CHAP. I.

THE first passage wherein he sheweth himself to smel of Popery in the point of Faith and Justification, is (before the work it self) in the farewell of his Epistle to the Reader, pag. antepenult. of the Epi­stle, where he doth not obscurely manifest him­self to like well enough the Papists doctrine of Implicit Faith, and to wish it more favoured, and taken up at home among us. His words are these, speaking to his Congregation,

A very proper insinuation to a people whom he would have to swallow such Doctrines as in the following Treatise he offers to them to be swallowed. As far as he prevails, or prevails not with this insinuation, so far he hath or hath not men his Disciples. This is the very foundation of Antichrists kingdom, the authority of men, as the foundation of Christs kingdom is the authority of the Scriptures. If Mr. Baxter can perswade men to admit and suck in this Doctrine, his whole business is finished, and all his ends attai­ned. If they take upon trust even fundamentall doctrines from their teachers, Let Mr. Baxter bring what doctrines he will with him of men and Devils, nothing shall be refused, all shall be taken upon his Credit. By this slight he knew the Pope had gathered, and many hundred years held under his vassallage in blind obedi­ence many nations of the earth, therefore will not Mr. Baxter baulk it, when hee goes about to propagate the Popes doctrine among us.

But let us see what the Popish implicit faith is, and then com­pare Mr. Baxter with the Papists, to see whether there be not in both one mind and spirit. The Papists distinguish betwixt Faith and Faith, telling us there is an Explicit and there is an Implicit Faith. By the Explicit Faith they mean a cleer and distinct knowledg, ap­prehension, and believeng of all the Articles and Doctrines of faith which the holy Mother Church of Rome hath prescribed to be re­ceived to salvation, and that not in a bunch only, but in particu­lars also. This Faith they hold needful and expedient in the Cler­gy (as they term their Prelats and Priests) who are to rule over, more than to teach the people. By the Implicite Faith they mean a generall and confused apprehension and believing of all that the Church hath commanded to be taught and believed; that it is all good and true, though they that so believe, know not in particu­lar what the Church hath commanded, otherwise than they take it upon trust of their Priests which tell them such and such things are commanded by the Church to be believed. This Faith they hold sufficient for the Laity to salvation, to believe what the Church believeth and enjoyneth to be true, though they neither know what it is, nor are acquainted with one least parcell of the word [Page 3] by which they may know it to be true, which they have so taken upon trust to believe. By the Church they mean the Pope and his Clergy, by the Laity the people: So that by their Doctrine, if the Popes decree things in religion successively never so contrary, and contradictory either to other, and the titular Clergy follow them, and go to Hell for it; yet the people have this one supereminent priviledg that their Implicit and Colliers faith saves them (as be­ing still the same and unchanged) that they believe as the Church believeth; though they know not either w ^t the Church or what believing is, or what the things are w ^ch the Church believeth.

Compare we now Mr. Baxters words with this popish doctrine, and see we if there be any difference. I hope (saith he) you under­stand. When Mr. Baxter saith I hope, we are not to doubt but a man of such rare parts hath good grounds for his hope. He knew there was means used to make them understand, else would he not say, I hope you understand; and what means but teaching? and who should teach them but Mr. Baxter their Teacher?

But what is it he hopes they understand? it followeth: That to take upon the trust of your Teachers, what you cannot yet see in its own e­vidence, is not, &c. Here is the Implicit Faith, not to ground their opinions and belief in matters of salvation, upon the known word of God, but upon trust from the Teachers, to believe because their Teachers say they belive it. And what are the Teachers, but what in Popish phrase is termed the Church, the Clergy, which is in their account at least the Church representative. And Mr. Baxter to decline envy useth the plurall number, Teachers, not (as I con­ceive) that the people of Kederminster have more Teachers in ordi­nary besides himself, for he names himself in the Title of the book their unworthy Teacher, not one of their Teachers, so that his purpose is to deliver a general rule for all Churches: His congragation to take upon trust from him and other Congregations from their Teachers, what they themselves cannot reach to see in its own evi­dence, i. e. such doctrines as they themselves by their own light and knowledg cannot tell whether they be white or black, true or false, from Heaven or from Hell. And to do this, is lesse absurd and more necessary then many imagin. Mr. Baxter is scarce yet beginning to discover himself, therefore we have yet Bona Verba from him, we hear him speaking modestly; afterward vires acquirit eundo, we shall when once he is hot in his discourse hear him speak in the full of the mouth; here only he saith less absurd and more necessary than some ima­gin. [Page 4] But who knows not his meaning to be, that for the people thus to pin their Faith to the sleeves of their Teachers, specially to such profound Teachers as Mr. Baxter, is so far from being absurd as that it is necessary (I suppose he meaneth to salvation) though some imbegin otherwise.

Here I would demand (not of Mr. Baxter, for I desire not fami­liarity with him while such an Aphorist) but of any knowing man indulgent to him, when he saith, less absurd and more necessary, than some imagine; whom can he mean by those some, but the Protestant Churches and Divines, who at all times with one consent have cryed out against the absurdity of this doctrine, in their disputati­ons against the Papists? And if so, what doth he less therein than pronounce the Popish Doctrine herein necessary, and the doctrine of all the Protestants in opposition to it, a meer imagination?

But it may be objected, that the Papists lay down this doctrine of Implicit Faith, or believing upon the authority of the Church, or their Teachers, for a continual rule to the people. But Mr. Baxter proposeth it but as a temporary rule, useful only for a sea­son. Therefore the difference between him and them is considera­ble: For so much may be gathered from Mr. Baxters words, to take upon trust from your Teachers, what you cannot Yet reach to see in its own Evidence. It is but while they are yet weak, while they can­not yet reach, &c. But when once they are strengthened, and have attained to see truths in their own evidence, thenceforth they are to take up such doctrines upon their own evidence, not upon trust from their Teachers any longer.

I answer, This difference is but supposed, not reall. For if we compare his words here with that which he hath written in the next Section of this Epistle before, and with the whole frame and current of of his disputes, throughout his whole book, we shal find that he doth equally with the Papists labour to settle the people in an implicit faith to believe as the Church believeth still. For in the former Sect▪ he that knoweth best his own congregation, acknow­ledgeth it to be in the number of those, the greatest part whereof is unca­pable af understanding such controverted points as are treated of in his book. He saith not only that they understand them not, but also denyeth them to be in a capacity to be brought to the understanding of them, viz. in their own evidence, therefore they must still hold them upon trust from their Teachers.

Besides, if we look to the frame of his Disputes in this Treatise, [Page 5] we shall find him concurring with the Papists, in his indeavours to keep the people in a perpetuall incapacity to understand such Do­ctrines in their own evidence. For what else can he mean by see­ing a point of divine doctrine in its own evidence, but one of these two things, to see it in the evidence and cleer testimony of the word by which God hath set it forth? or to see it in the evidence of So­phistical learning and disputes, by which Mr. Baxter and the Sophi­sters whom he followeth, pretend themselves to set it forth? But by neither of these will Mr. Baxter or the Popish Sophisters (if they can hinder it) suffer the vulgar people to know any Evangelicall truth in its own evidence. Not by the evidence of the Scriptures, by which God hath cleered up, and so plainly revealed the funda­mental truths of salvation, that even babes and sucklings may in good measure comprehend them, Mat. 11. 25. 1 Cor. 1. 26. For here with his Masters the Romish Sophisters, hee raiseth vain and distracting questions, making difficulties where the wisedom of God hath left none, and so puzling weak and tender consciences, that even what before they had attained by the pure and simple light of the word, seeing now such a thick fogg of doubts interpo­sed, they think themselves to have lost what light once they had, and so sink into sadness and despair, concluding it utterly unat­tainable. What zeal Mr. Baxter hath thus not only to match, but also to exceed all the locusts of Rome in darkning such truths as Christ hath in Scripture left cleer and open to all, shining in the very Sun-beams of the Gospel, we shall find in examining the fol­lowing parts of his Treatise. So that in this respect he hinders, as much as in him lyeth, his Kederminsterians from seeing the truth of Christ in its own evidence.

Nor by the latter (Mr. Baxters sophistical way of quenching un­der a pretence of confirming Gospel-truth) can the vulgar ever at­tain to know them in their own evidences, not only because this humane Learning hath no power to search into them, but also be­cause it is not to be expected that illiterate men should ever attain any depth in this learning. For if it be true what is generally held by Mr. Baxter and his side, that without great acquaintance with school-learning, the marrow of Divinity can never be effectually pierced into; and what a great Scholler once told Erasmus, that one of these School-Doctors John Scotus, can in no wise be understood under nine years study at the least; and what a 3 ^d affirmeth, that a man must have Aristotles Metaphysicks ad unguem, before he can be ca­pable [Page 6] of understanding one sentence of Scotus; Farewell then all hope of saving knowledg ever to be attained by unscotified misera­ble idiots, in its own evidence, or by the Ministeriall help of such Teachers as have crept here below upon the Doctrine of Christ his Prophets and Apostles, and not had so much time and patience as Mr. Baxter hath bestowed in the sublimated study of Aristotle, Scotus, and their fellows.

But what if Mr. Baxter herein speak the same things (may some say) with the Church of Rome, and the same in opposition to the judgment of all the Reformed Churches, yet this doth not cer­tainly prove that it is savouring of error which he here delivereth, except it be manifested that he speaketh against the Scriptures. Doth the word any where forbid us to take up points of Faith on the credit of our Teachers, though we understand not the points which they teach, much less can produce any Scriptures surely and soundly to confirm them?

I answer, that the Scriptures are very full and punctuall against taking upon trust of meer men any doctrine to be believed to salva­tion. Be not ye called Masters, for one is your Master, even Christ, Mat. 23. 10. q. d. Dare not any of you to suffer any to take up matters in Religion upon your trust or authority? For there is but one un­erring Mr. whose authority is authentick, Christ Jesus. If Paul or an Angell from heaven preach any other Gospel to you, &c. let him be ac­cursed, Gal. 1. 8. therefore not trusted. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, 1 Thes. 5. 21. Believe not every Spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God: For many false Prophets are gone forth into the world, 1 Joh. 4. 1. When the Holy Ghost saith, Prove all, Try all, he implyedly forbids to take up any thing on trust from men. My sheep hear my voyce, the voyce of a stranger they will not hear, for they know not, i. e. own not the voyce of strangers, Joh. 10. 4, 5, 27. They know and own the voyce of Christ alone: If any preach with another voyce, another doctrine than that which is originally from Christ, they fly from him, explode him. Here is nothing ta­ken upon trust but from Christ himself. They are built upon the foun­dation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ being the head corner­stone, Eph. 2. 20. A more noble foundation than the trust and au­thority of men.

I might annex many like testimonies of divine Scripture to the same purpose, but to what purpose? They are Deceivers, such as the Apostle numbreth among grievous wolves, speakers of perverse [Page 7] things, i. e. perverters of the Gospel of Christ, that seeke to draw Dis­ciples after them, i. e. to settle men in a Faith upon the authority of their learning, wisedom, and holiness, Acts 20. 29, 30. But M ^r Baxter and his peers are necessitated thus to do, if in teaching such doctrines they will draw after them Disciples; For being destitute of the authority of God and his word, if they should not urge men to a credulity upon the authority of men, their doctrine would be hissed at as having no authority.

To conclude then; the doctrine which Mr. Baxter here more than obscurely holds forth is,

1 Against Christ, and all the Reformed Churches which con­demn it, borrowed of, and owned by the apostatized Synagoue of Rome only.

2 Against the Scripture, as hath been manifested.

3 It is a doctrine that brings with it an unsetledness and instabi­lity in Faith and Religion. Whosoever takes it up from Mr. Bax­ters credit, must be always learning, and never know, be whirled hither and thither with doubts and uncertainties, without any firm station, never attaining rest. For he that taketh upon trust from his Teachers what to believe and do to be saved, will one day be of Paul, another of Apollo, and a third of Cephas, as his fancy tels him, this or that Teacher is most worthy to be trusted. In great proba­bility Mr. Baxters predecessor taught not the same Justification with Mr. Baxter, and he that shall succeed him will hold out the same grounds and way of justification with Christ and his Apostles which Mr. Baxter declineth. And I know not but either of them may be as worthy of Trust as himself. In what a maze must that people then be led, by what turnings and returnings must they be dragged forward and backward, who are taught to take up do­ctrines on the trust of their Teachers? what joy in believing can they ever have, whose rule in believing is to be never setled in their faith, but to be still wavering? His Disciples must needs be meer weather-cocks, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craf [...]inesse, whereby they lay in wait to deceive, Eph. 4. 14.

4 It is a doctrine that makes way for all Heresie, Blasphemy, and Impiety into the hearts of the people. For when Religion is taken upon trust from the Teachers, Satan will transform himself into an Angel of light, and his Ministers themselves into Ministers of Righteousness, to gain credit and opinion of wisdom and holiness [Page 8] above others among the people, that upon their trust at last the people may swallow all falshoods under the name of Truth, what­soever they shall commend to them, 2 Cor. 11. 13-15. See whi­ther the Galathians were carryed by taking upon trust from their seemingly Angelical Teachers doctrines of faith. Christ is become of no effect to you, ye are faln from grace, saith the Apostle to them, Gal. 5. 4. Surely the doctrine of Mr. Baxter is the same in generall and substance, with theirs that corrupted and seduced Galatia. The Lord avert the like success from Kederminster.

5 It is a Doctrine pernicious in it self, and brings a curse upon them that receive it in the very receiving of it. For cursed is man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, whose heart departeth from the Lord, Jer. 17. 5. If so in earthly, much more in spirituall things. So much of this point, in which having found what Mr. Baxter is before his entrance upon the bulk of his work, we may easily con­jecture what a one we shall find him, being entred.

CHAP. II.

IN the former Chapter we have found Mr. Baxter before his en­trance upon his Treatise, somewhat discovering with whom he joyns in opinion, so far that we may discern and guess ex ungue leonem, by one little piece of the man, what he is in his whole bulk and frame. It contents him not to be one and the same with the Papists in his judgment, but that he will next also discover himself to be the same with them in their slights and artifice, to bring all others into the same judgment and opinion with them. That generation of the Popish Schoolmen are fitly likened by Sir Francis Bacon, in his Advancement of learning, to Spiders, which spin out their webbs out of their own bowels. So these spinn all their doctrines in religion out of their own brains, their own reason, naming Christ sometimes therein, but rather hiding and darkning the authority of his word, than following it as their leading threed in all their doctrines. All their writings about Evangelicall and saving points of knowledg, are but as so many webs of their fancy [Page 9] to catch and carry away from the purity of Christs Gospel; not so many well-ordered threeds of sacred Scriptures to guide and bring us to him. Who is there of all that have but cursorily read their works, that finds them not consisting of large heaps of needless and superfluous questions, to obscure the light of the word, and to bring all to the tryall of reason, yea sophisticall and sophisticated reason, surmounting the reason and capacity of the people to comprehend? And these questions which they spin and spit out by dozens, yea hundreds & thousands, as they are mostly superfluous, vain, useless, and many of them presumptuously and arrogantly proposed, about things which the Lord hath kept secret in his own bosom, not revealing them by his word: so are they oft no less per­emptorily and audaciously by these men answered and determined out of their Philosophicall and Metaphysicall fancies, without one particle of the word to ground their determinations upon. Thus by their questionary sophistry they have both obscured, if not to­tally quenched all true Divinity, i. e. the Doctrine of the Gospel, and have foysted in a confused Chaos of titular Divinity, that hath nothing of light or life in it, such as the Scripture owns not, from their own reason.

Compare we now Mr. Baxter with these, to see whether as the Apostle calleth Timothy his own, or his naturall son in the faith, 1 Tim. 1. 2. because he walked directly after him in the steps of his faith: So Mr. Baxter doth not also declare himself the own and naturall sonn of these sophisters, by walking directly after them in the steps of their cunning and subtlety to destroy the Faith. The Poets feigned that Minerva was begotten and born of Jupiters brain, because she was all wisedom it self. And I think Mr. Baxter would be offended, if it should be denyed that all the quintissence of sophisticall learning that hath been in all the brains of all the Schoolmen and Jesuits, were not so extracted from them, as to have its residency now in his. He was (as far as I can understand) born and brought up in the Protestant Church within this nation, as Costor, Pollux, &c. were in the house of Leda; but by a new and strange generation or adop­tion of eggs layd by these Serpents, he discovers himself now in a manner to be wholly theirs: so fully doth he resemble, yea paral­lel them, that unum nôris, omnes nôris; you may read in him alone, the Genius and the Craft of them all. Attend we els to his own words in his explication of his 7 ^th Thesis, pag. 25, &c. All that he hath written before, I passe by without exception against it, pag. [Page 10] 19. he layeth down his 7. Aphorism in these words:

To this as to the rest he addeth that which he calleth an Explica­tion, i. e. an Exposition, explainning or making plain of the A­phorism or point so laid. Let us trace him how now he makes it plain, beginning at the 25. p. before mentioned. I should be too large to write all his words, yet shall not wrong him by writing any save his own words, or the very substance of them.

Admirable profoundness and learning! but after all this stirr, and such egregiously deep speculations as preparatories to the de­termining of the first question, whether Christ did discharge our debt by way of solution, or by way of satisfaction? how doth he at length determine it?

And so he leaves us so wise, as if he had slept and said nothing. But afterwards recalling himself, though he can conclude nothing as to the forementioned particular preparatories to the determi­nation of the question; yet p. 35. to the substance of it in generall he thus answereth.

I list not to quarrel with him about the conclusion, it being not a point mainly controverted between us and the Papists. Only who sees not that he might as easily have thus concluded, without medling with so many frivolous and arrogant questions, leaving them where he found them, as not giving the least fulture to such a conclusion? And when he hath thus determined the question, they that lock up to themselves his Conclusion as a treasure, shall gaine so much by it as he that rejoyceth of a chip in his pottage. Possibly it may do no hurt, but certainly it will do no good to salva­tion.

But the answer to the second question comes without the help or push of a leaver to heave it after, viz. whether the threatning was executed, or relaxed and dispensed with?

Both alike; for were it worth the scanning, we should find both either answered or unanswered: and the things searched after, no less plain to be seen and taken up than a needle in a bottle of hay. And so much M. Baxter seeth, for he comes after, 1 with his distin­ction.

When I attain the meaning of the words, I shall be able to judg of the strength of the reason therein contained. And 2 ^ly he brings in a doubt, viz.

And a little further Conference with these Diviners rather than Divines (it seemeth) would make him of their minds. And so the answer to the question depends upon ifs, if Mr. Baxter change his mind, his answer must fall after him. In the mean while the third question must depend upon the uncertain answer to the second.

Lo the answer to the former question is stuck so deep in the mire, that the best Team in Worcestershire cannot draw it out. Never­theless such an artizan is Mr. Baxter, that with the spell of a few di­stinctions, he doth it while a man would wipe his mouth, thus.

See, he is half out of the labyrinth already, and never moves a finger for it. O rare dexterity! It costs a little more labour to get free from the other half, and thus de doth it.

And now I Answer.

1. The end of the Law is the Law, and that being the mani­festation of Gods justice, and hatred of sin, &c. was fulfilled, [Page 14] and therefore the Law was fulfilled Let the Judg of as­sizes then chide, and lay by the feet a mur­therer for an hour, declaring therby his justice and hatred of the offēce. M. Baxter must con­clude him to be a just Judg, & to have fulfil­led the Law, if hereupon he forth-with discharge him.. 2. Most think that the threatning had this reserved exception. Thou shalt dye, i. e. by thy self or thy surety: and though it be sinfull for man to speak with mentall reservations, when he pretends to reveal his mind, yet not in God, because as he is subject to no law, so he is not bound to reveal to us all his mind, nor doth he in­deed pretend any such thing. 3. So that the sense of the same is fulfilled. 4. But the special answer that I give is this, when threatnings are meerly parts of the Law, and not also predicti­ons of the event, and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabouts, then they may be dispensed with without any breach of truth. For as when God saith, Thou shalt not eat of the tree, &c. the mea­ning is only, It is thy duty not to eat, and not eventually that he should not eat. So when he saith, Thou shalt dye the death, the meaning is, Death shall be the due reward of thy sin, and so may be inflicted for it at my pleasure; and not that he should certainly suffer it in the event This Doctrine wipes off all feare from scandalous sinners having this plea put into their mouth by Mr. Baxter: God hath said, thou shalt not so offend but his meaning is not that I should eventually abstain, and hath said, Thou shalt be condemned, not meaning eventually to execute it. Ergo, I may go on in sin without fear..

Read the rest he that loves it, I have enough even to nauseous­ness. What Jesuite reading this will not cry out, O delicatum animu­lum, a babe of the same mould with the Scholastick Doctors of the holy mother Church, li [...]ked by them Bear like into their own form. If Scotus could now awake to see how this man hath impro­ved and perfected his method in disputing, it is a question whether envy or joy would more work in him. It was his rule to evidence ignotum per ignotius, an obscure point by that which is more ob­scure. This man hath proceeded further, to illustrate and prove Notissima, per ignotissima, that which is most cleer of it self, by that which is as dark as darkness it self. For what more evident and plain than the Aporism or Doctrine which he doth here pretend­edly explain? but the explication it self a dark labyrinth. Let A­quinas now and his Cajetan riding him with his Comments, both together, yea the whole rabble of the Scholasticks appear, and shew whether among them all there be any that in so short a room and narrow a compass couched together so many subtle questions, backed them with so many dainty distinctions, and then answered them with so much profoundness as this one Mr. Baxter? Oh hap­py [Page 15] Kederminsterians that have attained such an Expounder and Ex­plainer of sacred things, whom when they have heard and read, if they attend exactly to him, what they saw before cleerly of Christ, they shall so see no more! How can they ever stray which have such a leader guiding them with a dark Lanthorn? By that time that Master Baxter hath so fully and learnedly explained all other do­ctrines of the Gospel to them as he hath this Aphorism, they shall be able to see so farr into the mysteries of Christ, as they can kenn at Sea thorow a planck six inches thick.

Nevertheless Mr. Baxter (I suppose will not deny but that he hath left unto others (if there be any that have so much wanton­ness in the quirpo of their fancies, and such profligated conscien­ces, that they dare to play with sacred things) a power to derive from the Schoolmen whom he followeth, so many pertinent or impertinent questions, so many vain and sophisticall distinctions, that their gleaning shall match his vintage; and with these may stand in opposition to Mr. Baxter so stoutly, that they may con­clude in all things no less uncertainly than himself: so that after many and long disputes in this Scholastick way, wholly in con­tradiction to him, they may prove themselves to be as far estranged from the plainness and simplicity of the Gospel, as himself seems ambitious to be found.

CHAP. III.

BUt having spoken somewhat largely of this kind of learning in the Preface to prevent length and tediousness in the follow­ing discourse, I shall here only oppose some questions to his que­stions, and pass away. And in these questions I shall be an appealer to Mr. Baxters conscience only.

1. Whether he hath learned this Art of subtle, superfluous, and unscriptural questions and distinctions to explain holy and evan­gicall [Page 16] dioctrines, from the Lord Christ or his Apostles, or from any solid, humble, and orthodox Divines ancient or modern? and not wholly from the Popish Doctors and their adherents, Grotius, Soci­nus, Arminius, and their Disciples?

2. Whether in this questionary and distinctionary way of dis­pute, his purpose be not contrary to what he pretends (the expli­cation of Divine truth) even the same with the Papists whom he followeth, to dim the truth, that having left it in a mist, he may take the advantage to foyst upon mens consciences the fancies and errors of his own brain under the name of truth?

3. Whether it be not intolerable arrogance and presumption a­gainst the Most High God, not to rest contented with that which he hath revealed by his word, but audaciously to search into his se­crets which he hath kept hidden in his own bosom? himself ac­knowledging that the H: G: speaketh in Scripture very sparingly ( i. e. indeed not at all) of many things that he here hath so per­emptorily questioned and disputed of, yet hath the front from so­phisticated reason to argue and determine of them. Is not this proudly to pry into the Ark of Gods presence, and uncalled, to make himself of Gods Cauncell? If the Lord Jesus in a way of re­buke tells his Disciples, It is not for them (though deputed to a greater and higher charge than Mr. Baxter) to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put in his own power, when they sought (not from their Rabbies, nor from pur-blind reason, nor from their own deceitfull brains, but) from the oracle of Christs lips, when the kingdom should be restored to Israel; under what rebuke lies Mr. Baxter and his fellows, which audaciously search after the things which the Father hath put in his own power, to be there hidden untill he shall be pleased to reveal them, and them to search after, not from the lips of Christ, but from their own mad reason and reasonings? Is not this knwledg a forbidden fruit? and will not the lusting after it bring vengeance?

4. Whether this were not the sin of Elimas the sorcerer, who being full of subtlety and mischief, perverted the right wayes of the Lord, Act. 13. 10. What were the right ways of the Lord, but the pure Gos­pel which the Apostle had preached in its simplicity and plainness? And what was Elimas his perverting thereof, but the use of his sub­tlety and mischief, in his disputes to make that which in Pauls prea­ching was plain, right and straight, to seem absurd, abstruse and crooked? doth Mr. Baxter either here or throughout his whole [Page 17] book cease to use the like subtlety? what more plain and streight than the Thesis or point here laid down by himself? or what is his endeavour in his explication thereof, but with his subtle questions and distinctions to leave so crooked and so manifold windings up­on it, that he makes it a very Labyrinth; that without his Clew, or with it, there is scarce a possibility of passage in safety thorow it? And the like operations of his we shall find every where in this book.

5. Whether he be not in such his disputes captious of praise to himself, seeking his own, not Gods glory? and as it tickled the ear of Demosthenes to hear the people whispering, yonder comes the eloquent Demosthenes: So whether he hath not an itching ambition to be accounted and called the profound and learned Mr. Baxter, the great Reader, the man of deepest speculations and matchless com­prehensions? I do but appeal to his Conscience. For my part I cannot with my dull apprehension as much as conjecture, what els he can in some passages of this work aim at in using so much sophi­stry, when there is no need of it, neither doth it as farr as I can see, any whit further him to the end at which he driveth, unless it be his own praise among unspirituall men, and to make his authority the greater to deceive.

6. Whether he offends not here and elsewhere against the rule of the Apostle who enjoyneth upon all to take heed of high thoughts of themselves, and to be wise to sobriety, Rom. 12. 3. i. e. not to mount above their reach and measure. And what shall be accounted a wisedom without and against sobriety, if not that which intru­deth it self into the things of God which it hath pleased him not to reveal, pretending an ability with the key of secular learning to unlock the Cabinet of [...]ods Counsells to which the most glorious Angels never dared to approach? The Christian Spirit is the meek and modest Spirit, where the Scripture is not the instructor, con­tents it self to be ignorant, concluding with Tertullian, Quis reve­labit Tert. lib. de Anima fere in Princi­pio. quod Deus texit? unde sciseitandum est? unde & ignorare tutissimum est. Praestat per Deum nescire quia non Revelaverit, quam per hominem scire, quia ipse presumpserit, i. e. Who shall reveal what God hath covered? whence [in such case] shall we make enquiry? [...]ea hence to be ignorant is most fafe. It is better not to know by [the will of] God, because he hath not revealed it, than [to seem] to know by man because he hath presumed.

7. Whether he doth not cross another precept of the Apostle, 1 [Page 18] Tim. 6. 20. peculiarly appropriated to all Ministers under the name and person of Timothy? O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoyding prophane and vain bablings, and oppositi­ons of science falsly so called. He cannot, none can deny the thing committed to Timothies trust, to be the Gospel in its verity, purity, and simplicity. This therefore he is charged to keep, to make it his business to preserve it alive and inviolated within him, to keep and hold himself closely to it, without deviating to any other studies as helpfull to salvation. Therefore to avoid vain bablings and op­positions of science falsly so called. Neither will Mr. Baxter deny, and all Commentators affirm the thing to be avoyded here, to be sophisticall and philosophical disputes; which if intermixed with the Doctrine of the Gospel, are here termed prophane and vain babling, which hath the name and opinion of science or wisdom in the opinion of men, but is falsly so called and reputed. Doth not Mr. Baxter here see himself set aside by the Holy Ghost for a prophane and vain babler? and his learning and wisdom explo­ded as shady and false, having nothing of substance and truth in it?

8. Whether he doth not by this way of disputing (as much as in him is) uncanonize and make void the word? For if he hold with the Apostle that the holy Scripture is sufficient and able to make men wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 3. 15. why doth he not stick to it? what els doth his so oft and foul digressions from it, to fetch ayd from his sophistry, but argue that he holds the Scripture to be invalid to save, and that there is either an equall or greater power in his sophistry to make men wise and perfect to salvation?

9. Whether it doth not bewray his Cause to be naught, that he knows it to be naught, therfore seeks to bear it up with such slights & feats as a good Cause needeth not? When we see a house propped up on every side, at every end with posts, stakes and pillars, who concludes not, surely it is a ruinous and rotten building that needs so many supporters? It is not for the maintenance of the A­phorism or Doctrine which Mr. Baxter doth here pretendedly ex­plicate, that he doth tye knots and unty them, bind and loose with such a hurry of questions and distinctions. This doctrine stands firm enough upon its own bottom. Conscious he is therefore of a rotten building, which he means in the following part of this Treatise, to erect, and therefore furnisheth himself with so many [Page 19] posts and stakes to under-prop it. It is well observed by Mr. Pem­ble out of Erasmus, Malè res agitur ubi opus est tot remedijs. It is a cer­tain Pemb. of Justis. Sect. 2. Cap. 1 p. 37. sign of an untrue opinion when it must be bolstered up with so many distinctions. And if the Cause be naught, and the defender know it, yet persists to defend it, then are the Cause and the man both alike.

10. Whether this kind of Argumentation doth not declare Mr. Baxter to be of another spirit from Christ and his Apostles, Christ came into the world to preach the Gospel to the poor, Lu. 4. 18. to give sight to the blind, that they which see not might see, Joh. 9. 39. And Paul discended low nurslike with flattering speech unto the weak as to babes in Christ, feeding them with milk and not with meat, untill they be­came capable to digest it, 1 Cor. 2. 1.—4 & 3. 1, 2. likewise also the rest of the Apostles. But this man soareth on high unto the up­most region of the Airy element, above the kenn and reach of weak Christians, such as he acknowledgeth them (for the greatest part to be) for whose sake chiefly he wrote this, speaking not to the comprehension of any, save of such windy ones as himself, at least to the delight of no other; so elevated seems he with the vain-glo­ry of his own excellencies. And do not these contrary operations somwhat argue a contrary spirit moving him? I mean contrary to that which moved in Christ and his Apostles.

11. Whether it tends not to the quenching of the comfort, and hazzarding of the salvation of weak Christians? 1 to the quen­ching of their comfort. For when from the pure word of God, not sophisticated with the intermixture of mans wisedom and inventi­ons, they have attained to believe and joy in believing, and living by faith in Christ, rejoyce in the grace and light of Gods counte­nance shining upon them thorow him; meeting with Mr. Baxters work, and finding therein, so holy, so incomparable a man for learning and piety, scattering so many doubts, and puzling que­stions about the very beginning, & foundation of our redemption, that himself cannot answer himself otherwise than by conjectures, peradventure it may be thus, and it may be it is so: The poor souls are apt to fall foul upon themselves, for that they have been so au­dacious to believe any thing, seeing now so many doubts and un­certainties; and to account all their former joyes in Christ to be a delusion: and being unable to make out the mystery of their re­demption to themselves in his sophisticall way, they lye down and sink under the burthen of their sorrow as hopeless. It tends to the [Page 20] hazzarding of their salvation also. For while he goes about to make them philosophicall Christians, Popish and Socinian Chri­stians, to live not by faith but by sense, not by the word of Gods mouth, but by reason, so far only to believe as they see reasons in nature to support their faith (for hereunto all Mr. Baxters dis­putes are levelled) he makes indeed all that will be his Disciples no Christians. And suppose that Mr. Baxter hath a great confidence by his sophistical distinctions and arguments even to wrest from the Lord Christ a crown for himself in the day of judgement: yet what shall become of his unlearned Disciples, that are not so nimble So­phisters, nor have their d [...]stinctions at the fingers end so ready as their Master? These must sink under the sentence of Christ, having the word against, and not being able to plead reason enough ar­tificially and subtlely for themselves.

12. Whether it tends not to the corrupting and depraving of all the people of God within the Land? Mr. Baxter is no longer a stu­dent, but the highest graduate in policy, in that piece of policy at least now most in use, to see and prosecute the neerest and readiest way to the attainment of his own ends. His end in this work who sees not to be the poysoning of this whole Nation with the worst of Popish errors. For the attainment hereof his whole endea­vour and wit is employed to poyson therewith the Ministry (as I have before shewed) For his sophistry is of little force to be­guile the ignorant which understand it not. Therefore notwith­standing all his specious pretences he lays, and spins out his webbs, to catch the learned, them at least that have some pieces of learning in them. These he knows to be the pipes and sluces thorow which the water of life is to be conveyed thorow the Land: If these be poysoned or tainted, the tainture and poyson will be conveyed to all that come to dip the water of life from them. They are the light of the world; if he can prevail to turn this light into darkness, how great will be the darkness of this our little world?

13. Whether that kind of learning which he venteth so abund­antly, and trusteth in so confidently, be not that secular wisedom which the Lord hath even cursed, and threatned to destroy and bring to nothing, and turn it into foolishness or madness, 1 Cor. 1. 19, 20. If so, both he and we shall see in good time whose counsel shall stand, either Mr. Baxters in counter-working against God, setting up his wisedom and learning against the wisedom of God, the wisedom of the word: or Gods counsell in destroying Mr. Baxters wisedom [Page 21] and making it, i. e. discovering it to the world to be meer foolishnes, so turning his glory into shame and baseness.

Lastly, whether this threat be not in some measure already exe­cuted upon him from heaven? I would I could deny, that I had good grounds upon which to deny it.

But sith Mr. Baxter not contented with the light and wisedom of the word, hath rolled himself into the pits of heathen and Popish learning, out of their darkness to digg to himself such light as is not cohering with, but prejudiciall to the wisedom of God and his word, whether the Lord hath not turned this wisedom of his into foolishness, and yeelded him up to be stifled with the most perni­cious of their errors, and to hug the same in his bosom as a treasure, so that he is become one of those some of whom the Apostle speak­eth, which while they profes this sophistical & philosophical learn­ing, falsely called science or knowledge, being indeed meerly prophane and vain babling, have erred concerning the faith, 1 Tim. 6. 20, 21. The sequell of this his Treatise in our examination thereof will somewhat declare.

I have here spoken once for all in answer to his sophistical dis­putes, as they are sophisticall and imitating the School-Doctors of the Popish Church, having reference therein not only to what in this place he saith, but to all of the same kind, which we shall find flowing from him in full tide [...] else-where frequently in this book. So that as oft as we meet him speaking again in the same tone, I shall either pass him by with silence, or els turn him over to that which I have here said.

There remains yet one question more in the explication of this 7 ^th Aphorism, and the same of as great importance and usefulness, as most of the former are vain and superfluous. Mr. Baxter thus proposeth it.

Here he mentioneth 3. opinions; the first he utterly explodeth, viz. the imputation of Christs active obedience unto Justification. The second, viz. the efficacy of Christs sufferings to make satisfa­ction to the justice of God for our sinns, whereupon we are forgi­ven and constituted righteous in the sight of God, he kindly salu­teth and passeth some plausible Complements upon it, and so Bids it farewell, without any purpose to be in love or familiarity with [Page 22] it. And then takes up the third as best agreeing with the end he drives at, though in substance it be the same with the first which he shook off and trampled under foot with great defiance as the absur­dest of absurdities.

What my judgment (as to the two former) is, I need not here express, because it is not a question controverted between us and the Papists. It is a question not of very long standing. Mr. Beza in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, by appropriating the severall parts of Christs righteousness to make up the severall parts of Justification, gave the occasion of the dispute, as I conceive. And the difference hath hitherto made no breach of communion and amity between stable and able Divines or Christians. Nay a­mong them that hold for the active righteousnes also, there have bin and are still at present not a few so learned and pious, that it would be no disparagement to Mr. Baxter and my self to be admit­ted as their Amanuenses. And therefore I question the truth of that accusation which Mr. Baxter layeth on Mr. Walker, pag. 53. (whom he principally not only meaneth, but also nameth, when he tells us of ignorant men, that are strong revilers, and weak disputers, reproaching them for hereticks that dissent from them in judgment. I doubt much that Mr. Baxters main end here in declaiming against Mr. Walker, is to Apologize for himself, and that his anger a­gainst Mr. Walker is, because he finds the stroaks which M. Walker levelled against Mr. John Goodwin, do now more wound Mr. Baxter than they did Mr. Goodwin then. I remember I once saw that lit­tle Tractate of Mr. Walker in a friends house, and read cursorily some part of it, in which he charged Mr. Goodwin with Socinianism, and Arminianism. But if my memory fail me not (as too oft it doth) it was not upon this score, that Mr. Goodwin maintained Justification by the Passive righteousness of Christ only, but upon this, that he upheld the [...] or act of believing, or rather Faith as it is a part or act of our sanctification to be the very thing that is imputed to us for righteousness. And Mr. Baxter cannot deny but this opinion was first broached by Socinus, and afterward pro­moted by Arminius. But because Mr. Baxter hath taken it up from them, end speaks it out in this his Tractate, more in the full of the mouth, than Mr. Goodwin had done, (as wee may see afterward) Therefore to prevent the like imputation of Socinian and Arminian heresie to himself, by his chafe against Mr Walker, he affrights all from charging him therewith. And yet howsoever he seemeth to [Page 23] decline such an imputation, who seeth not that he will, yea doth more readily take up a cursed Heresie from any of these learned So­phisters, then a blessed truth from such ignorant and unstudied Mi­nisters, that glory in nothing but the foolishnes of Christs Cross, and dare not to be wise unto salvation, beyond the rule of the Gospel?

Hence he passeth to his third opinion, which is wholly one with Page 54. the first in substance, and a little d [...]fference onely made in the sound of words; for the Question was thus propounded, Whether we are justified by Christs passive Righteousnesse onely, or also by his active? The Assertors both of the first and of the third opinion, answer both with one consent, we are justified by both: Onely Mr Baxter that he may shew his wit and force of his Sophistry, that he can at his pleasure exauctorate any Tenet in Divinity, laying it all defiled and dead in the dust, to be trampled under foot, and then give it a resurrection with a new body, to shew it self as an eminent and o­rient Pearl, to adorne Christian Religion; doth annihilate, and vilifie it in one sound of words, and after Cannonize it in ano­ther. And what is the difference betwixt the opinion which he spewes out as filth and garbage, and that which he sucks and swal­lowes as the bread of life, and food from heaven? Forsooth, this only, that the one opinion makes the active righteousnes of Christ, together with his passive, to be imputed to us for righteousnes; the other makes the active, together with the passive righteousnes of Christ, satisfactory to Gods justice, to put us into the participation of Righteousnes or Justification. A vast difference in sense, no less then that was, between Doctor Martin, and Doctor Luther, or that which one put betwixt the operation and working of Pepper, that it was hot in the one, but cold in the other. M ^r Baxter knowes that the most judicious Assertors of the first opinion, urge no further then to have it granted, that the active as well as the passive obe­dience of Christ, is meritorious to our redemption and justificati­on. That they are but the more inconsiderate sort that will have it so imputed, that we should be accounted before God as those that have fulfilled all the righteousnes and duties of the Law, in and by Christ fulfilliing the same. Therefore his taking up this o­pinion as a third opinion, under the name of truth, is but a taking up again as holy and savory, that which before he had rejected as the embryon of ignorant and unstudied brains, full of the greatest absurdities.

But he tels us, pag. 55. that for ten years together he held the pas­sive righteousnes onely effectual to justification, but since that, he hath been converted. Should I demand, how it came to passe that so Eagle-eyed a man so long doted upon a cloud, in stead of Juno, and by what means his eyes were at last opened, that he saw the de­lusion, and shunned it? Himself gives us a hint what to answer; and I hope he will not be too angry if we guess, so far that our conjecture hath his own conscience (if awaked) giving consent. 1 Then (to speak nothing of Mr. Bradshaw, whom either by face or writings I never had acquaintance with) that great wit Grotius, with his deep and sublimated speculation [...], over-poised him in his late reading of him. And how hard a thing is it for Mr. Baxter, so great an admirer and adorer of humane wit and learning, to meet with a brave Sophister indeed, and not to close in judgement with him, though a Papist, an Apostate, and more then a Semi-Atheist? so far do acute and fine-spun distinctions prevail with him, more then the honourable Authority of the plain word of God. 2 It is most probable that during these ten years Mr. Baxter held Justifica­tion by Faith onely according to the Scriptures, and judgement of the Orthodox Churches, therefore stuck so long to the Doctrine of Justification by Christs sole passive obedience, as cohering very har­moniously therewith. But since he hath cast himself into the Chan­nels of Popish Writers, and thence derived Justification by works, it concern'd him to cast off his former Opinion, for the sole passive righteousnes, as being much repugnant to Justification by works, and to take up this as authentick, and somewhat conducing and helpfull to his Cause. For if Christs active obedience should not be held meritorious and satisfactory to God, with what face could Mr. Baxter attribute a prevalency and power herein to our best works and actions? I purpose not to trifle away time and labour to refel this Doctrine, or to shew the weaknesse of his fine and plausible Exceptions which he maketh against the Objections that he thinks will be made against it▪ himself knoweth that some of his fore-mentioned Questions being granted and cited Opinions which he neither denyeth nor opposeth, would turn his Grotian distinction of idem and tantundem, into winde and smoake. As for the rest which he speaketh, we may grant there is some plausibility; but if it were searched to the bottome, there would be little of so­lidity found therein. But my purpose is (as I have said) onely or chiefly to except against his apparently Popish Doctrines, and [Page 24] with these he so much aboundeth, that I shall not want matter to take up more time and labour then my other Employments can well afford.

CHAP. IV.

IN this ninth Thesis, and its Explication, Mr. Baxter hewes out crooked timber enough for many of the discreetest Divines to employ their time and labour therein, until they are tired, and yet they shall not be able at last to straighten it. It is like Pandera's box, which being opened, let out all miseries and mischiefs into the world, as the Poets feign. Whatsoever the Papists teach of the defi­ciency and maimednes of Christs, and of the necessary supplies of mans satisfaction to be made unto God, of Purgatory, of the un­certainty of Salvation, and many other errors depending upon these, are all couched and compassed here within a very narrow circuit, some expressed, and some implyed. But so that while he hasteth to bind together suddenly (that he may not be seen) so much dreggish Popery in one fardle, in his greatest hast he leaves not his wits behind him, but craftily delivers to us Papisticall Doctrine, yet not in the Papists words, lest he should be espyed and shunned. Thus run his words.

The phrase and words of this Position are not a little ambigu­ous, lest I should seem to wrest them to an evill, when a good sense may be given them, I will not so much as descant upon any thing therein, with the least paraphrase, but take all in his own Explica­tion, which thus followeth.

CHAP. V.

LEt us now a little more fully state the question, by shewing wherein that which Mr. B: calleth the Common judgment, and that which is his own (pretendedly at least) private judgment, do consent together, and wherein they differ either from other, and so we shall avoyd all impertinencies and strife about words, which are besides the question.

It is agreed then on both sides,

1 That the Curse is the penalty, or the revenging Judgment, or an effect of Gods revenging wrath, by the execution whereof he taketh satisfaction to his justice upon Transgressors for the breach of his Law; so Mr. B. makes it out, p. 17.

2 That the justice of God is so fully satisfied by bearing this Curse or penalty, as by a complete fulfilling of all the righteous­ness which the Law requireth, p. 48, 50.

3 That the Lord Christ hath undertaken and made full satisfac­tion to God for all the sinnes of beleevers, bearing the curse due to them, and paying (if not the idem according to Mr. B. yet) the tan­tundem that their debt did amount to.

4 That God resteth as fully satisfied with this satisfaction of Christ, as if it had been made personally by the beleevers them­selves. These two last Mr. B: so frequently asserteth that there is no need to quote the places.

To which I may add, 5 That Afflictions are incident to the beleevers as well as to the unbeleevers, so that Love and hatred are not discernable to the lookers on, by that which befalls men in this life, Eccle. 9. 1.

6 That these afflictions have in them a smart and bitternes, as they befall the very Saints, so that oft-times in their apprehension the [Page 33] very wrath and curs of God seemes to be in them. These two things we grant Mr. B: so that hitherto the judgements consent. Heb. 12. 11.

The difference then betwixt him and us consists principally in these two things.

1 Whether when Christ hath by doing their law, paying their debt, and bearing their curse, satisfied the justice of God for the sinns of beleevers; when God hath accepted the satisfaction given, when the beleevers have by faith apprehended and laid hold on it: They do yet remain liable to the curse of the Law in whole or in part to be inflicted upon them?

2 Whether the afflictions which God inflicteth upon beleevers in this life, are the effects of Gods revenging justice, the Curse which the law threateneth, and so consequently whether after that God hath taken ful satisfaction from Christ, he doth in whole or in part require and take satisfaction from them also; Mr. Baxter with the Papists and Arminians mainteins the affirmative of both these questions, we the Negative: He that 1 after Christ hath born the Curse of the law for beleevers, they are liable to beare it in whole or in part themselves also. And 2 that the afflictions which they suffer are from the revenging justice of God, the effects and Curse of the Law, vindictive punishments of sin, full of the wrath of God; as in this his answer to the 3 question he declares himself. But we utterly deny both these propositions, either that the beleever is any more after his union to Christ, subject to the Curse, or that the af­flictions which he suffereth have the Curse of the law and reveng­ing justice of God in them, but proceed (not from the wrath of an angry judge, but) from the tender grace and love of a most wise and indulgent Father. Both these assertions we ground upon evident Testimonies of Scripture.

First, that beleevers are no more liable to, but wholly freed from the Curse, we have the Holy Ghost affirming, Gal. 3. 13, 14. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the law, being made a Curse for us, &c. that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, through faith. What can be said more cleer and full to the Confirmation of our assertion, or refuting of Mr. Baxters? The Holy Ghost saith not, Christ hath purchased to us a liberty for the future that in time we may be delivered from the Curse, but he hath redeemed us, hath ob­teined a present freedome for us, from the Curse of the Law. And [Page 34] how? being made a curse for us. He hath made present payment that we might have present deliverance. Even as a surety making full satisfaction to the Creditor for the principalls debt, obteins there­by for him a present discharge from his obligation: not that he shall be for a season liable to arrests and imprisonments, and after much fear and sufferings in this kinde, be at last discharged. This were enough, but the wisdome of the Holy Ghost proceeds yet fur­ther to evidence this truth, and to stop every mouth that shall pre­sume to open it self against it. That the blessing of Abraham might come [even] upon the Gentiles [beleeving] viz. the promise of the Spirit, or Spirit promised, by faith. All must acknowledg that the entrance of the blessing, and removeall of the Curse by the vertue of Christs death, are coaetanea, of one time and standing. But the bles­sing which is the receiving of the Spirit, is actually and oft in the beleevers own spirituall feeling, existent and working in him assoon as by faith he is united to Christ. Therefore also assoon as he is united to Christ, he is actually freed from the Curse of the Law. Again, Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Je­sus. It will not be denyed here that condemnation is either put for or includeth in it the punishment to which the offenders are adjud­ged or condemned, and so the meaning of the words must be this: that there is remaining, no curse, no vengeance, to which they that are in Christ might be condemned; nor any sentence to ad­judge or condemn them to it, viz. because Christ hath born both for them, and in thier stead. This is fully confirmed in the second verse, but I forbear to annex it, because it is capable of many interpreta­tions, which would be too long here to insert, but all tending to the Confirmation of this truth laid down in the first verse. And if there be no condemnation, no vengeance, no curse to which belee­vers are subject, than are they freed from the Curse as well in its parts as in the whole. So Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the Law but under Grace. In what respects shall not Sin have dominion over beleevers? It is expressed partly ver. 12. It shall not so reign that they should obey it in the lusts thereof. And more fully before cap. 5. 21. It shall not so reign, as formerly it hath reig­ned unto death, i. e. to expose them to the curse and wrath. Why? Because they are not under the law but under grace. The law denounceth and Gods revenging justice inflicteth the Curse, yet upon none be­sides them which are under the law. But beleevers, having done their law in and by Christ, come no more under the dominion of [Page 35] the law to be cursed by it, but ever after they are in Christ, they are under Grace, at the disposition and under the dispensation of Gods grace, from which all blessings, but no curse hath its derivation. No less absurd therefore is it to say, that beleevers are liable to the Curse, than to affirm that the Curse is an effect of Gods grace, and not of his revenging justice. And is there any thing less to be ga­thered from thapostle, affirming Col. 2. 14. That Christ hath blotted out that Hand-writing of ordinances which was against us, and contrary to us, and taken it away, nailing it to his Cross. What was there in that hand-writing of Gods lawes and ordinances, more against us and contrary to us than the curse? but this th'apostle affirms Christ to have blotted out, cancelled, crucified, in respect of any further pow­er that it can challenge over the Saints. Or when the promise of God is thus gone forth, I will be mercifull to their unrighteousness, and their sinns and their iniquities will I remember no more, Heb. 8. 12. Who will give any other interpretation to these words but this, that God will not be wanting in his grace to remember the iniquitie of beleevers to purg them from it, yet he will never more so remem­ber it, as to inflict the curse and wrath upon them for it? Not to heap up scriptures beyond measure to this purpose, I shal conclude with that of the Apostle, Rom. 8. 15. Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba, Father, When was their time of bondage and fear, but when they were under the law? or what did they fear, but the curse, death, and wrath, which the law threatned? But now being in Christ, & freed from the law, they have received together with a new Condition or relation a new Spirit, a Spirit not of fear but of Confidence, not of fear, because they have a freedom from the law and curse which before held them all their life time in fear: but of Confidence, because that being in Christ they are adopted to be the children of God, no more to fear the curse from him as a Judge, but to dwell upon his mercies as the mercies of an indulgent Father.

Enough for the confirmation of the first assertion, and in all that hath been said, there is nothing of the fallacies and querks of mans wit and learning, but the very demonstration of the Spirit by the word. The proof of the second is included in this. If true belee­vers are not obnoxious and liable to the Curse and wrath of God, it must follow by necessary Consequence, that then the afflictions and sorrowes which befall them here, are no parts of the Curse or effects of Gods vindicative justice upon them. But further to mani­fest [Page 36] that they are fruits of Gods love, and discending from the grace of God, I shall annex some Scriptures that give their suffrage here­unto.

First, that in Heb. 12. 5.-8. may stand in stead of all, in which the Apostle doth so fully dispute and determine this question, as if it had been in his dayes Controverted. He will not have us to for­get that exhortation which speaketh unto us as to children; My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, neither faint when thou art rebuked of him. For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening God dealeth with you as with sonnes, for what son is he whom he chasteneth not? But if ye are without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, ye are bastards and no sonnes. Three Arguments eminent above the rest we here receive from the hand of the Apostle, full to our purpose. 1 He calls the afflictions of the Saints Chastenings or Chastisements, not punishments or judge­ments, insinuating that the troubles which they suffer, toto coelo dif­ferunt, have a vast difference from those which fall upon the ungod­ly. Chastisements tend to the amending, spirituallizing and per­fecting of those that are exercised therewith, as appeareth by the 11 verse of this Chapter. But the judgments which proceed from the Law and revenging justice of God, work to the tormenting and to­tall destruction of them upon whom they are inflicted. 2 He af­firmes them to have their rise from that new relation unto God whereunto by faith they are advanced, viz. to be the Children of God. They that are not Children undergo in their afflictions the vengeance of God, But the Children are under the sweet discipline and loving Chastisements of a Father, a most wise and most provi­dent Father that seeks and in all his discipline worketh for the bet­tering, not for the destroying of his Children, judgeth, i. e. Correc­teth them, and by correction holds them in from evill and apostacy, that they may not be condemned with the world, 1 Cor. 11. 32. 3 He pronounceth their troubles to the effects of Gods love, whom he loveth, he chasteneth, &c. but the Curse and revenging judgments of the Law proceed from his hatred. The Law brandisheth its Curse against enemies whom God hateth, 1 Tim. 1. 9. not against the Chil­dren of his bosom, of his love. Against these there is no law, i. e. no power in the law to Curse and Condemn, Gal. 5. 18, 23. Or when the Holy Ghost Calleth the afflictions of beleevers, Tryalls, fiery try­alls, such as is the tryall of the gold, 1 Pet. 1. 7. & 4. 12. doth he not denote a Contra-distinct difference between the afflictions of the be­leevers [Page 37] and the unbeleevers? Men cast wood and stubble into the fire to Consume them, but the gold and silver into the fornace, to try, refine, and purifie them, that they may be of precious and ho­nourable use to them. The one they cast from themselves, the other they fit for their use and service that they may never be lost. Such difference is there betwixt the fire of the curse into which God cast­eth the wicked from himself to be devoured, and the fiery tryall, or fire of tryall, into which he casteth his Saints for the further purify­ing and perfecting of their faith and sanctification, that they may become vessels of honour in his house for ever. And when the Scripture speaketh so oft of Rejoycing in afflictions, pronouncing it the duty of Christians so to do; as Mat. 5. 11, 12. Col. 1. 24. 1 Pet. 4. 13. is it not implyed that their sufferings are altogether flowing from and dispensed by the grace and love of God. For who can or ever was directed by the holy Ghost to rejoyce in the wrath of God, or in the effects of Gods wrath against him, such as are the curse and vengeance? Or when the Lord Christ affirmes the eternall Father to be the Husbandman of his Vineyard the Church, using his hook to cut off and cast away the fruitles branches, i. e. the false Christians, but his pruning knife to better & perfect the fruitfull branches, i. e. the true beleevers, Joh. 15. 1, 2. Doth not this declare his administra­tions to be in hatred and defiance to the one, but in love and bles­sings to the other, even when he pruneth and woundeth them? And when the promise of God is gone forth in relation to the beleevers, not to exempt them from, but to support them in, and bless unto them all their sufferings; when they pass thorow the waters, to be with them, and thorow the Rivers, that they shall not overflow them, when they walk thorow the fire, they shall not be burnt, neither shall the flame kindle upon them, Isa. 43. 2. Surely these waters and fires are not the curse as the cause, in which God w [...]l so accompany and perfect them, but as his preserving them in it, so his leading them into it, is from his love and not from his hatred. From all which we may boldly conclude, that the sufferings which befall beleevers in this life, are not the penalty or Curse of the Law, or any part of it, nor yet pro­ceed from Gods revenging justice: but fatherly Chastisements pro­ceeding from the love and Grace of their heavenly Father.

CHAP. VI.

TO the ten Arguments of Mr. Baxter, by which he goeth about to fortifie his two contrary assertions, I answer in their order. To the first drawn from Gods dealing with our first parents, I have answered before. He must first prove these two things; first, that they were beleevers, which a meer and dark promulgation of a Saviour, Gen. 3. 15. doth not evince, (for many thousands have had the Go­spel more fully and cleerly preached to them, yet have continued in unbeleef) Secondly, that the sufferings to which his quotations direct, were inflicted upon them as a Curse by Gods revenging ju­stice; and untill he hath proved both these, his Argument is besides the question. It being not denyed by that which he calls the Com­mon judgement, either that unbeleevers are under the Curse, or that beleevers are subject to sufferings, though not to the Curse; but a full answer to this Argument was given before out of Austin and Sadeel.

To the second I answer, that it laboreth of the same fallacy with the former. That the wicked feel all those sorrowes that he men­tioneth, and bear the curse and hatred of God in them, is not deni­ed. But the godly have their part in the same sorrowes, yet they bear not the curse and hatred of God therein. This he was to have proved, and untill he hath proved it, he saith nothing but slides from the question; which (if he will but look an inch backward to his own words) he thus stateth. That the Common judgment is that Christ hath taken away the v [...]ole Curse, being made a Curse for us, yet exerciseth his own people with sufferings, which unto them are onely afflictions of love, &c. Against this opinion he op­poseth himself, undertaking to prove that these also have not onely their sufferings, but also the Curse of God in their sufferings. Now the second argument which he brings to prove this, is that the god­ly suffer the same things which are inflicted upon the wicked as a curse. What is this to the purpose? he doth herein but beat the ayr, and fight against the winde, and bark at the Moon, comes not neer them whom he makes his adversaries in this question. For they con­fess the sufferings, but deny the curse. He must therefore prove that [Page 39] the curse as the curse, is inflicted upon the Saints, els he comes no neerer the question, than, Ararim Parthus bibit aut Germania Tigrim. For all that is here said denyeth not all the sufferings of the Saints to be chastisements and afflictions of love. What the Apostle saith of one of them is true of the rest also, viz. womens bringing forth of their children in sorrow. Shee shall be saved by childbearing, [...], 1 Tim. 2. 15 is the Originall, though our Translation hath it [and not by] childbearing, if shee continue in faith and charity, and holines with sobriety. The meaning is (notwithstanding the Popish false glosse given it) that although sorrow in Childbearing was first in­flicted upon that sexe as a part of Gods Curse for sin, yet as many as beleeve shall finde the Curse removed, and a blessing in the place thereof. It shall be made a happy furtherance to their salvation, putting them in minde of their sin that first brought the sorrow, and so filling them with self-deniall and self-abhorring, that they shall cleave the faster to Christ for salvation by Faith, as knowing themselves forlorn in themselves, and stand the more fixed and sted­fast in charity, holines, and sobriety. The like is to be concluded of the rest of the sufferings which he particularizeth, God so dis­penseth them that they may be furtherances of salvation to belee­vers, by working in them humblednes and self-denyall, bearing up themselves by faith in Christ alone, both for salvation and increase of their sanctification. The very pravity of our nature of which he speaketh is left in us not as a curse in wrath, but as a means in Gods wisdome and love more to humble us, to make us more to cleave unto Christ, and an Antagonist against which fighting in the pow­er and spirit of Christ we may overcome, and having overcome may obtein the Crown. So that these two Arguments are imperti­nent and nothing to the question.

To the third, I answer that there is nothing els in it but a wrest­ing of Scriptures from their proper sense that they may be subservi­ent to Mr. Baxters ends. First that of 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22. maketh no­thing to his purpose. It onely testifieth that as by man came death, i. e. by Adam, so by man, i. e. by Christ came the resurrection. But how far both of the members of this proposition reach, is manifest by the following words. For as in Adam all dye, i. e. all that live and die in Adam perish hopelesly and everlastingly: So in Christ all shall be made alive, i. e. All that are translated out of Adam into Christ. The one man being the root of death to himself, and all that are in him: the other the root of life to himself, and to all that by faith shall be [Page 40] ingraffed into him. That this is the genuine meaning of the words is evident by the next verse, which amplifieth what th'apostle had said in this, viz. who are these all that shall be made alive in Christ? First, Christ (saith the Apostle) as the first fruits, then they that are Christs at his coming. Here is no mention of the resurrection of them that are not in Christ. Not that these shall not also be raised by Christ, but that the Apostle speaketh here not of resurrection in generall, but of resurrection to life, whereof those that are in Christ do alone partake: Even as of those which dye in Adam he speakes of an everlasting death, whereof the unregenerate alone partake. So that there is not any mention here expressed of the death of be­leevers, much lesse of the curse and wrath in their death. Touching the second Scripture which he quoteth and citeth, Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sin is death: who doubts but it is so to them that are under the guilt and dominion of sin? But what is this to beleevers? And the third Scripture is as pat as the two former. For this caus many of you are sick, many weak, many sleep. The Apostle here writes to a visi­ble Church, in which it appears there were some true, and some but formall and temporary beleevers. Christ is in the midst of this Church dispensing his discipline. The true beleevers by the conta­gion of the formall professors had somewhat prophaned the Lords Table by resorting to it somewhat disorderly. The other had to­tally violated it by coming to it drunken (and so were worse than beasts) from their own Tables; here now had Christ inflicted cha­stisements of sicknes and weaknes for the humbling and amending of those that were his, but death and vengeance upon them that while they professed faith in him, yet were indeed despisers of him and his ordinances. What is this to the Curse of the Law upon be­leevers? Therefore I shall add to Mr. Baxters [And if so] my [and if so,] if so that wresting of Scriptures will serve the turn, Mr. Baxter will surely have the water run in his ground, and his fancy stand, though Gods truth thereby fall to the earth.

To the fourth. That his phrase is ambiguous, and it is not easily understood what so cunning a sophister meaneth by evills. Untill therefore he hath discharged his bushell of distinctions, putting a difference (after his manner) between a naturall and a meta­physicall good, whereof this evill is a privation, between an evill physicall, and an evill morall, and an evill in a theologicall sense, between the evill of sense and the evill of loss, and a whole bundle more of evills that he can distinguish into their kinds, we [Page 41] know not what he meaneth when he saith that sufferings are in their own nature evills to us. If I should answer in one sense, he hath the slight quickly to evade to another: and to study out all his evills would cost more labor than a hundred such Arguments and all his evills to boot are worthy of. As for that which he addeth, Doubtles so far as it is the effect of sin, it is evill and the effect of the Law also. It is as much as if he had said, doubtles so far as the Sun is made or is the effect of a thunder cloud, it is black and dark, and the ef­fect of the Thunderbolt also. We deny it to be the effect of sin as the meritorious cause thereof, so that the suffering of a beleever should be the curse or revenging punishment of his sin, [Christ hath born that] and so it shall not be (in this respect) evill, nor the effect of the law neither. We grant a beleevers sin to be oft the occasion, ne­ver the proper cause of a beleevers sufferings.

To the fifth. We deny not the sufferings of beleevers to be oft in Scripture ascribed to Gods Anger. But it is so ascribed, 1 [...] to set forth Gods dealings to mans dull understanding by a si­militude of mans passions, that they might be the more easily com­prehended. Because man in his anger and wrath doth correct most severely, therefore the sufferings of the Saints when they are great and grievous are said to come from Gods anger, and therefore said to be from his anger, to speak out that they are great afflictions, such as children receive from their parents when they are most hot in their passion: Not that there is indeed any such passion in God. 2 In respect of the sufferers apprehension, who being weak in faith and too much prejudiced by sense, is apt for a season sometimes in great tryalls to conclude himself to be cast out of Gods favour, and overwhelmed with his wrath and fury. Not that it is so really, For God hath forgiven their sinns, Therefore after his forgiving to re­tain wrath and anger may be ascribed to malicious men, whom we shall hear saying, I will forgive but never forget him: But in no wise to the most righteous God, who so forgiveth the sinns of belee­vers as that he will never more remember them.

To the sixth. I will not fall into a [...], a strife and dispute about words and names. Let Mr. Baxter agree with us in the matter, and we will not stick to close with him in the name and words; Let him deny all malignity and curse in the sufferings of the godly, and to do him a pleasure we will call them punishments as he doth. After that God had new named Jaakob calling him Israel, he remai­ned ever after indifferently called either Jaakob or Israel still, the [Page 42] new name made it not a sin to make use of the old also. So though the sufferings of the Saints which under the Law were usually ter­med punishments and judgments are now under the Gospel as it were baptized with new names which more set forth their nature, such as are, Chastisements and Tryalls; yet is it no sin to use the old as well as the new names still, for we see the penmen of the New Testament to have done it before us.

To the Seventh. Mr. Baxter is here returned again to his evils; and either I understand not what his meaning is, or if I do under­stand him, I find a pack of little sence, and much arrogance, a com­pound of absurdities and presumptions, Absurdities in the Argu­ment it self, arrogance and presumption in that which he speak­eth for the confirmation thereof. First we have his absurd non­sense. The very nature of affliction (saith he) is to be a loving punishment, a naturall evill sanctified, and so to be mixed of evill and good, as it pro­ceedeth from mixt causes. Let him that can, make sense and truth here meet together, I cannot. By evil I must needs conjecture he means the evill not of sin, but of punishment. For the evill of sin, as sin, cannot be mixt of evill and good, being altogether evill. By af­fliction ever since I understood words, I have concluded to be meant any vexation, trouble, sorrow, anguish, or torment, that a man hath inflicted upon him by God or the Creature. If this be not af­fliction, I never knew affliction. If it be so, it is a meer absurdity to affirm every affliction to be a loving punishment, a naturall evill sanctified, mixed of evill and good, &c. Pharaoh afflicted Israel, and the Devill afflicted Job, did either Pharaoh or the Devill mean or act love in afflicting? or sanctifie the evill which they inflicted? or had the evill which they inflicted either love or good in its own na­ture? who but a man in a dream will affirm any of this gear? It cannot be pronounced and concluded that the afflictions which are from the Creature, as from the Creature, to have such qualifi­cations as Mr. Baxter ascribeth to them, either from their own na­ture, or from the will and infusion of the Creature inflicting them. And no less absurd is it to attribute such qualifications to affli­ction universally as it proceeds from God, either immediately, or mediately by the Creature. The torment of the reprobate men, and Devils in Hell, must be granted to be an affliction, and that it is God which afflicts them. To conclude hence because it is an af­fliction, an affliction from God, it is a loving punishment, a sanctified evill, mixt of good and evill, as proceeding from mixt [Page 45] Causes, is such an absurdity, that although Mr. Baxter in words affirm it, Abhorret a sensu comuni ut benefiat ei a quo poenae sumuntur. Cham. Panstr. T. 3. l. 23. Cap. 6. Parag. 11. Monstrum judicij, &c. id. ibid. Paragr. 30. yet would he be as loath as any of the opposite opinion to try it. If he had said Chastisements are in their own nature so qualified, we should have born with it; but he shunneth that word as a rock upon which he might have dashed the Curse against be­lievers, wherewith as with a treasure he hath laden the Barque of his disputation in this place. From such false and absurd premis­ses therefore to inferr this Conclusion [ Therefore to say that Christ hath taken away the Curse and evill but not the suffering, is a meer contra­diction, becaus so far as it is a suffering, it is evill to us and the execution of the Curse] is as fallacious, as the premisses absurd. Fallacious many ways, 1 in jumbling in the execution of the Curs, which was neither expressed nor implyed in the premisses. 2 In couniting to­gether evill and the curse as equipollent terms, which are oft dis­parates. No man besides Mr. Baxter will conclude every evill of suffering to be the Curse. Christ mourned for the sins of Jerusalem, Mat. 23. 37. Lu. 19. 42. Paul had continuall heavinesse and sorrow in heart for the unbelief of Israel, Rom. 9. 2. Jeremy had his soul weeping in se­cret, and his eyes running down with teares, for the sin and afflictions of his people. Jer. 13. 17. This mourning, heavines, and weeping, were sufferings, made impression of evill (I mean with Mr. Baxter the evill of pain and sorrow) upon them, yet were not these suffer­ings the execution of the Curse upon them. 3 In an implyed in­sinuation that we deny all evill of pain in the sufferings of belie­vers, so making them as stocks, and stones, insensible, or as glorifi­ed persons, impassible. Which none ever held, though Mr. Baxter would lay it as an absurdity upon all that dissent from him, to make the truth which they maintein odious. Now Mr. Baxter is not a Child, he sees well enough these absurdities and fallacies, and doth not either thorow ignorance or inadvertency commit them. His use of them therefore doth insinuate to us two things.

1 His abasing opinion of others in the superlative confidence that he hath of and in himself. If he thought not almost all others to be meer Terrae filios, Clods of clay in comparison of himself, he would not thus shake out upon his very absurdities, and grossest fallacies to be treasured up by us as Oracles, becaus his.

2 His suspending of conscience that while he pretends unto truth, yet takes the reines by any absurd false tricks utterly to subvert it. As for his arrogance against God in the Conclusion, What reason can be given, &c. ut supra. No marvell if he take the [Page 44] chaire to himself alone from thence to judge of all other Divines, when we finde him here as it were usurping the throne of Hea­ven, thence to sentence and censure the wisedome of God in his proceedings. In answer to him I shall use no other but Mr. Pem­bles words against the like arrogance of the Papists. Such Questi­ons (saith he) are vain and curious, prosecuted by idle and un­thankfull men, who not acknowledging the riches of Gods Wise­dome and Grace, in that course of our redemption which God hath followed, would accuse God of indiscretion, for making much a [...] do about nothing, and teach him to go a more compendious and easie way to work then [his wisdom hath chosen]. These Criticisms upon Gods glorious & wonderfull proceedings in his [administra­tions,] we leave to Socinus and Arminius with their followers. It is our part sapere ad sobrietatem, and to understand what God hath, not to tell him what he might or should have done?

To the Eighth. Because he knoweth his assertion false, he there­fore saith something, but conceals from us what it is, tells us that all the Scriptures and reasons which are brought against his opini­on, do not hit it nor hurt it, but will not let us to know one par­ticular of all those Scriptures and Reasons that he hath heard or read urged against him, lest that some one answering might mani­fest the falshood of the assertion. This is safe disputing, to speak so as [...]o leave no footing for an answer. Such baites may catch Froggs possibly, but never a Fish. And (as he affirmeth) neither Scriptures not Reasons prove more then this, That our afflictions are not the rigorous execution of the Law, what Scripture or Rea­son can be given why that believers shall not be damned in hell to­gether with unbelievers? For what is the rigor of the Law but the infliction of the Curse in its utmost extent and extremity. But if the Saints be beaten with few stripes when the rebells are beaten with many, and be damned but to the uppermost when the other are cast into the nethermost hell, then is not the Curse of the Law execu­ted upon them in its utmost rigor? If this be not to abase the me­rits of Christ that hath purchased, and abuse the grace of God that promiseth, and abate if not to destroy the hope and comfort of be­lievers that shall receive (according to Mr. Baxter) no better priviledges then this, surely then nothing can do it. As for that which he addeth of a mixture of love and hatred in God when he curseth the wicked; and of love and anger when he curseth the godly. This is a meer Chimaera of his own brain; a making of [Page 45] God to be in a commotion against himself, to carry fire in the one hand and water in the other; to fight with the right against the left, and with the left hand against the right: sometimes the one and sometimes the other overcoming, but of which side soever the Victory resteth, still must the poor believer be cursed, and when most under the curse (we must believe Mr. Baxter telling us a strange wonder) he is not at all under the hatred of God. An ex­cellent disputer to have stood alway at Marcions elbow prompting him with argument to prove this God to have been a malignant and envious God, the author of all evill to mankinde; what less doth Mr. Baxter affirm when he tells us that he curseth his very Friends, those that trust in him, those whom he hateth not, yea those whom he loveth? But doth he bring no Scripture to prove all that he hath said? Yes one in steed of all, and that as pertinent and proper to his purpose as a Pearl to a Swines snout, Death hath lost his sting, 1 Cor. 15. 55, 56. There is no unpardoned sin in it. Yet when God hath pardoned every of their sins, he will neverthelesse powre upon them the Curse, when they are without, if not also because they are without sin, ipse dixit, and I must be silent.

To the Ninth. It greeves me lesse when I finde Mr. Baxter lea­ving the pure fountain of Scripture, stirring in his own element the puddle of humane art and wisedom, then when he meddles with the word, becaus he seldom toucheth it but with a defiled and de­filing hand to pervert, maim, or add to it and so to prophane it. So that his sin is greater in this than in the other. The place which he quotes here 1 Cor. 15. 26. saith not that (as he untruly allea­geth) Death is not yet overcome, but onely saith The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death; it is overcome already though not destroyed. Yet not to strive about words, Death is overcome, and it is not overcome, but in different respects. It is overcome

1 In relation to Christ himself and his naturall body, that it cannot reach or seize on him. Els is not Christ risen from death, and then our faith is vain. But he is risen in the power of the God­head, having loosed or dissolved the pains [and Chains too] of Death, it being unpossible he should be held by it. Acts 2. 24. For how should a power finite over-power the power of God which is infinite? Neither will any say that Christ escaped from the bonds of death by Treaty, but by Conquest. He ascended on high, leading captivity captive, Eph. 4. 8. Having spoyled principalities, and powers, he made open shew of them, triumphing over them, Col. 2. 15. By his death he hath [Page 44] destroyed not onely death it self, but him also that had the power of death, i. e. the Devill, Heb. 2. 14.

2 In relation to the mysticall body of Christ, the believers, it is so overcome that it hath in it no curse to vomit out upon them. That was carried away in Christs naturall body, that this his my­sticall body might be freed from it. He took to himself (saith the Apostle) part of our flesh and blood, that by death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, i. e. the Devill, and deliver them who through fear of death, were all their life-time subject to bondage, Heb. 2. 14, 15. What was that in death that the Saints so feared under the Law, (before the Gospel had fully cleered to them their liberty) but the Curse? The Law threatned them with death as with the Curse and vengeance of God. This made them to live all their life-time in a sad bondage for fear of death, of the curse and ven­geance in death at the last. But Christ hath by his death delivered us from the Curse that was in death, so that now we live not in fear and bondage, in expectation of death. It is but a sweet dor­mitory to the Saints, in which they put off their corruptible and dreg­gish, that at last they may put on immortall and spirituall bodies, in them to meet with Christ in the day of Judgement, and be for ever with him, 1 Cor. 15. 44. 1 Thes. 4. 17. In these respects death is over­come.

But it is not so overcome but that it hath its being, yea full dominion with its curse over the wicked, and in this respect it is said, The last Enemy that shall be destroyed is death; as will appear by reading the former vers with this, Christ must reign till he hath brought all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy, &c. The Apostle here from the Authority of that Prophecy, Psal. 110. 1. concludeth that Christ must sit at the right hand of God, having and executing all power in heaven and in earth, untill he hath brought all his enemies under his feet. Here if

1 We consider that death as the other enemies that are to be sub­dued, is spoken of as an Enemy to Christ, we must conclude that the Apostle speaketh not at all of death, as a Curse. For death is no more a Curse to Christ glorified, than the other enemies wick­ed and reprobate men that are to be brought under his feet.

2 A reason is here given why death must be the last Enemy de­stroyed, viz. Because Christ must bring all his enemies under foot. Now as long as there shall remain upon the earth enemies to Christ, and his Gospel, succeeding one another in their generations, so [Page 49] long death in its fulnesse of the curse and wrath of God, is usefull to seize on them, at the Lord Christ shall destroy and bring them under its power: so that as long as there is any other Enemy re­maining, death is not to be abolished in regard of its usefulnesse in respect of the other Enemies.

But when the end is come, and the enemies all destroyed, and no one more remaining to be seized on, but that all shall be raised from this first to be sentenc'd unto and hurled into the second death, hell and brimstone, (I mean all the enemies of Christ) now death also it self shall be destroyed, there being no further use of it. That this is the proper meaning of this Text a blind man may see, and consequently see it to be sinfully wrested by Mr. Baxter, forcing it seemingly to prove that the Saints are yet liable to the Curse, because subject to death.

To his plain case of our Corruption, which he addeth, I have spoken before.

To the tenth, which is the last. Every one will expect to find the sweet at the bottom, and that the last stroke should drive the nail home to the very head. Attend we to it therefore considerate­ly, and we shall find it if not the strongest, yet the most porten­tous of all. The whole stream of Scriptures (saith he) makes Christ to have now the sole disposing of us and of our sufferings; Ergo because we are in Christs arms and under his dispensation, we must needs be liable to the Curse. For the Scripture affirms him (saith he) to have prevented the full execution of the Curse, and to manage that which lyeth on us for our advantage and good; but no where doth it affirm that he suddenly delivereth us. Which of Mr. Baxters admirers would not have censur'd it in Bellarmin a most prodigious impudency, if not blas­phemy, thus to father his conceits upon the holy Scriptures. If Mr. Baxter had found but one least rivulet of that whole stream of Scriptures which he mentioneth to have been for his turn, would he not have directed us to it, or cited it to us? If he took the holy Scriptures for any thing els then one of his Fathers once termed it to Cardinal Bembus, Fabulam de Christo, he would not dare so much to slander, wrest, and corrupt it. While his dispute is wholly ta­ken up about the Curse to bring believers under it, he would fear that Curse denounced against himself, all plagues upon him that shall add any thing to it, and the taking away his part from the book of life, whosoever shall take from it, Rev. 22. 18, 19. what less doth Mr. Bax­ter in pronouncing the whole stream of Scriptures, to teach that [Page 48] which no drop of Scripture hath a relish of? is not this adding. And when the Scripture pronounceth Christ to have delivered us from the curse of the Law; that there is no condemnation, &c. and he comes with his glosse, he hath delivered us from the Curse, i. e. hath prevented the full execution of the Curse. There is no con­demnation, i. e. none is condemned to the Curse in its full rigour, among all the beleevers; is not this to take away from the word of God, yea to enervate and emasculate it and make it of no vi­gour?

And further, doth not his Arguing here tend to the aba­sing, annihilating, and even un-Christing of Christ? What an absurdity is it to think that he who was God, and accounted it no rob­bery to be equall with God, should in overflowing love towards us, make himself of no reputation, take to him the form of a Servant, humble him­self to the death, even the death of the Cross, Phil. 2. 6. - 8. and him­self bear our sins in his own body on the Tree, 1 Pet. 2: 24. and all to this end, that having disabled Law and Sin from all power to Curse without him, to purchase to himself the Monopoly of Cursing, or inflicting the Curse upon his own friends, yea his own Body and Members, that none henceforth should curse them but from by and under him? Who but one that is ambitious to be his Vicar, would make of Christ such a Pope? Yea how is the glory of Christs grace and merits veiled, nay extinguished, by teaching that Christ is ascended into the Heavens, and sit down at the right hand of God, to manage the Curse to the tormenting, yet (if Mr. Baxter be heard) for the advantage of his Saints on Earth?

The Scripture tels us of other and most glorious ends of his Resurrection Ascension and sitting at the right hand of God, viz. to receive a Kingdom for himself and those that believe in him, Lu. 19. 12, 15. to prepare for them places and Mansions in it, that coming again he may receive them to himself, that where he is there may they be also, John 14. 2, 3. that being ascended on high, and having led our captivity captive▪ he may powre gifts upon his Saints, even gifts, greater than the whole world, That he might be a blessing-giver to us, that we might be blessed with all spirituall blessings in heavenly places in Christ, Ephes. 1. 3. to free us from the Curse and condemnation, by making intercession for us, Rom. 8. 34. But no where doth the Scripture make him a Curse-monger.

But with what impudence doth he close up all that he he hath to say upon this subject in a known falshood, telling us that the Scripture no where affirmeth that he suddenly delivers us from the curse; when the Scripture contrarywise affirmeth that he hath delivered us from the Law, hath delivered us from sin, hath delivered us from the Curse, and that we are thus delivered already; and already is a step before suddenly. Thus abusive is he both to the Scriptures, and to the Lord Christ.

CHAP. VII.

I Have been large in answering these Arguments, yet it hath pro­ceeded not onely from my naturall slownes and uncapablenes of Concisenes, but partly also from Mr. Baxters purposed Concise­nes, whose common sl [...]ght it is here and elswhere, under a pretence of avoyding tediousnes, to leave the most precious truths hidden in corners, and onely to leave a paint of plausibility and probability upon the Embryons and errors of his own brain, in stead of bringing them openly to the tryall. And this occasioned me to be the more in length to bring forth cleerly into the light the truth that he hath hidden; and to take off the outside paint from his fancies, that they might appear in their own nature and colors. Partly also to dis­cover the pernicious danger which lurketh in the doctrine which he hath here delivered, against which too much cannot be spoken, to prevent the taking of inconsiderate and over credulous Christi­ans in his snares. I shall shew my reasons why I call it pernicious doctrine, and so leave the question.

1 It is anti-scripturall and diametrically opposite to the word, as is enough manifested by that which hath been already said in the examination thereof.

2. It is Antichristian, hath sundry Popish errors, some more a­pertly, others more hiddenly included in it. So that when imme­diately before his arguments he professeth, that it is not affectation of singularity that divides him in judgement from the reformed Churches, we doubt not but he speaks truth herein; For it is to fol­low [Page 48] the stream and Clowd of Popish Doctors, whose sophistry hath more force upon his judgment than ever I could perceive the Word to have. Those Popish errors then that are more openly conteined in his doctrine here are principally about Christs and mans satis­factions made to God for mans sinns; in which as the Papists so Mr. Baxter will have man to bear a share with Christ, that the glory may not be wholly the Lords. And here in sundry points Mr. Bax­ter speaketh the very same things, though not altogether in the same words with the Papists. I shall in these severall points, lay down briefly the doctrine of the Papists first, and then compare Mr. Bax­ters with it, that the Coherence betwixt them may be cleerly seen. The Papists opinions I shall truly set forth to you, (though brief­ly) as they themselves express themselves in the Councell of Trent. Sess. 6. Cap. 14. 16. & Sess. 14. Cap. 8, 9. and Bellar: in his two books de Purgatorio, & lib. 4. de Poenitentia, and by sundry other of their own Writers.

1 They hold that although Christ hath by his death and merits satisfied the Law and Justice of God for the fault of our sinns in of­fending Gods Justice and violating his holy Law, so that God is no more at enmity with but reconciled to them which truly repent and beleeve, hath fully pardoned their sinn, and forgiven their of­fences for Christs sake: yet hath neither Christ given nor God taken full satisfaction for the punishment, but that after the fault is par­doned, God may and will infl [...]ct punishment upon the offender. In this and the rest points of satisfaction they give this generall rule, that Christ hath undertaken for us onely that which we could not do for our selves, and satisfied for us so far onely as it was un­possible for us to make satisfaction for our selves. As for that which by doing or suffering was in our power to accomplish for our selves, that he hath left to be (without his preventing us) accom­plished by us. But in this Case, say they, It was unpossible for man to undertake any work any suffering so noble & worthy as might stand in equipoise with the offending of so infinite a Majestie, and so to satisfie Gods Justice for the fault. This therfore Christ hath done and God hath accepted from Christ in our behalf. But it was possi­ble for man to satisfie (at least in part) for the punishment which the justice and law of God exact for the offence committed. This therefore is in part left to us to satisfie; and after he hath forgiven the fault, doth notwithstanding inflict upon us the punishment for the satisfying of his law and justice. This they go about to prove [Page 51] by the example of Gods dealing with Moses and Aaron when they had sinned against him, he forgave freely their fault and offence, nevertheless called them exactly to a reckoning about the punish­ment; was in perfect friendship with them again, yet would not a­bate them an ace of the punishment which he had threatened to them, they must dye in the Wildernes and never enter into the land that flowed with milk and hony. The like they instance in David about his sin in reference to Bathsheba and Ʋriah; The Lord forgave the offence, The Lord hath put away thy sin, (saith the Prophet) thou shalt not surely dye, 2 Sam. 12, 13. Nevertheles in reference to the pu­nishment, David shall smoke for it. The child shall dye, the sword shall never depart from his house, &c. so that David shall rue it to his very dying day. Other Scriptures and reasons they bring which would be over tedious to insert.

Compare we now Mr. Baxters doctrine with theirs. Thes. 7. he tells us, That Christ Jesus being fully furnished for this work [of Media­tion] by his Fathers and his own will, first undertook and afterward dis­charged mans debt by suffering what the Law did threaten, and the offender was unable to bear. And Thes. 8. That the Father so fully accepted the sa­tisfaction, that by way of reward to Christ that gave it, he hath delivered all things into his hands, and given him all power in heaven and in earth, and made him Lord both of the dead and living. Yet Thes. 9 ^th, addeth that, It was not the intent of either the Father or the Son, that by this satisfac­tion the offenders should be immediately delivered from the whole Curse of the Law, and freed from the evill which they had brought upon themselves, but some part must be executed upon soul and body, &c. And this he goes about by his ten Arguments which we have examined, to prove of the beleevers themselves, that they are liable to the punishment and Curse of the Law, to bear it in part even to death it self, and that though there be no unpardoned sin for which the curse as the curse Pag. 71. Arg. 8, is inflicted upon them. Let any discreet man here judge if there be the least haires breadth betwixt M ^r Baxter and a Papist according to the Councell of Trent, i. e. the worst Papist. The rule of both about satisfaction is the same. Christ hath done and suffered for us what we could not do and suffer for our selves say the Papists; Christ hath suffered for us what the Law did threaten, and we were unable to bear, saith Mr. Baxter, implying that whatsoever we can bear must yet be inflicted upon us. For this satisfaction, the fault is forgiven, saith Bellarmine. By means of this satisfaction there re­mains no unpardoned Sin, saith Mr. Baxter [viz. upon beleevers.] Yet [Page 52] say both when the sin is forgiven the punishment, curse, and penal­ty of the Law must be suffered. Here is noble mercy and forgivenes, to pardon a man his fault, and to pronounce with Pilate I finde no fault in him, and forthwith to whip and hang him for no fault. Such divine mercy and Justice do these white sonnes of the Pope a­scribe to the Father of Mercies, and to his dear Son the purchaser and sluce of all Mercies. Touching the doctrine it self I have an­swered Mr. Baxters Arguments. But as to these arguments of the Papists, I pass them by, not having undertaken to answer them here any farther than Mr. Baxter is their mouth to dispute for them.

2 The Papists teach (according to the forementioned rule) that Christ hath in part also satisfied for the punishment of sin, as well as wholly for the fault. And as far as Christ hath born and satisfi­ed, so far we are freed from the punishment. But Christ hath satis­fied onely for the infinite & eternall punishment, leaving us to bear the finite and temporary punishments and curse of the Law, or to satisfie for it our selves. So that by their doctrine, Christ hath not at all by his merits freed us from the substance of the Curse, pe­nalty and vengeance of the Law, but onely from the boundles mea­sure and endles duration thereof. What saith Mr. Baxter to this? Christ (saith he) in reference to the punishment of sin, hath suffered so much of what the Law did threaten, as we our selves were unable to bear. Thes. 7. leaving to us to bear the greatest Curses of the Law, but not in their full rigor, and in their rigorous execution thereof. p. 69. Arg. 3. & p. 71. Arg. 8. What is this rigor and rigorous execution of the punishment and curse of the Law, but the execution of the same in its infinite measure and endles duration, which could not be (as he confesseth) born without the offenders everlasting undooing. Thes. 6. And thus he with the Papists makes the satisfaction which Christ hath given to his Fathers Justice, effectuall to deliver us not from the substance of the Curse and vengeance, but onely from the extent of its measure and duration. So that if I understand my mother lan­guage, and the equipollency of terms and words therein, there is but the name, and a Cardinals hat that puts a difference between a Bellarmine and a Baxter in this point, both speak not onely the Tan­tundem, but the Idem, the very self same thing in matter & substance, to the diminution, yea degrading of the merits of Christ, to make way to set up mans satisfactions parallell with if not supereminent and above Christs. With whom if I should enter into a Contest up­on this Argument, and dared as they to make the Scripture a meer [Page 53] Kickshose, without substance and authority, under the Charm of distinctions to be formed, conformed, deformed unto and into any sense at pleasure, I could upon more probable grounds and with more plausible reasons argue that Christ hath satisfied for, and we by his satisfaction are delivered from the finite and temporary part of the Curse and vengeance onely, but are left to bear for ever the infinite and eternall torment thereof in hell: than they bring for our deliverance onely from the temporary and not from the eter­nall. Because (according to Mr. Baxter) Christ suffered the tem­porary and finite pains onely for us, not the eternall, but left these (as it more probably seems) to be suffered by our selves for our selves. But as Mr. Baxter will not learn from Christ himself to op­pose the Majesty & power of the Word against Sophistry, so neither dare I learn to oppose his Sophistry against Christ and his Word.

3 The Papists teach that those punishments which come upon Christians unavoydably by the threat of the Law, for the trans­gression of the Law, viz. the temporall evills that are incident to their souls and bodies in this life, as sicknes, sorrow, loss of friends, credit or estates, poverty, tribulations, persecutions, trouble of Conscience, &c. if they be suffered willingly and with patience, are satisfactions to God for sin; but if unpatiently and unwillingly, they are Gods revenge upon us. So much the holy Councell of Trent doth even in express words affirm and determine. What doth Mr. Baxter say in conformity or contradiction to this assertion? He tells us that all temporall evills do necessarily invade beleevers, and that by the force and Curse of the Law, that when God sanctifieth the same to them, he doth not thereby take away their naturall evill or their Curse, but onely produceth by it as by an occasion a grea­ter good. What reason can be given why God should not do us all that good (viz. which the Orthodox Divines attribute to his sanctified Cha­stisements) without our sufferings, which now he doth by them, were there not sin and wrath and law in them. Sure he could better us by easier means. They are managed by Christ to our advantage and good. These are Mr. Baxters words, Pag. 69, 70, 72. Arg. 2, 3, 4, 7, 10. Let us a lit­tle examine them. When we affirm that these sufferings as they be­fall beleevers, are not from the Law as a Curse, but sweet Chastise­ments of Gods love, by which he mortifieth the flesh, increaseth their self-denyall, Conformeth them to Christ, as well in his sufferings as in his graces and doings, exerciseth and quickeneth all the gifts of his grace in them, Crucifieth the world to them and them to the [Page 54] world; and being in dispute with Papists, mention many other precious ends and effects of his Chastisements: Mr. Baxter Comes in with his Tush at all this, Arg. 7. Cannot God do us all this good (saith he) without our sufferings, and better us by an easier means? What then? [Doubtles] there is sin and wrath and law in these sufferings. What can he mean by this, but that first there is our sin as the merit of all these sufferings, and secondly, that God in exe­cuting them takes satisfaction from them and upon them for his law violated and his justice offended? Let any man that hath not divorced his reason from him through prejudice, pick out any o­ther meaning of his words, or deny his words in this meaning to be heterodox and Popish. And when he saith that God doth by these sufferings produce a greater good [to beleevers than their sufferings bring evill upon them] Arg. 4. And that they are mana­ged, to our advantage and good, what means he by this advantage and good? Not our purifying and bettering, &c. as we hold, For this as we have seen, he shakes off as a singlesoled supposition, with a kinde of Apage. Nor any other good that his front hath yet taken boldnes to express, for speaking thereof so oft in generall, he would not have been so shie to speciallize it for our edification and com­fort, if there were any in it. It must be therefore such a good and advantage, that though he would have us know, yet he will not speak it out plainly, least his tongue and teeth should bewray him to be a professed Papist, before such time as he hath Phariseelike, &c. depraved others that are unwary, and made them worse than him­self, Matt. 23. 15. And what should that be, but that God takes sa­tisfaction to his justice by his judgments upon them, here, that they may not have, or may have the less to satisfie for, in hell or in Pur­gatory? In this therefore as in the two former points I take him expressing himself an adopted sonne of the ghostly Fathers of Trent.

4. The Papists hold that there is a Purgatory, which they de­scribe to be a prison as hot and full of the same materiall fire and flames as hell it self: into which the souls of Christians after this life, are cast to satisfie Gods justice for all their veniall sins that they have not made satisfaction for in this life by suffering or doing; and being once cast into this prison they cannot come forth out of the torment, untill they have paid the utmost farthing of their debt, i. e. untill they have suffered so much as may counterpoise to a ve­ry grain, the sinns whereof they dye unpardoned. This they prove [Page 55] by many undeniable Arguments, specially by the testimony of ma­ny good souls that have obteined a dispensation to come thence with their bosoms so full of fire as of flesh and bones, to tell them so. Doth Mr. Baxter joyn with them in this opinion also? Soft and fair, There is skill in daubing; first he will try how this Tractate will take; if according to his minde, probably we shall have a second part, and therein he may tell us plainly his judgment in this and many other of his mysteries that here he leaves obscure and ambi­guous. In the interim it pleaseth him not to deliver his minde herein in words at length, but in dark and uncertain figures. Yet joyn we together what he saith here and there in parcells, and som­what may be made or at least conjectured of it. First then he telleth us that some part of the Curse must be executed upon beleevers, i. e. upon the whole man, the soul as well as the body. Thes. 9. 2 That untill the day of Resurrection and of Judgement, all the effects of sin and law and wrath will not be removed from them. pag. 74. Pag. 71: Arg. 8. Therefore thirdly what he will not [doth not at least] say of any of their former sufferings, he saith of death, That there is no unpar­doned sin in it which shall procure further judgment, and so no ha­tred in it, though there be anger. A glorious privilege no doubt! such as according to our usuall proverb a man may find at Billings­gate for a box on the ear from the worst of men that he meets with. When a man hath in revengefull fury persecuted his hated nigh­bour with all the strokes and stormes of wrath and mischief, and af­ter many years persecution, hath at last slaughtered him, and tram­pled his dead Corps into the mire and dust; now at last he ceaseth from hatred, & is but angry with his poor reliques, forgives him all the rest, when he can do no more to him, and forgivenes can do him no good. Such tender mercies of Cruelty (as the wise man terms them, Pro. 12. 10.) doth Mr. Baxter here ascribe unto God in his gracious dealings with beleevers for Christs sake: viz. to persecute them with all the strokes of his wrath, and all the Curses of the law all their life time, sparing neither their body nor soul, and at last with great indignation to destroy them and trample their bodies into the earth, dust, and rottennes, yea and their souls whither he list, and under what torment he list, and after this (so remarkeable is his love) he will hate them no more, but be angry with them still. When they are dead and can offend no more, and God hath inflic­ted upon them all his judgments that he can inflict no more, now their sins shall be so pardoned that they shall suffer no more, no [Page 56] more than all which they already suffer. Who denies this to be the very quintessence of mercy and spirits of love when Mr. Baxter hath so defined it, and held it forth to us as the most Celestiall comfort that we shall finde in death? There is (saith he) no unpardoned sin in the death of beleevers that shall procure further judgement. Where note 1 that he saith not simply and absolutely that there is no unpardoned sin upon the Saints now dead and buryed: but no sin so unpardoned, that it should bring further judgement than that which is already upon them. And 2 That when he denyeth that their sin shall bring any further judgement upon them, he doth not deny but rather imply their sins to be yet still unpardoned as to the holding those judgements upon them that are already inflicted. A comfort that the Devills and reprobates in hell shall not want after the very day of judgment in the midst of their flames; That there is none of their sinns so unpardoned as that it should bring any further judgment upon them. But put we all together, 1 That the beleever must bear the Curse, even the whole man, in body and soule also. 2 That he shall not be delivered from this curse in soul and body untill the resurrection. 3 That although death puts him into a freedom from further judgments, yet it doth not at all deliver him from those that at death are inflicted upon soul and body. How shall we now make up the matter? If the whole man both soul and body must suffer and not be wholly freed untill the resurrection, this is not fulfilled in the suffering of the body alone. If the soul also untill then must suffer, then is it not forthwith up­on its seperation from the body exalted to Heaven, for there, is no suffering, no affliction. Neither doth it suffer in hell, for Mr. Bax­ter exempteth thence all that persevere in the Faith (according to his definition of faith) untill death. Where and whence then shall it suffer but in and from the fire of Purgatory? And so there is no unpardoned sin upon beleevers after death that can procure to them any further judgment beyond this. If Mr. Baxter meaneth not so, it is his fault to write with so much ambiguity, and so little plain­nes and perspicuity, as to toll us on to a strong Conjecture that he meaneth so, and is in this as in the rest apostatized to the Pa­pists.

5 I might add also here that he seemes to joyn with the Papists in holding beleevers in an uncertainty of their salvation all their life long. It is considerable that neither in his Aphorism, nor in the whole explication therof, nor in all his arguments by which he [Page 57] goeth about to prove beleevers under the Curse, doth he once name any pardon of sin, or freedom from further judgment, which they attain untill after death, and then when they have persevered to the end, and dyed in Christ, now he mentions and affirms it. What doth Arg. 8 p. 71. this argue but that he would (with the Papists) have men to hope well, but to be still uncertain without any assurance of Faith or certainty of their perseverance, and future glory untill their very last gasp? But because from meer Negatives no affirmative can be regularly and soundly deduced; I leave this but as probable, and conclude it not as certain.

We have found Mr. Baxters dispute here to be first against Scrip­ture; 2 Antichristian and wholly Popish in severall points. There are many allegations more wherewith it may be justly charged, viz. that,

3 It is scandalous to the Grace and Mercy and Love of God that are the most sweet and amiable of all his Attributes. So doth he paint out terror in the very Love and Grace of God, and Cruel­ [...]y in his tender mercies; making flames of fury to break out from the very bowels of his Compassion, that poor souls beleeving what he saith will be apt to fly from God as from a Satan, and from his Gospel dispensations as from death and hell it self. When they hear him to be so bloudy, to take delight in cursing, crushing, rend­ing, taring, and tormenting in soul and body, unto death and after death, his own sonnes and daughters, and that under a profession of grace and love to them, what difference can they conceive to be between such a God, and the Devill? If there be such bitternes in his love, who will desire the least draughts thereof? If his armes of embracing be such Lions pawes, who will not shunn all union all drawing nigh to him? so doth he scandalize Gods love, &c. ma­king it terrible, (which is amiablenes and life it self) that none might desire him.

4 It is slanderous to the justice of God; 1 By accusing it there to inflict the curse, wrath, and judgements, where he imputeth no sin. 2 By charging it to receive ful satisfaction for our debt from Christ our surety, and afterward when all is paid, to require satisfaction from us too. A piece of injustice so odious to the light of nature it self, that Mr. Baxter would account him a prodigie of Nature, a De­villized man that should so do: yet hath the face to charge the most righteous God, whose wayes are all equall, yea equity it self, therewith.

[Page 58]5 It is injurious to Christ and his Mediation. Charging him and it with insufficiency. With the want (I mean) either of insuf­ficient merit to free us from the whole curse and wrath of God, because he could not do it, or want of sufficient love to us that ha­ving all power given him in heaven and earth, yet will not do it. But in both these the Scripture testifieth Christ to be all-sufficient, without the least defect either of merit, or love to us, that in the infinitenes of his merit he hath purchased all, and by the infinitenes of his love he dispenseth this liberty in the fulnes of it to us, There­fore is Mr. Baxter ungratefully injurious to our blessed Saviour in denying it and arguing against it.

6 It tends to the advancing of mans vain-glory and boasting, in being at least in part a self-saviour, that his satisfactions have wrought with the Lord Christs in the procurement of his Justifica­tion and salvation. This by the sequele of this work appears to be the main thing to which Mr. Baxter driveth. For yeelding himself up to be the Disciple of men, to see and judge onely by the light of mans reason, he seems to me to be so left of God destitute of his Spirit, that he can see no farther than a meer naturall man in spiri­tuall things; and so following the letter and scarce the letter with­out the Spirit of the word, he can think of no other way to happi­nes but that which the very instinct of nature suggesteth, namely a mans own willing, running, and procurements. To this end he laies a foundation here of humane satisfaction by sufferings, per­ceiving well that if mans suffering of the curse of the Law be once granted to be effectuall by way of satisfaction to purge the soul from sin, then much more the righteousnes of workes done in obe­dience and conformity to the Law, by the help of the Spirit, will and must be granted to be more powerfull to the same end. There­fore seeks he thus to depress the grace of God and merits of Christ, that upon the ruines thereof he might erect a Temple dedicated to mans righteousnes.

7 It subverteth all the joy and consolation of Christians, which the Holy Ghost requireth of them in their sufferings from Christ or for Christs sake. How can we according to the precept of Christ, Rejeyce and be exceeding glad, when we suffer, Matth. 5. 12. And with Paul, Glory in tribulation, Rom. 5. 3. and Rejoyce in our sufferings, Col. 1. 24. And after the rule of James, Account it all joy when we fall into many temptations, Jam. 1. 2. If these be the curse of the Law, the effects of Gods wrath and heavie displeasure? Can a good childe rejoyce [Page 59] and glory in his fathers anger, and in the curses and strokes of his fathers wrath which he hath justly deserved? It is enough to add despair and death to the sorrow of the Saints in their afflictions, to possesse their Consciences with an apprehension that all comes from their fathers wrath, and hath the curse upon it.

8 It holds poor Christians upon a rack of torment, and under the spirit of intolerable bondage all their life-time. For let Mr. Bax­ter though he were sworn against Christ to Antichrist, deny if he can that when the Apostle, Gal. 3. 10. saith; As many as are of the works of the Law are under the Curse; his meaning to be that they are in the state and under the power of damnation, or that the curse and damnation are not in Scripture phrase the same thing. I know he will not deny it, l [...]st he should declare himself to haue taken at once his farewell of divine truth, and of naturall reason also. If then to be under the curse is to be under damnation, then by affirm­ing beleevers to be under the Curse, he affirmes them to be under damnation, & consequently them that are in Christ to be so much the children of wrath and hell as the very reprobates.

9 It inureth upon Christ a brand of evill which S ^t James pro­nounceth detestable in a wicked man. What, that out of the same James 3. 9, 10, 11: mouth should proceed blessing and cursing, saith he? Yet Mr. Baxter makes the same Christ, at the same time, to blesse and to curse, to absolve and to sentence, to save and to damn the same person.

10 Let Mr. Baxter consider whether while he labours so vehe­mently to fasten the curse upon them whom God hath blessed with faithfull Abraham, Gal. 3. 9. He doth not pluck the curse upon him­self which God hath denounced, Gen. 12. 3. I will bless him that blesseth thee, and curse him that curseth thee.

A word more I shall add (by way of digression) to some Mini­sters, who by a faulty inadvertency, speak in this point almost the same things with Mr. Bacter, though in the Article of Justification they wholly dissent from him. It hath filled my spirit with sad­ness to hear not onely in the Pulpits of the Country, but of the Ci­ty of London, pronounced by the Mouths of some in great esteem both for piety and Learning; That to say God doth not punish his Saints for their sinns, is flat Antinomism: and affirmed, that the afflictions of beleevers are punishments for their sin. I beseech these men to Consider whom they here explode as Antinomians? whether besides the A­postles and Fathers of the Primitive Church, they do not brand all [Page 60] the reformed Churches, and their Champions against the Papists, with this ignominy? Whether there be any one Article of Christi­an Religion, that hath been more stoutly defended by these against the Papists, than this which heat of zeal without knowledg (or Con­sideration at least) hath of late Called Antinomian? Let them pro­duce any besides the Socinian and Arminian Sophisters that have stumbled at this doctrine as offensive. I beseech these men to read one Chamier at least, Panstr. Tom. 3. lib. 23. the six first Chapters, where this question is not onely handled at large, but also the Ar­guments of the Protestants (who are also named Cap. 1.) particu­larized, and all the objections of the Papists against those Argu­ments Confuted: and the Papists Arguments to prove the Contra­ry assertion answered. The question being thus stated, Ʋtrùm puni­antur fidelium scelera? & utrùm dura quae ijs immittit Deus, sint peccato­rum paenae?

So much by way of answer to Mr. Baxters resolving of his third question. There remain yet three questions more; viz.

The two former of these questions, are sawcy, arrogant, and proud. In their proposall, Mr. Baxter acts the part of Satan in que­stioning and accusing Gods Justice. In his answer to them he takes upon himself to act the part of an Angel, to be an Apologist to plead for the defence of Gods justice. 2 Gods justice is not, can­not be injurious to any, so that God needs not an Apologist to plead his cause; if he needed, his wisdome would not make choice of his accuser to be his Advocate. 3 Mr. Baxter if he would have dealt ingenuously, should have put the questions whether himself be not injurious; 1 To God and his Christ; 2 To the redeemed by denying their deliverance from and affirming their prostrate bon­dage under the Curse, and not to have questioned whether his slan­dering of Gods justice hath made God faulty. And then he should have received an answer to his resolving of the questions. But as he puts the questions I reject his resolving of them as unworthy of an answer. Onely by the way I say, that what he speaks in answer to [Page 61] his own questions is all meerly sophisticall and fallacious. The three first reasons that he brings to prove that Christ is not wron­ged by the not delivering of his ransomed ones, being things in question not proved by Mr. Baxter, therefore in arguing from them he doth (as it is usuall with him) beg the principle. The fourth reason is not ad idem, but so farr from the question as London from Barwick, that there is no hope they will ever meet together. The question speaking of beleevers, The reason, of Christs dealing with the world to make them beleevers. And the same is evident in what he saith to the fifth question also. The sixth question he thus re­solveth;

If in the conclusion he mean the effects of sin and law and wrath shall not be removed from the world untill the resurrection; he speaketh truth, but nihil ad rem, far from the question which speak­eth onely of beleevers. If he mean of them that the Curse shall not be removed. I have answered it before, and the Scriptures here brought to prove it, and will not here Actum agere.

CHAP. VIII.

M ^r. Baxter had ended, but he had not finished his dispute about the Curse upon beleevers. He did but Parthian or ram-like, go backward and decline a little, to return with the greater force. Or as an Actor upon the stage, withdraw and make his exit, to put on a new dress, in which to appear again forthwith to act a second part. So doth Mr. Baxter decline the dispute in one Aphorism [Page 62] and its explication, (which I also shall pass by without excepting against it) and then he returns to prosecute the same dispute afresh; yet in another dress of words, that it might seem to be a resolving or determining of another question. That was, whether beleevers remain under the Curse of the Law? This, whether they remain under the Law as it threateneth and curseth? And between these two questions who seeth not so vast a difference, as is between an arrow in the quiver, and an arrow out of the quiver? within and without the quiver, it is the same arrow still. Yet let us attend to him stating the question (which anon we shall examine.) The re­sult of it is thus.

This he undertakes to make good, pronouncing it inconsiderate­nes to assert the contrary. Thes. 11. p. 78. & explic. p. 79. & explic. of Thes. 12. p. 82.

Here before we meddle any further with Mr. Baxter, let us exa­mine what the Holy Ghost in Scripture speaketh to this point. Ye are not under the Law, but under Grace, saith th'Apostle to believers. Rom. 6. 14. I conceive there is no one Christian upon earth that hath his head unbiassed with sophisticall fallacies and falshoods, but takes the words in the same simple and clear sense wherein the Holy Ghost delivers them, viz. That we are no more under the Law, as a Cove­nant of Works, when we have once attained by faith to be under the Covenant of Grace. But a very thunder-bolt against Mr. Bax­ter and his Assertion is that, Gal. 5. 3, 4. I testifie to every one that is circumcised, that he is debtor to do the whole Law. Christ is become of none effect to you whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. From these words must needs be deduced these Conclu­sions.

1 That to be under the Law, and to be under Grace, are con­traries, and do exclude either the other, so that it is impossible for the same person at the same time to be under both together. If but circumcised, if at all under the Law, ye have (saith the Apostle) made Christ of none effect to you, ye are fallen from grace, and consequently if at all in Christ, yee are not in the least part under the Law, but free from the domination and Curse thereof.

2 That whosoever yieldeth himself to be under the Law as a [Page 63] Covenant of Works, in the least part, hath his justification or dam­nation depending upon his perfect or unperfect keeping of the whole Law, so saith th'Apostle, if but circumcised, &c. ye are deb­tors to keep the whole Law: How debtors, viz. If ever ye will be justified and saved to keep it perfectly, if ye fail but once, to be damned for ever.

3 That whosoever affirmeth (whether he be a Bellarmine or a Baxter) believers to be under the Law as a Covenant of Works, the same by necessary consequence denyeth all actuall efficacy of Christs death, that ever any soul was or shalbe saved by his medi­ation, and affirmeth all the Saints that have been, are, or shalbe, to be damned for ever. For if at all under the Law, then not at all under grace or in Christ; but they must stand or fall according as they do or not do the whole Law, which none doth, ergo, all must perish. The same also may be gathered from Gal. 3. 10. but I have touched upon it before.

A noble Aphorist ye will acknowledg, declaring a greater de­sire to bring the Saints under the Curse and damnation, then there is force in his Disputes to prove them to be under it.

These Scriptures might suffice to satisfie every judgment, that believers are not under the Law. Yet I shall mention some few more to shew the copiousnes of the word in this point, that there might be no doubting in this point, Rom 7. 1-6, the Holy Ghost doth make out this truth as clear as the light. The Law (saith he) hath dominion over a man [onely] during life, as the husband hath power over his wife. Let either the husband or wife dye, the law or power which the husband had over the wife dyeth also. If the wife dye he hath no power over the soul or ashes of his dead wife, to exact under any penalty, obedience from them. If the wife be survivor, she is no more bound to the dead ashes of her husband, to fear either command or wrath thence, but is wholly at liberty. So also stands the relation between the Law and believers. The Law in the height of its authority had power to inflict death but once upon man; this death have believers suffered in Christ, there­fore are dead to the Law by the body of Christ, have done their Law, and suffered all that the Law had to inflict upon sinners, in the body, or humane nature of Christ suffering for them; so that they are dead to the Law, so far without the lists of further punishment or ter­rour of the Law, as the Felon or Murtherer that is condemned, hanged, dead and buried, is free from further punishment, by the Law of the Land.

Yea the Law also is dead to them, having spent it's sting and strength, and life also on the naturall body of Christ, and is there­by disabled for ever to re-assume the same against the mysticall bo­dy or any member thereof: So that they are [fully] delivered from the Law.

All this doth th'Apostle speak out at the full in that place, and no lesse in Gal. 3. 24, 25. The Law was our School-master unto or untill Christ, &c. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a School­master. This also he illustrateth, Gal. 4. 1, &c. by a similitude, likening the Church before Christs coming to an Heir in his Minori­ty, by his fathers will put under Tutors and Governors, so that though he be Lord of all, yet differs nothing from a servant, but is under his Tutors ferule and rod also, to be constrained with fear, when love becomes ineffectuall to move him to his duty: such was the condition of the Church while in its minority and feeblenes of spiritual know­ledge, the Sun of righteousnes not being yet risen fully to enlight­en them with the understanding of their liberty and glorious pre­rogatives. During this time though they were Lords of all, yet because of the weaknes of their knowledg they were kept Servant­like under hard Masters, under the Commands and threats of the Law: but resembling the Church under the Gospel, to the same heir in his maturity of age, now entred into the possession of his heritage, and become rather Lord of his Tutors and Governours, then any way subject or servile to their authority, gently and ge­nerously accepting their wholsom Counsels, but disdaining so to subject to their authority, as to be brought under the rod of their power any more.

So also Gal. 5. 13, 18, 23. speaking of them that had been cal­led to the liberty of the Gospel, believing in Christ, walking in the Spirit, and bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit, concludeth of them, that they are not under the Law, that against such there is no Law. And 2 Cor. 3. 11. cals the Law (as a Covenant of works) that which was done away, as he doth the Gospel (as a Covenant of Grace) that which remaineth. Yea that the case might be so plain, that no Jesuiticall distinctions might pervert it, the Holy Ghost at once concludeth, both negatively that believers are not under the terrours of the Law at all; and affirmatively that they are wholly and onely un­der the sweet dispensation of grace, Heb. 12. 18-24. Ye are not come to the Mount, &c. burning with fire, nor unto blacknes, and darknesse, and tempest, nor to the words and Covenants which could not be [Page 65] heard and born, and to the terrible voyce which made Moses himself ex­ceedingly to fear and quake. [These are the things done away in re­ference to believers] But ye are come to Mount Sion, to the City of the living God, the heavenly Hierusalem, &c. to all the prerogatives and privileges of the Kingdome of Grace.

So also in the Epistle to the Galathians. There are two Covenants (saith the Holy Ghost) the one from Mount Sinai (where the Law was given) which gendereth to Bondage, [the other from] Hieru­salem which is above and is free, the mother of us all, and concludes at last of all believers, negatively, that they are not the children of the Bond-woman, i. e. under the Covenant of works, and affi [...]matively, But of the free, i. e. under the Covenant of Grace, Gal. 4. 24, 26, 31. Hence is that bold triumphant challenge of the Apostle, Rom. 8. 33, 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? it is God that justifieth: who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that hath dyed, yea rather that is risen again, who sitteth at the right hand of God and ma­keth intercession for us.

Having laid down these two positions as truths undeniable, that Christ hath effectually satisfied, and as a perfect Mediator sits at the right hand of God, making intercession for believers: And that God thereupon justifieth them: He now boldly challengeth earth and hell: who shall charge them? who shall condemn them? Yea his interrogations bear the force of strong negations, as if he had said, None can effectually charge much less condemn them, yea none dares to attempt it, no not one, not sin, nor Satan the Lords Enemies, much less the Law which is just and conformed to the will of God.

Collect we together now but some short notions of these Scrip­tures, what the Holy Ghost concludeth in them and by them, that believers are not under the Law, that it is an apostacy from Christ, from grace, to put themselves in the least part under the Law as a Covenant of works; that they are dead to the Law, that the Law is dead to them, that they are delivered from the Law, are no more under it, were servants to it, but are now free from it, there is no Law against them, that it is done away from having any dominati­on over them, that they are departed from the Lawes terrours, and come to the Gospels celestial previledges; are not under the Co­venant of Works, but under the Covenant of Grace, have the ori­ginall of their present condition not from Sinai but from the su­pernall Hierusalem, are sons not of the bond-woman but of the [Page 66] free, that there is none that can condemn them, none that can just­ly say any thing to their charge. Let any man now that beleiveth there is a Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost speaketh in the Scriptures; judge whether i [...] be possible for the wisedom of the Holy Ghost himself, which is infinite, to give his testimony more fully, cleerly or plainly to this assertion, that believers are not under the cursing power of the Law, or under the Law as a Co­venant of works? whether this truth hath not from these testi­monies of Scripture a sufficient fortification raised about it against all Jesuits and Devils. Yet Mr. Baxter with horn and hoof, tooth and nail assaults it, partly by secret minings, and partly by open batteries to subvert it. I shall hold out his slights, in his owne words.

This is his first plea, his dispute in generall, against the before proved Assertion.

The Aphorism consisteth of meer obscurities, ambiguities, equi­vocations, and mentall reservations in words and phrases, where­in the Aphorist hides himself that he may smite and not be smitten; speaking in words of a double and doubtfull sense, that he may beguile the unwary in the sense wherein he would be understood, that he may deceive; and yet in case that by them which are wise and wary he be called ad partes, to answer for his fallacious subtle­ty, he might fly for shelter to the other sense that he might not ap­pear to be a deceiver.

And first the word nulling, yea the phrase absolutely nulling, is am­biguous, equivocall, and fallacious. A thing, a law, a covenant may be said to be nulled, i. e. made void or none, either as to its essence and being, or as to its power and operation: yea to be absolutely nulled in some operations, though absolutely in force in other. Null as to such ends or persons, though in its perfect va­lidity to other. But when Mr. Baxter saith absolutely null, he would be taken in another sense then he dares to avouch in the sense that the words do most litterally and gramatically import, [Page 67] viz. the whole and absolute nulling of it not onely to some, but to all operations, ends, and persons: yea not onely to its opera­tion but to its being also. For so much that distinguishing word (absolutely) insinuateth, viz. in contra-distinction to secundum quid. that it is nulled, not as to this or that purpose, in this or a­nother respect, but absolutely, simply, wholly, from having any more operation or being. And this equivocation of his serves him to three ends.

1 To leave a secret accusation and odium among the people upon the Orthodox Divines against whom his dispute bendeth, that they deny both the power and being of the Law of God, and hold that it is become useless and abrogated, so that the people of God must be no more acquainted with it. And this is a tacit slan­der, for who among them ever taught such things?

2 To lay open to himself a wide field for a luxuriating and extravagant disputation, to affirm or deny, confirm or confute any thing about the present state of the Law, knowing that what is incompetent to what he asserteth in one sense, will be enough com­petent in another, and he doubts not while he is thus circling and roving, some pur-blind ones will be taken in his snare, if none els yet at least such as are made to be taken, 2 Pet. 2. 12.

3 That if his words come to a strict examination, how little of simplicity and truth, how much of doublenes and falshood is couched in them, he may not want a place of retreat: his mean­ing forsooth was but so and so, and there is a fault in them that mistake him.

2 The same might I say of the word repeal which he useth. But because he repeats it again in the Explication of this Aphorism, affirming that there are godly and learned men that hold the re­pealing of the first Covenant, &c. I shall there speak what els might be here not unfitly spoken.

3 No less ambiguous is it what he will have us to understand by the Old Covenant, which he affirms not to be nulled, but to have the New Covenant super-added to it: at least to what sense thereof he will stand. Whether he meaneth,

1 The Law of nature not sounded in the ear but written in the heart of man at his Creation, Doe and live, Sin and dye? Or

2 That Covenant expressed in the word, about a positive Com­mand of not eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evill. Eat and dye, and consequently Abstein and live? Or

[Page 68]3 The Covenant of the Law written in stones upon Mount Si­nai? If the first, Mr. Baxter himself sometimes declares his doubt­ing, whether there were such a Law, with a clear impression of its penalty, ever created and imprinted in mans soul? And there are not wanting some among the most profound and Classicall Di­vines, which hold that whatsoever notions of naturall righteous­nes and holines, of God, of good and evill, of truth and falshood, there are in naturall men without the word; the same not to be ingraven into them by nature, or remainders of any Law written in mans heart at his first Creation: but of Gods immediate infusi­on by a generall and common operation of the Spirit in time, di­stributed to some in a greater to some in a lesser measure, to some scarce at all, as his infinite wisedom shall see it to make most for his glory. And from these Mr. Baxter seems elswhere not to dissent. And how then can that be nulled and repealed, or what new su­per-addition can there be made to that whith was never in being? much less can a Covenant stand firm, which was never existent.

If the second, then contrary to his Assertion, the Old Covenant in respect of our personall Obligation to it, and of the depend­ence of our life and death upon it according to our personall o­bedience or disobedience to it, is nulled; there being now no accessible Paradise, nor tree of knowledg of good and evill, about which our obedience may be exercised, or disobedience mani­fested.

If the third, Mr. Baxter speaketh point-blank in contrariety to the Apostle, in saying that the Covenant of Grace was added to the Law or Covenant of works. For the Apostle giveth the priority to the Promise or Covenant of Grace, and affirmeth expresly that the Law or Covenant of works was many hundred years after, added to it: Gal. 3. 17, 19. So that we know not where to meet with Mr. Baxter to understand, much less to answer him.

4 He hath a mentall reservation also, when he affirmeth that the Covenant of Grace was super-added as the onely possible way of life. Who knows whether he pronounceth it the onely possible way to life, as it hath fulture and supportance from the Law and Covenant of Works to which it is super-added, and so Moses and Christ meet­ing together in the Mount do save a poor sinner, and what the Law could not do of it self, being weak through the flesh, [that could not fulfill it] Rom. 8. 3. Now by the super-added help of Grace, it doth perform? Or as it is operative in it self and by it self, sa­ving [Page 69] by its own soveraign power without any help from the works of the Law. Why doth not Mr. Baxter speak out? Veritas non quaerit angulos. Truth loveth to shew its face in the cleer light, not hiding it self in the clouds. I do no wrong to M [...]. Baxter in pressing upon him for his meaning herein; every man may see in the sequell of his Tractate, that grace and faith have with him, very little power to justifie or save, but what they borrow and fetch home in a Cardinals Hat or Monks Cowl from good works.

5 And he leaves us in the dark and doubtfull, what he means by the word hereby, when he saith Christ doth not null the Cove­nant hereby, it is a relative word and must have its meaning from that which is antecedent in the tenth Aphorism, viz. Christs pre­scribing of a new Law, and tendering of a new Covenant. The old Covenant is not nulled hereby saith Mr. Baxter. Doth he mean by the tendering of the New Covenant? Or the offer of Grace? This makes nothing to the end he drives at. None conceiving that the offer or tendering of Grace to a sinner, doth forth with free him from the Curse of the Law, untill he accepts the tender. Or doth he mean that the effectualizing of the Covenant of Grace to a sin­ner, or the taking of him effectually into the Covenant of Grace, doth not make void the Law to him as a Covenant of works? This is indeed like himself, and agreeable to his purpose. He is not consistent with himself nor with the most subtle and sophisticall of the Papists whom he loves as dearly as himself, if he do not so mean. Nevertheles because he is willing here to pass under a viz­zard, I will not trouble my self to unmask him. Himself will o­penly enough discover himself to us, when the humour takes him. At present let him be sullen.

6 The same might I say of that which followeth. The former, i. e. The Covenant of works or the Law, still continueth to command, pro­hibite, promise, and threaten. A wide dominion and large authority, but who the subjects & servants are over whom it is exercised, he leaves (as all the rest) in an ambiguity, is not disposed to tell us, except the next words do it. So that the sins even of the justi­fied, are still breaches of that Law, and &c.

7 But here also he determineth to passe away in the dark, tells us onely what power the Law hath against the sins, not against the persons of the justified, that it threatens and curseth their trans­gressions, but whether onely upon the person of Christ satisfying [Page 70] for them; or els in their own persons also, after Christ hath so satisfied, is a secret that at this time and in this place, we must not know from him; though if he had not let it out before, he would have been in pangs of travell with it untill he were delivered of it.

Thus have we found M. Baxter in this Aphorism fighting against the fore-mentioned Conclusion and the Scriptures that confirmed it, with his sword in the scabbard. How terrible the skirmish was they that felt either the point or edge of his weapon can tell you. Suppose he should now unsheath it, who could stand before his drawn sword? This he is about to do, by his

CHAP. IX.

We assent here to his words in substance, but finde Cause in the placing of them, to doubt of a fallacious meaning which he hath therein. 1 We do not we will not plead the repeal of the Law [Page 75] for our Justification. But Mr. Baxter (as he makes it appear by what is antecedent and following in this dispute) would have us to con­ceive, that in the not repealing of the Law is included our being un­der the Law as a Covenant of works. Such tame fools, in the lof­ty opinion that he hath of himself, doth he account us. If in the following words of the position, he meant fairly he would speak plainly. We must not plead the repeal of the Law for Justification, &c. What then? but we must refer it to our surety who by the va­lue, &c. Why saith he not plainly we must not plead the lawes re­peal for &c. but our fullfilling of it in Christ, or the satisfaction which he hath once made for all the breaches of the Law which we have or shall have committed? why speaks he ambiguously? we must refer it to our surety, what? whether or when we shall be ju­stified? or to him to plead for us neglecting to seek for any ablenes to plead and give account of our hope for our selves, willingly re­maining uncertain of salvation all our life time? And when he saith by his once offering and merits, he doth continually satisfie: though in a good sense it be true and good, yet hath he not already actual­ly satisfied? and are not beleevers by that satisfaction actually justi­fied? we shall finde anon there was a monster conteined in the womb of these equivocall locutions. In the interim let us search whether in the place of explication there be any thing spoken to explain his meaning.

CHAP. X.

Unto these three Arguments he addeth four more in the Ex­plication of this Position, which thus follow.

Alas for the conscience of this man! I know (saith he) that this Covenant of works continueth not &c. yet against knowledg and against conscience will he not only teach the contrary, but with all Jesuiticall arts labour to screw it into the judgments of men that are more Logicall then Theologicall. How hath he suspended our expectation with promises that in and under the 13 Thesis he would bring his Reason [...] to prove

1 That the Law as a Covenant of works is not become null and void to believers, p. 79. that they are not discharged in this life from the curse of the Law, p. 82. But that

2 They are under the Law as a Covenant of works still, after that they are in Christ and partakers of of his Redemption. Why had he not by and by proved it, but that he might Bellar­mine-like, first busie his Reader with Sophisticall distinctions and disputes, untill he had forgotten the state of the Question, and then prove what he would, not what he should to his forgetfull Rea­der For so there is not the least gry or jota in all his Arguments here that doth so much as glance upon the things that he was to prove, but a labouring to confirm things which no one of those [Page 86] whom he makes his adversaries, doth or did ever Question, much less deny. So that all these his Arguments, are meer impostures, not (as he tearms them) Reasons to confirm the Doctrines which he pretends to prove.

For first, his five first Arguments (or rather those three in his Thesis, which in the Explication he sub-divides into five) and the seventh also in the Explication tends only to prove that God hath not, did not revoke, repeal and extinguish the Law that it should have no more a being, or remain a Law to the sons of men; assoon as Adam had sinned, and a promise of redemption by Christ was made, Gen. 3. 15. who ever taught or thought so? or what is this to prove that the Saints (after they have suffered and satis­fied in and by Christ the whole penalty of the Law, for all their transgressions of the Law) are not delivered from it as a Cove­nant of works?

Secondly, the other Argument which he puts in the sixth place goes about to prove that unbelievers are under the Law. And this is as potent a reason to prove believers to be under the Law; as if I should thus argue, Mr. Baxter is a Jesuite, because Bellarmine and Maldonat were Jesuite [...]: o [...] that M ^r Baxter is not the Teacher of the Church at Kederminster, because Robin Hood and little John are not Teachers there.

This might suffice as a full Answer to his seven Arguments and to manifest his sin and shame in using them. But I shall add some­thing by way of Explication to make that which I have said plain to the weakest. Not imitating Mr. Baxter, who under a pretence of Explication, doth in most places totally darken what was be­fore cleer and plain.

First then, I grant to Mr. Baxter, that if Christ had from the beginning of sins entrance into the world, repealed and (in the proper and full sense of the word) abrogated the Law, those five consequences, which he mentioneth in his 5 first Arguments would follow,

1 That no sin but that of Adam, and finall unbelief is so much as threatened with death, the one being forbidden by the Law while it was in force, the other by the Gospel, that is still unque­stionably in force, Nay not any thing else in reference to the old Covenant but that of Adam should be a sin, because sin is the trans­gression of the Law, and where there is no Law, there can be no transgression.

[Page 87]2 That Christ by his satisfaction for us, prevented not the wrath deserved [ viz. otherwise then by Adams sin] but the de­sert of wrath.

3 Neither doth he properly pardon any such sin, for where no Law is, there is no sin, where no sin, there is nothing to be par­doned.

4 And then might we plead innocency, or our non deserving of death (except before excepted) for our discharge at judge­ment.

5 And Christ in suffering did not bear the punishment of any other sins of mankinde besides the fore-mentioned. Thus we grant Mr. B. five of his Arguments without any detriment to our Caus or advantage to his. Believers are as fully freed from the Law as if he had slept while he thus disputed. For all these his Arguments lean upon a false supposition. If the Law be so repealed and abro­gated (as is before supposed) then and not els will these cursed Consequences take place. But the law is not so repealed &c. there­fore none of these will follow. For we hold that Believers are therefore delivered from the law as a Covenant of works, not be­cause the law was almost from the very beginning repealed or a­brogated from being any longer a Covenant of works, but because the law as a Covenant of works hath executed upon them in Christ all its penalty for all their sins, and hath therefore now no more power to question them: as hath been more copiously declared before.

The same I say also to the seventh Argument as it pointeth to the not repealing of the law, whatsoever els is in it, hath been in answer to the place cited, sufficiently spoken to.

His sixth Argument about which he laboureth more then about all the rest, though (as I said a little before) it makes nothing to his present and explicit purpose, proving onely unbelievers to be under the law; (for this is nothing to believers) yet it makes way to an implicit or secret end which he hath, and determineth to prosecute with much ardency in the following parts of this Treatise. There are two sorts of unbelievers, the one under a tem­porary, the other under a finall unbelief, the elect and the repro­bate. Mr. Baxter here driveth with all his force to prove both un­der the law, because he conceiveth that if he prove the elect before they beleeve in Christ, are under the law, and so granted to be, it may be proved much the more easily and plainly, that they are so [Page 88] also after they become believers. For many of the strongest Argu­ments which are for the one are for the other, and which are a­gainst the one are against the other also: So that it is hard to bring reasons for the affirming or denying of either, without giving ad­vantage for the like affirming or denying of both.

I purpose not here to anticipate but to suspend the dispute up­on this Question untill Mr. B. shall shew his face openly as a Chal­lenger; here he doth but as it were peep behind the Curtain, in comparison of what he saith afterwards with full expressions of himself. Yet that I may not be forced then to retreat hither again to what he doth here deliver, but answer every thing in its owne place; I shall at present examine those Scriptures which he here produceth, whether and how far they prove elect unbelievers to be under the law as a Covenant of works.

And to clear up a way to the be [...]ter understanding of these and the like testimonies of Scripture, I shall prefix two Positions visi­bly and apparently springing from the pure fountain of Gods word.

First that all which are elected from eternity shall in their ap­pointed times come unto Christ and persevere in him by a living Faith. I mean not onely all but onely these and none besides them▪ As many as were ordained to eternall life beleeved, when Christ was, and Acts 13. 48 so still do or shall believe when Christ is, or shall be preached to them. If the Gospel be hid from any (viz. so that they believe not in Christ manifested by the Gospel to them) it is to them that pe­rish, &c. 2 Cor. 4. 3. i. e. to them that are not elect but repro­bates. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that co­meth to I will in no wise cast out, [or suffer to be lost] John 6. 37. To come to Christ is to believe truly in him, such shall never be lost, never fall away, or make shipwrack of their Faith. But who are they whom God giveth to Christ that they may beleeve in him? Thine they were, and thou gavest them me, saith our Saviour. Mr. B. will say they were in a peculiar manner to be Gods people, at least by election, and therefore given to Christ that by faith in him they might be saved, Jo: 17. 6. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but unto them that are without all these things are done in Parables; that seeing they may see and not perceive, &c. Mark 4. 11, 12. Why was it given to the one part to know the mystery life and spirit of the Gospel, to the other onely the outside and letter thereof? They were within, these without the lines of Gods ele­ction. [Page 89] They went out from us but they were not of us, for if they had been of us they would without doubt have continued with us, but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not of us, 1 Joh: 2. 19. Not of us, he means, not of the number of them that are called according to Gods purpose of Election, Rom. 8. 28. for then they could not have faln away, All should have wrought for good to them. So that hence it followeth that every elect unbeliever shall come to and continue in the Faith, and whosoever doth not so is manifest­ed not to have been elected of God.

2 That justification or remission of sins, may be considered in a threefold respect. 1 As it is in God, 2 As it is delivered over by God, into the hands of Christ our Mediator. 3 As it is by Christ brought home unto and given into the bosom and possession of a­ny man. As it is in God, I shall pretermit to speak much of it a­ny where, but any thing at all, untill Mr B. directly and expr [...]sly calls me to it, least the man should be tormented before his time. For he hates the very naming and thought thereof as an Act Im­manent in God, cane pejus & angui, and is ready Jew▪ like to rend his cloaths, and fling dust in the aire, at any mention thereof, as an article that stands in enmity to his justification by works. 2 Then as it is delivered into the hands of Christ, we may speak of it with­out such terrible offence to his patience, or setting him into so direfull a commotion; conditionally that we will undertake for Christ that he shall be ruled by Mr. B. to do what he appoints with it, that is, to keep it in his pocket and deliver it to no man, but hold all under the Curse of the Law untill the day of judge­ment, we cannot adventure upon such an undertaking, never­theles shall hold forth the truth of God in this case. This is, that Christ by offering himself a Sacrifice for sin, and presenting the Sacrifice of himself unto God in the most Holy place, i. e. in hea­ven at his Mercy-seat, hath thereby effectually purchased everlast­ing redemption, and remission of sins, and hath received a full ab­solution and acquittance from the father for all his elect by name. So that in Christ they are justified from all sin, and freed from the Law as a Covenant of works even while they are unbelievers, have this freedom (I mean) in the hand of Christ though not in their own apprehension and possession. Though as to themselves and their own judgments, and as to the apprehension of men, they are under the Law, under wrath, yet in Christ they have done their Law, their iniquities past present and to come are blotted out, [Page 90] their peace made, and they reconciled to God. This is observably set forth in Aaron [and the other High Priests his successors, as they were Types of Christ] Aaron the High Priest must bear the Names of the Children of Israel engraven upon 2 precious stones on the two shoulders of his Ephod, before the Lord for a memori­all, Exod. 28. 10, 12. yea he must bear their names in the breast­plate of judgment upon his Heart, when he goeth in unto the Holy place, [ viz. with the blood of the sacrifice for the expiating of si [...]s] for a memoriall before God continually. What memoriall? that they were the men for whom the sacrifice was offered; and that their sins were purged thereby, that God should therefore have them in remembrance to preserve them from the Curse and judgment of the Law, for so it followeth, And Aaron shall bear the judgment of the Children of Israel upon his heart continually, ver. 29, 30. These things were but figuratively done in Aaron, but really and fully accomplished in Christ his Antitype, who being constituted our High Priest, and having received Command from the Father not onely what but for whom to offer, even for Israel, i. e. the elect of God, (which for a great part) were not yet in being, h [...]th by his own blood entred into the Holy place, with their names engraven upon his heart, having purchased for them an everlasting Redemption. Not into the Holy place made with hands, but in­to Heaven there to appear for them by way of Mediation and In­tercession, Heb. 9. 12, 24. Rom. 8. 34. Wherefore also God hath given him not onely an acquittance for them from all their sins, Heb. 10. 17. but hath also given and delivered up them into his hands, as hath been before proved, and Mr. B▪ himself confes­seth, yet not as he insinuateth, to plague and Curse them, and hold them during life under the intolerable bondage of the Law; but to deale with them in a gentle dispensation, according to the te­nor of the Covenant of Grace, in tender mercy to draw them un­to and keep them in the Faith without all Apostacy, to the end. All which he performeth to all his elect, as is evident from most of those Scriptures which were brought for the confirmation of the former point, and elswhere, Gods giving them to Christ, and into his dispensation, being their perfect transl [...]tion from the Cove­nant of the Law, into the Covenant of Grace: And this was done before their beleeving. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, first they are given, and then they shall come. Be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace, for I have much people in this City, said the [Page 91] Lord Jesus to Paul of the Corinthians, yet Heathen, Acts 18. 9, 10. They were his people before, therefore must they be gathered to him by Faith. I have other sheep which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voyce, &c. Jo: 10. 16. he means the Gentiles that were infidels yet, nevertheless his sheep that must af­terward hear his voice, because they were his sheep, how were these termed Christs people, Christs sheep, while yet in Paganism, idolatry and unbeleef, but because they were his redeemed and ju­stified ones? Ye beleeve not, because ye are not of my sheep, Jo: 10. 26. What is that, but because they were not of the number of them for whose sins he had effectually satisfied Gods justice.

3 Justification and Remission of sins may be considered also as it is brought into their own apprehension and Conscience, that were justified by Christ, and in Christ before. And in this sense it is oftenest taken in Scriptures, yea alway when we are said to be justified by Faith. This is done when Christ by the manifestation and ministry of the Gospel maketh known in all ages to them for whose sins he hath satisfied, the Mystery of Grace by him, and fra­meth their hearts with all gladnes by Faith to embrace him and it thorow him, unto Justification. Then are they justified in them­selves, and remission of sins sealed up by the spirit to their own Consciences, and so have the Kingdom of God within them, con­sisting of Peace, Righteousnes, and Joy in the Holy Ghost. Before this Christ had life for them, now they are said to have it them­selves, Jo: 20. 31. 1 Jo: 5. 12. Untill now was their winter sea­son, so that all their life was in Christ as the Vine or Root, now is their spring, so that the life sheweth it self in them as the branch­es blossoming with peace and joy unto all obedience. Before life was purchased and seizure thereof taken for them by Christ: Now they are passed from death to life, 1 Jo: 3. 14. i. e. are put into the actuall possession of it. Before though they were Lords of all (as the Apostle in a case little different from this speaketh, Gal. 4. 1, 2.) yet differed nothing from Servants, being (in their own appre­hension) under the threats and condemnation of the Law, and so still in slavish, fears and terrors. But now they see their free­dom and take possession of it, with boldness to cry Abba Father, and to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, and through the veil of his flesh, with full assurance of hope, &c. Hebrewes 10. 19, 20.

These things so premissed, we shall the better see whether the Scriptures which Mr. Baxter here produceth, do by their own force, or else by his mis-interpretation of them seem to prove that the Elect while unbeleevers, are under the Law as a Covenant of works. First that of Joh. 3. 18. is a threat of the Gospel Covenant against the Contemners of it and of Christ the preacher thereof, and not of the Law Covenant. And it is brandished against reprobats and not against elect unbeleevers. Christ had now preached his Gospel a while in Galilee; the elect beleeved, and of them saith Christ they are not condemned. The reprobates would not beleeve; of them he saith, they are condemned already: and the reason is rendred, not because they have broken the morall Law, but because they have not beleeved in the Name of the onely begotten Son of God. This is the condemnation that [Christ the] light is come into the world, and men preferred their own darknes before him, &c. The same also is the meaning of the 36 ver. which he citeth. Neither of these pointing in their threat to the elect but the reprobates among unbeleevers. Neither threatening for Contumacy against the Law but the Gospel. Therefore nothing here proveth the elect before they beleeve to be under the Law, as a Covenant of works.

Again those Scriptures which he saith bid us to beleeve for the remission of sinnes, Act. 2. 38, &c. do only prove that faith in Christ doth justifie the elect in the third consideration of Justification or remission of sinns before mentioned, viz. as it evidenceth and brings home into their apprehension and Conscience that their sinns are remitted. For so run the words, in that 10 of Act. v. 47. that Who­soever beleeveth in him shall receive remission of sins; not denying that Christ had received it for them before, but affirming only that now they should receive it from Christ. Besides, this promise is held forth there promiscuously to all both elect and reprobate, and it is but an offer not the gift of pardon, to distinguish betwixt them for whom Christ had and those for whom he had not effectually satisfied and received absolution from the Father, by the ones beleeving and re­ceiving by faith from the hand of Christ, the pardon, and the others refusall and manifesting thereby their abode under death and the Law still. The surety had paid the penalty of the obligation, taken up the bonds, and acquittance or discharge of the debt. Thenceforth the Creditor had no more plea against either principall or surety. Nevertheles the principall knew it not, therefore playeth least in sight, is in continual fear of arrests, thinks every bush hath a Sergeant [Page 93] or Bayliff under it; but at length the surety gives and delivers into his hand both the acquittance, & the obligation Cancelled. Now is his first receiving of a discharge, now he first finds himself free from his Creditors obligation, now hath he the first comfort of the bene­fit; but he was discharged before, though he knew it not; so is it with the elect, &c. Therefore Mr. Baxters inference hence is un­sound.

He addeth the Testimony of Paul, Eph. 2. 3. That the redeemed were by nature the Children of wrath: who denyeth it? But this is no­thing to the question. It is not here enquired whether the redeemed drew not the seeds of sin and death by naturall propagation from their parents, as much as others: But whether by the satisfaction which Christ made for them, according to the Covenant of grace, they were not redeemed from that wrath before they yet beleeved. It is true what Mephibosheth said of himself and his brethren, to Da­vid, We were all as dead men before my Lord the King, &c. 2 Sam. 19. 28. because they were the progeny of Saul that fought against Da­vid. Nevertheles by means of the Covenant that intervened between David and Jonathan, Mephibosheth had right to all the favour that King David could express.

As for those testimonies cited by way of Thesis and Antithesis, out of Gal. 5. ver. 3, 4. & ver. 18, 23. they make wholly against him, nothing for him. The 3 & 4 verses, speak nothing to the question in hand, but utterly destroy that to which in this whole dispute he driveth, nothing to the question in hand. The circumcised are bound or debtors to the whole Law, and Christ is become of none effect to them. He was to have proved that beleevers, were before they beleeved un­der the Law. This Text speaketh not of the elect before they be­leeved, but of professed beleevers returning to Circumcision and the Law, to fetch thence help unto their justification after that they seemingly at least beleeved in Christ: so here is nothing that makes for him, because nothing to the present question. But much against him in reference to the grand thing which he laboureth for, to bring beleevers under the Law as a Covenant of works. Whosoever doth so saith the Apostle in the least mite, that contents not himself with Christ alone, takes in but so poor a peice of the Law as Circumci­sion to help with Christ to Justification, the same person hereby forfeiteth all his claim to Grace and Christ, and must gain heaven by his perfect fullfilling of the Law, or must be damned in hell for ever. Into this state Mr. Baxter striveth to bring himself and his dis­ciples. [Page 94] I shall not wish them joy in it, because I use not to wish im­possibilities. Touching the verses which he puts in opposition to these, ver. 18, 23. But if ye be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law, against such there is no law. If he mean simply and sincerely what the Apostle here meaneth by being led by the Spirit, viz. the seeking of righteousnes by Christ alone, as the same Apostle more fully ex­presseth himself, Gal. 3. 3. Phil. 3. 3. Then by granting that such are not under the Law, there is no law against them; he destroyeth and recanteth all that he hath before spoken to prove beleevers un­der the Law. But if by being led by the Spirit, his aim be to bring in works to justification under the name of the fruits of the Spirit, we shall here forbear to answer him, because it is besides the present question, leaving it to its fit place where he openly explaineth himself.

And no less abhorrent from the question is his next proof, Gal. 3. 22. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ may be given to them that beleeve. What is this to the pur­pose in hand? we deny not the promise of, or the promised Justifi­cation and remission of sinns, by faith in Jesus Christ to be given to them that beleeve, into their hands and possession when they beleeve, by affirming that Christ hath taken possession thereof for them be­fore they beleeve, that he may let it down into their hearts when they beleeve. He ascended up on high, and led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. Eph. 4. 8. The Apostle fetcheth his authority from the word in Psal. 68. 18. where it is said, He received gifts for men, viz. to give them in his time. But the Apostle contents himself with the scope of the word, not binding himself to the bare letter and sound thereof. So Christ at his ascension received for us the gifts of Justi­fication, and remission, and all other benefits of his passion; They were then laid up for us in his Custody, so that we had them in him before our actuall existence upon earth. But he gives them to us in­to our sensible possession, when we come to be, to live and to be­leeve.

That which he citeth from Gal. 4, 5. is altogether besides the que­stion also. Himself acknowledgeth that it proveth us onely to be under the Law when Christ redeemed us, or undertook to pay our ransom. Not that we were under the Law after he had redeemed us by paying our ransom, before we yet beleeved. The words are these in the 4 & 5 verses; God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law. The scope of the A­postle [Page 95] here, is one and the same with that to which he drives, Gal. 2. 15, 16. We who are Jewes by nature, [a holy seed, within the Cove­nant, and have all the privileges of the Law] and not sinners of the Gentiles [that are without the Covenant and the Law] knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; even we have beleeved 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 no flesh is justified. Why then do we draw the poor Gentiles to seek any fur­therance to their justification, by the observation of the Law, by which our selves who were most privileged with it could not be justified but by Christ onely without the law? So here, Even they that had the law and were not a little zealous for and active in the righteousness of the law, had need of a redeemer, were justified and saved not at all by the lawes righteousness, but onely by Christs redeeming of them: What madnes is it then in you O foolish Gala­thians, that are not of the holy stock of Israel, but sinners of the Gentiles to seek any help to your justification by the works of the law, which could not justifie the very Israelites that were born and brought up in it: and not to repose your selves upon Christ alone? If Mr. Baxter will pretend any other meaning of the Text besides, he shall therein wound and not strengthen his Cause. For he speaks of the same persons here, to be under the law onely in the hand of a Mediator, not under the Curse of the law, but under such an ad­ministration thereof, that even before they actually beleeved in Christ, the very person of Christ, are affirmed ver. 1. to be Lords of all, all the inheritance which is by Christ; ergo not under the wrath of God before they embraced the Faith of Christ.

As for the other Scriptures which he annexeth yet further to prove, that the very elect before and untill they beleeve, are under the Law in the sense so oft manifested; let him once shew how he will argue, and what he will conclude, and upon what grounds, from them; we shall be ready to answer him. In the interim I pro­fess I see not any thing in them more prevalent to his purpose, than a nights lodging in a bed of snow and ice, to cure the Cough.

Yet from all these wrested Scriptures he Concludes at last that the deliverance which beleevers have by Christ from the Curse of the Law, is a conditionall deliverance, viz. if they will obey the Gospel, i. e. when they beleeve, if they will beleeve, not onely while they live, but also when they are dead and buried. For as we say that a conditionall proposition doth nihil ponere, so it is true in the [Page 96] sense of Mr Bax. here, that this conditionall promise doth nihil pro­mittere. The Condition as long as this world lasteth being still in performing not performed, and so nothing obteined. Yet will he have this new nothing together with the abrogation of the cere­moniall Law, (to which we never were, none but the Israelites ever have been subject) to be the great privilege of beleevers and effect of Christs bloud. When we poor souls with our dull eyes, can see no more privilege that we have herein by Christs bloud, than the worst of infidells and reprobates have, for they also [...]ave this conditionall deliverance from the curse, and freedom from the ceremoniall law. And this deliverance (saith he) is yet more full, when we perform the conditions of our freedom; And then we are said to dead to the Law, Rom. 7. 4. and the obligation to punishment dead, as to us, ver. 6. This is in­deed a full and perfect deliverance. But what doth he mean in say­ing when we perform &c. either when we are performing the conditions, That were a contradiction to himself in what he saith p. 74. that we are not perfectly freed till the day of resurrection and judgement. And so also it will be hard for another save Mr. Br. to make sense of the words. That the deliverance of beleevers is yet more full when they perform the Conditions, are performing the conditions of their freedom; i. e. more full when they beleeve than when they do beleeve. For if we should grant to Mr. Br, Faith to be a condition, and not rather a mean or instrument of our justification, yet would we grant him no other condition thereof. Or doth he mean, it is full when they have performed the Conditions? it seems then that some of the Conditions are left to be performed in the next world, because un­till then he tells us we can have no such perfect freedom.

This is the free Grace of God which Mr. Br boasteth himself so much to extoll, p. 79. let him that delights in it, be his disciple. That which he speaks in the upshott for the mitigation of his harsh doctrine aforegoing; (that he knoweth this Covenant of works continueth not to the same ends and uses as before, &c.) is but a trick of the Jesuits, to give sugar after the poyson which was before gone down to destroy. Neither can he make out how beleevers are under the law of nature as a Covenant of works, and yet not bound to seek life according to the tenor and condition of that Cove­nant.

If any marvell that Mr. Baxter should so waste his spirits in abu­sing both divine and humane learning to prove the Saints to be still under the Curse, under the law as a Covenant of works, he will [Page 97] cease to wonder, if he take notice of a further aim that he hath therein. He would not out of doubt have so much insisted on it, had he not looked to a further end in it. If the beleevers are still un­der a Covenant of works, as to the Curse, wrath, and Condemna­tion, much more are they under a Covenant of works as unto life and Justification. If the former be once granted, he accounts the game wonn as to the latter. Therefore doth he so much stirr in the former, that he may with the more facility and less contradiction, bring in afterwards the latter, Justification by works, which is his very busines in Compiling this book.

CHAP. XI.

Mr. Br having (as he thinks) laid prostrate the whole generati­on of Christ, and antipapisticall beleevers under the Curse, under the wrath of God, sticks as close to them, as the vulture to the car­kas, or the beetle to the doung, or the flesh-fly to the sore. For here again he concludes that the very Tenor of the New Covenant is that notwithstanding Christs sufficient satisfaction made to the law, they must remain unjustified, unpardoned, under sin, under vengeance to the end, and then possibly after many hundreds and it may be thousands of yeers wherein their bodies have laid under rottennes, and their souls under all hell-torments which the law can inflict, they shall be justified. And this (very probably) shall be about that time when Origens reprobates and devills shall arise from hell and fly away thence all at once and together to heaven. For whosoever is not justified and pardoned here in this life, shall surely not attain it untill that S ^t Nevers day of Origen. But to this it hath been an­swered already. He seems now to bring some new thing, and that which every beleeving soul gaspeth to hear made out in its fullnes viz. What the Tenor of the New Covenant is. viz. That whosoeve will repent and beleeve to the end, shall be justified after the end.

When the Serpent hath got his head into the hole the body also, by little and little followes. Erewhile it was, he that beleeveth to the end, now it is, he that repenteth to the end, and beleeveth to the end, that shall be after all ends and worlds justified. Yet this is but the head and neck of the Serpent. The bulk and belly are behinde, and the same full of all the qualifications and good works that Mr. Br can devise, or all the herds of Monks and Jesuits have devised to his hands. These all must be according to Mr. Baxters Gospel, as effectuall as faith, or Christ himself to Justification. I should but preoccupate a dispute here to examine whether repentance be one of the many thousand conditions of Justification which Mr. Br in the sequele of this Treatise holds necessary to Justification. I shall therefore leave the handling thereof to its due place. Onely by the way, if by re­pentance Mr. Br here meaneth any thing heterogeneous, or specifi­cally distinct from faith, I affirm and shall in its place make good, that this his assertion is totally Popish, against the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles.

As for the Scriptures which he doth here roll out in a Crowd without rank or file to prove it; partly because he neither alleageth the words, nor shews how he would argue from them, partly be­cause his shuffling them together in Clusters, tends onely to make [Page 99] the labour of his answerer almost intolerable, to shew particularly how little each Scripture makes for him, and how much many of them against him; partly because he doth still reserve to himself, [whatsoever be said in answer] an advantage to evade, by telling us that the force of that Scripture doth in another way, and not in that to which we have answered, prove for him; but principally because he quotes the same Scriptures over and over again in ano­ther place more proper, where it shall be more pertinent to answer them, I shall therefore here forbear to speak to them, lest I should there be forced to omit it, or to say over again what had been here said before: Nay himself will not have them to be answered here, for he speaks so ambiguously, that he will not have his meaning un­derstood, telling us onely that upon these Conditions (forsooth) performed, we shall be justified in another world, but doth not let us know from him whether upon performance of them we may be justified in the present world. But he passeth to the explication.

CHAP. XII.

I Now come to that Testimony of Jer. 31. 31, 32, 33. cited in Heb. 8. 8-10. against which Mr. B. so much excepteth. That New Covenant there mentioned is called the New Covenant, not in opposition to the Old Covenant made in the beginning with Adam, but in opposition to that Covenant made two thou­sand and six hundred years after at least, with Israel upon Mount Sinai. And that Covenant upon Mount Sinai is called the Old Co­venant, not in opposition to the Cov: of Grace made [if not from eternity according to Mr. B. yet] by Mr B. acknowledgment al­most 3000 years before, and in those thousands of years oft held out afresh and renewed: but in opposition to the Covenant of Grace as it is now held forth in a new form and administration under the Gospel. So that the two Covenants there mentioned, are termed Old and New, not for their differing in substance, but for their different wayes of administration. The Church of Israel then, and the Churches of Christ now, are and were under the same Covenant of Grace in substance; but the Church then under a legall and the Church now under an Evangelicall and spiritu­all administration thereof. That was the old, this the new admi­nistration, and in respect hereof the same Covenant then and now, are termed the Old and New Covenant. This is evident from the Text, It shall come to passe (saith the Lord) that in those dayes I will make a New Covenant with [them] not such as I made with their Fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Ae­gypt, which my Covenant they brake, though I were an Husband to them, saith the Lord. But this is the Covenant that I will make with [them] in those dayes, I will put my Lawes in their minds, &c. And I will be their God, &c. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, &c. For I will be mercifull to their unrighteousnes, and their sins and their iniqui­ties will I remember no more. Here Mr. B. must

1 Grant that the Old Covenant in this place mentioned, was [Page 109] the Covenant of the Law given in the Wildernes. For this is ex­presly affirmed where it is said to be made with their Fathers when the Lord took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Aegypt.

And 2 Notwithstanding Israel being under the Covenant, they were not either wholly under a Covenant of works, or besides the Covenant of Grace. For the Apostle maketh these two phrases, to be Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, and Strangers from the Covenant of Promise, to sound one and the same thing, Ephes. 2. 12. and telleth us that the Law which was 430 years after, could not null the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, so as to make the Promise of no effect: but that after the addition of this Legall Co­venant, that Gospel Covenant made with Abraham, and them i [...] him, of blessednes by Christ the seed of Abraham, stood firm unto them still, Gal. 3. 17. This also will doubtles be granted.

3 That therefore the Gospel Covenant in this Scripture pro­mised, is called a New Covenant, not in opposition to that made with Abraham, for that is the same with this here promised, onely that was confirmed of God in Christ to come, this in Christ al­ready come; and yet in opposition to that legall administration of it, and additory Covenant of the Law 430 years after an­nexed.

4 That this additionall Covenant was that Pedagogy of the Law under which the Apostle affirmeth the Jewes (though Lords of all) to be kept untill the coming of Christ, in the third and fourth chapters to the Galathians. And it consisted partly of Ceremoniall Lawes and typicall Ordinances pointing to Christ that was to come, and obscurely teaching Christ and Faith in him: partly of the Morall Commandments, the observation whereof was injoin­ed as a condition of attaining that blessednes before promised to Abraham in Christ, yet so as this condition, If ye will obey, was still in the hand of a Mediator, satisfying for disobedience, because no perfect obedience could be fulfilled. This Pedagogy or leading of the Jewish Church by the hand while it was a child in the know­ledg of the mystery of salvation by Christ was needfull, it could not well be without the typicall Ordinances, which by Lectures read upon them by their teachers, might discover and seal up much of Christ to them. Neither could it well be without the promi­ses and threats of the Law, while yet the Grace of the Lord Christ was veiled to them, that in the light joy and brightnes thereof they could not as the Saints now run the race of Gods Command­ments [Page 110] of pure love without some mixture of servile fear.

5 It will hence then follow that the New Covenant here pro­mised is termed a new Covenant, because exempted from that additament of the Law.

1 From the Ceremoniall Law, which in its revealing of Christ veiled him, and let out but a dark shadow of him and the grace that is by him, so that there was need of a large exposition upon every figure, Circumcision, Passeover, Sacrifices, &c. Brother to teach Brother, and one Neighbour another what these things meant, and yet at last both teachers and learners remained exceeding dark in the mystery of Christ. But it is otherwise with us under the Gospel. The shaddowes are vanished and we have the very body which is Christ, Col. 2. 17. Our eyes have seen, we have heard with our ears, and our hands have handled the bread of life, 1 Joh: 1. 1. All is made out to us cleerly by the Doctrine and Spirit of Christ. The Law (by which the Prophet speaking in the tone of the Iewes, and in a phrase which under that administration they best knew, under­standeth the Gospel and Law of the Spirit of life) is written in our hearts, revealed and sealed up to our Consciences. We need not say, Who shall ascend up to Heaven, or who shall discend to the deep? &c. But the word is nigh thee even in thy mouth and in thy heart, this is the word of Faith which we preach, Rom. 10. 6-8. So that there is not so much need of brothers teaching brother, &c. because all is held forth not in the shadow but in the clear light.

2 From the conditions of the morall Law, yea from all condi­tions which made that former administration of the Covenant terrible, because conditions could not be performed. The New Covenant saith the Holy Ghost, shall be absolute, not such as was made with their Fathers, that might be broken; but free and ab­solute, all begun and ended by the meer grace of God, I will teach, &c. I will be their God, and they shall be my people, I will be mer­cifull to their unrighteousnes, and their sins and iniquity will I remember no more. I am not so happy as to express my self in few words, nor so either reckles, or evilly subtle, as under a pretence of bre­vity to leave things in ambiguity for self-ends. This I conceive to be the meaning of this text, and in these five Positions I have ( sub calculo melioris judicij) expressed what yet I conceive to be the truth about the Covenant of Grace, 1 between God and Christ, 2 be­tween Christ and man.

To this last thing handled, that the Covenant of Grace in its [Page 111] present administration is free and not conditionall, otherwise then I have before granted, the Apostle giveth purposely his suffrage, af­firming the Covenant made to Abraham is that which now stands in force, that the Law was but a temporary additament to it, to re­main onely till the promised seed should come, he means so to re­main as to make the Covenant conditionall. The Law therefore being in this respect done away, the Covenant abides free and ab­solute. In thee, in thy seed, all Nations shall be blessed, Gal. 3. 8, 16, 17, 18. This Covenant is free, absolute, laden with no such con­ditions as might make the hope of blessednes uncertain.

The evasions which Mr. B. useth to elude the authority of this Scripture, are meerly Sophisticall, having no footing upon other Scriptures, and totally crossing the purpose of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture. It conteineth not (saith he) the full tenor of the whole New Covenant. Where then shall we find it, if not where the Holy Ghost undertaketh professedly to declare both what this New Covenant is not, and what it is? This is the Covenant saith the Holy Ghost, Nay it is but a peece or morsell of it, saith Mr. Br. whom shall we beleeve? him that speaketh from Heaven, or him that (at the best) speaketh but from the earth? But either so called (saith Mr. Br.) because it expresseth the nature of the benefits of the New Co­venant as they are offered on Gods part, without mentioning mans conditi­ons (that being not pertinent to the business the Prophet had in hand.) A most impudent fiction, yea it was the whole or chief thing he had in hand; was it not to shew the difference between these two under-covenants, that under the Law, and this under the Gospel? But how doth it serve to this purpose to expresse the nature of the benefits of the New Covenant? Did not the Elect under the Law partake of the same benefits in nature though not in mea­sure, with the Elect now? Or is not this one of the differences which he makes betwixt the Covenants, that the one was hedged about with hard conditions, the other free? Or els, saith he, it speaketh onely of what God will do for his Elect, in giving them the first grace, and enabling them to perform the New Covenant. Ridiculous; though right in the Monkes tone. For did not God give the first and second Grace too, to the Elect under the Law as well as to the Elect under the Gospel? Where then is the difference hence, to give a new name to the present Covenant? But lastly, saith he, It is a pro­duction and belongs to the will of purpose, not to his legislative will. Now he hits the nail upon the head. He makes a very Asse of this distin­ction, [Page 112] and loads him with all sorts of trash. It is to be doubted it will shortly get a gawld back, and kick his Master in the leggs. Predictions and Promises, because they are not perteining to Gods legislative will, must henceforth give neither fulture to our faith nor light to our judgments. The rest that he hath upon this The­sis hath nothing of moment in it calling for an answer.

I annex this Position because it is homogeneous with the many former, and though Mr. Br. would seem in the Explication to di­stinguish the matter of it from that which the former Aphorisms conteined, yet is it not onely of the same kinde but of the same substance also with it, and what hath been said in answer to that which went before might suffice as an answer to this also. Yet be­cause it delights him to speak the same things in a variation of words, let us see whether the words which he here useth have more [...]fficacy in them to his purpose then the former.

We finde here as we did in some of the former Theses, a fardle of ambiguities, and phrases of a doubtfull sense, which puts us in­to an uncapacity of answering his meaning, because he so speak­eth that he will be sure we shall not be able to prove what is his meaning.

First when he saith, It is not the will of Christ, or will of the Father, he leaves us unresolved whether he mean the will of purpose or the will of precept, that if we answer to the one, he may evade by a pretence he meant the other. If he will be understood of the former, when was he rapt up into the third Heaven to search what secret purposes and decrees are hidden in the bosom of the Father or of the Son? Or if he hath it by revelation, why doth he not shew how and when it was given him, and whether in an ordina­ry or extraordinary manner? Or if he mean that will, how shall he take it up to be the rule of his judgment, which in the very last words to which I answered, and so often elswhere, he abandoneth [Page 113] from being the rule of other mens judgments? If he mean the lat­ter, the will of precept, why holds he us suspended in the expe­ctation of alleaging the precept, and arguing forth his Conclusions thence, that if satisfactory we may submit to it, if otherwise we may except against it?

Secondly when he tels us of Justification denying any living soul to have it only by Christs satisfaction, without some ground in himself of particular right and claim thereto, and except it be also received and applyed, &c. he leaves us doubtfull whether he meaneth Justification as compleated in Christ, or as evidenced also to our own consciences. If the former what will he then conclude of perishing or dying infants, that they are all unjustified, and in respect of the punishment of loss remedilesly damned, and so with his brethren shut them up for ever in that dark prison which is ter­med by them Limbus infantum? If the latter, and that he will give us leave to take his words in Scripture-sense, we will not quarrel with them; but this in the Explication he seems to explode.

Thirdly when he tels us of some grounds of claim in our selves to Justification, which in the following words he seems to deter­minate to consist in our receiving and applying thereof, and in the Ex­plication, p. 93. he calls somwhat of man intervening to give him a le­gall right to it, annexing that we are said to be justified by Faith; in all this he mixeth together falshood and subtilty with his ambigu­ity: putting himself into that posture wherein the Papists have painted and feigned Erasmus, hovering between Heaven and Hell, sometimes mounting on high, sometimes sinking low again, but pitching neither above, nor beneath. In such a motion we here find Mr. B. as he is in his gradation further making out the Myste­ry of Romish iniquity for a Law, soaring still higher towards the very top of it, and sinking lower from the Orb of Christian veri­ty? So by that something of man that must enright him to Ju­stification, he must mean something more then Repentance and Faith, which he had before concluded necessary to Justification, Thes. 14. Els were he upon a retreating not a marching posture. Nevertheles how subtlely doth he d [...]wb and paint to gull the sim­ple, and catch them that are made to be taken, by putting fine words upon his course purposes, telling them that we are justified by Faith, and that there is required on our part but receiving and applying of Christs merits; as if he were as innocent as a Dove, and had none of the Serpent in him; when contrariwise the sequele of his Tra­ctate [Page 114] proclaimes him, by that which he calls here somewhat of man, to mean at the full with the worst Papists, mans works to the totall exclusion of Gods grace. In mean while his words leave it doubtfull here what this somewhat of man is, and whether it be the hand or the heel that must receive and apply Christ to Justifica­tion? His Disciples are not yet enough moulded (he thinks) to receive the Dragons voice in his own tone; they must be accusto­med to bear the Calf daily untill he become an Oxe that he may be born then too, and at length we shall finde the instruments which Mr. B. appoints to receive Christ, to be instrumentall onely to push him from us. However he concludes thus (because he will have it so) That no man by the meer satisfaction made, is freed from the Law and Curse, &c. absolutely, but conditionally onely, i. e. not at all. And this he hath said over and over already, and there needs no further Answer then that which hath been before given: So that where he repeats this Assertion again in the Explication, That Christ doth not justifie by the shedding of his blood immediately, without somwhat of man intervening, &c. adding that All the Scriptures allea­ged p. 79. do prove it. I grant what he saith, for I finde no Scrip­ture there alleaged. But if he mean p. 89, & 90. what I said there I say here again, he shall not misse of an answer to them when he comes to alleage them again in their proper place, and declares how he will argue from them. Yet because the man is delight­ed to deliver first in generall what he will after deliver again in particulars, I shall say something also in generall to his generall assertion, That Christs satisfaction justifieth not without something of man intervening to give him right to it. Let us see what the Scripture saith for or against it.

The Apostle speaking of mans redemption and justification, and shewing the cause why some have, and some have not their part in it, affirmeth and proveth, that it is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, Rom. 9. 16. By the wil­ling, is to be understood all the good qualifications and operati­ons of the soul; by running all the good works of a mans life and practice, as all confess. When the Holy Ghost excludeth every somewhat of man within the man, and every somewhat of man without man, from conferring any thing to Justification, what other somewhat remaineth of man to intervene, &c? Let it be judged whether Mr. B. doth not purposely fight against Scrip­ture?

Again, Rom. 5. 6, 8, 9, 10. When we were yet without strength, (viz. to any spirituall operation) Christ dyed for the ungodly, while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us, and we were justified by his bloud: while enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Here the Result of the Apostles reasoning discovers to us two things to our purpose. 1 That according to the minde and language of the Holy Ghost Christ dying, and by his death satisfying for any mans sinns, and that mans justification, and reconciliation to God by that sa­tisfaction, are equipollent terms, holding forth one and the same thing. For so the Apostle here useth justification and reconciliati­on as words of the same sense and weight. And Amesius manifesteth Ames Med. Lib. 1. c. 27. Sect. 22. in what respects they must needs be taken for the same thing, and makes both the same with Christs dying for him. So that every per­son for whom Christ hath by his death made satisfaction, is effectu­ally justified and reconciled to God (I mean) in Christ, though pos­sibly not yet in his own apprehension. 2 That we are thus justi­fied and reconciled to God, while ungodly, while sinners, while enemies, while without strength to that which is good. What somewhat of man can there be in such, to enright them to justificati­on, unless any will say, their impotency, ungodlines, sin and en­mity shall do it? Such contrariety is there between Mr. Br and the Spirit or word of truth. There needs not much deliberation to de­termine which to follow. But he proceeds,

And what if it be but one of all, or one that is not an Antino­mian that shews it, will Mr. Br harken and submit his judgement to that Scripture so alleaged? I say in like manner: Let all the Anti­christian Jesuits, or Mr. Br. or his M ^r Grotius, shew one Scripture which asserteth onely a conditionall and not an absolute Justifica­tion purchased to us by Christ, I will hear and submit, though I see not then how to be saved. As to his Challenge I shall speak in a more proper place.

I shall therefore wait on him untill he hath the leisure and plea­sure to shew it. In the mean while, why doth he Conclude so hotly and peremptorily before-hand that which he brings nothing save [Page 116] his own bare affirmation to prove. He said not unwisely which said; Let not him that girdeth on his armour boast as he that putteth it off, 1 King. 20. 11.

Qui non vult intelligi debet negligi. He that will so speak that he may not be understood, is worthy to pass without an Answer. If he mean that the bloud of Christ is sufficient to compleat our justifica­tion before God, and that this is its own work; But that there are other necessaries to justifie us in our selves and our own apprehen­sions, which being supposed the work is ended; I will abstein from all contradiction. If he mean otherwise, and will not express him­self. Hony soit Qui male pense.

These words would seem to plead a good meaning in Mr. Br to them that neither are acquainted with the glozings of the Papists, nor with that which followeth in this Treatise of Mr. Br. He might be thought by this his smoothing to attribute our Justification wholly to Christs sufferings, and nothing to any thing in our selves, save to faith only, nor to Faith, but as it is appointed of God to be instrumentall for the accepting and receiving into our bosoms Christs merits and the benefits thereof. The like fine words we shall finde oft falling from the pen of Pelagius, Papists, Arminians, &c. But both of him and them I may say what the Lord once said of Is­rael; This people hath well spoken in all that they have said: O that there were in them such a heart &c. Deut. 5. 28, 29.

He proceeds and opposeth to the Authority of our Apostle Paul, the authority of his S ^t Grotius, at the hearing of whose sophisticall learning, all the doctrine of Paul must fall broken and shivered to the earth, no lesse than the Ark of God did before the great Dagon of the Philistims.

The summe of all is this. Because our justification is an act pro­ceeding from the meer and free will of God and of Christ, it was therefore in their power, after payment made by Christ, and accep­ted by the Father in our behalf, to covenant, and accomplish our discharge, either forthwith or a long time after, either simply or upon Conditions. Therefore it is Covenanted between the Father and the Son that we shall be, after satisfaction made, not forthwith, but in processe of time, justified, and then also not purely or abso­lutely but conditionally. A mad Argumentation. For A posse ad esse non valet Consequentia. It is as if I should argue God could have supported Mr. Br and his M ^r Grotius in the truth of the Gospel. Ergo he hath preserved them in the truth. What judicious man that hath considerately read their works, would not hisse at such an ar­gument? But he adds the authority of Austin.

O that Mr. Br had stood as Austin, pillar-like to beare up the Grace of God entire in the whole busines of our salvation, against all the sophisms of Pelagius and his followers. We should in no wise have excepted, against Augustines words in Mr. Baxters mouth utte­ring them in Augustines sense. We make not men stocks and stones, nor deny the operation of their wills moved by Gods Spirit in the way to happines.

Yet the sentence it self alleaged out of Austin, (I doubt) is per­verted by Mr. Baxter, as it hath been by some before him. I have been told that in Austin it is read intorrogatively; and bears the force of an affirmative, thus; He that made thee without thee, will he not save thee without thee? which is equivolent to this (if it were said) he will save thee without thee. For the truth of it I have been directed to his Serm. 11. de verb. Apostoli. where though I finde it not totidem ver­bis, yet the full sense and substance thereof I finde. The Father treat­ing of those words of the Psalmist [ He made us without us, or not we our selves] improves them by the annexion of other Scriptures a­gainst Pelagius, demonstrating that he also saves us when we were lost without us. To this effect his sentences are full and manifold. Perditos nos per nos, reficit nos qui fecit nos. Again, Ipse fecit nos & non ipsi nos, ut simus populos ejus & oves pascuae ejus. Again, Homines sumus ipse fecit nos, fidel [...]s sumus & jam justi, ipse fecit nos & non ipsi nos. A­gain, [Page 118] Ipse fecit nos, & antequàm essemus omninò ipse fecit nos: & factos & lapsos ipse justos fecit nos, & non ipsi nos. Nondum erat [homo] & factus est: offendit & salvus factus. Again, Quis prior dedit ei & retribuetur ei? Si Dominus retribuere vellet, nihil nisi paenam debitam retribuisset. Nihil de­derunt ut eis, retribueretur, pro nihilo salvos fecit illos. In a word, as all this is directly against Mr. Baxter, so is there no one title in the whole Sermon for him, but all proving not in Mr. Baxters sophi­sticall way, but seriously and profoundly from cleer and invincible Scriptures, our salvation to be onely Gods work, not his and ours together. If nothing else should be said, that which Austin in this one Chapter hath said, is enough to bury Mr. Baxters doctrine in the dirt for ever.

True, but whether the relative, or the reall change hath the pre­cedency in order, is the question. Whether our reconciliation or justification go before sanctification, or follow it as the fruit thereof.

True, but altogether besides the question.

If he speak of our being justified in our selves, or having our Ju­stification evidenced to our selves, or our brethren, we consent with him. If he mean otherwise (in the sense often mentioned) what he saith here is that which he hath often said, but it remaineth yet to be proved. There is somewhat else (as hath been oft shewed) besides Mr. Brs somewhat in us, that differenceth man from man, that all have not equall right. And this is somewhat in Christ; not somewhat in us.

CHAP. XIII.

I Shall totally pretermit the 16 ^th Aphorisme and its explication, not but that there are some passages therein deserving examina­tion, but because that what is delivered in such passages, is done ve­ry warily, and may admit of a good as well as of a bad Constructi­on; and in the following part of his book, Mr. Br speaketh it out fully and plainly, that no man can doubt of his meaning; There­fore is more properly to be answered there, than in this place.

Neither shall I say much to the 17, & 18 Aphorisms, because they are but (as it were) a bridge of Mr. Brs making, on which to pass over to the following matter. Yet that he may not Complain of wrong, that he is deprived of the honour of his artificiall Methode, I shall transcribe his words, and annex some animadversions upon them.

I close up all these positions together (as it were) in one Fron­tispice, partly in regard of their neer Cognation in Nature, and partly that the profoundnes and dexterity of Mr. Br may the more cleerly appear: and that it may be here evidenced to the very sen­ses of all, what is said Gen. 3. 1. That the Serpent is more subtle than all the beasts of the field which God hath made.

The one part of Mr. Brs Gospel we have found, in the former part of this Tractate, the summe and substance whereof may be thus expressed; That Christ Jesus by the will of his Father, hath by the satisfaction made to justice for the sins of the Elect, obteined that the whole Curse and managing thereof, together with the Elect for whom he hath satisfied, should be delivered up into his hand: And he sheweth himself in this his power an unmercifull High Priest, holding his redeemed ones, under the Curse, wrath, and torment in soul and body, not giving them deliverance untill the day of judgement. He did somewhat before look unto, but now really enters upon the second part, which is like to the former, holding forth a justification in the world to come, upon such Conditions as will not bring any unto, but certainly exclude all, that to this end use and perform them, from justification into condemnation. Within the Confines of these two essentiall parts of his Gospel, he comprizeth all the riches of grace by Christ, which whosoever likes it, may if he will, partake of. Such have we already found the Na­ture of the first part of his Gospel. We are now to examine whether the second part thereof be not such as I have here mentioned; if not, I have wronged Mr. Br; if so, he wrongs Christ, and works against him seeking the damnation of the Elect. And by the very words of these four propositions of his, (if nothing els were to be added) he that is both orthodox and judicious, may somewhat judge whi­ther Mr. Br driveth, finding him to set up mans righteousnes paral­lell with Christs righteousnes, and equally necessary to our Justifi­cation; so making man at least a demisaviour to himself, and so (in effect prove) an absolute destroyer of his own soul. For who­soever [Page 121] brings any thing besides Christ to his justification, falls ut­terly from Christ, righteousnes, and salvation.

Yet while he thus acts the part of one of those evill workers men­tiuned Phil. 3. 2. he shews himself an Artiz [...]n to deceive the wits of the time, no less than Muncer did himself to beguile the witles Com­mon people in Germany. He when he was vanquished, taken, and now under the hands of the tormentor, being demanded why he had so deluded the silly vulgar multitude to his own and their ruine; breaking forth into a vehement laughter, answered, Sic vo­luerunt, They would have it so; insinuating that because he found them little regarding the solidity and power of the Gospel, but itching after novelties, he attempered and even sacrified his studies to their humour, untill he had subverted himself and them. So Mr. Br taking notice of some affected wits that had rather perish and dye for ever by Art, & that which is falsely called Science or learn­ing, 1 Tim. 6. 20. than to live and be saved by the simplicity and plainnes of the Gospel; composeth himself wholly to please their humour, and make himself their darling; handles the Case so fine­ly and artificially, that he may kill them softly, they never feeling it untill they are dead and ruined for ever.

One peece of his artifice we have here in his invention of that twofold Righteousnes of the two Covenants absolutely necessary to justification or salvation: The one in Christ, the other in our selves: Christs righteousnes purchasing for us a conditionall justi­fication, a possibility of righteousnes & bliss in the world to come; but the other, our righteousnes when once finished and compleated, being that which doth the deed and drives the nail to the head, making both Christs righteousness and the justification purchased by it, to be no longer Conditionally, but actually and really ours. Provided and alwayes excepted that this cannot be in this life, and so the tryall of Mr. Brs doctrine by experience, can never be made untill this world be wholly ended.

This is learning indeed, such as neither the dictates of men, (at least totidem verbis, in so fine a contexture of words) nor the Ora­cles of God could ever teach Mr. Br. It is his own and possibly may continue his onely to the worlds end, all men els proving them­selves too wise or too foolish to joyn with him in this his specula­tion. We thought that the righteousness according to the Cove­nant under which God hath placed us, had sufficed to justification; he tells us nay, but we are under both the Covenant of works and [Page 122] the Covenant of grace too, and must be righteous in the righteous­nes of both. The world had not the wit untill now, nor yet Christ, or any of his Prophets or Apostles had it ever in their Considerati­on to term Christ our legall, and our own works and qualificati­ons our Gospel righteousnes: Mr. Br first having received it rough hewen from Papists and Arminians, teacheth us this piece of di­stinctionary learning. Neither did it enter ever into our thoughts that the righteousness of the Old Covenant was of a more noble [...]ace, or that the righteousnes which is in our selves could be more excellent than that which Christ is made to us, untill this new Do­ctor took the Chair to teach Mysteries, and by inverting and mis­naming Scripture-phrase hath so taught.

Nevertheles it behoved Mr. Br having resolved to keep on the triple Crown upon the Popes head, by stablishing justification upon works, (though it were to the uncrowning of Christ,) to reject up­rightnes and to seek after inventions, Eccles. 7. 29. First he must hold beleevers to be under both Covenants, els while he builds up one peece of Babylon, he should pluck down another; and give his judgment against his holines in one point, while he acts the Cham­pion for him in another: and adventure with all the loss of his Cause, if he keep not as strong hold-fast in the Covenant of works with the one hand, as in the Covenant of grace with the other. 2 He must call the Condition or means of applying Christ to us or obteining interest in his satisfaction, our Righteousnes, els he will not be able to evade those Scriptures which assert our Justifi­cation by faith. But by this feat he thinks himself in a fit posture both to answer this, and to bring in all qualifications and works that he pleaseth in a partnership with faith to justifie. True (will he say) we are justified by Faith as a part of our righteousnes, and by all other good qualifications and works as other parts of our righteousnes. 3 He must call faith and works our Evangelicall righteousnes, having seen in what a stinking trance some of his dir­ty deer brethren in their disputes have been left, when they would prove that good works as works of the Law do justifie: and how little better they have fared, who would have them to justifie onely as works of grace, having not had enough subtlety to prove them Gospel or Grace works. Need had he therefore to put himself up­on strong and strange inventions that himself may not stick in the same mire after them. But enough in generall, let us hear him deliver his own minde in particulars.

The latter member of this proposition is grounded upon the for­mer, the Thesis upon the Hypothesis. As true is the latter as the for­mer. But how true is the former, that there are two Covenants, and that they have their distinct Conditions? First when he saith there are two Covenants, he meaneth two Covenants in force to the very Saints in Christ, that while they are under grace to salva­tion, they are also under the Law to the Curse and Condemnation. This hath been his busines to Confirm in the former part of this Treatise, and he owns it in the explication of this Thesis. But this is false as in disapproving of his arguments before hath been proved. They are no more under the Law, who are once under grace, Rom. 6. 14. 2 ^ly, Neither have the two Covenants their distinct Conditions, ac­cording to Mr. Br. For Thes. 4. he makes the Condition of the first Covenant, Perfect Obedience or Righteousnes. The same he makes here the Condition of the New Covenant, viz. Faith and Obedience, but both as integrant parts of our own inherent righteousnes; as we have partly seen, and shall be forced to see more fully in that which is to come after. So that we grant him that as true, as there are two Covenants, with their distinct Conditions in force to the same persons, so true is it that there is a twofold Righteousness, and both absolutely necessary to salvation, (if by salvation he means Justification) At falsum prius, ergo & posterius. When he brings proofs to Confirm his assertions, he may meet with a larger an­swer. In mean while a simple Negation stands fittest in opposition to his bare affirmation.

That which he brings in the explication to Confirm it hath been answered over and over before. Onely he tells us in the upshot that He will take it as granted: To which I answer, that there hath been such a generation of men still upon earth so fingerative, that will needs take that which was never granted and delivered to them; such is the main bulk of Mr. Brs doctrine in this book taken but never delivered to him from God or his Christ.

And Mr. Br doth no less cleer the Controversie, than an Ecclipse the Sun-beams.

He proceeds to explain what this twofold Righteousnes is, so ab­solutely necessary to salvation.

What there is more in any of these three positions, is transcribed at large before. To the 18 Thesis he annexeth in the explication a dispute against the Papists, not to Confute them as adversaries to the truth, for joyning mans righteousnes with Christs righteous­ness unto justification, (for herein he professeth entire Communi­on with them) but to admonish them as his loving brethren to de­fend this their Conclusion of Justification by their own righteous­ness, not under the terms of their legall, but of their Evangelicall righteousness. Because the legall righteousnes is unpossible, but the Evangelicall righteousnes (according to his carving and for­ming of it) is easie to be fullfilled, and almost unpossible to be vio­lated. Not that the Papists were wholly ignorant of this mystery untill Mr. Br here teacheth them. Nay many of them had and plea­ded it very artificially, before he was born. And himself hath lear­ned it of them: But he as the most proficient of all their disciples hath more fully improved it, so that now he becomes a teacher to his very Masters, and exhorts them to learn of him the pious feat and fraud, of making use of this distinction yet further than ever they had the wit or grace to devise; even to all matters and pur­poses that tend to the eluding of the word of Christ, and the ad­vantaging of the holy mother Church, in her doctrine of Justifica­tion, that is altogether Contradictory to the doctrine of the Scrip­tures upon the same Argument.

To the 19 ^th & 20 ^th positions he annexeth an explication of both of these and of all that was said in the two former positions also. In it we shall finde whatsoever deserveth a fuller Answer than hath been yet given to all and every of these four positions, or any thing in all or any of them conteined, not against but according to his own expressed and explicated meaning.

Egregious Confidence and a sparkish spirit! If the Triumphant Chariot were in use again at Rome, and that Mr. Br could either not get it, or not hold it, he would at least give occasion to the world to Epitaph upon him,— Magnis tamen excidit Ausis, he hath bidden fair and stretched wide for it. Yet there would be some men that would otherwise Comment upon his bravery of words. That they are usually bad wares that will not go off with­out such bravery of words. That Bragg is seldom the best Souldi­er. That thundering words are mostly used, when there is wanting strength of reason to support a Cause. We shall in some measure be able to judge when we have examined, what sound Arguments Mr. Br brings to Confirm his assertions. By the way we are to note his subtlety, his ingenuity, and his gallantry. 1 His subtlety in pretending that his Assertions are mainly opposed by Antinomi­ans; and that all that he delivers here, is out of his pure zeal (good man) to dash those earth-born monsters that they may do no more harm. Doth Mr. Br think that none but strangers in our Israel, none but novices in divinity, that never saluted the Gospel, but at twelve furlongs distance, none that ever had acquaintance with this Controversie b [...]tween the Papists and us, should read his book, that he thinks to blinde the eyes of all with such a mummery? Nay let him name one man in any of the reformed Churches, that hath been numbred among the Orthodox, which dissenteth not in the Chaffy doctrine here delivered from him? Or any save the worst, or a man worse than the worst Papists, that consenteth with him to make our inherent righteousnes the Condition to give us right to Christs imputed righteousness? Must Christ and Paul, and all Evangelicall disciples be rejected as Antinomians, because they be­came [Page 126] not Mr. Baxters disciples, and that before he became their Teacher? Or how could they downright oppose this doctrine, be­fore he vented it in print? Was he so familiar with them as to Com­municate to them his Manuscripts? Or hath any other since the world began delivered the same assertions in the same words, that in opposing them Mr. Br should take himself opposed? But he sus­pends his subtlety a little to shew some though but little ingenui­ty, which is the second thing here Considerable in him: Confes­sing that there are some that are no Antinomians who have start­led at the expressions, as if they had conteined some self-exalting horrid doctrine. And did not this also startle Mr. Br to reexamine what he had written before he Committed it to the Presse? Nothing less, but he looks over them with a fastidious admiration, that they should be so shallow, himself being so profound, rejecting their au­thority, with the like Contempt that Caesar did Syllaes, Tush he was a duus Non potuit dictare, so he of these, Nequeunt Philosophari. And thus in the third place passeth on to his gallantry or rather his ar­rogance. That his doctrines here are so plain and clear, that they need little explication, less Confirmation, That he wonders any able Divines should deny them: shall such be termed Divines? nay his very Catechumeni, the Children under his Catechising, much more every man that is a Christian should understand and beleeve them. That they should be taken up for our Creed, why? because profound Mr. Br hath delivered them; if not upon this ground, let him name that man upon earth that hath delivered or beleeved them before himself became the author of them. But at length he somewhat stoopeth from his bravery, and tells us that he would have the matter of them at least thus taken into the Canon of our faith and Creed, if not the phrase: though he think it to be agreea­ble to the matter also: and therefore goeth about thus to defend his phrase and make it good.

Here we finde Mr. Br at the very top of his gallantry and animo­sity; most probably his fancy had suggested to him a totall rout of all terrene animals at the sound of his precedent glorying, and polemicall argumentation; as if therefore all this visible world were Conquered, and he were marching out of it in triumph, as Israel out of Egypt, not a dogg being left to move his tongue a­gainst him: he now challengeth the Heavens, and Calls the Holy Ghost ad partes, to Come to a reckoning for the impropriety of language which he useth by his penmen in the Scriptures. For when he saith, I know that the observance of the Law of Ceremonies, and the seeking of Life by the works of the Law, are both commonly called Le­gall Righteousnes, and that Christs legall righteousness imputed to us is com­monly called Evangelicall Righteousness: he must needs mean primarily that these are so Called Commonly in holy Scriptures, and but se­condarily that they are so called by Ecclesiasticall Writers, as they derive from the Scriptures a Chaste Scripture phrase wherein to expresse spirituall doctrines, For so the Scripture mentioneth one­ly two kinds of Righteousness that ever Came or shall Come into Competition about our Justification, the one a legall righteous­nes, or righteousness of the Law, the other the Evangelicall righte­ousnes, or righteousnes of the Gospel. The legall Righteousness it affirms to be a righteousness of works which we have done, i. e. of good qualifications within us, and good operations flowing from us; [Page 128] the Evangelicall righteousness to be of meer grace and mercy, Tit. 3. 5. The latter it terms Gods Righteousness, i. e. that which God giveth and imputeth; the former our own righteousness, i. e. which is wrought within our selves, and acted by our selves, Rom. 10. 3. Phil. 3. 9. That of the Law, a Righteousnes of works, this of the Gospel, a Righ­teousness without works, Rom. 4. 6. That a Righteousness in our selves, inherent, This a Righteousness in Christ, imputed, Eph. 2. 8. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Or let Mr. Br shew any one Scripture that terms the Righte­ousness which is in and by Christ a legall, or that which is inhe­rent in our selves an Evangelicall Righteousness: or that terms any gift or qualification in man, or work and deed of man his righte­ousness, any peece of his righteousness unto Justification. So that his quarrell here is against the Holy Ghost for speaking so impro­perly and incongruously in Scriptures, and Calling the Righteous­ness which is by Christ Evangelicall, and the righteousness which is in our selves Legall Righteousness. But how will he Confute the Holy Ghost, and prove an absurdity and impropriety in the lan­guage of the Holy Ghost? Forsooth, by opposing himself, his own authority and learning, to the Holy Ghost, and his wisdome and authority. Himself he affirms to speak logically, and by Conse­quence, strictly and properly, But the Holy Ghost is no scholar, never read Aristotle, therefore speaks rudely, rustically, like one of the Rural Animals, not as an Artist out of the schools. Himself gives (scholar-like) a denomination to these two Righteousnesses, from that Covenant which is their Rule, from the Formall Reason of the thing: But the Holy Ghost for lack of school-learning, gives names thereunto from more Alien Extrinsecall respects. This is the summe of his rea­soning. And is it not possible to request from Mr. Br that he would take the Holy Ghost a while as a pupill into his Tuition, to read unto him some Logicall Lectures by which he may be instructed to mould a new the Scriptures into another, a Logical, insteed of that spirituall and Celestiall phrase in which we now finde them? Or if the Spirit of truth and wisdom should be the Teacher, not the Schollar of Mr. Br, then may we break out into Mr. Brs words a­gainst Mr. Br, Mo [...]strous Doctrine, pride, reasoning, and that which e­very Christian should abhorr as unsufferable.

But if Mr. Br be not in more haste than good speed, a word or two, we shall request from him to be resolved in some few que­stions, (before we part,) upon that which he hath here written.

First, Whether it hath not been the Common slight of all subtle [Page 129] heretikes to make new and unused phrases their harbingers to pro­mote and make way for the vending of their new opinions and monstrous doctrines? yea whether he himself had not first laid down a purpose within himself of broaching his doctrine of Justi­fication by works and inherent righteousness, and then after devi­sed this new distinction of our legall righteousnes in Christ, and Evangelicall righteousness in our selves, both necessary to our ju­stification? or to what other end hath he coined this novelty of words and phrase in opposition to the language of the Gospel, but to make it subservient to the novelty of his pernicious doctrine, Contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel?

2 Whether by this novelty of phrase he doth not attribute more excellency and efficacy (as to justification) to mans inherent, than to Christs imputed righteousness? For pag. 98. himself affi [...]meth, that The primary most excellent and most proper righteousness lyeth in the conformity of our actions to the precept; the secondary less excellent Righ­teousness, (yet fitly enough so called) is when, though we have broke the precepts, yet we have satisfied for our breach, either by our own sufferings or some other way. Compare we with that which he there spake that which here he speaketh, and we shall finde him attributing that which he calleth the primary most excellent and most proper righte­ousness to our selves, viz. our Conformity to the precepts of the Gospel; and that which he calleth the secondary less excellent righte­ousness, to Christ, in and by whom we have satisfied for the breach of the precepts of the Law. If this be not the nullifying, surely it is the abasing of Christ. And he that would thus veil, will be rea­dy also to quench (as much as in him lyeth) the glory of Christs Righteousness.

3 What shew of truth is there in that which he assigneth, as the Cause of his departing from the usuall phrase of Scripture to a new expression of words, Calling Christ our Legall, and our own qualifications and works our Evangelicall Righteousness, which no man since the very foundation of the world was laid (I think) e­ver so termed before him? They so take name (saith he) from the Covenant which is their Rule &c. and their Denomination from the formall Reason of the thing. To the unveiling of this Mystery Davu [...] sum non Oedipus. It must be some of Pythagoras his mysticall, and not of Aristotles Dialectick learning, that must so bring this about that we may finde and fathom it. For first how is the Law of Nature or Covenant of works the rule of Christs Mediation, or satisfacti­on [Page 130] made for us? Whether we Consider it as it was fullfilled by Christ, or as it is apprehended by us to righteousness, is the Law or old Covenant made with mankinde a rule or direction to him or us? Did this law at all either binde or direct the eternall Sonn of the eternall God to assume our Nature, and in it to offer him­self a sacrifice for our sinn, and so make satisfaction to divine Ju­stice? Indeed as in Christs sufferings we see him onely a patient, drawn and dragg'd to judgement and death for our iniqui [...]ies laid on him, so was his passion the effect of the Law. But if there were no more to be seen in his sufferings, he should not have been our righteousnes either Legall or Evangelicall. For what merit could there be in a suffering of Constraint and Compulsion? But when in his sufferings he was a voluntary agent, Called and Consecrated by the Father to be our Priest, Heb. 5. 5. No man taking his life from him, but himself laying it down of himself, for us and in our stead, Joh. 10. 18. Thus he became the purchaser of righteousnes for us, and is made of God Righteousnes to us, 1 Cor. 1. 30. But all this he did not by the rule of the Law or Covenant of works, but of the secret and sacred Covenant made between the Father and him: Therefore having mentioned the voluntarines of his suffering in the fore quoted Joh, 10. 18. He addeth, This Commandment have I received of my Fa­ther, implying that this his satisfactory obedience in dying for us had its regulating not by the old Covenant of works, or any pre­cept of the Law given to man, but by the Covenant which had pas­sed between the Father and the Son in reference to man, and a spe­ciall positive Commandment from the Father agreeing with the tenor of that Covenant. As for our apprehending and pleading the righteousnes of Christ to Justification, impudency it self will neither affirm it to be done by the rule of the Covenant of law and works; nor deny it to be done in Conformity to the Covenant of grace and rule of the Gospel. Or because Christ hath born the pe­nalty of the Lawes breach, shall he therefore be Called our legall righteousnes, as from the formall reason of the thing? Nay both that Christ suffered, and the Father received and accepted his sufferings in full satisfaction for our transgressions; That the Father sent him to satisfie the justice of his law for us; and for his satisfactions sake, he doth no more impute to us the breach of his Law; All this is the fruit of his grace and in conformity to the Gospel and Cove­nant of grace; not to the Law and Covenant of works. Therefore if we give the denomination from the formall reason of the thing, [Page 131] we must call it our Evangelicall not Legall righteousnes which is in Christ.

Touching the other opposite term, that any thing inherent in man, whether the gifts of grace, Faith, Repentance, Charity, &c. or their fruits and works, should be called our Gospel righteous­nes; I see no reason for it, neither can devise in what other sense they may be so called, but by a Catachresticall Ironia which names a thing and means the contrary. As the Mounteins are called Mon­tes quia minime movent, Mounts or Movers because they do in no wise Move: or as the Fames Auri is sometimes called sacra the inordi­nate desire of money is termed holy, quia minime sacra sed prorsus, execrabilis, because it is in no case sacred but wholly accursed. So in no other sense may this righteousnes in self be called Gosp [...]l righteousnes (in reference to Justification) but because it is total­ly opposite to the doctrine and nature of the Gospel, and because the Gospel doth wholly reject and abandon it. Mr. Br. peradven­ture may and will bring other reasons, and where he doth it we shall take pains to examine them.

4 Why he calls beleeving or Faith to be our Gospel righteous­nes, and whether it be to any other end, but with the Papists upon the same grounds to bring in good works to Justification also? If he deny this the whole sequele of his Book will be an enditement of falshood against him?

CHAP. XIV.

Mr. Baxter after he hath thus made a flourish and nothing but a flourish to explain and defend his phrase, and make odi­ous the phrase of Scripture; now proceedeth to confirm the mat­ter of his doctrine. Let us see whether there be any thing Logi­call or Theologicall, and not meerly sophisticall? He hath con­fessed before, p. 109. that some who are not Antinomians (but Or­thodox [Page 132] Divines) have startled at the expressions of his 19 and 20 Positions, as conteining in them some self-exalting horrid doctrine, there­fore will he say something thereto, by way of explication and confirmation. Now having said something as bad as nothing to take off contenti­on about words; what doth he add for the confirmation of the mat­ter of his doctrine? He was to have proved 1 That Gospel righte­ousnes, or the righteousnes of the New Covenant consisteth not in the imputation of the righteousnes which is by Christ to us, but in our own a­ctuall and personall faith and obedience. 2 That we must be righteous in our selves first, and then after be made righteous by Christ. 3 That the righteousnes of the New Covenant is not sufficient to justifie and save, but onely to give us right to the righteousnes of the old Co­venant, which doth actually and immediately save and justifie. 4 That those gifts of grace, vertues, and endowments, that are required to our sanctification are not the fruits but the causes of our justi­fication, and conditions of our interest in Christ, and consequent­ly that our sanctification hath a priority and goes before justifica­tion. These were the points in which he acknowledgeth himself to be down-right opposed by some and startled at by others. What doth he now say for the silencing of these down-right opposers and startlers? Just so much as he that would confute all that Bellar­mine had written, in three words, viz. Bellarmine thou liest. Or what brings he for the confirmation of those his assertions wherein he is so opposed? Nothing but a fardle of sophisticall fallacies, consist­ing of begged principles, and homonymies of words. First he clustereth together many Conclusions, without either premisses or proofs.

The righteousnesse of the New Covenant then being the performance of its conditions; this is his first Conclusion, which by the word (then) bearing the force of (therefore) he would insinuate to lean upon some foregoing premisses, when contrariwise, there is not so much as a peble of four grains to sustein it, not a word laid as the foun­dation thereof. It is the thing in question, we deny it, he brings nothing to confirm it besides his bare affirmation, which to us is no more then a pillar of straw to bear up a Castle.

And its conditions being our obeying the Gospel or believing. This is his second Conclusion, taken as granted, when contrariwise his oppo­sers utterly deny it. And here he plaies also with an homonymy of words, as if faith and obeying the Gospel, which in the Apostles sense are, so in his sense also were, the same thing, covering his [Page 133] poyson untill the feat be done by it. It must needs be plain that on no other terms do we partake of the legall righteousnes of Christ. I will not say that self-confidence hath made the man mad, but rather that he thinks all the world mad and in such a sottish slumber, that none can put a difference betwixt mid-day and mid-night. It is plain, by what light? by what argument? It is the thing in question, and none untill Mr. Br. ever held forth this assertion in these his ex­pressions. Yet it must be plain, viz. because he hath said it, so plain as a New world created in Mr. Br. fist, he that can see what is not, may see it. We deny both the righteousnes which is by Christ to be a legall righteousnes, and our own qualifications to be the terms and grounds upon which he is made to us Righteousnes. And let the world judg whether he shew himself a Christian Teacher or an Antichristian Imposter, who having promised a confirmation of his strange and before unheard of doctrine, brings nothing but flourishes of words to charm fools, not one argument or Scrip­ture to satisfie the wise and conscientious. Himself seeth the gros­nes and palpablenes of his delusions, and left his Reader should stay in his meditations upon it to see it also, he hasteth to annex a fourth Conclusion, very plausible to them whom he hopes to beguile, wherupon, as on a Cross he naileth the picture of an Antinomian to crucifie him, that with this pleasant spectacle, he may divert his Readers eyes from the nakednes and nothingnes of what went be­fore, to the beholding of a new object set before him.

To affirm therefore that our Evangelicall or New Covenant Righteousnes is in Christ and not in our selves, or performed by Christ and not by our selves, is such a monstrous piece of Antinomian Doctrine that no man &c. ut supra. Which is as much as if he had said to his Reader, if upon the bare authority of my words (when I have no one good Argu­ment to prove them) thou wilt not become a rank Papist; I will register thee for an Antinomian, and make thee out to the world such a Monster that all shall abhor thee as unsufferable. With this Thunder-bolt he knows he shall shake into an Ague all those that Nicodemus-like are Disciples of Christ, but secretly for fear of the Jewes. Should they be suspected of the least tang of Antinomia­nism, they should never more have a good look from the Scribes and Pharisees.

But he is not forth with an Antinomian whom Mr. B. so termeth. If Pythagoras his transmigration of souls into new bodies were Ca­nonicall, I should conclude that the ghost of one of those ghostly [Page 134] Fathers of the Councell of Constance had crept into Mr. B. body. They to make John Huss odious, painted an ugly Devill in paper, and crowned John Huss therewith when they carried him to the stake to be burned, at the view whereof the people exulted in his death, as if they had seen some Witch or rather young Devill bur­ned. So deals Mr. B. here with them which are truly Evangelical, inures upon them the black brand of Antinomianism, so to make truth in their mouth hatefull as well as the persons.

But is it decreed that they are all Antinomians that hold, and that it is a monstrous piece of Antinomianism to hold, that our Evangeli­call or New Covenant righteousnes is in Christ not in our selves, performed by Christ and not by our selves? If so, I much question whether there will be found any one (save Mr. B. alone) in all the Reformed Churches that are or have been, but must bear the imputation of a monstrous Antinomian. I will not be over confident of Socinus, Ar­minius, Grotius and their followers, because I take them not for members but troublers of the Reformed Churches. For my part I know no difference about this point between the Orthod [...]x and Antinomians: Both consent 1 That our Gospel-righteousnes w ^ch worketh effectually to our Justification is in Christ, not in our selves, (save by imputation.) 2 That our Gospel or New Cove­nan [...] righteousnes in reference to our sanctification, is in Christ ra­dically, but in us by derivation and influence, actually to sanctifie us. 3 That our faith, repentance, obedience, holines, good works (though flowing from Christ himself into us) are the Gospel or New Covenant Righteousnes, not by which we are justified, but by which we are sanctified. And let Mr. B. or any of his Disciples pro­duce that Orthodox man that ever called this doctrine Antinomia­nism, or that hath not shunned the contrary doctrine as Popish and Antichristian.

Yet Mr. B. finding himself bound by promise to prove many things (as was said before) that his fallacious dealing might not be too notorious and shamefull, he chooseth one of the many (lea­ving the rest untouched) to speak something to it, (as he had said) though not to prove it. And in that which he saith, there is no­thing to confirm his own assertion, but a meer reviling abusing & abasing of them that assert the contrary, under the false imputation of Antinomianism. And here he comes upon the stage like Hercules Furens, who in a Phrensie taking his Wife and Children to be a Li­oness and her Whelps, falls upon them fiercly with his Clubb and [Page 135] envenomed Arrows untill he had utterly destroyed them. So Mr. B. in somewhat a like fit, not finding reall Antinomians, but making in his fancy, imaginary Bug-bears and phantasms of them, curseth them with Bell Book and Candle for saying that Christ hath fulfil­led the conditions of the New as well as of the Old Covenant, and that our Evangelical righteousnes is not in our selves but in Christ. At the supposition of such assertions, (which none ever laid down in these terms) the man is in a rage, beats the wind, and flings dust in the Aire, cryeth Blasphemy, heresie, impiety, and enumerates Absur­dities upon absurdities arising from such doctrine, all which I am not at leizure to transcribe, (it being all superfluous and not to the pur­pose) but may be read at large pag. 111, 112, 113, of his Tractate. More proper shall it be for me here to make out Mr. B. either wil­ling or unwilling mistake herein, and then all his absurdities will [...]ither vanish into winde or return upon himself.

First then as we deny not Faith in the Lord Christ, to be instru­mentall to apprehend to our selves Christ for our justification, and a declarative evidence to our own souls that we are actually justified by him; (as before hath been granted) so we affirm it to be here­ticall and popish doctrine which Mr. B. doth here pag. 111 deliver, in asserting repentance, obedience, submission, &c. and afterward all other vertues and good works, to be conditions of the New Co­venant, viz. by which as by our Gospel righteousnes we are, and without which preceding, we cannot be justified. For all these (in Mr. B. sense) as Austin from the tenor of the Gospel saith Non pre­cedunt justificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum: are not the precedents but fruits of justification.

2 We affirm Repentance, Obedience, Charity, &c. and all good works which the Gospel requireth, to be originally and materially the works and duties of the Law. Nature and naturall conscience it self suggesting to every of us both the rest, and withall in case of offence committed against God or man, to repent of it, to sorrow for it, and at our utmost to make satisfaction for the offence. Yea e­ven Faith in Christ, is in generall required by the Old Law and Co­venant. We in no wise ascribe to the Gospel a creating of new points of righteousnes, or injoining of new duties which the Law did not at least in generall bind us unto, (this opinion we leave as proper and peculiar to the Socinians) But a modification spiritua­lizing and appropriating the righteousness and duties which the Law in generall commanded, to the now present lapsed condition [Page 136] of man, to Gods present offers of grace, and our present necessities. Yea herein we have Mr. B. consenting to us, who, Thes. 30. and its Explication delivers his judgment herein to be fully one with the stream of Orthodox Divines. So that if we should affirm that Christ hath beleeved, repented, sorrowed, &c. for us and in our steed: it would not thence follow, that we pronounce Christ to have per­formed the conditions of the New but onely of the Old Covenant for us.

3 Yet are we far from affirming that Christ in the most strict and proper sense hath so beleeved, repented, &c. for us, that we should be taken to have beleeved, repented, &c. not in our selves but in him and by him. But the reason why we neither affirm nor hold it, is not because that these are our Gospel righteousnes or New Cove­nant conditions of righteousness and life in the sense before oft mentioned, for we have denyed and do still deny them to be such: But 1 because it is in question whether the active righteousnes of Christ be imputable to us for justification; And 2 if it were, yet were it an unchristing of Christ to affirm him to have been ever in such a state and condition, that he had need of repentance or faith to the remission of sins. He took indeed our nature not the sinful­nes of our nature; had our sin imputed to him, or (as the Scrip­ture phrase expresly speaketh) laid on him, Isa. 53. 6. to suffer and satisfie for it: but had no sin of his own to repent of and mortifie, then had there not been vertue in his Priesthood & sacrifice to have expiated ours. And to say that he actually repented, sorrowed, be­leeved, &c. for the pardon of our sins, we confes is a harsh, unproper and Catachresticall locution. Yet we still hold that the flawes and infirmities of our faith and repentance as well as our other iniqui­ties were laid upon Christ, that he hath satisfied divine justice for them by his sufferings; and that therefore God imputeth them not to us being once in Christ. Otherwise though they are parts of Go­spel righteousnes to sanctification, the sin and infirmity that is in them, in not squaring fully with the Law their rule, would bring upon us condemnation.

These things premissed, all the absurdities which (to make the assertion odious) Mr. B. layeth upon us for affirming our New Covenant righteousnes to be in Christ in the sense mentioned and explained, and denying our faith, repentance, obedience, &c. to be our New Covenant righteousnesse to Justification; vanish into smoke. For

[Page 137]1 It implyeth not (as he saith it doth) blasphemy against Christ, as if he had sin to repent of, for we utterly deny that Christ hath be­leeved or repented for us, otherwise then by satisfying justice for our not repenting, beleeving, &c. home to the rule of the Law.

2 Nor doth it imply that Jewes, Pagans, and every one shall be saved, because Christ hath fulfilled the conditions of both Covenants for them, so that they are culpable in neither. For Christ hath not sa­tisfied for the breach of (much less fulfilled) that which Mr B. cal­led the conditions of the New Covenant, as such conditions, &c. but as precepts of the old Covenant or Law of works. Or should I say Christ hath satisfied onely for the Elect, will M. B. contradict?

3 If it should follow hence that the Elect then are righteous and justified (viz. in Christ) before they beleeve; this would not sound as an absurdity to any other besides them to whom truth is an ab­surdity, as hath been before shewed.

4 Neither if it would follow hence that beleeving is needless to justification, would it also follow, that it is needless to any other use? This cannot fall from any other but a prophane mouth and self­seeking man, that will have nothing done out of love and obedi­ence to God, to glorifie him, but all out of self-love for his own benefit onely. But I have before proved faith to be needfull to ju­stifie us, to bring home into our own Consciences the benefit and evidence of our Justification, even Faith acting in us, therefore Faith so acting in us is also needful to this as well as to other uses, though Christ hath satisfied for the infirmity of it in reference to the Law.

5 It were no absurdity to confess the saved and the damned to be a­like in themselves and by nature (before Justification) but that the difference is onely in election and Christs intention. Untill then the Holy Ghost pronounceth both to be Children of wrath by nature, Eph. 2. 3. both to be ungodly, Rom. 4. 5. what then is the difference in them­selves? But their beleeving and Justification puts a difference in their relation first, and then in their qualifications also, the one be­coming sanctified, the other remaining unholy still. The rest that is contained in this fifth place hath been objected before, and before answered.

6 What he saith in the sixth place proceeds from the heat of pas­sion and height of self-confidence, not from strength of reason, or evidence of Scriptures. Which of all the Lawes and precepts of Christ had Justification for its end, save that of Faith? Or who [Page 138] hath confounded Law and Gospel, and overthrown all the Lawes and Precepts of Christ, by removing Faith from operating in its office to this end? Who hath contradicted the whole scope of Scriptures by denying Christ to be made under the Law, to have fulfilled the Law, to have born the curse of the Law, or its imposing upon all the necessity (of duty) to perform our selves whatsoever the New Covenant requireth of us to Justi­fication or Salvation? But that all which Mr. B. would make con­ditions of Justification, must be such because he will so have it, notwithstanding all his bombasticall noise of wo [...]ds, his great Cry and little wooll, will not be gr [...]nted him. When he brings us his large transcript of New Testament Scriptures, I doubt upon due exa­mination they will be found to make not for but against him.

What he instanceth, p. 113, 114, 115. of Mr. Saltmarsh, I cannot deny it, neither will I defend it. I remember that I did once read this passage in him, and it was the same in substance, as Mr. B. here transcribes him. It is not a grain or two of salt that can make his Argumentation there, enough savory: unless he mean by Christs repenting, beleeving, &c. his satisfying of Gods justice by his ex­piatory sacrifice for the failings of our Faith and Repentance, at they held not up to the Lawes perfection, I dislike it no less then Mr. B. But can we conjecture that Mr. Saltmarsh himself was not the first that disliked it and all the rest both good and bad of what he wrote in that Tractate? I have been told by some of his godly acquaintance, that the man had a naturall impotency of crazines in his brain. And the whirlwind of imaginations wherewith he was carried to a hasty taking up of opinions, and no les hasty hurl­ing away of them again; the much of the top, and the little of the bottom of wit, the flashes of nimblenes, and the want of solidity and depth which he shewed in his writings, his inconsistency with himself, with others, with the Scriptures; his ex [...]reme mutability and roving from Tropick to Tropick without settledness any where, do in great measure prove the report to be true. And if so, he is to be pittied though his infirmities are not to be patronized. However this extravagancy of his into so loos and careless expres­sions, doth neither justifie Mr. B. Tenents, nor ought to [...]rejudice the Truth from which Mr. B. or any other hath erred. Neither doth Mr. B. captiousnes so null my charity as to ente [...]ain the least conjecture that ever Master Saltmarsh meant or thought that Christ had sinne to repent of, or beleeved to obtein the pardon thereof.

Here now wee finde Master Baxter returning from his irefull pursuit of his imaginary, not reall Antinomians, and of a dead mans Ghost that could neither see nor hear him. And when hee reviews what he had written, hee sees it neither holpen nor a­mended by his hot words spent upon the wind. He had affirmed, that there is a two-fold Righteousnesse necessary to our Justifi­cation; one, the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed to us, the o­ther a personall Righteousnesse, or Righteousnesse of our owne, inherent in our selves: And to this our own Righteousnesse had attributed an equall power with the Righteousnesse of Christ to our Justification, if not a power above, and superiour to it. This assertion of his he perceives to savour so much of humane arro­gance, and (to use his own words) to be a self-exalting, horrid Doctrine, of so high a nature, and so contradictory to the whole Tenor of the Gospel, that a short affected brawl with No-bodies, and dead men, cannot turn away the hatred which all that know and love the Lord Jesus must needs conceive against it. Hee is therefore in a streight, cure it he cannot, revoke it he will not: Therefore in stead of a better shift, he posteth to the Monks & Je­suits, & borrows their either, Cowl, or Cloak, to cover the defor­mity of it. And good reason have they to stead him, for it is their cause in his hand, viz. Justification by our own personal Righte­ousness, that hath streightened him. Let us now see what he brings from them to us, to make their assertion from his pen tolerable.

We find in Scripture, that as Christ hath his Mystery, so hath Antichrist his Mystery also: And that this latter is a Mystery of [Page 140] iniquity, 2 Thess. 2. 7. and Mystery, Babylon the great, &c. And it is somewhat mysterious and strange that the materials of this Babel-building will not hold and close together without Babel slime to cement it. Mr. Baxter would fain have fortified, and fastened together the gaping chinks of this Babel with his owne morter. But it will not hold, therefore is he forced ever and a­non to make use of the proper slime which the former Builders have left for them that come after to repair; so doth hee in this place. None of his own sHifts and tricks could hide the menstruousness, and monstrousness of his Doctrine; this Pall from Rome doth it no less perfectly then the Fig-leaf Aprons covered the nakedness and filthiness of our first Progenitors from the eye of God. It sounded before so dreadfully, as it was enough to make the ears of a true Christian to tingle at the hearing, that Our own righteousnesse must goe foot by foot with Christs righteous­nesse to our Justification; but that which Mr. Baxter brings here from Rome, takes off the ghastlyness, and makes all smooth, and himself in what he hath said no less amiable then he that had the Lambs horns, but the voice of the Dragon, Rev. 13. 11. How should it bee otherwise when all the glory is ascribed to Gods Grace and to the Spirit, and Power of Christ? so saith he. Wee are justified in part by our own righteousnes indeed, [yet] Not that we performe in this Righteousnesse [which he termeth these conditions] without Grace, (for without Christ wee can doe nothing) but hee enableth us to perform them, &c. And in the Explication: This prevention of an objection I adde, be­cause some thinke it a self-ascribing, and derogating from Christ, to affirm our selves to bee the Actors of these duties, though we professe to doe it only by the strength of Grace. Now when Mr. Baxter hath thus sayd and professed, what reason can there be given why he should not bee thought as honest and innocent as the proudest Popish Prelates, Jesuits, and Friars, that in an­swer to this objection which Mr. Baxter preventeth here, have said and professed the same thing over and over many hundred times? In stead of them all (which even to name with their words abbreviated, would fil a volumne) I shall mention some few only. First the Popish glosse thus speaketh, Opera nostra, quatenus nostra Glosa ordi­naria in cap. 6. ad Rom. ver. 23. sunt, vim nullam Justificandi obtinent; quatenus verò non à nobis sunt, sed in nobis à Deo facta sunt per Gratiam, Justificationem prome­rentur. i. e. Our works as farre as they are ours, have no power [Page 141] to justifie: but as farre as they are not from us, but wrought of God by Grace in us, so they deserve justification. In the same manner our English Jesuit Campian is recorded in the dispute which hee had with some of our English Divines to have sought an evasion: Opera quidem legis (saith he) quatenus sine fide & gra­tia Campian▪ geruntur, nihil habere quod ad justitiam conferant: Caeterùm opera sanctorum Hominum cùm ejusmodi non sint, sed fide & gratia referta, ideo justificari dicuntur verè coram Deo, ex operibus suis, non tamen tanquam suis. i. e. The workes of the Law, as they are done without Faith and Grace, have nothing to contribute to Justification; nevertheless the workes of godly men are not of that kind, but replenished with Grace and Faith; therefore are they sayd to bee justified by their workes, yet not by workes as theirs [but as wrought by the grace of God in them.] So also Vega the Monk, Duplex est Justificatio, altera ex gratia operandi in­fusa; Andr. Vega de Just. vag. 751. altera ex debito Legis, seclusa Gratia: Excluditur ergo Ju­stificatio illa quae fit seclusa gratia: non Justificatio illa quae fit ex o­peribus gratia adjutis, &c. i. e. There is a two-fold Justification, one of the Grace to work infused into us, the other of the debt of the Law without Grace [to enable.] That Justification is ex­cluded which is [sought after] without Grace, not that Justifi­cation which is of good works holpen by Grace. And Hosius, to Hosius. elude that of the Apostle, We are not justified by works; Verum, in­quit, ex operibus iis quae legis sunt, aut quae liberi Arbitrii nostri propria existunt; quae cum laborant imperfectione, nihil ad justifica­tionem conferunt. i. e. It is true (saith he) of those works which are of the Law, or done in the strength of Free-will only, which in regard they have their imperfection, cannot avail to Justifica­tion. But as for such works as flow from our Free-will, as it is set in operation by the over-powering of Gods Grace, He con­cludeth otherwise. Not to trouble our selves with what these Sophistical pratlers speak every, and each of them severally let us take them collectively in one bunch and body, as Mr. Pemble in his Treatise of Justification brings them in both head and tayle, great and small, thus disputing against Justification by the righ­teousness which is in Christ, without any righteousness of our own intermixed. Against this Doctrine they have two excepti­ons (saith Mr. Pemble) Pemb. Treat. of Just if page 37.

1. That we are not justified by any work of our own (viz.) that we our selves do by our own strength without the help of Grace: But [Page 142] yet we may be justified by some work which we doe (viz.) by the ayd of Grace; such is the work of Faith.

2. That wee are not justified by any workes of our own, i. e. by any works of the Law; but by a work of the Gospel, such as Faith is, we may be justified.

By this time it is enough evident that Mr. Baxter fights the Popes battel with the Popes weapons, that as he maintaines the Popes cause, so he rankes and files himself with the souldiers of the Popes Army; who then can give any reason why hee should not be thought as sure a friend either to Christ, or at least to An­tichrist, as are the Priests and Jesuits? Onely if for no other, yet for this cause Mr. Pemble deserves the brand of an Antinomian, (which in the following part of his Tractate Mr. Baxter gives him pag. 173.) for disgracing this sophisticall shift which is common to other Papists with Mr. Baxter, telling us in the fore­quoted place, that this distinction of works done without Grace, and works done by Grace, was devised by one (and consequently followed by others) that had, or have neither Wit nor Grace; being a trick to elude the force of such Scriptures, as exclude indefinitely all works from Justification, &c. A spightful speech, thus at once to cast dirt in the faces both of Mr. Baxter, and all his fratres, or Fryars of the holy Mother Church of Rome. No marvel if Mr. Baxter, though he smooth him somtimes for his own ends, yet doth carry him in mind to fit him a penny-worth for it, when he thinks he hath caught an advantage against him.

Neverthelesse though Mr. Baxters ingenuity and plaine dealing seldom keep him company in this dispute and controv [...]rfie, yet his sub­tilty and sophistry fail him never. In his former positions before examined, he affirms, that besides the imputed righteousness, we must have a personal righteousness inherent in our selves, as abso­lutely necessary to salvation and justification: Here now to make that his assertion sufferable, he minceth it in its termes, and in this Thesis calls it a performance of conditions, and in the Expli­cation, an Acting of Duties, what before he had called justifying righteousnesse: Yea further tels us, that some think it a self-ascri­bing, and derogating from Christ to affirm our selves to be but the Actors of those Duties; though we professe our selves to do it only by the strength of Grace. When contrariwise the question is not about either the requisitenesse of Gospel duties, nor about the strength by which they are to be performed; (herein if Mr. Baxter meaneth [Page 143] as he speaketh, wee are agreed) but about their office and end to which they are to be performed; whether these duties are conditions of our Justification, and that the end of our perform­ing them ought to be, that we may be justified by the righteous­ness which consisteth in their performance? Doth hee meane to tune up a Palinodiam, to recant and eat up his former asserti­ons, that he doth here so lenifie the roughness, and correct the extravagancy both of his words and matter before delivered? Nothing less, but hee throws sugar after his poyson, both that it may goe down the more quietly what he hath given already to his unwary Readers to drink, and that they may be ready with­out suspition to drink deeper, and more deadly draughts of the same poyson, which thorow the whole sequele of this his Trea­tise he makes his business to temper for them. I shall there an­swer more fully where he speakes more fully. In the mean time all may see his dealing here to be not faire and logicall, but fal­lacious and sophistical.

He tels us in the conclusion of his Explication, that He will not digress from his intended subject so far, as to enter here into a disquisi­tion of the nature and workings of that Grace which doth enable us to perform these conditions, but refers us to Parkers Theses de traducti­one peccatoris ad vitam.

What that Mr. Parker, or his work is, I know not. But that Mr. Baxter will not here deliver his own judgement, I think he doth well. For if his judgement in the doctrine of Gods Grace work­ing unto mans conversion, and sanctification, be not more sound then about the operation of the same Grace to mans Justification, his silence will be farre more acceptable then his best argumenta­tions, to chaste ears, and spiritual minds. And little cause have we to expect any good from him upon that subject, because that although there are many who extoll the power of mans Free­will to his conversion, even to the clouding of the glory of Grace, that do notwithstanding hold fast the doctrine of Justifica­tion by Christ alone, without any intermixture of our own righ­teousnesse: Yet I know no one sort or sect of men that part our Justification between Gods righteousness imputed, and our own inherent, but that the same also, about the doctrine of Free-will, are wholly Popish, if not Pelagian also.

In the bulk and body of his Explication, wherein he inveigh­eth against those whom hee in termes of abasement calleth sub­lime, [Page 144] Platonick, and Plotinian Divines, when as they account themselves essentially God himselfe; he hath not us dissenting from him.

CHAP. XV.

CHAP. XVI.

CHAP. XVII.

I joyn these two together because of their affinity either to other, and annex them to the former, viz. the 23 Thesis, because of their dependance on it, standing or falling with it; there being no new thing in substance, but in degrees onely, here asserted. In the 23 Thes. he had asserted a personall Righteousness of our own, neces­sary and effectuall to Justification: Here least he should seem a youn­ger [Page 182] Brother to any of the Jesuites, he mounts himself Check-mate with the worst of them in his gradations, affirming that Righteous­ness of our own to Justification, Thes. 24. to be a perfect Righteous­ness, and Thes. 26. a Meritorious Righteousness. Hath any of the most zealous Children of Babylon raised his scaffolds higher, to exalt the pinacles thereof to a more stupendous height?

There shall not be need of speaking much by way of answer to him in these positions and their explications: For he doth here build Chimaera's upon Chimaera's, and nothings upon nothing. We deny, and so do all the true Churches of Christ, any such per­sonall Righteousness of man, as righteousness necessary or requi­red to Justification, affirming that every imagination of such righ­teousness as effectuall or ordeined to justifie, is a monster begotten of the pride of mens hearts, which in the midst of all their gawdy knowledge, never experimentally knew Christ, or the operation of that justification which is by Christ alone, upon their Consciences. Neither hath Mr. Br brought any one reason worth a rush to prove such a Righteousness. So these two positions are answered in the last before it. There being no such righteousness: the blinde man may see that No righteousness cannot be either a perfect or meri­torious Righteousness; The subject Righteousness being evaporated, the accidents thereof [perfect and Meritorious] are turned to va­pours with it. The Adjects stand not, where the subject is dissolved. It can be but an imaginary dress that is put on upon a meerly ima­ginary body. Yet I shall look after Mr. Br in his imaginations, if peradventure there fall from him any thing here and there deser­ving an animadversion.

In the Explication of the 24 Thesis he spends two whole pages, viz. 130, 131, in spitting of wit, and playing with his imaginary perfection of personall Righteousness unto Justification, as with a shuttle-cock, here I hit you, there I missed you, there you were mine, here I came short of you; and when he hath taken his fill of this game, in the last line of pag. 131. and so forward in the next page, confesseth that all this is nothing to his meaning or purpose, [and yet is it full to it.] Nothing to his purpose or meaning, in reference to the explication much less to the proving of a personall righte­ousness required to Justification, or a perfection of such a righte­ousness: yet full to his purpose to delight and allure to him such as have nimble wits but dull Consciences, how should these but run after him finding more wit and art, in these two pages of his, than [Page 183] ever they met with in all the doctrine of the dull Apostles and Pro­phets, though they should add to them their Master also.

Well, Haec non successit, alia aggrediamur via. That which he hath said is not home to his meaning: But that which he saith next shall come home to it. And what saith he? Nihil quod non dictum est priùs Onely that which he had said before once and again. Holines is a quality, Righteousness is not so, but the Modification of our Acts as to the Rule, viz. to the Rule of the New Covenant in point of Justification. Here is nothing but what was said before, and hath been answered before in our Examination of the Explication of the former Thesis. But he adds which is not varyed secundum magis & minùs, alleaging Schibl. Metaph. li. 2. ca. 9. Tit. 7. Art. 2. His word Which, I conceive he will have to relate, not to the Rule which was the next Antecedent, for this serves nothing to his purpose: but to the more remote Antecedent, which he calls the Modification of our Acts, or cur righteousnes to Justification, that it is not varied secun­dum Magis & Minùs. Indeed Schibler there concludes out of Aristotle that Relations which have their foundation in substance or quan­tity, non recipiunt Magis & Minùs, have no remission or intension, but an equality, fullnes or perfection in their relation (if I may speak a little unproperly to please Mr. Br.) But that Righteousnes hath its foundation in substance he seems to deny, or that it hath its foundation in quantity, he saith but doth not prove. We say it hath its foundation in quality, & such relations Schibler there acknow­ledgeth to admit Magis & Minùs. Again Schibler addeth in the se­cond place, that Relata ex parte sui, hoc est, secundum esse relationis ipsi­us, non recipiunt magis & minùs. But this hinders not why in some yea sundry other respects, they should not admit it. And thus Schib­ler doth him no good. Yet if Schibler were for him, I should except that the Holy Ghost is not (specially in Gospel matters) a Peripa­tetick, was never a disciple of Aristotle, his wisdome is a Metaphy­sicks more transcendent above Aristotles Metaphysicks, than Aristo­tles Metaphysicks are above his Physicks. Therefore the Holy Ghost takes the liberty in Scriptures, to affirm a Magis & Minùs in Righte­ousnes, to pronounce one more, and another less righteous in re­ference to the Rule, as hath been before shewed. Br. Therefore our Divines usually say, that our Justification is perfect, though our sanctificati­on be not: and then I am sure our Righteousnes must be perfect. A meer flam & vanity of words! Our Divines (saith he) doth he own them? are they not such as he would rather tollere than extollere? Our Di­vines [Page 184] and yet not Popish Divines? our Divines usually say that our Justification is perfect. But will Mr. Br say so? Nay he saith point­blank in opposition to it. Yet even hence would he force in his Con­clusion, & then I am sure our Righteousnes must be perfect. A meer sophism and fallacy: we grant that the righteousnes by which we are perfectly justified, must needs be a perfect righteousnes. But we deny that righteousnes to be any otherwise ours than by imputati­on, viz. Christs satisfaction. As for the Righteousnes of our sancti­fication which Mr. Br makes the condition of our justifying, we ut­terly deny either to be perfect in this life, or to have any finger in the busines of Justification.

When he finds all his other shifts too weak to hide the nakednes of his Conclusion, at length he flyeth to his sophisticall distinctions according to his usuall manner, to obscure & darken what he can­not confirm & clear up in the light to be of God. B: A twofold per­fection is here implyed (saith he) 1 a Metaphysicall perfection of Being, 2 A perfection of sufficiency in order to its end. These two he jumbles & tum­bles together, somtimes into a Confusion, & then out of the Chaos that he hath made goes about to separate them again into some di­stinct order, so far that if there be any that can see things which are not as if they were, may discern either from other so perfectly at a distance that he shal never attain the one or the other as a perfection of Righteousnes to his justification. The former he makes to be the Materiall entity of a non ens, (as he had before defined Righteousnes) the Materiall Being of that which is not a being. And this, saith he, is the sincerity of our faith, i. e. of our Sanctification (for so he mea­neth:) this is the first perfection of our own righteousnes to justifi­cation. Let us suppose now that there is such a Metaphysicall per­fection in the sincerity of our righteousnes and the matter thereof, what doth this make to his purpose, that there is a perfection in our personall righteousnes to justifie us? I shall demand these questions of him. 1 Whether a Metaphysicall perfection of Being, in the mat­ter of our Righteousnes be the perfection of righteousnes which is required to justification? Is there not a Metaphysicall being yea per­fection of being in the matter of all the Acts of righteousnes which the very heathen and reprobates perform? 2 Whether Sincerity be perfection of righteousnes, any further than it is more or less sin­cere, perfect sincerity being a perfect perfection, unperfect sincerity an unperfect perfection, perfect it may be in its Metaphysicall be­ing, that is unperfect in its degrees: But must there not be also a mo­rall [Page 185] perfection in a righteousness personall that shall be perfect to justifie. 3 Whether there be not sin & imperfection in the best since­rity of the Saints during this life, a mixture of unbeleef with their faith, of flesh with Spirit, of doublenes with their simplicity? 4 Whe­ther this mixture be not evill and a sin in reference to the New, as well as to the Old Covenant? Why els doth the Lord Christ so oft reprove and upbraid his disciples with the feeblenes of their Faith? O ye of little Faith, &c. because of your unbeleef. Where is your Faith? and such like? 5 Grant unto a man the greatest sincerity of Faith & ho­lines attainable by the most spirituallized Christians in this life, hath God ordeined it to be a perfect righteousnes, or is it a perfect righteousnes either in it self, or to Justification? if so why doth the Apostle when he could profess not onely his personall obedience as a Christian, but also his righteousnes and integrity as a Minister, to be so far in sincerity, and as in the fight of God, & in Christ, that he knew nothing by himself, wherin he could accuse himself as failing in sincerity; nevertheles add, Yet am I not hereby justified, but he that judgeth me is the Lord, 2 Cor. 1. 12. & 2. 17. 1 Cor. 4. 4? This Mr. Br seeth and that his reader may not see the weaknes of his Metaphysi­call materiall Righteousness, he therefore Confounds it with the Formality of it. Els should he give every reader to retort upon him his own words pag. 121. that he pronounceth that a perfect Righte­ousnes which is unrighteous, hatefull and accursed, being a righte­ousnes which in its matter is injoyned by the old Covenant, & hath for its rule in the matter thereof the Law of the old Covenant still.

No less vain also is that which he discourseth of the Formality of this personal righteousnes, that it is a perfect righteousnes in respect of its perfect sufficiency in order to its end, which is to be a condition of our Justification, &c. This end (saith he) it shall attain. The tenor of the New Covenant is not, Beleeve in the highest degree and you shall be justified, but beleeve sincerely and you shall be justified. So that our righteousness. 1. for­mally considered in relation to the conditions of the New Covenant, is either perfect or none.

To this I answer that God hath ordeined no righteousnes of ours as our Righteousnes, to be a Condition of the New Covenant. 2. If he had so done, yet it follows not thence that the same Righteous­nes performed, is a perfect righteousnes, though it be sufficient and effectuall to the end to which God ordeined it to be performed. God required the use and sound of Trumpets and voices to destroy and lay levell with the earth, the strong walls and Towers of Jeri­cho; [Page 186] and the washing in Jordan to Clean [...]e Naaman of his Leprosie; and the washing in Siloam to Cure the Man that was born blinde of his blindness. These were ordeined as severall Conditions in order to those severall ends; and being performed became sufficient and effectuall to the attainment thereof. Shall we say then, that the per­formance of these Conditions was their perfect righteousnes which performed them? So neither if God had appointed Faith which ac­cording to Mr. Br is sanctification, as a Condition of our Justificati­on, is the performance thereof our perfect righteousnes. 3 This suf­ficiency of that which Mr. Br calleth perfect righteousnes in order to its end, is no more in & from it self, than the before-mentioned noyces and washings were in themselves, to the attainment of their ends: But the sufficiency thereof is wholly from the righteousness faithfulnes and all sufficiency of God to fullfill the promises of his grace. So that what he saith of beleeving in the highest degree, and beleeving in sincerity, is besides the matter in question; Both toge­ther if they could be performed according to the tenor of the new Covenant, not being of sufficiency to make up a perfect righteous­nes. Therefore we conclude in Mr. Brs words, That our Righteousnes formally considered in relation to the condition of the new Covenant, is so far from being a perfect Righteousness, that it is none at all.

I have nothing els to say against that wherewith he concludes his explication of the Thesis, enumerating the many respects in which this imaginary righteousnes of man is imperfect, and consequently sinfull; But this that it displayes the sin and impudency of the man, that he will call that a perfect righteousnes, which himself confes­seth to be so deficient, rotten, and unrighteous.

Thesis 26. pag. 137. In the 26 Thesis he addeth to the perfection of Mans righteousnes, merit or meritoriousnes also. In my exception against him upon this point, I shal take notice, 1 of his position or asserting of this do­ctrine, 2 of his lenifying & mitigating the roughnes thereof, that it may go down the more gently & pleasantly. In both which it shall suffice to shew that he speaketh the same things with the Papists his Masters, & that in their Tone also; though I do not ex professo, under­take a full Confutation of the doctrine it self, leaving the reader to fetch it from those many Orthodox Divines that have copiously & unanswerably done it against professed Papists. In this I shall seem­ingly cross yet really follow Mr. Brs method, putting first what was the first & primary purpose of his heart to hold out unto the world, viz. that our Righteousnes is meritorious; (though in a pretty sub­tlety [Page 187] he puts it last both in the Thesis & in its explication,) and last that which he puts first, viz. his limitation & mitigation of so arro­gant a doctrine, which he doth so trimly & [...]eatily, that if his reader be a fool it is possible he may think Mr. Br to deny, and not to assert here the doctrine of merits; though there were never any of the worst Papists that hath asserted it higher than Mr. Br here doth. His assertion of merits then, runs in these words in the Aphorism it self.

1 His assertion of Merit in mans righteousnes is here layd down in a Connexive proposition, The performers of the conditions of the new Covenant are called Worthy, & their performance Merit. If both members of the proposition be not true, if either fail, the proposition is false. But where doth he mean these are so called? in the Scrip­tures w ^ch he here annexeth all men will (it is questionles his mean­ing is that all shall) conceive. (For to say that they are so called by Popish Writers were to make his doctrine suspected, not accepted.) But neither in these nor any other Scriptures are they so Called; therefore his proposition is false. The 13 first Scriptures alleaged, af­firm the contrary: deny all worth, all merit, in our persons & righ­teousnes, pronounce the reward, to be of grace not of debt, a gift, not a payment, given freely, without desert: & all this so fully that it appears the Holy Ghost had an aim not onely to stop the mouths of the mercenary Jewes then, but also of the Popish Justiciares now, whom he foresaw as enemies to the doctrine of Grace. And the last six Scriptures here alleaged prove onely that the Scriptures call the Saints worthy, but neither in these nor in any other Scripture can he finde that their performances are called merit, or their Justifica­tion here or glorification hereafter debt.

2 By the way we may take notice of his fallacious sophistry to deceive the simple, in making the whole worth of the performers to consist in their performances, because the performers of such an act are called worthy, therefore there must be merit and worth in the performance. Which is grounded upon as good reason as if I should say, The Murtherer of Ʋriah, and the abjurer of Christ were counted worthy of justification and glory. Therefore was there an unproper worth (at least) in the ones murther & the others abjuration to Justice & save [Page 188] them. None of these nor any other Scriptures do affi [...]me (in express words) the performers of the conditions of the new Covenant Wor­thy, much lesse, as they are performers; and least of all that the per­formance hath worth or merit in it.

3 Besides there is a great difference between Gods Dignari & mans Dignū esse: between Gods accounting or reckoning man worthy, & mans being worthy in his own deserts; so that those Scriptures, Lu. 20. 35. Lu. 21. 36. 2 Thes. 1. 5, 11. that speak of Gods accounting men worthy, do not import or imply any worth in a mans own qualifi­cations & performances: but a worth w ^ch God hath put upon him by imputation, viz. Christ in them, the bloud of Christ sprinkled upon their Conscience, Christs merits imputed to them, they being found in Christ the righteous, & not in Adam the unrighteous. As the Israelites were accounted worthy of deliverance from destruction which fell upon the Egyptians in the day of Gods passing over Egypt; but how worthy? surely not in respect of their own righteousnes, but in respect of the worth of the Paschal Lambs bloud sprinkled upon their door-posts. In this sense is also that of Rev. 3. 4. to be ta­ken. And hereunto runs the whole tenor of the Gospel, making not our own righteousnes & works, but Christ in us the hope of Glory, i. e. all the ground and worth upon which we may Cherish within our selves a lively hope of glory, Col. 1. 27.

4 The word worthy in Scriptures oft signifieth, Meet, beseeming & answerable to: as Ma. 3. 8. Bring forth fruits worthy of Repentance, & Eph. 4. 1. Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. & Col. 1. 10. Walk worthy of the Lord. The meaning is that we should bring forth fruits beseeming the repentance which we profess, & walk agreeable unto, & in ways becoming our holy vocation, & answerable to the Grace of God in the Lord Jesus Christ: not to make our selves wor­thy of the gift of repentance, of so high a vocation, & of so glorious a Christ to be conferred upon us. And in the same sense are those o­ther scriptures, Ma. 10. 11, 12, 13, 37 & 22. 8. alleaged here by Mr. Br, to be taken. Where those that are termed worthy or unworthy of Christ and his Gospel, are meant to be such as carry themselves in a way be­coming or not becoming Christ and his Gospel preached to them. Without any hinting at an imaginary worth or Merit in their per­formances that might make them deservers of Christ, and the grace of the Gospel: as is easie to be made out, from the very Texts here alleaged, if there were need thereof.

Thus it appears to be false, either that in a larger sense, promise is an obligation, & the thing promised is called Debt: or that the per­formers [Page 189] of the cōditiōs are called worthy, & their performance merit, in the scriptures. And consequently neither the fallacies nor the fal­sities of M ^r Br do any thing avail him here to the setting up of Mans & the frustrating of Christs Merits, w ^ch is the scope of his levelling.

The explication in reference to this part of the Thesis hath nothing that may be called an addition to it. Onely there pag. 141. as here in describing the third kinde of meriting, he tels us, that The obligation to reward is Gods ordinate Justice, & the truth of his promise; & the worthi­nes lyeth in the performance of the Conditions on our part. He doubted (it seems) that we would have taken him (notwithstanding that which he had said equipollent with this in the Thesis) to have had some seed of Christian modesty & humility remaining in him, that he had not totally forsworn all self-deniall, unless he should express, & there­fore hath expressed himself at the ful here, to be ful of self-arrogance.

But in this doth he declare his intolerable contempt of the word, that having himself quoted (at the least) 13 testimonies of scripture, all with one harmony affirming, that Gods Gospel dispensations are free, of meer grace & mercy, without any reference to our works & righ [...]eousness, that Gods grace & mans works or worth cannot stand together, but that they destroy either the other in reference to Justification & salvation: That mans merit in any respect without difference is a subversion and denyall of Gods grace in all respects; (For all this he shall find that will but peruse the 13 first scriptures w ^ch M ^r B. quoteth in this Thesis) yet he doth elude all w ^th this frothy distinction in the beginning of the same Thesis: True, Our Performan­ces cannot be said to Merit in the most strict & proper sense, &c. but in a lar­ger sense they may. What is this but to oppose the sacred verity of the most high God, with the froth of mans wit? what Scripture shall henceforth stand in its venerable Majesty & authority, if the boldnes of a corrupt worm shall thus puff it to nothing? Of all other men I conceive M ^r Br hath most need to make grace alone & free Mercy his refuge: For of all that I have met with accounted Members of any of the reformed Churches, I never found any whose very meritori­ous services (as he terms them) such as this work of his is, have more provocation in them. But thus farr of his assertion which we have found full of the Leaven, or rather to be the Leaven it self of the Scribes and Pharisees both of the former and latter ages. Let us see now how he lenifieth & sweeteneth it, that his sacrilege in rob­bing God of the honour of his grace appear not.

Yet in the explication, p. 138, he grants to man a capacity of Me­riting somwhat at the hands of God in this sense also, lest he should seem to acknowlege that there are some of the worst reprobates yea devills, that have not at all merited from God; But of these he Con­cludes p. 139. that it is a poor kind of Meriting which they can boast of yet without some Merit, & that of good from the Justice of God he will not leave them destitute. But in the Conclusion of the expli­cation pag. 141. he adds somewhat more to take off the harshnes of his self-ascribing doctrine of Merit: thus;

Lo ye now, the strength of this mans wit, that can blow heaven & earth into a confusion with one breath, & with the next breath sett both into their due place and order again. Nothing inferior is the slight of his wit to the slight and dex [...]erity of that head-mans hand that is reported so nimbly to execute his office that having cut off the head, he left it standing without any wagging upon the shoul­ders still. So this man hewes off the honour of Gods grace yet leaves it in all its glory without diminution still. Yet let us reckon with the man a little. Can he name any one of the worst Papists or Jesuits that doth attribute Merit to mans works in a higher degree than, or doth not when he hath extolled mans Merits, salve the grace of God as finely as himself? Are not his words and theirs about Gods Grace and mans merits the same? Doth he add any thing here of his own that he hath not learned of them? We cannot merit (saith M ^r Br) in the most strict and proper sense: Why? Alas, saith he, There is nothing in the value of our works, or any benefit that God receives by them, that may entitle them Meritorious; Neither is there any proportion between them and the Reward. Do not Bellarmine and his brethren speak altogether so fully & more fully, seemingly to vindicate the grace of God from all ecclipsing by their doctrine of Merit? Merit as strictly and properly taken (say they) must be, 1 Ex proprijs, 2 ex indebitis, 3 Ad aequalitatem. 1 It must be of something of our own which we have not received; 2 of that which we were not indebted or bound to perform; 3 It must come up to a full [Page 191] proportion of equality in value with the reward which it meriteth. And thus (say they) no man can merit with God. For neither hath he any thing of his own to offer unto God w ^ch he hath not received from God, nor any strength to act meritoriously but what he hath recei­ved from above, & is inspired by grace into him; So that Antoninus that Postill Schoolman, Concludes that in this Case that Fathers conclusion is authentick, which said it before him, though not pun­ctually in the same words Quùm enim Deus coronat Merita nostra, re­munerat A [...]on par. 4. Tit. 9. ca. 7 ante sec: Munera sua, quia scilicet ipse dedit virtutem operandi gratis. When God Crowns our Merits, he rewards his own gifts, because himself hath freely given us the strength so to work. Nor 2 Can he do any thing but is his due obedience he owes it as homage to his Creator. And 3 as to proportion & equality, even Bellarmine that affirms quan­dam infinitatem, a certain infinitenes in mans works, not as they pro­ceed from man, but as the Holy Ghost which is infinite, is the author of them, yet concludes, Nemopotest paria reddere Deo. Our works can never mount up to an equality with Gods bounty. In this proper sense therefore all the worst hornets of the Romish hive do explode Merits with as much detestation as Mr. Br.

In like manner what he tels us in the beginning of the explicati­on of Merits in strict Justice which he doth in part abandon; is but a distinction which he hath learned from the Jesuits which distinguish betwixt Merits in strict Justice, & Merits in gracious acceptance, re­jecting the former, and attributing unto man a power onely to per­form that w ^ch God will graciously accept for Merit. Yea when Cal­vine will express what use the whole rabble of Popish Schoolmen make of this evasion, not troubling himself to alleage their particu­lar words, he contracts the summe of all that they all say into these words of his own: Aiunt, Non tanti esse intrinseca dignitate bona opera, ut Cal. Inst. li 3. ca. 14. sect. 14. ad justitiā comparandā sufficiant, sed hoc acceptantis esse Graciae quod tantùm valēt. They acknowledge that mans good works are not worth a rush in their own intrinsecall worth to Merit or obtein Righteousness [before God,] but that it is of Gods Grace accepting that they are of such value.

And what he saith at the end of the explication, [that this kinde of Meriting is no diminutiō to the greatnes or freenes of the gift or reward, Be­cause it was a free and gracious Act of God that made our works capable of this title, and to engage himself by promise to us, &c.] as it is in substance one & the same thing which he had said before, to make his doctrine appear sufferable, so is it that which he hath suckt from the breasts of the Holy Mother Church of Rome also. It is the plea of all the Po­pish [Page 192] Sophisters saith Calvin, Qui bellè se absurda omnia evasisse putârunt, Inst. li. 3. ca. 17. sect. 3. non intrinseca sua bonitate valere opera ad salutem promerenda, sed ex pacti ratione, quia Dominus liberalitate sua tanti aestimavit, i. e. who thought that they had bravely discharged themselves of all the absurdities [which follow this doctrine] by saying that our works do not avail to merit salvatiō by their own intrinsick goodnes, but by reason of Gods Covenant or promise, because he of his free bounty hath put such a value upon them. And still affirming that the Merit of works doth not at all Clowd Gods grace, Quia a Gratia acc [...]ptante habent su­um Ibid. ca. 17. sect. 15. valorem, i. e. because it is the gracious acceptance of God that en­titles them to this honour.

I shall instance no further in particulars: onely in generall I affirm there is not to be found any of the most Trentified & deepest bran­ded Papists, that hath in this point spoken more derogatorily to the grace of God, or more superlatively to the exalting of mans menstruous righteousnes; but contrariwise divers especially of the more ancient Schoolmen that have spoken more modestly & mode­rately of both, than Mr Br. So high in the conceit of his own worth & perfection, have the praises of his righteousnes & vertues decan­ted by some throughout the Country, coming (as it is probable) to his ears, enthroned him. Or if it be not either the proud opinion of his own vertues and righteousness, or an ambition to be esteemed matchles and unanswerable in any Paradox that he undertakes to maintain, or a vow that he hath made to return & bring what Pro­selytes he can with him to Babylon; which hath; let him shew what it is that hath induced him, thus to pervert & disturb the Churches of Christ with these Antichristian doctrines, by raising them to life again after they have so long layd almost dead and buryed therein.

But whether there be not as concinnous an agreement & unifor­mity, in M ^r Brs doctrines of the perfection & Merit of mans righte­ousnes; & yet while his righteousnes is thus perfect & Meritorious with God, he remains notwithstanding under the Curse of the Law and wrath of God untill the day of Judgement, (as before he hath asserted) whether these things do not so trimly agree together, as a Crown on the head, and a halter about the neck, I leave to every rationall man to Judge.

That which he hath in the middle part of his explication about Merits of man which the Wisdom (not the Justice) of God is bound to reward; as also sundry passages that he hath about Merits in the strict Justice of God; I leave as meer fopperies unworthy of reading, much more of answering. Onely this I affirm that he doth here e­quallize [Page 193] the merits of mans with the merits of Christs righteousnes, for neither hath Christ merited from Gods naturall but his ordi­nate Justice, not in the strict, but in the large sense.

His 25 Thesis lying betwixt these 2 that I have coupled together, I passe by without any particular examination of the particulars in it, or in the Explication of it, because it hath not any thing in it controverted between us & Papists, though what he saith there, be said with an intention to [...]app up himself in an Antipopish dress that he may be the less suspected when he comes to sowr us with the leaven of the Papists. He saw these 2 Theses which I have exami­ned together, viz. Perfection & Merits of works, if they should come together one in the neck of another, without any Calm betwixt them, would make so terrible a sound as would be enough to wa­ken and startle all that were but sleeping and not dead, for fear the Pope or the Devill had been come to assault them; Therfore to keep all quiet he interposeth this Thesis and its explication, in which he pulls the ears of our Divines for saying that God doth justifie first our persons and then our duties and actions. pag. 134. & deinceps in the explication, telling us it is a doctrine of dangerous consequence many wayes, and except we will take it in his, that is, in the Popish sense, it smells rankly of Popery, & setts up Justification by works, from the very thought whereof he starts & startles away as affrigh­ted. Notable dissimulation, not of a learner but of one learned in the Trade,

He that affirms our Righteousness equall with the righteousnes of Christ to justification, that entitles it a perfect righteousnes, a me­ritorious righteousnes, is the first man in all the world that fears of the advancing of Justification by works, by them whom he hateth for oppugning it. If there were that which he calls danger in this phrase or doctrine, of setting up such a justification, would not him­self be the first man to kisse it, to eat it up, to promote it? What is it that makes him to disrelish the phrase so extremely? is it not that it inverts his order in Justification, that he would have the works to justifie the man, when contrariwise this doctrine makes the justifica­tion of the person to be the ground of the acceptance of his obedi­ence? Is it not the very depth of Satan, from which he is moved to guise & disguise himself, to act Satans part with all guile and sub­tlety to betray the Saints of Christ and the truth of Christ to dam­ning Popery, and yet here and there to transform himself into an Angel of Light, a Minister of Righteousnes, to blinde the eyes of the simple that they may not espy him untill they be taken in his snare and lost for ever.

As for the doctrine or phrase it self, he knowes our Divines mean this onely when they say, God doth justifie first our persons and then our duties & actiōs, viz. That God having first justified their persons from all the guilt that was upon them, doth thenceforth also justifie them in ref [...]rence to all the duties w ^ch thorow Christ the Mediator they shall perform unto God, not imputing to them the imperfections thereof, so that they may rest Confident of Gods accepting both the performers and the performance in and through Christ the be­loved. In this respect and not as Conditions of the New Covenant (as Mr. Br dreameth) doth the Gospel teach our works to be ac­cepted of God.

There is yet one link of the Popish Chain wanting, without which it will be un­perfect and unusefull. If it were granted that there is, 1 a personall righteousnes of Gods own appointment necessary to justification. 2 That this righteousness consi­steth in ou [...] own Faith and sanctification, or good works. 3 That it is a perfect, and 4 a Meritorious Righteousness: yet all this cannot be effect [...]all either to save or deceive us, unless it be a righteousnes also possible for us to perform. Tha [...] he may not be wanting therefore to the Popish Cause in any one branch of Popish doc­trine, he addeth this also.

To which he adds in the Explication, pag 142 &c.

So that strength which was in Adam to fullfill, was a power which he received by Nature; But the strength by which we perform, is the power which we receive from the grace of Christ If any should have asked him what that grace of Christ is? the man was very Coy, he could, but he would not tell, whether it were a Pauline or a P [...]lagian Grace; a grace equally extended both to the Elect and the Repro­bats, or a grace peculiar to the Elect; a grace that comes no further than the ear, or a grace operating upon the heart also; &c. He had other fish to fry and had not the leizure to stay & c [...]ack these nutts now He bids us to turn over many volumes, and specially Parkers Theses, to search if possibly we can finde what Mr. Brs judgment would be many years after in this poynt. But it is easie to perceive the mans mean­ing by his gaping in many passages of this book. We should have had all this in rank and file in his much promised Tractate of Ʋniversall Redemption, by which as by a second famous atchievement he meant to endear himself to his holy Father, but that unluckily there is one of his own spirit step into his Holinesses Parlour to pre­sent him with this gift, and so anticipated this favour which Mr. Br would have had entire to himself; so that now the expected advantage being lost, & he not using to open his Commodities to sale a day before the Fayr, we might possibly for a cou­ple of Capons obtein to know his meaning herein In the mean while, it must needs be his intent in reserving to himself what he meant by grace, to pu [...] upon us a kind of impossibility to say readily, yea or nay to his asserted p [...]ssibility of performing the Conditions of the New Covenant by a power which he leaves us uncertain of knowing what it is.

As for the two fold opposition which he puts in his Thesis, 1. between the conditions of the Old Covenant & New, 2. Between the power which Adam had by nature, and the power which we have by the Grace of Christ; there is nothing but a windy sound of words therein, to deceive his reader into an opinion that he hath some honest and sound meaning in what is here posited or said. For neither doth he make any real difference between the conditions of these two Covenants: but makes our own Righteousnesse, consisting in faith and works, to be the sub­stance of the conditions of both Covenants, onely he puts a sup­posed difference in the measure of them: One, an imaginary perfection of sincerity in doeing them, answering to what the New Covenant requireth; the other, an absolute and gradual perfection in doing them without the least particle omitted or committed, besides or against the rigorous exaction of the Old Covenant. And this is a difference made up of a mans dream­ing fancy without any least footing that it hath in, or sustenta­tion by the Word of God; which utterly shakes off all mans righteousness, works, and qualifications in either, and both sen­ses, from having any thing to do in the businesse of justification under the New Covenant, as hath been in part already, and shall be in its due place (if God will) more fully demonstrated after­ward.

Nor doth he mean 2 things, by Adams power by nature, and our power by Grace. Nature there, and grace here, to him are one & the same. For was not the power which Adam had to stand, a power received by Grace? what a malignant eye hath he, so extremely to envie the raies of Gods Grace, when they lustre, and by their brightness discover the dimnesse and invalidity of mans nature? He will own no longer Peter Lombard himselfe to be the Magister, if he affirm (as hee doth affirm) that the power which Adam had to fulfill the conditions of the Old Covenant, was (not by grace, but) by nature; or what means he by the grace of Christ now? doth he under this word point out any o­ther power than every man hath or may have, that is no more Christified, or Spirituallized now, than Adam was then? yea than he was immediately after his fall? This book of his in ma­ny parcels of it doth (not obscurely) insinuate thus much of him; and if we judge amisse, it is his fault in writing so am­biguously and refusing to explain his own meaning that mini­streth [Page 196] cause and evidence enough so to judge.

But as to the thing it selfe here posited by Master Baxter: wee utterly deny that God hath ever given, or any where promised to give unto the best of men in the state of sinfull infi [...]mity, such a measure of Grace, as might put him into a possibility by the power which he hath received, to performe either a righteous­nesse effectual and sufficient to justification, or a righteousnesse perfect and Meritorious; or a righteousnes which as righteousnes, and by a worthinesse in it selfe, can give him right and title to the righteousness of Christ to justifie him. And these are the things which Mr. Baxter here either with the grace, or without, and against the grace of God contendeth for; but neither hath, nor ever will have the grace of God, from the Word of God, to prove and demonstrate; though he bangle and bungle never so much with his loose shifts of Sophistry, to give out an appearance to them that are more delighted with appearance then with sub­stance, as if he had done it.

CHAP. XVIII.

THe three following Theses, viz. the 28, 29, and the 30th, I purposely pretermit without examination, not that there is nothing in them which deserveth exception against it, but because whatsoever therein calls for examination by the touch­stone of the Word, is either not controverted between us and the Papists about the point of Justification, or else hath been said, and answered before; or thirdly will offer it self againe more pro­perly to bee answered in the following part of this Tractate, where we shall find Mr. Baxter speaking it out more fully then he hath done here in these Theses, and their explications.

To the 31 Thesis, pag. 154. as it is considered in, and by it self, I have nothing to object: but to the Explication thereof, pag. 155. & deinceps, I have somewhat to say, yet not alto­gether by way of exception against it, but partly also for the substration of some grounds to answer him in things which in the following part of this Treatise hee hath to deliver; accor­dingly as he layes down here for delivering them. His words therefore I first transcribe, beginning at pag. 155.

What is here meant by the Morall Law must bee first under­stood, before there can be any well-grounded consenting, or dis­senting in judgements about the force in which it yet standeth. Both the word Law, and the word Moral, have their ambiguity, and are used in divers senses.

1. The word Law is taken sometimes onely for a rule, or guide, or directive, to give us light to discern between truth and fals­hood, good and evill, lawfull and unlawfull; to which also may be added, a power therein to command duty, and to prohibit, what is contrary to duty. Sometimes it is taken in a larger sense [Page 198] also, comprehending all these things in it, and withall a pro­mise of reward to the performers, and commination of penalty to its transgressors. Here I conceive Mr. Baxter taketh the word Law in the former sense onely, because pag. 156. in answer to the first question, he distinguisheth, and puts a difference between the Covenant of Works, and the Morall Law, so plainly, as if he did, totidem verbis, tell us that hee understands by the Morall Law, the rule and precepts of Holynesse, and Righteousnesse, as considered apart from the pactionary Adjunct of life and death going with it.

2. The word Morall also hath its divers senses; sometimes Divines take it in a larger sense, for all whatsoever pertaines to manners; and then by the Morall Law they understand all the Commandements, or Rules which God giveth for the regula­ting of our manners, in reference to the qualifications of the mind, and the outward operations also: Whether those Com­mandements bee either of naturall, or of positive right, written in mans heart at his creation, or had their first positu [...]e in time from the word, and lips of God. Sometimes in a stricter sense, for that which doth eminently above other things concern the life and manners. And then by the Moral Law they understand some­times the Decalogue, or Law of the ten Commandments: Some­times the Law of Nature, or naturall Righteousness imprinted in mans heart at his first creation.

Here taking it for granted, that Mr. Baxter meaneth by the Morall Law, the doctrine of the Law considered as a rule of Righteousness, not as a Covenant of Works:

If 1. he mean by the Morall Law all Commandements both of naturall and positive right; I deny the Morall Law so taken to be in the whole, and in every part now in force.

If 2. he mean by it the Decalogue, or Law of the tenne Com­mandements, as it was given upon Mount Sinai in time, so him­self knoweth it to bee the judgement of many Divines, that it bound the Nation of Israel alone, was not at all given to the Gentiles, doth not at all bind us that are not of the Na [...]ion of Israel; othe [...]wise then it clears up to us the Law of Nature writ­ten in our hearts, which d [...]th bind us; or as the duties thereof are required of us in the New Testament, by the Lord Christ, whom we acknowledge to be our King. See Zanchius, Tom. 4. lib. 1. cap. 11. Thes. 1. Where he fully handles, and confirms this [Page 199] assertion; adding moreover, Sic etiam insignes Theologi omnes sen­tiunt. i. e. All Divines of note a [...]e of this judgement. Withall, that there are some things contained in some of the ten Com­mandements, not pertaining to the jus naturae, save in their ge­nus, and that somewhat remote, I know Mr. Baxter will not de­ny; and if I thought any else would question it, it were easie to be demonstrated. But if he mean by the Morall Law, the Law of Nature, as aforesaid, as it is written in the heart; yea as it is further illustrated▪ either by the book of the Creatures, or by the Decalogue, as it is epitomized in Tables of stone, and explained and amplified in both Testaments; so I grant the Moral Law to be still in force; viz. as a directive of Moral obedience still.

What Mr. Baxter addeth, [ viz. to what ends, and in what sense the Gospel continueth that law, and commandeth perfect obedience thereto, is a question not very easie] is to me a strange speech, in many respects. For 1. I cannot see how the question can be dif­ficult to him that will not Nodum in scirpo quaerere, make the plaine wayes of God rugged, by filling them up with bryars and thorns. To the same most honourable ends, and in the same sense is it continued, for, and in which it was first given; I mean to the same ends in general, though not in every far remote particular. First to make his glory elucent in this Microcosm, this choice peece of his Workmanship: Man is the glory of God, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 7. How? but as he bears the image of God, not onely in rule and dominion, but also in wisdome, holyness, and righteousness, to manage that authority, and rule wherewith the grace of God hath invested him. And this glory of God upon man is by so much the more conspicuous, by how much the more perfectly he resembles God in wisdom, righteous­ness, and holyness.

Besides it was both given and continued, to direct and enable man in some measure to render to God his Pepper-corn (as Mr. Baxter terms it) in testification of his homage, and thank­fulnesse, both for the favours received, and for the favours promi­sed: without the guidance of the Morall Law written without us, yea within us also, we should, though our affections were never so sweetly sanctifyed, for lack of sound illumination, present God with wild grapes in stead of grapes, with an abo­mination instead of due obedience and devotion. And are not these ends as requisite in the state of mans Renovation, as [Page 200] they were in the state of his innocency?

Yea further, unpossible was it, that Christ should not continue the Morall Law, no lesse unpossible then it is for God to be un­righteous, or not God: He came to fulfill all righteousnesse, not to destroy any one branch of naturall and essential righteousness. The Morall Law is the image of God, in which we may read the nature of God: The rule and platform is in God himselfe originally, this is but an extract from it, and abstract of it. Christ came to restore it, not to quench it, to set it up in man to perfection, not to deface it by any diminution: For so should he have abased the glory of his Father, shining in his living image.

And lastly, not to have commanded perfect, but a maimed o­bedience thereto, had been against the rule of righteousness, which bids us to render to every one his due, his whole due; To God the things that pertain to God; yea the whole that pertains to him. All is but a Pepper-corn to a whole kingdome of Grace held, and of glory expected from him; and should not Christ re­quire the payment of a Pepper-corn whole and entire, without diminishing, or dividing it?

But the truth is, that the question is difficult to bee answered, without crushing Mr. Baxters Gospel Justification by Works, not in reference to Christs Gospel Justification by free Grace; with it the Commandement of perfect obedience to the Morall Law sweetly cohereth. The command of perfect obedience to the Morall Law, as a condition of Justification, leaves all men hopelesse of Justification, sure to condemnation for ever. Be­cause none can perform the condition in this life. But when we are justified freely by the blood of Christ; and then by way of answering the grace of our Justifier with our reall thankfulness, we are bidden to render our obedience more and more perfectly, not slacking our endeavours, untill we come to full perfection: Though we attain it not in this present life, yet our not attain­ment doth but encrease our self-abasement, and make us feele that Christ is our all, and we are nothing; but doth in no wise destroy our Justification, or lessen the joy of the Holy Ghost, and peace of conscience, which are bottomed only, and wholly upon Christ, and not upon our selves at all.

Now let us see how he will make the question difficult to us, as it must be to him.

First, saith he, it is a question, Whether Christ did first repeale that Law, and then re-establish it to other ends? So some think.

A meer windy question of such as delight to play with God in contempt, as the Froggs with Jupiters Log. Where are those some thinkers? No lesse rationally might they feign that the Lord Jesus pluckt down his Father Josephs house, & re-edified it to this other end, that men might goe in and out no more at the doors, but at the windows.

Mr. Baxter washeth his hands clean from having a finger in this pye. Nay, saith he, I have proved already, that it is not re­pealed at all, even concerning the Covenant of Works it self. i. e. That Christ is so farre from taking from us the perfect rule of righ­teousnesse, that he (however hee be called a Saviour) yet hath left all men, without saving any, to be damned for their unrighte­ousness. But what he hath proved before, I suppose, we have dis­approved, and that sufficiently, before.

Yet, saith he, that Christ useth it (i. e. the Morall Law, without the separable adjunct of the Covenant of Works thereunto an­nexed) to other ends I grant. He grants that which none demands of him. But what title he hath to make such a grant, he shews not. And I think it will cost him so much labour as will make him sweat under the saddle, before he be able to shew to what o­ther substantial, and not meerly circumstantiall ends it now serveth, besides those to which it served at the first creation there­of in mans innocency, at least after his principles, that holdeth the workes thereof now under the Gospel to tend to Justifica­tion.

But from this he passeth to a second question which he makes hence to arise.

To this he answereth.

Before he pretended a purpose to speak of the Moral Law in it selfe, and as considered without the Covenants; but finding quickly that his Babel will not tower up out of simples, he is for­ced either to let all fall, or else himselfe must returne to his com­poundings and confoundings again, now mixing the moral law with the olde, and by and by with the New Covenant, as a part sometimes of the one, and sometimes of the other; as if it were a Noun Adjective which cannot stand by it selfe. When con­trariwise the moral Law is the rule of righteousnesse, complete in it selfe, the very image of Gods Nature, and Will, to which every reasonable creature is bound to conform, that it may be like to God himselfe, and so illustrate either to other the splendor of Gods glory invisible in himselfe, but shining forth in their per­sons and performances. But the Covenants are separable Ad­juncts of the moral law, when annexed to the moral law, being free and voluntary Acts and Statutes of God, which hee might pro imperio, by the Soveraign authority which hee hath over his creatures, either have, or not have added to the moral law, at his pleasure: The Old Covenant making out to men the way of Salvation in strict, yet equal and uncorrupt Justice: The New Covenant, his way of saving sinners, and justifying the un­godly, by free grace, when in justice they were lost and unreco­verable. The one of these is by the perfect fulfilling of the mo­ral [Page 203] law; the other without reference to the moral law at all, freely by the redemption which is by Jesus Christ.

Here now, if both Covenants were silenced, and annihilated, yet the moral law would abide firm still, it would as well without Covenant as by Covenant, speak out mans duty and ob­ligation, both unjustified and justified, in his state either of in­tegrity or infirmity, to be wise, holy and righteous, as God made him, and to act perfectly according to the perfect principles of acting first created in him; even without life and heaven before him to allure him, or death and hell behind him to enforce him. And so the moral law is no part of either Covenant essenti­ally, that it cannot be separated from it without its nullify­ing. Nay it was in God from all eternity, and shall be in him still, when all Covenants conditionall shall have their expira­tion.

Yet let us follow Master Baxter, to see what businesse hee will make in the dark, having thus obscured the clear light of this doctrine by his mixtures and confoundings. Hee gives many answers to this 2 question.

1. That the moral law, as it is the preceptive part of the Cove­nant of workes, is but delivered over into the hands of Christ, and so continued in the sense before expressed, seems plain to me. How clear are this mans eyes? I can see no plainness in the answer, or any part thereof. It is all intricate, and almost incomprehensi­ble to our dull understanding.

For 1. I see not how the moral Law is the preceptive part of the Covenant of works. It contains in it I confesse the precepts of all good, just and holy operations, as it is the rule of all these. But how it is the preceptive part of the Covenant, being a distinct thing from it, the Covenant being added to it, and not it to the Covenant, I see not.

2. How it is delivered over into the hands of Christ, and in what sense, is hard for me to apprehend. Is it taken out of God in whom it was originally and essentially, & so put into Christs hands, that it is no more to be found in God? or is that unper­fect remainder of it which abode still in the Synteresis, or minde and conscience of lapsed man, taken thence and put into the hands of Christ, that it is no more to be found in man, but that after Satan had felled down the stemm and branches thereof, Christ at last hath forced thence the very root thereof also, that [Page 204] there may be no more sprouting even of an unperfect righteous­nesse in any man, saving by some light and mover from with­out him? Or is it so put into Christs hand to dispose of its being and office, that if he say the word, that which was shall bee no more natural or moral righteousnesse, much lesse the perfect rule thereof; or that which was mans duty, and his conformity with the nature of God, if Christ will, shall be so no more? All these are such absurdities as cannot possibly drop from Master Baxters learned pen. Or is it delivered into the hands of Christ to bee the dispenser and disposer of it in relation to i [...]s end, whether the natural righteousnesse which it prescribeth shall be effectual, and of necessary use to mans justification? This indeed were an intolerable absurdity for one of us, that have our stations here below under Christ, to bee regulated by his doctrine, to utter: But for M [...]ster Baxter that hath soared upward in his Aenigmati­cal and Metaphysical learning unto the sphere of Saturn, high a­bove the Sunne of righteousnesse and his light, it is no absurdi­ty to deliver it. It is but the language of Rome, that the righte­ousnesse of the moral law must under the Gospel still justifie us, as when we were perfect in Adam, though then in him we could, but now we cannot perform it. And why so? not because Christ hath declared by his word that he will so have it, but because the holy Mother Church, that hath the power to make the word of Christ to dance into all formes and senses after her interpretations, hath so decreed. If this be Mr. Baxters meaning, & that it appears to him to be a plain truth, why doth he not make it plain to us that we may see it with him, but onely saith it, as a ca­thedral doctor without adding illustration or confirmation to it?

3. What he meaneth by that which he next saith, viz. and [it is] so continued in the sense before expressed, is not plain to me, where this sense is expressed, whethe [...] in the former part of this answer, & then it must be continued by Christ, to be the precep­tive part of the Covenant of works still: or in the question, and so it is continued by Christ to be the preceptive pa [...]t of the New Covenant; or in some one or more passages of the foregoing part of this his treatise, & so we shall be still uncertain of the sense, be­cause we c [...]nnot tell, and he doth not tell us where it is expres­sed. And for us to seek after a man in his sense, who wilfully hides himselfe and his sense in the darke that wee may not finde them, were but a senseless peece o [...] w [...]rke, especially when wee know it will nothing better our senses in case we should bee so [Page 205] luckie as to finde his. I should ghess that hee means the sense expressed in the former part of this answer, and so it will be ex­amined in that which hee addeth in his second Answer, viz.

2. That the moral Law doth therefore so continue &c. as before. What else should he mean in saying it doth continue, but that as he had said in the former clause of the first answer, viz. to be the preceptive part of the Covenant of workes? or why doth he say, it doth therefore so continue, but that his therefore bids us to fetch the cause from the same answer, because Christ, into whose hands it is delivered, hath so continued it. And if so, to what purpose is all this reasoning? Tends it to affirm that it was pos­sible for Christ considered either as God, or as our mediator, to rescind and destroy the eternal and immutable Law of na­turall and eternall righteousnesse? or that it would have falne to the ground with its own weight, if it had not been delivered into Christs hand to sustaine it? Or that it would not bee in it self the rule of Righteousnesse for ever, except Christ had assu­med our nature, in it to give it a second birth and stablishment? Or that the Morall Law had lost its power and righteousnesse when we had lost ours, and so it needed no lesse then we, a repa­ration? Nay whether man had sinn [...]d, or not sinned, been re­deemed, or not redeemed, the Morall Law was, and is stil the same. What the Psalmist saith of God, Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and world were formed, from ever­lasting to everlasting, thou art God; Psal. 90. 2: So may I say of the moral Law, wheresoever it is, and as farre as it is truly held forth and fully too, whether by Christ or by Moses, by the Old or by the New Testament, by the creature, by the conscience, by the Philosophers Ethicks, or by any other way or means whatsoever; before the mountains and world were formed, from everlasting, to everlasting it hath been and is the perfect rule of Moral righteous­ness stil. Neither shall it cease so to be when world and mountains are dissolved: but then we shal see perfectly in the face of God him­selfe what we now see in his either more or lesse perfect images, & be perfectly configured thereunto. In the mean time evenbelei­vers have this as one of their great priviledges, to be free f [...]om sin, and servant, of Righteousnesse: Ro. 6. 18. and so the Law of Righ­teousnesse continueth to command both beleevers and unbelee­vers, and the perfect obeying thereof is the duty of both, and the not obeying their sinne, deserving the death threatened in the [Page 206] Old Covenant: But so that beleevers having fully done their Law in Christ, and being freed from the Old Covenant, though still in a sweet conjunction with the Moral Law, Rom. 7. 22. have no more their hated irregularities imputed to them, but fully forgiven for Christs sake. Thus the Word of God, and Doctrine of Christ runne smoothly, and clearly, why doth Mr. Baxter not finde, but make whirlpooles, and stoppages therein, to of­fend, and drown poor soules, that cannot yet swim in the deep? Good ends have streight wayes leading to them. Mr. Baxters crooked windings, argue him not to have a streight and upright meaning. His unusefull therefore, and therefore, put out of joynt that which God hath so compacted, as that it ought not to bee dis-joynted. And if wee would know what hee aimes at in his circumlocutions to circumvent the simple in these his two first answers, let us but follow him to the next, and we shall in part finde it.

What he saith in this his third answer to the second question, of the usefulnesse of the moral Law for direction to Beleivers, is granted. And this is one great prerogative which Beleivers have, that the moral Law, which in relation to unbeleivers hath the curse of the Old Covenant, as a scourge and sword annexed to it to take vengeance of them for their transgressions, is to them that are in Christ a peaceable, sweet and unarmed counseller. But in the opening hereof Master Baxter shews himselfe to bee himself, in foisting in two of his unauthentick paradoxes or fal­sities (call them which ye will) & the same so finely with slight of hand interwoven in his discourse, that his craft might not be ea­sily espyed; but being espyed, every one that knoweth Master Baxter, may know them to be from his Artifice so inserted. viz. 1. That obedience to Christ, in the performance of all the du­ties which the moral Law prescribeth, is part of the condition of the New Covenant. 2. That the Gospel, or New Covenant doth not require of men perfect, but sincere obedience onely. Both of these his subtilty layes down not as positions here first asse [...]ted, and consequently here to be proved: But as assertions before proved and granted, upon which he is now ready to build his other geere and t [...]ash which he hath in readiness to j [...]yne to these as a superstructure. Whereas our sincere subjection, and obedi­ence [Page 207] to Christ (saith he) is part of the condition of the New Cove­nant: And where again, When the New Covenant saith, Thou shalt obey sincerely, putting there this voice of the New Covenant in opposition to the voice of the Old Covenant, which (as he tells us) saith, Thou shalt obey perfectly. Here is a pretty slight to broach errors, a creeping into men to perswade them in despight of their teeth that he and they are of one mind: That he proved, and they granted it yesternight when they were all fast a sleep, and none of them spake or heard any thing. Which shall we think this man to have more studied, Machiavil, or M [...]ldonate? If Bel­larmine were alive, hee would even shake off his red Cap with laughter, to see a son of his so much more witty, and crafty then his Father.

But to the matter it self.

First concerning obedience to the Morall Law, that it is part of the condition of the New Covenant.

1. I demand where it was before proved, yea where in direct words asserted, that it is here taken up as a point granted? Hee gave cause enough indeed to bee suspected of it throughout the foregoing part of this Tractate, but not evidence enough to be impleaded for it. This is Magisterially to command Faith, as one that speaketh by the authority of an infallible spirit, and not Mi­nisterially to teach, as one that subjecteth himself and his Do­ctrine to the tryal of Gods Word.

2. I demand whether he means not by the condition of the New Covenant, the condition upon which, and for which God will justifie the performer? Yea that condition which he had before termed a righteousnesse perfect, and meritorious in its own wor­thyness to Justification? If this be not his meaning, then Master Baxter eats up again to day what he spit out yesterday. But this can in no wise befall the animosity of his spirit. If it be his mean­ing, then doth he pronounce even our legal righteousnes, which consists in the fulfilling of the Morall duties of the Moral Law, as well as our Evangelicall righteousnesse (as he termes the per­sonall righteousnesse which is conformed to the rule of the Gospel) to bee meritorious to Justification. And not any one of the Popes themselves have spoken higher language then this, to deifie man in his own righteousnesse.

3. I would be informed, if the performance of the duties of the Morall Law, in obedience to Christ doth justifie, why the [Page 208] same performance in obedience to God, doth not justifie also? Is not obedience due as well to the Father, as to the Son? or is not Justification as much from the Father as from the Sonne? The same honour is due to both, and the same work of grace effected by both. Neither can I see any more worth in Morall Righteousnesse Morally performed (for I finde not Mr. Baxter as yet speaking further of it) in obedience to the Son, then in the same done to the Father by way of obedience to him. But of this point we shall have a more proper place and occasion to speak more fully afterward.

2. Concerning the second, that the Gospel doth require but sin­cere, not perfect obedience, I might also enquire,

1. Why Mr. Baxter doth here take it up pro concesso, for grant­ed? He had indeed put it in the question to which he is answer­ing, but had said nothing for the solution of it, except perad­venture by the art of Ventriloquie, he spake something under the Table, that he might not bee heard, when hee said in his first an­swer to it, That the Morall Law is continued by Christ in the sense before expressed, meaning by those words, the expressions used in the said question, that under the New Covenant the Morall Law commandeth not perfect obedience, but onely sincere, or at least the Gospel having the Morall Law for its preceptive part doth so. If I knew that to be his meaning, I have somewhat to say to it. In mean while, be it, or be it not his meaning, is every thing that Mr. Baxter hath once imagined in his brain, or spoken under a bushel, by and by to be taken up for a granted principle in Religion, upon which he may make a superstructure of what he pleaseth?

2. Why doth he not alledge those Testimonies of the New Testament which assert onely a sincere, and not a perfect obedi­ence? Why doth hee suffer us poor soules to continue in dark­nesse for lack of his light communicated to us? Is it in the out­side, or the inside of his Testament that this mystical doctrine is contained? I acknowledge the promises of Gods free grace are made [...]ut in the riches thereof to them that are in Christ, that God for Christs sake will accept their sincere volitions, and per­formances, according to the ability which they have, and not reject them for want of the ability which they have not. That not onely the infirmities of their obedience, but their very sins, and disobedience is blotted out, and shall be no more imputed [Page 209] to them, &c. But this in no wise denyeth perfect obedience to be their duty still. Yea much more their duty under the Gospel, then under the Law, because there is a greater obligation of greater, and more benefits upon them under th [...] Gospel then un­der the Law, binding them to yeeld back perfect love and obedi­ence to their Benefactor.

3. What shall we think of those Texts in the New Testament, which require of us to be perfect, 2 Cor. 13. 11. Jam. 1. 4. Yea perfect as God is perfect, Mat. 5. 48. reproving weakness and in­firmity, and commanding a going on to perfection, Heb. 6. 1. as compared with the precedent Chapter in the latter part thereof? Yea if perfection were not the duty of a Christian, and unperfect­ness and infirmity his sin; why doth the Apostle so much groan and grieve under the remainder of his naturall infirmities, and presse on to perfection? Rom. 7. 14, to the 24. Phi. 3. 12-14. Or is such unperfectness a sinne onely in reference to the rule of the Law, and not the rule of the Gospel; for that the Law doth, but the Gospel doth not call for perfection? This is both contrary to the Scriptures alleaged, and doth withall make the Gospel to allow imperfections. And (to use Mr. Baxters own expressions, which calleth the Gospel a Law) what the Law forbids not, we take the same to be approved by that Law. If any should say that the Go­spel doth not require perfect, but sincere obedience, ad aliquid, in relation to this, or that particular end; it might in some case be a truth. But Mr. Baxter layes it down positively in it self, that the Gospel requires not perfection. And this can in no wise be defended.

4. Is not this Doctrine a sluce to let into the hearts of men a whole flood of carnal security, idleness, improficiency, contempt, or neglect of all the means of growth in grace, each man setling himself upon his lees, with this Apology, that they are already squared to the minde and rule of the Gospel, are sincere, have the truth and true being of Faith, knowledge, and ob [...]dience: This is all which the Gospel requireth, they are even with the rule, why should they stretch themselves further to be beyond it? This is a brand which Mr. Baxter inureth upon our, or rather Christs doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. Is not himselfe guilty?

5. I would be informed what he meanes by sincere obedience. It is very requisite that hee which vends new Doctrines in new [Page 300] terms, should be exquisite in expressing, and explaining his terms and words. Sincerus, say the Etymologists, est quasi dicas sine cera, as honey pure without the mixture of any wax in it. That which is most pure and simple, without any mixtures, or tain­tures. And Sincerity is usually put in opposition, 1 to hypocrisie, or 2. to corruption, or sinful pollution. As sincerity of obedience is put in opposition to that obedience which is done in hypocri­sie, or with sinister, and self ends; so ou [...] Saviour denyes the sincerity of the Scribes and Pharisees, and chargeth them fre­quently in the Gospel with hypocrisie, for their strict walkings, devotions, almsdeeds, &c. that they might bee justified by such personall righteousness of their own. This hee calls hypocrisie, and denyes to be sincere obedience, because it aimed not simply to the glory of God, but to their own ends, their own justifica­tion. But this I take to be Mr. Baxters main end of obedience, to do it that we may bee justified by it. And then according to the doctrine of the Lord Christ, it is not sincere, but hypocriti­call obedience. Or if we take hypocrisie to consist in professing, and practising holyness and obedience outwardly, but to baser, and worldly ends, lurking secretly in the heart, viz. profit, ho­nour, applause, and praise of men, &c. which is there of the aliens from the Covenant of Grace, that cannot pleade a sincerity this way. I have lived in all good conscience be­fore God unto this day, saith Paul of himself, in reference to the time wherein he was yet a Saul, insinuating the Morall sincerity of his heart in opposition to hypocrisie and base ends in his obedience while hee was yet out of Christ, that even then he served, and obeyed of good conscience, and according to the measure of the light of Gods Word shining, as farre as it shined in his conscience, Act. 23. 1. Yea hee did in sincerity ac­cording to the dictate of his conscience, whatsoever hee did a­gainst Christ: I thought verily, saith he, that I ought to doe many things against the Name of Jesus, &c. which things also I did, Act. 26. 9, 10. It is [...]hat whereof the Apostle gives his testimony to the greatest bulk of his kinred and Nation that rejected Christ. They have a zeale of God, saith he, &c. Rom. 10. 2. of God, there­fore sincere in opposition to base ends in all the services which they performed; and a zeal; this importeth an high degree of their obedience, and sincerity of obeying. Who is there of the carnal, and ignorant multitude, but can professe the like sin­cerity [Page 211] in their publick worship, and private performances, with­out proposing to themselves any base and sinister ends therein? And doth the Gospel prescribe onely such a sincere obedience, which is attained without any Gospel, or Gospellizing of the heart? Or if we take sincerity in opposition to all mixture of the flesh and corruption, in our obedience; in this case the sin­cerity must be either perfect or unperfect: If perfect, then the Gospel requireth the most perfect obedience, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Baxter. For what can be more perfect then that which is pure, and free from all contamination of the flesh, wholly spirituall? But where is the man to bee found that can practically perform the duty? That Apostle which had laboured more abundantly then they all, professed himself not to have compassed it, but that in the purest and liveliest operations of the Spirit in him unto good, there was a counter-working of the flesh in him, hindering the good which he willed, and turning it into the evill which he hated, &c. Rom. 7. 21-23. And the same he pro­fesseth also to be the case of all other the Saints of God, Gal. 5. 17. So that a perfect sincerity he cannot mean, both because he deny­eth that the Gospel injoyneth perfect obedience, and perfection of sincerity in this kinde is the highest pitch of the perfection that is in the most perfect obedience: And withall because he tels us in the next answer, pag. 158. He knows not to what end Christ should command us that obdience, which he doth never enable any man in this life to perform. And this hee hath layd downe for a maxime, That whatsoever Christ hath commanded, or te­stified, if Mr. Baxter cannot find out, and fathom a good rea­son for it, and of it, meddle with it who listeth, he will have no­thing to doe with it. Or if he mean an unperfect sincerity, that, according to Mr. Baxter, is none at all. For if the righteousnesse of our persons and actions bee, much more the sincerity of our righteousnesse and obedience must be, not a being, but a modifi­cation of a being, which doth not admit of magis and minus, but must be perfect, or none at all. Yea what an absurdity is it to af­firm, that he, whose office it is to perfect his Elect, Heb. 10. 14. that doth not only begin, but finish his good work in them, hath com­manded that which is unperfect? Hee may be truly said to wink at our unperfectness, to forgive our imperfections; but to say he commands that which is unperfect, is to deny the perfection of his commands, and so to lay imperfection to his charge, as [Page 212] well as to our own. Besides he may according to his custom, if he be put to tell us what sincerity he means, fall to distinguish it, into a Physical, or Metaphysicall sincerity, into a Morall, and an Evangelical sincerity, so that although wee find many of his Meashes, yet shall we never find his Fourm: So full of doubles, and false leaps are they that deale not sincerely in handling the doctrine of Christ, swaying and waving it hither and thither, to make it not subservient to the advancing of Christs king­dom, but of their own inventions. Let Mr. Baxter labour rather practically, and feelingly to know the power of Christian, and spiritual sincerity within his heart, then to make use of the Word to make intricate the plain doctrine of Scriptures, and hence­forth we shall finde that which we have hitherto unsuccessefully sought after, sincere dealing in his disputes. It is not all this while denyed, that the Gospel requires sincere obedience, but affirmed, that it calls for both sincere, and perfect obedience.

I much doubt I should slander Mr. Baxter, if I should say that hee means by sincere obedience, sincerely Evangelical obedience. For hee will not bee known to know what that is. It is besides the Orb of Philosophers, Scholasticks, and Sophisters, in which he moveth. But if beyond our beleef he meane so, then I shall consent, and speak with him, When the New Covenant saith, Thou shalt obey sincerely, i. e. purely, according to the Gospel rule, which teacheth us to fetch all our guidance, in every work of o­bedience to make it Evangelical, from the Word of Christ; all our strength to doe it from the Spirit of Christ, all our accep­tance from our union to Christ, presenting all, and our selves withall to God, through the mediation of Christ, doing all not to attain Justification by all done, but to glorifie God with the fruits of our thankfulness, for the prizelesse gift of Justification conferred upon us in, and through Christ. When the New Co­venant (I say) hath taught us to obey in a sincerely Evangelicall manner; here now the Moral Law steps in, and tels us (as Mr. Baxter saith) wherein, and what we must endeavour to doe. i. e. What be those duties of Moral holyness, and righteousnes, which being in this Gospel way performed, doe receive a higher title then Moral, and become Evangelical, Christian, and spiritual o­beying. If Mr. Baxter mean, or will mean thus, we will go hand in hand wi [...]h him, or (what shall be more proper) give him his due precedency, and follow him.

The next answer (put in numb. 4.) whether it be also an an­swer to this second Question, or intended as an answer to the third Question (which else passeth without answer) or else to both questions; runs in these words.

The multiplication of nice and unnecessary questions hath been one special means to bring a darkness upon the doctrine of the Word in those parts thereof, that in themselves are clear and full of light. It sufficeth me to know, what hath been a little before proved, that the Moral Law, both with respect, and as considered in it self, without respect to either Covenant, hath been ever, is, and shall be ever the perfect rule and directory of Moral obedience; And that Christ, as the Mediator of the New Covenant, hath not dissolved, or made voyd any part of the Morall Law, or of the Righteousness and duty which the Moral Law requireth, in reference to either the sincerity or perfection in performing the same; but contrariwise hath avouch­ed the contrary, and denounced, that whosoever shall break one of the least of these commandements, and teach men so; i. e. as I conceive, shall take liberty by the abuse, and misunderstanding of the New Covenant to neglect, or be remiss in any part or degree of that righteousness which the Law requireth, and teach others the same remisnesse also, The same shall be least in the kingdom of heaven. i. e. A useless and unprofitable Teacher in the Gospel [Page 214] Church. This sufficeth me to know, and this the Scripture plainly affirmeth and fully confirmeth. Mat. 5. 17. 19.

But whether the Moral Law to them that are under the New Covenant, and truly in Christ, be onely a rule and directory, or else a commander also? Or whether Christ hath made the Mor­al Law a proper part of his Gospel, these are things Heteroge­neous from the former, and first devised by those distinctionary Sophisters that to strengthen their doctrine of merits and workes of superogation, have distinguished between the precepts and counsels of Christ. Sure I am, that the Gospel in its strict and proper sense, consists not at all in bringing precepts, but life, grace, righteousness, peace, joy, holiness, liberty, and salvation from heaven, and whatsoever else tendeth to the perfect and ne­ver ending welbeing of poor souls, together with an alsufficient light and direction how to attain all these, and manage them being attained, to the advancing of the glory of the grace of the giver. This is properly the summe of the Gospel, and the pre­cepts intermixed with the doctrine hereof, no otherwise proper to the Gospel, than as they are furtherances to the attainment of them, and lights and helps to direct us how to stand fixed in the enjoyment of them, and walk holily, honourably and worthily in the strength and comfort of them. Yet it cannot bee denyed but that still the Law Moral is a perfect rule of all perfect Mor­al righteousnesse; and that Christ hath expunged no part of it, but commands all, yea writes the righteousnesse of all in the hearts of beleevers, that they might will all, and delight to doe all, not onely after the Moral, but after the Evangelical rule, through Christ, for whose sake their unperfect services are ac­cepted with God as though they were full and compleat. This hath been cleared before in our examination of Master Baxters second Answer to the seeond Question, and express Scriptures alleadged for confirmation thereof. Neither can wee think that the many infinite benefits freely conferred in the way of the Gos­pel upon us, do exempt us from, but are obligations upon us unto the fulfilling of all righteousness: or that it is our bondage, but our liberty to be free from sinne, and the servants of righteous­nesse. The nature of the commands being now altered under the Covenant of Grace, from what they were under the Covenant of workes. Then they proceeded from meer soveraignty and pow­er, now from tender Grace and Love. Then had they a sting in [Page 215] the tayle, the curse and hell to inflict, in case there were not full performance. This sting and curse is now carried away in the body of Christ, no threat of it to them that are in Christ, but the thing commanded for the compleating of our perfection, which consists in our conformity with the will and nature of God, with this dammage annexed, that the lesse perfectly we perform, the father off we are yet from our desired perfection. There the Lord commanded his servants, here the father his dear Children. There man was commanded to work in his own strength, here the treasury of Christ is opened, and the power of his Spirit of­fered, and we commanded to receive our fill, and in the strength of what we receive, to mount higher and higher untill we come to full perfection.

The reason that Master Baxter bringeth, why he cannot bee yet convinced that Christ commands perfect obedience to the Moral Law, were from another reasonless, but from Master Baxter it is but a discovery of himselfe to be himselfe, i. e. an admirer (I had al­most said adorer) of his own wisdome. Because (saith he) I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to performe. What more lofty arrogance? he must be admitted into Christs privie Coun­cell, and have communicated to him what ends Christ hath in giving his commands, else will he cast be hinde him his precepts as void and vain. He should have left to Socinus and his follow­ers thus to have argued, who make humane reason the rule and bound of their Religion. Had he said, he is not yet convinced, because he yet meets not with any punctual testimony of Scrip­ture that expressly affirms it, this would have at the worst but implyed some inadvertency in his reading the Scriptures. But not to deny that the Scripture saith it, and yet not to be convin­ced, because he seeth not to what ends Christ should doe what the Scripture saith he hath done; this is no lesse than the ad­vancing the authority of his reason above the authority of Gods Word: and an attributing of power to his own blindnesse, of silencing and frustrating the authority and truth of the Scrip­tures.

But who is more blinde than he that will not see? Or what hin­ders Master Baxter from seeing what ends Christ had in com­manding that perfection which we cannot attain in this life ful­ly to performe? Is it not because he terminateth and boundeth [Page 216] Christs ends in all that he did, suffered or commanded, to man, as both the circumference and center of all, and had no aim to his own glory, and the glory of his father that sent him, therein? How many honourable ends of Christ in this case may there bee gathered from the Scriptures.

1. That God might be herein glorified. Herein is my father gloryfied, that ye bear much fruit. Jo. 15. 8. The more fruit wee bear, and the more perfect, the more is God glorified in us. Therefore is the perfection of our fruit-bearing commanded, that God may be still more and more glorified by our greater & greater fruitfulnesse; every one being forced to magnify the wonderfull operation of Gods grace in Christ, that hath enabled that which was erewhile a dead stock, to bring forth against na­ture so much and so good fruit. Even as an [...]xpert penman, or Ma­ster in writing, to get honour by the proficiency of his Schollers, doth not bring down, and lessen the perfection of his letters which he writes for their coppy, to their feeblenesse and una­blenesse in writing, (so should they continue unskilfull and un­able still) but sets before them a perfect coppy, commanding and teaching them to follow it, and by degrees even to match it; and by this means the more perfectly they write, the more honour comes to the Master.

2. To hold us in a constant intercourse and communion with himselfe by faith. Were we perfect, or had we attained all that is required of us, we should be wholly apt to settle our selves up­on our own bottoms, and worke either not at all, or else in our strength. But when we see our selves deficient in what we ought to be, and nothing in our selves, or any where else, out of Christ to supply us, that without, or out of him we can doe nothing, this keeps us in a diligent and constant union with him, to abide in him as the branches in the vine, to suck from him sap and life more abundantly for the producing of more abundant growth and fruitfulnesse in us: and thus the communion beeween Christ and [...]s is more and more pe [...]fected, and he more and more ho­noured, when we fetch all our vertue and strength from him.

3. To keep us in continual selfe-denyal, and to dash to no­thing Master Baxters idol of Justification by our own inherent righteousnesse; which when we finde to come still short of the pe [...]fection injoyned, and sinfull in its defectivenesse, we shall be forced to with-hold our confidence from it, and with the A­postle [Page 217] to shake it off (in reference to Justification) as dung and losse, that we may win Christ, and be found in him &c. So making Christ our All, and our selves nothing to our own happinesse, Phi. 3. 8. 9.

4. To awaken us out of our carnal slumberings, and conten­tation in our poor beginings and slight pittances of knowledge and righteousnesse already attained, and to stirre us on with a holy agility towards perfection, in our motions. It was this that wrought thus with the Apostle Paul. Knowing perfection to be commanded, and seeing himselfe yet in a station so short of it, it makes him to cry out, I have not yet attained, I am not yet per­fect, [therefore] forgetting those things that are behind, that are al­ready done and attained, and reaching forth to the things that are before, not yet attained, I presse toward the marke, [of perfection.] Phil. 3. 12, 13, 14.

For these and many other ends (that might bee added) doth Christ command perfection, though not fully attainable in this life.

Master Baxter expresses himselfe to be able to finde but one, and that but a seeming end or reason in this case, and that hee blowes off as insufficient. If it were (saith he) to convince us of our disability and sinne, that is the worke of the Law; and the con­tinuing of it upon the old termes, as is before explained, is sufficient to that. Sundry failings are there in this passage of his, making it insufficient to the end for which he useth it.

1. That it makes the Law, because it convinceth of sinne, to be the onely means ordained of God to convince us of sinne. When contrariwise the Lord Christ tells us, that the Spirit of Grace shall, under the Gospel also, convince men of sinne, Joh. 16. 8. and that with a more effectual conviction than ever the Law, as the Law, could work. It shall so convince men of sinne, that it shall convince them of righteousnesse also, of damning sinne in themselves, and of saving righteousnesse laid up for them in Christ. This the Law could not do; Therefore is as a Cove­nant of workes (for so Master Baxter here takes the Law,) neither the onely, nor the chiefe means ordained of God to convince of sinne.

2. That it makes the Law, upon it old terms, to be ordained of God, in a special and proper manner to convince of sinne. This indeed was the office of the Law, as given to Israel upon [Page 218] mount Sinai, upon other and new termes: But upon its old and first terms as it was given to Adam, this could not be the next and proper end of the Moral Law. For Adam received it while he was yet innocent and without sinne, and in that state of his, the Law could not convince him, was not appointed to convince him of sinne, having not all sinned.

3. That it makes the Law upon its old terms, i. e. (according to Master Baxter) as a Covenant of workes, sufficient by it selfe to conviction, without any need of Gospel convictions to bee u­sed. When contrariwise all the convictions of the Law so con­sidered can worke but desperation and death in the convinced. They are the convictions of the Gospel, and Spirit of Grace working by the Gospel, that are effectual to conversion and life.

For conclusion he saith,

And I answer, that the difficulty of the question is not from the Word of God, but from him and his fellowes, which fill with knots hard to be loosed, the leading thread which Christ hath given us all displayed. As for the Moment of the question, let him crack at his pleasure among fooles; yet the wise must needs see and acknowledge it such, as if he lose it, he loseth one of his chiefe pillars (though it be but a paper pillar) to bear up mans personal righteousnesse to justification. For if it be proved that Christ requireth perfect obedience under the Gospel, down falls all the perfection, meritoriousnesse and efficacy of mans righte­teousnesse to Justification. And so he must begin all again, and fit himselfe with better pillars next, if any where from Rome or Jury they are to be had, this proving rotten and unusefull. That obedience which in relation to both Covenants, to Law and Gospel too, is sinfully unperfect, cannot bee of any power to Justifie.

CHAP. XIX.

Thes. 32, 33, 34, 35. UNto this I may ad the quodlibetarie & quidlibetarie doctrines of Mr Baxter, his Niceties, quiddities, and nimble nothings, whereof he disputes profoundly in the four next Theses, viz. the 32 &c. and in his Appendix, in answer to the third question, pag. 12. of the appendix, and thence to pag. 27. in which many no­table and rare speculations are unfolded. viz.

1. Whether the rope wherewith Judas hanged himselfe, were made of hair or hemp?

2. Whether it were Simon, alias called Peter, or Peter, alias called Simon, that denyed Christ; and whether it were Pontius, or else Pilate that condemned him.

3. Whether it were Christs Crosse, or else the Crosse of Christ that Simon of Cyrene was compelled to bear? Item whether hee carried it on his right or his left shoulder? and which end of the Crosse was before, and whether the contrary end were behind in carriage?

4. Whether when Joab was put to death for killing two men, Abner and Amasa, for which of these two murthers he suffered, for the former or the latter, or for neither?

The same or like to these are the disputes of Master Baxter, in these Theses and their explications, and in the forementioned part of the Appendix. viz. 1. Whether, when himselfe hath laid it down for a position no lesse firm and unrepealable than the Lawes of the Medes and Persians which alter not, that there is no sinne prohibited in the Gospel, which is not a breach of some precept of the Decalogue, and a sinne against the Old Co­venant, &c. Yet neverthelesse there be any sinnes against the New Covenant which are not also against the Old Item whe­ther there be any sinnes, considerable in any of their respects a­gainst the Gospel onely, and not against the Moral Law? and then consequently, whether Christ hath satisfied by his death for such sinnes as himself affirmes never have been, never shall be, or can be committed. Thes. 30. pag. 148. that is, for imaginary [Page 220] sins which never were sins, nor shall be? Thes. 32.

2. When he hath asserted, and peremptorily concluded, Thes. 32. That Christ was not to satisfie for any sin committed against the New Covenant, which was not, is not also a sin against the Old: Yet whether it be not very needfull to be questioned in the 33. Thes. Whether Christ hath done, what he was not to doe? whe­ther he hath satisfied for sins that violated the New Covenant, as well as for those that violate the Old Covenant? And conse­quently if he should have so done, whether this were to have been reckoned as a work of supererogation above, and beyond his duty, to have merited superexcedently for us; or an act of sin against his duty, putting him into an incapacity to merit at all for us? yea whereas Mr. Baxter concludeth absolutely as an undeniable truth, Thes. 32. Therefore Christ dyed not for any sin against the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace, whether that be not a sufficient ar­gument to prove in Thes. 33. that Christ hath not by his passive obedience satisfied for the sinnes that violate the Covenant of Grace? who can evade the force of such an argument, Christ hath not satisfied, ergo he hath not satisfied; specially when it hath been before proved in words at length, that there is no sin against the New Covenant, but is a sin against the Old also; and it is satisfied for, as to the Old Covenant, what reason is there then that it should bee satisfied, as to the New Covenant too? When the Creditor is payd his full debt in the hall, and hath yeelded up the bond, will he expect to have the same debt payd to him in the parlor also?

3. Whether, when both Law and Gospel, Old, and New Co­venant, command the same thing; that Christ then satisfyeth for the breach of that duty, as to the Law, but not as to the Go­spel? The Gospel then damneth men for that fault that in reference to the Law is satisfied for? and consequently many poor wretches are damned by the Gospel, and New Covenant, which by the Law, and Old Covenant should be saved? Or if it be not so, whether then it be not the Law that damneth even fi­nall unbelief it self, taking advantage from the violating of the grace of the New Covenant, to aggravate their condemnation, that under the means of Grace have lived, and dyed contemners thereof?

4. Whether all other sinnes which the Gospel precepts do pro­hibit, be against Christ and his Gospel, as the object of those [Page 221] sins, onely the breaking of the conditions of the Gospel, be not a sin against Christ and his Gospel, as the object of that sin? for so Mr. Baxter pag. 159. distinguisheth between those sinnes that have Christ, and the Gospel for their object, and those breaches of the conditions of the New Covenant, as if these had not Christ and his Gospel for their object. What then is the object of these sins? or have they no object? or how many thousand conditions of the New Covenant are there, the breach where­of is by no sacrifice to be purged? Hee tells us indeed, Thes. 32. pag. 159. that the Gospel threatneth death to no other sin, but final unbelief and rebellion. But this finall unbelief, and finall rebellion hath its belly so full of other small sins threatned in the womb of their Mother, [ Rebellion] as ever a man found of the berries in the belly of a breeding Lobster. And in his Ap­pendix, pag. 23. he makes finall unbelief the genus, to which he attributes but three species, of which the first, viz. Ordinary fi­nall unbelief, is not to bee considered as species specialissima, but subalterna, which being looked upon as a genus, hath so many species, or as a species hath so many individuals under it (accord­ing to Mr. Baxters doctrine) as the best Arithmetician in the world, saving himselfe, will not dare to yeeld up, upon his cast­ing, the true summe of them to satisfie Mr. Baxters censure there­in; as it will appear when Mr. Baxter comes to unlace, and rip abroad his Justifying Faith in its largest sense. Thes. 70.

To these I might adde many more quaintisies of the same nature, breathing out themselves from the veins of this his dis­pute. But all the rest, as those already mentioned, are but tarry­ing irons to take up the time of men that are Malè feriati, rather love to play with the buttons, then to close with the body, and drink in the spirit of true Christianity. And what other end can Mr. Baxter have in these his chippings and mincings, but to shew the delicacy of his wit? Whom hath he in the substance of what he speaketh, his adversary? We grant and teach with him.

1. That there is no sin prohibited by the Gospel, or New Cove­nant, which is not a sin against the Law, and Old Covenant also.

2. That finall unbelief, and rebellion, are sins (if not unpar­donable) as if they exceeded the bounds of Gods grace, and Christs merits to pardon them, yet) which have no futurition of pardon, shall never be pardoned in this life, or in that which is to come: For so hath the Lord declared his purpose in reference to these sins.

[Page 222]3. That both the Law and the Gospel concurre in damning such persons; the Law as a Covenant of Workes properly, for their refusall to submit (even till death it self) to the will and authority of God, requiring Faith in Christ for their redemp­tion from vengeance. The Gospel improperly, by withholding its shelter from the Laws sentence against them, because they would never be perswaded to come under the shelter of it: yea more in strengthning the hand of the Law to give them the so­rer punishment, for the contempt of Gods grace, as well as of his Authority and Justice. And thus not onely the mountains of their sinnes against the Law, but also Christ the Rock shall fall upon them to their greater shivering, for that they dared to dash themselves against him, and would not be induced to be built a­gainst all the stroakes of vengeance upon him.

This is the summe of all that which Mr. Baxter here in sub­stance saies. To what purpose then are his elaborate distinctions of the differing respects and aspects, senses and non-senses, in which Christ hath either satisfied, or not satisfied for mans sins, unlesse it be Balaam-like, to lay a stumbling block in the way of the simpler people of Gods Israel, to occasion their fall? to puzzle their judgements and consciences? and to make the way of grace, which is in it self as discovered by the Lord Christ, easie and plaine, to be unto them by his evill working therein, intri­cate, perplexed, and full of snares? To all sober men it sufficeth to know,

1. That there is no one of their sins, in whatsoever considera­tion it be taken, but hath death and hell in the tayl of it.

2. That there cannot be any other way of exemption from the death & hel which every such sin of theirs meriteth, by any other meanes but by the redemption which is by, and in the Lord Jesus.

3. That the blood of Christ hath in it a perfect efficacy to cleanse from all sin whatsoever, no one excepted, if it be apply­ed to cleanse; Not the very sin against the Holy Ghost, which it hath not power totally to purge out from the conscience, if it were truly applyed. But therefore is that sin never pardoned, and purged from the soul, because the Spirit of God never doth, nor will apply the blood of Christ to the soul that is guilty of it; nor generates Faith in such a soul to run unto, and wash in the Fountain of Christs blood, that it may be clean. Let there be any [Page 223] one sin named of all the sins whereof our corrupt nature is preg­nant, that is so much a sin against the Gospel, but that the pur­ging, or not purging away of it, the absolving of the conscience from it, or retaining of it upon the conscience, doth not wholly depend upon the application, or not application of the blood of Christ to the soul, and I shall acknowledge that I have seen but the Letter, and was never yet acquainted with the Spirit, and drift of the Scriptures.

Or suppose we should take a delight to contend about that which is a meer lana caprina, whether it be hair or wooll that grows upon the Goats shoulders, how feeble might we manifest the reasons to be which Mr. Baxter beingeth to prove, that the sins against the New Covenant are not satisfied for, by the sacrifice of Christs death.

As 1. When the Apostle affirmeth Christ to have suffered death for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Testament, Heb. 9. 15. Doth it follow thence that he hath not redeemed from the transgressions against the New Covenant also? If I say that Christ forgave to Peter, or Paul, or Mary Magdalen all their sins committed before conversion, do I thereby as much as im­ply that he retains still, and revengeth upon them all the sinnes they committed after they were converted? Or should one of Mr. Baxters acquaintance say, that whatsoever Mr. Baxter preached, and wrote, untill four or five years since, was good, and Ortho­dox, doth it follow that all that he hath since preached, and writ­ten, is heretical, and erroneous? Nay the purpose of the Apostle here is to convince the Hebrews that sought in part for righte­ousnesse by the Law, or Old Testament, that it could not make its observers perfect: For Christ dyed to redeem the transgres­sions of them that were under the first Covenant, which he need­ed not to have done, if all the Sacrifices under the Law could have purged them. And thus the Morall Law is not here at all opposed to the Gospel, that the Gospel, or New Covenant doe purge the sinnes onely that were committed under, and against the Morall Law, because all the righteousnesse of the Morall Law could not purge them; but the sacrifice of Christ, the Me­diator of the New Covenant, is here opposed to the Leviticall sacrifices under the Legall Covenant. What these could not, the sacrifice of Christ hath expiated.

2. Where he tels us, that Christ could not satisfie for sinnes commit­ted [Page 224] against the New Covenant, because the New Covenant threatens no death to such sinnes, therefore no need if Christs mediating death here for us: For where no death is threatned, there is none ex­plicitely due, saith he. But will he say none is either explicitely, or implicitely due? Or when Mr. Baxter tels us pag. 15. that in the Old Covenant the promise of life is not expressed, but plainly implyed in the threatning of death: Will it not follow by the same reasons, that when Mr. Baxter in the after part of this his Tra­ctate alleageth such multitudes of Scriptures, that promise life to the performance of such and such acts of Gospel righteousnesse, that there is implyed the threat of death against the non-perfor­mance of the same? Or if it should have been printed (as it is most probable, because he so speaketh elswhere in reference to the covenants) that where death is not explicitely threatned, there it is not due, and Christ hath not suffered it in our behalfe. What shall we think then of all the fathers from Adam to Moses? where was this death explicitely threatned to any actual sinne, untill the Law was given by Moses? The Scripture mentions it not, and Mr. Baxter hath told us (though I doubt somewhat rashly, and Magisterially) that to Adam himself in his perfecti­on the form of the Covenant was not known (as written in his heart) but by superadded revelation, pag. 14. Yea what shall we say of all the Nations of the world ( Israel alone excepted) that even untill Christ, had no revealed Covenant with God, much lesse death threatned explicitely by such a Covenant? Will Mr. Baxter deny death to have been due to them for their sinnes, because not explicitely threatned? Doth not the Apostle, Rom. 1. 32. & alibi, affirm the contrary? Thus if it were; but it is not proved, that the New Testament doth not so threaten death.

3. When he tels us that Christ is said to have been made under the Law, and to have born the curse of the Law, and to have freed us from it, but no where is this affirmed of him, in respect of the Gospel, pag. 161. This is an Argument of the same nature, with that before, from Heb. 9. 15. The Apostle to dash the crest of their self-confidence, in seeking to be in part ju­stified (as Mr. Baxter also doth) by their own personall righ­teousnesse done in conformity to the Law, tels them that even the Israel of God, that were priviledged above all other people with a Law of Righteousness, were under the curse of the Law, and could not be saved but by a Redeemer; much less they that [Page 225] had not the help of such a Law. It bears the same sense with that of Gal. 2. 15, 16. We that are Jews by nature, and not sinne [...]s of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of Jesus Christ, even we have beleeved in Jesus Christ that we may be justified, &c. What a monstrous delusion were it then for us to teach the sinners of the Gentiles to seek af­ter Justification by their personal righteousness, according to the Law. And though it be no where, totidem verbis, said, or affirmed of him in respect of the Gospel, yet is it said in the words equiva­lent, Heb 9. 15. That he is the Mediator of the New Testament: whence Pareus on the place concludeth, That if he hath satisfied for the sins against the Old, much more for the sinnes against the New Testament, seeing he is the Mediator of this, not of that. And the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sinne, 1 Joh. 1. 7. Ergo from sins also against the Gospel. I cannot say from sinns which are onely against the Gospel, for there are none such. Or if Mr. Baxter will take the words so strictly as hee seems to take them, that Christ hath redeemed onely from sins against the Law, hee must exclude himself, with all the Churches and Saints of the Gentiles that are, or have been, from the redemption which is by Christ; for so then must that passage in Gal. 4. 4, 5. be read; Christ was made under the Law to redeem them [onely] that were under the Law. i. e. Only the Jews, for they onely were under the Law of Moses, and of this Law Mr. Baxter must needs confess the Apostle here to speak. So that this argument of his, if it please not a Jew, it will please no body.

4. The last Argument which he brings in the same 161 pag. to hit the white, and cleave the pin, and resolve the question so unanswerably, that no tongue which cannot speak may ever more utter, or mutter against it, is as streight with his purpose, as a rams horn with a line. 4. But the question is out of doubt, (saith he) because that every man that performeth not the Gospel-conditions, doth bear the punishment himself in eternall fire, and therefore Christ did not bear it. True, for Christ did bear the punishment of none of his sins, neither of his lying, swearing, lust, murther, drunkennesse, and other sins against the Law, but he shall bear all himself: shall we therefore conclude that Christ dyed not to make satisfaction for those sinnes in reference to them that have part in his death? This were to pronounce Christ to have satisfied for no sin at all, either against Law or Gospel, and so no flesh shall be saved, but ll suffer in eternal fire.

[Page 226]5. What is in this Argument, as also in the two next, and immediately put before this, in the same 161 pag. of his Saint-conditions which he worshipeth as his Mediators to bring him into communion with Christ, no less then he doth Christ him­self to bring him into communion with God, I have partly spoken to before, and shall have large, and frequent occasions to speak more fully and largely upon other parts of this Tra­ctate of Mr. Baxter; here he doth but name conditions in gene­ral, and what he saith is not worthy of any particular Animad­versions in relation to it.

He confesseth himself pag. 160. To have been long of another judgement in this point, while he considered not the tenor of the Co­venants distinctly: That is, as long as he derived his guidance therein from the Scripture it self, and from the truly Evangeli­cal, and Orthodox Commentators thereon. But since hee hath met with Apocryphal Doctors, the Jesuits, and other nimble braines among the Papists, and with Grotius, and Vossius, and others of that hair, which h [...]e divided their consciences be­tween the Papists and Socinians, little prizing the Word, where some quaint wit and invention of man ha [...]h not descanted upon it to make it shine in the paint and varnish of humane speculati­ons and art: Now having found a C [...]ckows egge in a Finches nest, the man is so taken with the pretty conveyance, that hee doth as it were nest himselfe by it, and accounts all other con­templations base in comparison of this, defies Eagles, Swans, Turtles, yea the whole generation of other birds; cares not what becomes of them all, so that this one may come to maturity, and prosper, because his fancy hath made it his own (as it were) though (as it is much to be feared) to the perverting, if not to­tall loss of himself and others; He having ascribed perfection and merit to it already, as fully as any of the most professed Pa­pists. See how he flaunts and glories in this imaginary peece of Huperephaneous learning (in the 20, 21, 22. pages of his Appen­dix) as if he had not received it from men, but Mahomet-like from a celestial Dove, or by the Angel Gabri [...]l from heaven, in­sulting not over the Antinomians, but over their adversaries al­so, (as he terms them) i. e. all the Orthodox Divines of all the Reformed Churches, scarce abstaining from cursing their igno­rance in this phantasticall mystery so revealed to him; when contrariwise himself hath received the substance of it (if in­deed [Page 227] there were a new substance in it) from the Papists, and him­self hath but licked it Bear-like, into a form of words best plea­sing his own imagination. The vanity of it will in its due place be discovered.

CHAP. XX.

I mean not here to fall upon a dispute with Mr. Baxter, whe­ther (according to Mr. Baxter himself) the pardoning of sinne through Christ, and Justification through Christ be not one, and the same thing: And whether he himself doth not pag. 208. ac­knowledge so much? Indeed pag. 186, he saith, that Pardon of sin, and justification in law, are not punctually, and precisely all one. Yet ad­deth, that the difference is very small, lying chiefly in this, that the ter­minus à quo of Remission is the obligation to punishment, but the ter­minus of Justification (or the evill) that it forma [...]ly, and directly frees us from, is the Laws accusation and condemnation. Here (saith he) though the difference be very narrow, yet a plain difference there is. How plain? Can the blind man see it? Yea as well as he that hath both his eyes; for it is respective rather then reall. But how doth the difference lye in the different termini à quibus, Remission of sins, and Justification free us? because Mr. Baxter (a more curious cummin-cutter in Logical disputes then he that A­ristotle in his Ethicks speaks of, was in dividing of secular goods) hath thus cloven the hair into two even rafters, and so hath him­self layd the difference, giving the one rafter for remission of sins, [Page 228] and the other to Justification, and bidden each to rest satisfied with his own, and neither to intrench upon the others part. I confess my self to have been so gross witted, untill Mr. Baxter doth here teach us so finely to distinguish, that I was apt to have argued in this case somewhat like to Mr. Baxter, pag. 208. when it seems his spectacles were off, and his considering cap not on, and so could not see, and conclude punctually where to bea [...] the wedges into the hair to cleave it exactly. As there he cannot close with Mr. Burgess, That Justification, besides the pardon of sin, doth connote a State that the subject is put into, viz. a state of favour, being reconciled with God. Because remission it self doth connote the state of favour. For if the losse of Gods favour be a part of the pu­nishment, and all the punishment be remitted, then the favour which was lost, must needs be thereby restored. So neither should I have easily closed with another, putting Mr. Baxters plain difference, pag. 186, between Remission, and Justification, in their said terminis, that the one delivers from obligation to punishment, the other from the Laws accusation, and condemnation. Because freedom from obligation to punishment doth connote freedome from the Laws accusation, and condemnation; and freedome from the Laws accusation, and condemnation connotes free­dome from obligation to punishment; and so doth Remission of sinnes, and Justification, i. e. Justification in Romane, and Ju­stification in Secretary hand, have the same terminus à quo, viz. The Laws accusation, and condemnation, and obligation to punishment; and consequently that they are one and the same thing. But let Mr. Baxter pass in this particle without further interruption. It is not for that he sees a difference, but that hee thinkes it will somewhat advantage him in attaining the ends to which he driveth, to make an imaginary difference between par­doning of sinne, and Justification in terminis. Therefore doth he▪ so acutely distinguish. And I shall leave him to solace himself in his distinction, without saying any more to it.

2. Neither doe I account it worthy of any deep examination, what in the Explication of the first words of the Definition, that it is [ an Act of God] hee doth pag. 168. trifle about the dif­ference which he maketh between Christs Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdome, and Gods Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdome. We grant unto him, that as of the two Temples that Marcellus built at Rome, one dedicated to Virtue, the other to Honour; that [Page 229] to Honour had no door to it, but out of the Temple of Virtue: So neither is there any other entrance into the Kingdome of Glory, but thorough the Kingdome of Grace. But to put a dif­ference between Christs, and Gods Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdom, as if the one were upon Earth, the other not untill we are translated hence into Heaven, and so we must be in Hea­ven first, and bee forgiven afterwards; or as if Christs accep­tance, &c. were not Gods, or the Fathers Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdom, is a meerly imaginary dreame of one that listeth to dream waking; pat indeed to Mr. Baxters purpose of setting up his two-fold, or rather manifold Justifications; but wholly thwarting and crossing the Scriptures, which affirme, Not that Christ as Mediator reconciled the world to himself, but that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them. 2. Cor. 5. 19. And that where Christ forgiveth, there God [not will hereafter forgive, but already] hath forgiven all our trespasses for Christs sake, Eph. 4. 32. Col. 2. 13. And more often call the Kingdom of Grace here, the Kingdome of God, then the Kingdome of Christ. And that the great Absolution at last in the day of Judgement shall be given by Christ, and not by the Father in person, and the same not in Heaven, but before the Ascension of the Saints into Heaven, as is evident by all the Scriptures of the New Testament, which describe the Judge­ment day. Neither doth the Scripture tell us of any ultimate perfecting pardon, beyond, or after this, if ever it so terme this.

3. And of as little moment is that which he hath pag. 169. in the Explication of his Definition of Pardon, calling i [...] [ a gra­cious Act] where he blesseth, and kisseth the image [ Tantundem] set up by Grotius, and polished by himselfe, denying it to bee a pardon, if it be not in some sort gratuitous, or free, and asserting, that if Christ hath payd for us the idem, or the proper debt, then there is no place left for pardon, and wee have nothing forgiven us: For the Creditor (saith he) cannot refuse the proper debt, nor deny an ac­quittance upon the receipt thereof, &c. A meer vanity of words, without either ground, or substance. It doth not alway hold firm in trifling debts of money. Suppose I have a sonne, that having received his portion of my estate from me, will forthwith come and pay it me for the debt of some bankrupt debtor, that I have cast into prison; if indeed it be so agreed upon between my self, [Page 230] and my said Sonne; and that to this end I gave him such a portion of my estate, that he should so doe with it, then it were not equity in me to refuse the payment so offered. But yet Master Baxter wil not deny that this agreement, or covenant between me, and my sonne, and my receiving of my own monyes in sa­tisfaction for that Bankrupts debt, though it be the same, to the utmost farthing which hee owed, is an act of grace, or favour in mee to the said Debtor. But in case [...]here were no such cove­nant between me, and my said sonne, but that I gave him the said portion of my goods for other ends, and uses, and not to pay the Debts of Bankrupts: I suppose then it is in my choice, either to receive, or refuse the full debt so offered me, because he which offerrs it, was not bound upon the Bond, as Suretie, or as Excecutor, or Administrator to the Debtor, nor is assigned by the Debtor to make payment in his stead. What is there in this case binding me to receive the debt from such an hand, or to give an acquittance to him that should pay it? Much lesse will the case hold in point of Life and Death. Suppose some Priest, Jesuit, or other Traytor were by the Law condemned to dye for Treason committed: The day of Execution is at hand, Master Baxter interposes, and offereth to dye for him: Is it not in the power of the chiefe Magistrates to refuse the accepting of the death of the Innocent for the Nocent? Or if they doe accept the change, is it not an Act of free grace to pardon the offendor, accepting anothers sufferings for him? Much more is it a gracious act in God to pardon us upon Christs suffering in our stead, because hee sent his Sonne, and gave him a body wherein to suffer for us, Heb. 10. 5. And gives us ac­quittance, having cast him into prison in our behalf, untill he had payd the utmost farthing of our debts.

4. What hee saith against the ignorant Antinomians in the end of page 169, and in page 170, hee hath sayd before, and it hath been before examined, and his pepper-corne being crushed, hath been found too hot in smell and operation, for a humble, and selfe-denying Christian to meddle with in the point of Justification. Therefore I conclude with him, nor further to trouble the Reader with those sensless conceites which have onely a plausible shew of words, but no foot­ing in Scriptures, or authority from Scriptures to establish them.

The rest of the Doctrine which hee delivereth in this page 170, and addeth page 171, and 172, I doe in part grant him; and what I grant him not, wee shall finde againe so involved in his dispute, whether Justification bee an immanent, or transient Act of God, page 173, & seq. that it shall be more pro­per there then here to take it into examination.

In his 173 page, Master Baxter enters upon a dispute of great moment, whether Remission and Justification be imma­nent, or transient Acts of God? Before pag. 93 of this Tractate, in a brave challenge of the Antinomians to produce one Scripture, testifying Justification to be from eternity, hee promised to shew, or prove that Justification is not an immanent Act in God. Here he ad­dresseth himself to the accomplishment of what he there promi­sed, and in doing it he pretendedly draws the sword against the Antinomians, as the sole assertors of the opinion which he here with much gallantry seeks to confute.

Two things then I conceive here to call for examina­tion.

First, how sound the reasons are which he brings to deny Par­don, and Justification to be immanent, and to prove them to bee meerly transient acts of God.

2. What kind of Vermine these Antinomians are, against whom Mr. Baxter hath already discharged so many Gun-shots before in this Treatise, and findes them nevertheless yet alive, and in a capacity to bear so many more shots from him, in this, and the following parts of this book.

Before my entrance upon either of these, for an introduction to the former, that the state of the question may the better ap­pear, I shall endeavour with as much fidelity, and simplicity as (in briefe) I may, to lay downe the judgements of our Prote­stant Divines, whom he slanders here, and every where (almost) with Antinomianism, about this question, before mentioned, which Mr. Baxter here so much opposeth, I mean such of these as hold (not that all have taught it) to be in some respect immanent in God.

1. Then, in their disputes against Bellarmine, Arminius, So­cinus, and their followers, about remission of sinnes, and justification they tell us, that justification is taken sometimes actively, for a judicial act of Gods grace; sometimes passively, or terminatively; as it hath its termination upon beleevers. In the [Page 232] former sense, it is an act internal and immanent in God, not tran­sient upon an extraneous subject; or in plain words, it is secret, a­biding, and hidden in God himselfe, not declared or passing into the knowledg and conscience of man. That it is of the same na­ture with the acts of election and reprobation, having its com­plete being, as these, before the persons so elected, justified and reprobated, begin to have being, life or faith in them, or to doe good or evill. But in its passive sense, as it is terminated upon, and made out to the conscience of a man, so it is a transient act of God, pronouncing and declaring home to the conscience of a man now living, convinced of his sinnes, and trembling at the sense and burthen thereof, yet resting upon, and cleaving to Christ by faith; that his sinnes are forgiven for Christs sake; and by this act and sentence of God in his conscience the poor sinner becomes sensible and apprehensive of his full discharge and abso­lution at Gods tribunal, thorow Christs satisfaction made to justice for him.

2. That justification, as taken in the former sense, is an Act of Gods supreme Lordship or dominion, or else of his good plea­sure (to use the Apostles termes) by which he freely and without necessity, in relation to his justice, willeth the salvation of one, and willeth not the salvation of another, loveth or hateth, im­puteth not, or doth impute sinne, according to his own free will. But justification in the latter sense, is an act of Gods righteousnes or faithfulnesse, by which hee faithfully and righteously accom­plisheth his promises of grace, in just [...]ying and absolving them which believe, by the sentence of pardon pronounced to their conscience, according to the Gospel promise made to beleevers. No word of promise went before justification in the former sense, to make it an act of justice to fulfill that promise; nei­ther could it be an act of his natural justice, that by the necessity of his nature he should so justifie and love any; for then should none be either loved or saved freely of God, when contrariwise it was in his own free choice, to love or to hate, to save or con­demn all, or mutatis vicibus, to have loved Esau, & hated Jacob, to have willed the condemnation of the saved, and the salvation of the reprobated. But the word of promise preceded justifica­tion in the latter sense, which it is righteousnesse in God to ful­fill; therefore is it an act as well of his justice or righteousnesse, as of his free grace.

[Page 233]3. That Justification in the former sense is antecedaneous, or fore­going to all covenants whatsoever. 1. In order of nature (though not in time) it goeth before that covenant between the father and the son, mentioned before in the examination of the explication of Mr. Baxters fourteenth Thesis; and consequently before Christs undertaking to make, or the fathers Covenant to accept what he should offer, in satisfaction for the sinnes of the elect. For in or­der of nature the willing of the end, alway goeth before the wil­ling of the means conducing to the end; so that Gods willing mans righteousnesse and immunity from sinne, and loving him to salvation, must needs goe before his willing of Christs satisfy­ing of his justice, which was but a mean appointed of God to the constituting of man righteous before him, that he might be pure from sinne, discharged from condemnation, and partaker of salvation, which was the end. Not that there was any pre­cedency, or following after, of these acts of God, in time: for they are both coeternal, and before all times. Whom God hath loved, and forgiven their sinnes, them hath he so loved and for­given, in and through Christ from all eternity, and through and for the merit of his satisfaction. Much more doth this imma­nent act of justification go before, not onely in nature, but in time also, the other temporary Covenants, both the Covenant of workes made with Adam, and the Covenant of Grace, made af­ter by Gospel promise, by Christ, or God in Christ, to us and with us. For these had all their being in time. But justification in its other acceptation is subsequent unto, and followes after, and is an effect of not onely the Covenant of Grace, but of faith it selfe, which the Covenant of Grace calls for, as a mean to attain it. None else but a beleiver, nor he, until he actually beleeveth, is thus actually justified, or hath pardon of sinnes and absolution from wrath declared and pronounced of God in his consci­ence. And thus to be justified in Christ, or in God, is one thing and to bee justified in our selves by God through Christ is another. The former is an antecedent, the latter an effect or con­sequent of the Covenant of Grace.

4. That neither the mediation & satisfaction of Christ, nor (much lesse) our faith in Christ, nor any of the most noble gifts of grace received from Christ, either in their habit or operation do move God to justifie us, so as to put into him a will to pardon our sins, and accept us as righteous, or to change his affection from nilling [Page 234] to will our forgivenesse and happinesse, and from hating to love and accept us; because he is God, and therefore immutable; and there cannot be any cause of Gods will rendred, any more than of God himselfe. For the Will of God, is God himselfe, and these immanent acts of God, are God himselfe acting. So that the substration of all that Christ hath suffered, and by his suffe­rings satisfied for us, and of all that we doe, or can doe to put our selves into union with Christ, and a conformity with the Will of God, are in no wise the causes or conditions, or antece­dents of Gods first loving, owning, and pronouncing u [...] righte­ous and pure from sinne imputed; but the effects thereof. For he so loveth and justifieth all, that in a Covenant way have been, or shall be justified in their own conscience, before ever they be­leeve, or live. But that the intervening of Christs satisfaction for our sinnes, and our recumbency upon, and embracing of Christ so satisfying by faith, that we may be justified, do ad no­thing to God which was not, nor alter any thing which was in his will before; but do onely lay and make a way by Gods ordi­nation, how he from all eternity loving and justifying us in him­selfe freely, may in a course most convenient to magnify both his truth and righteousnesse, and withal his grace and mercy, at length actually declare us just in, and to our own consciences, and for ever acquit us from sinne and wrath, to the admiration of Men and Angels. And so the former justification is a pure, sim­ple, free, and irrespective act of God, having no causality out of himselfe moving him to it: but the latter is a foederal, Gospel or Covenant justification, respecting his own Covenant before made, Christs satisfaction already given and pleaded in heaven by Christ, and mans faith in the mediator and promiser, plead­ing the promise, and the blood of the mediator sealing it: upon all which he doth, he cannot but actually pronounce and declare to the conscience of the beleiver his perfect absolution from sin and vengeance. This latter is indeed the justifying wherof the Scriptures primarily speak, as oft as they speak of justification by faith, but so as the former is also in such Scriptures implyed. Neither is the Scripture silent in reference to the former, as con­sidered without the latter, or apart from it.

5. That although all that are or shall be justified by faith in time, i. e. each on [...] in the time when he so beleeveth, were justified also in Christ, & secretly in God before they beleived, or yet lived [Page 235] even from eternity: Yet is there no man justified by vertue of the New Covenant and promise of the Gospel, proclaiming right to the Lord Christ, to forgivenesse of sinnes, freedome from condemnation, heirship to Gods Kingdom, and all other benefits of Christs Passion; until he doth actually beleeve and embrace Christ, thorow him to have all those pretious promises made good and effectual to himselfe. Though in Christ he were Lord of all before, yet differed he nothing in himselfe from a servant, from a child of wrath, his life and righteousnesse were hid with Christ in God; He could claim nothing from God by any evi­dential title, but wrath and condemnation; though he had right in Christ, yet had he no right unto Christ; though in Christ all was his, because Christ had united, purchased, and received all into his hands for him, yet had he no right to Christ by which to claim a partnership and interest in the kingdome and privi­ledge of grace, was without all true peace of conscience, all joy and consolation in the promises of grace, under fears and terrors in expectation of wrath and damnation, could be sensi­ble of nothing but anger, hatred and displeasure against him for sinne, knew not himselfe to be one of the children of promise, Gal. 4. 28. to be entitled to Christ, in whom alone the promises of God are yea and Amen: 2 Cor. 1. 20. Therefore as if there had been no Christ, no Mediator and reconciler, no Covenant of Grace, yea no Grace, or acts of Grace eternal or temporary in God thorow Christ, so he remained under a Spirit either of delusion or of bondage still. But now when the father hath drawn him to Christ, and Christ hath received him, when Christ hath appre­hended him to himselfe by his Spirit, and he by faith hath ap­prehended Christ to himselfe for redemption, reconciliation, remission, righteousnesse, and whatsoever else is laid up in Christ for him; and so hath union and communion with Christ, hath Christ in him, and is himselfe in Christ: Now his justification, which was sure before in God and in Christ, is also made sure to his conscience. He is now justified in his own conscience after the tenor, and by the vertue of the Gospel and Covenant and promi­ses of Grace; findes and knowes himselfe through Christ absol­ved at Gods tribunal, hath all the evidences for it that possibly he can desire, the Word and the Oath of God, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to ly, he may have a strong consolation, Heb. 6. 18. The Word evidenceth, and his faith evi­denceth, [Page 236] the Covenant is now sealed mutually and reciprocally be­tween God and him, by beleeving he hath put to his seal that God is true, and God sealeth to his conscience by certifying it by his Spirit, that his wrath is pacified, that all accusations are silen­ced, there is no condemnation to him being now in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 1. Himselfe may now rest satisfied, banishing hence­forth all fears and doubts, and glorying in the Lord that the fear of death is past, it is enough my soul is now alive, Christ is made sinne for me, that I might become the Righteousnesse of God in him: 2 Cor. 5. 21. Now Lord lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for my eyes have seen thy Salvation: and in the interim while he is here enjoying a heaven upon earth, a kingdome of Righteous­nesse, joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, untill he was incorpora­ted by faith into Christ, Christ might indeed plead for him, but he had no evidence, no shew of title, not an article, under Gods hand, or from his lips, to plead at Gods barre for life or par­don.

6. That neverthelesse when a man truly beleeveth, then may he apprehend justification and remission of sinnes not onely as now first declared and evidenced to his own soul: But also as past and compleat before the foundation of the world was laid. Because from eternity Christ satisfied, in that he undertook to sa­tisfie, for the sinnes of the Elect; and God from eternity rested in this satisfaction undertaken by Christ, and so laid aside all displeasure which (without this Covenant between him and his onely Son) he might have taken up as wel against them that should afterward beleeve, as against them which dye in unbeleef. For their justification in time doth à posteriore argue their justifi­cation before all times: and where faith findes the least rivulet of the great stream sent forth it can, it ought, by it to ascend up to the very fountain to be filled and satisfied with the delicious­nesse thereof. Thus shall we finde the Apostle almost in all his Epistles, from the sense of their present enjoyments in Christ, to carry upward the Saints to whom he writeth, unto the very bo­som of Gods eternal grace, counsell and good pleasure where all was laid up and treasured for them from all eternity, that thence it might in due time be shed forth upon them. Faith runs not away rashly and hastily with the gift, but delights to enter and pierce through the vail, to contemplate and embrace the as well eternal, as infinite love of the giver.

[Page 237]7. That although no man receiveth the sensible comfort of his justification before he actually beleeveth, yet every elect vessell hath (besides, and without his knowledge) the true benefit there­of (as to freedome from vengeance) throughout the whole time of his infidelity: was in Christ beloved, accepted and owned of God as righteous, in that his sinne was not imputed, as fully be­fore as after he beleeved, the price of his redemption was paid, all his sinnes borne and punished upon the shoulders, yea the soul and body of Christ, so that himselfe was no lesse exempted from the revenging wrath of God, & from all obligation to make any part of satisfaction in his own person for his sinnes, as hee that was already in Christ by faith: So that whatsoever afflictions be­fell him in the time of his unbelief, were not the infliction of the curse, as the curse for sinne, but sanctified chastisements of a lo­ving father, flowing from his grace and favour, not from his in­dignation and hatred against his person (though against his sins) tending all to his good, not to his ruine. Else if he should have born the least stroke of Gods revenging justice, and in the least pittance have made but one least peece of satisfaction by his suf­ferings for his offences; then either Christ hath made satisfacti­on for him but in part; and is not his whole Saviour and redee­mer, for that himselfe hath satisfied divine justice in part: or o­therwise the father hath taken satisfaction twice for the same sins, once from the Lord Christ, and after that from the offender al­so. But this were to slander either the perfection of Christs me­diation, or the incorruptnesse of Gods justice, both which are unsufferable.

8. That the justification which is by faith consisteth not one­ly in a bare apprehension of our justification and pardon from God, (for this is onely mans act, and no express act of God) but first in Gods actual declaration, evidencing and certisfying the conscience of man drawn to the barre of judgement (set up as it were in the conscience) that God hath taken satisfaction to his offended justice from the Lord Christ for all the offenders sinnes, and hath for ever quit-claimed and discharged him from all sin and wrath, and admitted him into favour and family to be un­der the dispensations of his grace for ever. And then indeed God having by this act absolved the conscience, there followeth also the sense of our remission and justification: So that besides this sense and apprehension, there are two things in our justifi­cation [Page 238] by faith over and above that which was in our eternal ju­stification in Christ: viz. 1. A total diffidence and denyal of our own righteousnesse, and a trusting and adhering wholly and onely to Christ for pardon and justification. 2. Gods act upon our consciences, declaring and assuring us that our debt is paid by Christ, and we discharged upon the satisfaction which our surety hath made, so that the obligation is cancelled, and we de­part with a full and general acquittance in our consciences. Neither of these were there in the former justification, i. e. in the justification in the former sense before mentioned, and so that there is more than the bare knowledge of our justification, in our being justified in the latter sense is evident.

Whatsoever else is conteined in the doctrine of the Protestant divines about this question, we shall have occasion to adde in ex­amining what Master Baxter saith here, and afterwards to oppugn it.

But the chief thing is yet behind, (may some say) viz. the proof of these positions by sound Arguments, or by evidencing Scrip­tures: and the main thing to be proved, is, that there is such a justification as is an immanent and eternal act in God. It is Master Baxters lowd challenge. pag. 93. Let all the Antinomians shew but one Scripture that speaketh of justification from eternity. I will be so charitable as to conceive, he expects not that we should produce Scriptures that say in those very words, but that which is the Tantundem) that say it in sense and substance; else if he re­ject the matter, and stick to words, I shall challenge him to produce one sentence of all the sermons which Christ preached, and in the whole doctrine that he personally delivered, which speaketh at all of justification by faith. But in words equipollent to Master Baxters, the Scripture delivereth this doctrine which he opposeth, viz. justification from eternity.

First, What lesse is to be gathered from 2 Tim. 1. 9. God hath sa­ved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our workes, but according to his purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ, before the World began. What can be said more fully to Master Baxters challenge? He will not deny that the word saving, doth include in it justifying, for so should he both contradict him­selfe, and lose elswhere more than he can gain here, by denying it. It will then run thus, that we are justified and called of God with a holy calling, not according to our works, [these words [Page 239] destroy the end of Master Baxters opposing the eternity of our ju­stification] if our own qualifycation and workes may not come in collaterally with Christ to constitute us justified, he little re­gards whether the act be immanent or transient) but according to his purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ, before the world began, and that is from eternity. See, the grace of justification and salvation was given us in Christ from eter­nity.

Object. Master Baxter may probably object, that the grace was indeed given us in Christ from eternity, that is, God had decreed from eternity to justifie us in Christ, when we should come to be­leeve in him, to justifie or save us in time, as to call us in time. For the grace here mentioned given us in Christ before times, is as much affirmed to be the grace of our vocation or calling, as of our saving and justifying. But our calling must, therefore our justification also must be in time. And thus by the grace given, must be understood Gods gracious purpose, and decree to give us salvation and justification. So Mr. Baxter, I know God hath de­creed to justifie his people from eternity. But it is done in time, page 93.

Sol. 1. That Covenant justifying, or the declaring of us in our own Consciences to bee accepted as just in Christ, is not denyed to be an act accomplished in us in time. Nor yet that God decreed from Eternity to declare us in our consciences Righteous, when wee should beleeve. But the granting of all this nothing advantageth Master Baxters cause: For neither doth this Act of God in time terminate upon our conscience, nor his eternal decree so to justifie us (beleeving) in our selves, de­ny that wee were justified in God, and in Christ from Eter­nity.

2. It appears not that the Apostle here speaketh of our calling to the participation of Christ, and of justification and sanctifi­cation by him in time, but rather of that calling mentioned Rom. 4. 17. That God calleth those things that be not, as though they were. As he called Abraham the father of many Nations, when he was yet either childlesse, or at least was in reference to the strength of na­ture, without having, without hope to have that child from whom those nations should issue and accrew to him as their fa­ther. So God is said to have called us with a holy calling, i. e. to have called and reputed us in Christ his pardoned, accepted [Page 240] and adopted children, even before we had any actual being in our selves. Dedit qui erat, accepit qui non erat. Quis antem hoc facere potuit, nisi qui vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam ea quae sunt. Aug. de verb. Apost. Sect.

3. If by Calling it be pertinaciously maintained that we must understand that which is done by the Ministry of the Gospel; yet all this helps not Master Baxter at all, in regard of the exclu­sive clause following, not according to our work [...], where our salvation and justification as well as our vocation, are denyed to have any dependance upon our own workes and qualifications, as conditions thereof: And the whole end of Master Baxters dis­pute against justification as an immanent Act in God, is, because if that be granted, there will be no place for footing our works and qualifications as necessarily precedent conditions of justifi­cation. And these fall to ground, as well as if we were justified without them, though in time, as if wee were justified from E­ternity.

4. But how, and whether we can truly, and properly be said to have received Grace in Christ before all worlds, whereby we are saved, and justified, and yet not to be saved, and justified in Christ before the world was, will come to bee examined in drawing forth the sense of other Scriptures which I shall annex. In the interim this remaines unquestioned, that although the Apostle speak here of Justification in our selves in time, yet he affirmes it to be according to the Grace given us in Christ be­fore the world; so it was in Christ for us before, though not in our selves till we beleeve.

Againe when the Scripture speaking of the Sonnes of Isaac, saith of them, while yet unborn, and consequently having neither done good nor evill, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, Mal. 1. 2, 3. Rom. 9. 11, 13. And elswhere pronounceth of men, that when they lay in their blood, in their nakedness then hee made it the time of love, sayd to them live, spread his skirt over them, and covered them, entred into Covenant with them, and made them his, Ezek. 16. 6, 8. God of his great love wherewith hee hath loved us, even when we were dead in sins and trespasses, hath quick­ned us, &c. Ephes. 2. 4, 5. God commendeth his love to us that when we were yet sinners, when enemies, we were justified by Christs blood, and reconciled to God by his death. Rom. 5 8, 9, 10. Here it is evident to all men that the love of God justifying and re­conciling [Page 241] us to himself, goeth before our Faith and Workes, was then in its power and operation, when wee were yet sinners, in all our pollution, enemies, dead in sinne, therefore without any spirituall motion, or operation to our own cleansing, or happi­ness. I demand now when this love of God so justifying us beganne? Not when we beleeved, and first obeyed the Gospel, for it went before, it was then acted toward us when wee were enemies, dead, &c. Or when wee beganne to be sinners? Then it seems our sinne begat this love in God, and then let the Atheists Aphorism stand as an impregnable Principle, let our sinne abound, that the grace and love of God may abound. Or was there ever an hatred of us, as a contrary affection in God, before, which is now expelled that love might suc­ceed in its place? And hath God now changed his hating of us to condemne us, into a love to justifie and save us? This were to accuse God of mutableness and change. For God is Love, 1 Iohn 4. 8. and the Love of God is God himselfe loving, and to affirme where wee finde the Love of God at pre­sent, that there was a time when this Love was not in God, and a time when God beganne to love, is no other but to affirme, that there was a time when God yet was not, and a time when he beganne to bee God, the will of God being God himselfe; And the volitions, or willings of God, being God himself willing: And the acts of Gods Love and Hatred being acts of Gods Will; yea of God himselfe, and no more subject to change (be­cause immanent in God) then God himselfe. So that these Scriptures which affirme Gods love to us when sinners, doe af­firm also consequentially his love to us before we were either in being, or just, or sinners, even from eternity.

Thirdly, when the Lord saith to his people, I have loved thee with an everlasting love, Jerem. 13. 3. Doth hee not mean a love which is from everlasting to everlasting? Or is there a Love of God to everlasting which was not from everlasting? Or was it not the Love of accepting, and approbation of them unto Righteousnesse and Salvation, whereof hee there speaketh? And when the Apostle Iohn tels us, that the glory of Gods love doth herein shine forth, Not that we loved him, but that he loved us, 1 John 4. 10. making not our love, or any fruits thereof, the foundation of Gods love to us, but the love of God to us to goe [Page 242] before and prevent our love; is not this a doctrin universally true of all the Saints that are or have been, that Gods love to them pre­vented, and was antecedaneous to their love toward him? if so, then consequently before mans being, as well as before his loving; and if before mans being, then from eternity was this grace given us, that we were loved of God in Christ, to justification and salvation. It is that which the Lord Christ speaketh, (and that not obscurely) in his prayer before his passion, where having interceded and cra­ved sundry blessings for his Elect, he adds this reason why he cra­ved those blessings in their behalfe, viz. That the world may know that thou hast sent me, and that thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me. Jo. 17. 23. How is that? in the next verse he explaineth himself thus, Thou hast loved me before the foundation of the world: what doth follow hence, but that as Christ, so they that are Christs, were loved of God unto life, before the foundation of the world? why will not Master Baxter acknowledge what Christ hath prayed that all the world may know?

Object. 1. Or will it be objected, that God loving the Elect in Christ before the foundation of the world, is to be understood one­ly in this sense, that before the foundation of the world, God de­creed in himselfe to love them in Christ afterward in time? Then must we so conclude of Christ also, that God loved Christ before, that is, decreed before the foundation of the world to love Christ in after time, not that he loved him from eternity, for as hee loved Christ, so he loved them in Christ: But he actually loved Christ as the head of the Church before the foundation of the World, therefore also he loved the Elect in Christ as the body and members of Christ before the foundation of the world. Yea to decree from eternity, to love them afterward in time, and untill the time came, to hate them, or not to love them in Christ, was to decree mutablenesse and change in his own will, i. e. in himselfe, which is wholly repugnant to his nature that can­not change, by receiving augmentation unto, or diminution of the acts of his Will, which were in him from eternity.

Object. 2. But perhaps Master Baxter may object with his friends of the Netherlands, the Arminians, whose ghosts have much infested us within this Nation these many years, that this love of God from Eternity, that which he shed abroad upon the Elect when they were yet sinners, enemies, and dead in sin, is to be understood onely [Page 243] of Gods universal & common love, his love to all the creatures which he hath made, or at the uttermost his [...], his love unto mankind which he extends to all alike; Making the raine to descend, and his Sun to shine upon the just and unjust, and fills the hearts of all with food and gladness.

Sol. But how then was Jaakob loved and Esau hated, when Esau partaked more of this common love than Jaakob? or was it a Common love by which God doth justifie and recon­cile sinners to himselfe? then all shall be reconciled, justified and saved. Or when the Apostle termes it [...] the much, or great love of God, out of which when he quickned us, yet dead in sinnes and trespasses, Eph. 2. 4. was this the com­mon love extended to all the Sonns and Daughters of Adam without difference? Then also (for God loved us as he loved Christ) the love of God to Christ was a common love, in nothing supereminent to the love wherewith he loved Cain and Judas.

Lastly, when God saith, I have not beheld iniquity in Jaakob, nor seen perversnesse in Israel, Num. 23. 21. it will (I doubt not) be granted that the meaning was, that God did not see it to impute it, as to the curse which Baalam was hired to denounce from God against Israel. If God did not actually see iniquity and perversnesse in Israel, then never did he see it in any people; So degenerate had Israel been into the idolatries of the Egypti­ans, so full of infidelity and murmuring in the Wildernesse, un­till the very day that God thus spake; that unlesse wee will make him Plinies God, that doth not descend in his providence lower than the starrie and Celestial Spheres, to intermixe him­self with earthly things, for fear of attracting to himself polluti­on thence; Wee must acknowledge that he saw iniquity in that people. But he saw it not to impute it, although he saw it clear­ly to reprove it, and to purge it out of them. Also in those Scrip­tures, where God imputeth to men righteousness without works, pr [...]nouncing [...]hem blessed, whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sinns are covered, and to whom God imputeth no sin, but imputeth Righteousnesse, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. 11. 2 Cor. 5. 19. To what time shall we reduce this imputation to find it in its Originall, if not to Eternity? When began God to account or reckon us righte­ous in Christ, or not to impute sinne to us, if he did not actually [Page 244] doe it in himself before time from eternity? When else was the generation of the Elect reckoned righteous in Christ first, and had their iniquity no more imputed; but when Christs satisfaction became effectuall for them? But this Master Baxter before, page 23, 24. acknowledgeth, and maintain­eth to be when Christ undertooke to satisfie in their behalf: How should it be otherwise? when Christ came to bee volun­tarily bound for them, then were they dismissed free. When he became sinne for them, they became the righteousnesse of God in Christ. 2 Cor. 5. 21. At once their sinnes were imputed to Christ in point of satisfaction to bee made for them; and they discharged for ever, ( viz. in the Court where these things were transacted between the Father and the Sonne) from making satisfaction in their own persons, and reckon­ed perfectly righteous for ever, in respect of vengeance, and condemnation for sinne. But Christs undertaking to satisfie for them, and consequently the whole transaction, and cove­nant between the Father and him about our Redemption, and Justification, and the said imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ, were all from eternity, before the foundation of the world, else how could they bee loved in Christ before the foundation of the world? Therefore also their being ac­counted Righteous in Christ, the not imputation of sinne un­to them, their absolution, and discharge from condemnation (and this Master Baxter will acknowledge to be Justification) were perfited in God, and in Christ before the foundation of the World. Yea however some godly Commentators speak beneath the mind of the Apostle, yet his words are plaine, and full, Tit. 1. 2. 1 Tim. 1. 9. That God hath promised eternal life, and given us Grace in Christ before the world beganne. How promised? unto Christ our head, and to us in him, by that eter­nall Covenant between the Father and the Son? And how gi­ven us in him, but as Iohn saith, He hath given us eternall life, and this life is in his Son; viz. laid up in him for us from eter­nity, to be received in time into our selves, as we receive Christ, according to what followeth, He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life, 1 Ioh. 5. 11, 12. And the grace or life that in that 2 Tim. 1. 9. is said to be given us in Christ before times, is yer. 10. affirmed to be brought to light by [Page 245] Christ in these last times; As the former seems the Immanent, so this the Transient Act of Justification. Else let Mr. Baxter produce any other season of such a parley and covenant be­tween God and Christ since the world beganne. He finds this project not to thrive in the hands of his friends the Armini­ans, therefore as ashamed of it, he layes it aside, not touching it (as far as I can remember) in any part of this his Tractate.

As for that giddy and unbottomed devise of Grotius, which Master Baxter laies down first in his own words, Thes. 15. pag. 92. and then in Grotius his words, pag. 94, 95. it hathin its due place received so much in answer, as I think fit to be given to so bold & peremptory an assertion as hath nothing but a dream for its father, and neither Scripture nor shew of reason annexed to confirm it.

If it be objected, that the Apostle in the afore [...] quoted Chapter affirms faith to be imputed for righteousnesse, and that it was so reckoned to Abraham when he was yet in un­circumcision: and thence concluded that therefore we are ju­stified in time even when wee beleeve, wee grant the argu­ment in respect of foederall justification, or Gods transient act, concerning declaring a man justified to his own con­science.

This alone the Apostle there asserteth, and this is acknow­ledged by our Divines (as hath been said before) not to be untill we actually beleeve. But this is nothing to the confu­ting, no nor to the weakening of our Justification, com­pleated in God, and in Christ before the foundation of the world. This I take to be the sum of the Doctrine which Mr. Baxter asperseth with Antinomianism; which I beleeve no other Papist, or Arminian had done before him. As well, and properly might hee have termed it Mahometanism; for as agreeable is it with the principles of this, as of that. How consenting it is with the Scripture I leave to the unprejudi­ced Reader to judge. The very flower of all our Protestant Writers have asserted it in such numbers, as would fill up a page to name them. Neither know I any one Writer which (having not occasion to manifest himselfe to be of the same judgement) hath ever expressed himselfe to dissent from it: Till Doctor Downham excepted against Master Pemble for de­livering [Page 246] it, and that upon a strange ground, that declared great inadvertency in the reading of the Doct. viz. That he beleeveth no man had so written before Mr. Pemble. Within these ten years indeed, some others of great place and name (among our selves) have disrellished it. But (as farre as I can by enquiry find) have not communicated their reasons to their Brethren, why they did it, therefore ought not to be angry with them, if by an implicite Faith they take not in the same disrellish also. For my own part I must crave the liberty to see light for my guidance into the contrary assertion, before I lay down this as darkness, unto which I at least think my self to have been led by the light of the Word. Yet with these Proviso's (to prevent mistakes) I adhere to his opinion.

1. That this Immanent Act in God doth not deny his Transient Act of Justifying man when he beleeveth, any more then this latter doth that former.

2. That the Transient Act of Justification consisteth not onely in Gods evidencing and manifesting to the beleever that he was really justified in God from eternity; but also in Gods Actual, and Judiciall pronouncing of the sentence of Abso­lution to the soul drawn to Gods Tribunal, and gasping for pardon thorough Christ. By means whereof the poor sinner is constituted, as well as declared actually, and personally righ­teous, and that before God his Justifier.

3. That as oft as the Gospel speaketh of Justification by Faith, it is in reference to this Transient Act of God, not that Immanent.

4. That as I conceive the Covenant between God and Christ to be (if I may so term it) a fruit, in order to that im­manent act in God; so I think also that the Covenant of Pro­mise, the Covenant under the Law, the Covenant under the Gospel, and the very Covenant of Works to be subservients to this Covenant made with Christ as a publick person, repre­senting us, to work all coordinately to the advancing of the glory of Gods Grace to his Elect, in justifying them in himself from Eternity. Yet so, that if I find a candid Teacher in any, or all these to inform me better, I hope I shall not be wanting to shew my docility.

I should have wholly forborn to touch upon this point (so [Page 247] famous a Divine having lately taken upon him the Province) but this was written before, and it will not hinder his fur­ther prosecution thereof, to which I hear hee will bee pro­voked.

As to Mr. Baxter, let him pretend what he will of his zeal against this Doctrine, because it is a Pillar of Antinomianism, yet his conscience tels him that his rage against it is under this consideration, as it is a sl [...]dge to beat in peeces the condi­tional Justification, Election, Redemption, and Grace; to­gether with the pride of mans Free-will, Works, and Righte­ousnesse, uncertainty of Perseverance, &c. Which are the Ar­ticles of Faith common to Mr. Baxter with the Papists and Arminians. If Justification, as an immanent act in God from Eternity, hold, all these must fall, and Master Baxter and his fellows bee crushed with the ruines thereof. The worke of the next Chapter therefore shall bee, to examine the force of his reasons, and arts, whereby he seekes to refute, and sub­vert it.

CHAP. XXI.

A matchlesse and egregious dispute, able to tum all the im­manent Acts of God into Transient, yea, if spell'd backward, to turne all his Transient Acts into immanent; of force enough to extort from Gods bosome all that wa [...] in him from eternity, that it shall abide in him, or with him no longer.

Here is Doctrine fitted to purpose for his ignorant babes▪ and tender lambs of Kederminster, for whose sake and use, this worke (if wee will believe the Author) was chiefly published: No lesse proper for them, than the Scripture in the Latine tongue by his holy mother appointed, for the illumination of them that cannot read the English, or their Country language. What a supereminent measure of the Spirit hath this man recei­ved above Christ himselfe, above Paul, the most learned of all Christs Apostles? Christ was annointed with the Spirit to preach the Gospel to the poor. Luke 4. 18. Isa. 61. 1. And had received from the Lord God the tongue of the learned, to speak a word in sea­son to the weary. Isa. 50. 4. This mans Spirit carries him aloft in the Aire, to clowd the Gospel from the poor, and to darken with his vaporous Sophistry the things which God hath hidden from the wise and prudent, but revealed to babes: and useth the tongue of the learned to amaze and intangle, not to refresh the weary. Paul descended from all excellency of speech and of wise­dom, to the capacity, or rather incapacity of the weak Christians in the Ministry of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 2. 1, 2. and fed the babes with milk 1 Cor, 3. 1, 2. And even, then when he spake wisedom to the perfect, because perfect; it was not the wisedome of the World, or of the Princes [for learning] of the World, but the Mysterious and hidden wisedom of God; and this he spake also not in the words which mans wisedome teacheth▪ [which the subtile S [...]phist [...]rs made u [...] of] but which the Holy Gost teacheth, comparing spiri­rituall things with spirituall. 1. Cor 2. 6, 7. 13. This man, cast­ing away the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, and useth in the holy Scriptures, sends his poore lambes to feed, and seek [Page 251] spiritual pasture in the thorny Copses of his Master Aristotle, and his Saint Suarez, Saint Vasques, Saint Fonseca's Metaphy­sicks, and Metaphysical Jesuitical Divinity, or in Seraphical Scotus his Quodlibetary learning; all which understood just so much of the Spirit and mystery of the Gospel, in this greatest point of Gospel Doctrine [Justification] as the unlearned peo­ple of Kederminster do of this and the like peeces of this tractate of Mr. Baxter.

As for the matter it self, he that understands it not, shall be as much endoctrined by it, as he that understands it. For my own part, I professe I see nothing in it of any more force to re­fute the opinion which he here opposeth [Eternal Justification, or Justification as an immanent Act in God] than there is in a Peacocks Feather to dash out all the teeth of a Lion. For should wee grant to him all that he here saith (the thing in question onely excepted) That immanent in God must be understood, not Positively but Negatively, for that Acts have not the respect of an Adjunct to its subject, but of an effect to its Cause; that Gods justifying a man when he believeth, argues no change in God, any more than is found in the Sunne, glasse, or eye, by the variety of creatures, faces, colours, set before them; as he mentioneth: what of all this? What will he conclude at length against that which he saith Doctor Twisse maketh the Major of his Argument, [ vizt. That all immanent Acts in God are from Eternity.] will he deny it? Nay, but distrusting the weaknesse of his reasoning, he doth rather grant it. But grant (saith he) that all Gods imma­nent Acts are eternal, (which yet I think is quite beyond our un­derstanding to know) This is the result of all his Argumentati­on, as to the Major; It is true, notwithstanding any thing I have said, or can say against it, onely I think it is beyond our understanding to judge whither it be universally true or no.

As to the Minor of Doctor Twisse his Argument, ( vizt. That Remission and Iustification are Immanent Acts) he disputes with as little dexterity as to the Major. Most Divines (saith he) will deny the Minor, and tell you that they are but transient Acts. Be it so. But what have those most Divines to say for the disappr [...] ­ving of the Minor? 'Tis true (saith Mr. Baxter) what they say, but I could never have the happinesse to see, or hear it well cleared [Page 252] by any. For to prove it transient they tell us no more, but that it doth transire in Subjectum Extraneum, By making a moral change on our Relation, &c. But this (saith he) is to affirm and not to prove. What then doth Mr Baxter himself to supply what is in his most famous Divines deficient? This onely: he tels us a tale of a Tubb, about relations how they are made up, and thence hee brings in his Conjectures to make clear how this change of our relation is made up, that our Pactional Justification, or Justifi­cation according to the New Covenant is a Transient Act of God; which I was never so happy, or unhappy in my slender reading, to find any one that denyeth. And all this being grant­ed, yet may it stand as a firm foundation, that Remission and Justification are immanent Acts in God, as hath been be­fore, and shall be, (if there be need) more fully afterward shewed.

He that readeth Mr. Baxters dispute, must acknowledge that I do him no wrong in this Epitomizing of it. And let every ra­tionall man judge whether the heat of the man in promising so confidently before pag. 93. and in charging all his impetus, or impotent impetuousness here, as against the Pillars of Antino­mianism, be answered with strength of reason to beat down what he would have down, Gods Eternal acceptation and approbation of his beloved ones in Christ Jesus. Thus feeble are the most Ner­vous armes in fighting against God, and so vain in their imagi­nations (as the Apostle saith) do they become, who whet their wits upon the threshold of humane literature to dispute against God.

But after this generall view of his dispute, it shall not be impertinent to take notice of the particulars also therein enclosed.

And 1. Why doth he call Doctor Twisse and Master Pemble, Most excellent famous Divines?? Doth he so stile them for the ex­cellency of their Philosophick Scholastick learning? He should then more properly have termed them Most excellent famous Philosophers, or Schollars: Except he will also make Aristotle (because he in his [...] makes the Treating of God, one part of that Doctrine which is to be handled in that Sci­ence which is commonly called Metaphysicks) to be a Theo­loger or Divine also▪ Or for their abundant knowledge in the [Page 253] Doctrine of Christian Religion, together with their great abili­ty and faithfullnesse to teach and maintain it against the Ad­versaries thereof? Much more proper had it been then, for him to have followed the Genius and policy of the chief Priests (as in other things he doth) that would not say any thing to the Praise of Iohn, that his Baptism or Droctrine were Divine and from Heaven, fearing, lest the Lord Jesus should then urge upon them; Why then did yee not believe him? Mat. 21. 25. For so Master Baxter here opens his bosome to the dint of the like reproof. Were they excellent? Why doth not he close with them in their excellency. No one of the Papists or Arminians, against whose Sophisms and impostures, these two Champions so excellently and famously propugned the truth of Christ; hath more devia­ted from their doctrine, i. e. the Doctrine of Christ which they defended, than Master Baxter: how is not then himself in fa­mous in reference to that for which he pronounceth them fa­mous? Or in granting them at the highest, the name of Theo­logers, doth he not inure upon himself the brand of a Theologast­er? But peradventure he thus insignizeth them in respect of the opinion that others have of them, though in his own accompt, or in comparison with himself, he knowes not whither to terme them Cranes or Pigmies. Or it is a peece of that subtlety which elsewhere he useth frequently, to abuse the ignorant with a conceit, that all which he delivers is orthodox, because of his pretending himself to be an admirer of such, in whom verity and Godlines with profoundness in learning are met together. Or lastly, Ambition of popular glory and praise, might invite him so to magnify them; The greater the Champions are with whom he Combateth; The more glorious he may conceive his victory to be, if he return out of the field Conqueror; And he might expect that the lesser and lower rank will be as mute as fishes, when they see the Classicall Doctors of highest esteem once battered by his disputations. Two Kings could not stand before him, how shall we stand? 2. Kin. 10. 4. so &c. However it be, all that know them, and him, will conclude certainly that hee doth in no wise so speak of them, because he can say of them in the words of John, whom I love in the truth. 3. Jo. 1.

But note ye, out of the same mouth, in the same breath come [Page 254] Blessing and Cursing. The Kiss and the stab of Joab go together. Majestically rather than Magisterially he mounts them to the top of the Stage, to hurl them down thence in the same Mom [...]nt headless. Master Pemble long since while he was yet a young man, sl [...]pt in Christ. But Doctor Twisse not untill of late in a venerable old age was laid in the grave, and Master Baxter a Pu­nie to him, throwes his curses after him, that he was erroneous, hereticall, yea, one that set up the Pillar of that which he calls and detesteth as the worst of Heresies, [Antinomianism] Dared he but to have whispered so while Doctor Twisse was yet living? It is come to passe what I conceived, and intimated to divers of my friends at the first coming abroad of Doctor Twisse his works, that during his life we should finde none that would write against him, but after his death, there would be many cen­surers, though never an answerer of him. Our eyes have seene since his death brought forth into the light those Tractates, which while he lived, dared not come forth out of the womb of darknesse: And those mouths now open after his death, to snarl at him, which for fear of him were as fast shut while he lived, as the Egyptian doggs at the presence of an Israelite. Exo. 11. 7. yet may some take it to argue an ignoble Spirit in Master Baxter, so to tread on the neck of a dead Lion, having not so much as looked thorow the Grate upon him while yet living; and to seek honour by the Conquest of them,

But there is but little harm, where there is but barking onely without biting. And how little impression upon Doctor Twisse his either Doctrine or reputation, Master Baxters sugillation hath made, we have in part, and in generall seen already, and may yet take notice more particularly.

2. Then when in opposition to Doctor Twisse his Major pro­position, [ vizt. All Acts immanent in God are Eternal] he tells us that [Immanent in God] must needs be taken Negatively, not Positively;

§. To speake more scripturally, than Metaphysically.

I answer, I see no ground of such a necessity: but that it may be understood as well positively, as, yea rather positively than [Page 255] Negatively. What is immanent in God, but abiding or residing in God, or (to use the Scripture terms) hidden in God? Eph. 3. 9. Col. 3. 3. Yet so that when it is revealed, it abides not­withstanding, and hath its immanency in God still. Approbati­on, Acceptation, accounting us just, and loving us in Christ, are Acts of Gods Knowledge and will; and both before and after, we have the revelation thereof to our soules; they are immanent and abiding in God f [...]om everlasting to everlasting. Are there not imm [...]nent Acts in the soul of man? much more in the minde and will of God. What man knoweth the things of a man, but the Spirit of man which is in him? Even so none knoweth the things of God, but the Spirit of God, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2. 11. By the things of God, and the things of a man, I doubt not but it will be granted, that we must understand the apprehensions, volitions, purposes, and aff [...]ctions (if I may so speak) of God and of men. And are not these things in God, as well as the things of God? So they are as properly termed Acts immanent in God in a positive sense, as actually abiding in God, as in a Negative, in opposition to their Transiency and termination upon a subject without God: The latter is not onely, or so much de­nyed, as the former affirmed. And thus our justification is posi­tively and depositively immanent in God from eternity. Posited in the bosom of God the Father, as in the Cabbinet of his counsells: and deposited in the hand of God the Son, as in the hand of a faith­full Mediator and surety for us upon his undertaking to make sa­tisfaction, which God the Father accepted as present satisfaction made for our sinns.

3. The reason which he annexeth, to prove that Acts are not positively immanent in God, is insufficient and reasonlesse. For Acts (saith he) have not the respect of an Adjunct to its subject, but of an effect to its Cause. As if Acts and effects could not also abide and remain in their cause. Master Baxter (no doubt) hath read Bellarmine, Arminius, and Corvinus, in their disputes against the Doctrine of the reformed Churches: suppose now an act of approbation hath passed within him so far, as that their Faith is become his Faith also, but secretly and not fully yet manifested to the World: Is not this approbation an Act of Master Baxter? if so, is it not also an immanent Act a­biding in himselfe within his owne minde, as well positively [Page 256] the r [...]siding, as negatively not transient upon those Writers to produce any new relation or passion in them? Himselfe, and his Master Grotius concurre, That the effects of efficient volun­tarie causes do not alway immediately follow them; That God hath decreed from eternity the transient Justification of the Elect in their own consciences, yet the execution thereof follows not untill they beleeve. Thes. 15. and its Explication, and here againe pag. 177. I demand now where this decree, this act lyeth hid untill the execution thereof? It must be either no where, and consequently null, and annihilated, or else abide still, and bee Immanent in God, and so what was in God from eternity, is immanent in him from eternity, and continued untill the full execution thereof; That very pactional Justification, which is by Faith, being nothing but the execution of the decree of God from eternity. For besides our eternal Justification in Christ before mentioned, we acknowledge also an eternall de­cree in God to declare and evidence his Elect justified in their own consciences. i. e. in time to send forth his Spirit into them, and by his Spirit to work Faith in them, and so to draw them unto Christ, and by the evidence of Faith, and evidence of the Spirit to declare themselves to themselves to be justified, and pardoned for ever.

As for that of the respect of the Adjunct to its Subject, wee leave to Master Baxter, and his friends the Arminians. They indeed make Pardon and Justification to bear the nature of Adjuncts, yea separable Adjuncts, and Accidents of God, which may adesse, vel abesse sine destructione subjecti, that God may hate one day even to damn, and love the next day to save, and the third day convert this love into hatred againe, and so consequently change more frequently then the Moon, and yet be G [...]d still. Such shall we find Mr. Baxters doctrine, suckt out by kissing from the lips of the Arminians: But I forbear to speak further of it here, reserving it for its proper place.

4. As to the instances which he giveth, to make questionable whether Imanent Acts are eternall; viz. For God to know that the world doth now exist, that such a man is sanctified, or just, &c. Gods foreknowledge is not a knowing that such a thing is, which is not, but that such a thing will be, which is not. I an­swer [Page 257] that foreknowledge doth still imply, and connote know­ledge, though knowledge doth not so imply foreknowledge. He that perfectly in every respect foreknew an Ecclipse, in e­very point of its time, measure, &c. knew it also perfectly, and could as fully, and perfectly contemplate, and speak of it in its fruition as presence, future, and present, it was, and is one to him. Much more in God, who hath created time for the measure of his creatures, not his own being and motion. Past, present, and future are much to us, whose existence, du­ration, and motions, are spanned, and spinned out by mo­ments. But to God who is eternall, dwels in eternity, is eter­nity, not circumscribed with place or time, there is nothing former, or latter, no succession, of present to past, of future to present, but all at once, and at one view apparent to his eye, or knowledge: So that albeit he speakes oft in Scriptures to our capacitie of succession of times, as if he together with us did act within the bounds thereof (else if he should speake stil in reference to things of old, and things hereafter [to us] as the eternall I AM, not I was, or I will bee, our weakness would be beneath the comprehension of what he saith) Yet these circumstances of time doe adde nothing to, take nothing from, nor properly square with him that is above time, without the precincts of time, comprehends time, and temporary things within himself, and is not comprehended, or touched by them. The now existence of the world, the now sanctifi­cation of such a man, are n [...]w, and new in the knowledge of the Creature, not the Creator. Or let Mr. Baxter deny the world in that form, state, extent, fulness, &c. in which it doth now exist; or the now either sanctified, or just man, or the mea­sure and nature of his Justification, to have been from all e­ternity, as apparent to Gods knowledge, as it is in this now, or present time of us his creatures.

5. The comparisons or similitudes which hee bringeth of the Sun, the glass, the eye, though they may have some appea­rance of freeing God from change in taking new notions into his knowledge in time (which notwithstanding is but an ap­pearance) yet is there nothing in them from which to argue to the acts in general which are immanent in God. These do but set forth the respect of natural causes, and their natural effects, [Page 258] either to other, therefore are in a capacity to illustrate onely those acts that flow naturally, and therewithall necessarily from God: Not those that proceed from the liberty and freedom of his will, (which Master Baxter call Morall Acts, and Morall Causes) For of these there can be no Cause assigned but the free will of God. And if they serve not Master Baxters turn in this respect, they become utterly unusefull to him in the point of Justification. Yet to this end doth he drive, that God doth justifie and unjustifie, pardon, and unpardon, change his will from love to hatred, and from hatred to love, to will the salva­tion of the same man at one time, and his damnation at ano­ther, without any change of his will, or in himself: The absurdi­ty and impossibility whereof we shall afterward shew, when Master Baxter in his following Theses gives me cause to do it. So much of what he saith by way of answer to the Major, or more properly what he saith to leave it unanswered. For after all he concludes, But grant that all Gods immanent Acts are Eter­nall. And this is as much as if he had said; All that hath been said is of no force to refell it, Therefore I grant it.

As for his answer to the Minor [ That Remission and Iustifica­tion are immanent Acts in God] though he speak much, yet is it nothing to the pupose.

First he tells us that most Divines will deny it, and tell you that they are transient Acts; which is true. An irrefragable Ar­gument, most will say it, Ergo it is true. True, because most Will say it, though hitherto possible they have never said it. And how knowes he they Will say it? [...]eradventure he puts so much con­fidence in his following dispute, that he accounts all will be captivated by it into his opinion. O [...] if he mean the most Di­vines have said it, hee questionlesse means partly the Jesuiticall Divines, (for so Bellarmine indeed, with others of the same School asserts:) or else more primarily the Arminian Divines, speaking in this point what they have learned of Socinus, who is as great with them as was Simon Magus with the Samaritans. Yet even these also, though they some [...]imes deny, yet do they al­so sometimes (when it may make for their advantage) affirme Justification to be an immanent Act in God.

2. Who is there that sees not his sophistry in shifting from him [Page 259] this proposition in stead of answering it? Doctor Twisse [...] his proposition is, Justification is an immanent Act in God. To sub­vert this, Master Baxter bestirrs himself to prove a seemingly, but not really contradictory proposition, viz. That Justification is a Transient Act of God. A fallacy which in the Schools is call­ed Ignoratio Elenchi. And the reasoning of Master Baxter here, is as proper and powerful, as if Master Baxter should affirm that Apollo was above a hundred years old; and I to overthrow his conclusion, should assert, and prove, that Apollo had never a beard. There is no contradiction between these two assertions; A man may be old, and yet be without a beard: So to affirm that Justification is a transient, doth not contradict, that Justifica­tion is immanent in God. For both are true, and may concurre without dashing either in the other. The Eternall Justification deposited in Christ, upon the Covenant made between the Fa­ther and the Son is immanent in God. But that Justification, which according to the tenor of the New Covenant made with man, is declared and evidenced by God unto the Conscience of man, is a transient Act of God: So that the affirming and con­firming of the latter, doth not contradict the former, but is a meer sophism, an [...], a flinching to another question; which I take to be in substance the same with the before named fallacy.

And so Master Baxter doth but Oleum & Operam perdere, toyl much & catch nothing in disputing so profoundly and Me­taphysically, pa. 175. about the Doctrine of Relation, and pa. 176. to make out, according to that Doctrine, a possible, proba­ble, Transient Justification, which is a conclusion that is grant­ed him without dispute. And yet the grant of it doth not at all weaken the Minor proposition of Doctor Twisse, That Re­mission and Justification (in the sense oft mentioned) are Acts immanent in God. The Subjectum, Fundamentum, Terminus, to­gether with the Ratio Fundandi, are no more wanting in Gods Eternall justifying us in Christ, than in his Temporaneous justifying us declaratively and evidentially to our own Conscien­ces, and might be no lesse confidently upon as good grounds of Reason particularized; if we delighted (as Master Baxter doth) to bring Gods Acts under the rule and measure of the termes of humane Art and learning. Which notwithstanding, if wee either [Page 260] would not or could not do, our Faith should in no wise stum­ble, but having the infallible word of God for its foundation (which we have before seen, notwithstanding all that Master Baxter hath said against it, to be for us,) it ought on it to rest, contemning all the pillarage of humane reason and wisdome, to lean thereon for sustentation.

In like manner the whole summe of Master Baxters dispute, pa. 177, 178, 179, 180. spent in raising and overthrowing an objection so raised, about a thing never questioned, is altogether impertinent to the question in hand. None denies the conclusi­on, or objects against it in that manner, or any thing at all to the substance of it: So that Master Baxter doth here but make knots to loose them, and fight against the Air, which never ac­cepted of a Combat with him. Neither is there any other, or new thing in this peece of his dispute, that hath not had before a suffi­cient examination and Answer.

At length, pa. 180, & 181. he doth in a manner unsay all that he hath said, and confesse that his whole dispute, is little to the purpose, and therefore doth more than half grant the questi­on to them whom he hath made his adversaries; For these are his words.

I know not of two things considerable in these words of Master Baxter, which is more considerable, either the power and victory of truth against his will convincing his Conscience, or his hatefull and desperate detestation of the truth, when his Conscience is convinced thereof. The conviction of his Consci­ence, that it is the truth which he hath here oppugned, is suffi­ciently manifested in this, that he confesseth

1. That Gods knowing the sinner to be pardoned and justified, his willing and approving hereof to be true and good (and a little after) his willing of the sinners pardon, forgiving him in his own brest, and accepting him as just, to be Celestiall Acts, Acts in hea­ven, yea in God himself, indeed immanent.

2. That he seeth not how they can ever be manifested to be tran­sient Acts.

3. And if immanent Acts, most will grant (and himselfe hath nothing to contradict) that they are from Eternity. His willfull hatred of this truth so confessed, is plainly enough hinted in these words. Then fair fall the Antinomians, i. e. then in despight of the Devill, yea malice it self, the Assertors of this truth abide unquenched, yea untouched. This torments his spirit, and makes him to gnash with the teeth in fury, like him that cryed; O Galilaean, thou hast the Victory.

He will not have those acts of God to be separated which he doth conjoyn. And who ever separated, or was so madd as to divide Gods Knowledge and Will from his either immanent or tran­sient Acts? that hath ever said that God in imputing our sinnes (in reference to punishment) to Christ Jesus, in forgiving, absol­ving, and accepting the sinner, hath done either he knowes not what, or that which he would not, willeth not? But to conjoyn what the Lord hath divided in point of time, his constitutive justifying us in his own brest thorow Christ before time, with his [Page 262] declarative justifying us in our own consciences in time, were to confound heaven and earth, eternity and time, together in one. The question is not, whether when God hath by a transient act justified a sinner, he knoweth and willeth his justification? But whether God did not both knowingly and willingly so justifie and pardon him through Christ, within his own brest from e­ternity? or whether Gods accepting him in Christ, and knowing him to be so accepted, be begotten in the will and mind of God now in the end of time, and so God is not the same God in his Knowledge and Will, which he was from eternity?

He verily thinks that the transient Acts of God are meant in those Scriptures which speak of justification by faith, (for so I con­ceive he would be understood.) And I verily think that he is not enough sound in his head-peece, whosoever thinks the con­trary. For it were a mad contradictive proposition to say, whosoever doth, or shall beleeve, shall be justified in himselfe be­fore he had a self, or being. But this is no nearer to the matter in question, than the North is to the South pole.

As for that barr of God in heaven, that hee concludes with, where his Angelical and Seraphical Doctors that better know the way thence than thither, saw at their last coming thence, God fitting and transacting these things before his Angels, we are bid­den to wait untill he shall have the leisure after he hath spoken once more with Lucians Icaro-Menippus, and enquired of him the certainty thereof, and then we shall hear the dream inter­preted.

This is the summe of his noble dispute against justification, as an act immanent in God from Eternity. And now I appeal to the reader, comparing together his bigg and swelling promises with his curt and insubstantial performance; after his challenge of all the Antinomians, his promise to shew that there is no such thing, his charging the doctrine with the scandalous terms of errour, and pillar of Antinomianism, & his undertaking to prove it such; upon due examination to judge,

CHAP. XXII.

THE second thing which I promised to take into exami­nation, in his explication of this Thesis, is his vellication of the Antinomians, which here and elsewhere throughout this Book he defieth with unquenchable hatred, charging and dis­charging so hotly against them, as ever Iupiter did against the Giants that made a battery against the Heavens. And what are they, that Goliah like, he should come harnessed from the head to the foot, brandishing his weavers beam against them? he tells us, They are Ignorant [animals] pa. 169. Fitter to learn the grounds of Religion in a Catechism, than to manage those disputes wherewith they trouble the world. pa. 115. If so, who can abstain from laughter, to see so great a Nimrod as Mr. Baxter, hunting, with no lesse weapon then Hercules his Club, a nest of wrens to death? and with the great Monarch of the World Domitian, to set himself in battel array against the gnats and flies that dared to peep into his chamber.

But his aim is to shew his Craft more than his power, as I be­fore in part have manifested in the preface to this examination, and there promised more fully afterward to evidence: The per­formance whereof, I have reserved for this place.

That we may the better discern Master Baxters either single­nesse or doublenesse in this Case, it shall be somewhat expedient to enquire after, first the originall, secondly the growth of the Antinomians properly so taken and denominated in the severall reformed Churches, untill our late divisions within this land have made such a medly and confusion of all, or at least many errors together, that we know not punctually what error is pre­dominant in most of the willfully erroneous: that having seene [Page 264] them both in their birth, and their full height also; wee may compare Master Baxters Antinomians with the Antinomians indeed, and so judge how far he goes about to confute the inno­cent, and how far to defame and deceive the innocent.

The first rise of them was in Germany, Anno. Dom. 1538. as Sleidan in the 12 Book of his Commentaries tells us. Their principall ringleader was Ioannes Islebius, Agricola. I have not met with any of their Books, neither know I whether there be any of them extant, from which we may certainly gather their opinions. Wee are forced therefore to take them at the second hand from the foresaid Author, who in the forequoted place thus speaks of them. Hoc Anno secta prodijt eorū qui dicun­tur Antinomi. Hi poenitentiam ex Decalogo non esse docendam di­cunt, & illos impugnant qui docent non esse praedicandum Evange­lium, nisi primum quassatis animis, at que fractis per pradicationem legis. Ipsi verò statuunt quaecunque tandem sit hominis vita, & quamtumvis impura, justificari tamen eum, si modò promissionibus Evangelij credat. i. e. This year sprung forth the sect of them which are called Antinomians. [Their Tenents he reduceth to three generall heads, telling us that first] They say, that Repen­tance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue: [2] They im­pugn them that teach, the Gospell ought not to be preached to men, untill their hearts be first shaken and broken by the preaching of the Law. [3] They assert that whatsoever the life of a man be, and how impure soever, yet is he justified if he one­ly beleeveth the promises of the Gospel.

He addeth further, that Luther wrote against this Islebius, who thereupon submitted, and in a sort recanted; and so it seemes the Sect ceased, and their assertions for a while slept.

Such were they at their first rise. In these after times, they dis­covered themselves in more plain terms than Sleidan here dis­covered them. About twenty years since, I had acquaintance, and upon that acquaintance, much reasoning, and many disputes with some of them in Summer set shire, who much honoured and professed themselves to have received their light from that Mast­er W [...]otton, whom Master Baxter doth seem much to applaud in some parts of this Treatise. Their opinions that partly were, and partly weretaken by the most t [...] be points of Antinomianism were these, (as in discourse with them I found them to maintain)

[Page 265]1. That the Law is totally abrogated now under the Gospel, and that not onely as a Covenant of Works, but also from being any more the rule of righteousnesse. That wee have but one Master, Christ, that since his coming into the world, he is our Teacher sent from heaven: the Prophet raised up like to Moses, that we should hear him alone. That since the time he began to speak, Moses hath been silent, and we are bound now to at­tend to the voice of God, as in these latter times he speaketh to us by his Son only.

2. That the whole Old Testament is (as it were) uncanonized, though it were the Word of God, the Rule and Canon of Faith, and practice, to them that lived under it; yet to us that are un­der the Gospel it remains not in its former power. Because the Last Will and Testament onely stands in force, and when a lat­ter Testament is made, the former is thereby to all uses and purposes made voyd. We may read the Old Testament as other Apocryphal, and Ecclesiasticall Writings, but must no more subject our judgements or consciences to it, then to these: For Moses and the Prophets prophecied (onely) untill John the Baptist, were in force untill he began to preach the Gospel, and ever since the Kingdom of heaven hath suffered violence, the doctrine of the Gospel hath succeeded in its place.

3. That we have no Sabbath under the Gospel, but all holy­ness in dayes, and difference between dayes and dayes is taken away; so that to sanctifie any one day to the Lord above ano­ther, is meer Wil-worship, and Superstition. Upon this ground they actually made use of shooting, bowling, and other lawful recreations upon the Lords day, pronouncing it to be a use of the Liberty which Christ had purchased for them.

4. They disrelished altogether that phrase of Justification by Faith, as attributing somewhat to man; and would that all should rather say that we are Justified by Grace, or by Christ or by being found in Christ, or by our union unto Christ, that the praise of our Justification might be reserved whole and en­tire to the Grace of God in Christ alone.

5. That we are justified by the Passive, not the Active obedi­ence of Christ.

6. That God seeth no sinne in the justified, he knows indeed when they sinne, and that they have sinned, but the doth not see it because themselves and it are covered under the righteousnes, [Page 266] and cross of Christ, so that the Father doth not, will not see it. As if the eternal God had any other eyes besides the eyes of his knowledge to see; or that Gods seeing, and his knowing were at least disparats, and not the same thing.

7. That God punisheth not sinne in his people, for he seeth not sin in his people, and what he seeth not, that he cannot pu­nish. He hath punished it upon Christ, therefore are they free from punishment.

8. That whatsoever is not in precise words forbidden in the New Testament, that is lawfull for a Christian to doe, how strictly soever it be prohibited in the Law, and Old Testament. So that I have taken notice that when in disputes, such and such things have been denyed to be expresly forbidden in the New Testament, and that they could not finde any clear testimonies of the New Testament literally forbidding them; though before they made it a case of conscience to abstain, yet thenceforth, not­withstanding all that is said in the Old Testament against it, they have taken full liberty to commit it.

These things were formerly (as farre as I have taken notice) either all, or the chief things, branded with the name of Anti­nomianism. And they that held them were called by the most Antinomists, or Antinomians, because either in all, or most of these assertions, they either did, or seemed to oppose, and set themselves against the Law, or Old Testament.

In these last seven or eight years indeed, wherein all the Ghosts of all the Hereticks of former Ages have been let loose from hell in full swarms, to infest this Nation more then ever the Locusts did the Land of Egypt; and men in wantonizing a­gainst Christ and his Truth, have thought it too little to be Sa­tans budget-bearers in some, except they had their packs filled with all varieties of his hell-bred errors, so that the Legion of Devils now might be found sometimes in one man, which here­tofore was distributed into a legion of men: By means where­of, many Heresies moulded together have gone under one de­nomination; partly through ignorance, and partly out of ma­lice, both all the dreames of mad E [...]thusi [...]sts, and blasphemies against the Word sometimes, and sometimes the very sacred truths of the Gospel of Christ have been exposed to the hatred of the multitude under the title of Antinomianism: Men ful of all subtiltie and mischief thus painting Christ in the midst of [Page 267] many Devils, that he might be taken for one of them, and the truth of his Gospel bee abandoned under the name of He­resie.

But as to the forementioned tenents in former times charged with Antinomianism, I shall say something.

First those three mentioned by Sleidan, as he expresseth them, it is very ambiguous whether they were truths or errors. Because the words by which he describes them, are ambiguous: and may be taken either in a good, or evill sense.

1. That they taught that Repentance is not to be taught out of the Decalogue: It is doubtfull what his meaning is; 1. Whe­ther they denyed it to be taught simply, or secundum quid, either that it ought not to be thence taught at all, or not to be taught thence, as ordained and effectual to justification, and salvation? 2. It is doubtfull also what hee meanes by the Decalogue, whe­ther he means the Ten Commandements considered strictly in their own words, as meer Law (for so I see not how repen­tance can be taught properly out of the Decalogue, because it commandeth perfect obedience, that there may be no need of repentance) or as the Doctrine of the said Decalogue is am­plified, and expounded in other Scriptures: where we shall find indeed Repentance required in case of transgression, with a promise of temporall deliverances and blessings annexed; and so the teaching of Repentance out of the Law be here opposed to the teaching of it out of the Gospel, and consequentially the Legall be here opposed to the Evangelical Repentance? 3. Or whether his meaning be, that they would not have repentance at all taught, because they took it to be a meerly Legall, not an E­vangelical duty, therefore pertaining to the administration of the Law, not of the Gospel? I conceive the Historian being a man singular for his moderation in all that he writes, though he speaks of their opinion in the easiest words he may, yet meanes that they held it in the worst sense, (And such have been the An­tinomians in these latter times) otherwise in a good sense, that his words will bear, this first tenet deserves not the name of Antinomianism, or error.

To the second, if his meaning be, that they impugned those that preached the Law to shake the hearts of men into self-de­nial, and to break down the proud confidence of safety, and righteousnesse in themselves, thereby to make way for the do­ctrine [Page 268] of Christ into them: There is something indeed worthy of blame layd to their charge. But if we take his words strictly as they lye, viz. that they opposed them which teach that the Gospel is not to be preached untill the Law hath so convinced, and shaken the conscience, &c. I professe my self to be an Antinomian also, if this be Antinomianism. For what warrant hath any Minister so to teach? The commission which we receive from Christ is, to preach the Gospel to every creature in all the world. Mar. 16. 15. without any restriction whether they be shaken, or unshaken: And if we continue Law-shakers still among some people, untill wee see them thereby shaken into a Palsie of selfe-despairing, I know no ground we have to promise to our selves a time of preaching Gospel so long as we live. And what an­swer can be given in such a case to Christ for following our own carnall wisdome, and not his commission? Neither was it one of Luthers praises ( pace tanti viri dixerim) from the expe­rience of Gods working upon himself, which was first the laying of him prostrate by the Law under great horrors, and then revi­ving him with the precious comforts of the Gospel; to prescribe unto God the same method, or to conclude the same to bee the method of God in his operations upon all in converting them. The rending whirlwind doth not alway goe before the quicken­ing beams of the Sun of Righteousness.

To the third, if he mean that they taught that Justification by Faith in the Gospel promises might be sound and effectuall, though no sanctification, but all allowed impurity of life should follow; the assertion and doctrine implies a contradicti­on; for there can be no living Faith in the promises, that is not fruitfull in good works: And herein they declared themselves no lesse Anti-Gospellers, then Antinomians. But if hee meane that without all such extream horrors of the Law, a man may be truly justified by Faith in Christ, notwithstanding all his former loose and impure life, and so the Publicans and Harlots enter into the Kingdome of God before the self-righte­ous Pharisees; this is not Antinomistick, except Pauls doctrine also be such, Rom. 4. 5.

2. As for those opinions charged in these latter times with Antinomianism by many, the 1, 2, and last cannot be excused. Onely (to give the Assertors their due) whatsoever of doctrinal truths to be beleeved, or of Moral duties to be practised, are ex­pressed [Page 269] both in the Old and New Testament, they were consci­entious to submit themselves thereunto, yet not for the authori­ty of the Law, or Old Testament, but of the New only.

The third can bee justly charged with Antinomianism no farther, then as either the Maintainers of it were in other points Antinomists, or in respect of the foundation, which they laid to maintain it, which was the abrogation of the Law and old Testa­ment. The Law of the Sabbath being one part therof, which must stand or sink with the rest. But as they denyed the lawfulness of all discrimination or difference of daies, by way of Morall, or Ecclesiastical, or Apostolical order, for the more orderly, and profitable celebration of publick Assemblies, and the ordinances of Christ in publick Communion, calling it Will-worship, and Superstition: This error they drew from the Petrobusians, and Anabaptists, not from the Antinomians that had been before them. As to other questions about the authority of the Sabbath first, & now of the Lords day, what relation they have either to other, whether the observation of them be of Natural, or Positive right: If of Moral and Natural right, by what express authority it is altered from the last, to the first day of the week? If of Po­sitive right, whether it began from the Creation, or from the Law given upon Mount Sinai? Whether the fourth Commandement hath any thing in it Typical, now vanished in Christ? Or whe­ther wholly Moral, and binding for ever? how far it did, or did not bind precisely to a day, & not this day of 7? Whether it were of Moral Righteousnes, or else only of Moral order? Whether the holyness of the 7th be now wholly translated upon the first day of the week? By what authority the observation of the seventh day ceased, and of the first day of the week was instituted to suc­ceed? Whether by virtue of Christs Resurrection, or by some express command of Christ? and where that command is to bee found? Or else by Apostolical appointment? And then whether in respect of order, or of the aforegoing authority of Gods Com­mandement about the Sabbath? or else by the appointment and consent of the Churches in, or after the Apostles times? These, and many other the like questions Mr. Baxter knoweth to have been in agitation between both the greater and the lesser Divines and Members of the Reformed Churches, & adhuc sub judice Lis est. Onely some within the Church of England, ever since a Tractate came forth upon this subject from one Dr. Bownd, Anno [Page 270] Christi 1595. seem to fix the observation of the Lords day upon more strict grounds, and to bind it to more precise termes then the other Reformed Churches beyond the seas admit, or many of the solid Divines have approved. But of this there is no pro­per occasion here given to dispute. This assertion therefore, any further then hath been specified, I doubt not but Mr. Baxter him­self will discharge of Antinomianism.

The 5. & 7. Mr. Baxter himself will not have to be ranked a­mong Antinomian errors, confessing the former to be the judge­ment of many learned, and godly Divines, of singular esteem in the Church of God, pag. 53. & Ap. pag. 12. The latter hee pro­nounceth to be the Common Judgement, viz. of Churches, and Divines; therefore of ignorance accused of Antinomianism, pag. 68 of his Aphorisms.

The fourth gives us cause to accuse them of some audaciousnes, in teaching the Holy Ghost to speake, and pertinaciousness in binding themselves to phrases and words, even to the declining of the language of the Holy Ghost in Scriptures. To be justified by Faith, and to bee justified by Christ, or our being found in Christ, being ever both in Canonical, and Ecclesiastical Writings taken as Equipollent terms, until in these few last years Mr. Bax. and some of his fellows irradiated from Rome, and by the do­ctrine of Socinus, and Arminius, have broached another, a new, and unheard of interpretation of the phrases. For whether we say we are justified by Faith, wee were formerly understood to affirm our Justification by Christ, to whom our Faith hath united us; or by Christ, it was understood by Christ apprehended by faith. Neither manner of Locution therefore was to be rejected, as opposing the other.

The sixth I take to be a fancy (if they understand Gods seeing and knowing in generall, without restriction) troubling the brains of men with a strife about words without substance. God seeth no sin unpardoned upon his people, we acknowledge. In reference to Judgement and Vengeance, hee hath seen them all upon Christ, and punished them upon Christ, so that he no more sees sinne in beleevers, to take vengeance of them for it. But it were our loss and misery, if God should not at all, and simply see sinne in us; How then should he purge it from us, and us from it? He is the Husbandman of his Vineyard, sees, and cuts out every canker from his Vines, seeth, and pareth off every un­profitable [Page 271] sprigg from the branches, by meanes whereof fruitfull­nesse followeth, where else▪ there must ensue barrennesse and rottennesse. Some Divines therefore thus distinguish, that Gods seeing of sin may be considered as either in Articulo providentiae, (so he seeth all sinns of all men alike to dispose of them to his glory,) or in Articulo Iustificationis, (so he seeth the sinnes onely of the unjustified; Ier. 18. 23. Forget not their iniquity, neither blot out their sin from thy sight: but the sinnes of the justified are forgotten, and blotted out of his remembrance and sight (as the constant phrase of Scripture affirmeth) no more to be imputed. If they mean onely in this latter sense, they erre not.

By that which hath been said, we may easily perceive (without any further and new summing up the particulars) what the asser­tions are which may be truly and properly charged with Anti­nomism, and gave first the Term of Antinomism to the Assertors.

Now let us see also what the Tenents of Master Baxters Anti­nomists are, and what opinions he curseth to Hell, unde the name of Antinomianism. Their Heresies according to Master Baxter are these which follow.

1. That Justification is, or there is a Justification from Eternity. pag. 93.

2. That it is an immanent act in God. pa. 173.

3. That our Evangelicall righteousnesse by which we are justi­fied, is without us in Christ. pa. 109. or performed by Christ, and not by our selves. pa. 111.

4. That Justification is a free act of God, without any conditi­on on our part. pa. 169, 170.

5. That God seeth not sin in his justified ones, pa. 207.

6. That we must not work or perform duties for life and salva­tion, but from life and salvation: or that we must not make the attaining of justification, or salvation, an end of our endeavours, but obey in thankfullnesse onely, because we are saved and justifi­ed. pa. 324, 325. 330.

7. That they acknowledge no condition of life, but bare beliefe in the narrowest sense, that is, either belief of pardon, and justifi­cation, and Reconciliation, or affiance in Christ, for it: so also they acknowledg no proper damning sin, but unbelief, in that strict sense, as is opposite to this faith, i. e. the not believing in Christ as our Saviour. Append▪ pa. 20, 21.

8. To these he addeth many more, (or rather mostly the same [Page 272] in other Termes) out of the Marrow of Modern Divinity, (I mean the book so entitled) which in due place we may as far as shall be thought needfull, examine. Appen. pa. 100. to pa. 106.

Lastly, he seems to accuse them of all the prodigious Doctrines which Colyer, Spriggs, Hobson, and the rest of that Anabaptistical, Enthusiasticall, and phanatick strain of men, have (if indeed they be of them that have at any time) said and unsaid; whether such as they have derived from Nicolas Stock, David George, Thomas Muncer, John of Leyden, Cniperdolins, &c. and others of the same stamp in these latter times: or such as either of them hath by a kind of Necromancy raised up from the ashes of Manes, Samosatenus, Arrius, and other cursed Hereticks of antient times. All these he would willingly inure upon the Antinomians, i. e. upon them that will not say the same things with him, who speaks the same things with the Jesuits in the point of Justification. This he doth subtlely, and underhand, to beguile his unwary reader. Append. pa. 99.

Of all these onely the fift hath been (as far as ever I could finde) by any considerate and judicious person, nicknamed with Antinonism, untill Master Baxter and some other of his fellowes in these late years have taken upon them a Soveraignty, as Lords and judges from Peters Chair, which they have Canonized again, to baptise with new names, all the Doctrines of the Gospell that crosse the pride of their selfe-ighteousnesse.

And even the sift it self in Scripture sense (as I have before shewed) is a Soul-comforting truth, which we must no more suffer to be wrested from us, than our Christ and all our happi­nesse by him, vizt. that God seeth not sin in his justified ones, to impute i [...], to hate and condemn them for it. Hee seeth not the guilt of any sin upon them, having laid it and the condemnation to which it obliged, upon Christ Jesus. But that God doth not sim­ply see sin in them, either Originall or Actuall, to act about it in a way of grace and truth, according to his promises in Christ; This I take to be a foppery, the fruit of mens willfullnesse, and pertinacity, to have their own words and phrases stand as impreg­nable as Christs truth lapt up in them. Let it be called Antino­mism, or Antigospellism, or what else Master Baxter will stile it, I shall not herein withstand him; To me the truth and spirit of the Doctrines conteined in the word, sufficeth, the letter I shall no further propugn or oppugn, than as through it the spirit and truth is levelled at.

To the first and second I have before spoken, and let any man upon earth be produced, that ever charged them with Antino­mianism, saving Master Baxter himselfe, or one of his Disciples: And if they be Antinomian Tenents, then is Master Baxter one of those Antinomians, being forced after his long and impotent ca­vill against, as last to grant both; as wee have before seen.

To the third, I have also before answered. Neither hath Master Baxter named, nor can he (I am confident) name one man, but either a Papist, or at best an Arminian, that before him hath ei­ther called Faith and Gospel obedience the Evangelicall Righte­ousnesse by which we are justified: Or that hath denyed our gos­pell righteousnesse by which we are justified to be without us, in Christ. So that he pronounceth here all the orthodox of all Chur­ches, yea, all professed Christians, saving Papists, Arminians, and (perhaps) Socinians to be Antinomians: So much of Antichristi­an pride and impudence possesseth him.

To the fourth and seventh I answer,

1. That they are contradictory either to other. For how can both be true, that they affirm Justification to be a free Act of God without any condition on our part, and yet teach also Faith or affiance in Christ to be a [necessary] condition of our Justifica­tion? who shall take upon him to defend him that arraigneth and proveth himself to be a slanderer?

2. Yet may it without contradiction be both affirmed, that Justification as an act immanent and Eternall in God, is absolute and without condition, but as it is transient and Terminate upon the conscience of a believer, not to be without condition.

3. Because the Scripture never nameth Faith, much lesse works, the condition of Justification in time; to question whether Faith itself may not more properly be termed by some other denomi­n [...]tion in reference to justification, than a Condition, is no peece of Antinomism, but a point of Christian prudence to consider and examine: specially at such a time when Master Baxter and o­ther of the Popes Factors, under the word condition bestirre themselves to re-erect Justification by works.

4. That Justification by that which Master Baxter abasingly calleth bare belief, or affiance in Christ the Saviour, i. e. by Faith without works, is no Antinomian Doctrine, but the Doctrine which Christ and Paul, and the rest of the Apostles, have preached [Page 274] and sealed with their blood; that which all the reformed Churches have unanim [...]usly maintained, and do maintain unto this day: and that which Antichrist with his vassalls, and others a­postatized from the reformed Churches to them do pursue with fire and fury unto ruine. With whom though Mr. Bax. come up in the rear, driving Jehu like furiously in his Charriot, to destroy it, yet shall it stand impregnable, as the prime Article of their Creed, who either are, or shall be justified and saved.

To the sixth, I shall reserve my answer untill I come to exa­mine the forequoted places of Master Baxter, together with his impetuous and fiery dispute against it, Append. pa. 76. and thence forward unto pa. 98. where wee shall find him combating against this opinion, with as much gallantry, and possibly with no lesse successe than the Dragon fought against Michael.

In the interim, I doubt not thence (after the question rightly stated) to maintain the position, as our Divines most eminent in the reformed Churches have taught it, to be the sacred and sound Doctrine of the Gospell, as free from Antinomism, as the contra­ry assertion of Master Baxter is full of Popery.

The examination of the things▪ conteined in the eighth and ninth, I shall leave to their proper place, particularly to be exami­ned, because they have a multitude of particulars congested in them, requiring particular answers.

From all that hath been said upon this point, wee may take up two observations, in reference to Master Baxters dealing therein.

1. That there is no truth and sincerity in his pretence of fighting against the Antinomians (truly so called) throughout this his Tractate, (For he medleth not at all with their erroneous Te­nents:) But contrariwise, that he useth meer fraud, to inure the odious Term of Antinomism upon the choice and most pretious Doctrines of the Gospel, delivered by Christ and his Apostles, and taught and defended by the most able and most faithfull Ministers of Christ in all ages, to make both the pure Gospel, and the de­fenders thereof, to stink in the nostrills of unread and unwary men: subtlely concealing the names of those worthies which have taught and maintained these truths, lest their light and glory should bring his Doctrines, contrary to theirs, into suspition first, then to examination, and lastly to an abhomination among men. How much more candour do we find in his fellowes the [Page 275] Arminians, or Remonstrants? These in all their Tenents where­in they dissent from the Protestant Churches, do not load the contrary opinion with the imputation of Antinomism; but throughout their Apology, ever and anon ingeniously confesse of that which they hold, Contra quod fere hactenus creditum est, in these, and in words equipollent, acknowledging still their opini­ons to be wholly against the judgement of the best Churches and Divines before them. Master Baxter it seems hath more of the ser­pent in him than they had, therefore followes the steps of our English Arminians, rather than those in Holland before them. For as these blasted the sacred truths which they opposed with the name of Puritanism, so doth this man with the name of Anti­nomianism, to make them odious. A trick which the old Pharisees had learned of their Father, Jo. 8. 44. and propagated to their sonns the Papists, to besmear the Doctrines of Christ with the in­famous titles of Schism, Nazarism, Heresie. Who then will lay it as a fault to their Children in our times, if they doe also Patrizare.

Secondly, that he hath the like fraudulent design in mingling with the truths of the Gospel, which he brandeth with Antino­mism, the dreams of Colyer, Spriggs, Hobson, and other Ranters, (if indeed these be such, for I have not read them) giving the same brand to these as to the former; by this feat endeavouring to instill into the mindes of them that will be deceived,

1. That all the hereticall and blasphemous Doctrines which these men teach, are Antinomian.

2. That the truthes which the one side teach against Antichrist, and the Blasphemies which the other side vent against Christ, are of one Nature, and the former to be no lesse abhorred than the latter. Now if the Pamphlets of these men be so abhominable as Master Baxter affirmeth, and others also that are both able to judge, and faithfull to give their judgement, have told me; (for I acknowledge my self never to have been so ill at leisure to spend two hours in reading what any, or all of them have written) he dealeth unjustly to yoake them together with those tenents which he falsely accuseth of Antinomism, yea, with those that are rightly fathered upon Antinomians indeed. For granting that they hold some Tenents of the Antinomians, yet this neither ar­gueth that all their heresies and blasphemies are so many peeces of Antinomism; Nor yet that the Antinomians speaking the same [Page 276] things with these in the points proper to their sect, do also close with them in their abhominable Doctrines that are totally alien from the Antinomists Tenents. Else because Master Baxter join­eth with the Jesuits in the Doctrine of Justification by works, we might conclude that in all points he is a Jesuit, holdeth not onely lies, equivocations, and mentall reservations; but also mur­thers, Massacres, Seditions, Powder treasons, and all other practi­ces devised in hell it self, to be Meritorious works, if done to the advancing of Romes interest. And because he holdeth the very Act of believing to justifie, with the Socinians, therefore he is in all other the most blasphemous of their assertions against Christ and his blood, a Socinian also: or on the other side, that the Jesuits and Socinians are in all things, because in some things of the same judgement with Master Baxter. Were it the truth of Christ which Master Baxter goeth about to propagate, he would doubt­lesse seek the propagation of it in Christs Spirit, and Christs way. When we see such serpentine windings and crookednesse in his disputes, who can but judge that it is the work of the Old Ser­pent about which he is imployed? Neither the truth of Christ, nor Christ which is the truth, have any such impotency in them, as to need any deceits and shifts for their support. When Mr. Baxter, yea when all the Jesuits have raised all their mists of Sophistry, Sycophancy contumely, &c. as thick as the smoke from the bot­tomlesse pit, to dim the beams of Gods grace shining forth in the Sunne of Righteousnesse; not one Raie thereof shall be thereby di­minished, it shall hide the [pure light of the] Gospell onely from them that perish, whose eies the God of this World hath blinded. 2. Cor. 4. 3, 4. No one Soul shall be thereby beguiled, save those one­ly that were made to be taken and destroyed, 2 Pet. 2. 12.

A large Catalogue more of the Antinomian Tenents are set forth by Master Anthony Burgess, affixed to his Lectures against them: Which he saith he hath gathered from Luthers works a­gainst them. I will not question his faithfullnesse in collecting them, whether Islebius and his Disciples directly maintained such Doctrines; or whether Luther in prosecuting them, enumerates these as absurdities that would follow upon their Doctrine? whe­ther they are imaginary, or reall opinions of any sect of men, the most of them are detestable. But I find not that either Master Bur­gess, or Mr. Bax, can name any one creature under the Sun, that hath declared by words or writing, that he held them. If they can, [Page 277] we shall joyn with them, as dissenters from, and excepters a­gainst every such person. That these Antinomians of the for­mer age were filthy dreamers, loose livers, such as turned the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ into lasciviousness, is very probable, if not certain, from that which Calvin and others have written against Antinomians and Libertines. And from such we have no less abhorrence then Mr. Baxter.

But while Mr. Baxter declaimeth against the innocent, hee proclaimes himselfe a rank Antinomian, in teaching, and maintaining that the perfect obedience and righteousnesse of the Law are not required, and consequentially not due under the Gospel. Islebius himself never spake so derogatorily to the righ­teousness of the Law.

CHAP. XXIII.

I should wholly have passed over the 37, 38, 39, and 40 Theses, with their Explications, as meerly shady imaginations, voyd of all reality and substance, without stopping to give them one word of answer: (For why should wee talke of Pictures that have no life in them?) were it not that it is Master Baxters drift to carry us through these wayes of his own chalking, wholly from Christ, under a pretext of leading us to Christ the Justi­fier. To frustrate therefore his deceit I shall speak somewhat to these passages of his Tractate also.

Lawyers have layd it down for a Maxim, Non est distinguen­dum ubi Lex non distinguit. i. e. We are not to distinguish of any point in the Law, where the Law it self hath not made a distinction. If the Laws of men are not, much lesse are the Laws, and Word of God to be violated with mens bold distin­ctions: For this is no lesse then to bring Gods sacred Oracles into a subjection to mans vain fancies. Let Mr. Baxter shew any Scripture that gives footing for the distinguishing of Ju­stification into that which is in title of Law, and that which is in sentence of judgement, into constitutive and declarative, or virtuall, and actuall Justification. These are the inven­tions of wanton wits in these latter times, whose endea­vour it hath been to tear in peeces, and thereby wholly nul­lifie Gods Justification, and to put many Justifications of their own in stead thereof. We deny not a constitutive and declarative Justification in some sense, but in Mr. Baxters sense we deny it. It is granted that the Satisfaction which the Son by promise gave, and the Father accepted for the sins of the Elect, according to the Covenant between the Father and the Son, before more then once mentioned, did constitute the Elect justified in Christ before they were born; who notwithstanding were not declared just to their own consciences before they actually beleeved; nor to others until they manifested their Faith by their Works. But Mr. Baxter explodes this constitutive, and declarative Justifica­tion, as an unsufferable abhomination, and will not have his virtuality, and actuality to these applyed. And let him alleage any one Scripture that calls the sentence of life (unto those that shall bee saved by grace) that is to be pronounced in the last day, Justification: Or if he cannot, but that the justification of the New Covenant, wherever it be mentioned in the Word, be that which is in this present life, who sees not that his distin­guishing here tends to the subverting of Scriptures, and of the both virtual, and actual Justification which the Scriptures speak of?

This is all that he bringeth, or can bring for Justification in [Page 279] the day of Judgement; and this all is nothing. It followeth not because these Scriptures speak of Justification as of a thing to come, saying, they shall be, not they are justified; that this Future tense doth point out the day of Judgement. If I should say, Mr. Baxter shall dye, I should not be accused for speaking an untruth; but if any will needs confine that [ shall] to the day of Judgement, that Mr. Baxter shall then dye, who would not laugh at the absurdity of the consequence? That of Mat. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned; and that of Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers, but the doers of the Law shall be justified; speak of Justification after the tenor and covenant of the Law, not of Grace; therefore pertain nothing to the present purpose. Hee shall but Dare verba, dam­nably deceive with words, that teacheth men to seek for Justi­fication by the righteousness of the Law consisting in deeds and words. Whosoever indeed shall neither in word or deed be found a transgressor of the Law actually or originally, shall be justi­fied by his words and deeds. But this man must be sought for out of a happier generation then those of the race of Adam; else (if we except Christ alone) we must return our Non est inventus. That of Rom. 3. 30. speaks indeed in the Future tense, but may be as properly rendred, by the word [ will] as [ shall] (though the difference be not very considerable) thus, It is one God which will [or shall] justifie the circumcision by faith, and the uncircum­cision through Faith. The Apostle here meaneth no otherwise, speaking here in the Future, then what he had said before in the Present Tense of Justification. And it is as if he had said, God hath decreed and declared his method of justifying both Jews & Gentiles to be one and the same. As long as there remain, or suc­ceed any upon earth of either part to be justified, the purpose of God abides firm to justifie as wel the one as the other by faith, and no one of either sort by Works; neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision shall avail, or hinder any thing, but Christ, faith in Christ shall bee all unto all in this businesse, as long as the world endureth. And what is there then in this Text to p [...]ove Mr. Baxters declarative Justification in the day of Judgement? Not that wee deny the adjudging of life in the day of Judge­ment to all that in this life were justified; but the Scriptures terming this last sentence by the name of Justification, whatso­ever is said of Justification by Faith or Grace, is still to be un­derstood [Page 280] in this life. And the whole reason that Mr. Baxter hath here to coyn a Justification in the day of judgement, is to lay a foundation of Popish Justification by Works; as by the sequele of this his Treatise will more fully appear. Else would we not contend with him about meer words, did they not tend to a destructive end; and that we are taught by him elswhere, That no advantage is to be given to the Papists in the point of Justi­fication. To say that the last sentence of judgement shall declare to Men and Angels that the Elect were justified in this life by faith in him, is according to the voice of the Word. But to say that they shall be then fully Justified, as if their Justification had not been before compleated, is to out-throw the Bar two foot beyond the Papists for the maintenance of their self-justi­fying, and to speak more for them then they had wit, or grace­lesnesse to speak for themselves.

Hence it is that in the beginning of his Explication, pag. 183. he forbears to mention other distinctions which are com­mon in others, and may be found in Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. John Goodwin, and Alstedius, because (saith he) they are not so necessary and pertinent to my purposed scope, which is to destroy Justification by Grace, and erect in place thereof Justification by Works. It is a superlative praise that he giveth these men (how wel deserved by some of them I know not) that they are travelling another way from him, their faces are toward Jerusalem, and he cannot obtain a word of direction from them, but must trust to his own Compass to guide him to Rome.

What he hath more in the Explication, is but the interpreta­tion of his own dream: And I have not superstition enough to keep me awaked, and attentive to dreams, and their interpre­tation.

Neither is there any thing else in his 38 Thesis, and its Ex­plication, but a further forming of the same Chimaera▪ and no­tional Nothing, created out of his brain in the former Position, and its Explication. Or if there be any thing besides, it hath been examined in the precedent Chapter.

With no lesse silence might I also passe by the 39 Thesis, and its Explication, as being of the same nature with the former; saving that there are two things that wee may glance our consi­deration upon, before we passe further, lest that we should seem to look aside from any thing that hath an appearance of weight [Page 281] and strength in it to confirme his doctrine, of a Justification, or pardon of sin in sentence of Judgement, contradistinct from that which he maketh to consist in Title of Law. To make evi­dent, that besides the Justification here, there shall bee another Justification in the day of Judgement, hee addeth these two things unto what he had before said.

1. An explication of the form of future Justification, and Pardon.

2. Another Text of Scripture, besides the former, to evince it. The former he hath in these words of that his Thesis, That it shall be an acquitting of the sinner at Gods publique Bar.

Who is there now that can doubt of a Justification after this life, when he hath heard so graphicall a description of it? But how came Satan and Mr. Baxter to be of so great acquaintance, that either shall know the others purpose about the Judgement to come? I had thought the Devill had made known onely to his friends, not to his adversaries, what he means to do to mor­row, much lesse what hee meanes to doe in the day of Judge­ment. I should have conjectured that he is more taken up with the horror of torments that he shall suffer, then with the thought of further actings in that terrible day. Neither did I until now finde that Satan should be an accuser of others, having not what to say for the defence of himself, being accused by others, as the author of their sinne and misery in the day of Judgement. Neither can I find yet that the Scripture teacheth any such thing, that Mr. Baxter should be able to say, he hath received from the Lord what he doth here discover to us. It must be from some Apocrypha's, or out of the left side of the Romish Legend that hee hath borrowed this doctrine, where I shall leave him to dig out more traditions to maintain his bold assertions, that have no pillarage from Scripture to sustain them.

The latter, vizt. the Text of Scripture which he alleageth to the same end wee have in the beginning of the Explication thus.

But Mr. Baxter knows that Erasmus, and the old translation otherwise render this Text, making the latter clause thereof Ecliptick, or unperfect, which is thus to be supplyed, Repent &c. that your sins being blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come forth from the presence of God, [What then? wee must supply] Ye may have your part in the eternall refreshing and joy: This rendring of the Text even the most solid Expositors that follow the other reprove not, but speak honourably of it; much more those that take it up. And if we so understand the Text, it hath no shew of affirming a forgiveness of sin, but glorifica­tion onely after the judgement day. Yea I have found none, un­till Beza's new Translation of the Testament, that otherwise un­derstood the text, or since this translation that hath reprehended the former as faulty, but all both before and since making that the sense of it. Yea the word [...], which our Translation renders [ when] both Beza and all the Orthodox Expositors ren­der fo [...], after; thus reading the Text; [not when, but] after the times of refreshing shall come. And this Mr. Baxter will not deny to be the proper meaning of the phrase. And will he notwithstanding say that the times of refreshing, that is, of ever­lasting joy, come first, and then the forgiveness of sinne follows? Mr. Baxter is not ignorant that the word [ [...]] in the original may be as properly rendred [ have, or are come] as [ shall come] And so many learned Translators and Expositors of this Text have understood it, viz. of Christs first coming in the fl [...]sh. And then without any supplement the Text is full in it selfe, and runneth thus; Repent, &c. that your sins may be blotted out, seeing that the times of refreshing are come forth from the presence ef God. Let Mr. Baxter cite any one either Scripture, or Greek Writer, in which [ [...]] signifieth [ when] otherwise I cannot see the least ground upon which hee can blame this, or uphold that Translation which he taketh up.

3. The translation which a learned and godly friend gives, [Page 283] rendring the [ [...]] [that] [...], i. e. to this end that, bears great force with me, as best agreeing with the con­stant use of the Scripture. And so the Text is thus to be read, Repent, &c. that your sins may be blotted out (and that the times of refreshing may come, &c. (upon you.) In this sense is [...] taken, Mat. 6. 5. Lu. 2. 35. Act. 15. 17. Rom. 34.

In which soever of all these senses the words be taken, this Scrip­ture favours not at all Mr. Bax. neither hath his second justificati­on or pardon in the day of judgement any patronage from it.

Yea the vanity of this distinction of pardon & justification, into that w ^ch is in Title of Law, an [...] that which is in sentence of judge­ment, this declarative, that constitutive, is evident to as many as un­derstand evidences. For the whole tenor of scriptures which speakes of the last judgement, tendeth to manifest it to be a pronouncing of eternall glory to the Saints, because they were justified and before pardoned, perfectly righteous, in that sin was not imputed to them in this life, not a pronouncing of pardon to them that they may be thereby received into glory. Let there be any Scrip­ture produced to evince the contrary. Or why will Master Baxter have the sentence of the judge and Saviour in the last day called a declarative justification and pardon? To whom shall this his sen­tence declare it? to God? He knoweth who are his, and whom he hath justified and pardoned in himself, and thorow Christ before the World was made, therefore needs no such declaration. To themselves? They had in this life the word of the Gospel decla­ring, the truth of Faith evidencing, and the spirit of grace wit­nessing it to them; and whether at the very instant they shall be affirmed to have come in spirit from the flames of Purgatory, or from under the Altar in Heaven to reassume their bodies (for Mast­er Baxter keeps himself reserved in this treatise what he thinkes thereof) yet their separation from the reprobates hath enough declared them to be justified; so that they need no [...] any further declaration to be made therein to themselves.

Or lastly to the World? This might be somewhat usefull to the World, and to themselves while they were in the World: but is now utterly uselesse, when they shall no more return to the World. Neither is there need of a voice to declare it to the World, where their instantaneous rapture up to Christ in the air; to sit with Christ in judging the World, shall fully enough demonstrate it. [Page 284] And no more doth this Scripture uphold this Justification, as in other termes he proposed it, calling it Actuall, as distinct from that which he terms virtuall. All these are but windy notions, to fill up the dictionary of his distinctions which have no footing in the word. And when all these are fardled together, they will quickly be consumed with the fire of Gods jealousie, and little steed Master Baxter to dispute out his justification by works in the day of judgement.

No less vaporous is that which he hath, Thes. 40. and in its Ex­plication, where he distinguisheth most learnedly between a barre, and the bar, between a Wooden and an Iron Bar, between a Bar, and a Bar of judgement, a primary and secondary bar, a direct and a Consequential Bar, and all with such sagacity and profoundnesse, as passeth all the wisedom of the Holy Ghost in the scriptures to make out unto us. pa. 190, 191, 192, 193.

And in the explication he disputeth about

At last he gallantly gathers together all these dispersed bars, justifying and unjustifying, pardoning and condemning us, in some sense at all the barrs, and in severall senses at severall barrs, accor­ding as his wit and Sophistry doth give him utterance.

And to what purpose is all this, but to tickle witty, wanton, and sophistically phantasticall brains, flattering them off from the simplicity, plainnesse, and soundnesse of the Gopsell into a dispu­tative, fangled, and wordy formality of religion, having the spirit and power of Conscience, and the word that should regulate it, enervate and evapored in to meer froth and bubbles, by this questi­onary, [Page 285] distinctionary, and colorative shew of learning. In the mean while, all these barrs are by the subtlety of this Artificer made use of, to bar out the poor and simple for whom Christ hath dyed, from the due comfort of their justification, obscuring to them the Doctrine of grace, sending them from Bar to Bar for pardon and peace, and leaving them unsetled, and hovering to their very dy­ing day, yea, till they come to the bar of Christ at the judgement day, where if they be followers of this mans Doctrine, they shall appear no lesse uncertainly and tremblingly before the great judge than the reprobate men and Devills. For untill then all the for­mer barrs (according to Master Baxter) minister no absolute pardon or acquittance to any soul, so free from the Curse, but that we are left under the curse; acquit conditionally, that is, leave us fast bound to hell as it found us; loose the finger to day, that it may bind us up hand and foot to morrow. Such and so pretiou [...] Gospel doth this learned Scribe draw out of his Treasury among his Keder minsterians, as by that we have already seen, hath been in part manifested; and by that which followes in this Trea­tise will more fully appear.

When contrary to all this Sophisticall winding, circling and labyrinthicall Mazes, the Scripture speaking of Justification and condemnation after the tenor of the Covenants, makes onely two Barrs of judgment, the Bar of justice according to the Law, and the Bar of grace or Mercy-seat, according to the Tenor of the Gos­pel or New Covenant: affirming all that are judged at the one condemned, and all at the other justified. That as soon as we are convicted of death, and vengeance onely due to us at the former, we are carried out in the Spirit of Christ thorow the consecra­ted way of his purifying blood, to seek remission of sinnes at the latter, the Throne of grace; the all gracious Father, from the bar of grace pronounceth to our consciences peace, and pardon, and joy which shall never be taken from us. This is the sole and all­sufficient Justification which the Scripture speakes of, speaking properly of justification. The subject hath heaped up Treasons a­gainst his Prince; For this cause the Law apprehends and arraigns him. The Princes Son pittieth and mediateth, and by Mediation obtaines a pardon from the Prince, and brings it under hand and seal, puts it into his hand for life, while standing at the Princes Law bar, he was by Law condemned, yea condemned himselfe. The pardon thus freely given, he cannot but gratefully embrace. [Page 286] He questions not, none can question that findes him guilty in Law, from what bar the pardon came. Hee was a dead man in Law. It must therefore needs be from free Grace, meer Mercy that the pardon came. The receiver acknowledges it, pleads onely the grace of the pardoner, not any righteousnesse of his facts, or in­nocency in the things whereof he is accused, or dese [...]ts of former service, or purposes of future loyalty, for his life. Such is the justification which the Gospell holds forth. The multiplication of Barrs which Master Baxter maketh, at which [...]his New Cove­nant justification is transacted; is a confection of fancied Beares, Bulls, and Bubbles, to distract poor Soules from the plain way, and sound Comfort of Justification.

Here Master Baxter advanceth himselfe not so much as Doctor and Moderator, as Popelike to command and impose a sense, yea his sense, upon that which the Divines in generall of all the Churches have said, That saying [ that Iustification is perfected at first, and admits not of degrees] must be understood thus: &c. very Magisterially at the best; for what if not all of them, yea none of them meant so, would be so understood? This nothing hinders, though they will not, yet they must be thus understood. What necessity or authority lieth upon them and their writings, that they (will they, nill they) must be understood, or upon us, that although we know them to mean otherwise, yet we must so un­derstand them? No other power or reason from Heaven or Earth is here specified, besides Master Baxters placitum, his pleasure, he so defineth, so determineth. How fair doth he bid for Peters Chair, and Golden Pantofle?

What authority the Pope challengeth over all the Canonicall [Page 287] Scriptures, and the penmen thereof, the same doth Master Baxter over the Ecclesiasticall writings, and the Authors thereof. It is but one step higher to the Triple Crown. But ipse dixit, and we must be silent, else Master Baxter will be angry, and crown us with the fooles Cappe, and put upon us the Ignoramus and Dul­man.

Wel [...], how must they then be understood? viz. that each of those Acts (saith he) which We call Iustification, are in their own kind per­fect at once, and that our Righteousnesse is perfect, and admits not of degrees.

H [...]re I crave leave of the Magister, to put some few qu [...]stions.

1. Whom hee meanes by the word [Wee] when he saith, which we call justification? doth he not mean Chiefly, yea onely himself? if not, let him name any of the Divines which deny a­gainst the Papists, the Magis & minùs, or degrees of Justification, but denies also against the same Papists, the twofold justification, and maintaines against their Sophisms, justification to be but one, one onely justification? I acknowledge my selfe not to be, that I am not ambitious to be Librorum helluo, I have in sacred Doctrines but one Master. Yet as many of our Divines as I have read, disclaim and detest this twofold justification, not onely as a Popish, but also as a new and Jesuiticall invention, devised for the perverting and subverting of that justification which is by grace. That this man therefore takes upon him to affix his Index expur­gatorius, not to their words, but to their meaning, that they must be understood in another sense than they meant, because he will so have it, is not onely to usurp to himself a power above the Pope, but above God himself also, who doth not, cannot make that which was not to have beene the meaning of any man in what he hath said.

2. When he saith they must be thus understood, I demand what the necessity is, either simple and absolute, or respective and se­cundum quid? a Necessitas praecepti. or Necessitas Medij. If simple, and the duty injoyned by some precept, where is that precept of God or man to force the understanding to believe a lie? if respec­tive, or in order to some end to which such a misunderstanding subserveth as a mean; let us know what that end is, whether good or evill? if evill, we must not do or think one evill, understand falsely against understanding and Conscience, for the promoting of another evill. This is worse than devilish, for he can say, video [Page 288] Meliora,—Deteriora sequor Or if good, their damnation is j [...]st that report (saith the Apostle) we say, [much more that would have us say] let us do evill that good may come thereof. Ro. 3. 8. Or must Master Baxters will or peremptory conclusion stand in stead of a Divine precept to necessitate and determinate our un­derstandings to a false principle? Get thee behind us Satan, wee owne no such Masters.

3. When he saith, we must understand Each of those Acts [i. e. Gods justifying us first in title of Law, secondly in sentence of judgement] are in their own kinde perfect (not in the respect that either hath to other, but that the latter addeth a perfection which was wanting in the form [...]r) I might demand first, who besides the Wee in Master Baxters mouth hath called the latter, Justification? But of this already. 2 What new thing, as an encrease or further degree of Justification, doth the latter Act adde to the former? He acknowledgeth that the former (which is the sole New Covenant Justification) doth acquit from Accusation and con­demnation, Thes. 38. yea from all guilt and obligation to punish­ment, pa. 189. and all this at once, not by degrees, as in this Thes. 41. what new things, or farther degree doth the latter feigned justi­fication adde to this? Himselfe attributeth no more to this which he calls justification in Sentence of Judgement. This (saith he) ac­quitteth from Accusation and condemnation, Thes. 39. where now is the Magis here, or the Minus there? the most Eagle and L [...]ncean eye cannot discern it in the substantialls, we must there­fore seek it in the circumstantialls of justification. This he seemes to place in two things.

1. The former only in Title of Law, the latter in sentence of judgement at the bar.

2. The former to be from the accusation and condemnation of the Law simply, the latter from the same accusation and con­demnation pleaded by Satan. This is the whole difference which he putteth, as may be seen by comparing the 38, and 39 Theses together. To the first, I demand whether the Justificati­on in this life be not an acquitting by sentence of judgement at the bar? Whether it be not a sentence of absolution pronounced to the soul and conscience of a sinner drawn to Gods bar, and there impleaded, and confessing it self guilty of sin, and of con­demnation? Who was there ever of them whom Mr. Baxter vouchsafeth to call our Divines, that held otherwise? Where [Page 289] then is the difference? Yes, saith Mr. Baxter, this latter is at the publique bar. I answer, so is the former even that bar of God, at which all that ever have been, are, or shall be justified, have, and shall have the sentence of Justification pronounced to them.

Object. But this latter shall be at the great and grand generall Assizes, before all the host of heaven, earth, and hell; whereas the former was but between God and the soul.

Sol. This is nothing else but a publick▪ declaration to the world, what God had before granted to the soul; which indeed in judicatures of men, which are mutable, and deny oft in pub­lick what they had before acted in secret, may be of some con­sequence to him that is so publickly acquitted; but in respect of Gods judgement, who cannot be inconsistent with himself, and whose acts in secret are as unreversible as those in publick, here is nothing added to the bulk of justification, nor any thing (but the solemnity of the manifestation of it after the man is before compleatly justified) to the circumstances thereof.

To the second I have spoken before, that Satans managing of the accusation and condemnation of the Law is more properly, if not onely in this life, and let Mr. Baxter prove (if he can) any such accusation that hee shall manage against us in the day of judgement: If he can prove it, the thing proved proves no addi­tion or encrease which shall be then made to our present justifi­cation, because here also we are acquitted against all accusations pleaded by Satan. If he prove it not, then there is in this respect a magis in the circumstance of justification here, beyond that ima­ginary justification in the day of judgement.

4. When he addeth, that we must understand our Divines af­firming our Justification to be perfect at first, and to admit of no degrees, that they mean our Righteousnesse is perfect, and admits not of degrees, I demand which righteousness himself meaneth? that which he calls our Legal, or that which he calls our Evangelical righteousnesse? or both? If the first, Christ made Righteousnes to us, this is indeed the righteousness, the whole, and sole righ­teousness, the Gospel righteousness which we have given to us unto Justification, a righteousness without us, which admits not of degrees: And this righteousness is fully given us in this life, and not reserved to be given us in the day of Judgement. This [ must] we are content Mr. Baxter should put upon our under­standings, that in this sense we must understand our Divines. But [Page 290] this hews in peeces what Master Baxter addeth in this Thesis, ma­king the Justification here unperfect, and to have but degrees to­ward our ful and perfect Justification at the last judgement; for if so, the imperfection here, and the perfection there must be either in the righteousnesse given (as I conceive) or in the act of giving the righteousnesse. Not the former, for Christ, whole Christ (according to Mr. Baxter) is the righteousness given in this life. Neither will he, I suppose, affirme that we shall have a doubled Christ, or two Christs given us for righteousness at the last judgement: Nor the latter; For I will not entertain so slanderous a thought of Mr. Baxter, to thinke he will say, that God gives Christ but unperfectly and seemingly here, but there perfectly, and really: Nay hee gives Christ perfectly and really here; There he will but own and manifest his former gift, and grant.

Object. But the former acts of Justification do not forthwith and fully bring a total freedom, and glorification after them, as doth this last at the last judgement.

Sol. This is not ad idem. Mr. Baxter here flirts from the que­stion, which is of Justification it selfe, to the consequents, and effects of justification, which are total freedome from inherent sinne, and from all sorrow, glorification, and in truth also the sentence of life at the last judgement, which is not another justi­fication, but the fruit and effect of our present justification. The supreme power of the Nation grants to Mr. Baxter great immu­nities, and a large demeans to be entred upon at the next general Assizes for the County, and withall appoints the Iudge of the Assizes openly to proclaim it. The Iudge doth according to his commission, and Mr. Baxter taketh possession, by the vertue of the aforesaid grant: will he say the former grant was unperfect in comparison of the Iudges proclamation at the Assizes, because it put him not into the present possession? are not as well the Iudges proclamation, as his entry, the effects of the former grant? But how far, and in what respects the possession of the effects of ju­stification is suspended, hath been before examined. I [...] he mea [...]s that which he calls our Evangelical righteousness, consisting in Faith, and Gospel obedience, Thes. 20. that we must understand this righteousness to be perfected at once, and not to admit of degrees, this were totally to confute, and confound himself in wha [...] hee hath written, and all the Papists his darlings in what they have written about the point of justification; and would put the lye [Page 291] upon most passages that remain to be examined in these his A­phorisms. This therefore I cannot conjecture to be his meaning. I would he could as wel discharge himself of doubleness as of silliness, and simplicity.

In the 42 Thesis hee seemes to have had a purpose to have brought somewhat against that which they, whom he calls [ our Divines] do assert of the perfecting of Justification at once, in the due and proper sense of their own meaning; and to yeeld forth some shew of reason, that (contrary to their assertion) Ju­stification begun admits of many steps and degrees one after a­nother tending to the perfecting thereof. To this end he brings in a whole legend of stairs mounting up from the bottom to the top of Justification. A sack full of Heterogeneous bugbears, like that army of Solomon whereof Mahomet speaks in his Alcoran, consisting of men, beasts, angels, devils, creeping, flying, swim­ing, crawling, and hopping creatures, all marching together in so comely and harmonious order as confusion and ataxie can devise: with such an army comes Master Baxter here against our Divines, with a catalogue of God and Christ justifying, Men justifying, Angels justifying, self justifying, acts justifying, passi­ons justifying, relations justifying, qualities justifying: One taking it from anothers hand, and each amending what the o­ther had left defective; so that at last the sinner so shifted from hand to hand, after many hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, is at length fully justified; or if he be a peece of knotty timber, perhaps comes not at last to bee fully justified. I shall leave the Reader to view the Aphorism in Mr. Baxters book; I hold it not worthy the transcribing; so i [...] seems doth Mr. Baxter too; for reviewing his company, of the whole number, which are no less then tenne, he retaines onely two, viz. Justification in title of Law, and that in sentence of judgement, about which his former Thesis was occupant, disbanding all the rest, and so leaving the cause as raw and unconfirmed as he found it.

CHAP. XXIV.

I joyn together these three Aphorismes, partly because Mr. Baxter doth very little sever them by the interposition of very short Explications, which might have been as well spared as used, for any light they give to his Aphorisms. But principally because they all treat upon one, and the same Argument, con­ditional Justification.

And here I could have desired that he had treated more Argu­mentatively, and less Magisterially. That hee had stated the que­stions which he here determines into Conclusions, and by the best Arguments he could, have assayed to prove his assertions, which he doth here nakedly, and peremptorily lay down only upon his own bare authority to be taken up, as if it were holy, and unerring. He could not have wanted help to have handled these points more controversally, having the Papists on the one hand, and Arminians on the others, suggesting matter, and ar­guments to him, it being their, not Christs cause and doctrine, which he bids, and teacheth here to stand alone; so that in case he had met with a learned adversary that had driven him out of this field, he might have been sure to have been succour­ed with a whole brigade of these Sophisters, that would either have laid in the place, or recovered the field for him again. But we must give leave to a man that is all wisdome, sometimes for his recreation to be servant to his will: And because we find him not here what we expected, we must take him as he offers himself— Stet pro ratione voluntas. Only I think it fit to save the labour to answer Arguments, when he refuseth to make it his task to bring them: Bare negations of Conclusions being the best way of answering, where they are peremptorily, and fa­stuously posited, without any premissed reasons from whence to draw them, or following arguments to back them. In mat­ters of Faith asserted, not proved, Jack Straws negation being of equal validity to John Scotus his affirmation; onely we shall view his words, to see what shew of reason there may be found in them.

In the Explication of the first of these three Positions, vizt. the 43. He tels us, This needs not explication. He saw it, and had acquaintance with it while it was yet but a notion in his brain, therefore needs not any spectacles to clear up unto him his own formed of spring; but for my part, such is my dulness, that whether I seek for his meaning in some part of the Position, or for truth in the rest, I professe my self unable to understand without an interpreter. Let his words be not onely glanced o­ver, but well considered, I might think there may be the like, though not so great an incapacity in anothers braine, as in mine.

The Justification (saith he) which we have in Christs own Justi­fication, [Page 294] is but conditional as to the particular offenders. Let the a­cute wit here inform my stupidness what he meanes by the Justifi­cation which wee have in Christs own Justification? What is Christs own justification? or what the justification which we have in Christs own justification? If we understand not what the sub­ject of a proposition is, we cannot judge at all of the truth of the proposition, and do in vain enquire into the predicate. We can go no further understandingly in this Thesis untill wee understand this, of which all the rest speaketh. Christs own justification may be understood actively or passively: For the justification by which hee justifieth others, or that by which God hath justified him. If Mr. Baxter had meant the former, I conceive he would have said plainly (as he doth every where else) Justification, without adding to it Christs, or Christs own, which seems to be used to distinguish here between the justification here spoken of, and the common Ju­stification whereof he treateth throughout this Tractate. If in the latter sense, it may not suddenly appear, how possibly we can bee justified in Christs own justification. Neither can Christs own justification properly taken, be possibly made our justification: For all will apprehend (without help) by Christs own justifica­tion, the justification proper to his person, which none had, or have in common with him. Yet I conceive Mr. Baxter means here Christs passive justification, Gods justifying of Christ; and that these words here do relate to the words which he hath within the 4 number of the foregoing, or 42 Thesis, where he saith [4. His own Justification as the publick person at his resurrection.] which is not enough properly called Christs own, because it is not the justi­fication of Christ as personally alone, but as mystically considered.

Taking this to be his meaning, I shall first speak something of the meaning of the phrase, and then examine the truth of the Posi­tion. 1. For the meaning of the phrase; As the first Adam su­stained the office of a publick person in relation to that Comman­dement of not eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil, so that if he had obeyed we had all lived, and been justified in him; but in his disobedience we all sinned, and were condemned in him: So also Christ, the second Adam, in making satisfaction to Gods justice upon the cross sustained the office of a publick person, stood in the room of all the Elect, bare their sins as imputed to him, so that they all in him did their law, were in him crucified, dead, and buried, and suffered the paines of hell it [Page 295] self. And as he was a publick person in his suffering, so also was he in his resurrection; having paid the utmost farthing of our debt, he rose to receive a full acquittance, or justification in his own, and our names for all the sinnes for which, and all the ven­geance which he had suffered for us, and we in him. The justifi­cation and acquittance then given him, and to us in his name by the Father, is that which (out of doubt) Mr. Baxter calls Christs own justification, yet was not his own so, but that it was every elect persons in him.

Having the meaning of the phrase, let us now enquire into the truth, or falshood of the Position. The Justification (saith hee) which we have in Christs own Justification, is but conditional as to the particular offenders, and none can lay claim to it till hee have performed the conditions, nor shall any be personally justified till then: Even the Elect, &c. Hee saith much, and audaciously (as all may see) but how strongly doth hee prove it? For confir­mation (saith hee in the Explic.) there is enough said under the 15, 18, 19, 20 Positions before.) And I answer, how valid and pertinent to his purpose that Enough which hee there said is, I there examined: And because he brings here no new rea­sons, I may justly passe it by without giving any further an­swer.

Onely it shall not bee impertinent to take notice how am­biguously hee layes downe every clause of this Position, to corrupt with an evill sense whom hee can, and to evade with the pretext of a good meaning where he cannot deceive, if espied, and questioned.

1. When he saith this Justification is conditional as to the par­ticular offenders, & none can lay claim, &c. Though by the whole frame of this his Treatise, it is enough evident that he means what he speaks in the worst sense; yet his words leave it here doubtful, whether he means that our Justification which we have in Christs justification be conditional▪ as Christ hath received it in his, or our names; or as he having received it for us, doth offer it to particu­lar offendors upon conditions, upon the performance whereof they shall have it, with the fruit, and comfort thereof decla­red, and evidenced to their own soules. Though the former bee his sense, yet knowing with what arguments hee may be encoun­tred; That there was an absolute, and not a conditional payment made▪ to which not a conditional, but an absolute discharge is due. [Page 296] That Christ as a publick person standing in our stead, received the same justification for himselfe and us, from all the sinnes that had been imputed both to him and us: but that he received for himself not a conditional, but an absolute Justification; therefore for us also. That if particular offendors be but conditionally ju­stified in Christ, then are they not at all actually, and really justi­fied in Christ, and so the fruit of Christs death being suspended, upon conditions, may be none at all, in case none performe the conditions. That it is against the stream of the Gospel, which af­firms, that even upon the cross he hath cancelled, or blotted out the hand-writing, spoiled the principalities and powers, Col. 2. 14, 15. re­deemed us from the curse of the Law, Gal. 3. 13. purged the consci­ence from dead works, by his blood, Heb. 9. 13, 14. That God was in Christ reconciling the world (while the world) to himself, 2 Cor. 5. 19. and made us accepted in the beloved, Eph. 1. 6. And all this, before we had a being personally, therefore before we performed any conditions. Knowing (I say) how he might be overwhelmed with arguments from the Scriptures by our Divines, as hee hath read far more copiously then I have time here to particularize, in their works against the Papists and Arminians, and might have been more pressed and multiplyed against himself; and that Truth is not onely unconquerable, but victorious: To prevent the in­convenience, he leaves a hole by which to escape, viz. Hee meant not thus: But that our Justification is conditional as to our claim of right therein, we are not personally justified, have not our for­giveness declared, and evidenced to our own consciences till we perform the conditions. Such sincerity and integrity is there in Mr. Baxters doctrines.

2. When he saith, None can lay claim to Justification untill he have performed the conditions, nor shall be personally justified till then, he leaves it ambiguous whether he mean till his faith, obedience, and good works (which with him are the conditions) be in fieri, or else in factum esse, be begun, or else finished, and perfected, in do­ing, or else fully done. His phrase directly points out the latter, & the whole stream of his disputations in this Book concurs with it. Neither is Mr. Baxter such an A, B, C, darian that he need to bee taught to speak Grammatically, and to deliver in proper termes his own dictates, that we should think him to speak more, or lesse then he meaneth, saving when he will doe so for his own advan­tage. Unlesse therefore he meant in the latter sense, and would [Page 297] be so understood, hee would give no advantage by his words to any so to understand him. This being then his meaning, he leaves us yet in doubt whether he joynes with the Papists here, in im­plying that it is possible to attain perfection of righteousness, and so to have fully performed all obedience in this life, thereby me­riting Justification, so winning it at the hardest, before he wear it, as we have found him in, and under his 23, 24, 26, 27, Theses, maintaining enough fully behind the curtaine; or else with the Arminians, in holding that no man is justified in this life, and so confounding Justification and Glorification either with the other, an assertion worse then Popish, wholly contradicting the whole [...]enor of the Gospel, as Rom. 4. 10. Abraham was justified while yet uncircumcised. Rom. 5. being now justified, now reconciled, ver. 9, 10. So Rom. 8. 30. Eph. 1. 7. Yea not to stay particularizing the whole sum of the Gospel, but because both Papists and Armini­ans are his cabinet friends, that he might please both, and offend neither, it sufficeth him to shew himself an adversary to the truth, wherein he hath them both confederates with him, and either with the other; it being no difficulty for him to close with both that differ but in words a little, but are one in substance, like Sampsons Foxes hung together by the tails in a firebrand, though their faces look several waies.

3. I might no less discover his subtilty in that ambiguous term of Personal Justification, as he opposeth it to Conditional Justi­fication in Christ, how many senses it may bear, and scarce ever a good one; yet in the ambiguity of the phrase, a way left him to evade.

The 44 Thesis is ridiculous to all that desire to speak after the wisdome of God, and not after the fallacies of men that are meere foolishnesse with God. Men that are but thus conditionally par­doned and justified, may be unpardoned and unjustified again, &c. ut suprà. In this at last Master Baxter is not to be deprived of his due praise; that he makes his foundation and building to consist of homogeneous Materialls: an imaginary foundation, and a phantasticall building. It is as much as if he had said, A fancied something made up of nothing, may without the spilling of much blood or sweat, be resolved into nothing again. The Cat in the Fable, which Venus turned into a fair Virgin, because she would not leave to hunt mice, was quickly reformed into a Cat again. If one dream make Master Baxter a Holy Pope, the next [Page 298] dream may unpope and unhallow him again. And men that were but conditionally justified, may be unjustified again, and be alto­gether as well justified while unjustified, as when conditionally justified, and as fully pardoned while unpardoned, as when con­ditionally pardoned; and all the debt as fully required at their hands when it is conditionally forgiven, as when it is unforgiven again. And all this without any change in God, or in his lawes. For all these are not Gods, but Master Baxters, and his Arminians, and Jesuits justifications, and Non-Justifications pardonings and un­pardonings, forgiving debts and requiring them again. God is un­changable, His gifts and calling without Repentance. Rom. 11. 29. But these are Protei and Chamelions, (specially when the change is from evill to worse) and would feign to themselves and us a God like to themselves, that should be a changeable God, no God.

It behoved Master Baxter to have proved from Scriptures this Popish Arminian Doctrine of conditionall justifying, and un­justifying, &c. from the word, that it might appear to us that the Oracles of God, and not the Sophistry of men had drawn him into this Topsie turnie tattle, rather than Doctrine of justificati­on. Not doing this, his breath smells of a Pope in his belly; That his aim is to make the word of God to strike saile to the So­phisms of the Papists and Arminians, and not these to the word. For so he proceeds in the next, which is the 45 Thesis in their language.

If the Heavens fall, we shall need no hobbies to catch larkes. If Master Baxter cease to be a man, he will cease to be an Impost­our. They are suppositions of things possible, or impossible, which in both these his Theses he maketh: if of possibles, why doth he not prove them? if of impossibles, what can he aim at but the de­ceiving of them that are made to be taken, and the destroying of the peace of tender and infirme consciences? Hee turnes us over in the former position to Ball of the Covenant. I have it not. But if there he be the same Ball with Ball of Faith, there is no more agreement betweene Ball and Bax▪ than betwixt Christ and Belial. I heard indeed long since, that this Master Ball [Page 299] seeing fashionablenesse and formality tending somewhat to the Popish Outsidenesse in Religion was the way to preferment, had before his death somewhat declined. But unlesse I saw grounds for such a thought I cannot entertain it, so great an estimation both of his ablenesse and holinesse hath his Treatise of Faith left in me. But if otherwise, it is not unnaturall to a Ball to roll, es­pecially down the hill. And we halt not between two opinions, we have the Lord, and not Baal for our God.

But Master Baxter cannot put upon us this bull, that he should with a trick of the hand beguile us into an opinion, that in this Doctrine he is a follower of Baal. Nay first his popish School­men and Jesuits have taught him, and then Arminius, and his followers have polished him; so that in these two Theses he doth but speak parat-like, even word for word after these his Masters; as I could (if there were need) alleadge cut of the Authors whom he followeth. Yea further, the more antient Schoolmen, and the most learned and Metaphysicall among the Jesuits, blow off as basely derogatory from the perfection of Gods Nature, the fro­thy positions which he here layeth down as Articles of Faith, which he doth not at all apply himselfe to prove, as if they were unquestionable because his quill hath dropt them.

He sees his Doctrine in these 2 Theses, such as either hath no­thing but words in it, or if any thing reall, such as tendeth to the advancing of the Popish and Arminian Doctrines of Universall Redemption, Freewill, falling from Grace, &c. Therefore in­treats his reader [in the Explication] to suspend his judgement till another Tractate of his about universall Redemption come forth, which in the Postscript to these Aphorisms he tels us he is not certain whether it will be ever; and in his Append. pag. 164. seems to conclude that it will be never: And that, if I mis­take not, is upon Saint Justifications day, according to the Bax­terian account. And in case it bring no better savour of Christ with it then this his Tractate, better then, then sooner. To which time also if he had suspended the publication of this book, I doubt not he might have obtained more then a conditional Justi­fication from the guilt of such a suspension.

And For that which intimates the falling away of the justified, (saith he) he speaks onely upon supposition, &c. but doth beleeve that the justified by Faith never do, nor shall fall away. ibid. Explic. A larger profession in respect to this Article of his Creed, then I [Page 300] expected from him, if it be single and hath no flaw of rottennesse and deceit in it. But when we have found him calling the sen­tence of judgement in the last day, justification by Faith, as well as that which is in this life in title of Law, (as he terms it) pag. 185. and makes the justification in this life to be meerly condi­tional, and consequently either nul or reversible, in these 44, & 45 Thes. what can we think can be his meaning, when he saith, I be­leeve that the justified by faith never do, or shall fall away; but this, that they that are sentenced once to life in the day of judgement, and already glorified, neither doe, nor shall fall away. And yet for him that holds our justification to be stil but conditional un­till the day of judgement, it would (I think) be a harder task to prove that it remains not conditional after the day of judge­ment, then for the truly Orthodox in this point to prove it to be in this life absolute and unconditional. Were I the man that were fit to undertake such a dispute, I should (as I conceive) have a great advantage against such an adversary; for most of the ar­guments which he should bring to prove the absoluteness and immutability of justification in the Kingdom of glory, would strengthen against himself the same absoluteness and immutabi­lity of justification in the Kingdome of grace. And almost all that he should be able to answer for the eluding of my arguments against absolute justification above, would strengthen me to an­swer his arguments against absolute justification here. But I hold it altogether unproper to make so holy a thing the subject of ludicrous exercitations. The Scripture is as full to prove the Saints perseverance in grace here, as their perseverance in glory above, and as possible is the falling from the latter as from the former.

Now before I wholly pass from these positions of Mr. Baxter, to make way for the examination of other Positions of his which I shall annex to these in this Chapter, because of the neer affinity of their matter with that which is contained in these: I shall speak something in opposition to Mr. Baxters universall conditional Justification in Christ, or (as Mr. Baxter termes it) in Christs own Justification.

First then, whatsoever sins, of whatsoever persons were im­puted unto Christ, and for which he hath made full satisfacti­on to Gods Justice, these are no more imputed, but forever re­mitted in Christ absolutely, and unconditionally to them who [Page 301] were the committers thereof. But all the sinnes of all the elect, and of them onely, and not of the world, were imputed to Christ, and hee hath made full satisfaction, &c. Therefore, &c. The proposition is clear, unless we will pronounce God unjust: For if he should impute to the offender any one sin which was imputed to Christ, and for which Christ hath fully satisfied Gods Justice, then should God bee unjust in taking vengeance twice of the same sin, once from Christ, and another time from the offender, contrary to the both equity of his justice, and in­fallibility of his truth, in either of which it is unpossible for God to fail. Or if any should say that their sins were but condi­tionally imputed to Christ, and that he made but a conditional satisfaction for them, this were totally to deny the truth, and reality of Christs sufferings. It was not a conditional, but abso­lute, and real satisfaction that he made to divine Justice; they were real stripes, real and absolute wounds, groans, torments, death-pangs, by which he satisfied Justice: He was not condi­tionally, but verily made fin for us, 2 Cor. 5. 21. a Curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree, 1 Pet. 2. 24. was wounded for our transgression, bruised for our iniquity, Isa. 53. 5. When all this was done absolutely, and really, and so a real, and absolute condition made, shall all this produce only a conditio­nal, and not a real and absolute justification in Christ to, and for them who in him have made absolute satisfaction, so that them­selves in themselves must make absolute satisfaction again? This possibly may agree with Mr. Baxters Justice, but never with the Justice of God. The assumption is thus proved, as to his bearing, and satisfying for the sins of the Elect only, and not of the world. He suffered not for such as we call Individua vaga, certain un­certain persons, himself not knowing who they were, or should be. The High Priest, that typifyed him, offered not his sacrifices at adventures for he knew not whom, but bare the names of them for whom he offered, before the Lord, Exo. 28. 9, 10, 11, 12, 29. And this was to be fulfilled in Christ their Antitype. I lay down my life for the sheep, saith he, and know my sheep. Joh. 10. 11, 14, 15. For the sheep onely, for them whom he knew to be his sheep, he layd downe his life. And lest any should think hee speakes here onely of his called, and not his elect ones, he addeth, Other sheep also I have which are not of this fold, i. e. of Israel; but of the Gentiles, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice. They are his sheep, [Page 306] and he layeth down his life for them, to satisfie for their sins before they were beleeving, before they were in being, and brings them home by the voice of his Gospel afterward, ver. 16. But to the unbeleeving Jews he saith, Ye beleeve not, because ye are not of my sheep, ver. 26. First sheep purged, and redeemed by the blood of the Shepheard, and then beleevers afterward. And if not sheep first, then unbeleevers forever. Neither saith he, ye are not my sheep justified and reconciled by my death, because ye beleeve not; but ye beleeve not because ye are not of my sheep, in the number of my E­lect and justified ones. Justification, absolute justification in Christ, still goeth before faith in the so justified. Again for them all, and onely, did Christ as our Priest offer himself in sacrifice, for whom as our Priest he offered prayers to God when the offering of him­selfe was at hand; but he so offered his prayers, not for the world, but for them which God had given him, i. e. the elect, Joh. 17. 9. So in this part the Assumption stands firme; on the other part, that he bare and satisfied for all the sinnes of all the Elect, is plain; The blood of Christ purgeth from all sinne, 1 John 1. 7. by one offer­ing he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. When it is said they are perfected forever, it is included that there remaines not one sinne unsatisfied for. And this is the priviledge of all the Elect, of all the Sheep both in being, and in futurition, both within, and without the fold, as before was ma­nifested.

2. If Christ hath purchased, and we receive in this life onely an universall conditionall Justification: It will follow also that God hath in himself decreed before all time onely such a justification to men; and consequently that he neither loved, nor elected to life them that are saved more then the damned: For the Son was in the bosom of the Father, therefore privy to his secret will, to his very bosom counsels, came down from heaven not to transgresse, but to fulfill his will, Joh. 6. 38. & 4. 34. & 5. 30. was faithfull to him that appointed him, &c. H [...]b. 3. 2, 6. So that he acted in time accor­ding to the will and decree of God before all time. But it is false that God decreed onely such an universall conditionall justi­fication to all, not preferring in his love and el [...]ction those that shall be saved, before them which shall be damned, as appea­reth Act. 13. 48. Rom 8. 30. & 9. 15—to the 25. Eph. 1. 4, 5, 6, 7. Ther­fore it is false also that Christ hath purchased onely, and we re­ceive onely an universal conditional Justification.

[Page 307]3. Upon as good grounds as Mr. Baxter doth in the ensuing part of this Treatise argue from salvation or glorification to justification, might I also argue from justification to salvation, that if justification be universally conditionall, so is salvation or glorification also; that if one, then both run upon these terms dum bene se gesserit, if he beleeve and obey he shall be justifyed and glorifyed, if not, neither shall be his protion. And when any is justifyed and glorifyed, his perseverance in that state depends upon his freewill, runs upon the same condition still, so long justifyed and glorifyed as he is willing and obedient, if he cease to obey he shall be unjustifyed and unglorifyed again. And thus all the fruits of Christs death shall be rolled to nothing, and Christ righteosunesse and glory shall be a conditionall and mu­table righteousnesse and glory, to day in splendor, to morrow in darknesse, and himself become a conditionall Saviour, a con­ditionall King, at one time compleat and sitting among his golden Candlesticks, in the midst of his glorious Temple; at another unchristed, unkinged; a head without a body and mem­bers, a Saviour of nobodies, a King without subjects; some not at all submitting to his golden scepter, the rest that have submit­ted revolting from him, some from the kingdome of grace, some from the kingdome of glory, as Adam from Paradise, the Angels from heaven, so that he shall be left alone, and his sufferings and merits lose all their fruit by means of this conditionall justi­fication: There is I confesse no weight in this Argument as to the truly Orthodox. But it holds as firme to Mr. Baxter as his Arguments can hold to us about conditionall justification in Christs justification.

If he object, that the Saints in the kingdome of glory shall be so confirmed that they shall not fall away.

I shall answer, so are the Saints also in the kingdome of grace, and are as absolutely fixed therein, upon the truth, love and power of God in Christ, as the triumphant Saints in the kingdome of glory. I doubt not to prove the one as soundly as he can prove the other.

I cease further to enlarge my self in Arguments to this pur­pose. That which I have said being (as I before mentioned) spoken, not so much to prove an absolute, and to shew the vanity of a conditionall justification by Christ, as to make way to that which comes after to be handled.

From the 45 then I passe to the 55 Thesis of Mr. Baxter, because whatsoever there is in the interposed positions worthy of ex­amination, either hath been or will come to be considered in a place more convenient. Only by the way we shall take a short view of what he hath in and under the 54 Thesis; it runnes thus, pag. 209.

Here Mr. Baxter gives me occasion to put up some Quaeries to him.

1. Whether remission, justification and reconciliation are equi­pollent termes signifying one and the same thing in substance, or so many distinct things differing each from other as well in sense as in sound? If differing things, wherein doth the difference con­sist? he answers in the explication,

These are all at once, but he saith, not [ all one.]

Excellently distinguished, as he that divided the word [malt] into four parts. But doth not every of these words imply all those freedomes? doth not remission free as well from accusation, condemnation and enmity, as from obligation to punishment? And doth not reconciliation free from obligation to punishment and from condemnation as well as from enmity and displeasure? And doth not justification likewise do all as well as one? I know no absurdity to assert that the same freedome is in divers respects, but in the same sense (as Amesius well expresseth) called by all Ames. Med. lib. 1. cap. 27. §. 22. these names. As the state of sin from which we are freed, is con­sidered as a state of subjection to punishment or vengeance, so this freedome is called Remission. As the same state is considered as enmity against God, so is it called Reconciliation. As the same state is considered as a state of sin and condemnation, so the same freedome from it is called Justification; and this also so, that justification is all these, remission all, and reconciliation all, and neither any thing effectually if it be not all. All together make up one act of God by his Gospell, and may (as I conceive more properly be called Gods act or acts [in their active sense] [Page 309] then concomitant consequents of one and the same act of God. Besides if he take them for three differing things, I would aske him whether there be any mysterie in the order wherein he placeth them? Whether first we have remission of sins, then justifica­on from condemnation, and then at last reconciliation? I speak of priority and posteriority in order, notin time, for so he saith they are concomitants and at once. If some such mystery, I would be enformed, whether by reconciliation he mean the re­conciling of our love to God, or of Gods love to us? if the for­mer, how can our love (as he teacheth) be a condition of justi­fication, if in order it be not before but after justification? if the latter, then it seems Gods love is not the cause of our justi­fication (seeing it doth in order follow it) but that our love to God is the cause and ground of it.

Or if he put these three as Synonyma's for one and the same thing, why doth he then so curiously distinguish; and (as it were) give to them, their severall differencing forms, as we find him to do?

2 Whether he take them for the same or divers things, I enquire whether they be antecedents or consequents of our union with Christ? If antecedents, whether it be possible for a man to be justifyed in the way of the new Covenant (for of this justification Mr. Baxter speaketh) being yet out of Christ? or how is he then justifyed by faith, charity, and good works; except it be by a legall faith, charity and works? and if legall, how are these then our Gospell righteousnesse? or have they Gospell righ­teousnesse which are not in Christ? Or if consequents of our union with Christ, whether then they do not presuppose our union with Christ? and if so, whether the justifyed in Christ are not advanced to a far higher state of freedome and honour by their being found righteous in Christ, then they lost by being found sinners in Adam, and whether their union with Christ be not the common foundation both of justification and adoption? Or lastly is his meaning, that our union with Christ is the foundation not only of remission, justification and reconciliation, which do restore the offender into the same state of freedome and favor which we had lost, and faln from: but also of Adoption and of a far higher advancement then that from which he fell? herein I shall not dissent from him. But why then doth he so transpose his words as to make the stream of Gods operations to run backward, if not to make mans quali­fications [Page 310] the ground of his union with Christ, his faith and good works by which he is justifyed to be if not the cause, yet the ante­cedent of this union, and not this union to be the cause or ante­cedent of his both justification and holinesse? So much I thought fit to interpose here, that this Thesis of Mr. Baxter might not serve as a bridge to carry over the reader captive unto some fal­lacious untruths in the after-part of this his Tractate con­tained. Hence now let us passe to the 55 Thesis, which hath not a totall disagreement with the former that have been examined in this Chapter, but a dependence upon them.

The strength and evidence of this reasoning will the better appear if we lay by it another to the same tune and upon the same terms. It cannot be denyed to be as good an argumentation as this, if I should thus argue. Before it be committed it is no sin, and where there is no sin, there is no penalty due, and where it is not due, it cannot pro­perly be required; therefore the sins that have been committed since the death of Christ, had not their penalty born by Christ, before they were committed, and consequently, Gods justice remains unsatisfyed for the sins of all, that have been committed since the death of Christ, and every offender is to bear the condemnation of them in his own bosome, though the grounds of certain re­mission were laid before [in God] except another Christ be sent from heaven to bear, or the same Christ again to bear the penalty of the sins after they are committed. Whether this argumentation doth not carry in it as great, if not greater, likelihood of reason then Mr. Baxters, I leave to every rationall man to judge. And thus when a proud lust possesseth us to reason from our own brain and not from Gods word, we easily reason our selves into hell.

Neither do I see how Mr. Baxter according to this reasoning can ever look to be justifyed or saved, except by one of these two wayes, either by asserting his own righteousnesse (which hitherto with his fellowes) he hath made but a collaterall with the righ­teousnesse of Christ to justifie and save) to be at a pinch all­sufficient and effectuall to perfect the work without Christ; as it is with partners in a Trade, and buying and selling of wares, what one doth both do, and what bargain one makes both must [Page 311] stand to it: Or else by canonizing the Popish masse, to offer therein Christ often unto God as a sacrifice for the expiation and forgivenesse of his sins when he hath committed them, sith Christs offering himself was in no wise the bearing of the penal­ty, or satisfying of Gods justice, for his or our sins, because not then committed.

But let us see whether in any sense the reasoning of Mr. Baxter here, may be made good or taken up as tolerable. Not to men­tion here Gods forgiving of sins as an act immanent in God from eternity. For this would but make Mr. Baxter startle, he is no more patient to hear this voice, then was Caligula at the voice of Thunder; his bloud riseth at it, as do theirs at the sight of a Cat whose natures have an antipathy to that poor creature that never meant them hurt: Let us consider forgivenesse and pardon in tearms and wayes as himself granteth a possibility of giving and receiving it. And

First, in foro conscientiae at the bar of God in the conscience of man, to which he most limiteth and contracteth remission and justification. May not the offender apprehend and apply to him­self the pardon of his future (as well as of his past and present) sins through the Lord Christ in some sense?

1. In respect of the seed of all the sins which he shall through infirmity commit in the time to come of his life, I mean his cor­rupt nature or originall defilement and sin, from which as from their naturall source, all their acts of sin spring, every true be­leever is, and may apprehend himself pardoned; this the very Papists acknowledge, denying originall sin and defectivenesse to have any mortality of sin in it, because the guilt thereof is purg­ed from the soul by the bloud of Christ at his very first admission and entrance into Christ, (as they say) In this respect I doubt not but Mr. Baxter will confesse that all their after acts of sin are remitted (in their seed and womb) to beleevers before they be committed.

2. In respect of Gods not imputing them to the person that shall offend, so the sins not yet committed are forgiven to every elect person. God hath laid on Christs score all the sins of the elect, committed or to be committed, and satisfyed his justice for them upon Christ, who in their names hath paid the penalty of all, therefore their consciences are discharged, neither sins past nor sins to come shall be any more imputed to them. There is [Page 312] no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 1. There is dayly new sinning, why not also subjection to condemnation? because the person being in Christ, though subject to a necessity of sinning, yet through the justification of his person is exempted from the further imputation of sin so committed unto condem­nation; He that beleeveth hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, Joh. 5. 24. He comes dayly into the acting of new sins; how is it that he comes not into a subjection and obligation to condemnation by those sins but because they were forgiven to the offender before, therefore not imputed to him when committed? It is one chief priviledge of the new Covenant, Their sins and iniqui­ties will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin? Jer. 31. 38. &c. Heb. 10. 17, 18. speaks the holy Ghost here only of sin past and not of those to come, that they which are within the new Covenant, have remission of them? then

1. The same person hath some sins forgiven and some not for­given by Christ, that which is past is remitted, that which is to come is retained.

2. Then the priviledge is no priviledge, if only sins past are not remembred, but sins to come are kept in Gods memory to im­pute them every moment as fast as they are committed: For one of these last milstones tyed to the neck of the poor offender, sinks him into hell as surely as if all that are removed had their weight returned upon him with that one to sink him.

3. If God hath remitted and justifyed a beleever from the sins which he hath committed, and not from the sins which he foreknoweth they will commit, but imputeth or will impute them, then is the same person both justifyed and unjustifyed at the same time, and God at the same time both loveth the same person to eternall life, and hateth him to eternall condemnation: which were no lesse absurdity then to attribute two contrary wils acting in God at once, and so the same person be declared in his own conscience at the same time both in the state of life, and in the state of death; of life, in respect of the sins past for­given through Christ; of death, in regard of the sins to come not yet forgiven.

Secondly, In Christ, or (as Mr. Baxter terms it Thesis 43.) in Christs own justification, either all sins are forgiven to the elect or none at all. When having done their Law, and paid their [Page 313] debt, Christ appeared in the most holy place, in the heaven at Gods mercy seat to mediate with his bloud for them, he either received acquitance from, and forgivenesse of all the sins which his elect in after times should commit, and so in Christ their sins to come were forgiven, or else no sin was forgiven; for as yet they were not in being, therefore neither were their sins yet committed. But he received then in their names a full acquitance and for­givenesse of their sins as hath been before shewed, therefore of their sins before they were committed, and they were forgiven before they had offended. Hence some of our Divines thus rea­son, if since Christs satisfaction any sins be imputed any more to the elect, they must be such as Christ hath or hath not expiated with his bloud, and made satisfaction for to Gods justice; if such as Christ hath expiated, then notwithstanding that God imputes the sin, yet the person to whom he imputes it is in grace and favour with God, and the full penalty of his sin (while imputed) is paid to God: but this were injustice not incident to God to impute a debt which is fully paid him. If such as Christ hath not satisfyed for, then the faith of an elect person obtains at Gods hands forgivenesse, or the not imputing of such sins, for which Christ hath not satisfyed Gods justice, and so there shall be here remission without the shedding of bloud, and justification out of Christ; or faith and Gospell obedience shall be the price and ransome of their soules: All which is most absurd. Therefore, the sins of the elect yet un­committed, are in Christ as fully forgiven, as those that are al­ready committed.

Thirdly, If Mr. Baxters meaning be when he saith [the sin is not forgiven before it be committed] that the beleever hath not a singular apprehension of the forgivenesse of every singular sin before it be committed, and that God hath not declared to his conscience the forgivenesse of every singular offence, i. e. this evill which at this, and that evill which in that hour of his life he shall drop into: I acknowledge in this sense neither are any of our sins future forgiven, nor many of our sins past. For who in this case knoweth (not only how oft he shall erre, but also how oft and wherein he hath erred? in this respect the generall pardon sealed in Christ bloud to us, though it mention not every singular errour of our lives contained under the generall, is al­sufficient for us.

But perhaps Mr. Baxters meaning is, that Christ hath not pur­chased to the elect a plenary and absolute forgivenesse, but hath conditionally dyed for all if they shall beleeve and obey, and upon this condition runs the hope of pardon as to the sins which they shall commit unto their lives end; their re­newed sins being dayly pardoned upon the continuance and dayly renewing of their obedience, and so this Thesis runs in the same channell with the 43, 44, & 45. Positions, and for this cause I have annexed it to them; Neither do I speak any thing to this Position in this sense here, because it is prevented by what hath been already said in the examination of what he hath said there. And too much hath been said both to those and this Po­sition in which nothing but Magisteriall assertions without proofs are to be found.

CHAP. XXIV.

MR. Baxter in his 56. Thesis disputeth very Logically, though but little Theologically, of the causes of justification, and because he thinks them all Athenians whom he hath a lust to cor­rupt, viz. such as spend their time in nothing else but in telling or hearing some new thing, Act. 17. 21. therefore looking aside from that which all the soundest, i. e. (with him) the Antinomian Divines have said upon this Argument, and disdaining it with a squint eye as too rustick, and not enough pretty and dialecticall; himself pre­sents me with a new case and order of causes from the forge of his fancie, viz. some sole and some sociall, some single and some double, some proper and some improper causes, some causes that are causes, and some causes that are no causes; without further particularizing take him thus in his own words,

It must be granted that he is not a man of delicacies, hath a dull eye, and dry brain, whosoever is not enamoured with so fair a shew of causes, like a cup-bord of rich glasses set in arti­ficiall order, and able to dazle the eye of the beholder; what pity is it that any one of them should meet with a knock and be broken, and so the beautifull order in which they were placed, be on a suddain marred; yet if such a thing should fall out, it were no great wonder. Pretinesse and strength are rarely twins, and we speak of prety things but rarely, long in the present tense, before their perishing by weaknesse forceth us to take up another tone, and to tell that there was such a delicate toy, but if we seek it, the place thereof is not to be found. It is possible such a stroke may befall the image that Mr. Baxter hath here set up in imitation of that of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 2. 31, 32, 33, &c. it hath clay in the feet, cannot goe without halting, if it meet with a stone to crush its toes, it may possibly fall all to shivers. Himself seems to doubt of it, therefore prepares himself to de­fend [Page 316] it, as seeing, it cannot defend him or it self. So saith he in the Explication.

To these Quaeries it will be expected (saith he) that he an­swer. But what if other besides these exceptions be made, though it be in his power to deny his answer, yet it is not in his choice or authority to restrain any from excepting.

1 Perhaps some may except why he in asserting God to be the principall efficient cause of Justification, lets it passe so nakedly without an adjection of any of his attributes; so leaving it doubtfull whether it be the grace or the justice, the love or the hatred, the mercy or the wrath of God that is the efficient of Justification. We may easily answer our selves as to this que­stion, It is not Gods, but Mr. Baxters justification whereof the causes are here assigned, such as the Scriptures are unacquainted with, a justification of his own devising, defining and distin­guishing, himself and none before himself (that I know) was in every point acquainted with it: No marvell then if he speak differingly in setting forth the causes of his, from our Divines in laying down the causes of Gods justification. And indeed it is a difficult question to determine whether his justification (if it were at all granted to be of God) might challenge more pro­perly the love or the hatred, the grace or the justice of God for its womb: It being a justification that leaves all men under the curse, under the wrath of God, both in life and in death, untill the very day of Judgment, (as we have found him disputing most profoundly in and under his 9. Thesis.) A justification that gives only a titular title without actuall and absolute possession of any greatest or least benefit to the justifyed, [which according to Mr. Baxter is the same thing as if we should say to the un­justifyed,] A justification more unpossible to be apprehended and held, then was the first justification by works, that was held forth upon possible tearms, exacting from a living man [Page 317] only continuance in the works of life; this upon unpossible (as respecting our present state of infirmity) offering to a dead soul righteousnesse and life, upon condition the dead soul will quicken and arise from the dead to fetch it thence, whither if it come it must still abide empty as it came, untill the day of Judgment, and then Mr. Baxter will come again to tell us more of his minde whether it be at all attainable. I do not at all in­jury the man in saying he offers justification to a dead soul, &c. upon condition the soul will quicken it self. For let there be found but one clause in his whole book that implyeth a concur­rence and effusion of grace from God, more to the quickning and justifying of Peter and Paul, then of Cain and Judas, of the damned then of the saved. Or what doth he lesse that brings in works to justification, then destroy grace, to set up justification after the order and rule of strict justice? Or when Mr. Baxter is so exact in enumerating the Procatarcticall or outwardly moving causes; to what purpose doth he jumpe over the Proe­gumene or inward moving cause, viz. the grace, love, and mercy which is within God himself, but to imprison it in darknesse and eclipse its glory, that mans righteousnesse might have the praise which pertains to God alone?

2 It may be also questioned, why amongst all the causes of justification here assigned, there is no mention made of union and communion with Christ; when as our Divines following the rule of the Word, makes our union with him the very chief cause and ground of our being justifyed or declared to be justifyed according to the Gospell justification, 1 Joh. 5: 12. Phil. 3. 9. 1 Cor. 5. 19. and a multitude of other Scriptures which they alleadge, and if there were the least need I might here quote a score. What else but an evill eye, maligning the praise of God and of his Christ, suppresseth in silence and suffers not to appear in the chain of the causes of justification this link of union with Christ. Is it not that he will make our faith and works yet out of Christ the cause of our union with Christ, and not this the ground of the other?

3 To come to those questions which Mr. Baxter answereth because he conceives it will be expected.

1. About the instrumentall cause, we question not what he goes about to answer why he cals the promise or grant of the new Covenant, or the Gospell, the instrumentall cause of justi­fication [Page 318] actively considered? but 1. Why he makes it the only instrumental cause, of justification howsoever considered? For this grant and promise doth by it self no more justifie the beleevers then the infidels, the justifyed then the unjustifyed. Doth not God also make the spirit his instrument of justifying, by decla­ring and unfolding the doctrine of the Gospell, and evidencing and witnessing to the soul remission and justification, together with the love and grace of God from which this justification floweth? Why doth he stifle the working of the Spirit from having to do in this great work, except either with the Sadduces he denies the being, or with the Socinians the divinity and divine operation of the Spirit, or else to leave open a door to let in justification by the flesh not by the Spirit, by the strength of mans free will without the preventing helps of the Spirit of grace? Or as justification is taken passively for our being justifyed in our selves, why is not faith put as an instrumen­tall cause also? But this Mr. Baxter will answer anon, and I shall wait on him to hear how satisfactory his answer is.

2. Whether in his answer to the Question as he puts it, when he makes a mans lease or deed of gift, and a Kings pardon to have their force from the hand and seal annexed to it, is it not much more implyed that the grant of the Gospell without hand and seal put to it is not a sufficient instrument to the justifying of any man. For the grant of the Gospell is made to the world indefinitely, but when faith as the impression of Gods hand upon the soul, and the Spirit witnessing and sealing to the conscience thou art the person to whom the justification generally proposed in the Gospell doth particularly belong, and so are applyed by God as true accessary evidences to the grant of the Gospell, to ter­minate justification upon the soul of man, can Mr. Baxter deny these being acts of God distinct from the word of promise, to be instrumentall to justification as properly and fully as the said promise and grant?

3. To his Procatarctick causes which in the Thesis he giveth [ viz. so far as God may be said to be moved by any thing out of himself, speaking after the manner of men, saith he] I aske

1 Whether God may be moved in his will, by any thing out of himself? If so, whether then something out of God do not give magis & minus, increase and diminution to God? For every change of Gods will is a change of God himself, and what shall [Page 319] it avail any to be justifyed by a mutable God that to day will justifie, to morrow unjustifie againe, being apt to take im­pression of change from things without him? yea if a God mutable, then in truth no God, but one of the Pagans Idols or Puppets. Or how little doth his additionall cause help him, [ to speake after the manner of m [...]n] he ought not to speak a lie for God to please men; much lesse to lie against God, to fashion himself to the manners of men, foolish or wicked men. If he say God cannot be moved by any thing out of himself, how can he excuse himself from being a slanderer of the most high God, by devising and asserting here 4. causes out of God moving him to justifie us, having before wilfully suppressed in darknesse the riches of Gods grace within himself alsufficient without any auxiliary strength from the creature to move him? How pre­posterous is he herein to the order of nature, making the fruit to bear the tree, and not the tree the fruit? What lesse doth he in making Christs satisfaction and intercession, the sinners sup­plication and desire of supply, and the opportunity or advantage, for the glorifying of his justice and mercie, the causes of Gods will, and gracious willings, when contrariwise Gods gracious will is the cause of all these?

2 Whether he jears at the invaluable means of our salvation, or else that he thinks himself matching cocks for the game, that he counterpoiseth the highest perfections of Christs medi­atorship with mans vanity? how unsufferable is it to see him putting into the one scale a precious pearl, into the other a pep­percorn or cherry stone? To match Christs intercession with the sinners supplication? To make the feeblenesse of man, a colla­terall and concause in the same order and degree of efficacy to justification, with the vertue of Christ glorifyed? It is to be acknowledged that the nothingnesse of the one is of as full validity as the omnipotency (if I may so terme it) of the other to beget new love, new purposes, new acts in Gods will. This is that which God himself cannot do, not because it is a work above his power, but beneath his nature and perfection, to work or to be capable of the working of any new impressions or changes in his will. Neverthelesse this excuseth not Mr. Bax­ters vilifying of Christ in mating his intercession with the sinners supplication, as if the former were a star of the same magnitude with the latter: like that profane fellow that twisted toge­ther Religion and Cheese.

[Page 320]3 Not to trifle away time upon every trifling word of Mr. Baxter, I demand of him why (seeing in the Explication, pa. 215. he acknowledgeth that Procatarcticall or [outwardly] impul­sive causes have properly no place with God] he doth yet in his Thesis here fetch about again his four impulsive causes to marke them with severall names in their foreheads in Aristotles print? is it not a testimony under his own hand that he will rather play and dance about God as if he were a meer may-pole, then lose the ostentation of one least peece of his wit and art?

4 Though I mean not to contend about the meritorious causality of Christs satisfaction, because in this he hath as well many orthodox writers as Papists speaking in the same tone with him: neverthelesse I should deny his assertion unlesse he he will grant me these 4. or 5. suppositions.

1. That so far as justification is an act eternall and imma­manent in God, Christs satisfaction is not the meritorious cause of it.

2. If in some other respect it be the meritorious cause, that God doth therein merit from himself. For the satisfaction made to him is of his own proper money, himselfe paid the price in delivering his Sonne for our sinnes, the body which Christ offered for us was given him by the Father to offer in our behalf.

3. That this merit must in no wise hinder, but that the entire benefit of justification must come to us freely without money and without price.

4. That it is but unproperly termed merit even then when it respecteth the discharge which God giveth into a mans con­science, it being so called metaphorically as our state in sin is considered as a state of debt, which when Christ our surety hath paid for us he hath so far merited only, as the payment of our debt may be said to deserve that we should receive a full acquit­tance from the debt. In which Mr. Baxter goeth yet further, that it was so paid, that the Creditour might have chosen to accept it for satisfaction, much more to have given us a full ac­quittance and discharge. So that in relation to him and his principles, it is lesse properly merit, then to another.

5. That Christs satisfaction is more properly to be called Gods foundation of this our new relation of justifyed persons, [Page 321] upon which he hath inabled himself to justifie us in mercie, without any seeming diminution of his justice and truth. These things granted me, I dismisse Mr. Baxter with his meri­ [...]orlous cause.

5 When he cals Christs interc [...]ssion and the sinners supplica­tion the morall perswading cause, &c. I demand whether there were such a totall deficiency, or so great a scarcity of morall reason in God, that it needed a begetting or quickning by per­swasions from without him? or whether he were so flinty a [...] that without strong perswasive reasons he could not be induced to melt out his mercy in justifying us? How then was he in Christ reconciling the world to himself before all such actuall intercession and prayers? 2 Cor. 5. 19.

6. The like might I say of his objective and occasionall causes; that objects and occasions have their being and quali­fications from Gods either directive or promissive providence, that they may serve to his eternall and absolute volsitions and purposes; not that they work any new thing in the will and purposes of God, for then like the Masse-priests should they be the creators of their Creator.

4. To his second Question, Why he cals Christs satisfaction, both the Meritorious cause, and the Causa sine qua non; If he had not, I should not have made it a question. But because he delighteth both to put the question and to answer it, I shall not permit his answer wholly to passe without a short reply.

He must needs mean few Baxterians, that are not also Socini­ans, i. e. few of them that with him deny justification to be an eternall immanent act in God. For Mr. Baxter himself whether he be, or be not a Socinian, will and must grant, that if justifica­tion be, and as far as it is an eternall immanent act in God; Christs satisfaction neither is nor can be the Meritorious cause thereof. But as we look to the justification, as in time applyed and declared to the soul and conscience which Mr. Baxter calleth the justification of the new Covenant, and the Scriptures justification by faith, of this justification I will not contend with him, but Christs satisfaction (though no where in the word totidem verbis so termed) yet may enough properly be termed the Meritorious cause.

But why he will also have it called the Causa sine qua non, a blinde man may easily see his reason; what else doth he drive at but to put it in the same order of Causality with faith and good works, which also in the whole sequele of this Treatise is with him the Causa sine qua non, and consequently to make Christs sufferings and mans qualifications collaterall causes of Justification? Hereunto pertaineth his extolling the cause sine qua non, and exalting the praise thereof above other causes, Pag. 216, 217. not so much to attribute it to Christs satisfaction, as prepara­tively to deifie and equalize with Christ the meritorious per­fection of mans righteousnesse, which he is bringing in as a rivall of Christ for the honor of justification; and herein he will rather turn Cynick then leave the praise of man in his justification any one inch beneath the praise of Christ. For hereunto pertaines his Quare me non laudas qui dignus sum ut ac­cipiam? Plus enim est meruisse quam dedisse beneficium? If God be to be praised for giving justification, why not I that am wor­thy to receive it? for it is more honourable to have deserved then to have given a Benefit. How well this agreeth with that which he hath in and under his 24, 26, & 27. Theses, I leave the Reader to consider; and how fully he speaks it out in the fol­lowing doctrine of this book, we shall see more fully afterward. Yea when he here puts Christs satisfaction in the same kind of causality with faith and works, which he here cals the Causa sine qua non, elsewhere the conditions of justification; and Thesis 62. pronounceth faith to be the principall, and works the lesse principall condition; what place doth he leave for Christs satis­faction, but to be a footstool to our faith and works?

Ob. Yes he reserves the entire praise of merit still to Christs satisfaction alone.

Answ. Not so, for though in words he sometimes asserteth Christs satisfaction to be the merit of our justification, yet he makes the worthinesse of our own righteousnesse to be that which makes both Christs merit and justification merited to be ours, and so we out-merit Christ, deserving not only justifica­tion but Christ the meriter, and the merit of Christ to be made ours: In this he is worse then the Papists. They give the praise of our m [...]rit to Christ; he hath merited (saith they) a power [...]o our works to merit. This man contrariwise, that neither Christs merits, nor justification the fruit of it becomes ours, [Page 323] untill we by our merits and worthinesse have put our selves into the possession of it; so according to the Papists the efficacy of mans merits depends upon Christs merits: according to Mr. Baxter the efficacy of Christs merits (as to this or that justi­fyed person) depends upon a mans own merits, as in the fore quoted Thesis he manifesteth himself: Let all men judge whether his ambition bends not to be more then an approver, even an emi­nent improver of Popery.

5. To his third question somewhat also. In the Thesis where he gives us the order of the causes of justification, to set up his own, not Gods justification, he saith,

And in the explication pa. 214. against what he had said in the Thesis, he supposeth it will be questioned.

And pag. 217. He thus answers the question:

We have here as elsewhere a Momus among the Gods, a curious and carping Critick against not only Ecclesiasticall but Canonicall writings also, no farther owning what they speak then as they speak it in a dialecticall dialect, so setting Aristotle above Christ and weighing all the sentences of the Gospell in the scales of Logicall terms and maxims, and Socinus-like submitting all the truths of the Gospell to reason, yea to the rules of Aristotles logick or reason; Justification is an act saith he, and there is no matter of an act, ergo, it hath no materiall cause. Christ therefore and his Apostles, yea all the Doctors of the Church that speak after the Scriptures, are dunces, delivering a vain Theologie not truely Theologicall, because not after the Peripateticks precepts to­tally Logicall.

But what law of Medes and Persians can binde the holy Ghost never to mention justification but strictly under the considera­ration of an act? Will Mr. Baxter deny it sometimes to be used in a passive sense? Or what he saith of faith Thesis 62. may it [Page 324] not more truly be affirmed of justification, That as a whole Coun­try oft takes it name from the chief City, so may all the privileges and benefits of the Gospell from justification, so that when it is named all the rest are implyed and named under it? The thing in questi­on I acknowledge, (Mr. Baxter granting what he grants) is not of great moment; but the supercilious haughtinesse of the man puft with the opinion of his secular learning so high as to puf and pif at so many excellent Divines for learning and holi­nesse, to many of which he is not worthy to be an Amanuensis, is unsufferable. I shall therefore as briefly as I can expresse upon what grounds our Divines and how far they make the righteousnesse of Christ the matter of our justification, as near as I may upon good probabilities conjecture.

The Doctrine of justification by Christ, is no where in the four Evangelists held forth under the name of justification or justifying. Many both Parables and clear doctrines that proceeded from the lips of Christ, do indeed in other words fully display it; specially John the Evangelist, who made it more his task to record the doctrine then the acts of Christ (because he saw those hi­storifyed somewhat largely by the other three Evangelists which had written before him,) Eagle-like mounting on high to the contemplation of his Celestiall and Divine nature and doctrines, very exactly sets it forth but under other words, naming it Life, eternall Life, everlasting Life; He that beleeveth in the Son hath ever­lasting life, Joh. 3. 36. Is passed from death to life, Joh. 5. 24. Hath eternall life, Joh. 6. 54. My flesh which I give for the life of the world, Joh. 6. 51. And ye will not come to me that ye may have life, Joh. 5. 40. Except ye eat my flesh and drink my bloud, ye have no life in you, he that eateth me shall live by me, Joh. 6. 57. In all which and many other texts of this Evangelist none can deny but by life is to be under­stood chiefly, if not only, life in law, the life of justification, not that of glory which is to be received above, but that of grace here. For so those Scriptures point out a life here in this pre­sent world enduring everlastingly to all eternity, and not a life here only to be hoped for, and hereafter to come into our fruition. Neither do I find the word [justifie] used but once by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Nor yet at all in any one of the Epistles of the Apostles (St. James only excepted in one Chapter) but by the Apostle Paul alone. Yet the substance of justification was the chief doctrine in▪ all their Epistles handled, but the same set [Page 325] forth under the name of Salvation, saving, life, and other phrases which our Saviour himself used. And these phrases also doth St. Paul use as equipollent with the word Justifying in all his Epistles.

Now the reason why this Apostle more then the rest treats of this doctrine under the name of [justification] I conceive to be this: Because he was forced to handle it by way of controversie against the false Apostles, some professing, some rejecting Christ, that taught justification and salvation by the works of the Law in part, and not by faith only; whom therefore he must needs in his disputes treat with in their own tearms and words. Their Argumentation against the Apostle (as may be gathered from the Apostles answers) ran in this tenour and to this effect, That righteousnesse alone which justifyeth or maketh a man perfectly righteous, saveth. But the righteousnesse of the Law, is that righteousnesse alone which justifyeth or maketh man perfectly righteous, at least by procuring proper righteousnesse to him: therefore that alone saveth.

The Apostle here granteth the proposition, that no other righteousnesse but that which justifyeth or maketh a man per­fectly righteous saveth: But denyeth the assumption, that the righ­teousnesse of the Law only or at all justifyeth or maketh a man perfectly righteous: Because only the perfect doers of the law are perfectly righteous, not the hearers. But no man can perfectly do it. And contrariwise proveth that the righteousness of the Gospel which he cals the Righteousnesse of God, the Righteousnesse of faith, the Righteousnesse of God by faith, which consisteth in Christs satisfa­ction imputed to us, is the Righteousnesse which justifyeth and maketh perfectly righteous, because it cleanseth from the guilt and freeth from the imputation of all sin and unrighteousnesse. Rom. 1. 17. & 3. 5, 21, 22, 25, 26. & 4. 3, 5, 6, 11. & 5. 17, 18, 21. & 9. 30. & 10. 3, 4, 6. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Phil. 3. 9. In all which places and in many other the Apostle having rejected the righ­teousnesse of works from being, asserteth the righteousnesse of God in Christ by faith, to be the righteousnesse, the matter and substance of the righteousnesse by which we are justifyed. This he illustrateth Rom. 5. 19. by a comparison between Adam and Christ, Adams disobedience and Christs obedience, As by the dis­obedience of one man, many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one shall many be made roghteous: the ones disobedience was not only the [Page 326] merit, but also the matter of our sin, as far as sin is capable of matter, the very sin it self, which being imputed to us as being in him, without any personall and actuall sin of our own, ma­kes us sinners. So the obedience of Christ in offering himself a sacrifice for sin, and giving satisfaction to Gods justice in obe­dience to that positive command of the Father which required it, was and is not only the merit, but also the matter of that righteousnesse which being imputed to us (as being in Christ) without any personall obedience of ours added to it, consti­tuteth us righteous and justifyed in Gods acceptance, or is that for by and in which the Lord pronounceth us just and justifyed to our own consciences. Such is the frequent dispute of the Apostle about the substance and matter of that righteousnesse by which we are justify ad, which he concludes not to be a righteous­nesse inherent in us, but this Righteousnesse inherent in Christ, but imputed to us and apprehended by faith to justification; whom God hath set forth as a propitiation for our sinnes through faith in his blood, Rom. 3. 25. And this is all that I finde our Divines to mean in saying the righteousnesse or satisfaction of Christ is the materiall cause of our justification defending against the Papists as the Apostle did againsts the Pharisees, that the matter of the righteousnesse which God accepteth and imputeth to us in justifying us, or unto righteousnesse and justification, is this righteousnesse of Christ only, not the righteousnesse of works. Mr. Baxter in re­jecting the phrase, 1. As rude and not Logicall; 2. As at the best un­proper; doth first, accuse the Apostle; and secondarily, them that follow his Apostolicall doctrine and phrase, of this rudenesse and impropriety of language: One of them speaks out the minde of the rest, Deus justitiam, i. e. Obedientiam & satisfactionem Sevarpius [...]rs. Th eol. [...] justif. [...]. 925. Christi nostram facit ac pro nostra ducit, &c. atque ita nos antequam justos pronunciet justos facit; God makes the righteousnesse, i. e. the obedience and satisfaction of Christ ours, accounts it for ours, &c. and so before he pronounceth us he maketh us righteous. Let us be rude with the Apostle as long as we stand fixed in the do­ctrine of grace with the Apostles. That Mr. Baxter speaks more Logically after the Sophisters, and captivates himself to their learned errours (however he may applaud himself therein) we conceive it to deserve more pity then envie.

6. To his fourth Question I shall speak but little, because I un­derstand him but little. Neither have I that edge upon my dull [Page 327] brain to discern whether in his acutenesse he doth more con­tradict others or himself? or what other least cause he hath to contradict (granting what he grants) save [...]ly the spirit of contradiction. The formall cause of justification in his Thesis we have thus;

The question that he conceiveth will be put to him here to answer is;

To this he answers, p. 218.

Here before I can understand the depths of Mr. Baxter, I must be resolved by him in some Queries.

1. Whether justification hath its being before it hath its form? For the form doth more unexceptively give the be­ing then the name; and is in order of nature before the thing formed or named.

2. If not, Whether then there were ever a justifyed man (after the tenour of the new Covenant) upon earth, or ever shall be such? For if the acquitting of the sinner from the accusation and condemnation of the Law, or the disabling of the Law to accuse or condemn, be the form of justification, then is justifica­tion unformed and without being (according to Mr. Baxter) untill the day of Judgment. Untill then he binds all hand and foot under the threatnings and curse of the Law; as we have seen in and under his 9, 11, 12, & 13. Thesis, and how long after he doth not yet certifie us: so that if this be the form of justification, then after his principles there neither is nor shall be either justification or any justifyed person as long as the world lasteth, either in heaven or upon earth. Except Mr. Baxter will say the law is so dealt with by Christ, as Cnipperdoling was by John a Leyden, of the highest magistrate and judge made tor­mentor or hangman, deposed from being any longer a righ­teous [Page 328] Accuser, Judge or Condemner of guilty persons; and made an Executioner and Tormentor of them whom no Law accuseth or condemneth.

3. Whether the Law accuseth or condemneth of any thing else but of sin? And if not, Whether Gods acquitting the sinner from the Lawes accusation and condemnation, be not his ac­quitting the sinner from all sin that might expose him to the Lawes accusing and condemning? This Mr. Baxter must grant except he will say a man may be acquitted from the Lawes, yet left unto the Devils accusation and condemnation, as he seems before to hint. But this is no other acquitting but from the frying-pan into the fire, from a just accuser and Judge, into the tyranny of an unjust slanderer and destroyer. Such a justi­fication with its form we decline as damnation it selfe: if Mr. Baxter can with his Sophistry charm the Devill, let him grapple with him.

4. Whether the imputation of righteousnesse and the not im­puting of sin be not the same thing, neither an act distinct from the other, but each connoting and implying the other? For so he answers the question, denying imputation to be the form, viz. imputation of righteousnesse, without the adject terme of diminution, the righteousnesse [ of Christ] knowing well that some of the most considerate of the Antipapisticall Divines place the form of justification, in the imputation of righteousness, not in the imputation of Christs righteousnesse (viz. which he hath done) These two Quae [...]ies he must grant us, except he will sinke from his own principles, and contradict himself.

5. Whether then there be any difference between Mr. Baxters form of justification, and that form which he impugneth? Whether the acquitting of the sinner from the Law, from sin which ex­poseth to the Lawes accusation and condemnation, be not the same thing in substance with Gods imputing of righteousnesse, and not imputing of sin to him? What hath the one of these (save words alone) more or lesse in it then the other? They must be Mr. Baxters Lynces eyes that are busied in the speculation of Democritus his Atomes and Platoes Ideas, that can discern the diffe­rence, my blunt fancie is uncapable and uncomprehensive of it.

B. I believe (saith Mr. Baxter) that this imputing doth in order of na­ture goe before justifying.

And doth not the form in order of nature go before the thing formed? how else doth the form give it its ultimum esse? This more proves then denies imputation to be the form.

This also makes more for us, then for him. He tels us before that the forme gives the name. Now to be Legally righteous in Mr. Baxters phrase, is to be righteous in the righteousnesse of Christs satisfaction. He that is so, is justifyed in title of Law, (as Mr. Baxter termes it, and here treats of it) if then it give deno­mination of legally righteous, it gives the name of justification in title of Law; (except he will say that a man is legally righ­teous in Christ before Gods gracious act makes him such) if so, then is imputation the form of justification because it gives it its name. He concludes well;

Yet see I no other ground that Mr. Baxter hath to take up this quarrell against the whole stream of Protestant Divines in refusing and oppugning the form of justification which they give, but to quarrell about names and words. The form which he substituteth in place of theirs, being the same with theirs in sub­stance, and differing only in Logicall not Theologicall names and words. Unlesse some will say there is a reall as well as a nominall difference between the disabling of the Law to accuse of sin, and Gods not imputing sin; i. e. between the Lawes ac­quitting, and Gods acquitting from sin; between the Lawes not imputing unrighteousnesse, and Gods imputing righteousnesse; which is all one as if I should put a difference between the pardon that disables the Law of the Land from accusing and condemning of a malefactor, and a pardon which acquits him from the offence which the same Law had power to accuse him of, or between the not accusing or condemning of a man, and the not imputing any thing to him to his accusation and condemnation.

CHAP. XXV.

TO the first Question we must apply our selves somewhat more fully, because in answer to the former Questions Mr. Baxter seems to me to have aimed chiefly to the ostentation of his wit and Logicall both acutenesse and profoundnesse, to make himself thereby admired and formidable. But in answering this and the next he collects in one all his subtilty and Sophistry [...]o beguile and deceive (if it were possible) the very Elect. And in­deed if he carry these two Questions in captivity to his own sense and purpose, he shall thereby make at least a seeming way by which to introduce all his Popish soul-subverting errours (about justification) which follow and hang as at the tayle of these Questions. His words in the Thesis are.

B. The Causa sine qua non is both Christs satisfaction, and the faith of the justifyed.

As much as he thought would be objected against his putting Christs satisfaction in the same place and degree of causality as a collaterall with faith, he hath spoken to in his answer to the second Question, and the firmnesse of this his answer hath been there examined. But what concernes faith, that which he thinks he shall be opposed in, he formes into two Questions, Ex­plication, pa. 214.

• 1. Why he makes it not the Instrumentall cause?
• 2. Why he makes it the Causa sine qua non?

The former which is his 5. Question, he applies himself to answer pa. 219. in these words,

Here I know not whether we have more of the subtle serpent, or of the roaring Lyon.

1. He useth his winding Sophistry to intangle.

2. His daring threats to them that being not intangled will be so bold as to contradict him. Let us examine what efficacy there is in either or both these, and first in his Sophistry.

To insinuate or (as the Apostle saith) to creep into the hearts of his Readers to deceive them, he tels us, Perhaps he may be blamed as singular from all men in denying faith to be the instrument of justification. It seems he doubted that some of his Readers for lack of acquain­tance with many Authours upon this subject, would not, or could not take notice that it is a new doctrine which he here deliver­eth, and so he should be robbed of the glory of his new inven­tion. That the praise thereof might therefore wholly redound to him, he tels them, he is the first of men that ever saw and taught Faith not to be the instrument of justification; that here­in he is singular from all men. B [...]t had he not rubbed his fore­head, that with open face he thus vindicateth to himself that which he hath received from the Priests and Jesuites? Let him name himself singular and abhorrent from all Protestants, yea from Christ and his Apostles, not from all men; he is singular and alone in this and most his assertions from the Orthodox, from whom, but holds it in common with the whole herd of Antichrist, to whom he is fallen. Doth not Bellarmine deny that faith can truly be said to justifie us, except it doth obtain and in some sort merit Justification from God? Do not all his brethren with one voice shake off the instrumentall causality of justification and make it as a perfect quality or good work to merit it? [Page 332] A two fold subtlety, yea falshood, is there to be found therefore▪ in this his insinuation:

1. That he affirmes himself singular in this point, to catch after an usurped praise to himself, as if he had seen what none in the world before him had seen.

2. In pretending it to be a new doctrine, thereby to draw di­sciples after him in a time wherein the ears of men itch after new in disdain of sound and true doctrines. But further to insi­nuate he tels us that affectation of singularity leads him not to it. We beleeve him without oath or protestation. It is not the desire of them that are of his hair to trudge single, but accom­panied with a whole Brigade of disciple under their conducting and seducing unto Rome. But let us come to his Arguments.

His Proposition or Major we grant him. And it were enough and full to that which can be expected to refell his reasons which he brings for the proof of the minor. Yet because my drift is not so much to answer him, as to stablish some weak and unwary Christians against his impostures, I shall endeavour first to con­firm what he denyeth and seeks to shiver, and then to examine the strength of reason which he brings against us.

When he saith in the Minor, that faith is the instrument neither of God nor Man in justification; What if I should undertake to prove and defend it to be the instrument of both? He speaketh here of Justification as taken Passively, declared to, and termined upon the conscience. For if we should mention justification as taken meerly Actively, for that internall, eternall and immanent act in God; not transient upon an extraneous subject, but hid in God before the world was, or any justifyed or unjustifyed persons began to live or be: Mr. Baxter would be ready to deal with us as did the Jewes with Steven, Act. 7. 57. stop his ears and cry out against us with a loud voice, Blasphemy, blasphemy. Yet in this sense we acknowledge that saith is neither Gods nor Mans instument of justification. But in that sense which alone Mr. Baxter here taketh justification for that gracious act of God by which he dischargeth for Christs sake the sinner from condem­nation, by vertue of the new Covenant, and that pretious Gospell promise, He that beleeveth in the Son shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life: so I affirm faith to be both Gods and [Page 333] Mans instrument, Gods effective and mans receptive instrument in relation to justification, as shall be beneath more fully explained.

First, it is Gods instrument. This justification is but Gods pronouncing and declaring a man to his own conscience to be just and discharged from sin and condemnation through Christ, so that he perceives and apprehends himself absolved and doth acquiesce in this absolution. One chief instrument by which God doth thus justifie or declare and manifest man to himself just and pardoned, is faith. This is Gods instrument in the same sense in which Mr. Baxter maketh the promise and grant of the new Covenant to be Gods instrument, and that more fully (as I in part shewed before.) For that grant doth but declare a possibility to a man (as it is considered by it self) to be justifyed; promi­sing forgivenesse and life to all that shall beleeve. By this act alone no singular person is actually justifyed. But now this grant premised, when God is pleased to infuse faith into the soul of any singular person, by it as by his instrument he decla­reth that person to himself just and acquitted from condemna­tion; so that he can thenceforth plead out his own justification. God hath pronounced them all just and pardoned which be­leeve in his Son: I so beleeve, therefore I am pronounced and declared of God just and pardoned. So this faith is the instru­ment of God, (for so Lawyers term Deeds and Grants in wri­ting, instruments, yea instruments of him that makes the Deed or Grant.) And the promise of the new Covenant or the new Testa­ment is called novum Instrumentum; as it is his evidence written (not without the man as that Gospell grant) but by the finger of Gods Spirit in the hearts of the Elect, so that they may read this instrument of Gods writing within their hearts evi­dencing and manifesting to themselves their justification from God. And this is one principall instrument and evidence of God promised under the new Covenant, Jer. 31. 31-35. recited (as now fulfilled) by the Apostle, Heb. 8. 8-12. & 10. 16, 17. I will write my Lawes in their hearts, &c. what Law but the rule, do­ctrine and evidence of life and salva [...]ion? But what benefit by having it written within them, more then if it were in writing without them? Yes this, They shall not need [externall] teaching to know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least to the greatest. What knowledg of God was this whereupon they should not need teachers? They shall know him to be their God, their Justifyer, [Page 334] their Saviour, for so much intimate the next words, For I will for­give their iniquities, and remember their sins no more. This was one chief part of the Law, or will of God written in their hearts, justification or everlasting remission of sins. This they should not need to be taught from without, the instrument of writing or evidence thereof should be within their own hearts apparent, not to others but their own reading. And what more princi­pall evidence or instrument of writing within our hearts thus to assure us, then our faith, engraven by Gods own hand in us? I appeal to Mr. Baxter himself whether I wrest this Scripture from its proper sense; or if any shall except against me, I doubt not but I shall make it good to be the minde of the holy Ghost, which I have here given. To the same purpose is it, that Faith is called the Evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11. 1. Whose evidence? Gods evidence given us, by which he declareth to us, and ma­nifesteth to our consciences the invisible things of our justifi­cation and salvation: and when given, then our evidence also by which we not only apprehend, but also plead against all the accusations of the Law, yea of sin and Satan, our actuall justi­fication. And that it is called the witnesse of God in us; or, with­in us; because God by this witnesse as his instrument de­clares and evidenceth us to our own consciences justifyed, 1 Joh. 5. 10.

Secondly, It is mans instrument by which he applyeth to himself, and without which he cannot applie to himself this justi­fication, and remission of the new Covenant to know and be sen­sible of it, that he may rest and rejoyce in it, being justifyed in him­self, i. e. in his own knowledge and conscience; God was in Christ re­conciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their trespasses, 2 Cor. 5. 19. Reconciliation and Justification (as hath been sh [...]wed) are one and the same thing. That we may receive it therefore from him in Christ, he gives us (as many as are his Elect) this living faith as an instrument by which he may apply it and bring it home into our bosomes. Therefore is the operation of the soul by faith, set forth in the Scripture by a comparison of a mans work­ing by the severall members of the body as by his instruments: Calling Faith sometimes the e [...]e of man by which he looketh to Christ crucifyed as the Israelites to the brazen Serpent, thence to obtain cure to the wounded and poysoned soul, Joh. 3. 14, 15. Sometimes the foo [...] of the soul by which it runs and comes to [Page 335] Christ for life and justification, Joh. 5. 40. Sometimes the hand of the soul by which it apprehendeth Christ and the justification that is in and by him: To as many as received him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God, even to as many as beleeve in his Name, Joh. 1. 12. Sometimes the mouth of the soul by which it eateth and drinketh in Christ with the life that is in him, both to justifie and sanctifie, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life, Joh. 6. 54. If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious, 1 Pet. 2. 3. Sometimes the armes of the soul, by which it embraceth and holdeth in possession Christ with his life and righteousnesse; He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the S [...]n hath not life, 1 Joh. 5. 12. What doth all this imply lesse then that faith is instrumentall to our justification? Yea given to us to be the sole instrument on our part by which to apply to our selves the justification offered by God in Christ, Or what else is meant by the generall voice of the Gospell pronouncing us to be justifyed by faith, but by faith Gods instrument and evidence to declare and manifest it to our souls, and our instrument to apprehend and hold it fast and firm to our selves? It remaineth now to examin Mr. Baxters reasons by which he assayeth to prove that it is neither mans nor Gods instrument.

First, that it is not mans instrument, he thus argueth,

Both this and all that which followeth in this his dispute, he hath out of Schiblers M [...]taphysicks, sound enough (I acknow­ledge) as Schibler proposeth it in Thesi, but fallacious and mis­applyed by this man to his Hypothesis. Yet what ever it be (though not the least portion of Gods word in it) let us examine the strength of it It is the principall efficient, of the act or effect, that worketh by the instrument, saith he; but man is not the principall efficient, therefore worketh not in this businesse by in­struments or instrumentall helps.

I answer 1. (not only in resevence to this, but to that which also followeth in his Argumentation) We are to distinguish between instruments, that they are of two kinds, effective or re­ceptive. Effective, so is a knife the instrument of cutting: Re­ceptive, so is the hand the instrument of receiving. Mr. Baxters Arguments are applyed to the former only, not at all to the latter. For

[Page 336]1. Of an Effective instument it may be said, the knife cuts and the Man cuts likewise: But a Receptive instrument hath a double relation; 1. To the giver; 2. To the receiver. As if a rich man give a great treasure to a poor man, he receiveth it in his hand: the receptive instrument of the poor mans inriching is his hand. Now if a man should argue as Mr. Baxter doth; the hand if it be an instrument it is an instrument either of the giver or receiver; not of the receiver, for he doth not inrich himself, he is not the principall agent inriching: not of the giver, for he doth not receive any riches, but the act of the hand is to receive; therefore the instrument of neither, nor at all an instrument: Who sees not the vanity of such an Argument? Yet such is this paralogism of Mr. Baxter. I say therefore that the Canons of an instrument which he citeth out of Aquinas and Schibler, hold only of effective, not of receptive instruments. Yet as faith is Gods effective instrument to justifie man, and not himself, (as Mr. Baxter trifleth) so these Canons hold of it also in the sense before specifyed.

2. I deny the Assumption or Minor; he proves it thus, Man doth not justifie himself. This is an equivocation, and besides the question. None ever made man the causa prima of his justifica­tion, none I mean of all those whom Mr. Baxters disputes against. Himself indeed and his followers asserting the perfection and me­rit of mans righteousnesse consisting in faith and good works, and affirming that this righteousnesse of man, and in man, doth give him title to the righteousnesse which is by Christ, cannot well be cleared from making man the first tause of his justifica­tion. But we speak nothing tending to this purpose; and in no other sense do we say that man acteth to his justification, but by this apprehending and applying to himself the justification of God. And in this respect man is not only the principall but also the sole efficient of apprehending or receiving Christ to justification, and faith his alone receptive instrument therein, by the instrumentall subsurviency of his faith in receiving Christ. We make it not mans instrument of Christs satisfaction, or of Gods acceptation, or of his declaring, but only of our applying it to our soules.

That it is not Gods instrument, he hath these reasons to prove.

A meer bull, with which he jeers and scoffes, not only at all the Protestant Divines, but also at Christ and his Apostles, as poor sorry animals and asses, unworthy to be answered with reasons, but with absurd non-sense.

1. Faith in one was never used or ordained to be an in­strument of justifying another, much lesse faith in God to justi­fie man.

2. He can conclude nothing else hence but this, God beleeveth not, therefore God is not justifyed or discharged from condem­nation by the new Covenant.

3. He doth in the Magisteriall confidence of his heart, impli­citely accuse Christ his Apostles and faithfull Teachers in his Church, to hold that God is the instrument of our justification, that the Principall agent and the instrument are the same thing, that the instrument must be in the Agent or cannot be his in­strument, so that faith must be G [...]d himself, for whatsoever is in God is God himself; the immanent acts of God, are Gods acting. These are all but slanderings of the Lords servants, to make odious the doctrine which they deliver.

4. We make faith in man, not in God, Gods effective instru­ment, which he infundendo creat & creando infundit, and having wrought it in the soul, he doth put it also in acting, thereby to evidence to man his justification. As some great and munifi­cent Lord having laid up a great treasure for one of his poorest and most abject servant in some secret place; tels him first what he hath done, bestowes it fully and freely upon him: but the servant not finding it is never the richer, because he hath not the possession of it. At length the Lord lights a torch, guides his servant to the secret place, and by the light of the torch shewes him the treasure (which before in the minde and pur­pose of the doner was wholly his) bids him to see and possesse: Here the torch is that Lords instrument by which he discovered to his servant the treasure, and evidenced him to be indeed enriched. So and much more compleatly is faith Gods instru­ment by which he justifies us to our selves, i. e. declareth and evidenceth us to be just and justifyed.

Either I understand him not, or he speaks words without mat­ter, or words that are nothing to the matter in hand. He is [Page 338] speaking of justification as of a transient act of God upon man in time. This act of God we acknowledge no other but Gods declaring and evidencing man to himself justifyed, Gods mani­festation or pronouncing his justification to his conscience. How man in this act of God should be the causa secunda between God in the action, he explaines not, and I perceive not. That man is the causa secunda between God in the application of justi­fication so manifested, I deny not. But in this doth man no more justifie himself then is above expressed. Or because it is faith in man which we pronounce to be Gods instrument of justifying; is therefore man causa secunda, or a self-justifyer: nay, faith even in man is Gods Creature, and the same, nothing of mans essence; Not of our s [...]lves, it is the gift of God, Ephes. 2. 8. May not God lay up his own instruments where it pleaseth his will and wisdome, for his own use? or ceaseth it to be Gods instrument or in Gods hand, when it is laid up in the heart of man for his good?

Obj. But faith acts not in man without man as the second cause acting it, and by such acting his faith, man should justifie himself.

Sol. We make not man a stone, nor degrade him into a dead block, we grant of him that actus agit. He hath not lost his free-will, but all possibility of being saved by it, all the spiritualnesse of it, that without a new reparation of it, it can will nothing in matters of salvation concurrent and conforming with the will of God. But all mans actings of his faith when he is so renewed and moved by the prime cause, is but to the receiving and appli­cation of his justification evidenc [...]d to him: As it is Gods in­strument and acted by God, so it is Gods evidence to manifest to him his justification. It is Mr. Baxt [...]r and his fellowes that by their doctrine make m [...]n self-justifyers. Teaching that Gods justification is conditionall, and the alone instrument of God therein, viz. the Gospell, holds forth the same universally to all, no lesse eff [...]ctually to them that reject it, then to them that em­brace it. But that it is a mans faith and obedience begun and continued in untill the day of judgment, that makes this justi­fication to be the justification of each singular person that is to be justifyed; and so Gods instrument of justification justifyeth but conditionally; i. e. no one singular man actually and abso­lutely. It's man that by his faith and works makes Gods univer­sall [Page 339] justification to be his proper justification and Gods condi­tionall justification to be his actually and absolutely. It is God that justifyeth all with a common and conditionall justifi­cation, but it is every mans task to make, and his own act when he hath made this justification to be really and undoubtedly his. Therefore he doth but gaze here to finde a moate in his brothers eies, fastening the beam in his own.

I couple these two together because they are as twins that shew no malignity in their faces, but are by Mr. Baxter made to carry fire in their tails, Who dares to say? and who dare say? What if we should say it? must we expect a broken head from the Challenger? Is it but a word and a blow with him? Or doth he affright us with Gods judgments from saying it? is it his mean­ing, who hath so little fear or conscience towards God as to offend him and derogate from his glory in saying it? O that there had been but a moytie of the reverence and conscience to­ward God, to annihilate man, and advance the glory of Gods grace, in Mr. Baxter, which aboundeth in many of those whom he here opposeth; he then surely would have cast this pernicious pamphlet of his into hell-fire, (if it had been possible) rather then published it to the nulling of Gods, and deifying of mans righteousnesse. But to the matter, we dare and that in the fear and presence of God to aver,

1. That the declaration of a man to his own conscience and evidencing to his soul that he is justifyed in Christ, to be the one and same action of God the principall cause and of faith the instrument. The declaration and manifestation of justification to the soul is here the action, God as the principall cause doth it by faith his evidence and instrument; faith as the instrument and evidence doth it from God as the principall cause, in manner before expressed. God healed Naaman of his Leprosie by the water of Jordan as his instrument; did many wonders in Egypt, and in the Sea, and in the wildernesse by Moses his Rod as his instrument; subverted the wals and Towers [Page 340] of Jericho by the instrumentall subserviency of mens voices and the sound or winde of Rams horns and Trumpets: Christ gave sight to the blind man by a plaister of clay applyed to his eyes. Will he not acknowledg all these wonders to be the actions both of God the principall cause, and of these so feeble instru­ments also? The despicablenesse of the instruments and means do not spoyl God of, but visibly attribute unto God the whole glory of his grace and power which in the use of more noble instruments would not appear so sensibly unto some apprehen­sions; much more is the same action the action both of God and faith his instrument, and this without all seeming ground of contradiction, when we attribute not to faith any instrumen­tality under God to the working or effecting, but only to the declaring and evidencing to man his justification, before effected and compleated in God and in Christ.

And 2. That faith as Gods instrument hath influx (in its kinde) to produce this effect [the evidencing of mans justifica­tion to himself] by a proper causality. I mean not, Mr. Bax­ter I thinke means not by a causality that is naturally its own and proper to it: but by a proper causality which God hath given it in appointing and using it as his instrument to produce the effect. Will deny any this to be true of the forementi­oned instruments? He that made them his instruments begat in them a causality, and power instrumentally by and under him to produce those effects.

Indeed to Mr. Baxter in respect of his principles, that denies Justification as an immanent act in God constituting and ac­cepting us righteous, and will have this to be done only by a temporaneous and transient act of God by the grace of the new Covenant, these assertions must seem to have some monstrosity upon their faces, that faith should be so the instrument of God in justifying or making us just. Yet such as he can easily swallow, because on the other side his justification is but an universall conditionall justification, i. e. a justification in a pos­sibility, or impossibility, but not at all in being; and that faith should be termed the conditionall instrument of God in produ­cing a conditionall justification▪ I see not why it should set the man in a chafe, he puts the dare to it therefore (I suppose) to make it too hot for the swallowing of weak and fearfull Christians. To them that know whosoever are justifyed in themselves, that [Page 341] is, declared to be such within their own consciences, the same were justifyed in God in Christ from all eternity: so that fai [...]t is Gods instrument only to evidence them to themselves and in themselves justifyed, not to justifie them in Gods mind and will: (for there they are justifyed without instruments) there is no­thing formidable, nor rough in these assertions.

The objection which he addes, by which he pretends we seek to evade, we own not, neither have we need in the defence of truth to seek evasions. Let him name some one of his [some] that have so ob­jected a passive instrument of justification, or else leave us to con­clude that the objection is of his own head; partly to take advan­tage thereby, yet further to take his pastime in his Logicall and Metaphysicall learning, which may possibly please him but never justifie or save him; and partly by shewing the weaknesse of the objection to gull his unwary reader with an opinion of the weak­nesse of their cause, who are forced with such Egyptian reeds (for lack of better pillars) to sustain it. It is one of the Jesuits principles to fetch armes indifferently either from heaven or hell to storm the Church and truth of Christ, and to promote the holy mo­ther harlot of Rome. But I am weary following him while he brings nothing but the Socinians right reason to be judge of the Mysterious doctrines of Christ; and fear whether it be answerable before God, to spend time in answering his babble with babble again; for the truth of Christ doth neither stand nor fall by what can be said for it or against it out of the principles or learning of abused Aristotle. Let Mr. Baxter call to minde what he hath read as elsewhere, so in his adored Schibler in the second book of his Metaph. Cap. 3. in his interserted oration, a little before the end of that book, pa. 211. (of the book printed at Oxford) con­cerning the sophister, convinced by an unlearned Confessour after his almost victorious disputes against all the Doctors of the Nicene councell many dayes together: If he take it for a truth, it may help to convince him, that God is more effectually pre­sent in disputations about Evangelicall matters, when they are totally confined to the Word, then when they are handled af­ter the rule and in the Predicament of carnall reason. It argues that he undertakes a businesse not for God, but against him, else would he not cast away spirituall and take up fleshly arms to maintain it. But fith Mr. Baxter is Mr. Baxter, we shall crave leave to speak the lesse to him henceforth where we find him [Page 342] to have little of the word, and reserve our selves to speak more largely where the man for his recreation vouchsafeth to abase himself so low as to meddle with Scriptures.

I have before expressed in what sense we make or at least hold faith to be mans instrument in applying Justification to him­self. And 2. have manifested the testimonies and authority of the Scripture herein; so that Mr. Baxter if he list (as it listeth him) to cavill, cavils not so much against all godly Protestant writers whom he opposeth, as against the holy Ghost, speaking by the mouth of Christ himself, and his Apostles, whom thorow the loins of those he smites at. It is not the first time that he hath accused Christ and the holy Ghost in this manner of impropriety and unfitnesse of expressions in Scriptures. And why? because they speak not enough logically, and in all probability never read thorow Aristotles Metaphysicks. But let us hear what he can say [Page 343] here to prove the unpropernesse of that language which calleth faith an instrument of receiving Christ and justification in and by him. His reasons are above in his own words ren­dered.

To the first I answer, Mr. Baxter makes and layes his own principles of Religion, and from them, as from an impreg­nable mount he battereth Christ and his doctrine. Should we grant him that faith is the receiving of Christ, yet

1. How shall it appear otherwise then by Mr. Baxters own Magisteriall dictates, that justifying faith is nothing else but the receiving of Christ?

2. Why else doth he make it simply and only a quality or act of the soul without the adjection of its originall from above, but to ingenerate into the minds of men an opinion that it hath its emanancy and rise from nature, from freewill, that every man may have and act it, if, and when he will; and that it is not infused of God to be instrumentall by his appointment for the producing of any spirituall effect?

3. How doth he prove that onely the act of faith justi­fyeth? Yet

4. If all these dubious things were granted to him, his own words therein tend to the confirmation rather then the infirm­ing of the main conclusion which he opposeth that faith is the instrument of justification. For if the act of faith be the receiving, then must faith it self so acting be the receptrix, or that by which we receive Christ: but that by which man receiveth Christ is instrumentall to his receiving of justi­fication; for Christ is made of God to us righteousnesse, he that hath Christ hath life; specially this will follow upon Mr. Baxters principle of Christ and justification given to all universally, to none in particular; he must be made ours there­fore by receiving him; and if faith doth receive, how doth it receive but as an instrument? or whereas the well is deep, and we have nothing of our own to draw with, what shall be the instrument of drawing and receiving if faith be not it?

5. And in this lyeth Mr. Baxters Sophism, that he puts the act of faith for faith actuated. Though the act of faith were the receiving of Christ, yet faith actuated and acting is that by which we receive Christ, and to say that by which we receive is the instrument of our receiving [Page 344] is not a hard but a proper saying. The act of Mr. Baxters hand was the writing of these lines. To say that his writing was the instrument of his writing is a hard saying; but to say his hand acted in writing was his instrument of writing it is not a hard saying.

To the second. It is wholly Sophisticall. For when he saith,

1. The sanctifyed faculty it self cannot be the souls instrument, because it is the soul it self: what is this to the purpose? Where­fore puts he the soul for the man, but to cheat in stead of infor­ming his reader? If any say faith is the instrument of the soul, he speaks by a Synecdoche, putting the part, the chief essentiall part of man for the whole man, after the common use of the Scriptures; and why may not the severall faculties of the soul be as well mans instruments as the severall members of the body? It is not unproper to call the eye the instrument by which man seeth; or his ear the instrument of hearing; or the the tongue of speaking; or the hand of working, &c. and why should it be then unproper to call the faculties of the soul the instru­ments of man to act those offices by each faculty to which each faculty is appropriated? Or when faith is infused into the soul, doth it disinstrument the faculties thereof, that they become no more instrumentall to man in their places? Nay it makes them instrumentall to work henceforth upon spirituall, as before upon naturall and morall objects. And this also answereth his second reason why the habit of faith cannot fitly be called our instrument; because (saith he) the holinesse of the faculties is not their instrument. I grant it, but this is not the question. That which he was to disprove is, that faith makes not the facul­ties of the soul into which it is infused, instrumentall to the applying of Christ to justification. The Compasse is the Ma­riners instrument by which to steer his ship, yet would it be nothing instrumentall to this purpose were it not touched with the Loadstone that points it to the North-pole; so are the will and understanding instrumentall to the receiving of Christ and justification in and by him: not by any innate power in them­selves, but as they are touched and pointed directly by faith, to the bloud of Christ for justification; as to the doctrine of Christ for illumination, and to the Spirit of Christ for sanctifi­cation. And for this cause we call not so much the faculty of [Page 345] the soul the instrument, as faith, because faith makes it instru­mentall to justification. The power and disposition which it hath to this act being not naturall from it self, but supernaturall from faith infused into it, and working on it. In stead of an­swering in order to every particle of what he addeth, it shall suffice to discover his Sophistry by which he seeketh to elude a sacred truth of the Gospell, in all that he saith upon this Argument, and this will be enough in answer to all that he saith, yea manifest him unworthy of an answer. As before he first maketh all the instrumentality or causality (whether proper or improper) of faith to consist in the act of faith, or faith actuated; as if the Chirurgeons instruments were not his in­struments while they lie by him, but then only while he actu­ally useth them in the severall offices to which they are ap­pointed; and faith were no longer an instrument (if an instru­ment) of justification, then while it is actually receiving Christ, and so the same man should be justifyed and unjustifyed oft in the same day, in the same hour, being no longer justifyed then while faith is in the act of applying Christ. And

2. In contracting the whole man, yea Christian into a soul as if we did make such a faculty of the soul the souls and not the mans instrument to receive Christ, which himself knoweth to be the meaning of no one of them against whom he fighteth, but a slanderous and subtle trick of his own devising to make their doctrine seem absurd in an alien sense, which in their own sense he can in no wise confute. So

3. Here he further sophisticateth and perverteth their do­ctrine, in contracting the whole man (not only into a soul, which he had done before, but) into some one or two facul­ties of the soul into which faith is infused and inherent as in its subject, as if they taught that faith is the instrument of a faculty, and not mans instrument. The holinesse of the facul­ties is not their, i. e. the faculties instrument (saith he) but themselves rectifyed. The absurdities therefore which he in­fers as consequents of such an assertion are the consequents of his slander, not of their doctrine. None ever taught faith to be the instrument of a faculty, or instrumentall to justifie a facultie, but mans instrument and nstrumentall to justifie man.

[Page 346]4. In supposing it as a thing granted that faith in the soul or faculties of the soul is nothing but the holinesse of such faculties, or their being rectifyed, and not a being di­stinct so distinct as may be called their instrument; a do­ctrine well agreeing with his principles who makes sanctifi­cation the condition of justification, and no further attri­butes any thing to faith but as it is a part of our sanctification, Pag. 195. n. 5, 6. and thorowout this whole Treatise: but altogether denied by the Protestant Churches, which ascribe not to faith any instrrumentality to justification, as it is a part of our holinesse and rectitude; but as by a supernaturall virtue which it infuseth into the soul to carry it out to Christ, to God in Christ for remission and reconciliation. Otherwise godlinesse, hope, love, meeknesse, and all other the fruits of the Spirit, should justifie us equally with faith, because the holinesse and rectitude of the soul consisteth no lesse in these then in faith. And this is the thing in question, if we grant it all is granted which the worst of Jesuites seeks, or Mr. Baxter in this whole book contends for; so that to make the whole thing in question, a known and granted conclusion from which he will prove a particle in question, is too grosse and un- Baxterlike a Sophism; he is wont to spin finer webs, what make such course threads in his fingers? And why saith he, Not so distinct? is faith a being distinct from the faculty in which it is? Even this that it is a being distinct from the essence of man, speaks it capable of an instrumentality to mans justification, especially God having appointed and fit­ted it to that end; much more of being an instrument in ge­nerall for mans use, which is all that Mr. Baxter should have denyed, when he denies it to be the faculties instru­ment.

5. In reiterating the soul for the whole man, and annex­ing captious words to it, Who ever called habits or dispositions the souls instruments? Thus he playes the Sophister to make the instrumentality of faith ridiculous, as if we affirmed it instrumentall to justification quatenus as it is, and only in this respect because it is a habit or disposition of the soul; when contrariwise we ascribe this power and office to it, as it is a virtue or gift of grace, endewed with this property from [Page 347] the author of it to cleave to Christ, and draw forth the soul with it to Christ for justification, as hath been before expressed; and in this office it hath no other habit, power, or disposition of the soul naturall or infused, a corrivall with it.

6. He at last deals no lesse sophistically in his comparisons; You may as well call (saith he) a mans life his instrument of acting, or the sharpnesse of a knife the knives instrument, as to call our holi­nesse or habituall faith the instrument of receiving Christ. The ap­titude of a cause to produce its effect, cannot be called the in­strument.

There is no parity in the Comparison: Life to acting, and faith to receiving of Christ are not (Mr. Baxter will not say they are) in one and the same kinde and order of causes and effects. Besides, one of the effects is put with the other subtle­ly left without an object, as if the receiving of Christ were no more then, and altogether as naturall to man, as receiving indefinitely any naturall object; so that albeit this Compa­rison may stand in some parity with a naturall and civill faith without the object Christ annexed to it, yet the divine faith, whereof we hear speak, is of an another, an upper and higher region, and agrees not in motion with the naturall life, or with the naturall or civill faith. The one moves its course and opera­tion in a way that God by nature hath prescribed, and the other in the way which God by grace hath prefixed. Their orbs are se­vered, and not confounded either with other. As for the other Comparison, the sharpnesse of the knife: Nothing else un­doubtedly but the sharpnesse of M. Baxters wit could have devised it. Is then faith in man no more then sharpnesse in a knife? What good then might a ship-load of whet-stones and grinding-stones do among the Turks to make them Christians? The sharp­nesse of the knife is not any thing really distinct from the knife; it is otherwise with the faith of a man. The knife is mans instrument, the sharpnesse thereof is but the aptitude of the instrument by which man as the efficient produceth the effect. How shall this square in the Comparatum? Man must be the principall efficient cause, what will he assigne to be the instrument whereof faith is the aptitude to produce the effect?

But I fear of transgressing by following him, that— Par­vis comp [...]nere magna solebat: That dares with audacious ar­rogance to measure the bottomlesse ocean in his fist, and to try Celestiall and Spirituall things in the scales of Nature, and to compare, not with the Apostle, spirituall things with spirituall, 1 Cor. 2. 13. but with carnall; profanely ma­king the Mysteries of Christ to be rather the whetstone of his wit, then the object of his reverence and ballast of his conscience.

I shall forbear here to add my judgment concerning what faculty or faculties of the soul are the subject of faith; Whether faith may be more properly said to receive Christ by the faculty, or the faculty by faith? How far faith in the habit, and how far in the act may be said to justifie? These and other things may come more properly to be handled afterward then in this place. It shall suffice that here notwithstanding Mr. Baxters winnowings, yet faith faileth not from being our instrument of applying or receiving Christ.

Eightly, The latter which he maketh his sixth Question, Why he maketh faith the C [...]usa sine qua non, he thus en­deavours to maintain, as it followeth in the n [...]xt Chapter.

CHAP. XXVI.

Short and in compasse of words little is it which he here speaketh, yet if we look to the matter thereof in it two things are principally to be examined.

1. That he makes faith the condition of justification, and what he means by that term?

2. That he cals it the Causa sine qua non. He means (question­lesse) the same thing by both, but the words differ, and he useth both, as by both together, so by either part to get advan­tage to his cause. Therefore I shall examine them severally.

To the former I have spoke somewhat largely before in the examination of his 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 43, 44, & 45. Theses, as he gave me occasion in these severall positions to answer what he there asserted of conditionall justification. I have therefore here the lesse to speak, referring the reader to what hath been spoken before. Yea in this point I should be totally silent, because Mr. Baxter in words speaks no more here then what some of our most sound and godly Divines have spoken before him (that faith is the condition of justification) were it that Mr. Baxter meaneth as they mean. For though in the best meaning of the best men the propriety of the terms or phrase may be much questioned and give occasion of much dispute, yet traversing controversies about words, when there is agreement in the substance to which both parties drive, is in my apprehension a businesse so far tending to distracti­ons and breach of union among the Saints, that it is the last and least Trade (I am confident) that ever will befall me to drive. But in this point though Mr. Baxter here speaks in words what some of ours have said, and do say still, and that without [Page 350] any detriment (that I can see) to the Gospell: Yet his mea­ning and theirs are in no lesse antipathie then a Hawk and a Heron, and that as in other lesser, so principally in these particulars of moment.

1. By faith they mena our application, or faith as it is our instrument of applying Christ and the grace of God in Christ to our justification; he by faith means not only the [...] credere as a part of our inherent righteousnesse, but as a generall and common word that compriseth within it self all good qua­lifications and good works whatsoever, as elsewhere, and specially in and under his 70, & 71. Theses he declareth himselfe; so that he makes and under the word Faith understandeth all these as equall conditions with faith of our justification.

2. By condition they mean that which being once attained and once fixed upon Christ, speaks us absolutely justifyed for ever. So that in calling faith the condition of justification, they mean we cannot be justifyed without it, but having once by faith apprehended Christ we are by it united and joyned to Christ, and by force of our union with him are thenceforth absolutely and irrevocably pardoned and accepted as righteous in Gods fight. He cals it so a condition as that it continues still a con­dition, justifying us only conditionally and not absolutely, so that it leaves our estate still one and the same, no more justifyed and pardoned when beleevers then when unbeleevers: For by the satisfaction of Christ we are before faith cometh conditionally justifyed if we beleeve, and when faith is come we remain still but conditionally justifyed if we beleeve, our safety being as loose and uncertain then as before, depending still upon the residence and abode of faith in us as before it did upon the possibility of its future ingeneration into us and acting in us; and that we are no longer justifyed then while we beleeve and obey: so that by beleeving and unbeleeving, obeying and rebelling we may be justifyed and unjustifyed a­gain a thousand times before we die, and how often after, himself expresses not. I need not mention more, these two diffe­rences are enough to declare that although here he speak in the same tone with some of our Divines, yet his judgement no more agrees with theirs then the Pope with Luther and Calvine, Elymas with Paul, Simon Magu [...] with Peter, or the Scribes and Pharisees with Christ.

In stead of speaking what might be further expected, I shall onely content my self here to lay open some of the many monstrous absurdities and mischiefs that follow this doctrine.

1. It proclaims mutability in God, and alteration in his minde and will, as swift and sudden as in mutable and sinfull man. For if God justifie and unjustifie, forgive and unforgive, love and hate, as oft as belief and unbelief, obedience and dis­obedience do nod and succeed either after other in man through infirmity, then is there no more stedfastnesse and consistency with himself, in God then in man: but rather God is swayed hither and thither in willing and nilling, love and hatred by in­flux from man (as the Sea by the influx of the Moon) then man by influx from God. Mr. Baxter sees this absurdity, as well as his fellows the Arminians, and goes about here and there, by the Arminians Sophisms (for lack of better) to wipe off the stain: telling us that the change is in man the object, and not in God. God hates Paul unbeleeving and persecuting, but loves him be­leeving and obeying, the change is here in the object, not in God, No more then the Sun is changed by the variety of the Creatures, which it enlightneth and warmeth; or the glasse by the variety of faces, which it represents; or the eye by the variety of colours, which it beholdeth, pag. 174. But Aethiopem dealbat. If God love to salvation, and hate to damnation one and the same person, and love succeeds into the place of hatred, and hatred into the place of love, and God that erewhile willed the salvation, anon willeth the dam­nation, and after that again the salvation of the same man, &c. (as this kinde of Anti-Gospellers assert) this is one and the same mutablenesse in God, whether it proceed from a principle of inconstancy within, or from the mutation of the object with­out him. It denies not the Chameleons that change their colour from white to black, and black to white, to be mutable, because these changes befall them from outward objects the divers colour­ed Carpets on which they are laid. Or if he shall object (as do the Arminians) Here is no shew of change in God, for God chan­geth not his purpose of saving, because he had never but a con­ditionall purpose and will to save, viz. if man will beleeve and obey; and this conditionall intent remains in God still, toge­ther with a conditionall intent to hate and damn him if he perform not the conditions. I should answer him in the words [Page 352] of our Divines in answer to the Arminians; and Mr. Baxter knows them to be beaten with shame out of this plea, therefore to decline the strokes, I finde him not yet adventuring to make use of this obiection.

2. It denies (in effect and substance) the justification and re­mission of any man in this life, for to forgive upon such a con­dition, as no man hath power in himself to perform, is but a verball; not a reall forgivenesse. And Mr. Baxter will not let out one gry or iote from his lips that shall give hope to the sinner, yea to the believer of any dram of grace and power, that the Lord will minister to the Elect more then to the reprobates for the supportation of their Faith: and from themselves they have all propensivenesse to fall, and no strength to stand. In this respect therefore he makes the state of beleevers worse then the state of unbeleevers. For Miserrimum est fuisse beatos, To have had Faith, yea Christ in hand, and Heaven in hope, and then to fall from all, makes their case more miserable, in the losse of it, then it would have been if they had never had any thing in hand or in hope.

It utterly destroyeth all joy in beleeving, all peace of Consci­ence, all consolation in the holy Ghost, while it sets the belee­ver in the arms of Christs love, and participation of his merits and benefits, as Dionysius placed Damocles at his table with all sumptuous provisions before him, Musick, attendance, and what­soever else was Majestical or delightful to cheer him; but with a sharp sword hanging by a single hair over his head threatning him. No other (after Mr. Baxter) is the state of a beleever, in all his most spiritual enlargements and comforts in Christ, there is but a single hair between him and hell fire. Death is in the pot of all his contentments. Fear of imminent vengeance gives him not leave to taste one of the sweet morsels upon, or crums that fall from Gods table. And this is a Gospel from hell, contrary to the everlasting Gospel which Christ brought from heaven, giving a joy that none shall take from beleevers, Joh 16. 22. The foundation thereof, the love of God in Christ, remaining immutable, impreg­nable; I am perswaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor prin­cipalities, &c. shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, Rom 8. 38, 39.

4. Whereas there are three acts considerable about our Justifi­cation, [Page 353] 1. Christs giving; 2. Gods accepting the satisfaction given for us; and 3. Gods justifying or declaring, and evidencing us justified in and to our consciences, for this satisfaction so given and accepted; I would here demand of which of these Faith is a Condition. If he say of Christs giving satisfaction, this is a contradiction; for Christ gave satisfaction before we be­leeved or lived; so that Faith which came after could not be the Condition of an Act that went before, except he will say that Christ must so oft dye as sinners attain to beleeve: If of Gods acceptance, then more is ascribed to our faith then to Christs death for our justification, and faith shall be more then collateral with the sacrifice of Christ to our salvation, the sufficiency of satisfaction remaining only in Christs bloud, but the efficacy thereof arising from mans faith: yea and so Christ should have paid our debts, and spilt his bloud for us at the feet of the Father without knowing whether he would accept it or no, and so whe­ther there should be the least fruit of his death (for the justifica­tion of the beleevers before his death is but conditionall untill the day of Judgement after Mr. Baxter, and what may fall out as touching the apostasie of their souls before that day is uncer­tain.) And it being not known of those that should come after him, who or whether any would beleeve and persevere in belee­ving. If of Gods justifying us in our selves, i. e. declaring and evi­dencing us justified, we do in some cases acknowledge that God hides his face and evidenceth not his love in Christ in the same degree to all beleevers, but in God and in Christ they are still justified, and their salvation is sure. But Mr. Baxter shakes off this Act of Justification in disdain, therefore the absurdities which follow in his conditions in respect of one of the former cannot be avoided. I forbear to enlarge my self further in this kinde here having spoken to it before, and finding a necessity of speaking more afterward.

But it will be expected that Mr. Baxters Arguments be rather answered, then his conclusion denyed and opposed; let us there­fore examine them; as far as I can finde they are in number two, by which he proveth faith to be the condition of justification.

1. It is plain and undenyable. This I acknowledge is a Noli me tangere, strikes dead in the place, renders the respondent as mute as a fish: Let a wiser man undertake, it is past my skill to answer.

[Page 354]2. The whole tenor of the Gospel shews that: specially such Scriptures as give their testimony of our justification in Christ before faith entred to purifie our hearts: When we were without strength, when sinners, when enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death, and justified by the bloud of his Son, Rom. 5. 6, 8, 9, 10. While we were in our blood, polluted, Ezek. 16. 6. While yet unborn, and had done neither good n [...]r evil, Rom. 9. 11. 13. When yet of the world, and not served from the common masse of mankinde, Joh. 3. 16. God loved us to salvation, While yet dead in sins and trespasses, he hath quickned and saved us by grace, Ephes. 2. 5. Blotting out the hand-writing, &c. forgiving all our trespasses, unto us in Christ while yet hanging on the Crosse, Col. 2. 13, 14, 15. making us accepted in Christ the be▪ loved, Ephes. 1. 6. putting away our sin and perfecting us for ever by the sacrifice and blood of Christ, i. e. in Christ offering himself and his bloud in sacrifice, Heb. 9. 26. & 10. 14. and all this before we had a being who now live, much more before we were in a ca­pacity of having any condition in our selves of Justification: As also such Gospel Scriptures as affirm this remission, or justifica­tion unreversible, calling it an eternal redemption, Heb. 9. 12. a per­fecting of us for ever, Heb. 10. 14. so that there is no more condemnation, Rom 8. 1. no more remembrance of iniquity, Heb. 10. 17. no more sepa­ration from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 39. and other many such testimonies before in part quoted, and partly remaining to be alleadged if occasion shall require; all which do concur in one harmony to evince Justification once obtained to depend upon no conditions, but to be absolute and indefeasable, that if any fall away, it is because they only seemed, but never were in the number of the truly justified, 1 Joh. 2. 19. Whoso­ever layeth all these together, and will not be convinced that Faith in Mr. Baxters sense is the condition of Justification, but will beleeve the Gospel it self more then what Mr. Baxter speak­eth of the Gospel; for any thing that I know, he may remain the Disciple of Christ, and unconvinced still.

In the Appendix, in the answer to the six and seven Questions or Objections, pag. 41. to the 46. Mr. Baxter makes it his task again to prove the justification of the New Covenant to be con­ditionall and not absolute. But so poorly doth he there handle his dispute, so unlike Mr. Baxter, who when Scriptures fail him, is elsewhere wont to play his game with Sophistry [Page 355] (which here doth very little help him;) that unto a discreet man nothing can more breed a suspicion of the goodnesse of the cause, then the hard shifts, confusednesse, contradictions, and other weak devices and extravagancies, to which so accomplisht a scholar is put (even when he hath no opponent but a meer question) to make it seem probable. How doth the man put himself here into a wood or wildernesse, seeking but finding no certain way out, acting his wit and study to the highest to expe­dite himself in a cleer way that might be visible and plain to him­self and others? and not finding it, he at last doth what may be done in such a labyrinth, trusteth to groping for what he can­not see. And first he seems to have found in the dark a two-fold Covenant of Grace, one absolute, and the other conditional. First then he follows the absolute Covenant, if that will or can lead him with certainty to any safety or shew of reason what to speak of it, as he makes it contradistinct to the Conditional Covenant, or Justification; that the former which he cannot deny may stand as a cipher, but this be the Numeral, and only in power and force: here he is carryed in a maze of doubts and rovings, not finding where to pitch.

1. Pag. 41. Sect. the 42. he would shake off this absolute Ju­stification as a Prophesie and promise made only to the Jews, not extending to us: but here the Apostle meets him in the way, Heb. 8. 8, 9. otherwise expounding the Scripture that holds it forth: so that this shift fails him.

2. He questions whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise, or else in an opposition to he knows not what; but foreseeing what would herein be answered, he lets fall this too, pag. 42.

3. He brings something which he thinks will hold water: that this absolute Covenant of Justification is made with the Elect, and not with mankinde in generall. What is this to the purpose? He is here treating of the New Covenant as it respect­eth Justification. And what one Scripture can he produce that tels us of all mankinde, and not of the Elect only justified? In what a straight is the man, that in stead of distinctions, which were ever wont to be his Egyptian Reed to succour him, he is forced to fly to confusions for help? For so he confounds together here the promulgation of Justification with Justification in its beeing, [Page 356] or with the being of it, when these are different. As well might he pronounce the rich glutton to be no lesse blessed in seeing then was Lazarus by being in Abrahams bosome, as to pronounce all mankinde justified, because Christ is conditionally offered to all for Justification. We have granted before the promulgation and offer of Justification by the Gospel to be conditionall, but the gift and beeing of it to be absolute. Neither is there any thing in this offer to our Justification in Christ which is abso­lute before and without any promulgation or conditionall offer thereof to us. Nor any thing to the justified and actually declared just in themselves: Justification is no longer in a conditionall offer to them, but in its absolute being within them. Whatso­ever therefore he addeth there pag. 43, 44. is wide from the que­stion, being not limited to the Justification of the New Cove­nant which is the subject of his Treatise, which here he shunneth and talketh extravagantly about sanctification, because he can­not confute the absolute justification, but that it doth and will stand, and standing will not admit a conditional justification to stand with it and by it, in its beeing, though the offer thereof (before it is in beeing) be conditionall.

And this is all which at length he concludeth pag. 45. of the conditionall Covenant of Grace, which without all this circui­tion would have been granted him: viz. that it is propounded and offered to mankinde conditionally, if they will beleeve, and without this faith none hath or shall have the benefit and com­fort thereof to themselves and in themselves, because all these that do not or shall not (being in a capacity to) beleeve are repro­bates, and as many as are elect shall come to Christ and beleeve in him, as hath been before shewed.

What he addeth for the application may have some pertinency to the matter there objected, but it hath none to the thing here in question. Therefore I passe it by as not concerning us.

2. To his Causa sine qua non, briefly thus.

1 In so tearming Faith he denyes faith to be any cause at all of our Justification, for that is but Causa [...]quivoca, or nomine te­nus, or titulo tenus, hath but the name not the nature of a cause, hath no causality upon, gives no influx into the effect.

2 Neither whatsoever it be, is Faith the Causa sine qua non of Justification, in that sense as Mr. Baxter taketh and defineth it ei­ther [Page 357] in his stricter or larger definition: except he will say that no Infants are justified, who do not, cannot accept Christ, much lesse so beleeve as in his larger definition he sets forth faith.

3 Faith is not the Causa sine qua non of our justification in God, no nor yet in Christs Justification (as he tearms it) for these are antecedaneous to our faith, and our faith not an antecedent to it.

4 At the utmost it can be but the Causa sine qua non of Gods declaring and evidencing of our selves to our selves justified; and this justification Mr. Baxter so disdaineth and snuffs at, that he will not own it much lesse mention it. Yet can he not with all his Sophistry name any other act of justification in this life where­of faith can be proved to be the Antecedent, Medium, or Causa sine qua non.

5 Why doth he call faith and all the conqualifications wherewith he loadeth the shoulders thereof, and all the works which he makes its Concomitants, the Causa sine qua non, as if all these with their Colaterall in the other scale of his ballance, Christs satisfaction, did make up the one and sole Causa sine qua non of our justification; can none else be named? Besides other, the weaknesse and infirmity of the Law to justifie, as it removes the impediment of justifiablenesse in Gods Court of strict Justice: ( For had there been a Law given which could have given life, verily righteousnesse should have been by the Law, Gal. 3. 21.) and sin which removes the same impediment, might more properly and socially then Christs satisfaction have been placed on horseback in the same saddle of Causa sine qua non, had not Mr. Baxter thought Christ would blesse, but these would have defiled this golden saddle of his own either making or appropriating to this use, and so bespattered and undressed the righteousnesse of his Qua­lifications and good works that they would never more become fit to ride on horsback in procession with the Holy Wafer. Thus his condition and Causa sine qua non must be new modelled ere they will be Canonicall.

But see we here the mans wit which never fails him at a dead lift. What he cannot act by power he seeks to compasse by a stratagem. Because he cannot cover the nakednesse of his asserti­on, he labors to make bare ours, and cast filth in it, that having diverted the eyes of his Reader thither, he may forget the vanity of his Condition, or Causa sine qua non. And thus he doth it.

In examining all these quoted Theses, I have shewed both who they are which blame him, or at least his doctrine, which was born before ever he commenced such a Doctor, viz. All the Orthodox Protestant Divines and Christians; and withall for what they blame it, viz. as it is Papism, Socinianism, and at the best Armini­anism. 3. To which I have also made out their just grounds of blaming it, as may be there seen; yet to cheat his Reader, he cals these, those very men, as if there were some few contempti­ble Antinomians lately sprung up: when himself knows them to be all the Churches of Christ, which since the Reformation have been called Protestants. But of what blasphemy or evill fact doth he accuse them? That they ascribe more to Faith then those they blame, making it Gods instrument in justifying. Yea but we have seen or thought we had seen (at least) just grounds for their so doing: how doth Mr. Baxter aggravate it to make it odious?

Fie upon the Hugonets and Lutherans! if this be true, who then will not run from them at Mr. Baxters heels to Rome? But the Scriptures make Balaams A [...]se Gods instrument to rebuke the madnesse of the Prophet, Namb. 22. 28, 30. 2 Pet. 2. 15, 16. The Raven his Instrument to feed Elijah, 1 King. 17. 6. The brazen Serpent his instru­ment of healing the Israelites bitten with firie Serpents, Joh. 3. 14. Numb. 21. 9. The Assyrians his instruments of chastising and reforming his people, Isa 10. 5. &c. and the very Devil his instrument of trying Job, Job. 1. 12. and of executing his pleasure upon Ahab, 2 King. 22. 21, 22. Shall we now fall foul with the Scriptures, and accuse them that they ascribe part of the honour of Gods own acts to the Asse, the Raven, the Serpent, the Assyrians, the Devil, by affirming these to be the instruments by which God acted? Doth not the seeblenesse of the means and instruments speak out the whole ho­nour of the action to pertain to the Lord? Was it to honour his slaves, and abase his freemen and subjects, the Lords Israel, that Solomon made the former, not the latter his instruments in [Page 359] building the Temple? Mr. Baxter himself must conclude the con­trary.

So acted the Assyrians and the Devill in the acts before menti­oned, as instruments in Gods hand from a reason intrinsecall to themselves. Did this increase their honour? Rationall men in their actions make use of instruments that are fittest from an in­trinsecall reason within themselves to produce the effect pur­posed. They seek not to speak with their ears, or hear with their eyes, or see with their heels, &c. because these have not a reason intrinsecall in them to such effects; doe they therefore ascribe honour to the tongue above other members, as the eyes or hands, &c. because they speak with the tongue and not with their eyes and hands? And do we ascribe to God or derogate from him, when we say he hath no lesse wisdom then a man, there­fore useth, yea maketh instruments both within and without fitted for his work? when the Apostle affirmeth the foolishnesse of Preaching Gods power to save, he robs God of none of his power to deifie either the foolishnesse of Preaching, or the Word preached, or the mortall Preacher thereof with Gods power.

1. Qui alterum accu [...]at probri, ipsum se intueri oportet. This trick he hath learned of Potiphars wife to accuse innocent Joseph of the fault whereof her self, not he, was guilty. Mr. Baxter in­deed makes Faith and Love con-causes (of one and the same kinde) to Justification, viz. the severall parts that make up the body of Evangelicall Righteousnesse which he saith justifies us, pag. 236. na. 3. why doth he proclaim it a scandalous crime in us, which he fastens to himself as a praise?

2. We affirm not faith to be Gods instrument as it receiveth Christ, nor any further to be the instrument of Gods justifying, then of his declaring and evidencing us to our selves justified: We affirm it to be our instrument (yet as given us of God) as it receives Christ. Gods as by it he evidenceth life and righteous­nesse to be ours; ours as by it we receive Christ and the justifi­cation, yea justifier in receiving Christ. And when that Mr. Bax­ter shall make it his task not only to say (as here) but also to prove that God hath qualified love for this Office, I shall [Page 360] not doubt to undertake the task to answer him.

Here is much of sound to astonish fools, but nothing of sub­stance to satisfie the judicious; For

1. Did we hereby make man the Causa proxima, yet it is but the Causa proxima instrumentalis passiva of his Justification, the next in­strument to apply it, and that not by any thing naturally his own, but by the new hand of Faith, which God hath given him to this end. And this obscures not but cleers up the Grace of God. There­fore by faith that it might [appear to] be by grace, Rom. 4. 16. The begger by receiving the freely given treasure may be as properly called the Causa proxima of his enriching: yet hath the Benefactor that freely gave it, the entire praise of it.

2. Or if there were any damage herein done to the Grace of God, how much more guilty is Mr. Baxter of the fact, in making mans faith and works the very righteousnesse which giveth man right and title to Christ, and the Justification which is by Christ; yea a righteousnesse perfect and worthy: as he hath expressed himself before in what we have already exa­mined. Is not this to make Christs satisfaction the remote Causa sine qua non (as he cals it in this 56 Thesis) and man himself the Causa proxima sine qua non? and if the Causa proxima must in his judgement have the preheminence, then in his judgement mans righteousnesse hath herein preheminence above the righteousnesse of Christ.

3. Yea not only this but the very devill is the Causa pro­xima sine qua non of our justification (according to Mr. Bax­ter) and so must in this great businesse have the upper hand of Christ. For the Justification here is but a meer Embryon of Justification with him; which most times comes to nought and naught. But Justification in the day of Judgement is the thing consummate and in its perfection, which (he tels us) is our acquitting from accusation and guilt, which shall be then pleaded and managed against us by Satan. Here he makes the Devils plea and managing of the Laws accusation, the next Causa sine qua non, upon which our finall and compleat justi­fication [Page 361] followeth. Thes. 39. pag. 188, 189. Where now is his worst of all, in his or in our Doctrine? Thus while Mr. Bax­ter fights against us with a sword that hath neither edge nor point, he neither hurts us, not provides for his own defence, but by brandishing his weapon untowardly, wounds his own face with the hilts.

Why and yet? All that he hath said against them is not against them but against himself: and for himself he hath said nothing. Only he hath entertained his Reader with a declamation against us, who expected his own assertion should have been confirmed, he hath by all laid never a Mil­stone, no nor a Cherrystone in the way to hinder the pursu­ants of the [...] Cr [...]dere at all for its sacriledge in robbing Christ. When we make it, &c. which we, with whom doth he side? or whom makes he to side with him, but Socinus, Arminius, and one or two possibly of their scholars among us, which have carried this and many other monsters in their belly long before they were delivered of them, and most probably have yet more behinde which have not yet seen the Sun. It is Mr. Baxters unhappinesse that these notwithstanding his wrest­ing and catching them by the heel, come to the light still be­fore him. This is that (most likely) which stifles his Uni­versall Redemption in the womb. But having nothing else to do to make him gracious at Rome, because he could not speak first, his care is to speak all bigger then they all that have spoken before him. Wee make it a poore improper Causa sine qua non: i. e. in true and plain English, a poor perfect mer [...]torious righteousnesse, a collaterall of and no lesse necessary then the righteousnesse of the Lord Christ, as in this 56, and before in and under his 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 26 Theses he hath enough ma­nifested himself.

If he mean any other difference between the impulsive, and the Procatartick objective cause, besides that which is be­tween the Generall and the Speciall, it is past my skill to understand him, or to comprehend what he denies and what he grants; no doubt either he would not be understood, or else he attributes to his righteousnesse of faith and good works an excitation (but not an impulsion forsooth) of the Grace of God actually to justifie those whom he beholdeth Schild. Me­taph. li. 1. c [...]. 44. N. 24, 25, 40. fairly dressed therewith, and so the beauty of the object en­amors God to love and justifie. And what more doe the P [...] ­pists teach? and so our justification as Gods act is but in posse till our righteousnesse as a sufficient cause brings it into esse or act.

Thus far of Mr. Baxters causes of Justification, in which if he hath illustrated or confirmed any truth of God, God is much beholden to him and Aristotle for it. For distrusting the succour of the Scriptures, he hath left them, and brought no­thing else but Logical and Metaphysical notions and reasons to prove all that which he hath said.

CHAP. XXVII.

It is not for nothing that Mr. Baxter puts here a restriction upon justification by the Act of faith, limiting it to [ men of age:] Are then elect infants that die before they attain age and strength of reason to put forth their faith into act, justifyed only by the habit of faith? It seemeth then that the hue and crie hath ap­prehended the [...] credere, as to them, and laid it fast from justi­fying them. Again, if they are justifyed by the habit of faith as a habit of inherent grace, (though not such as he here denyeth to have an excellency above other graces) what difference doth he put between Justification and Sanctification? Doth he not speak the same things here with the Papists? Yea in a higher dialect then any of them? For they grant to Infants justifica­tion only by the washing of Christs bloud conferred upon them in Baptism, without any qualification of their own. But this man (if he thus say) justifies them by an inherent righte­ousnesse of their own. But if Infants are justifyed without the [Page 364] act of faith, and yet not by its habit, how are they then Justi­fyed but by that which he calleth Christs own justification as a publick person at his resurrection? which notwithstanding he utterly denyed Thes. 42. and its Explication: and if they are so justi­fyed, will it not follow then that justification by the act of faith is Gods declaring and mans applying of his justification to his present comfort and full assurance? (which Mr. Baxter explodeth as an unsufferable conclusion) But dying Infants are to have no use of this present comfort and full assurance, therefore it sufficeth them to be justifyed in Christ, though not in themselves. Lastly, or do they depart hence unjustifyed, be­cause without actuall beleeving and receiving of Christ, and so shall be justifyed in the day of judgment, because at the re­surrection they shall actually beleeve? What a crie do the poor souls in the interim then make in that Limbus in­santum? And why may not then (according to Origen) all the Devils and reprobates in hell be then justifyed and saved also, because then they may actually beleeve, and (according to Mr. Baxter) the condition of justification lasteth untill that day.

To the excellency of faith above other graces I have nothing to say. But to the reasons which he brings to deny the more usefull property of it, I shall speak briefly.

No more then when God gives us meat, the praise of our nutriment and life is due to our teeth, because they have a more usefull property to grind and chew the meat, then our eyes or ears.

This is only said and not proved, or declared upon what grounds love should contend.

[Page 365]1. We denie faith to be the condition of the Covenant in Mr. Baxters sense. If he would have spoken directly to them against whom he argueth, he should have said, Then faith would have justifyed though it had never been appointed and given of God as an instrument to receive Christ the justifyer. And then we should answer,

2. That it is so much as if he had said, Then our teeth would have nourished and preserved life, although God had never appointed and given them to us as instruments to chew the nourishing meat. And thus the Caveat that he addeth be­comes uselesse, viz.

For none affirmes faith to justifie meerly because it appre­hendeth Christ, without considering also Gods ordering and fitting it to this office, together with his promise, and the virtue laid up in Christ to justifie all that do by faith so apprehend him.

I shall not have need to speak much to this passage, because Mr. Baxter hath before said and I have answered to the greatest part of it in examining his 23. Thes. with the explica­tion thereof. Here as there I shall defend against him, that it is not faith as it is righteousnesse, but Christs righteousnesse by which we are said to be justifyed.

The first reason which he brings to evince the contradictory and contrary conclusion, hath been there examined, and I will not here actum agere.

To the second, 1. He should have quoted that Apocryphal Scripture which saith, He that beleeveth shall be justifyed (as if he were not already justifyed:) I finde it not in the Cano­nicall.

2. Those Scriptures which say we are justifyed by faith, say not that we are justifyed by it as it is our righteousnesse, or any part of our justifying righteousnesse; and those that say it is imputed to us (as Mr. Baxter will have it) for righteousnesse, have been sufficiently spoken to under Thesis 23. And by the way Mr. Baxter is not ignorant that the originall text may be more properly rendred unto or to righteousnesse then for righteousnesse, and that the old translation and most of our Protestant Divines so render it, neither have I met with any one that declares his dislike of that version. And from the text so read what Mr. Baxter can suck out to stablish the righteousnesse of faith not as the same but as a collaterall with the righte­ousnesse of Christs satisfaction to justification, I understand not.

3. To his Only, only, and only, I answer,

1 That it is not the first time that Mr. Baxter hath taken the boldnesse to teach the holy Ghost to speak properly and fully.

2 When the holy Ghost saith, That the bloud of Christ cleanseth from all sin, 1 Joh. 1. 7. that whosoever is washed [therein] needs no other washing, Joh. 13. 10. that he is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, Joh. 1. 29. that by his one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctifyed, by taking away their sins and iniquities, Heb. 10. 14, 17. That he is made of God righteousnesse to us, 1 Cor. 1. 30. that he was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousnesse of God in him, 2 Cor. 5. 21. That he [Page 367] is all in all, Col. 3. 11. Will Mr. Baxter elude all these and a whole century more of the like Scriptures with this evasion; yea Christ hath done, and is all this in part to us, leaving the other part of righteousnesse not perfected by him to be supplyed by faith his collaterall to our justification? Or when it is said, There is salvation in no other, nor any name else given us under heaven by which we may be saved besides Christ, Act. 4. 12. and the Apostle professeth it his whole labour to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousnesse which is of the Law, but the righ­teousnesse which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousnesse which is of God by faith; so making Christ put on for righteous­nesse, the righteousnesse which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousnesse which is of God by faith, not severall kinds of righteousnesse, but one and the same righteousnesse which he opposeth there to his own inherent righteousnesse which he excludeth: are not these speeches equipollent to that which Mr. Baxter requireth, the Christ only, or the righteousnesse of Christ only? It is but a flourish wherewith he concludes this argument, about the constant expresse phrase of Scri­pture. For let him either produce one Scripture that affir­meth faith by any inherent righteousnesse in it self, or of her own conveyed into us to contribute somewhat to our Justification, or else confesse his errour to be derived from the scriblings of Bellarmine, Socixus, Grotius, and Armi­nius, where this Doctrine is to be found, and not from the Scriptures of Gods inspiration that are wholly a­gainst it.

To his third reason I can say nothing because I understand nothing of his meaning therein; or if I doe understand it, nothing needs to be said, because it hath nothing for himself or against us. But to that which he addes of his thinking.

1. Let him say whether by them that (he saith) would have faith to be the instrument, &c. he doth not mean all the Protestant Churches, both Lutherans and Zuinglians or Calvinists, as they are by some distinguished: whether the best that have opposed them herein have not been the Arminians, and from what Rome or Hell these first drank in their opinion, he is not ignorant having fished in the same pools after them.

[Page 368]2. When he thinks these should not deny that we are properly justifyed by faith as an instrument: I answer,

1 If they will not deny it, will Mr. Baxter with them con­fesse it?

2 The word [properly] is vox aequivoca; a phrase may be said to be proper, as it is enough fit and proportioned to declare the meaning of the speaker, and in this sense we deny not that faith as an instrument subservient to the principall efficient, doth so properly as an instrument can, justifie us in our selves or to our own consciences.

Again, it may be said to be proper in opposition to a tro­picall way of speaking: and in this sense we cannot say that faith doth so properly justifie, specially in that extent wherein Mr. Baxter and his Masters will have it to justifie, without a trope in the phrase of speaking, which I would shew if it were pertinent to the question.

I shall spare to transcribe at large his next section which he puts under n. 4. of his Explication. Because if he meant singly and precisely as he speaks, all might be granted in a positive sense without prejudice to our cause or advantage to his; viz. that faith doth directly and properly justifie in and to them­selves those that were before justifyed in Christ, as it is (in a good sense) the condition of the new Covenant, and a means or instrument of Gods stamping by his commandement and promise to the attainment of this justification. For this deny­eth not that truth which before he kicked at, that faith doth so justifie also in regard of that usefull and essentiall property which it hath above all other gifts of grace, to be in­strumentall to apprehend Christ for righteousnesse. Nay even for this cause hath God either ordained and commanded faith to this end, because it hath this property, or because he hath ordained and given to it this property, therefore he not only requireth but also concurreth with it to blesse it, even it alone to this end. Here to determine peremptorily whether of these acts of God, his qualifying of faith for, or his commanding it to this use, is more and lesse direct or pro­per to the end, or whether they are coordinates thereunto, I fear may proceed more from a headie rashnesse then from the modesty of Christian wisdome; especially because I take justi­fying [Page 369] faith to be more then a naturall or morall virtue, (which Mr. Baxter possibly will deny) viz. an infused habit qualifyed by God himself that infuseth it with this peculiar property to cleave unto Christ and receive him.

But by the way it shall not be impertinent to shew in some particulars what mentall Reservations Mr. Baxter hath in his words, not easily appearing to a cursory reader.

1. When he saith,

His meaning is, that it only so far justifyeth as it fulfilleth the condition. But throughout our whole life, according to his principles, we are but fulfilling, have not fulfilled the condition of the new Covenant, therefore throughout our whole life we are but in justifying not justifyed. And then consequently (if it be true what most of our Divines con­clude) that in the next life there shall be no use of faith (be­cause vinon and fruition are proper to that state) beleevers shall not be justifyed at all, because the condition was never fulfilled.

2. When he saith,

The reader that doth but catch here a little and there a little of his doctrine, would think him by what he here find­eth: no lesse Orthodox in the point of Justification then Luther or Paul himself: that he explodes all works, all inhe­rent righteousnesse from bearing the least part with faith un­to justification: whereas contrariwise he speaks not here of the faith of Gods stamping but of his own coining; of a faith that brings in all good works, that is it self all good works to justification; attributes no more to faith then he doth to any other part of our inherent righteousnesse, nor any thing to faith it self as usefull to justifie, but as it is our whole inhe­rent righteousnesse, or at least a part of it: as partly by that which hath been, but principally by that part of his treatise which remains to be examined, appeareth. The rest of this Secti­on I let passe without examination.

I come now to the fift and last Section of his Explica­tion, pag. 230.

We finde verifyed in Mr. Baxter that of the Poet, Dolus an virtus quis in hoste requirat? having professed open warre against the doctrine of all the Protestant Churches, yea of the Gospell of Christ, he manageth it more by stratagems then by valour. We finde him here perverting in stead of rightly stating the question, thereby to get advantage to answer what he will and to what he pleaseth. The question con­troverted between us and the Papists first, and in these lat­ter times the Arminians also, is not whether Gods institu­ting of faith in Christ, or else the acting of faith so institu­ted, be the one the formall, and the other the remote reason why it justifyeth? But whether faith so instituted of God to be the mean or instrument of our Justification, doth justifie by vertue received from Christ its object, or else by its own vertue, as it is a good work, or as it is an act of righte­ousnesse performed in obedience to Gods commandement? That which they maintain is that faith justifyeth by vertue of its object Christ, denying the Papists work and the Armi­nians act. If Mr. Baxter did labour more for truth then for victory, we should not finde in him so much fraud and so little of sincerity. It is not Christs but Antichrists kingdome that is maintained by the pillarage of shifts and sophisms. Let him not astonish the poor Saints of Christ with words that they cannot understand, obscuring the truth with needlesse terms of art; his poor flock of Keder­minster, for whom he affirmes himself to have compiled this work, are in all probability as well acquainted with the formall and remote reason why faith justifyeth, as they are with Hocus Pocus his Liegerdemain. In this point let him either confute the assertion of our Divines, or maintain the adversaries assertion; here he doth neither directly, but beats the aire and makes a great noise to little purpose. Yet let us see how well he proveth his own assertion.

This supposition is not full, there must be another supposition antecedaneous to this supposition. A true supposition that will shew the invalidity of this feigned one. Suppose that upon a foregoing Covenant between the Father and him, Christ hath done all this for his elect whom he knoweth by name, and so Christ in their names hath given and God hath taken full satis­faction for all their offences, and hereupon Christ hath received in their behalf a full acquittance and discharge: Who now shall lay any thing to their charge? It is God that justifieth, Rom. 8. 33. under this supposition they are for ever freed from pleading at Gods Bar: They have there an Advocate to plead for them, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the Propitiation for our sins, 1 Joh. 2. 1, 2. Sits at the right hand of God with the effectuall Oratory of his pretious bloud making intercession for us, Rom. 8. 34. so the supposition of Mr. Baxter extends no further then this, if without any Cove­nant promise of Justification by Faith in Christ, could they by beleeving in him have had the beeing and comfort of Justifica­tion within their own souls? Unlesse God had by some other way ratified and sealed this benefit to them, I acknowledge they could not: yet had their justification been still nothing the lesse firm before God in Christ. But now by the promise of the New Covenant, through Faith they have the sweetnesse and joy there­of in themselves also.

We cannot so suppose, for one absurd supposition being granted a thousand more will follow after: Mr. Baxter be­gins [Page 380] too low in his suppositions. Let him here advance a stair higher with us, and suppose first a truth, before he sup­poseth that which is false and unpossible in respect of that truth that must necessarily be presupposed: viz. That God be­fore his Covenanting with man had decreed within himself ( Salva Justitia, without obscuring at all his Justice) to make known on the vessels of mercy (i. e. in justifying and saving mise­rable sinners whom he had before prepared to glory) the riches of his glory, i. e. the praise of the glory of grace, Rom. 9. 23. Ephes. 1. 6. that himself and his free grace should be all, and man nothing to his justification and salvation; and to the end that his justice might appear still in all its lustre, had taken full satisfaction from his own Son: here to manifest the freenesse of his grace, the all to our happinesse residing in his meer mercy, and the nothing in our selves, I see not what other condition or means besides faith God could have put, out of which mans proud heart would not have arrogated something to himself to have swoln therewith, and so the glory of Gods grace, should have been obscured. Or doth Mr. Baxter see farther then the Apostle? He tels us, It is of Faith that it might be by Grace, Rom. 4. 16. If by other means it might have been, and yet by grace there would be a nota­ble flaw in the Apostles arguing, which limits it to faith that it might be of grace. To the same purpose are those many Scriptures in which he affirms it to be by faith that all mans boasting may be excluded, implying that if it had not been only by faith, there would have been something of man in it clowding the glory of Gods grace, and giving to man occasi­on of boasting that there is something of his own to his justi­fication, and so to glory partly in himself and not wholly in the Lord. So Mr. Baxters arguing, If God had put some other con­dition, no doubt it would have justified; is one and the same with this; If God had acted against his own purpose, and betrayed the glory of his Grace, no doubt it had been betrayed. But the for­mer supposition is no lesse absurd then the latter. And almost so much at the full, Mr. Baxter, either to toll on his Rea­der into more snares which afterward he layeth, by his mag­nificent elogies of Gods grace, or from the throws and checks of an accusing conscience; speaketh in the following part of [Page 381] this Section. Yet so that he cannot cease from the interweav­ing of mans works with Gods grace unto Justification: which because he doth more fully and grossely in the following part of this Tractate, I shall here forbear to anticipate what there is to be said by way of answer to him. The next Position is of neer cognation with this; his words are these:

This is plain in it self, and in that which is said before.

How this is plain in that which is said before, we have be­fore examined; how it is plain in it self we are here to ex­amine. To omit how after Mr. Baxters Principles the righte­ousnesse of Christ can be said to be ours by divine donation and imputation, when he holds it no otherwise by Gods dona­tion ours, then the wilde Goose is his: his, if he can catch her, and as long as he can hold her: so his as it is every ones else as well as his if they can take and hold her. For she is the worlds Goose, and proper to no one before one hath taken her, and no longer that ones then while he holds her, if he let her go she is the worlds Goose again. If Mr. Baxters righteousnesse be stablished upon such a law, donation, and imputation, let it be his, not mine, I shall not contend with him for a share in it, because the Lord offers me a righteousnesse of a better Covenant established up­on better promises, Heb. 8. 6. But to let this passe; When M. Bax­ter saith the ground of this is; what meaneth he by this? That no doubt that went before in the former Position. But in it are many things, and which of them is plain upon this ground in his meaning I cannot easily judge, because to my understand­ing no one of them is upon this ground plain. Nay upon this ground no man living is justified in this world. For it is not ours, saith he, by beleeving and receiving it, but by divine do­nation; And this donation he will not have to be confirmed, untill all the conditions be compleated, and that is not untill the world be ended. But to give my best conjecture of his meaning, I think he will be understood that the two last clauses of his for­mer Thesis are plain upon this ground, viz. 1. That Faith [Page 382] doth justifie▪ properly as a condition, &c. 2. Improperly as it doth receive Christ. The ground saith he is this, be­cause, &c.

Here by the way we may take notice of the mans subtilty and sophistry, in shifting from one tearm of Art to another, Thes. 57. he tels us that faith doth [ properly] justifie thus, and [ improperly] thus; but in the Explication, he foysteth in the word formally and formall, pag. 230, 231. and here Thes. 58. puts both together, properly and formally, as if there were no other proper cause and reason but the formall cause and reason of a thing, and that every proper cause were the formall cause. And thus whatsoeverr Scripture saith illiterately, Christ himself af­ter Mr. Baxters proper language, should not be a proper cause of our justification. And who sees not the end of this his project? If he be put to it, he layes a ground for the diverting of the whole dispute from the Scriptures, unto Philosophy, Logick, and the Metaphysicks, where there may be a cavill about the nature of the formall cause, so long untill both sides be out of breath, and in the end both parties be as wise to Justification as in the beginning. This is the calamity of the Church in these times, that they which hold themselves the chief Doctors and eminent lights thereof, darken every sacred truth with the mist of humane Learning cast upon it, in stead of clearing it to the comprehension of Gods babes and sucklings. No mar­vel then if the justice of God hath stirred up among us so many Earth-born and Earth-bred Meteors, persons of no learning, (Ranters and Enthusiasts I mean) like Balaams Asse to rebuke the madnesse of these Prophets. And doubtlesse either by these or some other the Lord will prevail against them, if they shall not cease to pervert with Elymas the plain ways of God.

Now to the matter it self about which his sophistry hath bin oc­cupant. In these two Positions, viz and 57, & 58. Mr. Baxters aym is at two assertions of the Protestants to smite them through, viz. the instrumentality of Faith, and the vertue which it deriveth from Christs it object, to justifie and to set up his [...] Credere or act of beleeving under the name of a condition of the New Covenant without any respect of instrumentality that it hath to appre­hend Christ, or any vertue that it receives from Christ appre­hended [Page 383] to justifie. This he doth in the last words of the 57. Thesis, telling us that faith can be said only in a remote and improper sense, as it receiveth Christ, to justifie; where by receiving he shaketh and shifts off the instrumentality of faith, and by Christ the vertue of faiths object, into a remote and darke corner as not working at all or very obscurely in our justification. But his act of beleeving he exalteth as the proper and formall reason of faiths justifying. This he illustrateth in the Explication pa. 230. Suppose Christ had put some other condition of the new Co­venant, as Love, Patience, Temperance, Mercy, &c. that could not be instruments of receiving Christ, nor have Christ their object to draw vertue from him: should not either of these notwithstanding though neither instru­ments nor in a capacity to have Christ their object from which to have drawn vertue, by their own act have justifyed? So faith being the condition of the new Covenant doth by its act justifie. So argued he under Thes. 57.

But doubting of the validity of his reasons there either to weaken ours, or to stablish his own assertion, he addes this Thesis more fully to confirm what he had there en­devoured.

The ground of this is (saith he) because, and because; as is before expressed.

I answer, there is no sufficient ground laid for the confuting of ours, or the strengthning of his tenent. For be it that Christs righteousnesse be ours by divine donation or imputation, how doth he build his opinion upon this ground, that the act of faith as being the condition, &c. doth properly justifie? He must shew his meaning in words at length and not in figures, before he shall win us to build with him straw and stubble upon the ground; that is good and fitted to bear a good structure. But very remarkably doth he here dispute in opposing Gods dona­tion or giving, or our beleeving or receiving of Christs righteousnesse as if they could not both consist to­gether in justifying us, at least properly. Then it seems [Page 384] we are properly justifyed by the donation of Christ with­out his [...] credere or act of faith. Yea then are we pro­perly and formally justifyed in Christ before we yet be­leeved: For he will not denie that Gods donation of Christ (at least in his sense) is before our receiving him. And thus with one breath he will throw down all that be­fore with so much labour he hath built.

But let us see how from this ground he batters our assertions, and what force there is in his battery. If we look to the Prothesis of his Thesis alone, the argument in substance runs to this Tenour, Faith doth not justifie us either as an instrument, or by vertue of Christ; or Christs righteousnesse its object; because it doth not justi­fie us as an instrument or by vertue of its object. Who can shake his buildings that founds them on such firme ground? That this is the force of his reasoning is evident to them that observe him, that by the word [receiving] he excludes the instrumentality, and by [Christ] excludes the object of faith from any proper acting to justifie us, as I said before. But we will annex the Antithesis to his Prothesis, and so fill up his Thesis, and then see what strength there is in the whole to his advantage, or our disadvantage. What he must prove in his and refute on our part, hath been already declared. Only in the forecited Prothesis he begs the conclusion, that he should have proved. There­fore we must lay his whole argument from the donation or imputation alone: yet will we put his Argument fully thus, If Christs righteousnesse doth not properly justifie us because we beleeve or receive it, but because it is ours in Law by Gods imputation or donation, then faith doth not justifie as an instrument or by vertue of Christ its object, but as it is an act containing the condition of the Covenant. But the former is true, therefore the lat­ter also.

I deny the assumption as to the former member thereof, the beleeving and receiving, &c. And Mr. Baxter brings not so much as a gry to prove it. And as to the latter mem­ber, Gods donation, &c. I deny the consequent of the [Page 385] Major, Though Christs righteousnesse justifie us proper­ly, because it is ours in Law by Gods donation or im­putation, yet it followes not that either faith as an act or condition doth so of it self justifie, or that it doth not justifie as an instrument and by vertue of its object, or as some say, its correlate, or as others by the communion that it puts us into with Christ: this I prove thus, not from terms of art, but from the authority and testimonies of the most high God.

1. From the relation between the brazen Serpent the Type, and Christ Jesus the Antitype; Joh. 3. 14. The brazen Serpent was of Gods donation to Israel; so also was the Soveraigne power that was infused into it to heal; but the eyes of the wounded Israelites must be directed unto, and fixed upon the Serpent for cure, and then vertue issued from it to heal. So was the son of man lifted up with vertue in him to heal. Christ with this vertue is of Gods donation, yet this donation hin­ders not, but that our faith as an instrument must be di­rected to, and fixed upon him alone for justification, and so that justifying vertue or righteousnesse in him comes from him upon us to justification. It is no more the act of faith that of it self because a condition (if indeed a condition) doth it, then the act of the eye▪ cured the wounded without vertue drawn by it from its object.

2. From the cure of the woman which had the bloudy issue, Marke 5. 25. it will not be denyed that the ver­tue by which she was healed was of divine donation, yet it was brought home to her not by the instrumen­tall service of her hand touching Christs garment; for the multitude touched his garments and thronged him, yet had no benefit by it, verse 31. But her faith appre­hending Christ himself, so said the Lord, Thy faith hath made thee whole, verse 34. yet not the act of faith as a condition, but faith as an instrument by which the poor woman drew vertue from Christ its object, Jesus perceived that vertue had gone out of him, verse 34. So it was not the ver­tue [Page 386] of the [...] or act of beleeving, but of Christ beleeved on, which wrought the cure: such are the ope­rations of Christ and faith in the cure of the soul as here in the cure of the body.

3. From 1 G [...]r. 30. 31. Christ is of God made unto us Righteousnesse, viz. to Justification, That he which glo­rieth may glory in the Lord. God hath made him righ­teousnesse, but how to us, or our righteousnesse that it may be of his donation to us? Mr. Baxter must answer, by faith, else farewell his condition; but if by the act of faith as our righteousnesse in fulfilling [...]he condition, or otherwise then an instrument to apprehend the righ­teousnesse of Christ to justification, then have we some­what of our own righteousnesse wherein to glory, all would not be the Lords that we might glory in him alone.

4. To this I might add also the phrase which the Apostle useth, that we are justifyed [...], by faith, through faith, as an instrument; and never [...], for our faith, or upon our faith as for a cause or upon a condition fulfilled, as some of our Divines have well observed.

I proceed to the next position.

All this together with most of the Explication may be granted as being capable of an Orthodox sense.

1. That justification as an act immanent in God is such as is here described is confessed. But Mr. Baxter is deaf in this ear.

[Page 387]2. That our justification in Christ is such (in some sense) we also grant, but neither will he listen to this.

3. Therefore if he would take off all ambiguity of his words, and declare his sense to be the same with the sound, we would grant to him also that such is our personall justification in our selves, which he owneth only for justification. For as it is an act of God it is never interrupted or dissolved till the day of judge­ment, though as it is taken Passively, there may be many interruptions of our sense and apprehension of it.

But his Thesis is faced like Janus, lookes two wayes at once, is set forth in such words as will more proper­ly admit of an evill then a good sense. And that he speaks them after the Remonstrant, not the Pro­testant dialect, is too probable though not infallibly evi­dent, from these reasons, to be meant in an evill sense.

1. Because he delivers it in the Arminian phrase. For so his St. Episcopius, Justificatio est actus continuus qui est Episcop. Disp. 22. Thes. 12. de Justif. & durat, quamdiu durat ipsius conditionis requisitae praesentia, interrumpitur vero semper & toties quoties actus praestantur ejusm [...]di qui cum vera fide & conscientia bona consistere nequeunt, i. e. Justi­fication is a continued act which is and dureth as long as the presence of its requisite condition continueth, but is interrupted so often as such acts are done which can­not consist with true faith and a good conscience. To the continuance of justification Mr. Baxter here speaketh the same thing with him, and though as to the inter­ruption of it he speaks here as out of a cloud, yet com­pare with this his 45. Thesis and you will have the whole of Episcopius from the pen of Mr. Baxter.

2. Because his words do seem here to suppose a Magis & minus in its active acceptation or sense. It is not begun and ended immediately, saith he, but is still in doing [in a way of perfecting] untill the judgment day.

[Page 388]3. His restriction added to the compleatnesse or perfection thereof at the first. It is compleat at first, saith he but in its kind, which restriction makes the com­pleatnesse of justification incompleat, and its perfecti­on imperfect till the day of judgment, as himselfe hath expressed himselfe before Thesis 41. These things from the position it self. From the explication will fol­low.

4. The heartlesse and comfortlesse proof that he brings to prove the continuance of this justifying act, making it to reach only to the Genera singulorum, not to the singula generum: to such a kinde of men, not to any sin­gular man, or individuall person upon earth: to Be­leevers, but not to this or that beleever. So that the holiest Saint if at any time his faith in some tempta­tion faint, and cannot be brought to sensible acting, is left destitute of all comfort from the Gospell or new Covenant after Mr. Baxters principles. It justifieth onely so long as faith actually receiveth Christ; if faith through infirmity cease to act, he gives the distressed soul no comfort that God continueth to justifie.

5. From the first use of instruction which he draweth from this position. This sheweth us (saith he) in the first place, with what limitation to receive the assertion of our Divines, that remission and justification, are simul and semel, performed: his meaning is, that we must understand them in this assertion to deal as Mr. Baxter is wont, viz. to say one thing and mean another. Not to think as they speak, but to equivocate and retaine a mentall reser­vation within themselves. That our justification is begun and perfected both at once and together, but all this is but suo genere, in its kinde; that is, con­ditionally, even as the Usurer frankly and freely forgave to his debtor all that he owed him, but with this limitation that if he were not paid the whole debt to day, he would cast him in prison to mor­row [Page 389] there to lie untill he should pay the whole for­feiture.

But because Mr. Baxter is disposed here to lisp and not to speak alowd and plain his minde, we shall leave him to his humour, and proceed to hearken to him where he speaketh plainly and without parables.