Baxters Aphorisms, Part 2 · Chapter 24
CHAP. XXIV.
Mr. Baxters Sophiſm to prove that his Doctrine of Juſtification by Works, doth not at all derogate from the Doctrine of Faith, examined, and found to be meer vanity.
BEcauſe the Scripture attributeth Juſtification to Faith without works, and to Faith in oppoſition to works, excluding works and requiring Faith alone to apprehend the Righteouſneſſe which is by Chriſt, and denominating it the Righteouſneſſe of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. The Righteouſneſſe which is of Faith, Rom. 9. 30. & 10. 6. in oppoſition to the Righteouſneſſe of works. He eaſily ſeeth that he ſhall be excepted againſt for his antiſcripturall doctrine in making Faith and works Concomitants in the ſame kind of cauſality and procurement of Juſtification. Therefore he makes it his ſixth task to vindicate this his doctrine from all derogation from Faith, and from all unſcripturall confounding of Faith and works together. To prove himſelf as innocent in this as in all the reſt, he brings theſe Reaſons.
B. Theſ. 62. 1 Becauſe though he makes Works and Faith to be the Conditions of our Juſtification yet (according to Scripture phraſe) Faith may be called the onelyonly Condition of the New Covenant, 1 Becauſe it is the principall Condition, and works but the leſſe principall: And ſo as a whole Countrey hath oft its name from the chief City, ſo may the Conditions of this Covenant from Faith. 2 Becauſe all the reſt are reducible to it; Either being preſuppoſed as neceſſary Antecedents or means, or conteined in it as its parts, properties, or modifications; or elſe implyed as its immediate products, or neceſſary ſubſervient means or conſequents.
All without Book, one of Mr Brs Myſticks that hath no one ſound of Gods word patronizing or favouring it. Witneſſe Mr. Br. who neither in his Theſis, nor in its Explication hath alledged one Scripture to make it good. Is Pythagoras come among us in a new body, ſpeaking nothing but Parables and Paradoxes, which vulgar capacities can no more comprehend then they can Plato's Idea's, or Democritus his Atomes? If ſo, it ſhall be needfull for him to injoin upon his Schollars (as he did of old) five years dumbneſſe or ſilence: Els if the mouth of a very Aſſe ſhould be open, it would rebuke the madneſſe of the Prophet, for delivering things ſo contradictive to the word, to himſelf, and to reaſon.
1 To the word and the Holy Ghoſt ſpeaking by it, who every where oppoſeth Faith and works, as to Juſtification, making them to exclude not to infer or imply either the other. By faith, therefore not [at all] by works: not by works, therefore by faith alone. But this man puts them in a conjunction, makes Faith and works together the Condition of our juſtification, from thence to conclude that Faith is the onelyonly Condition, and juſtifieth alone. So much a greater Artiſt is Mr. Br. then the Holy Ghoſt, and ſo ambitious of the praiſe of wiſedome that he thinks himſelf to be but a vulgar idiot, if his wiſdom be not ſtretched Nine whole words by meaſure, beyond and above the wiſedom of the Holy Ghoſt.
2 Contradictive to himſelf. For Aph. p. 300. He denyeth that which he calleth an idle Concomitacny of works with Faith, that they onelyonly ſtand by while Faith doth all, and concludes that they act together with faith in the ſame kind of cauſality to procure Juſtification, and ſo denyeth that we are juſtified by Faith onelyonly. Here contrariwiſe he denyeth all ſuch co-working of works with Faith, but that faith may be ſaid to be the onelyonly Condition, and to juſtifie onelyonly.
3 Contradictive to reaſon alſo, (and yet this next to [Condition] he ſeems to honour as the greateſt God) it muſt be to the Goats and ſheep of the mountains, not to Chriſts ſheep, to men that have reaſon, that Mr. Br. muſt deliver this doctrine, That we are juſtified not by faith alone, but by works alſo, yet it ſtands nevertheles as a firm Maxim, faith is the onelyonly condition, or juſtifieth alone. If the lips were ſhut and ſealed up, yet reaſon would uſe a ventriloquy, or force a way thorow the ears to reclaim againſt ſuch an abſurdity. If I ſhould ſo reaſon of Condemnation the contrary to Juſtification, that when the blind lead the blind and both fall into the ditch, when ſeducers pervert thoſe that are made to be taken and deſtroyed, and ſo all utterly periſh and are damned; That tho all are damned, yet it is but the leader and ſeducer alone that is damned, he for all that he hath ſeduced, and they all but damned in him their principall and leader: Would not Mr. Br be one of the firſt that would cry out at ſuch an Arguing, as abſurd and not Logicall.
Yet becauſe he is a man made up of the very ſpirits of Reaſon, and brings his Reaſons that his Aſſertion agrees with right reaſon according to the tenor of the Goſpel: I ſhall produce two or three in ſteed of many Goſpel Scriptures, and lay by them his Reaſons to ſee how pertinently they will agree as a Commentary with the Text. The Holy Ghoſt tells us, Eph. 2. 8, 9. We are ſaved by Grace through faith, not of works leſt any man ſhould boaſt. Mr. Br. Comments upon this Text thus, i. e. Principally by Faith leaſt any man ſhould boaſt principally [of himſelf.] But not of works principally to exclude this principall boaſting, yet leſſe principally of works alſo that man may alſo boaſt leſſe principally [of himſelf.] Or thus, according to his ſecond reaſon: Of Faith and not of works unreducible to Faith leſt any ſhould boaſt, yet of works alſo that by ſome relation or cognation are reducible to Faith, that of ſuch works we might boaſt. Shall we call this a hatchet or a Comment upon the Text. Which of theſe Explications is the more abſurd? Or as if in this latter that runs more ſmoothly then the former, we might not conclude ſo wiſely of any morall vertue or duty: When we are ſaid to be juſtified by any or all good qualifications and works, we are ſaid to be juſtified by Mercy or Chaſtity or Wiſdom onelyonly, becauſe all other vertues and works are reducible to this, by ſome one or other kind of relation or cognation.
Again, Rom. 4. 16. It is of faith that it may be of grace, the Antitheſis whereof is given, ver. 4. Not of works that it might not be of debt. The Comment which Mr. Brs firſt reaſon gives to this Text is, Nay it is both of Faith and works, works are comprehended in Faith as the leſſe principall in the principall: So that the meaning of the Text is, that it is principally of Faith, that it may be principally of Grace, but leſſe principally of works that [at leaſt] leſs principally it may be of debt alſo. His ſecond reaſon thus Comments, It is of Faith, that is of Faith, and works reducible to Faith, that it may be of Grace, not of works unreducible to faith, (ſuch as are murther, witchcraft, Sodomy, blaſphemy, &c.) that it may not be of debt.
Again, Tit. 3. 5. Not by works of righteouſneſſe which we have done, but according to his mercy he ſaved us, i. e. ſaith Mr. Br. Not principally by our works, but according to his mercy. Yet leſſe principally by our works, and not according to his mercy. Or not by works of righteouſneſſe done by us that are not, but according to Gods mercy that is reducible to Faith. What elſe to make of it when he hath taught me, I may divulge. I might annex many Texts of the ſame nature, upon which theſe two reaſons of his ſet as Comments, will ſpeak out ſo much of ſenſe, as the Commentator doth in them of Conſcience. But I have fully both examined and an…wered before, all that is compriſed in this Theſis, where I took occaſion to weigh every branch thereof, under the notion of his ſecond Argument which he brings to prove Juſtification by works. To it I refer the reader for fuller ſatisfaction.
B. 2 That he doth not derogate from faith, in yoking works with it in the joynt procurement of juſtification; becauſe he doth not aſcribe to works an equall part with it in this office or buſineſſe: but makes faith the more principall, and works but the leſſe principall part of the Condition: granting our firſt Juſtification to be chiefly by faith, and the ſecond Juſtification onelyonly, by Obedience: and aſcribing the beginning or firſt point of Juſtification to faith alone, and but the continuance and conſummation thereof to works. Aphor. Theſ. 74. & p. 302, 311, 312. And in many other parts of his Book.
All this hath been fully and oft anſwered before. Here onelyonly I ſhall intreat the reader to retein in mind what hath been before pointed at.
1 That the Goſpel mentioneth not, knoweth not any ſuch diſtinction of a firſt and ſecond Juſtification by Chriſt, but ſpeaks onelyonly of one juſtification. That this doubling of Juſtifications is but a juggling fancy of the Papiſts by them firſt created, and by Mr. Br. licked into a finer mode and form, for the pillaring up of their Juſtification by works which hath no proppage from the word.
2 That according to Mr. Brs principles who caſeth both together in one kind of cauſality, it cannot be diſcerned how [otherwiſe then by bare and glozing words] any pre-eminence can be given ſo as duly to belong to Faith above and before works in this buſineſſe.
3 That even where and in what reſpects Mr. Br. gives a pre-eminence, it belongeth more properly to works then to Faith: Becauſe the conſummation and perfitting of Juſtification is ſo far more excellent then the beginning thereof, as that which is perfect, then that which is unperfect. And herein he equalizeth and in ſom phraſes ſeems to prefer works to Faith, in their operation to perfect what is begun.
4 That the Scripture affirms not onelyonly the firſt but alſo the laſt point and period, the conſummation as well as the beginning of Juſtification to be by Faith. By the Goſpel the righteouſneſſe of God (viz. which he giveth us to Juſtification) is revealed from Faith to Faith, ſaith the Apoſtle; he ſaith not from Faith to works, but from Faith to Faith, that is (omitting other Interpretations partly ridiculous, and partly invalid and beſides the ſcope of the Apoſtle) from Faith inchoat to Faith growing and conſummat, or coming neerer and neerer to conſummation. This Expoſition the choiceſt of our Divines give, as both properly agreeing with the drift of the Text, and as owned and patronized by the like phraſe in other Scriptures: From ſtrength to ſtrength, Pſal. 88. 7. From glory to glory, 2 Cor. 3. 18. which even all acknowledge to be underſtood, from one to another, from a leſſer to a greater degree of ſtrength and glory. So alſo of this phraſe, from faith to faith. And thus not onelyonly the beginning but alſo the increaſe and conſummation of Goſpel Juſtification in our own Conſci…nces before God, is here attributed to Faith, which as it groweth to more and more ſtrength, by apprehending more and more revelations of the Goſpel; ſo it more and more declareth and evidenceth to the ſoul the certainty of our Juſtification, to the continuall ſtabliſhment and increaſe of our peace and joy in the Holy Ghoſt. And thus the Magis and Minus is in us not in God; and whatſoever of increaſe there is, is from Faith not from works. Nay the ſame Apoſtle tels us it is a moſt unglorious task which this uncomparably wiſe and profound man undertakes, viz. to teach them that are wiſe to ſalvation to become fools thereunto. Are yee ſo fooliſh? ſaith he, having begun in the Spirit, are yee now made perfect by the Fleſh? That by the Spirit and the Fleſh is to be underſtood Faith and works in order to Juſtification, cannot, will not be denyed. When therefore Mr. B. teacheth men to ſeek the beginning of Juſtification by faith, and the perfecting thereof not by Faith onelyonly but by works alſo, he teacheth them to be fooliſh [O fooliſh] the worſt fools to ſalvation, and to be wiſe onelyonly to condemnation. This is to be wiſe according to Mr. B. wiſedom in this Tractate, that is wiſe after the Fleſh not after the Spirit, in ſeeking happineſs in the way of works which the wiſedom of the Fleſh teacheth, not in the way of Faith wch the wiſdom of the Spirit, the wiſedom of Chriſt & his Goſpel revealeth. But all this, together with a plain and full diſcovery of the vanity of this evaſion, hath been in its due place before held out, which would be but a tyring of the Reader here again to be troubled with.
OnelyOnly the generall and chief thing which Mr. Br. both here and elſwhere layeth as a foundation to his Juſtification by works, it ſhall not be amiſſe briefly to examine here, for the prevention of deceit to his Reader, before I put a totall concluſion and period to what I have thought fit to except againſt this Work of his. If it prove ſandy and unſound, his great Coloſſus of Juſtification by works, falls all to ſhivers. This is his quaint interpretation of [faith] in all ſuch Scriptures as aſcribe to Faith (in oppoſition to works) our juſtification. That then by it we are to underſtand all Goſpel duties, all that Chriſt Commandeth; not Faith in a diſtinct conſideration from other qualifications and duties, but Faith in a collective ſenſe, comprizing all morall duties and actions within it, which is Faith and all its fruits, yea more, Faith and all that is reducible to it. And thus according to Mr. Br. ſo oft as we are ſaid to be juſtified by Faith not by works, we muſt underſtand that the Holy Ghoſt meaneth, that we are juſtified by Faith and works done after the tenor of the Goſpel, not by Faith and works done after the tenor of the Law. Behold now the unfathomed depth of Mr. Brs wit, and the unlimitted verge of his power. His wit ſurpaſſing all the wiſedom of all good and Orthodox men and Angels; of whom no one had ever the reach ſince the world began, to find with all his ſearching ſuch a bugbear ſenſe lurking in the plain Scripture Texts of the Apoſtle: His power, that with the ſtroking of this Mercuriall rod, he makes fire and water, life and death, hell and heaven, to lay down all their enmity each to other, and ſweetly to coll lodge and incorporate together. Who would have thought that Paul who ſo ſeriouſly and ſacredly profeſſeth that he had rather in the Church to ſpeak five words with his underſtanding ſo that he might teach and edifie others alſo, than ten thouſand in an [unknown] Tongue, 1 Cor. 14. 17, 19. And in preaching the Goſpel diſcended to the unlearned and babes to feed them with milke, to make all plain and eaſie to their underſtandings, 1 Cor. 3. 2. ſhould yet every where deliver the chief doctrine of the Goſpel [Juſtification by Chriſt] in ſo dark Parables and riddles, that none could find it out, untill this Oedipus inſpired from Socinus and Arminius, roſe up to un…iddle him? For let there be named any one Proteſtant in any age (till Mr. Br. held out his Candle to give light to the Sun) that ever could dream of this Allegoricall ſenſe, after the principles of Origen, lurking in Pauls words? Or what hinders now but Faith may be turned into works and works into Faith, Grace into ſtrict juſtice and ſtrict juſtice into free Grace, the Law into Goſpel and the Goſpel into meer Law; ſince Mr. Br. hath made a reconciliation and compoſure between Faith and Works in the point of Juſtification.
But whether this interpretation of Mr. B. be ſo firm as it is pretty and witty, hath been before examined, as elſwhere, ſo in the Examination of his third Argument for Juſtification by works, drawn from his large definition of Faith which he giveth in his Theſis 70. Here onelyonly I ſhall mention ſome phraſes or names by which Juſtifying Faith is deſcribed in Scriptures, and leave it to the judgment of every intelligent Reader, to determine whether works can properly or in any tolerable ſenſe be ſaid to be comprized in faith as acting in the ſame kind of cauſality about ſuch acts as thoſe phraſes or names imply.
1 As Mr. Br. himſelf in his ſhorter definition defineth faith, it is called our Receiving of Chriſt, Jo. 1. 12. and that not in that wide ſenſe which Mr. Br. fancieth, but in that ſtrict ſenſe wherein Paul interprets it, viz. the receiving of Chriſt to be our Righteouſnes, or receiving abundance of Grace and of the gift of righteouſneſs by him, Rom. 5. 16.
2 It is called the directing of the eye, or looking to Chriſt yea to Chriſt lifted up [upon the Croſſ] for healing. Io. 3. 14.
3 A coming to Chriſt for Life, Jo. 6. 37. & 5. 40.
4 The eating of his fleſh and drinking of his blood to everlaſting life, Jo. 6. 53-56.
5 A putting on of Chriſt [as a Garment of Righteouſneſs] to cover our nakedneſſe and filthineſſe, Phil. 3. 9. Rev. 3. 18. I could add many the like phraſes if it were needfull. But theſe may ſuffice; and who is there that ſees not theſe to imply an inſtrumentality in faith to make Chriſt ours to Juſtification? Yea and that in faith onelyonly and not in works at all? for how can Charity, Chaſtity, Mercy, righteouſneſſe, and the ſeverall acts of theſe and other qualifications, of which moſt have our Neighbour or Brother for their immediate Object, about which in acting they are occupant; be called the receiving, intuition of, and coming to Chriſt? the eating of his fleſh and drinking his blood, or the putting on of him for righteouſneſſe? It would ſeem ſtrange to me that any man waking and not dreaming ſhould conclude ſuch works to be Antecedents, and not the fruits of Juſtification and life by Chriſt. Or that when faith is deſcribed by theſe denominating phraſes, works alſo as couched in faith, ſhould contrary to their nature be ſo denominated. Nay Faith is thus dive…ſly named in oppoſition to works, yea to Goſpel works. For ſo doth our Saviour anſwer and determine the queſtion put to him, what to do [under the Goſpel] that we might work the works of God? i. e. what is to be done on our part that we may be juſtified and ſaved? This is the work of God (ſaith he) [that is, this is in ſteed of all doings all workings] that ye beleeve in him whom he hath ſent, Jo. 6. 28, 29. which after he expreſſeth more fully to be a beleeving in him that came down from heaven, and that gave, and as he gave his life for the world, and giveth life to the world. All works are excluded that this beleeving might be reſerved, ſole, entire, ſacred, and ſoveraign to receive Chriſt to Juſtification and ſalvation.
Here at length I ſhall put a period to my Examination of this Tractate of Mr. Br. in which I have not wittingly let paſſe any one particle of all that he hath brought to the re-erecting of Juſtification by works, without examining the ſtrength and force of it, wch if he had done in relation to all the Arguments which the Proteſtant Churches and Divines have brought againſt it, before he adventured peremptorily to pronounce their doctrine H…torodox and Antinomiſtick, and the doctrine of the Papiſts in this point ſound and holy; I am of opinion that either this work of his had never come forth to the ſubverting of ſouls and troubling of the Church, or if it had ſo come forth, it would have been a very abomination to all that are not made to be taken, and trampled under foot as an accurſed thing. But now having begun in that manner as we ſee, to ſet up this worſt piece of damning Popery, under a falſe pretence of love to the Proteſtant, and hatred of the Popiſh Religion. It is not to be expected but that ſeeing his reputation jeoparded, he will per fas & nefas, proceed to ſeek the ſupport of it, though it be to the further ecclipſing of the Grace of God and honour of Chriſt.