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.

§. 8. He proceedeth thus, [And it will be vain, if any argue, That yet none can be saved without Evan∣gelical Works, according to which it is confessed that all men shall be judged: for the distinction is easie (which the Author of the Aphorisms somewhere useth) between the first or Private, and the last or Publick Justification. In the first sense it is never said, That Works justifie, but contrary, That God justifieth him that worketh not, Rom. 4. 5. In the latter we confess that Believers are to be justified according to Works, but yet not Of (or By) Works, nor that that Justifi∣cation maketh men just before God, but only so pro∣nounceth them.

Answ. 1. This is such another Consenting Ad∣versary

as once before I was put to answer; who with open mouth calls himself consequentially what he calleth me; if the same Cause, and not the Per∣son make the Guilt. Nay let him consider whether his grand and most formidable Weapon [So also saith Bellarmine, with other Papists] do not wound himself: For they commonly say, That the first Ju∣stification is not of Works, or Works do not first ju∣stifie us. Have I not now proved that he erreth and complyeth with the Papists? If not, let him use bet∣ter Arguments himself.

2. But why is the first Justification called Pri∣vate? Either he meaneth God's mak••ng us just con∣stitutively, or his judging us so: and that per sen∣tentiam conceptam only, or prolatam also.

1. The common distinction in Politicks, inter judicium Privatum & Publicum, is fetcht from the Judg, who is either Persona privata vel publica: a private Man, or an authorized Judg judging as such: And so the Judgment of Conscience, Friends, Enemies, Neighbours, mere Arbitrators, &c. is Judicium privatum; and that of a Judg in foro, is Judicium publicum, (yea, or in secret, before the concerned Parties only in his Closet, so it be deci∣sive): If this Learned Doctor so understand it, then, 1. Constitutive Justification (which is tru∣ly first) is publick Justification, being done by God the Father, and by our Redeemer, who sure are not herein private authorized Persons. 2. And the first sentential Justification, as merely Virtual, and not yet Actual, viz. as it's virtually in the Ju∣stifying Law of Grace as norma Judicis is publick in suo genere, being the virtus of a Publick Law of God, or of his Donative Promise. 3. And the

first Actual Justification, per Deum Judicem per sententiam conceptam (which is God's secret judging the Thing and Person to be as they are) is (secret indeed in se, yet revealed by God's publick Word but) publick as to the Judg. 4. And the first sen∣tentia prolata (the fourth in order) is someway publick as opposite to secresie, (for, 1. it is before the Angels of Heaven; 2. And in part by Execu∣tive demonstrations on Earth): But it is certainly by a publick Judg, that is, God. 5. And the first Apologetical Justification by Christ our Interceding Advocate, is publick both quoad personam, and as openly done in Heaven: And if this worthy Person deny any Justification per sententiam Judicis, upon our first Believing, or before the final Judgment, he would wofully fall out with the far greatest number of Protestants, and especially his closest Friends, who use to make a Sentence of God as Judg to be the Genus to Justification.

But if by [Private and Publick Justification]; he means [secret and open]. 1. How can he hope to be understood when he will use Political Terms unexplained, out of the usual sense of Politicians: But no men use to abuse words more than they that would keep the Church in flames by wordy Contro∣versies, as if they were of the terms of Life and Death. 2. And even in that sense our first Justifi∣cation is publick or open, quoad Actum Justifican∣cantis, as being by the Donation of a publick Word of God; Though quoad effectum in recipiente, it must needs be secret till the Day of Judgment, no Man knowing anothers Heart, whether he be in∣deed a sound Believer: And so of the rest as is in∣timated.

Concerning what I have said before, some may Object, 1. That there is no such thing as our Justifi∣cation notified before the Angels in Heaven. 2. That the Sententia Concepta is God's Immanent Acts, and therefore Eternal.

Answ. To the first, I say, 1. It is certain by Luk. 15. 10. that the Angels know of the Conver∣sion of a Sinner, and therefore of his Justification and publickly Rejoyce therein. Therefore it is noti∣fied to them. 2. But I refer the Reader for this, to what I have said to Mr. Tombes in my Disputation of Justification, where I do give my thoughts, That this is not the Justification by Faith meant by Paul, as Mr. Tombes asserteth it to be.

To the Second, I say, Too many have abused Theology, by the misconceiving of the distinction of Immanent and Transient Acts of God, taking all for Immanent which effect nothing ad extra. But none are properly Immanent quoad Objectum, but such as God himself is the Object of, (as se in∣telligere, se amare): An Act may be called indeed immanent in any of these three respects; 1. Ex parte Agentis; 2. Ex parte Objecti; 3. Ex parte effectus. 1. Ex parte agentis, all God's Acts are Immanent, for they are his Essence. 2. Ex parte Objecti vel Termini, God's Judging a Man Just or Unjust, Good or Bad, is transient; because it is denominated from the state of the Terminus or Ob∣ject: And so it may be various and mutable deno∣minatively, notwithstanding God's Simplicity and Immutability. And so the Sententia Concepta is not ab Aeterno. 3. As to the Effect, all confess God's Acts to be Transient and Temporary. But there are some that effect not (as to judg a thing to be what it is).

3. Either this Militant Disputer would have his Reader believe that I say, That a Man is justified by Works, in that which he called [making just, and the first Justification], or not: If he would, such untruth and unrighteousness (contrary to the full drift of many of my Books, and even that which he selected to oppose) is not a congruous way of disputing for Truth and Righteousness: nor indeed is it tolerably ingenuous or modest. If not, then why doth he all along carry his professed agreement with me, in a militant strain, perswading his Reader, that I savour of Socinianism or Pope∣ry, or some dangerous Error, by saying the very same that he saith. O what thanks doth God's Church owe such contentious Disputers for suppo∣sed Orthodoxness, that like noctambuli, will rise in their sleep, and cry, Fire, Fire, or beat an Allarm on their Drums, and cry out, The Enemy, The Enemy, and will not let their Neighbours rest!

I have wearied my Readers with so oft repeating in my Writings (upon such repeated importuni∣ties of others) these following, Assertions about Works.

1. That we are never justified, first or last, by Works of Innocency.

2. Nor by the Works of the Jewish Law (which Paul pleadeth against).

3. Nor by any Works of Merit, in point of Commutative Justice, or of distributive Governing Justice, according to either of those Laws (of In∣nocency, or Jewish).

4. Nor by any Works or Acts of Man, which are set against or instead of the least part of God's

Acts, Christ's Merits, or any of his part or ho∣nour.

5. Nor are we at first justified by any Evangeli∣cal Works of Love, Gratitude or Obedience to Christ, as Works are distinguished from our first Faith and Repentance.

6. Nor are we justified by Repentance, as by an instrumental efficient Cause, or as of the same re∣ceiving Nature with Faith, except as Repentance signifieth our change from Ʋnbelief to Faith, and so is Faith it self.

7. Nor are we justified by Faith as by a mere Act, or moral good Work.

8. Nor yet as by a proper efficient Instrument of our Justification.

9. Much less by such Works of Charity to Men, as are without true love to God.

10. And least of all, by Popish bad Works, cal∣led Good, (as Pilgrimages, hurtful Austerities, &c.)

But if any Church-troubling Men will first call all Acts of Man's Soul by the name of WORKS, and next will call no Act by the name of Justifying Faith, but the belief of the Promise (as some) or the accepting of Christ's Righteousness given or im∣puted to us, as in se, our own (as others) or [the Recumbency on this Righteousness] (as others) or all these three Acts (as others); and if next they will say that this Faith justifieth us only as the pro∣per Instrumental Cause; and next that to look for Justification by any other Act of Man's Soul, or by this Faith in any other respect, is to trust to that Justification by Works, which Paul confuteth, and to fall from Grace, I do detest such corrupting and

abusing of the Scriptures, and the Church of Christ. And I assert as followeth;

1. That the Faith which we are justified by, doth as essentially contain our belief of the Truth of Christ's Person, Office, Death, Resurrection, In∣tercession, &c. as of the Promise of Imputation.

2. And also our consent to Christ's Teaching, Government, Intercession, as to Imputation.

3. And our Acceptance of Pardon, Spirit, and promised Glory, as well as Imputed Righteousness of Christ.

4. Yea, that it is essentially a Faith in God the Father, and the Holy Ghost.

5. That it hath in it essentially somewhat of Ini∣tial Love to God, to Christ, to Recovery, to Glo∣ry; that is, of Volition; and so of Desire.

6. That it containeth all that Faith, which is ne∣cessarily requisite at Baptism to that Covenant; even a consenting-practical-belief in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and is our Christianity it self.

7. That we are justified by this Faith, as it is [A moral Act of Man, adapted to its proper Office, made by our Redeemer, the Condition of his Gift of Justification, and so is the moral receptive aptitude of the Subject, or the Dispositio materiae vel subjecti Re∣cipientis]: Where the Matter of it is [An adapted moral Act of Man] (by Grace). The Ratio forma∣lis of its Interest in our Justification is [Conditio praestita] speaking politically, and [Aptitudo vel Dispositio moralis Receptiva] speaking logically; which Dr. Twiss still calleth Causa dispositiva.

8. That Repentance as it is a change of the Mind from Unbelief to Faith, (in God the Father,

Son, and Holy Ghost) is this Faith denominated from its Terminus à quo (principally).

9. That we are continually justified by this Faith as continued, as well as initially justified by its first Act.

10. That as this Faith includeth a consent to fu∣ture Obedience, (that is, Subjection) so the perfor∣mance of that consent in sincere Obedience, is the Condition of our Justification as continued (Secon∣darily) as well as Faith (or consent it self) pri∣marily: And that thus James meaneth, that we are Justified by Works.

11. That God judging of all things truly as they are, now judgeth Men just or unjust, on these Terms.

12. And his Law being Norma judicii, now ver∣tually judgeth us just on these terms.

13. And that the Law of Grace being that which we are to be judged by, we shall at the last Judgment also be judged (and so justified) thus far by or according to our sincere Love, Obedience, or Evangelical Works, as the Condition of the Law or Covenant of free Grace, which justifieth and glorifieth freely all that are thus Evangelically qua∣lified, by and for the Merits, perfect Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ, which procured the Cove∣nant or free Gift of Universal Conditional Justifica∣tion and Adoption, before and without any Works or Conditions done by Man whatsoever.

Reader, Forgive me this troublesom oft repeating the state of the Controversie; I meddle with no other. If this be Justification by Works, I am for it. If this Doctor be against it, he is against much

of the Gospel. If he be not, he had better have kept his Bed, than to have call'd us to Arms in his Dream, when we have sadly warred so many Ages already about mere words. For my part, I think that such a short explication of our sense, and re∣jection of ambiguities, is fitter to end these quar∣rels, than the long disputations of Confounders.

4. But when be saith, [Works make not a Man just, and yet we are at last justified according to them], it is a contradiction, or unsound. For if he mean Works in the sence excluded by Paul, we are not justified according to them, viz. such as make, or are thought to make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt: But if he take Works in the sense intended by James, sincere Obedience is a secon∣dary constitutive part of that inherent or adherent per∣sonal Righteousness, required by the Law of Grace, in subordination to Christ's Meritorious Righteousness; And what Christian can deny this? So far it maketh us Righteous, (as Faith doth initially). And what is it to be justified according to our Works, but to be judged, so far as they are sincerely done, to be such as have performed the secondary part of the Condi∣tions of free-given Life?

5. His [According] but not [ex operibus] at the Last Judgment, is but a Logomachie [Accor∣ding] signifieth as much as I assert: But [ex] is no un••pt Preposition, when it is but the subor∣dinate part of Righteousness and Justification, of which we speak, and signifieth (with me) the same as [According].

6. His Tropical Phrase, that [Works pronounce us just] is another ambiguity: That the Judg

will pronounce us just according to them, as the fore∣said second part of the Constitutive Cause, or Matter of our Subordinate Righteousness, is certain from Matth. 25. and the scope of Scripture: But that they are only notifying Signs, and no part of the Cause of the day to be tryed, is not true, (which too many assert).