiation ours to Juſtification, namely, Faith in his bloud, Faith without the deeds of the Law, Faith which excludeth, without works which include boaſting, ver. 25, 27, 28. And this faith in the death of Chriſt, without works, without deeds, cannot include in it, Morall works and righteouſneſs unto Juſtification, as Mr. Br would extort from it elſewhere, by making Chriſt as our Lord and Lawgiver the object of Juſtifying Faith. At length he Concludeth ver. 30. that both in them which have ſome ſeeming and plauſible qualification of righteouſneſs and works, and in them that have it not, it is not that righteouſneſs of their own, but Faith which Juſtifieth. And that this Faith is no leſs effectuall to the juſtifying of them that unto that very day, have been ungodly, than of them which from their very birth have ſeemed to be holy to the Lord. So much is Comprehended in thoſe words of the Apoſtle; It is one God which Juſtifieth the Circumciſion by faith, and the un-circumciſion through Faith. In theſe words is included the whole State of Pauls queſtion. The Apoſtle writing to the Church that was at Rome, Conſiſting of beleeving Jewes and Gentiles, endeavours to heal the diviſions, Cloſe the breaches, and ſettle a ſweet union and Communion between them. This he applyeth himſelf unto, firſt in that great and fundamentall point of Chriſtianitie, viz. Juſtification by Chriſt, in which they diſſented: Both Jewes and Gentiles acknowledged Juſtification and ſalvation to be by Chriſt alone, but in this they differed. The Jewes Confined this ſalvation by Chriſt to themſelves alone, that to them onelyonly he was promiſed, that they alone were qualified and in a capacity to receive him and the benefits that are by him. That he came to be the Saviour of his own hallowed people that had waited for him, not of the common and unclean Pagans that were aliens from the Common wealth of Iſrael, and ſtrangers from the Covenant of promiſe. To this purpoſe they boaſted of their Naturall, Faederal, and perſonall righteouſneſs and holines, qualifying them for the Juſtification which is by Chriſt, of all which the Gentiles were deſtitute. Their naturall Righteouſneſs and holineſs, that they were Jewes by nature and not ſinners of the Gentiles, the ſeed of Abraham the holy ſtock to whom and whoſe ſeed the promiſe was made: Their Faederall holines, That they alone of all nations were in Covenant with God, and did bear the badge and ſeal of the Covenant, Circumciſion in their Fleſh, by which they were diſtinguiſhd from all other people, as holy to God, when all other Nations under the Sunne were an abhomination in his ſight: Their Legall holineſs that they had the Law, Word, and Oracles of God Committed to them, all other Nations being left without Law, without God, and without hope, in the world. Their perſonall and Actuall righteouſneſs, that in reference to this holy Law of God they had walked exactly, kept it from their youth, and touching the righteouſneſs thereof were blameleſs; When contrarwiſe the Gentiles had walked inordinately, lawleſly after the inſtinct of their own nature, and luſts of their own hearts, ſervants to idols and devills, not to God. For this Cauſe they Contended that they by this their righteouſneſs had, that the Gentiles by means of their unrighteouſneſs had not right to the redemption and Juſtification which are by Chriſt. That the Gentiles in ſtead of the naturall holineſs before mentioned muſt become Proſelytes, and ſo the aſcititious or adopted Children of Abraham, becoming Jewes, muſt receive the ſeale of the Covenant Circumciſion in their fleſh; receive and be brought under the Law; and become perſonally righteous in keeping it; Elſe they could not be ſaved by Chriſt, Act. 15. 1, 24. Their bare Faith in Chriſt without their own righteouſneſs and works could not make them partakers of the tighteouſneſſe and ſalvation which are by Chriſt. And who ſeeth not here that Mr. Brs doctrine is one and the ſame in generall with theirs that were the firſt heretical troublers and ſubverters of the Church of Chriſt? But againſt this plea of the beleeving Jewes, the Apoſtle layeth his Contradictory Concluſion, That both the Circumciſion and the uncircumciſion, they that had and they that had not all or any of theſe kinds of righteouſneſs were made partakers of Juſtification through Chriſt, onelyonly by Faith in him. That our own prejacent works and righteouſneſs are nothing to further, nor our former unrighteouſneſs and ſinn any thing to hinder our Juſtification, but Faith in Chriſt is all: He that beleeveth is not condemned, he that beleeveth not is already condemned, whether he be Jew or Gentile, clean or unclean outwardly; becauſe as he had ſaid before ver. 22, 23. There is no difference, For all have ſinned, and come ſhort of the glory of God. This Concluſion that Faith alone without our prejacent or concomitant works and righteouſneſs do make the righteouſneſs which is by Chriſt ours to Juſtification, he proveth ſoundly in the 4th Chapter. 1 From the example of Abraham the Father of the Faithfull. By what means Abraham found and obteined the Juſtification which is by Chriſt, by the ſame means all now obteine it that are Juſtified. But Abraham found or obteiaed it not by his own righteouſneſs or works, but by Faith. Therefore ſo do now all that are juſtified. The propoſition he leaves as ſtanding ſo firm on its own pillars that none will dare to ſeek the demoliſhing thereof. The aſſumption he proves in both its members, that it was not by his own righteouſnes: either Natural, i. e. derived from parents and anceſtors, for they were Idolaters and ſerved other Gods, Joſh. 24. 2. Or faederall in the Jewes ſenſe, for he was juſtified before he was circumciſed, and after received Circumciſion as a ſeal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, ver. 10, 11, of this 4th Chapter to the Romans: or Legal, For he was ſo Juſtified 400 years before the Law was given: Or perſonall by the works of righteouſneſs which he had done: For then firſt he ſhould have had matter of boaſting that he had done ſomething towards his own Juſtification, ver. 2. And ſecondly, then his juſtification ſhould have been reckoned not of Grace but of debt, and ſo the glory thereof ſhould have redounded to Abraham and not to God, ver. 4. And if by no one of theſe kinds of his own, then not at all by his own righteouſneſs. That it was by Faith he proves by clear Teſtimony of Scripture, ver. 3. Therefore the concluſion ſtands that we are juſtified alſo by faith without works. That Faith and not any righteouſneſs of our own makes Chriſts righteouſneſs ours.
Another Argument he draws from clear and evident Scripture, witneſſing that the righteouſneſs and juſtification, which conſiſteth in the forgivenes, not imputing and covering of ſinn, is made ours without works, [therefore by Faith alone] ver. 6, 7, 8.
When in theſe two Arguments none can deny but that the righteouſneſs and Juſtification which Abraham obteined, and which Conſiſted not in the doing, but in the imputing of righteouſneſs, and in the pardoning and not imputing of ſinn; is the Juſtification which is by Chriſt; and when the Apoſtle laboureth not at all to prove this to be The proper Righteouſneſs to Juſtification, but takes it as granted and unqueſtioned: all muſt acknowledge that his queſtion was not, What righteouſneſs it is that Juſtifieth? whether Chriſts? or ours? But when all his diſpute is confined to this one point, to prove that this righteouſneſs by Chriſt is made ou…s not at all by works, but altogether by Faith, what rational man can be ſo ſwayed by a Spirit of Contradiction, as to ſay with Mr. Br. that St Pauls queſtion was not to make out, by what means this Juſtification by Chriſt may be made ours? Whoſoever will ſee theſe two Arguments further and fully illuſtrated and amplified, together with more arguments to theſe annexed, let him peruſe the reſidue of this 4 Chap. And if he return with his Reaſon ſound, and brings not this verdit, that it is impudence not judgement in Mr. Br. to ſtate Pauls queſtion as he doth: Then am I a ſtranger both to Paul and Reaſon.
Again, when the Apoſtle ſtill inſiſting upon the ſame ſubject, ſetts forth the priviledges of them that are juſtified by Faith, doth withall affirm that while they were yet ſinners, Ch…iſt dyed for them, and ſo they became Juſtified by his bloud; and being yet enemies are reconciled to God by his death, Rom. 5. 1, 8, 9, 10. thereby implying that there is nothing of our own works and righteouſneſs, (except ſin and enmity againſt God be ſuch) that doth or can Concurr to our juſtification; ſo leaving juſtification to Faith onelyonly: it is evident that his principall queſtion was not whether we are Juſtified by Chriſt, but whether Faith alone or works with Faith are appointed of God in order to Juſtification?
I ſhall forbear to cite ſhort teſtimonies from other Epiſtles of the Apoſtle, evincing this Truth: and paſs to his Epiſtle to the Galathians in which he wholly levelleth to this mark. It cannot be denyed by Mr. Br. himſelfe that the Apoſtle there diſputeth not of a legal but Goſpel Juſtification, and that this is a Juſtification onelyonly by Chriſt: that when he ſaith, If any man, if we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Goſpel, &c. his meaning is, not a Juſtification out of Chriſt (for this ſhould be a legal not a Goſpel Juſtification) but any other way to the Juſtification which is by Chriſt, ſave that which we have preached, let him be accurſed, Gal. 1. 8, 9. Herein it was agreed between the Apoſtle and the falſe Apoſtles, that Chriſt is the alone Juſtifier, and that ſalvation is onelyonly by him, and to this all the ſeduced ones among the Galathians aſſented. Elſe had they been Apoſtate from Chriſt to the Law, and not to another Goſpel, as the Apoſtle terms it, Gal. 1. 6. And from their beginning in the Spirit to ſeek perfecting by the fleſh. The queſtion therefore was whether Faith alone in Chriſt, or e…e together with it, a naturall, faederall and practicall righteouſneſs after the rule of the Law, were required to the acquiring of the Juſtification which is by Chriſt.
Hence is that his zealous expoſtulating with Peter and Barnabas for giving ſome occaſion to the Gentiles to queſtion whether beſides Faith in Chriſt, ſome Conformity to the Law were not alſo needfull to Juſtification. We (ſaith he) who are Iewes by Nature, and not ſinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not juſtified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of Ieſus Chriſt, even we have beleeved in Ieſus Chriſt, that we might be juſtified by the Faith of Chriſt, and not by the works of the Law: for by the works of the Law ſhall no fleſh be juſtified, Gal. 2. 15, 16. The ſum of his debate is as if he had ſaid: If we that beſides the ſupereminent prerogative vouchſafed to us to be the Apoſtles of the Lord Jeſus, have a derivative holines by nature and the Covenant of God, from Abraham, and withall a righteouſneſs o… works by living up to our utmoſt in the higheſt pitch of obedience to the Law; having found by revelation from the Lord Ieſus Chriſt, that all theſe are nothing available, but Faith alone proper and effectuall to obtein the ſalvation and righteouſneſs which is by Chriſt; have wholly rejected all confidence in and uſe of theſe in order and reference to juſtification, and made our addreſſes by Faith alone to partake of his righteouſneſs: why do we by our judaizing beguile the poor Gentiles that have none of theſe prerogatives, into a pernicious opinion of perfitting their juſtification by Chriſt, with their practicall righteouſneſs in obedience to the Law? Where it is to be noted that in one and the ſame verſe the Apoſtle doth thrice expreſly baniſh works from having any thing to doe in the buſineſs of juſtification by Chriſt, and no leſs often attribute it to Faith and bel…leeving in Chriſt without all help of works. And can it be doubted what the queſtion is about which he diſputeth?
To the ſame ſcope is directed all that he delivereth in the third Chapter. That he pronounceth the Galathians, fooliſh and even bewitched that having obteined juſtification already by Faith alone in Chriſt, they would be ſeduced to ſeek the perfecting thereof by works, Gal. 3. 1, 2, 3. That while they were ambitious to become the Children of Abraham, they fell utterly from Abraham and from the juſtification which Abraham found, by ſeeking it another way then Abraham found it, viz. by works and not by Faith onelyonly, ver. 6, 7, 8, 9. That ſo to ſeek it, was the way to meet with the Curſe in ſteed of the bleſſing of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, ver. 10-12. of which more may be ſaid a little after. That the juſtification which is by Chriſt, diſcendeth by promiſe to us, and promiſes are the object of Faith not of works, ver. 17, 18, 22. But all this together with what the Apoſtle diſputeth of liberty and bondage in the fourth Chapter, I leave to them that will but conſiderately read it, to judge whether it evinceth not that to be Pauls queſtion which I have mentioned.
Laſtly, when the Apoſtle, Gal. 5. 4. brandiſheth ſo heavy a denuntiation againſt ſuch as had ſuffered themſelves in this point to be ſedueed by the falſe Apoſtles whom Mr Br. followeth as his guides and gods. Chriſt is become of no effect to you, whoſoever of you are juſtified by the Law ye are fallen from Grace. What force had there been in this wrathfull threat, if the queſtion between him and them had been about the proper Righteouſneſs by which we are juſtified? if they had held i… to be their own righteouſneſs in oppoſition to Paul that held it to be the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, they would have laughed at ſuch a Commination as a meerly frighting ſquibb or ſcar-crow anſwering, we grant all, that we are fallen from Grace, that Chriſt is become of no effect to us: But what damage can by all this befall us? we make not Chriſt our Juſtifier, but labour to Juſtifie our ſelves, we ſeek Salvation not from Grace, but as a debt in juſtice due to the Righteouſneſs of our own works. The Apoſtle ſurely was not ſuch an ignorant Antinomian, as to diſpute ſo impotently that his Arguments might by ſubtle Baxterians be thus flung back as abſurdities in his face: It is therefore evident that the Galathians when moſt ſednced, ceaſed not to make Chriſt their Righteouſneſs, but had yeelded to this impoſture (as the next V…rſe declareth) that not Faith alone but their own works and righteouſnes with it, were pre-required to make them capable of the righteouſneſs which is by Chriſt, and that upon this ground the Apoſtle denounceth them to be Apoſtates from Chriſt and Grace, becauſe they ſought by their own righteouſneſs to entitle themſelves to the righteouſneſſe which is by Chriſt, and ſought it not by Faith alone. If any demand the reaſon of this Conſequence, that whoſoever ſeeketh right to the Juſtification of Chriſt by his own works, makes himſelf an alien from Chriſt, from Grace; the Apoſtle in part implyeth it in that which he ſpeaketh in theſe 4 and 5 verſes of Chapter 5. But had more fully explained himſelf, Chap. 3. 9, 10, 11, 12. So that by comparing together what he hath ſaid in both places, the reaſon of his Concluſion reſulteth into all mens view: viz. that ſuch a one ſeeketh the righteouſneſs and ſalvation which are by Chriſt, in a legall not an evangelicall way, by works and not by Faith, therefore is bound to bring the perfect righteouſneſs and works which the Law requireth to make him capable of juſtificasion by Chriſt, or els falls from Chriſt, from Grace, to his everlaſting ruine.
I ſhall add no more upon this ſubject, not becauſe the Scripture hath no more, but becauſe I hold this ſufficient, and know the moroſity and humorouſneſs of moſt readers in our times, preferring an erroneous conciſeneſs, before a ſound and full manifeſtation of the truth. But my endeavour is to pleaſe not men but Chriſt. I leave Mr. Br to trample his own rule, not to be bold with Scripture by being firſt bold with Conſcience. I dare not uſurp to my ſelf his peremptory audaciouſneſs with one breath of the mouth to deſtroy the whole Goſpel, in ſaying onelyonly not ſhewing and proving that it muſt be thus underſtood. He that can ſo do with holy things, bewrayeth much pride and prophanneſs in his heart, though he be never ſo much phariſaically enamelled and philacterized in the outſide. Let him ſee how he can anſwer God for his audacious curtneſs, I ſhall not fear the cenſures of men for my length in bringing to light what he hath ſtifled in darkneſs. Let my ſtyle pleaſe or diſpleaſe fancies, it ſhall ſuffice me to have taken off his firſt Paradoxicall impoſture that he brings to prove his doctrine to be the ſame with Pauls. This is not all that he hath to ſay, his other Reaſons or rather Sophiſms follow in the next Chapter.