Richard Baxter's Catholic theology plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriors who,…Richard Baxter's Catholick theologie plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriours who,…

106. The faith by which we are justified, as is aforesaid, is best understood ¹by the Baptismal Covenant, and is essentially a Believing Fiducial consent to our Covenant relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as our Reconciled Creator and Father, our Saviour and our Sanctifier, connoting the forsaking of all inconsistents. For it must needs be the same faith by which we have right to the benefits of that Covenant, and by which we are justified; because we have our remission and justification by the Instrumental donation of the Covenant, it being one of the benefits given by it: But Practical Faith, or Believing-consent is our condition of receiving our Covenant right to all the benefits in general; therefore to Justification in particular.

106. The faith by which we are justified, as is aforesaid, is best understood ¹by the Baptismal Covenant, and is essentially a Believing Fiducial consent to our Covenant relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as our Reconciled Creator and Father, our Saviour and our Sanctifyer, connoting the forsaking of all inconsistents. For it must needs be the same faith by which we have right to the benefits of that Covenant, and by which we are justified; because we have our remission and justification by the Instrumental donation of the Covenant, it being one of the benefits given by it: But Practical Faith, or Believing-consent is our condition of receiving our Covenant right to all the benefits in general; therefore to Justification in particular.

1. 1The Controversy between the Papists and us about Justification is agitated i• vain till we agree of the sense of the words [Justification and Remission]. As I said elsewhere they take not only Justification for a qualitative change (such as we call Sanctification) but Remission of Sin) for, they know not what themselves: most of them talk as if it were a putting away the Sin in its essence, which can be meant of nothing but the Habit; for the fact cannot be infectum: Others seem to take it for remitting the punishment also with that change. Malderus most plainly in 1. 2. q. 113. a. 1. and p. 567. saith that Remission of Sin is, Ablatio Reatus culpae; At esse longe aliud quam Nolle illud punire; non enim tantum facit Hominem non puniri, sed etiam non esse Poena dignum. Minus tamen est quam in amicitiam recipi, though yet no man is in a middle state, neque Di amicus neque inimicus, yet cogitations possunt seterari, & Peccata Remittere idem est quod non imputare si hoc non accipias pro dissimulare, sed pro desinere esse offensum cum per Remissionem, Deo non imputante est quasi non fuerit. By this you may see that these Papists hold the same with those Protestants whom they seem most to resist and cannot hide it: But, 1. It will be true to eternity that Peter sinned. 2. To say so, is to blame him. 3 His sin deserv'd death. 4. The Law and the nature of sin past are the same after pardon as before. 5. God doth not change his mind of sin. 6. Gods offence or displeasure is not a passion or mutable, but his essence as denomina ed from the object, to be [his Veil punire, and Justice that must punish] 7. For God to be appeased and no more offended, is but his Nolle punire peccatorem, and not to be obliged in Justice to punish him, but by his Covenant related to him as one that will not punish. 8. This change is in the sinner becoming not punishable; 9. That is, not worthy of it in the Gospel-sense, though worthy by the Law of Innocency. 10. All this is but that the Reatus pna & culpae quantum ad poenam is remitted, but not the Reatus culpae simpliciter in se—And thus we are all agreed.