Aphorisms of Justification, Thesis 16 – Thesis 19
THESIS. XVI.
THe obeying of a Law, and persorming the conditions of a Covenant, or satisfying for disobedience, or non-performance, is our Righteousness, in reference to that Law and Covenant.
EXPLICATION.
IF we understand not what Righteousnes is, we may dispute long enough about Justification to little purpose: you must know therefore that Righteousness is no proper reall Being, but a Modus Entis, the Modification of a Being, The subject of it is, 1. An Action, 2. Or a Person: An Action is the primary subject, and so the Disposition; and the Person secondary, as being therefore righteous, because his disposition and actions are so.
Righteousness is the conformity of Dispositions and Actions, and consequently the person to the Rule prescribed.
It is not a being distinct therefore from the Dispositions and Actions, but their just and well being.
This finition is onelyonly of the Creatures Righteousness.
God is the Primum Iustum, and so the Rule of Righteousness to the Creature, and hath no Rule but himself, for the measuring of his Actions.
Yet his Essence is too far above us, remote and unknown to be this Rule to the Creature, therefore hath he given us his Laws, which flow from his perfection, and they are the immediate Rule of our Dispositions and Actions and so of our Righteousness.
Here carefully observe, That this Law hath two parts; 1. The Precept and Prohibition prescribing and requiring Duty: 2. The Promise and Commination determining of the reward of Obedience, and penalty of Disobedience. As the Precept is the principall part, and the Penalty annexed but for the Precepts sake; so the primary intent of the Law-giver is the obeying of his Precepts, and our suffering of the Penalty is but a secondary for the attaining of the former.
So is there accordingly a two-fold Righteousness or fulfilling of this Law, (which is the thing I would have observed:) the primary, most excellent and most proper Righteousness lyeth in the conformity of our actions to the precept: The secondary, less excellent Righteousness) yet fitly enough so called) (see Pemble of Iustificat. pag. ….) is, when though we have broke the precepts, yet we have satisfied for our breach, either by our own suffering, or some other way.
The first hath reference to the Commands when none can accuse us to have broak the Law: The second hath reference to the Penalty; when though we have broke the law, yet it hath nothing against us for so doing, because it is satisfyed. These two kinds of Righteousnesse cannot stand together in the same person, in regard of the same Law and Actions: he that hath one, hath not the other: he that hath the First, need not the Second; There must be a fault, or no satisfaction; this fault must be confessed, and so the first kind of Righteousnesse disclaimed, before Satisfaction can be pleaded: and Satisfaction must be pleaded, before a Dilinquent can be justified. This well understood, would give a clearer insight into the nature of our Righteousness, and Justification, then many have yet attained. The great Question is, of which sort is our Righteousness whereby we are justified? I answer, of the second sort, which yet is no derogation from it: for though it be not a Righteousness so honouring our selves, yet is it as excellent in Christ, and honourable to him. And this first kinde of Righteousness as it is in Christ, cannot retaining its own form, be made ours. And to that the Papists arguments will hold good. The Law commanded our own personall obedience, and not another for us; We did not so personally obey, we did not really obey in Christ: and God doth not judge us to do, what we did not; If we had, yet it would not have made us just: for one sin will make us unjust, though we were never so obedient before and after; Therefore if we had obeyed in Christ, and yet sinned in our selves, we are breakers of the Law still. And so our Righteousness cannot be of the first sort. This Breach therefore must be satisfied for, and consequently, our Righteousness must be of the second sort: seeing both cannot stand in one person as beforesaid. Christ indeed had both these kinds of righteousness, viz. the righteousness of perfect Obedience; and the righteousness of Satisfaction, for Disobedience. But the former only was his own personall Righteousnes, not communicable to another under that notion, and in that form of [a Righteousness by obeying:] The latter, was his righteousness, as he stood in our room, and was by imputation a sinner: and so is also our Righteousness in and through him. Yet the former (as I have proved before &c.) is ours too, and our Righteousness too (though many Divines think otherwise:) but how? Not as retaining its form, in the former sence: but as it is also in a further consideration, a part of the Righteousness by Satisfaction: seeing that Christs very personall obedientiall righteousness was also in a further respect satisfactory. I intreat thee Reader, do not pass over this distinct representation of Righteousness, as curious, or needless; for thou canst not tell how thou art righteous or justified without it. Nor do thou through prejudice reject it as unsound, till thou have first well studied the Nature of Righteousness in generall, and of Christian Righteousness in speciall.
THESIS. XVII.
THerefore as there are two Covenants, with their distinct Conditions: so is there a twofold Righteousness, and both of them absolutely necessary to Salvation.
EXPLICATION.
AS Sin is defined to be foreign a Trangression of the Law. 1. Ioh. 3. 4. So Righteousness is a Conformity to the Law. Therefore as there is a twofold Law or Covenant; so must there be accordingly a two-fold Righteousness; whether both these be to us necessary is all the doubt. If the first Covenant be totally repealed, then indeed we need not care for the righteousness of that Covenant, in respect of any of our personall actions: but only in respect of Adams first, and ours in him, But I have proved before that it is not repealed: otherwise the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, would not be of a very narrow extent; if it were a covering only to our first transgression. I take it for granted therefore, that he must have a two-fold Righteousness answerable to the two Covenants, that expecteth to be justifyed. And the usuall confounding of these two distinct Righteousnesses, doth much darken the controversies about Justification.
THESIS XVIII.
OVr Legal Righteousness, or righteousness of the first Covenant is not personall, or consisteth not in any qualifications of our own persons, or actions performed by us, (For we never fulfilled, nor personally satisfied the Law:) but it is wholly without us in Christ. And in this sence it is that the Apostle (and every Christian,) disclaimeth his own Righteousness, or his own Works, as being no true legall Righteousness. Phil. 3. 7, 8.
EXPLICATION.
Object. 1 DOth not the Apostle say, that as touching the Righteousness which is in the Law, he was blameless? Phil. 3. 6. Ans. That is, He …o exactly observed the Ceremoniall Law, and the externall part of the Morall Law, that no man could blame him for the breach of them. But this is nothing to such a keeping of the whole Covenant, as might render him blameless in the sight of God: otherwise he would not have esteemed it so lightly.
Object. 2. There are degrees of Sin. He that is not yet a sinner in the highest degree, is he not so far Righteous by a personall Righteousness? Christ satisfied only for our sin; so far as our actions are not sinfull, so far they need no pardon nor satisfaction. And consequently, Christs righteousness and our own works, do concur to the composing of our perfect Righteousness. Ans. Though this objection doth puzle some, as if there were no escaping this Popish self-exalting Consequence; yet by the help of the fore-going grounds, the vanity of it may be easily discovered. And that thus.
1. An Action is not righteous, which is not conformable to the Law; if in some respects it be conformable, and in some not, it cannot be called a conformable or righteous Action. So that we having no actions, perfectly: conformed to the Law, have therefore no one righteous action. 2. If we had; Yet many righteous Actions, if but one were unrighteous, will not serve to denominate the person Righteous, according to the Law of Works. And that these joyned with Christs Righteousness, do not make up one Righteousness for us, is plainthus; The Righteousness which we have in Christ, is not of the same sort witht his pretended partial Righteousness: For this pretendeth to be a Righteousness (in part) of the first kinde mentioned formerly viz. Obedientiall consisting in conformity to the Precept. Now, Christs Righteousness imputed to us, being only that of the second sort (viz. By satisfaction for nonconformity, or for our disobedience,) cannot therefore possible be joyned with our imperfect Obedience, to make up one Righteousness for us. I acknowledge, that some actions of ours, may in some respects be good, though that respect cannot denominate it (strictly in the sence of the old Covenant) a good Work. I acknowledge also, that so far it is pleasing to God: yet the Action cannot be said to please him (much less the person,) but only that respective Goodness. Also that Christ dyed only to satisfie for our actions so far as they were sinfull, and not in those respects wherein they are good and lawfull. Yet that these good works (so commonly called) can be no part of our Righteousness, I think is fully proved by the fore-going Argument. Though I much question, whether they that stand for the imputation of Christs moral Righteousness in the rigid rejected sence (as if (as if in him we had paid the primary proper debt of perfect obedience) can so well rid their hands of this objection.
THESIS. XIX.
THe Righteousness of the new Covenant, is the only Condition of our interest in, and enjoyment f the Righteousness of the old. Or thus: These onelyonly shall have part in Christs satisfaction, and so in him be legally righteous, who do beleeve, and obey the Gospel, and so are in themselves Evangelically Righteous.