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.

SO that our Righteousness formally considered, * 1.1 in relation to the New-Covenant, is perfect, or none.

Animadvers.

1. Inherent Righteousness may be true, and yet imperfect, and that formally considered in relation to the New-Covenant. For the New-Covenant as it accepts of sincere Righteousness; so it requires an encrease of it, which needed not, nor could be, if it were perfect.

2. You speak of that Righteousness whereby we are justified, and suppose it to be Faith; whereas Faith is a hand to receive that Righteousness, that we may be justified by it.

Reply.

I will not molest you with repeating any more the former Reply: only consider, how Reatus, vel non-Reatus poenae can be formaliter encreased. And lest you think me singular in making Righteousness (of this sort) to consist in that, hear our Learned Ga∣taker (specially well studied in these points) cont. Lucium Vind. part. 1. sect. 2. n. 34. In re judiciariâ insons omnis pro justo habetur, Sons & insons sunt ex oppositis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So he interpreteth Deut. 25. 1. (ibid. n. 21. pag. 32.) Si controversia inter aliquos extiterit & ad judciium res delata fuerit, justi∣ficent (judices soil.) eum qui justus (hoc est insons) fuerit, eum vero qui improbus (hoc est sons) fuerit con∣demnent. Vid. & n. 19, 20. &c. p. 31. Et idem con∣tra Gomarum, pag. 35, 36. Non hoc dioitur, Deum apud se judicare illos pro quorum peccatis universis Christ us satisfecit, nihil mali unquam commisisse, aut boni debiti omisisse: Sed eodem habere loco quoad mor∣tis Reatum & jus ad vitam aeternam, ac si nihil vel mali admisissent, vel boni debiti omisissent.

Let me add the words of Placaeus, Thes. Salmu∣riens. Vol. 1. p. 27. Justus sumi potest vel morali vel forensi significatione. Morali, ut opponitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, eum{que} significet qui praeditus est virtute ea quae justitia dicitur, &c. Forensi ut opponitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, eum{que} significet in quem Lege agere non licet; qui jure condemnari non potest à judice, nedum puniri: sic nos, &c.

I have heard some object merely from the name, that this is to make Righteousness to be only a Ne∣gation of guilt: But let them change the name, and call the guilty, Non-justus, or Non-absolvendus, and then they are pleased.

And let me note one thing more here, lest you should think this to be Righteousness nimis impro∣priè sic dicta; viz. that as Righteousness is most strictly in sensu forensi opposed to guilt, so guilt of punishment is so properly called guilt, as well as Rea∣tus culpae is; that the Reatus culpae alone is seldomer mentioned by Divine or Humane Writers, but they commonly define guilt (as if they took notice of no other sort) thus, Reatus est obligatio ad poenam.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ibid.