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.

§. 4. He addeth, [Lex est quae prohibet; Lex quae poen••m decernit; Lex quae irrogat: Peccatum est transgressio Legis: Poena effectus istius trangressionis; Justificatio denique absolutio ab ista poena: Itaque

cum Lex nisi praestita neminem Justificat, & praesti∣tam omnes in Christo agnoscunt, aut Legalis erit om∣nis Justificatio coram Deo, aut omnino nulla].

Answ. 1. But doth he know but one sort of Law of God? Hath every Man incurred the Curse by Moses Law that did by Adams? Or every Man fallen under the peremptory irreversible condemna∣tion which the Law of Grace passeth on them that never believe and repent? Doth this Law, [He that believeth not shall be damned] damn Believers? One Law condemneth all that are not Innocent. Another supposeth them under that defect, and con∣demneth peremptorily (not every Sinner) but the Wicked and Unbelievers.

2. Again here he saith, [Justification is Absolu∣tion from that Penalty]. But is a Man absolved (properly) from that which he was never guilty of? Indeed if he take Absolution so loosly as to sig∣nifie, the justifying a Man against a false Accusa∣tion, and pronouncing him Not-Guilty; So all the Angels in Heaven may possibly be capable of Ab∣solution: Justification is ordinarily so used, but Absolution seldom by Divines. And his words shew that this is not his sense, if I understand them. But if we are reputed perfect fulfillers of the Law of Innocency by Christ, and yet Justification is our Absolution from the Curse, then no Man is justified that is Righteous by that Imputation.

3. And how unable is my weak Understanding, to make his words at peace with themselves? The same Man in the next lines saith, [Lex nisi praesti∣ta neminem justificat: and all Justification before God must be legal or none]; so that no Man is justified but as reputed Innocent, or a performer of the Law:

And yet Justification is our Absolution from the Pu∣nishment and Malediction of the Law; As if he said, No Man is justified but by the pardon of that sin which he is reputed never to have had, and Ab∣solution from that Curse and Punishment which he is reputed never to have deserved or been under. Are these things reconcileable? But if really he take Absolution for justifying or acquitting from a false Accusation, and so to be absolved from the Ma∣lediction of the Law, is to be reputed one that ne∣ver deserved it, or was under it, then it's as much as to say, that there is no pardon of sin, or that no Man that is pardoned, or reputed to need a Par∣don, is justified.

4. All this and such Speeches would perswade the Reader that this Learned Disputer thinketh that I took and use the word [Legal] generally as of that which is related to any Law in genere, and so take Evangelical contrarily for that which is related to no Law: whereas I over and over tell him, that (speaking in the usual Language that I may be un∣derstood) I take [Legal] specially (and not ge∣nerally) for that Righteousness which is related to the Law of Works or Innocency, (not as if we had indeed such a Righteousness as that Law will justi∣fie us for; But a pro-Legal-Righteousness, one in∣stead of it, in and by our perfect Saviour, which shall effectually save us from that Laws condemnation): And that by [Evaugelical Righteousness], I mean, that which is related to the Law of Grace, as the Rule of Judgment, upon the just pleading whereof that Law will not condemn but justifie us. If he knew this to be my meaning, in my weak judg∣ment, he should not have written either as if he

did not, or as if he would perswade his Rsaders to the contrary: For Truth is most congruously de∣fended by Truth: But if he knew it not, I despair of becoming intelligible to him, by any thing that I can write, and I shall expect that this Reply be wholly lost to him and worse.

5. His [Lex nisi praestita neminem justificat] is true; and therefore no Man is justified by the Law, But his next words [& praestitam omnes in Christo agnoscunt] seemeth to mean that [It was performed by us in Christ]; Or that [It justifieth us, because performed perfectly by Christ as such]: Which both are the things that we most confidently deny. It was not Physically, or Morally, or Politically, or Legally, or Reputatively, (take which word you will) fulfilled by us in Christ: it doth not justifie us, because it was fulfilled by Christ, (as such, or immediately, and eo nomine). It justified Christ, because he fulfilled it; and so their Law doth all the perfect Angels. But we did not personally fulfil it in Christ; it never allowed vicarium obedientiae to ful∣fil it by our selves or another: Therefore anothers Obedience, merely as such, (even a Mediators) is not our Obedience or Justification: But that Obedience justifieth us, as given us only in or to the effecting of our Personal Righteousness, which consisteth in our right to Impunity, and to God's Favour and Life, freely given for Christ's Merits sake, and in our performance of the Conditions of the Law of Grace, or that free Gift, which is therefore not a co-ordinate but a sub-ordinate Righteousness (and Justification) to qualifie us for the former. This is so plain and necessary, that if (in sense) it be not understood by all that are admitted to the Sa∣cramental

Communion, (excepting Verbal Contro∣versies or Difficulties) I doubt we are too lax in our admissions.