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.

§ XX. P. 36. 37. You say [For your various De∣finitions of Justification, Constitutive, Sentential, Ex∣ecutive, in Foro Dei, in foro Conscientiae, &c.—What need this heap of distinctions here, when you know the question betwixt us is of no other Justificati∣on, but the Constitutive in foro Dei, that which maketh us righteous in the Court of Heaven? I have nothing to do with you yet in any else, as your own Conscience will tell you when you please: If you have not more Justice and civility for your intelligent Readers, I wish you

would shew more Compassion to your Ignorant Homa∣gers, and not thus abuse them with your palpable Eva∣sions.

Answ. Doth the question, Whether the several sorts of Justification will bear one and the same Definition, deserve all this anger (and the much greater that followeth)?

1. Seeing I am turned to my Reader, I will crave his impartial judgment: I never received and agreed on a state of the question with this Doctor: He wri••eth against my books: In those Books I over and over and over distinguish of Justification, Con∣stitutive, Sentential, and Executive (besides those subordinate sorts, b•• Witness, Evidence, Apology, &c.) I oft open their differences: He writeth against me, as denying all Imputation of Christs Righteousness, and holding Popish Justification by works, and never tells me whether he take the word [Justification] in the same sense that I do, or in which of those that I had opened: And now he passionately appealeth to my Conscience that I knew his sence: What he saith [my Conscience will tell me] it is not true: It will tell me no such thing: but the clean contrary, that even after all his Disputes and Anger, and these words, I profess I know not what he meaneth by [Justification.]

2. What [Constitutive in foro Dei, that which ma∣keth us Righteous in the Court of Heaven] meaneth with him, I cannot conjecture. He denyeth not my Distinctions, but saith, what need they: I ever di∣stinguished Making Righteous, Judging Righteous. Executively useing as Righteous: The first is in our selves; The second is by Divines said to be in foro Dei, an act of Judgment; the third is upon us after

both: now he seemeth to confound the two first, and yet denyeth not their difference; and saith, he meaneth [Constitutive in foro:] He that is made Righteous is such in se; and as such is Justifiable in foro:] We are Made Righteous by God as free Donor and Imputer, anteceden••ly to judgment: We are in foro sentenced Righteous by God as Judg: so that this by sentence presupposeth the former: God never Judgeth us Righteous and Justifi••th us a∣gainst Accusation, till he have first Made us Righteous and Justified us from adherent Guilt by Pardon and Donation. Which of these meaneth 〈◊〉〈◊〉? I ask not my Ignorant homagers who know no more than I, but his Intelligent Reader. He taketh on him to go the Commonest way of Protestants: And the Commonest way is to acknowledg that a Constitutive Justification, or making the man Just, (antecedent to the Actus forensis) must need go first: but that it is the second which Paul usually meaneth, which is the actus forensis, the sentence of the Judg in foro, contrary to Condemnation: And doth the Doctor think that to make Righteous and to sentence as Righ∣teous are all one? and that we are made Righteous in foro otherwise than to be just in our selves and so Ju∣stifiable in foro, before the Sentence? or do Protestants take the Sentence to be Constituting or Making us Righteous? All this is such talk as had I read it in Mr. Bunnyan of the Covenants, or any of my Ignorant H••magers, I should have said, the Author is •• stran∣ger to the Controversie, into which he hath rashly planged himself: but I have more reverence to so learned a man, and therefore blame m•• dull understanding.

3. But what if I had known (as I do not yet) what sort of Justification he meaneth? Doth he not

know that I was then deba••ing the Case with him, whether the Logical Definitions of Justification, Faith, &c. are not a work of Art, in which a few well studied judicious Divines (these were my words) are to be preferred before Authority, or Ma∣jority of Votes. And Reader, what Reason bound me to consine this Case, to one only sort of Justifi∣cation? And why, (I say, why) must I confine it to a sort which Dr. Tully meaneth, when my Rule and Book was written before his, and when to this day I know not what he meaneth? Though he at once chide at my Distinguishing, and tell me that All Protestants agree in the Nature, Causes, and Definition, (and if all agreed, I might know by other Mens words what he meaneth) yet to all be∣fore-said, I will add but one contrary Instance of many.

Cluto, in his very Methodical but unsound Idea Theol. (signalized in Voetii Biblioth.) defineth Ju∣stification so, as I suppose, best pleaseth the Do∣ctor, viz. [Est Actio Dei Judicialis, qua redemptos propter passiones justitiae Divinae satifactorias a Christo sustentatas, redemptisque imputatas, a peccatis puros, & consequenter a poenis liberos, itemque propter Obe∣dientiam a Christo Legi Divinae praestitam redemptis∣que imputatam, justitia praeditos, & consequenter vita aeterna dignos, ex miserecordia pronunciat]. In the opening of which he telleth us, pag. 243. (a∣gainst multitudes of the greatest Protestants Defi∣nitions.) [Male alteram Justificationis partem, ip∣sum Justitiae Imputationem statui, cum Justificatio non sit ipsa Imputatio, sed Pronunciatio quae Impu∣tatione, tanquam fundamento jacto, nititur.

And he knew no sense of Justification, but [Vel ipsam sententiae Justificatoriae in mente Divina pro∣lationem, sive Constitutionem, vel ejus in Cordibus redemptorum manifestantem Revelationem: And saith, Priori modo factum est autem omnem fidem, cum Deus omnes, quibus passiones & justitiam Christi imputabat, innocentes & justos reputaret, cum ejus inimici, ade∣oque sine fide essent, (so that here is a Justification of Infidels, as innocent for Christs Righteousness impu∣ted to them): Quare etiam ut jam facta fide appre∣hendenda est. The second which follows Faith, is Faith, ingenerating a firm perswasion of it. Is not here sad defining, when neither of these are the Scripture-Justification by Christ and Faith?

And so §. 32. the time of Justification by Faith he maketh to be the time when we receive the feel∣ing of the former: And the time of the former is presently after the Fall; of all at once: And hence gathereth that [Ex eo quod Justificatio dici∣tur fieri propter passiones & obedientiam Christi, qui∣bus ad perfectionem nihil deest, nobis imputatas (before Faith or Birth) consequitur innocentiam & justitiam in Redemptis quam primum perfectas & ab omni macula puras esse—] and so that neither the pronunciation in mente Divina, or imputation ullis gradibus ad perfectionem exsurgat.

But what is this pronunciation in mente Divina? He well and truly noteth, §. 29. that [Omnes actiones Divinae, fi ex eo aestimentur quod re ipsa in Deo sunt, idem sunt cum ipso Deo, ideoque depen∣dentiam a Causa externa non admittant: Si tamen considerentur quoad rationem formalem hujus vel illius denominationis ipsis impositae in relatione ad Creatu∣ras consistentem, ipsis causae impulsivae assignare pos∣sunt,

&c. This distinction well openeth, how God may be said to justifie in His own Mind: But what is that effect, Ʋnde essentia vel mens Divina ita denominatur justificans? Here he is at a loss, neither truly telling us what is Justication Consti∣tutive, Sentential, nor Executive (but in the little part of [Feeling] Gods secret Act) yet this dark Definer truly saith [Ex sensu Scripturae verissime affirmetur hominem per fidem solam justificari, quia ex nostra parte nihil ad Justificationem conferendum Deus requirit, quam ut Justificationem in Christo fun∣datam credamus, & fide non producamus, sed reci∣piamus.

If yet you would see whether all Protestants agree in the Definition of Justification, read the multitude of Definitions of it in several senses; in Learned Alstedius his Definit. Theol. c. 24. §. 2. pag. 97. &c. [Justificatio hominis coram Deo est qua homo in foro Divino absolvitur, seu justus esse evinci∣tur contra quemvis actorem, Deo ipso judice, & pro eo sententiam ferente]. But what is this Forum? Forum Divinum est ubi Deus ipse judicis partes agit, & fert sententiam secundum leges a se latas? But where is that Est internum vel externum? Fo∣rum divinum internum est in ipsa hominis Conscientia, in qua Deus Thronum justitiae erigit in hac vita ibi agendo partes actoris & judicis: Forum Conscientiae. (But it is not this that is meant by the Justification by Faith). Forum divinum externum est, in qua Deus post hanc vitam extra hominem exercet judicium, 1. Particulare, 2. Ʋniversale. This is true and well: But are we no where Justified by Faith but in Conscience, till after Death? This is by not consi∣dering, 1. The Jus ad impunitatem & vitam do∣natum

per foedus Evangelicum upon our Believing, which supposing Faith and Repentance is our Con∣stitutive Justification, (virtually only sentential). 2. And the Judgment of God begun in this Life, pronounced specially by Execution. Abundance of useful Definitions subordinate you may further there see in Alstedius, and some wrong, and the chief omitted.

The vehement passages of the Doctors Conclu∣sion I pass over; his deep sense of unsufferable Pro∣vocations, I must leave to himself; his warning of the dreadful Tribunal which I am near, it greatly concerns me to regard: And Reader, I shall think yet that his Contest (though troublesome to me that was falsly assaulted, and more to him whose detected Miscarriages are so painful to him) hath yet been Profitable beyond the Charges of it to him or me, if I have but convinced thee, that 1. Sound mental Conceptions of so much as is necessary to our own Justification, much differ from proper Logical Definitions: And that, 2. Many millions are Justi∣fied that cannot define it: 3. And that Logical De∣finitions are Works of Art more than of Grace, which require so much Acuteness and Skill, that even worthy and excellent Teachers may be, and are disagreed about them, especially through the great ambiguity of Words; which all understand not in the same sence, and few are sufficiently suspicious of, and diligent to explain. 4. And therefore that our Christian Love, Peace, and Concord, should not be laid upon such Artificial things. 5. And that really the Ge∣nerality of Protestants are agreed mostly in the Mat∣ter, when they quarrel sharply about many Arti∣ficial Notions and Terms in the point of Justifica∣tion.

(And yet after all this, I shall as earnestly as this Doctor, desire and labour for accurateness in Distinguishing, Defining and Method, though I will not have such things to be Engins of Church-Division.)

And lastly, Because he so oft and earnestly pres∣seth me with his Quem quibus, who is the Man, I profess I dreamed not of any particular Man: But I will again tell you whom my Judgment mag∣nifies in this Controversie above all others, and who truly tell you how far Papists and Protestants agree, viz. Vinc. le Blank, and Guil. Forbes, (I meddle not with his other Subjects), Placeus (in Thes. Salmur.) Davenant, Dr. Field, Mr. Scud∣der (his daily Walk, fit for all families) Mr. Wotton, Mr. Bradshaw, and Mr. Gataker, Dr. Preston, Dr. Hammond, (Pract. Cat.) and Mr. Lawson (in the main) Abundance of the French and Breme Divines are also very clear. And though I must not provoke him again by naming some late English men, to re∣proach them by calling them my disciples, I will venture to tell the plain man that loveth not our wrangling tediousness, that Mr. Trumans Great Propit. and Mr. Gibbons serm. of Justif. may serve him well without any more.

And while this worthy Doctor and I do both concord with such as Davenant and Field as to Ju∣stification by Faith or Works, judg whether we differ between our selves as far as he would perswade the World, who agree in tertio? And whether as he hath angrily profest his concord in the two other Controversies which he raised (our Guilt of nearer Parents sin, and our preferring the judgment of the wisest, &c.) it be not likely that he will do so also

in this, when he hath leisure to read and know what it is that I say and hold, and when we both under∣stand our selves and one another. And whether it be a work worthy of Good and Learned men, to al∣larm Christians against one another for the sake of arbitrary words and notions (which one partly useth less aptly and skilfully than the other) in matters wherein they really agree.

2 Tim. 2. 14. Charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words, to no profit, but to the sub∣verting of the Hearers (yet) study to shew thy self ap∣proved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of Truth