A treatise of justifying righteousness in two books ... : all published instead of a fuller answer to the assaults in Dr. Tullies Justificatio Paulina ... / by Richard Baxter.

Reply.

1. I believe when the Holy Ghost speaks plainly, he means as he speaks.

2. I would you had told me what Interpretation is so generally received. Surely I have read of di∣vers Interpretations by Protestants, one contradict∣ing what others maintain; and therefore they do not so generally hold to one. Some say, It speaks of Justification coram Deo; some say, only coram hominibus; some, that it speaks of the Justification of the person; others, only of the Justification of his Faith, &c.

3. To your Hoc est Corpus meum, I answered before. It were an odd thing, if when we bring the express words of Scripture for any proof, it should be put off by Hoc est Corpus meum; or, Ego sum Vitis.

4. The words you cite, vers. 21, 23. will not prove what you intend. For if it be meant of [Ju∣stification immediately on our first believing,] or our Justification as begun (which you still insist on) then how can James prove by Works many years after, that the Faith was fruitful, when he was first justi∣fied by it.

5. Indeed the words you cite, undeniably prove that James and you speak not of one and the same Justification, or of Justification in the same sense. For you speak of it as begun, and James speaks of it only as continued (Legal Justification I mean) up∣on the performance of that Obedience which is the

secondary part of the Condition; and so he includeth also the Evangelical Justification, which I before de∣scribed, as being the necessary medium for confirma∣tion and continuation of the Legal. It is beyond doubt that Abraham was justified long before he of∣fered up his Son. And this Work could be no Condi∣tion of that Justification which was past; and there∣fore James speaks not of that. And indeed how else could James's Doctrine be reconciled with Paul's, or the truth, if it spoke of the first, or be∣gun Justification? For that is before and without the very presence of all external Works: (you think, before love to Christ; and say, All our Divines so hold: and yet here you say, that Protestants generally de∣ny that Faith which is without Works to justifie: But so do not I; therefore I give less to Works than you think Protestants do.) Except you will say (as Grotius doth, and I think in this truly) that James by Works means, a disposition and resolution to obey, as still necessary (implied in the taking Christ for King,) and actual obedience when we are called to it. For Abraham did not offer his son in Sacrifice, but by attempting it, and chearfully addressing himself to it, shewed his resolution to obey.

6. As for Vers. 23. which you urge, there is no necessity of your sense, nor is it much against what I say, if it be yielded. Either you think James by [Fulfilled] means, quoad sensum verborum ut primo sunt enunciata: (But that cannot be, because they were Historical, and therefore fulfilled as soon as spoken; and not Prophetical, to be fulfilled after∣ward:) Or else he useth the word Fulfilled less strictly, as referring to the Doctrine which that Historical Enunciation did contain, viz. [That it

was by believing God that Abraham was justified;] which (as Grotius truly notes) is ordinarily in the New-Testament the meaning of that word, [That the Scripture may be fulfilled.] And this must be the meaning here (for the Reason forementioned.) And then the sense may be, 1. Either by way of Inter∣pretation; q. d. [In this sense is this Scripture-Doctrine fulfilled, Abraham believed God, that is, He believed and obeyed also:] Or it may be by way of Concession; q. d. [Yet the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abra∣ham believed, &c. For Faith did justifie him, but not only Faith.]

7. For your Interpretation of Vers. 22. it is only your Affirmation, and is as easily denied. Sure I am, that my Interpretation is true quoad Doctrin••m, viz. That Faith is not only manifested perfect by Obe∣dience, but that it is really perfected, 1. As the Tree is by bearing fruit. 2. As a Covenant or Promise is by performance (as a mans Bargain is perfected, when he hath done that which he there∣by bound himself to do.) 3. As it hath naturam medii, viz. Conditionis, to the Continuation and Consummation of Justification. 4. As it is part of that necessary matter (not necessary at the first moment of believing, but necessary afterward, when he is called to it) whereby he is to be justified against the Charge of non performance of the New-Cove∣nants Condition; even against the Accusation of being an Unbeliever or Hypocrite. It cannot be denied, but thus far following-Obedience perfecteth Faith: And if this be true doctrinally, I see yet no reason, why I should exclude all these from the meaning of the Apostle in that Text, or any of them; when the old Rule is, to expound Scrip∣ture

in the most comprehensive sense it will bear, and not to limit or restrain it without necessity.

8. Your own Interpretation and Mr. Pembles, granteth as much as I plead for, I think, if you contradict not your self again: If by [Works,] you understand [a working-Faith,] it shall suffice me, if you apply it as James doth; that is, not to a mere necessitas praesentiae of Works, but to that Con∣ducibility to the effect, which James gives to both: Or (to speak as others) not only to Faith in it self, but to Faith as working. If [a working Faith] be made by God the Condition of Justification, then the modus or adjunct, [Working,] is a true, necessary, secondary part of the Condition, as the Faith it self is the substance or principal part. As when God makes [sincere Faith] the Condition, Sincerity is thereby made the modus, and so far a true part of the Condition. If you bargain to give me [a sound, swift, travelling Horse] on such a price: You re∣ceive your money for him as really quatenus sound, swift, &c. as quatenus a Horse. If a Woman in Marriage covenant to be [a faithful Wife,] (and not adulterous) she receives her interest in the Man and his Estate primarily quatenus a Wife, but also quatenus faithful; for want of which she may be divorced after. In this sense therefore I will not contend against you, if you yield, that Faith is the Condition of continued and consummate Justificati∣on; not only considered in se as Faith, but also as working. But still I say, I had rather stick to the Scripture-words, when I see no necessity to change them.

But now if Mr. Pemble, or you, or any, will say, [Works justifie not the Person, but the Faith,] you

say and unsay. It is a contradiction: For if it be true in all particular causes, that Justificatio causae est etiam Justificatio personae (as Bradshaw tells you more fully, de Justif. Edit. Lat. c. 3. §. 9, 10. p. 30.) much more in such a Justification as this, which Everlasting Life dependeth on. If you be accused to be a final non-performer of the Conditions of the New-Covenant, he that justifieth your performance, justifieth you against that Accusation, and hath no other way to justifie you. This Accusation is, 1. Ei∣ther that you are an open Infidel: Against this you must be justified, by producing your Faith it self. 2. Or that you are a Hypocrite; that is, a close Ʋnbeliever: And so you must be justified coram Deo, by pleading the sincerity of your Faith, and coram hominibus conjecturaliter, by producing Works as the fruits. 3. Or that you are but a half-Be∣liever, or half-Performer of the Conditions; viz. One that took Christ for your own ends to save you, but not to rule you, (Luke 19. 27.) or that believed (in James's sense) but did not obey: Against this you must be justified by producing your consent to Christ's Rule, and your Obedience. (And to this James had respect.) Or, 4. You are accused to be an Apostate: And against this you must be justified, by producing your Perseverance. So that whatever part of the Condition you are accused to have vio∣lated, you must be justified, by proving the perfor∣mance of that part. And this is Justificatio personae & non tantum causae. Nay, when you say, [Works justifie our Faith,] you plainly grant also, that they justifie our Person, when the case is, [Whether we are true Believers or not?] There is no way in this case (which will be the great case at the day of

Judgment) to justifie the Person, but by justifying his Faith. And therefore I said, that I disliked not Mr. Pembles sense as to what he affirmed, [That we are justified by a working Faith:] But as to the denial or recalling of the same again, in saying, [We are not justified by Works;] or, [They justifie not the Person, but his Faith:] For if Faith justifie not, onl•• considered as Faith, but also as working, that is plainly as much as to say, Secondarily we are justi∣fied by Works, or Working, as primarily by Believing; And that Works justifie us, by the justifying of our Faith. For the Apostle saying, [We are justified by Works, and not by Faith only,] doth as plainly as can be spoken, give Works more than a compresentia∣lity, even a co-interest in the effect: For it cannot be said, [We are justified by Works,] because they are present only.