Baxters Aphorisms, Part 2 · Chapter 21
CHAP. XXI.
Mr. Baxters other Reaſons to evince the ſame thing, Examined.
Bax. 2 p. 308. PAul doth either in expreſs words, or in the ſenſe and ſcope of his ſpeech, exclude onelyonly the works of the Law, that is the fulfilling of the conditions of the Law our ſelves. But never the fulfilling of the Goſpel conditions that we may have part in Chriſt. Indeed, if a man ſhould obey the Commands of the Goſpel with a legall intent, that it might be a righteouſneſs conform to the Law of works; this obedience is not Evangelicall but legall obedience: for the Form giveth the Name.
No leſs or-cu…a…ly than the Devil of old was wont to ſpeak out of Delphos. For this alſo as the former is onelyonly ſaid not ſhewed and proved. What doth he mean by ſuch imperious Concluſions, but out of the abounding of his humility and ſelf-abaſement to proclaim to the world that he is a God, and that the words of his lips muſt be made the judge of all Scriptures, and the Canon of all mens Faith? When he hath ſpoken we muſt ſubject both judgments and Conſcience, without ſearching further. It is a truth, he that cannot err hath ſaid it. Were it a Concluſion univerſally received in the Churches of Chriſt, which he here delivereth, it had been indeed ſuperfluous to waſt time and labour in proving what all grant. But when it it but a dream of his own brain ſneezed thence through his Noſtrils, or ſome ſpirit by his Chimiſtry …x…r…cted out of Bellarmine, Socinus, and Arminius their notionall Fanci…s; when all the pious and judicious of all the Proteſtant Churches have been unacquainted with it, & lay down Concluſions c…n…radictory to it, what els but a moſt arrogant ſelf Confidence, and contempt of his betters, could move him thus to ſpit Paradoxe…, without the leaſt e…deavours to give a demonſtration of the leaſt probability of them. Doth he th…nk his raptures ſo Divine, that the holieſt and moſt judicious of all mortals muſt lick his ſpittle as Angels food, without enquiring what ſubſtance and vertue there is in it? But this is the ſpirit and genius of the eſuits, whom he followeth as his guides if not Gods, and againſt whom in this very caſe our Claſſicall Divines have ſo much and juſtly complained in theſe latter years. S…tis eſt hodie Jeſuit is noſtris (ſaith Dr. Twiſſe) pro authoritate neſcio qua, quidlibet affirmare, & dictata ſua nulla probatione fulta, nobis obtrudere. i. e. The Jeſuits ofVind. lib. 1. par. 2. degr. 3. ſect. 1. prope finem. our time think it ſufficient by their own I know not what Authority, to affi…m any thing, and obtrude upon us their own dictates without any proof to ſupport them. And Chamier often, calling it their Tyranny, [Sic volo, ſic jubeo, &c.] Qui cum alienam ſententiam Panſtr. tom. 1. lib. 1. c. 19. n. 11.adeo refellant frigide ſuam tamen obtrudant nulla confirmatam Argumento, i. e. which when they ſo coldly refell the opinion of others, yet obtrude their own without any Argument to confirmeIbid. lib. 2. cap. 6. n. 8. it. Againe, Quis non miretur abijs viris null… … indicatam vim conſequentiae, ſed relictam nobis divinandam? At haec non jam ſegnities eſt ſed dolus malus. Certe hoc eorum eſt ingenium, qui maxime ſunt inter ſophiſtas, nempe, ut eas occultent partes quas vident, infirmiſſimas. i. e. Who would not marvell, that theſe men ſhould conclude, without ſhewing by any ſign the force of the Conſequence. But leaving us to Divine or conjecture it? This is not ſloth but evill deceit. This indeed is the quality of theſe men that are greateſt among the Sophiſters, to hide thoſe parts which they ſee moſt weak. As to Mr. Brs diſtinction here (which is of the ſame kind with the moſt of thoſe that he hath in this Tractate) between the works of the Law as they are they fulfilling of the Conditions of the Law our ſelves, or as they are the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Goſpel: enough were ſaid, if I ſhould onelyonly ſay what Chamier ſaith to the like wild diſtinctions of the Jeſuits, Si e Scriptura, Id. To. 2. l. 8. cap. 6. n. 17.cedo locum, & cedimus: Sin e Scholaſticorum ſomniis, foreign, i. e. If theſe diſtinctions be taken out of the Scripture, name where and we ſubmit; but if out of the dreams of the School men, we leave them to the Crowes.
But obſervable it is that when the moſt conſpicuous men in Learning and all outward accompliſhments, do once fall from the truth and ſimplicity of the Goſpel, they forth with yeeld up themſelves, not caring what ſtone they throw, if with it they may wound the Grace of God and face of the Lord Chriſt. Thus do we find Mr. Br. here contradicting himſelf, to choak the truth. In his former Sophiſticall eluding of the authority of Pauls teſtimony againſt him, we found him affirming, that where Paul and James treat of Juſtification, it was James his Queſtion and not Pauls, what is the Condition of our Juſtification by the Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt? whether Faith onelyonly? or works alſo? But Pauls Queſtion to be, what the Righteouſneſſe is which we muſt plead againſt the accuſations of the Law? or by which we are juſtified as the proper Rightouſneſſe of that Law? viz. whether our own or Chriſts righteouſneſſe? Here now in the very nex… breath without any one word interſerted, he affirms Pauls Queſtion to be what he there denyed, what the condition is of our Juſtification by Chriſt or having part in Chriſt? What he excludeth and what he includeth to this purpoſe. This is the integrity of the man, firſt wilfully to lay down his Concluſion, that he will pervert the Goſpel of Chriſt, and then to ſay and gain-ſay any thing, all things, that Malice it ſelf againſt the Goſpel can prompt or dictate to him.
And what is it that he produceth here in the ſecond place to elude and lay proſtrate Pauls authority? The notion and ſound of his great God Condition, a god which neither Chriſt nor any of his Prophets or Apoſtles ever knew, much leſs ever named as operative in the buſineſs of Juſtification. Yet ſuch a Dagon to Mr. Br. that if he fall ſhivered, all Mr. Brs. Divinity together with himſelf muſt fall after into the dirt. As to the matter it ſelf, whether there be any Conditions of the Goſpel? and what Condition? and how far it may be granted? all theſe have been ſo fully examined before, that unleſs I delighted to feed upon crambe a hundred times more then bis cocta, I muſt here to prevent the inconvenience of nauſeouſneſs to my ſelf and the Reader, in ſteed of Anſwer tranſmit the Reader to what hath been Anſwered oft before.
As for that which he philoſophizingly diſtinguiſheth between the works and conditions of the Law, and the works and conditions of the Goſpel: 1 He onelyonly ſaith all but proveth nothing; therefore deſerves onelyonly the contempt of, not an Anſwer from his Reader. 2 He ſaith nothing but what he hath been taught by the Papiſts, that though we cannot be juſtified by the works of the Law, yet we are juſtified by Goſpel works ſuch as Faith is. And muſt the Concluſions of the holy Apoſtaticall not Apoſtolicall Church be Canonicall to us, becauſe he hath made them ſo to himſelf? 3 If he therefore forbears to prove what he ſaith becauſe he holds it enough proved by the Papiſts already, and ſo tranſmits his Reader to their Writings: We alſo refer the reader to the peruſall of the works of our Proteſtant writers that have daſhed into ſhivers all ſuch ſeeming proofs of the papiſts, and brought to light the truth which they ſought to impriſon in darkneſs. 4 Whatſoever he fableth here of Goſpel works, yet are they all legall or works of the Law which he obtrudeth upon men to Juſtification, or (as he here phraſeth it) to acquire part in Chriſt, even to Faith it ſelf he attributes no ſuch property or power, but as it is a morall work which the Law commandeth, as we have found him ſpeaking. 5 (to come to that in which the whole force of his reaſoning here lyeth) It is falſe what he affirmeth, either that Paul doth in expreſs words, or in the ſenſe and ſcope of his ſpeech, exclude onelyonly the works of the Law, but never the fulfilling of the ſame works, as required by the Goſpel (for unleſs he ſo meaneth he ſaith nothing) from their co-operation with Faith to Juſtification: or that this is the reall difference between Legall and Goſpel works, that whereas in matter and ſubſtance they are one, yet as they are done to juſtifie us by their own righteouſneſs, they are works of the Law, but as done to juſtifie us by the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, ſo they are works of the Goſpel, or Goſpel Conditions. This is nothing but the Sophiſtry of a brain ſophiſticated with ſtrong deluſions to falſifie and nullifie the pure word of God. For,
1 What doth he bring to prove …y leaſt particle of what he ſaith? if he had the teſtimony of God and Chriſt on his ſide, would he leave their name and authority unmentioned.
2 The Apoſtle when he treats of Juſtification by Chriſt, doth not onelyonly exclude works of the Law, but works indefinitely and univerſally, any works, all works from having any power ordinate or not ordinate, to give us part in it or him, as hath been fully in its place before demonſtrated.
3 His diſpute every where is (as was declared and confirmed in the former Chapter) not ſo much what is the righteouſneſſe which by its own power and vertue juſtifieth, but what it is that inſtrumentally uniteth us to Chriſt for juſtification by him: This he denyeth to all to any works, and attributes to Faith alone, as hath been there evidenced.
4 In ſuch places where he expreſly ſpeaketh of the works of the Law he means the Law written, as it was given and pertained to the Jewes alone, as a ſignall evidence of Gods love to them above all other Nations. This is cleer from the Apoſtles own Teſtimony, Ro. 2. 12, 14. 17. & 5. 13. as alſo where he numbreth Circumciſion, the obſervation of times and meats, and other rituall peeces of the Ceremoniall Law, together with the morall works of the Decalogue. And will Mr. Br ſay that theſe rituall works are Conditions alſo of our part in Chriſt?
5 When he ſo giveth the Adject of the Law to works, calling them the works of the Law, he doth it to beat down the pride and boaſting of the Jewes that gloried in the Law, Rom. 2. 23. declaring to them that although the Law were one principall prerogative vouchſafed to them not to any other people, Rom. 9. 4. yet the works of the Law ſo glorious and privilegious had nothing to do with Faith to further our Juſtification by Chriſt: but that the Gentiles without the Law had as free acceſſe to God by Faith in Chriſt, as they with all the furniture of the Law and its works.
6 Paul doth exclude all works under what name or notion ſoever, from juſtifying ſo as Faith juſtifieth, or to be inſtrumentall and conditionall to juſtification as Faith is. But Faith is inſtrumentall or (as M. Br. terms it) conditionall to receive Chriſt to Juſtification. Thereforr works are excludeded from being ſo conditionall, or to be Conditions of the Goſpel, as he phraſeth it. This is apparent by thoſe Scriptures where Paul ſaith, Not of works but of Faith, by Faith without works, to him that worketh not, but beleeveth, &c. as hath been … before alledged and amplified. And all this of works without the adjection of the Law, yea of works done hundreds of years before the Law (to which Paul had reference in ſuch diſputes) was given.
7 Paul denyeth to works any operation in the Juſtification of Abraham, or of us that obtein the ſame Juſtification with Abraham. But the works which are denyed to juſtifie Abraham, could not in Pauls ſenſe be the works of the Law, being acted 430 years before the Law was given; and the Juſtification which is common to Abraham and his ſpirituall ſeed, was and is juſtification by Chriſt. So that works have nothing to do with Faith to condition us for juſtification by Chriſt. This hath been made out in the former Chapter, from Rom. 4. 1, &c.
8 And laſtly, If ſuch imperious, arbitrary, unreaſonable, and unproved diſtinctions be harkened to in Divinity, what one part either of Law or Goſpel ſhall abide ſacred? The whole word, as Mr. Br. the great Artificer in the Trade, ſomewhere complaines, ſhall be made a waxen Noſe. For with as much integrity as Mr. B. hath here uſed to put the greateſt Article of the Goſpel to a topſie turnie, may I mock at all the Commandments of the Decalogue, with a diſtinctionary vanity to nullifie them. Thou ſhalt have no other Gods before me. True, may I ſay, but God meaneth other Gods of the Pagans deviſing, not excluding the Gods of my own feigning. Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelf any graven Image. That is right (ſaid the Greeks once) but God here excludeth the graven Images which the Romanes, not the painted Images which we adore. Thou ſhalt not ſteale, the thief may here diſtinguiſh, the lean Cattell are here excluded not the fat. Thou ſhalt not murther; the Phariſees gloſſe upon it was, to wit, my friends, but my enemies I may. The like might I ſay of the reſt, yea of every Goſpel truth alſo, and all with as good reaſon as Mr. Br. here deals with Paul. We are juſtified, or have part in Chriſt, not by works but by Faith, by Faith without works, ſaith Paul: Right ſaith Mr. Br. for he excludeth works onelyonly as they are works of the Law, not as they are works and Conditions of the Goſpel. Yet, Ʋltra Sauromatus fugere hine libet, it makes me not onelyonly to wiſh but even to hold my ſelf almoſt in a deſart as impatient of the company of ſome of our diſtinctionary Rabbies, that admire and are ready to bleſſe themſelves at the wit and profoundneſs of ſuch wilde, barbarous, prophane, & ſenſeleſs diſtinctions of this incomparable man that hath not his Peer in England, when in this piece of his worth there is not a ploughboy ſo ruſtick but would eaſily whiſtle ſo prophanely in this kinde as he: And if the reaſon were given to Mr. Br. why he is in this artifice more full than others, it might be given in the Poets words;
Non tibi plùs cordis ſed minùs oris in eſt.
Bax. pa. 309. 3 Paul doth by the word [Faith] eſpecially direct your thoughts to Chriſt beleeved in; For to be juſtified by Chriſt, and to be juſtified by receiving Chriſt, is with him all one.
Though I might except in ſome ſenſe againſt this aſſertion; yet becauſe I cannot apprehend waking, what he dreams ſleeping, how he will from this aſſertion prove that Paul either doth not exclude works from Juſtification, or doth not attribute it to Faith alone, I leave it unexamined: If by Receiving Chriſt, he means our taking him as our Lord to be obeyed in all his Commandments that we might thereby be juſtified, enough hath been ſaid before in the examination of his 66, 72, & 73 Theſ. in anſwer to the fourth Argument that he brings for juſtification by works: unto it I refer the reader.
Bax: ibid. 4 And when he mentioneth Faith as the Condition, he alwayes implyeth Obedience to Chriſt. Therefore beleeving and obeying the Goſpel, are put for the two ſummaries of the whole Conditions.
The vanity and falſity of this aſſertion hath been diſcovered in the examination of his 62, & 70 Theſes, in which is Comprehended his 2 Argument for Juſtification by works. What is there ſaid being peruſed, will take off (I ſuppoſe) from the reader all expectation of any more to be here ſaid to it. OnelyOnly by the way all may note, 1 That what he ſaith here labours of the ſame diſeaſe with the former, it is onelyonly ſaid not proved. We muſt all ſit at the Feet of this Gamaleel and beleeve, becauſe this great Doctor and Magiſter noſter hath ſpoken it. 2 That although it be the Popiſh Cauſe which he here mainteineth, yet he with a holy Craft makes uſe rather of the Arminian than Popiſh Phraſe, the more eaſily to beguile the ſimple, Calling works (not as the Papiſts do plainly Works, but) Obedience to Chriſt, and Obedience to the Goſpel. How doth he fitt his bait to be ſwallowed by gudgeons that cannot diſcern a line from a halter. He knows there is a generation of men that deteſt ſwines fleſh, yet feed every morning upon piſtles of pork as the greate …elicacie. Change the name, and they diſaff…ct not the ſubſt…n…e. 3 Yet what he here ſaith he hath received in matter though noti…n words from Stapleton the Prieſt and his fellows. We are juſt…ed (ſaith the Apoſtle) by Faith, not by works, i. e. (ſaith Staplet…) not by works without faith, but by works and Faith: that is (ſaith Mr. Br.) [not by works or obedience out of Faith,] but by works implyed in Faith. Let him that can decide which of theſe two is the finer Sophiſt…r and Papiſt. 4 And no leſs harmoniouſly do Pauls words and Mr. Brs expoſition and diſtinction upon them agree together, than a harp and a harrow. Paul affirms Juſtification or imputation of Righteouſneſs to be without works, Rom 4. 6 Mr. Br expounds his meaning to be without works which are not, but by works that are implyed in Faith. As good a diſtinction as if I ſhould diſtinguiſh between the brains that a man hath out of his head, and the brain which he hath in his head▪ How great is his ſelf-Confidence that he ſhould think ſuch abſurd diſtinctions ſhould take with any rationall man, onelyonly upon this Authority, becauſe ſuch a Cathedral ſcholar hath ſaid it? And when Paul ſaith ſo frequently, Not by works but by Faith, he ſhould mean by Faith, works alſo implyed in Faith? This were to affirm that Paul in the delivery of the ſacred doctrine of the Goſpel ſpeaks by Contraries, and that what things he ſetts in oppoſition we muſt take to be in a Conjunction, ſo that if he had ſaid a man ſeeth with his eyes not with his heels, we muſt underſtand him to mean that he ſeeth with his eyes and heels together, or with his heels implyed in his eyes.
What he addeth of beleeving and obeying the Goſpel, that they are the two ſummaries of the Goſpel, hath been before examined, and both found to be the ſame thing. Obedience to the Goſpel being nothing elſe but the hearts ſubmiſſion to the voyce of Chriſt and doctrine of the Goſpel in ſtretching forth faith to apprehend Chriſt alone to Juſtification, illumination, ſanctification, &c. reſting upon him both for ſalvation, and for grace and power to walk worthy of it, as hath been more fully before expreſſed.
Thus much in way of examination of the third part of his vindication, viz. that his doctrine in nothing diſſents from Pauls. And in this poynt I doubt not but we have found Paul and him no leſs Cohering, than Chriſt and Antichriſt.