Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sence [sic] sound Protestants hold it and of the false divised sence by which libertines subvert the Gospel : with an answer to some common objections, especially of Dr. Thomas Tully whose Justif. Paulina occasioneth the publication of this / by Richard Baxter a compassionate lamenter of the Church's wounds caused by hasty judging ... and by the theological wars which are hereby raised and managed ...

CHAP. VII. Dr. Tullies Quarrel about Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, considered.

§. 1. CAp. 8. pag. 79. he saith, [Because no Man out of Socinus School, hath by his Dictates more sharply exagitated this Imputation of Righteousness, than the Author of the Aphorisms; and it is in all mens hands, we think meet to bring into a clearer Light, the things objected by him (or more truly his Sophistical Cavils) whence the fitter Prospect may be taken of almost the whole Contro∣versie].

Answ. That the Reader may see by what Wea∣pons Theological Warriours wound the Churches Peace, and profligate brotherly Love; let him con∣sider how many palpable Untruths are in these few Lines, even in matter of Fact.

1. Let him read Dr. Gell, Mr. Thorndike, and by his own confession, the Papists (a multitude of

them) and tell me true, that [No Man out of So∣cinus School hath, &c.] To say nothing of many late Writings near us.

2. If I have, 1. never written one word against [Imputation of Righteousness] there or elsewhere; 2. Yea, have oft written for it; 3. And if those very Pages be for it which he accuseth; 4. Yea, if there and elsewhere I write more for it than Olevi∣an, Ʋrsine, Paraeus, Scultetus, Wendeline, Piscator, and all the rest of those great Divines, who are for the Imputation only of the Passive Righteousness of Christ, when I profess there and often, to concur with Mr. Bradshaw, Grotius, and others that take in the Active also, yea and the Habitual, yea and Divine respectively, as advancing the Merits of the Humane; If all this be notoriously true, what Epithets will you give to this Academical Doctors notorious Untruth?

3. When that Book of Aphorisms was suspended or retracted between twenty and thirty years ago (publickly), because of many crude Passages and unapt Words, and many Books since written by me purposely, fully opening my mind of the same things; all which he passeth wholly by, save a late Epistle; what credit is to be given to that Man's ingenuity, who pretendeth that this being in all mens hands, the answering it will so far clear all the Controversie.

§. 2. Dr. T. [He hence assaulteth the Sentence of the Reformed; because it supposeth, as he saith, that we were in Christ, at least, legally before we believed, or were born. But what proof of the consequence doth

he bring?] (The rest are but his Reasons against the Consequences, and his talk against me, as pouring out Oracles, &c.)

Answ. 1. Is this the mode of our present Aca∣demical Disputers, To pass by the stating of the Controversie, yea, to silence the state of it, as laid down by the Author, whom he opposeth in that ve∣ry place, (and more fully elsewhere often)? Reader, the Author of the Aphorisms, pag. 45. and for∣ward, distinguishing as Mr. Bradshaw doth, of the several senses of Imputation, and how Christ's Righteousness is made ours, 1. Beginneth with their Opinion, who hold, [That Christ did so obey in our stead, as that in God's esteem, and in point of Law we were in Christ dying and suffering, and so in him we did both perfectly fulfil the Commands of the Law by Obedience, and the Threatnings of it by bear∣ing the Penalty, and thus (say they) is Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, viz. His Passive Righ∣teousness for the pardon of our sins, and deliverance from the Penalty; His Active Righteousness for the making of us Righteous, and giving us title to the Kingdom; And some say the Habitual Righteousness of his Humane Nature, instead of our own Habitual Righteousness; Yea, some add the Righteousness of the Divine Nature].

The second Opinion which he reciteth is this, [That God the Father accepteth the sufferings and merits of his Son, as a valuable consideration, on which he will wholly forgive and acquit the Offenders, and receive them into his favour, and give them the addi∣tion of a more excellent happiness, so they will but re∣ceive his Son on the terms expressed in the Gospel.

And as distinct from theirs, who would thus have the Passive Righteousness only imputed, he pro∣fesseth himself to hold with Bradshaw, Grotius, &c. that the Active also is so imputed, being, Justitia Meriti, as well as Personae, and endeavoureth to prove it: But not imputed in the first rigid sense, as if God esteemed us to have been, and done, and suf∣fered our selves in and by Christ, and merited by him. Thus he states the Controversie; And doth this Doctor fight for Truth and Peace, by 1. passing by all this; 2. Saying, I am against Imputed Righ∣teousness; 3. And against the Reformed? Were not all the Divines before named Reformed? Was not Camero, Capellus, Placeus, Amyrald, Dallaeus▪ Blondel, &c. Reformed? Were not Wotton, Brad∣shaw, Gataker, &c. Reformed? Were not of late Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Truman, to pass many yet alive, Reformed? Must that Name be shamed, by appro∣priating it to such as this Doctor only?

2. And now let the Reader judg, with what face he denieth the Consequence, (that it supposeth us to have been in Christ legally, &c.) When as I put it into the Opinion opposed, and opposed no other. But I erred in saying, that [most of our ordinary Divines] hold it; But he more in fathering it in common on the Reformed.

§. 2. Dr. T. [2. Such Imputation of Righte∣ousness, he saith, agreeth not with Reason or Scrip∣ture: But what Reason meaneth he? Is it that vain, blind, maimed, unmeasurably procacious and tumid Reason of the Cracovian Philosophers? — Next he

saith, Scripture is silent of the Imputed Righteous∣ness of Christ; what a saying is this of a Reformed Divine? so also Bellarmine, &c.

Answ. Is it not a doleful case that Orthodoxness must be thus defended? Is this the way of vindica∣ting Truth? 1. Reader, my words were these, (just like Bradshaws) [It tea••heth Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in so strict a sense, as will nei∣ther stand with Reason, nor the Doctrine of the Scrip∣ture, much less with the PHRASE of Scripture, which mentioneth no Imputation of Christ or his Righ∣teousness]. 1. Is this a denying of Christ's Righ∣teousness imputed? Or only of that intollerable sense of it? 2. Do I say here that Scripture men∣tioneth not Imputed Righteousness, or only that strict sense of it? 3. Do I not expresly say, It is the Phrase that is not to be found in Scripture, and the unsound sense, but not the sound?

2. And as to the Phrase, Doth this Doctor, or can any living Man find that Phrase in Scripture, [Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us]? And when he knoweth that it is not there, are not his Exclamations, and his Bug-bears [Cracovian Rea∣son, and Bellarmine] his dishonour, that hath no better Weapons to use against the Churches Peace? To tell us that the sense or Doctrine is in Scripture, when the question is of the Phrase, or that Scrip∣ture speaketh in his rigid sense, and not in ours, is but to lose time, and abuse the Reader, the first be∣ing impertinent, and the second the begging of the Question.

§. 3. Dr. T. The Greek word answering to Im∣putation, is ten times in Rom. 4. And what is impu∣ted but Righteousness? we have then some imputed Righteousness. The Question is, only what or whose it is, Christ's or our own? Not ours, therefore Christs: If ours, either its the Righteousness of Works, or of Faith, &c.

Answ. 1. But what's all this to the Phrase? Could you have found that Phrase [Christ's Righ∣teousness is imputed], why did you not recite the words, but Reason as for the sense?

2. Is that your way of Disputation, to prove that the Text speaketh of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, when the Question was only, In what sense? What kind of Readers do you expect, that shall take this for rational, candid, and a Plea for Truth?

3. But to a Man that cometh unprejudiced, it is most plain, that Paul meaneth by [imputing it for Righteousness] that the Person was or is, accounted, reckoned, or judged Righteous, where Righteous∣ness is mentioned as the formal Relation of the Be∣liever: so that what-ever be the matter of it (of which next) the formal Relation sure is our own, and so here said: And if it be from the matter of Christ's Righteousness, yet that must be our own, by your Opinion. And it must be our own, in and to the proper Effects, in mine. But sure it is not the same numerical formal Relation of [Righteous∣ness] that is in Christ's Person, and in ours: And it's that formal Relation, as in Abraham, and not in Christ, that is called Abraham's Reputed Righte∣ousness

in the Text: I scarce think you will say the contrary.

§. 4. Dr. T. [But Faith is not imputed to us for Righteousness.

Answ. Expresly against the words of the Holy Ghost there oft repeated. Is this defending the Scripture, expresly to deny it? Should not reve∣rence, and our subscription to the Scripture suffici∣ently rather teach us to distinguish, and tell in what sense it is imputed, and in what not, than thus to deny, without distinction, what it doth so oft assert? Yea, the Text nameth nothing else as so im∣puted, but Faith.

§. 5. If it be imputed, it is either as some Virtue, or Humane Work, (the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Credere) or as it appre∣hendeth and applyeth Christ's Righteousness? Not (the first) — If Faith be imputed relatively only, as it applyeth to a Sinner the Righteousness of Christ, it's manifest that it's the Righteousness of Christ only that is imputed, and that Faith doth no more to Righ∣teousness, than an empty hand to receive an Alms.

Answ. 1. Sure it doth as a voluntarily receiving hand, and not as a mere empty hand. And volun∣tary grateful Reception may be the Condition of a Gift.

2. You and I shall shortly find that it will be the Question on which we shall be Justified or Condem∣ned; not only whether we received Christ's Righ∣teousness, but whether by Faith we received Christ in all the Essentials of his Office, and to all the essential saving Uses: Yea, whether according to the sense of the Baptismal Covenant, we first be∣lievingly

received▪ and gave up our selves to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and after performed sincerely that Covenant.

3. But let me defend the Word of God: Faith is imputed for Righteousness, even this Faith now described; 1. Remotely, ex materiae aptitudine, for its fitness to its formal Office; And that fitness is, 1. Because it is an Act of Obedience to God, or mo∣rally good, (for a bad or indifferent Act doth not ju∣stifie). 2. More specially as it is the receiving, trusting, and giving up our selves to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to the proper ends of Re∣demption, or a suitable Reception of the freely offered Gift; and so connoteth Christ the Object (for the Object is essential to the Act in specie). 2. But proximately Faith is so reputed, or imputed, as it is the performance of the Condition of the Justi∣fying Covenant or Donation.

And to be imputed for Righteousness, includeth, That [It is the part required of us by the Law of Grace, to make us partakers of the Benefits of Christ's Righteousness, which meriteth Salvation for us in∣stead of a legal and perfect Righteousness of our own, (which we have not). Or, [Whereas we fell short of a Righteousness of Innocency, Christ by such a Righteousness hath merited our Pardon and Salvation, and given title to them by a New Covenant of Grace, which maketh this Faith the Condition of our Title; and if we do this, we shall be judged evangelically Righteous; that is, such as have done all that was ne∣cessary to their right in Christ and the said Benefits; and therefore have such a Right].

This is plain English, and plain Truth, wrangle no more against it, and against the very Letter of

the Text, and against your Brethren and the Churches Concord, by making Men believe that there are grievous Differences, where there are none.

Reader, I was going on to Answer the rest, but my time is short, Death is at the door: Thou seest what kind of Work I have of it, even to detect a Learned Man's Oversights, and temerarious Accu∣sations. The weariness will be more to thee and me, than the profit: I find little before, but what I have before answered here, and oft elsewhere; And therefore I will here take up, only adding one Chapter of Defence of that Conciliation which I attempted in an Epistle to Mr. W. Allens Book of the Two Covenants, and this Doctor, like an Ene∣my of Peace, assaulteth.