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.

Reply.

1. Nor did ever I teach it: And yet one would think you intimate that I did. [Simply and Abso∣lutely] are great words. I do not think that Christ's Satisfaction doth justifie us simply and absolutely: For then how can Faith be the Condition? It ju∣stifies no man for non-performance of the Condition finally: And he that doth perform it, needs no Ju∣stification for his non-performance; and therefore Christ's Satisfaction is not so far his Righteousness, and so not simply and absolutely his Righteousness. This is true, both of our Repentance, Faith, and sincere Obedience. Much less durst I ever think that our Faith is simply and absolutely our Righte∣ousness, if thereby you mean as you seem to do, our universal Righteousness materially.

2. The comparative Righteousness which you mention, is indeed no Righteousness. And if you would make use of tropical terms, you might per∣haps have found Unrighteousness it self, somewhere called Righteousness Ironically: Shall we there∣fore in Dispute say, Unrighteousness is Righteous∣ness?

3. But your two last Concessions destroy your Cause: For both together make up the Righte∣ousness of Faith which you deny. For, 1. It is

justitia causae particularis, and not universalis; but then remember the distinction of justitia particularis, which I gave you before. It is such a justitia parti∣cularis, as our Salvation or Damnation will be de∣termined by at Judgment. 2. And the matter of this justitia particularis, is sincere Obedience added to Faith; which Obedience consisteth in that endea∣vour to conform to God's Will, which you express.