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 ap∣prehended the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere, as to them, and laid it fast from justi∣fying 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 justifica∣tion 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 righte∣ousnesse 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 Justi∣fyed 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 justi∣fyed, 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, be∣cause without actuall beleeving and receiving of Christ, and so shall be justifyed in the day of judgment, because at the re∣surrection they shall actually beleeve? What a crie do the poor souls in the interim then make in that Limbus in∣santum? 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  3651. 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 be∣comes uselesse, viz.

For none affirmes faith to justifie meerly because it appre∣hendeth 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 explica∣tion 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 Cano∣nicall.

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 righte∣ousnesse 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 righ∣teousnesse which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousnesse which is of God by faith; so making Christ put on for righteous∣nesse, 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 Scri∣pture. For let him either produce one Scripture that affir∣meth 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 Armi∣nius, where this Doctrine is to be found, and not from the Scriptures of Gods inspiration that are wholly a∣gainst 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  3682. 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 con∣fesse 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 tro∣picall 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 them∣selves 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 deny∣eth 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 in∣strumentall 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 pro∣per 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 justi∣fying 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 con∣clude) that in the next life there shall be no use of faith (be∣cause 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 find∣eth: no lesse Orthodox in the point of Justification then Luther or Paul himself: that he explodes all works, all inhe∣rent righteousnesse from bearing the least part with faith un∣to 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 inhe∣rent 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 Secti∣on I let passe without examination.

I come now to the fift and last Section of his Explica∣tion, 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 con∣troverted between us and the Papists first, and in these lat∣ter times the Arminians also, is not whether Gods institu∣ting of faith in Christ, or else the acting of faith so institu∣ted, 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 righte∣ousnesse 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 Armi∣nians 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 Keder∣minster, 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 satis∣faction 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 Cove∣nant promise of Justification by Faith in Christ, could they by beleeving in him have had the beeing and comfort of Justifica∣tion 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 there∣of in themselves also.

We cannot so suppose, for one absurd supposition being granted a thousand more will follow after: Mr. Baxter be∣gins Page  380 too low in his suppositions. Let him here advance a stair higher with us, and suppose first a truth, before he sup∣poseth that which is false and unpossible in respect of that truth that must necessarily be presupposed: viz. That God be∣fore 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 mise∣rable 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 nota∣ble 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 occasi∣on of boasting that there is something of his own to his justi∣fication, and so to glory partly in himself and not wholly in the Lord. So Mr. Baxters arguing, If God had put some other con∣dition, 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 for∣mer supposition is no lesse absurd then the latter. And almost so much at the full, Mr. Baxter, either to toll on his Rea∣der into more snares which afterward he layeth, by his mag∣nificent 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 interweav∣ing 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 be∣fore examined; how it is plain in it self we are here to ex∣amine. To omit how after Mr. Baxters Principles the righte∣ousnesse of Christ can be said to be ours by divine donation and imputation, when he holds it no otherwise by Gods dona∣tion 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 up∣on better promises, Heb. 8. 6. But to let this passe; When M. Bax∣ter 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 understand∣ing 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 do∣nation; 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 for∣mer 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, be∣cause, &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 af∣ter 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 mar∣vel 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 oc∣cupant. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Credere or act of beleeving under the name of a condition of the New Covenant without any respect of instrumentality that it hath to appre∣hend Christ, or any vertue that it receives from Christ appre∣hended 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 Co∣venant, 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 instru∣ments 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 en∣devoured.

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 dona∣tion or giving, or our beleeving or receiving of Christs righteousnesse as if they could not both consist to∣gether in justifying us, at least properly. Then it seems Page  384 we are properly justifyed by the donation of Christ with∣out his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere or act of faith. Yea then are we pro∣perly and formally justifyed in Christ before we yet be∣leeved: 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 be∣fore 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 justi∣fie 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. There∣fore 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 lat∣ter 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 mem∣ber, Gods donation, &c. I deny the consequent of the Page  385 Major, Though Christs righteousnesse justifie us proper∣ly, because it is ours in Law by Gods donation or im∣putation, 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 hin∣ders not, but that our faith as an instrument must be di∣rected 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 ver∣tue by which she was healed was of divine donation, yet it was brought home to her not by the instrumen∣tall 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 appre∣hending 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 ver∣tue Page  386 of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or act of beleeving, but of Christ beleeved on, which wrought the cure: such are the ope∣rations 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 glo∣rieth may glory in the Lord. God hath made him righ∣teousnesse, 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 righ∣teousnesse of Christ to justification, then have we some∣what 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by faith, through faith, as an instrument; and never 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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  3872. 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 judge∣ment, 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 proper∣ly admit of an evill then a good sense. And that he speaks them after the Remonstrant, not the Pro∣testant dialect, is too probable though not infallibly evi∣dent, 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* & 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. Justi∣fication 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 can∣not 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 inter∣ruption of it he speaks here as out of a cloud, yet com∣pare 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  3883. 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 com∣pleatnesse of justification incompleat, and its perfecti∣on 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 fol∣low.

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 sin∣gular man, or individuall person upon earth: to Be∣leevers, but not to this or that beleever. So that the holiest Saint if at any time his faith in some tempta∣tion 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 reser∣vation 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, con∣ditionally, 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 mor∣row Page  389 there to lie untill he should pay the whole for∣feiture.

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.