The first hath reference to the Commands when none can accuse us to have broke 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 satisfied. These two kinds of Righteousness 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 Righteousness disclaimed, before Satisfaction can be pleaded: and Satisfaction must be pleaded, before a Delinquent 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 ⟨p. 65⟩honouring our selves, yet is it as excellent in Christ, and honourable to him. And this first kind 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 personal 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 personal Righteousness, 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.)
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 ⟨p. 65⟩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.)
