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.

Aphorism.

HE must have a twofold Righteousness, * 1.1 answerable to the two Covenants, that expecteth to be justified. (vid. locum.)

Animadvers.

You speak of a twofold Righteousness, requisite and neces∣sary unto Justification; but (so far as I can judg) this Doctrine is not founded upon Scripture. For that shews us, that Christ's Satisfaction merely is the Righteousness whereby we are justi∣fied, though Faith be required on our part, that it may be im∣puted to us as ours, that so we may be justified by it. Faith is the condition whereby we are made partakers of that Righte∣ousness, viz. Christ's Satisfaction; and in that respect we are said to be justified by Faith, Rom. 5. 1. with Acts 13. 39. But that Faith is a distinct Righteousness, by which, together with Christ's Satisfaction, we must be justified, seems to be as if we should make the Medicine and the applying of it two things co-ordinate each with other, when as the one is but subordinate and subservient, as it were, to the other, to work the cure; the

Medicine being to no purpose, except it be applied. It cannot, I think, properly be said, that we are cured partly by the Medi∣cine, and partly by the Application, but by the Medicine as ap∣plied: So neither is it proper to say, that we are justified partly by Christ's Satisfaction, and partly by Faith, each of them be∣ing a distinct Righteousness whereby we are justified, but that we are justified by Christ's Satisfaction as our only Righteous∣ness in that respect; yet not by it simply considered; but as that whereby it is made ours, that we may be justified by it.

Reply.

You come now a little nearer the quick; and therein seem very strongly to dissent from me: But when all is examined, it proves most but in words, while you grant in sense all, or most that I desire. Yet because this is a point of so great moment, and you think here lieth my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I think necessary to handle it more fully. And because you pass over (without taking notice of it) the Expli∣cation of my sence of Righteousness, I must briefly repeat it.

It is not the particular Vertue called Justice, by which we give suum cui{que} distributively or com∣mutatively, which we now are handling. It is in sensu forensi that we speak of Righteousness and Ju∣stification. And in that sense, Righteousness is ei∣ther causae vel personae. The persons Righteousness is joyned in the Righteousness of his Cause, and ever supporteth it. The Cause is sometime only one Action or Habit, or some few only; and then the person is justified but secundum quid, or as to that Action of which he was accused, and no further (by the Righteousness of that his Cause.) Sometime the Cause is all a mans Actions or Dispositions which are called in question, which he is put to justi∣fie:

And if he justifie all, he fully justifieth his person, which is called Justificatio personae in the most usual sense of that phrase. But yet a mans Cause may lye in other things than Actions or Dispo∣sitions: (of which anon) and he may have other ways to be justified.

The Righteousness in question is contrary to guilt. Guilt is twofold, 1. Reatus culpae. 2. Reatus poenae: The first so called, in reference to the Precept or Prohibition: The second, in reference directly to the Sanction.

So is there a twofold Righteousness, and in either of them is considerable, both the form, and the quasi-materia. The Precept commandeth to do, or not do. He that obeyeth accordingly, is righteous, and not reus culpae. The Sanction containeth Pro∣mises and Comminations, or determineth de praemiis & poenis: He that is not obligatus ad poenam, is righteous in respect to the Commination; and he that hath jus ad praemium, is righteous as to the premiant act of the Law.

As Justification supposeth Accusation; so Righ∣teousness supposeth (in the Judicial sense of the word) a possibility of Accusation.

As the Law consisteth of these two parts (the preceptive (de agendo vel non agendo) and the San∣ction;) so there is a twofold Accusation that we are liable to: 1. That we have sinned, or have Reatum culpae. 2. And that we are therefore Obligati ad poenam, and have no title to the Reward. To be righteous, in respect of the former Accusation (if it be according to the Law of Works at least, that we are accused, or (as I think) the Law of Grace either) is to be Non-peccator, or to be Innocent. To

be righteous, in respect to the latter Accusation, is to be Non-obligatus ad poenam, or non-condemnan∣dus; or to be rewarded, if the Accuser deny his title to the Reward: Or, if this last be questionable, whether [Just] signifie [Rewardable?] yet none can question the former, Whether it signifie [non obligatus ad poenam.]

The formal nature of [Righteousness] therefore is relative: Even such a transcendental relation is it, as is Reatus, to which it is opposed; and as Debi∣tum is, which is the common formal nature of all proper Morality. And for the fundamentum and subject of this relation: The first subject of Righte∣ousness which is opposed to Reatus cupae, is Actio vel Actionis suspensio (under which is comprized the Disposition:) And from the Action, it resulteth to the Agent or Person, who is the last subject of it: The Person is therefore righteous (in this first sense) because his actions and dispositions are righteous.

The subject of the latter sort of Righteousness (which is opposite to Reatus poenae) is only the person.

The immediate fundamentum of the former Righ∣teousness, as it is personae, is the justitia actionum & dispositionum, as being his own: And so it is a rela∣tion founded in a relation, and both Moral.

The immediate fundamentum of the Righteous∣ness of his actions, is yet another relation; viz. Their Conformity to the Precept or Rule (consider∣ing this Conf••••mity in esse Reali, as it is presup∣posed to the esse Morale.) For it is presupposed, that my action be the same that is commanded, con∣sidering both the Command and Action merely in genere entis, before we consider that action as debi∣tum

in generis moris: And the fundamentum of this relation of Conformity, is immediately the proportio quantitativa vel perfectio adaequata actionum quoad regulam. So that the remote fundamentum of this Conformity, is the same with the subjectum, that is, the Actions themselves, or the Dispositions: Et ita remotè fundatur in actione & qualitate: And the nearest fundamentum is that degree and number of actions, wherein consisteth that perfection which is the Adaequation to the Rule; and so it is founded in quantitate vel graduali perfectione. For this Con∣formity containeth, as it were, a conjunction of a twofold relation, that is, similitude (remotius) and equality (propius.) So much of that first Righ∣teousness, which is a Conformity to the Precept as Precept.

Where observe next, that this is none of our Righteousness, as I have proved, I think, in the Aphorisms: That we have no such Righteousness, as in our own Works, is beyond doubt among all good Christians. And that we have no such Righteousness of Christ (in this form, or as such) imputed to us strictly, and in it self, I perceive you and I are agreed. (Though I will not be so peremptory as to condemn them that maintain, [the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness of this kind, as made ours only by Faith, upon the right of Ʋnion, as being Civiliter one person with * 1.2 Christ;] yet I utterly renounce their Do∣ctrine, that make this Righteousness ours, on the ground of our interest in the mere payment, before any Faith; as if Christ obeyed in nostrâ personâ, and so make us one with Christ before Faith: For I could

shew, that this overthroweth the main substance of the Gospel. I judg that God doth not for Christ's Righteousness esteem us to be non peccatores, but to be non condemnandos, and so to be quasi non peccatores quantum ad reatum poenae.

It is therefore the second kind of Righteousness (non Debitum * 1.3 poenae) which is ours, and which we have here to enquire after. The re∣lative form of this I have spoke of. The subject is the person himself. (To say, that Christ is righteous for us, if we our selves be not also righteous, is no more to our comfort, than that Christ shall be glorified for us, when we our selves shall perish.) The fundamentum of this relation is twofold: The first and immediate, which is the efficient cause of our Righteousness, is with∣out the person, viz. the Donation or Constitution of the Law or Covenant. The second subordinate, more remote, and less proper Foundation, is in our title to that Donation: (I call it Titulus in the Law∣sense) * 1.4 (though duo funda∣menta immediata faciunt du∣plicem relationem, tamen duo fundamenta subordinata non item.) Or, if you, will call the Law or Gift only the funda∣mentum and title, and the other but the condition. This Titu∣lus containeth in it two things considerable: 1. Ra∣tionem formalem Tituli. 2. Rationem fundamenta∣lem, vel causalem. Titulus ad beneficium ex condi∣tione datum (praeter ipsam donationem) est conditionis

praestatio. Hic igitur ratio fundamentalis est duplex: 1. Causa conditionis, quâ conditio est. 2. Causa prae∣stationis vel conditionis quâ praestitae. Causa conditio∣nis quâ conditio est itidem duplex. 1. Remotior & quasi materialis quae est Aptitudo rei ad hoc officium. This Aptitude is denominated in its respect to the ends of the Legislator: which ends are two, 1. That himself and Laws receive no dishonor or wrong. 2. That the subject or party obliged, have a meet way to receive the benefit. Accordingly, the condition is naturaliter apta, 1. Which consisteth in the Creatures performance of its duty in perfecti∣on (as in the Old-Law;) or else, which supposing the wrong of the Legislator repaired, doth give the Repairer also the honor of his Grace (as Faith doth in the New-Covenant:) The former contain∣eth a meritorious Dignity; the latter presupposeth it elsewhere. 2. Which containeth a fitness to the ascertaining our benefit (this is but subordinate, or less principal.) 2. Causa conditionis qua talis Proxima, est Institutio Legis vel foederis: This is the very imme∣diate fundamentum, whence the formalis ratio condi∣tionis doth result. It is a Condition, because the Legi∣slator or Donor doth constitute it such. It is the im∣mediate result of his Constitution, or discovered will.

Where note, that this Act of the Law [Instituere conditionem] is quite different from that other Act which I named a little before, viz. [Constituere de∣bitum praemii vel poenae.] Both are contained in one sentence, [If thou obey perfectly to the end, thou shalt live;] or, [If thou believe, thou shalt be justified, and not come into condemnation, nor perish.] But the former part of the sentence, [If thou believe,] or, [Whosoever believeth,] doth institute the condition:

And the latter part doth institute the debitum praen••ii, and so for the debitum poenae. Also, this Institution of the condition as a condition, is quite different from the Instituting of the dueness of the same thing ut officium, as a mere duty: Which is done by the Precept as a Precept absolutely; and not in connexion to the Sanction, the performance whereof doth only institute the first sort of Righteousness op∣posite to reatus culpae, which I before spoke of. So much de fundamentali ratione conditionis quâ conditio.

2. And then for conditio qua praestita, or the per∣formance it self, which doth most immediately make it to be Titulus secundarius; it is the Actus prae∣stantis: The interest of the party receiving the benefit, is in all this implied (else is it not conditio praestita.)

Here note these Propositions:

Prop. 1. The form of this Righteousness, is nei∣ther the Law, nor the Title, nor any Habit or Act which make up the Title; nor any Merit or Satis∣faction prerequisite to the Title: But only the [non debitum poenae,] to be [not guilty;] non obligatus ad poenam, [non condemnandus:] or, Jus ad impunita∣tem (quoad poenam damni & sensus; jus ad vitam aeternam, per Christi justitiam promeritum & gratis (sub conditione receptionis congruae) donatum.

Prop. 2. Man's own Actions are not the funda∣mentum immediatum of his Righteousness: But the Constitution or tenor of the Law or Covenant is it. This will be thought strange by some perhaps, that Adam's perfect obedience did not immediately constitute him righteous, or non reum poenae; but that we should be made righteous by God's Law without us, more properly and immediately, than the Habits and Acts of holiness within us, and perform∣ed

by us. But it is clear: For Righteousness (now in question) is but the debitum praemii, or non debi∣tum poenae: And debitum is the immediate result or product of the Law or Gift, and not of our Actions.

But you may object, At least our Acts are the ma∣terial cause.

I answer, If by the matter, you mean the sub∣ject, then they are not here: For here only the person is the subject righteous (non obligatus ad poenam:) But the matter of our Title-condition they may be.

Prop. 3. In several senses therefore the Form, the Fundamentum and the Title may be called, [our Righteousness:] But so, as one be not taken for the other; 1. When we say, the Form is our Righte∣ousness, it is but an explicatory Proposition de no∣mine; for otherwise nihil praedicatur de seipso: The same thing is not the subject and predicate. 2. The Gospel-Donation or Constitution de non condemnando fideli, may be called our Righteousness fundamenta∣liter, as being the direct efficient thereof: As the Law's Constitution de non condemnando perfectè obe∣dienti, was the fundamentum of Adam's Righteous∣ness. 3. But most commonly we give the name to the conditio praestita, which is our Title secondary to Righteousness. Of which in particular we must speak more anon.

And thus I have given you my thoughts about the nature of Righteousness in general, and the first distribution of it from the two parts of the Law, Pre∣cept and Sanction. Now I come to the second necessa∣ry distribution of it, which is from the two distinct Laws or Covenants; which is the thing that you

deny: And here I will, 1. Prove, that there is a twofold Righteousness necessary in respect of the two Covenants. 2. And shew you the nature of them, and the difference between them. 3. The necessity hence of a twofold Justification; and in particular, of a Justification by Works. 4. I shall tell you of some Learned Divines that fully hold forth this Doctrine as I do. And,

1. That here are two distinct Righteousnesses ne∣cessary, I shall prove now to you from these fix se∣veral Mediums; which I think best, both for speed and strength, to lay all together. Where there are, 1. Distinct Laws, which our Righteousness must respect. 2. And distinct Legislators or Judges. 3. And distinct Accusations. 4. And distinct Ter∣mini proximi. 5. And distinct Termini remotiores. 6. And distinct Titles: there must needs be distinct Righteousnesses: But so it is in the present case; therefore, &c.

Yet one of these alone will be a sufficient proof. And, 1. If there be distinct Laws from whose con∣demnation we must be freed, and which require distinct conditions of that freedom, then there are distinct Righteousnesses: But, &c. therefore, &c.

Yet here is a great difference (of which more anon.) The Law of Works doth not justifie us, nor cease to condemn us, because Christ satisfied not the Law properly, but the Lawgiver: For the Law knows no satisfaction strictly so called; but re∣quireth solutionem vel officii praecepti, vel poenae com∣minatae (si ita dicam.) It was neither of these that Christ performed: For Actio Noxialis sequitur ca∣put. But yet Christ satisfied God as the Legislator of that Law, and so satisfied the ends of the Law;

so that though for all this Satisfaction, the Law condemns us still (as knowing no such thing as Sa∣tisfaction; it being a supra-legal act to admit of Sa∣tisfaction which is redditio aequivalentis, loco ipsius dèbiti;) yet Deus ut judex secundum hanc legem, condemneth us not: The condemnatio legis, is but condemnatio virtualis & impropria: Condemnatio enim strictissime sumpta, est sententia. It is therefore con∣demnatio judicis that is the full proper condemna∣tion; and this we are freed from. Not ne sit, that it be not at all; for God sentenced man presently on the fall in part: But, 1. ne sit plena & rigorosa, God did not fully then sentence according to the sence of the Law. 2. Ne sit executio vel plena, vel continuata: So that though it be ex post-facto, when the Sen∣tence is past, that Satisfaction is given, yet it is the ground of our Deliverance, and so that we are not plenè & ad poenam perpetuam condemnandi per judi∣cem propter violationem istius legis. The execution would have been full and continued, and that in rigor, if Satisfaction had not been made. Be∣sides, though God had past Sentence on man for his sin at first, yet not on particular persons for all the sins of their lives, which are after committed against that Law: So that the Legislator will call Satisfacti∣on [Righteousness,] as attaining his Legal ends, though that Law it self will not: And the Law it self did necessitate it.

2. And here is a distinct Legislator and Judg. Deus Creator makes the first Law, requiring perfect obe∣dience; and for want of it, beginneth Sentence and Execution, and admitteth of Satisfaction for the stay of it, and for our full deliverance from the in∣curred misery. Upon which Satisfaction received,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

he giveth up all to the Redeemer, and himself judgeth no man, but giveth all judgment to the Son: And at the Sons Judgment, it will be * 1.5 part of our deliverance to be freed from the Judgment or Condemnation of God as Creator. I mean, as Judex secundum solam legem primam: So that though he judg not, yet that is our freedom; for non judicari hoc modo, is non condemnari.

3. But most plain and undeniable it is, that we are liable in Judgment to distinct Accusations; not only circumstantially distinct (for I will not distribute à Circumstantiis) but even as to distinct Laws vio∣lated, or distinct kind of sins, and distinct Commina∣tions against us, and distinct penalties incurred, and distinct conditions unperformed (of which after.)

1. We are liable to be accused as sinners in gene∣ral, and so as having broken the first Law, and there∣by deserved the penalty. This is a true Accusation, and against it directly there is no Justification. But against the annexed Accusation, that [therefore we are per judicem condemnandi ut obligati ad poenam] we must be justified, as by pleading the Dissolution of the Obligation per legem remediantem, as the effi∣cient cause; so by pleading Christ's Satisfaction as the meritorious cause, and quasi materia of our Righ∣teousness; and as being a valuable consideration for the dissolving of our obligation to punishment.

But then we are liable to a second Accusation; viz. That we have no right in Christ, and the benefits of his Satisfaction: That we are not Believers, and that therefore we are guilty of that far sorer punish∣ment. Is not this Accusation toto Coelo different from the former? If this Accusation be true, the sinner must be condemned for want of title to Christ;

and that on two grounds, 1. Because he is left un∣delivered from the condemnation of the first Law. 2. Because he is found guilty by the tenor of the New-Law, both of the said non-liberation, and of the additional punishment. But if this Accusation be false, we are justified, as we next shew, by plead∣ing Not guilty.

Furthermore, this Accusation may be threefold;

1. That we are non-Credentes, not Believers at all, but Pagans.

2. Or that we are not sincerè Credentes, but Hypo∣crites, and not true Believers.

3. Or that we were solifidians, and added not sincere obedience to our Faith, and that to the end. Surely against these several Accusations, we must have several ways of Justification.

4. There are also several Termini or Sentences, from which by Justification they are to be freed; that is, both from being sentenced by God-Creator, as Legislator of the first Law; and from being sentenced by Christ the Redeemer, as Legislator of the New-Law.

5. The Termini remotiores also are distinct: One Condemnation which we must be justified against is, that Death threatned Gen. 3. The other Con∣demnation that by Justification must be prevented is, a far sorer punishment.

6. And lastly, there are several Titles or Pleas against these sentences. Do you think, if Satan ac∣cuse you to be a final Ʋnbeliever, or an Hypocrite, that it will justifie you to plead, [Christ hath satisfi∣ed?] Or if he say, [Thou art a sinner,] is it enough to say, [I do believe?] No: But when he plead∣eth, [Thou hast sinned, and therefore shouldest be con∣demned according to the Law:] We must plead, [quo∣ad

Meritum; Christ hath made Satisfaction, and the merit of that sufficeth, against the demerit of my sin; and, quoad legis constitutionem, the Obligation of the first Law is dissolved by the Grant of the latter. [So that Christ's Satisfaction as to the point of Merit, (which is the Aptitudo ad officium conditionis in the first Law) is loco conditionis à nobis praestitae: And so far is our Title. But then because it being not of our own performance, there must concur our actual interest, to make it to be formaliter Titulus to us; and this interest is by God conveyed by a New-Co∣venant or Law, and this New-Law or Grant, is again conditional. Hence it followeth, that we are devolved over to the New-Law, before our Justifi∣cation and Deliverance from the Old is absolute and compleat: And so, though Christ's Satisfacti∣on be compleat, and perfecta satisfactio, and nothing be wanting quoad meritum; yet it is but Titulus ap∣titudinalis, vel conditionalis; wanting nothing in it self, but something to appropriate it to us to apply it, and give us interest: And that is, 1. On God's part, his * 1.6 Grant or Promise. 2. On our part, the performance of the Condition of this New-Law or Promise. So that as to our Deliverance or Justification from the Condemnati∣on of the first Law, we have a threefold Title ne∣cessary to plead; or a Title thus divided: 1. Quo∣ad Meritum, Christ's Satisfaction is our only Title. 2. Quoad Appropriationem vel Applicationem: 1. God's gift, in Christ's Testament. 2. Our performing the Conditions (though the last be most imperfectly called Title.) As if Adam had perfectly obeyed,

there would have been in his Obedience: 1. The meritorious Value. 2. The personal Interest. So now Christ's Satisfaction is imputed to us for Righte∣ousness, as to the Merit and Value. But the New-Covenant giveth the personal Interest: And because it gives it but conditionally, therefore our performance is of necessity to our personal Interest as the Con∣dition.

But then here being a New-Law (Lex remedians) made for this Conveyance, here is occasion of a New-Accusation, New-Plea, and so a New-Righte∣ousness and Justification: So that here is nova causa, and therefore must needs be nova justitia & justi∣ficatio. The Question was in the first cause, [Whether the Prisoner or accused be condemnandus as a sinner, for breaking the Law of Works?] Quoad meritum, it is presently determined for all: Christ's Satisfaction was sufficiens pretium. But the case cannot be fully decided by that, for then the personal Interest is que∣stioned: Whereupon the cause is devolved to the New-Law, and the performance of its Condition. And there comes in the second cause: [Whether the Defendant have performed the Condition of the New-Law or Covenant?] And here the Condition hath not ad aptitudinem, rationem Meriti: Here he must be justified by producing his Faith in the Redeemer, which is the Condition: Which is the quasi-materia of that his Righteousness, and so his nearest Title to Justification. For if he be accused of final Ʋn∣belief or Rebellion, he must plead [Not guilty.] And here his Acts must first be justified, before he can be justified: Not that they must be justified against every Charge that can be brought against them, or as not being sinful, or as being a Conformity to the

Law of Works, or yet fully to the mere preceptive part of the New-Law: But as being the true per∣formance of the Condition of the New-Law; which is the thing to be made good, when the Accusation is, that we have not performed that Condition.

Note, That where I said before, that this sort of Justification [to be non-obligatus ad poenam] be∣longeth immediately to the man as the only sub∣ject, and not first to his actions: Yet I deny not, but his actions may be the conditional ground of it, as evil actions are the meritorious cause of guilt; on∣ly it is improper to say, that the action is guilty, or obligatus ad poenam.

For indeed it is another sort of justitia, another relation, which we are now speaking of, distinct from [non reus poenae:] I did not mention it before as a third sort of Righteousness constituted by the Law: 1. Because it is only conditional Laws that constitute it: And, 2. Not all those neither, because sometime a Condition may not be actio potestativa vel arbitraria; but it may be either something casu∣al, or some action or thing that is in anothers power. 3. And it is but subordinate, or a means to the last sort of Righteousness [non reatus poenae:] But yet indeed where Laws are (in their Sanction) condi∣onal, they cause a threefold guilt, or a threefold Righteousness: 1. Reatus culpae qua talis (by the Precept:) And so a Righteousness which is non Rea∣tus cupae. 2. Reatus non praestitae conditionis, quâ talis (by the act of Law which constituteth the Con∣dition:) And so a Righteousness which consisteth in performing the Condition. 3. Reatus poenae proptes non praestitam conditionem (by the act of the Law instituting Poenam:) And so a Righteousness con∣trary.

Now the last of these is only on the person for the action, and not on the action. But the two first, are both first on the action, and then on the person: Because Adam's actions were conform to the Precept, and so just; therefore Adam was reputed conform to the Precept, and so just. Because Paul did perform the Conditions of the New-Covenant, his action of Faith and sincere Obedience was con∣form to that Covenant, so far as it instituted the Condition; and in that sense just: And if any had accused Paul's actions as being no true performance of the Condition of the New-Law or Testament, they might first be justified from their own Justice, and then he consequently be in that point just by result therefrom, because the actions were his own, and so justified thereby against the Accusation of non-performance.

And this is it that we use to call the quasi-materia of our Righteousness; viz. that which is the subjectum primum of it, from whence it resulteth on our selves as the subjectum ultimatum, and there resteth. The perfect Obedience of Adam in Innocency, was the subjectum primum justitiae, from whence it flowed to Adam's person as the ultimate principal subject. In reference to the mere Law of Works, we have no Righteousness strictly so called: But as to the Le∣gislator of that Law, and the sententia judicis, we have a Righteousness; and the subjectum primum of that is, Christ's Satisfaction without us, which was equivalent to our Obedience or Punishment. And therefore we use to call Christ's Satisfaction, both the meritorious cause, and the matter of our Legal-Righteousness. So when the case is, Whether we are true performers of the Gospel-condition? there our

Performance it self must first be just (in that) and justified as the subjectum primum of our Righteous∣ness: And thence we our selves must by result be just, and so be justified by that as the quasi-materia of that Righteousness. So that the same Faith, which in our first cause is but Titulus ad justitiam Christi sanguine acquisitam (or rather only conditio Tituli;) is afterwards in the second cause, our ipsa justitia: For when it is ipse Titulus that is questioned, and so made the subject of the cause, then the firmness or solidity of that Title is also the ipsa justitia. For it is the justitia causae, and consequently must be ma∣terially the justitia Personae: I say not his Righteous∣ness universal, and in all respects; but his Righte∣ousness so far, and as to that cause. Thus I have shewed you the necessity of a twofold Righteous∣ness: The proofs from particular Texts of Scrip∣ture, are already in the Aphorisms, and more shall be said of it anon, if I find a call to it.

2. Now for the nature and difference of these Righteousnesses, though it be fully expressed in what is said already, yet I shall add these Diffe∣rences more particularly, wherein the nature will be clearlier understood.

1. One Righteousness consisteth in [our non-obli∣gation to punishment by the Law of Works, notwith∣standing our sinning against it;] because that Obli∣gation is dissolved upon Satisfaction made by Christ. The other Righteousness consisteth in, [our non-obli∣gation to the far greater punishment, and also to the non-liberation from former misery, which are threat∣ned by the New-Covenant.] This first difference is, from the different Laws or Covenants, which have different Conditions; and the fulfilling of the

Condition of each Covenant or Law, is that which is by that Covenant called the matter of our Righ∣teousness; as that from whence the Immunity from the Penalty doth result.

2. Herein I express the second difference, that it is from several punishments that we are freed from. And therefore it is not the same Righteousness to be non reus hujus poenae, and to be non reus alterius poenae.

If you say as some do, that the New-Law hath no proper penalty of its own.

I answer. 1. It is not so: For even already you acknowledge, that it hath a penalty gradually dif∣fering: And the extremest pain of the Stone is so gradually different from the least pain of that kind, that it may constitute a specifick difference in some sense.

Object. But there are pains gradually different, due by the same Law.

Answer. But when it is due by a distinct Law, on distinct terms, there is requisite a distinct Plea for Absolution. 2. Non-liberation is the penalty threat∣ned by the New-Law. He that believeth not, shall not be delivered from the Curse of the first Law. Here the same penalty materially, is the penalty of two distinct Laws, and formally two distinct pe∣nalties, viz. of the first Law, as a penalty first due by it; and of the New-Law, as it is a non-libera∣tion threatned by it.

Object. This penalty we should have been liable to, had there been no New-Covenant.

Answ. Not formaliter: For it would have been but a Privation of the good of the first Covenant, but not a Privation (but mere Negation) of the

Liberation purchased and offered, which is the good of the New-Covenant. For it cannot be a Priva∣tion, till there be some hope or means of our en∣joying it: And therefore to the Devils, the loss of God is Privatio; but their non-liberation from that misery and loss is no Privation: For they ne∣ver had means or hopes to attain such a Liberation; e. g. If a hundred men lye in Prison for Murther, and fifty of them be put death without remedy: These die on the Law against Murther. But if the Parliament to the other fifty make a pardoning Act of Grace, saying, [All that will thankfully accept it, and come out of Prison, shall be pardon∣ed, and the rest shall die by double Torments:] Here now the additional Torment is for their un∣grateful refusal of pardon, not for the first fault; and the first deserved death is for both: As it is such a death, it is the penalty of the Law against Mur∣ther; but as it is a death inflicted after the offer of pardon (which did, as it were, conditionally give a new-life) so it is the penalty of the Law of Grace, which penalty hath in it more than the for∣mer; the loss or Privation of a New-life, and the non-liberation from the formerly-adjudged death. Thus it is in our present case so plainly, that I need not apply it.

3. A third Difference is this: Our first Righte∣ousness is without us, in the Merit and Satisfaction of another, Jesus Christ; and in his free gift by Covenant. But our second Righteousness is within us, and by us: For the New-Law giver will not ad∣mit of a Mediator to believe, and repent, and obey Christ for us; nor of Satisfaction for our final Im∣penitency, Rebellion or Ʋnbelief.

4. Difference: The first Righteousness is by Di∣vines said to be the same thing with Remission of sin; and in substance it is so. The second Righteousness is so far from it, that (as to the point in question) it consisteth in Innocency, or Not-guiltiness, that is, of the non-performance of the Condition of the New-Covenant.

5. The first Righteousness is opposite to that guilt which sin in general procureth. The second is opposite only to that guilt which is procured by one kind of sin in special, viz. Rejecting finally the Lord that bought us.

6. The first Righteousness, as it is materially in Christ's Satisfaction, is not the Idem which the Law required, but the Tantundem. The second is the same which is required by the New-Law, as its Condition.

7. The first Righteousness, as it is materially in Christ's Satisfaction, is not so denominated by the Law it self (which required the Idem, and not the Tantundem, aut obedientiam aut poenam delinquentis, & non poenam innocentis; but by the Legislator who is above Law. The second Righteousness is a Con∣formity to the Law of Grace it self, as it requireth it as a Condition.

8. The first Righteousness is, that we may be justified à condemnatione Legis, by dissolving its Ob∣ligation already contracted. The second is, that we may prevent condemnationem Legis novae, and may not contract the guilt.

9. The first Righteousness seemeth to justifie us against a true Accusation, [That we by sin deserved death.] The second serveth to justifie us only against a false Accusation, [That we have not

performed the Condition of the New-Covenant, that is, that we have finally rejected Christ.

10. The Righteousness of the first Covenant, as re∣quired by the Covenant, lyeth in so full Perfection of duty, that the performance is honorable to the Crea∣ture, and would have made the reward to be of Debt: And as it is in Christ's Satisfaction, it is ac∣cordingly yet more honorable to the Satisfier. But the second Righteousness (the performance of the Condition of the New-Covenant) is purposely de∣signed to another use, to be the sinners self-denying acknowledgment of his sin and misery, and insuffi∣ciency to deliver himself, and so to put all the honor from himself of his recovery, and to honor the Free-Grace of the Redeemer. So that it is not Merit that is its Aptitudo ad officium conditionis, but the glorifying of him that hath merited for us.

11. The matter of the first Righteousness is incon∣sistent with sin in the Performer; because the Pre∣cept and the Condition are of equal extent: The per∣fect obeying of the Precept, is the Condition. But the Righteousness of the second Law, may, and doth consist with sin against the Precept of that same Law, because the Condition is not of so large extent as the Duty commanded. Christ commandeth us much more than he hath directly made the Conditions of his Covenant. Indeed sincere Obedience to him is part of his Condition; and so the Precept of per∣fect duty, is the Rule according to which sincere Obedience doth labour to square its actions: And so the particular duties may be said materially to be∣long to the Condition: But it is but remotely, so far as they are necessarily the matter of sincere Obedi∣ence. For many a duty may be omitted, and yet Obedience be sincere.

12. Chiefly observe, that the first Righteousness is •• justitia universalis, where it is performed by the person himself: And it is universalis exceptâ vel salvâ conditionis necessitate, when it is performed by another (by Christ) and so given us. But the second Righteousness, consisting in our performance of the New-Covenants Condition, is but justitia particu∣laris vel secundum quid, as to this particular cause. I say, that the first had been justitia universalis, if performed by our selves (vel naturaliter vel civiliter ut per delegatum nostrum:) For then we had been absolutely and perfectly innocent. But being per∣formed by another (aequivalenter in Satisfactione) and one that was not our Delegate, but a free Un∣dertaker, therefore it was none of ours upon the mere performance; and therefore the Performer and the Accepter did themselves choose on what terms it should be applied to us, or be made ours quoad fructus: And the terms resolved on were the New-Covenants Conditions, which are now re∣quired of us to our participation hereof. So that now Christ's Satisfaction is not simpliciter our uni∣versal Righteousness; for then there were no need of any other of any sort, to any end, no not the Inherent Righteousness, as commonly acknow∣ledged. But it is our universal Righteousness, except only as to performance of the Condition of its Ap∣plication: For Christ never died for the final non∣performance of this: And where it is performed (as it is by all that are sacred) he need no more to die for their non-performance, than for any nomnial, or falsly-charged sin, which is no sin, but a duty. In all conditional Grants, the Condition is excepted from the Grant. Quod est in conditione non est in ob∣ligatione.

Further, where I call the second, [a particular Righteousness,] understand, that there is a twofold particular Righteousness, according to the cause. One when the cause is of small moment to the plenary Justification and Liberation of the accused: So any Reprobate, or the Devil himself, may be falsly ac∣cused, and may be righteous as to the matter that he is accused of (as Bradshaw truly observes.) But the other is, when the cause is of so great moment, that the Justification or Condemnation, the Life or Death of the party depends upon it, as being the very Condition of that Act of Grace, or remedying Law which all our hope is in, and by which we must be judged: This is our last.

And here I must either explain or reverse my speech in Aphoris. p. 203. [Because there is no danger to us from false Accusation before the All-knowing God, therefore Scripture saith nothing of any such Justification.] Indeed we are in no danger of this or any Accusation (those that are in Christ:) But it is evident in Matth. 25. and all other de∣scriptions of the Judgment-process, that the main point that will be in question and tryal will be, Whether we were true Believers or Performers of the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, or not? and so, Whether we have that personal Inherent Righteousness, which is the Condition of our interest in Christ and his benefits. And therefore the Accuser hath no hope in any other Plea against any man, but that he is an Ʋnbeliever, or Rejecter of recovering mercy. He is not so ignorant of Scripture, as to think to prevail for mens Condemnation, merely because they are sinners, when he knows they will plead, that Christ hath satisfied. But he will labour to

prove, that Christ's Satisfaction shall not absolve them, because they have no right in him, as having not per∣formed his Conditions for participation. On this the sinner must stand or fall, and the final Sentence pass.

13. The last Difference also especially to be noted is, That the first Righteousness is necessary primari∣ly, as being the Creatures Perfection justly required by the holy sin-hating Creator. But the second Righteousness (personal) is required propter aliud, in subordination to the first, as a means to its end: And so stands in no opposition to it, nor doth it ar∣gue it of any imperfection; no more than the ne∣cessity of a means doth signifie any imperfection in the end. The whole reason and nature of Merit ly∣eth in the first Righteousness: But because it was not of our performance, and because the Redeemer ne∣ver intended to make us lawless or masterless, there∣fore a New-Covenant or Law was requisite both for application, donation, or conveyance of Christ's Righ∣teousness to us; and also to prescribe us our duty which should be necessary thereto: And so comes in the ne∣cessity of the 2d Righteousness, subordinate to the first

Thus I have shewed you the differences of these two Righteousnesses. And though some of them are indeed the same in sense with others, yet if the variety of Notions do but conduce to the clearer Explication of the real differences, I have my end. The difference of the two Laws or Co∣venants, is the main ground which shews the neces∣sity of this twofold Righteousness.

3. I should next hence shew you the necessity of a twofold Justification. But it is so evident from what is said, that I will add but this much: If there be a twofold Covenant, with distinct Conditi••ns,

and a twofold Accusation, viz. for not-performing the one or the other, then there must needs be a two∣fold Justification: But &c. ergo, &c. To be accused as a sinner, that is, [one that did not continue in all things written in the Law to do them,] is not the same as to be accused to be [an Ʋnbeliever or Rejecter of Christ, or one that would not have him reign over us, or one that neglected so great Salvation, and improved not the Talents of the Redeemer's Mercies, or obeyed not the Gospel, or trod under foot the blood of the Covenant, &c.] Must you not be justified against the former Accusation by Christ's blood directly? and against the latter by your own Innocency? Will it serve to justifie any man, when Satan accuseth him of final Ʋnbelief or Impenitency, to plead Christ's Satisfaction? Methinks this case is so plain, that I must desire your pardon that I have used so many words about it.

4. Because I come newly from transcribing a mul∣titude of Authors that deliver the same Doctrine as I do, I will now recite the words but of a few (for this is but an Argument against prejudice.) 1. Ju∣dicious Placaeus in Thes. Salmuriens. Vol. 1. de Justis. p. 32, 34. §. 37. §. 41.

Idipsum fortasse hac rati∣one commodius explicabitur. Opponitur Justificatio Accusationi. A duabus autem Accusationibus premi∣mur in foro divino. 1. Objicitur nos esse peccatores: hoc est [Reos violatae conditionis quae faedere Legali lata est.] Deinde objicitur nos esse infideles: hoc est [non praestitisse conditionem faederis gratiae,] viz. Fidem. Ab Accusatione priore sola fide Justifica∣mur; qua Christi gratiam & justitiam amplectimur.

A posteriore Justificamur etiam operibus quatenus iis fides ostenditur. Ad posteriorem Accusationem re∣spiciens

Jacobus affirmavit meritò, ex operibus justi∣ficari hominem, & non ex fide tantum; Paulus vero respiciens ad priorem, sola fide hominem justificari, &c.

§. 42.

In die judicii quoniam foedus gratiae vim Legis seu juris obtinet (promulgatum est enim in toto orbe terrarum per praecones Idoneos.) Id unum pro∣bandum erit, nimirum, nos habuisse conditionem foe∣deris gratiae, scil. Fidem. Ita{que} proferenda erunt in medium opera, praesertim charitatis, tanquam il∣lius conditionis, hoc est fidei effecta at{que} argumenta demonstrativa, ut vulgò loquuntur, à posteriori. Vid. Thesin proximam.

2. Ludovicus de Dieu in Jac. 2. 24.

Facile hic locus conciliatur cum iis quae Paulus passim contra vi∣detur disputare, si statuamus quod est verissimum, 1. Apostolum Jacobum non agere hic de una solâ Ju∣stificatione quae partim fide, partim operibus peraga∣tur, sed de duabus distinctis, quarum prior est ex fide, & fide tantum, altera ex operibus est. Quum enim duplex instituatur accusatio in fideles; una à Deo, Lege & Conscientia à quibus verè peccatores rei aguntur, altera à Diabolo & improbis, à quibus falsò hypocriseos, mercenarii animi, impietatis ac nefari∣orum rei perhibentur, duplex requiritur Justificatio; una quâ in se verè peccatores absolvuntur gratuitò propter Christum à Reatu suorum peccatorum, quae Justificatio à sola fide est sine operibus. Altera, quâ ut vere sanctificati & regeniti, absolvuntur à falsis illis Diaboli & improborum criminationibus. Quae justificatio petitur ex operibus. Jacobus urget, utram{que} esse conjungendam adeo{que} non justificari ho∣minem ex fide tantum, sed & ex operibus. Id est, non sufficere ut justificetur ex side à peccatis quae

commisit, sed requiri porrò ut justificetur etiam ex ••p••ribus à peccatis quorum falso Accusatur & à ••uibus per Regenerationem immunis est.

Vide hujus rei pleniorem explicationem in notis ejus∣dem, in Rom. 8. 4.

3. The same is fully asserted by Wotton de Recon∣cil. p. 1. l. 2. c. 18. and p. 2. l. 2. c. 35. p. 383. n. 7. and p. 2. l. 1. c. 7. p. 144. and Part. 2. l. 1. c. 5. p. 127. §. 3, 4. and c. 6. p. 138. n. 2. (I must content my self to refer you to the places, to save the labour of transcribing.)

1. Bradshaw de Justific. Lat. cap. 24. §. 21, 23, 25, 26. where he tells you of a twofold Righteous∣ness, and that,

Per justitiam Christi nobis imputa∣tam non possimus dici absolutè sive omi modo justi ac si propter eam eo loco nos Deus haberet, ac si omnia ex Lege sua à nobis requisita praestitissemus. Tum enim post admissam & acceptam Christi justitiam il∣lam, nullam à nobis Deus obedientiam Legi suae ex parte nostra praestandam exigere posset. Sed per ju∣stitiam Christi nobis imputatam eatenus nos justos facto; aestimat Deus, quatenus Legis divinae trans∣gressores exst iterimus. Ʋt in tantum ex illa Christi justitia justi facti dicamur, in quantum ex inobe∣dientia nostra injusti constituti simus. Ne{que} enim pro eis omnibus satisfecit Christus quae ex Lege facere tenebamur (huc enim qui Legem dissolveret in mun∣dum venisset:) sed pro eis tantum quae vel contra Le∣gem feceramus, vel cum facere deberemus non fecera∣mus. Et cap. 25. Cui peccati partioularis &c. Vide ultra.

I confess in all this, things are not spoken so or∣derly as I could wish them, but the point in que∣stion is fully asserted. So Deodate in divers places.

And Testardus most fully de Natur. & Grat. Synops. pag. 164. Many more might be alledged, but these may suffice to my ends.

Thus much for the Explication and Confirmati∣on of my Assertion. Now to your words: Your Rea∣son why this Doctrine is not founded on Scripture is, because, [

That shews us that Christ's Satisfaction merely is the Righteousness whereby we are ju∣stified, though faith be required on our part, that it may be imputed to us as ours, &c. Faith is the Condition by which we are made partakers of that Righteousness, viz. Christ's Satisfaction: And in that respect we are said to be justified by Faith, Rom. 5. 1. with Acts 13. 39. But that Faith is a distinct Righteousness, by which, together with Christ's Satisfaction, we must be justified, seems to be as if we should make the Medicine and ap∣plying of it two things co-ordinate each with other, when-as one is but subordinate and subser∣vient, &c.

Reply. 1. You say as much as I in sense; but on∣ly deny the term [Righteousness] to Faith, while you yield the thing.

2. Your Assertion, That it's without Scripture, is but a Petitio principii, and your proof none at all. You shall see the contrary fully anon, and did see Scripture enough cited in the Aphorism.

3. Quoad meritum & materiam justitiae primae foederis, Christ's Satisfaction is solely and wholly our Righteousness, and not our Faith.

4. If Faith be the Condition constituted by a New-Law or Covenant, by which we are to be judged to life or death, then the performance of

that Condition is the thing materially by which that same Covenant will judg us righteous, non reos poenae illius Legis: And so when the Questi∣on is, Whether we have performed that Condition or no? the actual performance is our Righteousness as to that cause. Let any unprejudiced man judg, whether this be not clear truth.

5. You confess, that more than Faith is in the Condition: Repentance, Love, &c. And James saith, We are justified by Works; and Christ, by our Words: Therefore it is not true, that [this is not Scripture-Doctrine and Language;] nor that it is improper to say, we are thus justified. And also this is no Physical Application.

6. If it were improper to say, We are healed by the Medicine, and by the Application: 1. Then com∣mon speech deceives us. 2. Rules of Logick de∣ceive us. 3. Scripture should speak improperly in saying, We are justified by Faith and Works, and not only by Christ's Satisfaction. 7. The Appli∣cation of a Medicine hath its interest in the Cure, ex necessitate & aptitudine naturali immediately: But Faith, Repentance and sincere Obedience, have their interest in our Justification; but remotely ex naturali aptitudine, and immediately proximè ex Constitutione Divina, and in their Moral respect. And therefore your example from a Physical case to an Ethical or Political, will little hold or illustrate.

8. But you do very strangely seem to overlook the frequently-inculcated passages of my Book, and so to mistake and overlook my meaning in that very point, wherein I most fully express it, when you speak of [a distinct Righteousness, together with Christ's Satisfaction, &c. as two things co-ordinate,

which partly one, partly the other justifie, when one is subordinate, &c.] What have I said so frequently and fully, as that Faith is no part of our Legal Righteousness? That it is not joyned with Christ's Satisfaction to make up our Righteousness? nor is one grain of it? nor hath any Merit in it? or is accepted for its value? &c. I fully profess that they are not co-ordinate; but that the very New-Law or Covenant is but subordinate to the Old; and conse∣quently the Righteousness required by it, is but sub∣ordinate and subservient to the Righteousness of Christ's Satisfaction for our sins against the Law; and that it is the Condition of enjoying it: And therefore our Righteousness so far, because a Conditi∣on instituted by a New-Law. It is injurious there∣fore to talk of Co-ordination as my sense, who so constantly profess the one to be subservient, & prop∣ter aliud, as your Application of the Medicine is. And I little doubt, but it is proper to say, He that hath the Medicine, and will not apply it, dies for want of Application; and he that doth apply it, recovers in one respect, through the Medicine; in another, because he applied it. I think we are agreed, how much of the praise belongs to the Medicine, and how much to the Application: And then for the term [Righteousness,] we shall see what the Scripture saith of it anon, when your Excep∣tions more necessarily lead me to it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 103.
• * 1.2

  Though I hold it a perilous Doctrine.
• * 1.3

  Jus ad impunita∣tem & vitam.
• * 1.4

  By Titulus here I mean but that which we must produce of our own, to prove our spe∣cial right: And not the fundamentum juris in full sense. For that is the Deed of gift, which therefore is most pro∣perly our title.
• * 1.5

  John 5. 22.
• * 1.6

  If any had rather call Faith Conditio Tituli, than ipse Titulus, I do not dislike it, but think it the properest speech.