Distinction of a first and second justification — The whole doctrine of the Roman church concerning justification grounded on this distinction — The first justification, the nature and causes of it, according unto the Romanists — The second justification, what it is in their sense — Solution of the seeming difference between Paul and James, falsely pretended by this distinction — The same distinction received by the Socinians and others — The latter termed by some the continuation of our justification — The distinction disproved — Justification considered, either as unto its essence or its manifestation — The manifestation of it twofold, initial and final — Initial is either unto ourselves or others — No second justification hence ensues — Justification before God, legal and evangelical — Their distinct natures — The distinction mentioned derogatory to the merit of Christ — More in it ascribed unto ourselves than unto the blood of Christ, in our justification — The vanity of disputations to this purpose — All true justification overthrown by this distinction — No countenance given unto this justification in the Scripture — The second justification not intended by the apostle James — Evil of arbitrary distinctions — Our first justification so described in the Scripture as to leave no room for a second — Of the continuation of our justification; whether it depend on faith alone, or our personal righteousness, inquired — Justification at once completed, in all the causes and effects of it, proved at large — Believers, upon their justification, obliged unto perfect obedience — The commanding power of the law constitutes the nature of sin in them who are not obnoxious unto its curse — Future sins, in what sense remitted at our first justification — The continuation of actual pardon, and thereby of a justified estate; on what it does depend — Continuation of justification, the act of God; whereon it depends in that sense — On our part, it depends on faith alone — Nothing required hereunto but the application of righteousness imputed — The continuation of our justification is before God — That whereon the continuation of our justification depends, pleadable before God — This not our personal obedience, proved:— 1. By the experience of all believers. 2. Testimonies of Scripture. 3. Examples — The distinction mentioned rejected
Before we inquire immediately into the nature and causes of justification, there are some things yet previously to be considered, that we may prevent all ambiguity and misunderstanding about the subject to be treated of. I say, therefore, that the evangelical justification, which alone we plead about, is but one, and is at once completed. About any other justification before God but one, we will not contend with any. Those who can find out another may, as they please, ascribe what they will unto it, or ascribe it unto what they will. Let us, therefore, consider what is offered of this nature.
Those of the Roman church do ground their whole doctrine of justification upon a distinction of a double justification; which they call the first and the second. The first justification, they say, is the infusion or the communication unto us of an inherent principle or habit of grace or charity. Hereby, they say, original sin is extinguished, and all habits of sin are expelled. This justification they say is by faith; the obedience and satisfaction of Christ being the only meritorious cause thereof. Only, they dispute many things about preparations for it, and dispositions unto it. Under those terms the Council of Trent included the doctrine of the schoolmen about “meritum de congruo,” as both Hosius and Andradius confess, in the defence of that council. And as they are explained, they come much to one; however, the council warily avoided the name of merit with respect unto this their first justification. And the use of faith herein (which with them is no more but a general assent unto divine revelation) is to bear the principal part in these preparations. So that to be “justified by faith,” according unto them, is to have the mind prepared by this kind of believing to receive “gratiam gratum facientem,” — a habit of grace, expelling sin and making us acceptable unto God. For upon this believing, with those other duties of contrition and repentance which must accompany it, it is meet and congruous unto divine wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness, to give us that grace whereby we are justified. And this, according unto them, is that justification whereof the apostle Paul treats in his epistles, from the procurement whereof he excludes all the works of the law. The second justification is an effect or consequent hereof, and the proper formal cause thereof is good works, proceeding from this principle of grace and love. Hence are they the righteousness wherewith believers are righteous before God, whereby they merit eternal life. The righteousness of works they call it; and suppose it taught by the apostle James. This they constantly affirm to make us “justos ex injustis;” wherein they are followed by others. For this is the way that most of them take to salve the seeming repugnancy between the apostles Paul and James. Paul, they say, treats of the first justification only, whence he excludes all works; for it is by faith, in the manner before described: but James treats of the second justification; which is by good works. So Bellar., lib. ii. cap. 16, and lib iv. cap. 18. And it is the express determination of those at Trent, sess. vi. cap. 10. This distinction was coined unto no other end but to bring in confusion into the whole doctrine of the gospel. Justification through the free grace of God, by faith in the blood of Christ, is evacuated by it. Sanctification is turned into a justification, and corrupted by making the fruits of it meritorious. The whole nature of evangelical justification, consisting in the gratuitous pardon of sin and the imputation of righteousness, as the apostle expressly affirms, and the declaration of a believing sinner to be righteous thereon, as the word alone signifies, is utterly defeated by it.