Baxters Aphorisms, Part 2 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
The fift Argument anſwered, and the diſpute of St. James Cap. 2. opened, and the Reaſons drawn thence to prove juſtification by works, refuted.
THe former was Mr. Baxters great Argument, the fift in number is like to it, yet not ſo much hugged and honoured by him as the former, becauſe that was his own, born of his own brain: This he takes up as fully formed by the Papiſts to his hand and uſe, ſo that he is not to have the entire honour of it, but every petty Monk and Sacrificer will challenge his part therein. This is indeed their great and ſole Argument againſt the Proteſtants. The reſt they bring is unworthy the hearing. This therefore Mr. Baxter here, that the Popiſh cauſe may ſtand and ours fall, Atlas-like, puts his ſhoulder and whole ſtrength under to ſupport.
B. Theſ. 75. pa. 292. The plain expreſſion of St. James ſhould terrifie us from an interpretation contradictory to the Text, and except apparent violence be uſed with his Chap. 2. 21, 24, 25. &c. it cannot be doubted but that a man is juſtifyed by works and not by faith only.Euſebius, Hierom.
I mean not here to ſeek an evaſion by pleading that this Epiſtle in the primitive times of the Church, before the controverſie about juſtification by faith, or by works and faith was in agitation, was queſtioned by ſome and denyed by others to be of divine authority. Or that *Eraſmus, Luther, Muſculus, Cajetan a Cardinall of the Romiſhſome great Divines of theſe latter times have not received it into the Canon; or that among thoſe that embrace it as Canonicall, it is much diſputed what James is the Authour of it? For (beſides the Syriac interpreter that weakly attributes it to James the brother of John who in the cradle of the Church was ſlain with the ſword by Herod, Act. 12. 1, &c.) ſome name James the ſon of Alpheus the Brother of Chriſt, and one of the 12 Apoſtles: others, James ſirnamed Oblias, or the Juſt, (of whom J…ſephus writeth, the Author of it; & adhuc ſub judice lis eſt: Or that the matter, method and (if I may ſo ſpeak) ſpirit of this Epiſtle, ſounds not in one harmony with the reſt parts or books of the new Teſtament, but rather after the writings of the books under the old Covenant, or after ſuch as ſtuck ſtill to the old Covenant, as Philo Judaeus and others: (all which Mr. Baxter better knows to have been by many objected, then I know how ſatisfactorily to anſwer it) By theſe and other reaſons ſome have expunged it from the Catalogue of Scriptures which are of divine inſpiration, and have reduced it into the kind and number of writings that are uſually termed Eccleſiaſticall; in a good ſenſe, not diſagreeing any where from the Canon, yet not of that dignity as to be accepted as a part of the Canon it ſelf.
I ſhall leave theſe things to be diſputed by others, and examine the teſtimonies which Mr. Baxter hence alleageth what and how far it makes for him, as the authority of the holy Ghoſt himſelfe.
Here it is remarkable that Mr. Baxter who followes the Jeſuits every foot and inch in the interpreting of this and all other Scriptures from which he would with them ſet up juſtification by works, like a man made all of zeal, perks up to terrifie us from an interpretation contradictory to the text, and from uſing apparent violence to it; implying that all the Proteſtant Churches and Saints which have ſtood in the defence of the faith of Chriſt againſt the Papiſts, now almoſt 200. years, have dealt thus ſacrilegiouſly in robbing this Text of its due ſenſe: And the Fryers and Jeſuites alone (good men) have ſtood up as the faſt friends of Chriſt, to maintain this truth of Chriſt, and the ſpirit and meaning of this Scripture, againſt the violation of the ſacrilegious hands of theſe hereticall Proteſtants: And that himſelf is now at laſt ſtirred up by the Spirit that hath wrought ſo powerfully upon the Jeſuits, to vindicate and ſet forth the true meaning of this Text, with the ſame fidelity and ſincerity which they his Maſters have uſed before him. Therefore to excite all men to gaze on his ingenuity and ſincerity, and to admire him as the one alone man among Proteſtants raiſed up to undeceive all the Churches that have ſo long ſtrayed from the holy mother Church, he thus like wiſedome it ſelf uttereth his voice.
B. Pag. 297. I dare not teach the holy Ghoſt to ſpeak; nor force the Scripture; nor raiſe an expoſition ſo far from the plain importance of the words without apparent neceſſity: but here is not the leaſt neceſſity: there being not the leaſt inconvenience that I know of, in affirming juſtification by works, in the fore explained ſenſe (i. e. in the ſenſe which Mr. Baxters ſenſe and reaſon without any help of Scripture hath deviſed.) Men ſeldome are bold with Scripture in forcing it, but they are firſt bold with conſcience in forcing it, as one M. Baxter, who with oneſpell, hath forced all the large and divine diſputes of Paul about juſtification into a cherriſtone, and hurld it at the feet of his St. Senſe, there to do homage, or to be trampled into the dirt.)
After this his proteſtation of his integrity, zeal and tenderneſſe of conſcience in interpreting Scriptures, and the impreſſion which he feels or feigns in his ſoul which the heretick Proteſtants have made by not expounding this Scripture in the ſame words which the Jeſuits do: Let us ſee with what tenderneſſe and fear himſelf in the next words ſpeaketh of it.
B If it were but ſome one phraſe diſſonant from the ordinary language of Scripture, I ſhould not doubt but it muſt be reduced to the reſt. But when it is the very ſcope of a Chapter, in plain and frequent expreſſions, no whit 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 Scriptuee ſay what it will to the contrary. What is this but with the Papiſts to make the Scripture a noſe of wax? If St. James ſpeak it ſo over and over, that juſtification is by works, and not by faith only, I will ſee more cauſe before I deny it; or ſay he means a working faith.
He that in all this can ſee one leaſt ſpark of that profeſſed ſincerity which he proteſteth in himſelf and requires in others worthier then himſelf, let him make it out: I can ſee nothing elſe but fraud, doubleneſſe and falſhood.
1 When he ſayeth that it is the very ſcope of a Chapter, and not only ſome one phraſe that here holds forth juſtification by works before God, it is the ſame which he hath from Bellarmine, Bel. lib. 1. de juſtif. cap. 15.Scopus Jacobi (ſaith he) fuit demonſtrare fidem veram atque Catholicam ad ſalutem ſine operibus non ſufficere, &c. i. e. The ſcope of James [in his Chapter] was to ſhew that a true and Catholick faith is not ſufficient without works to ſalvation; and with as much truth and fidelity doth this man ſpeak it, as did the other from whom he learned it. This being no more the ſcope of this Chapter or of James in it, then to deny the ſalvation which is by Chriſt, and to ſet on men to ſeek it by the Law.
2 That this phraſe of juſtification by works [in Mr. Baxters ſenſe] is no whit diſſonant from any other Scripture, whether he means difference in ſound, or difference in ſubſtance, is as very a paradox, as if he had ſaid that contradictories are not diſſonāt. For if this doctrine after Mr. Baxters ſenſe muſt ſtand as true doctrine, and for the Goſpell of Chriſt, then muſt we caſt away almoſt if not altogether all the other Scriptures of the new Teſtament as hereticall; and limit our ſelves to this alone, and to Mr. Baxters gloſſe in it to learn true righteouſneſſe and the way to life. For how vain, empty and audacious his annihilating of Pauls doctrine about juſtification with one breath is, we ſhall ſee in its proper place; and finde that he deſtroyes the genuine ſcope and meaning of that Apoſtle in many of his Epiſtles to ſacrifice all▪ to his imaginary ſcope of James in ſome few words here delivered.
3 When he tels us of wreſting and making a Creed, &c. he proclaims to the World that all the Proteſtant Churches which have conſtantly defended juſtification by faith without works, i. e. by Chriſt Jeſus apprehended by faith without concurrence of works, &c. have wreſted and violated the Scripture, ſet up a Creed of their own in deſpight of the Scriptures ſpeaking to the contrary. For what he cunningly and ſeemingly faſtens upon one Mr. Pemble, he layes to the charge of all the Proteſtant Churches, there being not one of them that hath not at all times held and ſpoken the ſame things with Mr. Pemble. And ſo pronounceth the faith of Chriſt to have been no where ſound, but within the confines of Rome; and that the Proteſtant Churches are all hereticall and apoſtates, have rejected the faith of Chriſt, and ſought righteouſneſſe and ſalvation by a Creed of their owne making.
4 Nevertheleſſe his ſincerity in the very next words after his ſuch ſtout pleading for the Papiſts, fals foul with them for making the Scripture a noſe of wax: to delude the ſimple with an opinion that he hath no confederacy with them. Yet
5 Holds them faſt by the hand telling us that he will joyn with them and follow James in their ſenſe and interpretation to ſeek juſtification by works and not by faith only.
But let us come to the text it ſelf and ſee whether St. James will be brought to dance after St. Bellarmine and Mr. Baxter with all their piping and charming, and in this, the ſincerity of theſe two great champions in the interpreting of this Scripture will appear.
Firſt for the ſcope of the Words, who can better expreſſe it then the Author? This himſelf declares to be the ſubverſion of the falſe confidences of ſhadie beleevers, who being deſtitute of true faith gloried in the meer ſhadow and profeſſion of it, as if it ſhould juſtifie and ſave them, though it never wrought to their Sanctification, but left them to every good work reprobate. Againſt this pernicious deluſion he bends the whole drift of his diſpute, and proveth ſuch a faith to be vain, dead, devilliſh; and on the contrary, that the faith which juſtifyeth is lively and operative in good works. This will be manifeſted in examining the ſeverall paſſages of the diſpute, ſpecially to him that will take the labour of reading but ſome of the many hundreds of our Divines that have anſwered the Arguments of the Papiſts hence deduced; either in their Commentaries upon this Epiſtle, or in handling this Controverſie againſt them. And herein ſome of the learned among the Papiſts are more plyant to obey and leſſe ſtubborn to reſiſt the truth then Mr. Baxter. The ſcope of the Apoſtle (ſaith Cajetan) is to ſhew, quod non fide ſterili ſed foecunda juſtific…mur; i. e. that we are juſtifyed not by a barren but fruitfull faith. Thus do we finde James himſelf ſta…ing the queſtion, ver. 14. What doth it profit, though a man ſay he hath faith and hath not works, ſhall his faith ſave him? It is againſt the ſaying and falſe profeſſing of faith, that hath no force or life to bring forth good works, and not againſt faith ind…ed which worketh by love that the Apoſtle here argueth, denying to it any efficacy to Juſtification: this is the thing which we ſhall finde him proſecuting throughout his whole diſputation: and on the contrary part affirming faith which is living and active to good works to be alſo alive and effectuall to juſtifie. This will more properly offer it ſelf to be made out in the next place. Let us then come to examine Mr. Baxters diſpute from the authority of James; Pag. 293.
Br. In opening this I ſhall firſt ſhew the clearneſs of that in Iames for the point in queſtion. &c.
This he goeth about to doe by daſhing in peeces all whatſoever hath been ſayd by all or any of the Proteſtant Churches or Writers againſt the Papiſts in expounding this Text, thus.
B. The ordinary expoſitions of St. James are theſe two. 1. That he ſpeaks of Juſtification before men, and not before God. 2. That he ſpeaks of works, as juſtifying our Faith, and not as juſtifying our perſons: (or as Mr. Pembles phraſe is) The Apoſtle when he ſaith works juſtifie, muſt bee underſtood by a Metonymy, that a working faith juſtifieth. That the former expoſition is falſe may appear thus.
This is his ſhewing the clearneſſe of that in St. James, viz. to anathematize all that any of the faithfull ſervants and Martyrs of the Lord Jeſus within the Proteſtant Churches have ſpoken in the Expoſition therof▪ that it may bee embraced by all after the Catholick that is Romiſh interpretation. Two things wee except againſt in this his clarifying paſſage. 1. That being very good both at confounding and dividing, as hee ſees either to make for his turn, hee doth heer by dividing ſeek to pervert, as erewhile by confounding we found him to obſcure the truth. Why doth he make two opinions, two expoſitions heer of that which is but one? Hath he learned of Ma…chiavel ſo to deal in ſpiritualls, as hee preſcribes in Politicks, Divide & impera? Why els ſhould hee ſet at diviſion thoſe that are united? Or make them to fight one againſt another, who ſpeak the ſame things? Or ſet in oppoſition Iohn againſt Calvin, and Calvin againſt Iohn? Or David againſt Pareus, and Pareus againſt David? And ſo other thouſands, when every of theſe gives both theſe expoſitions which he mentioneth, in one. Poſſibly as to ſome particulars in this queſtion he may meet with ſome particular Writer urging the one onelyonly, but he knowes that moſt, and thoſe not the meaneſt, make uſe of both, as ſhalbe ſhewed. 2. Wee except againſt him that in alleadging the…e expoſitions, he doth ſubtlely hide the grounds upon which the Proteſtants doe fix theſe their expoſitions. And thus he expoſeth them to the vulgar at leaſt, as groundleſs dreams, ſhifting evaſions, wherof no reaſon can be given on our part: That all the reaſon lieth▪ on the Papiſts part, with whom therfore he hath joyned. Is this Chriſtian, or Jeſ…iticall dealing? Would it not bee expected from him that profeſſeth himſelfe a Proteſtant and zealous Presbyter… …n▪ when …e divides himſelfe utterly from them, all them, of whoſe ſide hee profeſſeth himſelfe to be, at leaſt to ſet down their opinions and grounds thereof, and to confute thoſe grounds; and not (as hee doth) deny and fight againſt the concluſion without ſpeaking a word to the premiſſes.
What he therefore fraudulently omits I ſhall heer ſupply, rendring the expoſitions as our Divines give it and the grounds of it, and not as Mr. Baxter corrupts it. We have found him acknowledging, that if it be but ſome one phraſe diſſonant from the ordinary language of Scripture, that one muſt bee reduced to the reſt, and not all the reſt to that one. pa. 297. So ſtands the caſe heer. The ordinary language, yea drift of the New Teſtament, is to hold forth Juſtification by faith without works (as wee have ſeen before) and every one that will but conſideratively reade as other the Evangeliſts, ſo chiefly the Goſpell written by Iohn the Apoſtle, the Acts of the Apoſtles, the Epiſtles to the Romans, to the Galatians, to the Epheſians, Philippians, Coloſſians, and Hebrews, eſpecially and above the reſt, and withall from the reſt it muſt needs appeare. This one paſſage in one Epiſtle hath a ſound of differing & but a ſoūd Muſt al be reduced to this or this to all? According to the rule therefore allowed by Mr. Baxter himſelfe, our Divines give an interpretation to this one paſſage, that may declare it, (though it hath a ſeeming,) yet not to have a reality of diſſent from the reſt. Becauſe if this be Canonicall and from the H. G the H. G. cannot contradict himſelfe.
In expounding this diſpute of James, therefore the Proteſtants take notice of a two fold homonymy of words, one in the word Faith, the other in the word Juſtifying, both which Paul and James uſe, but uſe them the one in one, and the other in another ſence, ſo that though they ſeeme ſomwhat to differ in words, yet in ſenſe they ſpeake the ſame thing.
1. They ſay as when Paul ſpeakes of Faith to juſtification, by Faith he meanes a true and lively Faith, which fetcheth power from the merits of Chriſt to Iuſtifie, and from the ſpirit of Chriſt to Sanctifie: ſo Iames here battereth under the name of Faith, a bare profeſſion and boaſting of Faith, which ſome Hypocrites leaned on to Iuſtifie them, being wholly deſtitute of Faith indeed that is alive, and effectuall to draw from Chriſt matter both to Iuſtification and Sanctification. 2. They ſay that as Paul takes the word Iuſtifying for remiſſion and abſolution before God, ſo James takes it (as oft as he requires here works to Iuſtifie) for the declaration of the truth of our Faith, and Iuſtification before men.
Yet let not this their diſtinction (if it may fitly be ſo termed) and expoſition bee taken up unleſſe it hath ſufficient grounds from the Text to beare it up. I ſhall begin firſt with the latter, becauſe Mr. Baxter there begins. That Juſtification by works is by James underſtood the declaring us to man, to have true Faith and to be Iuſtified by it, they bring theſe reaſons to prove. 1 James himſelfe even in expreſſe words affirming it ver. 18 Shew me thy Faith without thy workes, and I will ſhew thee my Faith by my works, where he tels us that by Iuſtifying, he means the ſhewing or declaring our Faith, and Juſtification (not to God) but one to another. And thus he denieth Faith which is not Shewed by works, to Iuſtifie i. e. to Shew or declare us to men Iuſtified 2. ver. 21, where he ſaith, was not Abraham our Father juſtified by works, when he had offered Iſaack his Son upon the Altar? doth he ſpeake of Gods IuſtifyingGen. 15. 6. him, or declaring him to be juſtified, unto men? Not the former, for God had juſtified him by Faith many yeares before, and there was no di…uption (according to Mr Baxters doctrine) in the intervall, by any apoſtacy made by Abraham, that of juſtified he became unjuſtified; and needed here to be juſtified an…w. How then was hee juſtified by offering his Sonn? Can there be any other way not repugnant to reaſon deviſed, but this; that God here by proving and bearing him up in ſo ſearching a proof and Temptation, to ſhew ſo matchleſs an act of obedience, did declare to the world that his Faith was in ſincerity, his feare and love unfained, ſo that all muſt be reſtrayned from charging him with ſelfe reſpects and Hypocriſy, in all the profeſſions that he made towards God; Or what leſs is to be drawn from thoſe word… from Heaven Gen: 22 12. upon this act of Abrahams obedience, Now I know that thou feareſt God ſeeing thou haſt not witheld thy Son, thy onelyonly Son from me? Did not God know what was, what himſelfe had wrought in Abrahams hart before this tryall of him? doth he need outward actions to manifeſt to him what is in the heart within? M. B. ſo much cleavs to thē that make all things wch God doth to flow from his preſcience that he will not ungod God ſo much as to deny that he knew as perfectly before as after tryall: Why ſaith he then, now I know, but to intimate that now he had given a ſtrong evidence both to the preſent and future generations to know that God knew, and therby to convince men of all ages that they alſo muſt know the truth of Abrahams Faith, feare, and juſtification? 3. The ſame might bee ſaid of Rahabs juſtification by workes, in receiving the Meſſengers, and letting them forth another way. ver. 25. Did ſuch a work as this juſtifie her before God? or obtain to her remiſſion of ſins, and deliver her from everlaſting vengeance? when there cannot be the leaſt probable conjecture that ſhee had then any Faith in Chriſt, or had ever heard of a Chriſt to come? Then let us diſclaime that Fabulam de Chriſto (as one of the Popes termed the Goſpell) Righteouſneſs is by workes without Faith, without Chriſt, and Stapletons gloſſe…apleton, Anrid. p. 82 83. upon Pauls Iuſtificamur fide, i. e. non abſ que ſide, we are juſtified by Faith i. e. not without Faith, becauſe Faith is neceſſary to juſtification, though not without works ſufficient to it; muſt be rejected as too Evangelicall. And then alſo how ſhal Mr: Baxters Theſis not fal which makes workes collateralls with Faith in Chriſt to juſtification? workes can do it without Chriſt. But if all this intrench upon Blaſphemy, then was ſhee juſtified by workes to men, to the Iſraelites, who by this Act toward them had ſo farr evidenced her fidelity to them and their cauſe, that thereupon ſhee was taken into Covenant with them, delivered from the ruine which befell Iericho, and after as it were adopted or naturallized into the Commonwealth of Iſraell. Ye have one part of the expoſition and the grounds of it, which Mr: Baxter concealed, that the unwary reader might deſpiſe it as groundleſſe. Mr: Baxter oppoſeth it, tell… us it is falſe, and it may appeare thus.
B. p. 294. The Worlds Iuſtification frees us but from the worlds Accuſation, to which it is oppoſed: And therefore it is but either a Iuſtification from Mans Laws; or elſe a particular Iuſtification of us in reſpect of ſome particular Facts; or elſe an uſurped Iudgement and ſuſtification: for they are not conſtituted our Iudges by God: and therefore wee may ſay with Paul, it is a ſmall thing with me to be judged of you or of mans judgement. And ſo a ſmall thing to be juſtified by men from the accuſations of the Law of God.
But the juſtification in James, is of greater moment as appears in the Text. For 1. It is ſuch as ſalvation dependeth on. ver. 14.
2. It is ſuch as followeth only a ſaving Faith. But the world may as well juſtifie us when we have no faith at all.
I therfore affirm, 1. That the world is no lawfull judge of our righteouſneſs before God, &c. 2. Nor a competent capable judge and cannot paſſe any certain true ſentence, &c. 3. If they could, yet works are no certain Medium, or evidence, wherby the world can know us to bee righteous. For there is no outward work which an hypocrite may not perform: and inward works they cannot diſcern, &c. So that if it bee not certain that the Text ſpeaketh of juſtification before God, I ſcarce know what to be certain of.
It were more tolerable and excuſable for me to leave the grounds of one ſingle man giving his private interpretation of this Scripture, deſpiſed unexamined, and unanſwered; than for him ſo to deale with all the Churches of Chriſt: But I will not be a follower of him that followes not Chriſt in lowlineſs, and his Precept in ſelfe-deniall.
His diſpute here is two fold; 1 to prove that Iames ſpeaks not, of the declaration of our juſtification before men. 2. To prove that he ſpeaks of our juſtification before God, when he mentioneth juſtification by works.
To the former all that he ſaith is Sophiſticall and Fallacious. For if wee grant that by the World hee meanes the whole generation of men both good and evill (which yet can hardly bee drawne from his diſpute, which to make our aſſertion odious would make it out as relating only to the wicked of the world, that theſe muſt be the alone Judges,) Notwithſtanding his whole Argumentation is a meer foreign a waving the queſtion with a falſe aſſumption that by Juſtification before men, we meant a raiſing of a Tribunall upon earth, in oppoſition to Gods in heaven, there to ſet up men to be judges, and to paſſe ſentence of juſtification and remiſſion of ſinnes one upon another, according to the evidence of every ones works. The falſhood wherof hee proves by the illegality of ſuch a judicature, and incompetency of the judges, and evidence for it. And what is this but a Devill of his own rayſing and laying again? For what one rationall man in any of the Reformed Churches ever dreamed of ſuch a juſtification? All that wee underſtand heerby is but a declaration and diſcovery of the tree by its fruits, of the ſtate of a man before God, that he hath juſtified or not juſtified him, according as we ſee the fruits of juſtification, i. e. the works of ſanctification following or not following the profeſſion of faith. And all this not by a judiciall ſentence given for or againſt any, nor by the judgement of infallible faith or knowledge; but in the judgement of charity alone, which hopeth all things, beleeveth all things, thinketh no evill, (except by ſtrong evidence it bee drawn to it) 1. Co. 13. 5. 7.
In fighting againſt this doctrine Mr. Baxter fighteth againſt Chriſt, againſt the Holy Ghoſt the Author of it, not onelyonly heer, but elſewhere alſo. By their fruits ye ſhall know them, ſaith our Saviour, Mat. 7. 16. By this ſhall all men know that ye are my Diſciples, if yee love one another, Io 13. 35. that the World may know that thou haſt loved them, Io: 17. 28. He that is of God heareth us, he that is not of God heareth us not, hereby know we the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error, 1. Io 4. 6. Let your light ſo ſhine forth before others that they ſeeing your good workes may glorifie your Father which is in Heaven, Ma: 5. 16. I magnifie my office if by any meanes I may provoke my bretheren &c. and ſave ſome of them. Ro. 11. 14. By your orderly carriage. &c. the unbeleever ſhall be convinced, fall downe worſhip God, and report that God is in you of a truth, 1. Cor. 14. 24. 25. That he that is of the contrary part may be aſhamed, having nothing evill to ſay of you, Tit. 2. 8. Having your converſation honeſt among the Gentiles, that whereas they ſpeake evill of you, they may by your good works which they ſee, glorifie God, 1 Pet. 2. 12. Becauſe by this deed thou haſt given great occaſion to the enemies of God to blaſpheme, 2. Sam. 12. 14. God hath begun, and will perfect in you the good worke, as it is meet for me to judge of you, becauſe, &c. Phil. 1. 6▪ 7. I am perſwaded of you things that accompany ſalvation, becauſe of your works and labours of love, &c. Heb. 6. 9, 10. Wee give thanks to God for you, &c. ſince we heard of your Faith in Chriſt Jeſus, and love to all the Saints, for the hope which is laid up for you in Heaven, Col. 1. 3, 4 5, To the Saints which are at Rome, Corinth, &c. and hundreds of the like Scriptures which teſtifie the declaration, ſuch a declaration of the Faith, Saintſhip, Juſtification and ſalvation of others, by the evidence of their works, that we ought, that it is a ſinne in men by the judgement of Charity not to acquieſce therein: And on the contrary part, teſtifying the want of ſuch an evidence to be an occaſion given to all men to reject our Faith and juſtification in the profeſſion thereof as ſpurious and vaine. Againſt all theſe Mr. Baxter excepreth, pronouncing that mans judgement herein is illegall▪ incompetent, and the evidence inſufficient, therefore to make uſe of any judgement or diſcerning in this kind, is uſurpative. Doth he herein fight againſt men, or againſt God? Suppoſe that the event in any thing prove contrary to our judgement, yet is there not ſin in ſuch judgement, while we follow Chriſts Rule, and to be deceived by Charity rightly ordered, if it may be called a deceivedneſſe, yet is it no ſinfull deceivedneſſe. What hee produceth from the Apoſtle, Ʋnto me it is a ſmall thing to be judged of you, or of mans judgement, &c. 1 Cor. 4. 3. is nothing ſubſervient to his turne: For the Apoſtle there ſpeaketh of their unjuſt Cenſures of him, beſides and againſt Chriſts Rule, the Rule of Charity, (from which while they erred, their judgement was not to be regarded) and in relation to the future judgement which followes not mans, but Chriſts owne knowledge of us. Thus have we found one part of his arguing vaine and wide from the ſcope, in going about to prove that James his Juſtification by works is not to be taken for the declaring of us to men to be truly juſtified.
His ſecond diſpute is to prove that this Juſtification by Works is to be underſtood of our juſtifying by works at Gods Tribunall. His Reaſons to prove it are partly in his words before tranſcribed, partly in a new ſupply thereunto added. The firſt Reaſon in the former is,
B. 1. It is ſuch as Salvation dependeth on. ver. 14. Brevis eſſe laboro, Obſcurus fio.
No mans immoderate prolixity and tediouſneſs hath ever ſo much troubled mee, as this mans pretended affectation of conciſeneſs and brevity. By it, when hee ſpeakes nothing, he gets the advantage to bee thought of fooles, that he ſpeaketh great and myſticall things. Were it not that I regard ſuch as are too apt to run after his whiſtle though they know not his tune, I ſhould rather kick at ſuch Delphicke myſtericall paſſages of his, than take them up to looke on them. If James here take not juſtifying and ſaving for the ſame thing, then (to uſe Mr. Baxters words) I am not certaine what to be certaine off. So that when he ſaith it is ſuch a juſtification as ſalvation dependeth on, it is one as if hee had ſaid it is ſuch a juſtification as juſtification dependeth on, or ſuch a ſalvation as ſalvation dependeth on. The Apoſtle there ſpeaks of a dead and barren Faith, of a profeſſion not a being of Faith, and by an interrogation bearing the force of a ſtrong Negation, by ſaying, Can Faith, [or the ſaying that he hath Faith,] ſave him? he means, and ſaith, it cannot ſave him: and that is the ſame with him▪ as if he had ſaid, it cannot juſtifie him. Here wee have indeed an idle dreame of Faith that cannot ſave. But a Iuſtification that cannot juſtifie, or cannot ſave, or can juſtifie and not ſave, is as far from James as neare to Mr. Baxter.
B. 2. It is ſuch as followeth only a ſaving faith. But the world may as well juſtifie us when we have no Faith at all.
That the juſtification of the New Covenant in which God evidenceth by faith to us that we are juſtified in Chriſt, or the juſtification which conſiſteth in the evidencing by works to men the truth both of our Faith and Goſpel Juſtification, ſo far that in charity they are to regard us as truly beleeving, and truly juſtified; do both follow either ſaving faith, or that which in charity to them that profeſs it, men are to account a ſaving faith: none denieth. But it will not hence follow, that works juſtifie us at Gods Judgement ſeat, becauſe they follow faith that declareth and evidenceth us to our ſelves to be ſo juſtified. He comes with a new ſupply pa. 296.
B. Once more: 1. Was Abrahaem juſtified before men for a ſecret Action? 2. Or ſuch an Action as the killing of his only Son would have been?
1. Had the Action been kept ſecret from men, it could not have juſtified him before God or men. Not before God, for no actions as actions are the ground of his juſtifying us (as hath bin already abundantly proved.) Nor before men: for this action could not have declared the truth of his faith to them that never heard of the man or his Action. But God having ordeyned him to bee a Father of the Faithfull, and pattern of all beleevers to the worlds end, and to confer Bleſſedneſs with Abraham, upon all that walk in the ſteps of the Faith of our Father Abraham. Ro. 4. 9. 12. hath recorded this Action of his, to juſtifie and magnifie the truth of his Faith to all that in all ages ſhall beleeve, and to incite them by his patterne by the like eminent obedience to juſtifie their Faith alſo to others.
2. We are not to enquire what the evil world will judge of ſuch an Action, but whether Abraham, or rather the ſpirit of God working in and by Abraham, did not give in this Action a ſufficient demonſtration to convince the evill world (much more the ſaints choſen out of the world) of the truth of his Faith. Which conviction if the evill world will carnally neglect or curſedly oppoſe, it ſhall leave them the more inexcuſable in the day of Judgement.
B. Was not he the Juſtifier beer which was the imputer of Righteouſneſs? but God was the imputer of Righteouſneſs▪ ver. 23. Therefore God was the Juſtifier. So I leave that Interpretation to ſleep.
This is one of his extravagancies. He hath all this while diſputed of Juſtification by works: what he cannot prove of works, now he proves of Faith. James ſaith, Abraham beleeved God, and it was imputed to him for righteouſneſs. Was it imputed to him of God, for a partiall or for a perfect righteouſneſs? If but unto righteouſneſs in part, let him prove it, or ſtand guilty before God for perverting his word. If in the whole, then is there no place left for works to challenge a part. Or let him produce from James the like ſentence of works imputed to Abraham to Righteouſneſs; elſe he puts the handle of his Argument into our hands to retort it upon him. Abrahams Faith was imputed to him [by the teſtimony of Iames] to righteouſneſs; Ergo [by the teſtimony of Iames] works were not ſo imputed to him.
So [his Epiphonem] I leave that interpretation to ſleep, is the only ſound thing that he hath ſpoken to this queſtion. For he hath ſaid nothing that hath any power to awaken much leſs to rowze it: So that it may ſleep, and that ſecurely and in ſafety, becauſe they are but falſe Alarms that he ſoundeth againſt it.
The ſecond interpretation (as Mr. Br. terms it) or as it is indeed the ſecond homonymy or different ſenſe of words, wherin our Divines affirm Iames and Paul to ſpeak in ſound one, but in meaning diſagreeing eyther from other, is in the word [Faith] as hath been ſayd. Paul when he attributes juſtification to Faith without works, means a living faith fruitfull in good works. Iames where he denies Faith without works to juſtifie, means a dead faith, a meer profeſſion of faith that hath neither life nor being, much leſs fruitfulneſs in good works. That Iames takes the word Faith in this ſenſe appears by theſe Reaſons from the Text it ſelfe.
1. From the ſcope of his diſpute which we ſhall find to be (as I ſayd) to beat down the preſumption of carnall profeſſors, who repoſed the hope of ſalvation wholly upon a bare profeſſion of faith, though the faith wherof they boaſted had no vertue to ſanctification & obedience; and to prove that alone to be a juſtifying Faith which is alive to good works. This even Cajetan himſelf one of the pillarsCajetan in Jacob. of the Romiſh Church, giveth as the ſcope of the Text, as I have ſhewed; & he further expreſſeth himſelf thus: Adverte hic prudens Lector, quod Iacobus non ſentit Fidem ſine operibus mortuum eſſe &c. Quoniam conſtat nos per fidem juſtificari, etiam ſine operibus, ſed ſentit fidem ſine operibus, i. e. renuentem operâri, vel non paratam operari eſſe mortuum, eſſe vanam, & non juſtificare. That is, Let the prudent Reader heer note, that Iames means not that faith is dead without works [to accompany and help it in juſtifying us] for it is evident that faith juſtifieth, even without works: but his meaning is, that faith without works, that is, that refuſeth or is not in a readineſs to good works, is dead, vain, and juſtifieth not. Thus he makes the ſcope of James heer to prove that an idle and fruitleſs faith is not a ſaving or juſtifying faith. So that we find it eaſier in this argument to find the truth from the very Papiſts than from Mr. Br.
2. From the 14. ver. where James putting the queſtion of faith without works, ſaith not indefinitely, can faith, but annexeth the article to it, foreign, can this faith ſave? Is there power in ſuch a faith to ſave, which hath no power to ſanctifie? In like maner as heere, ver. 20. What in our Tranſlation is rendred faith [abſolutely] is there alſo in the Originall put with the reſtriction of the ſame article [that] faith which is without works is dead.
3. From the attributes that he gives to the faith to which he denieth juſtification, viz. a dead faith, ver. 17. 20. 26. A faith of Devils, ver. 19. But a dead and Devilliſh faith are not a true Goſpel faith, but at the beſt a figment and counterfeit thereof.
4. From the ſimilitude by which he illuſtrateth his diſputation: If a man in a pretence of charity, ſpeaks comfortable words to his hungry and naked brother, Alas poor ſoul be cloathed, be filled, but miniſtreth nothing to him for his refreſhing; will any call that flouriſh of words true charity? Is it any more then a paint therof? So alſo of him that ſaith hee hath faith, but evidenceth it not by its fruits &c. The verball faith doth no more profit to juſtification, than the verball charity to ſanctification. If one of theſe in the mind of the Author be true charity, then according to the minde of the Author alſo, the other is true Faith,
5. From the object of that Faith which James excludeth from Iuſtification, Mr. Baxter acknowledgeth that the object of juſtifying Faith is Chriſt, Theſ. 66.-68. and their explication. But let him ſhew that James doth here expreſly or impliedly, in any one paſſage of his diſpute, make Chriſt the object of that Faith which he excludes from juſtification: or any other object than the Faith of a meer Heathen or Hypocrite may pitch upon, viz. generall truths, that there is a God &c. elſe let him grant from his owne principles that it is not true Faith but an unprofitable Hiſtoricall Faith (as ſome terme it) which is here excluded.
Thus have our writers in anſwer to the Papiſts Cavills, expreſſed the minde of James in this place, or rather from him ſelfe declared what himſelfe expreſſeth to be his minde and this they expreſſe (not as Mr. Baxter perverts them) by ſome one, but by both of theſe interpretations viz. of the word [juſtifying] and the word [Faith] manifeſting out of James himſelfe, that as oft as in this diſpute he attributes juſtification to works, he ſpeaks of juſtification i e. the declaration or manifeſtation thereof to men. As when verſ. 21 Abraham, and ver. 25. Rahab and ver. 24. A man indefinitely, are ſaid to be juſtified by works, he meanes they are ſo manifeſted and declared by their works to us. This is a uſuall phraſe not only in Scripture, but in our common expreſſions and our common talk. I will juſtifie what I have ſpoken or done; i. e. I will declare it, make it appear to be all good, true, and juſt: I will juſtifie him from all that is layd to his charge, i. e. I will declare and prove him juſt and free from all that he is charged with. Again where hee denieth juſtification to that dead faith that worketh not by love: that by faith he means a falſe profeſſion and counterfeit of, and not the true juſtifying faith: and who among us ever ſaid, that to ſay, I have faith, (never expreſſing the power and fruits of it) can juſtifie a man? So there is nothing to be found in James croſſing the Proteſtant, yea Evangelicall and Apoſtolicall concluſion, that we are juſtified [in our conſciences before God] by faith alone without works, i. e. by a living and working, not a dead faith: yet without works can we not be declared and manifeſted juſt unto men.
That which Mr. Br. hath ſpoken againſt the former part of this interpretation, viz. juſtification before men, we have found to be either leſs or worſe than nothing. To the other, viz. the denying of juſtification to faith that is a counterfeit, a falſe profeſſion of faith, hee ſaith nothing; and why? becauſe hee hath not what to ſay. Therfore he ſtifles it in darknes, will not have his Reader hear of it, for then actum eſt, he muſt run to S. Francis, or ſome other Saint, S. James leaves him in the mire. It is no leſſe ludicrous than fallacious that he turns the ſtate of the queſtion another way, and danceth round about it, never comming to that which our Divines anſwer. 1. Having deviſed pag. 294. that we ſay James ſpeaks of works as juſtifying our faith, not our perſons, he doth pa. 296. goe about to prove that works juſtifie the perſon, not the faith only. And who ever denied this poſition? Doe not wee all ſay that the holy life declares the truth of faith, and therin juſtifieth (as to men) the profeſſor of it from all hypocriſie in making ſuch a profeſſion? 2. pag. 297. he falls foul with the Ghoſt of ſweet Mr. Pemble, for ſaying that by Faith and works Iames underſtands a working Faith. And after a ſharp chiding, without examining his Reaſons (the matter whereof I have before examined) at length p. 298. fetching breath, he offers him peace and friendſhip, upon condition that he will ariſe from the grave & ſay what Mr. Baxter ſaith. But deſpairing of that, and concluding, if he ſhould riſe again from the dead, he would ſtill ſay with the Proteſtant Churches and Writers, that Fides ſolùm juſtificat non autem fides ſola: Faith alone juſtifieth, but not that Faith which is alone [without works.] becauſe that alone faith is not a true Faith; he 3. Makes a tranſition to fall out with all Proteſtant Churches, for attributing too much to Faith, in making it inſtrumentall to Iuſtification: that when Believers are ſaid to receive Chriſt, Io. 1. 12. and to receive abundance of Grace, and of the gift of Righteouſneſſe, Rom. 5. 17. wee will not ſay they receive this Chriſt, this gift of his Righteouſneſſe to Iuſtification, without any receiving inſtrument, but make Faith the inſtrument by which we receive the ſame. p. 299. A moſt pernicious Doctrine to Mr. Baxters Cauſe. If it ſtand Mr. Baxters Iuſtification by workes in the ſame relation with Faith as its Concauſe, muſt needs fall and tumble downe to hell, for works will not be bowed into any inſtrumentality to co-operate with Faith in receiving Chriſt and his righteouſneſs. When contrariwiſe, if we would ſay as he doth, and which we muſt take his word without any further demonſtration, to bee true, then in deſpite of Paul and the Holy Ghoſt, our juſtification ſhould be parted between faith and works, and Mr. Brs. new Goſpel ſtand, the Goſpel of Grace being wholly taken out of the way as unprofitable.
But in all that he ſaith, hee diligently keeps off from ſpeaking a word to what our Divines ſay in proving from James himſelfe, that he means not true faith when hee denies to the counterfeit or profeſſion of it any efficacy to juſtifie; and let the conſcientious Reader judge whether he doth this in zeal for Chriſt or againſt him? Let none except that poſſibly hee never read any of them that have thus expounded James. What one of them hath he then read? Nay I rather queſtion what one of them hath he not read? or with what one thing is he unacquainted that any of them hath written? He is a ſtranger to Mr. Br. that will accuſe him of little reading. Even Mr. Pemble himſelfe whoſe words hee can almoſt if not altogether rehearſe without book, gives it as the common interpretation of Proteſtant Writers, ſo that he cannot be ignorant of it. Yet he ſaith nothing to it, and ſaith all to what none denieth. Is this ſincerity in handling the chiefe point of mans ſalvation? Such as hee begged from God upon his knees? or the uſe of that which he injoyns upon us▪ tenderneſs in the interpretation of Scriptures? But we muſt leave him in his own way becauſe hee is reſolute therein. Sith hee will not anſwer us, let us anſwer him, in theſe things which in ſtead of an anſwer to us, he would fiſh from the Text for himſelf.
Br. pag. 299. 1. When it is ſayd we are juſtified by works, the word [by] implieth more than an idle concomitancy, if they only ſtood by, while Faith doth all, it could not be ſayd wee are juſtified by works.
We grant it doth much, yea almoſt all, in the juſtification wherof James there ſpeaks, viz. before men. And this is that which he ſpeaketh. ver. 21. 22. 23. of Abrahams juſtification by works, fulfilling that Scripture which ſayth, Abraham beleeved God, and it was imputed to him for righteouſneſs. How did his juſtification by works fulfill the Scripture which affirmed him to be juſtified by faith? but as this great work and fruit of his faith declared and manifeſted to men the truth of that Scripture, and the truth of his faith by which he was ſo many yeers before juſtified.
B. p. 300. 2. When the Apoſtle ſaith, [by workes and not by faith onelyonly] hee plainly makes them concomitant in the procurement, or in that kinde of cauſality which they have: eſpecially ſeeing he ſaith not as he is commonly interpreted, [Not by Faith which is alone] but [By Faith onelyonly.] foreign.
All is granted as before, of the juſtification before men. The profeſſion of Faith, or to ſay we have Faith is not ſufficient without declaring it by works ſo to juſtifie us. Therefore ſaith the Apoſtle, Shew me (if thou canſt) thy Faith without thy works, and I will ſhew thee my Faith by my works, verſ. 18.
B. 3. Therefore he ſaith that [Faith is dead being alone] becauſe it is dead to the uſe and purpoſe of juſtifying: for in it ſelfe it hath a life according to its quality ſtill. This appears from his compariſon in the former verſe. 16 that this is the death he ſpeaks of. And ſo works make Faith alive as to the attainment of its end of Juſtification.
We grant that the hypocriticall profeſſion of Faith which James reproveth, is as all other ſinne, alive to condemne the unbelievers and unjuſtified, but dead to the uſe of juſtifying us in our conſciences before God, or outwardly before men. But that the addition of workes to ſuch a dead Faith can make it alive to juſtifie a man before God, we deny, neither doth James affirm; though there may be ſome force that way to his juſtification before men, who are ſubject to failings in their judgement.
In the fourth place he findes ſomething to ſay for, and ſomething againſt the Analyſis of Piſcator and Mr. Pemble. When he would depreſſe it at the utmoſt, he can onelyonly ſay that they ſeeme to faile in the Explication of the 22. verſe about the foreign, Faiths working with Abrahams workes, and perfecting by workes. In this I leave the Reader to peruſe Mr. Baxter, and them whom hee oppoſeth, from thence to judge which party layes the ſurer ground of their interpretation. As to the queſtion in hand, the working of both together to juſtifie and declare his faith perfect or ſincere to men, doth nothing ſtrengthen his aſſertion, or weaken ours.
The reſt that hee hath in this Section are meere words without proofs: as alſo his Anſwer given to ſome Objections made on our part, and the ſame ſo curt, that the beſt examination of them is to leave them unexamined, untill he bring ſomthing to prove them. Yet what of all that hee ſaith heere hath, or ſeemes to have force to ſome other end, I may poſſibly in its proper place call it into Examination.