Richard Baxter's Catholic theology plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriors who,…Richard Baxter's Catholick theologie plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriours who,…

CHAP. IX. Whether Faith it self be imputed for Righteousness?

Lib. VIII. What do you but subvert the Gospel, when you put faith instead of Christ or of his Righteousness? When the Scripture saith that we are justified by Christs Righteousness Imputed to us, you say it is by faith imputed.

Lib. VIII. WHat do you but subvert the Gospel, when you put faith instead of Christ or of his Righteousness? When the Scripture saith that we are justified by Christs Righteousness Imputed to us, you say it is by faith imputed.

Lib. Yes: I must grant the words, but not your meaning.

P. Where doth the Scripture say, that Christs Righteousness is Imputed to us? Remember that it is only the Name that I ask you of.

Lib. It saith that Righteousness is Imputed: and what Righteousness •an it be but Christs?

P. I tell you still, it is only the phrase or words that we are first trying. Are these the same words [Righteousness is Imputed] and [Christs Righteousness is Imputed?] If not, where are these latter words in Scripture?

Lib. Grant that the words are not, and your words are.

P. Then the question is, Whether Scripture phrase or mans invented phrase be the better and safer in a controvertible case? And next Whether you should deny or quarrel at the Scripture saying, that [faith is imputed to us for righteousness] and not rather confute our misexpounding it, if we do so?

Lib. Well, Let us examine the sense then: What Righteousness is it but Christs that is said to be imputed to us?

P. It is none but what we have from Christ: But the phrase of Imputing supposeth it ours: And the meaning is no more, but that [we are reputed Righteous]: And the causes are not included in the phrase of [Imputing righteousness to us]; but in the words before and after. As Imputing sin to us, (and not Imputing it) is but to Repute, reckon or judge us sinners, or by sin guilty of punishment (or not guilty); so is it here. So that it is supposed, 1. That Righteousness, that is, This Relation of being Righteous, is the thing imputed: 2. Christs Righteousness is the meritorious cause: 3. The Gospel Donation is the instrumental Cause: 4. Our Faith in Christ is the condition, and as such the subordinate matter necessary on our parts. And that faith is imputed for Righteousness, plainly meaneth but this, that Christ having merited and satisfied for us, all that is now required on our part to denominate (or primarily constitute) us Righteous, is to be true Believers in him, or true Christians. And I further ask you, Do you thus paraphrase the words [Faith, that is, Christs Righteousness, is imputed to us for righteousness?]

Lib. Yes: I do so: because the act is put for the object.

P. Were it so said but once, and otherwise oft, you had some colour for this: But when it is never said [Christs Righteousness is imputed to us] and so oft said [Faith is imputed for righteousness,] how shall ever the Scripture be understood at this rate, if still by [faith] it mean not ⟨p. 253⟩faith at all, but Christs righteousness? And why must not all other places that mention faith, be so understood also? But read the Texts, and set all together, and see what sense thus will be made of it. Rom. 4. 3. [What saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it, that is, not his believing, but Christs Righteousness, was Imputed to him for righteousness.] Is this a sober and modest paraphrase, or a shameless violence? Doth not [it] refer to [believing God] before mentioned? Vers. 4, 5. [To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned (or imputed) of Grace, but of debt: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (that is, not his faith, but Christs righteousness) is counted for righteousness.] Is this a modest Exposition? Vers. 10, 11. [We say that Faith (that is, not faith, but Christs righteousness) was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness: How then was it, (that is, not his faith, but Christs righteousness) reckoned?—In uncircumcision: And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, (that is, not of the faith, but of the righteousness of Christs righteousness) which he had being uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of them that believe, that righteousness (that is, Christs) might be imputed to them also—who walk in the steps of that faith which Abraham had, &c. (doth faith here also signify no faith?) Vers. 13. When the promise is said to be [through the righteousness of faith] and Vers. 14. [faith made void] is it no faith that is here also meant by faith? And Vers. 16. [It is of faith—to that seed, which is of the faith of Abraham] is not faith indeed here meant by the word faith? So Vers. 18, 19, 20, 21. [Who against hope believed—And being not weak in faith—he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith—And being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able to perform] is it no faith that is meant in all these words? yea, or no act of faith, but accepting the righteousness of Christ? So next Vers. 22.

P. Were it so said but once, and otherwise oft, you had some colour for this: But when it is never said [Christs Righteousness is imputed to us] and so oft said [Faith is imputed for righteousness,] how shall ever the Scripture be understood at this rate, if still by [faith] it mean not

[And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness] that is, Not his faith; but by [It] is meant only Christs Righteousness, though it was faith that was over and over mentioned as the antecedent.) So Vers. 23, 24. [It was not written for his sake only that it (that is, not faith, but Christs righteousness) was imputed to him; But for us also to whom it (that is, not faith) shall be imputed if we believe (is not that faith neither?) on him (that is, God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead (which is a distinct act from Consenting to have his righteousness:) who was delivered to death for our offences, and was raised again for our Justification;] Is the meaning that we are justified by the Imputation of Christs Resurrection so to us, as that in Law sense we rose again in him, and by Rising fulfilled the Law of Innocency? I will not for shame and weariness thus go over other such Texts: but I must be so faithful as to say, that if good men, and wise men, and men that cry down the Papists and others for adding to Gods Word, and corrupting it, and calling it a Nose of Wax, and introducing new Articles of faith, will yet own such Expositions as these, and accuse those that own ⟨p. 254⟩them not, they are as great Instances as most I remember, except the defenders of Transubstantiation, how far education, or custom, or humane dependence, or faction and partiality and prejudice, may blind the reason of professed Christians and godly men. And that man that dare lay his comforts and hopes of justification and life upon such expositions of Gods Word, should be modest in crying down the false hopes of others, and reproving them that build upon the sand.

[And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness] that is, Not his faith; but by [It] is meant only Christs Righteousness, though it was faith that was over and over mentioned as the antecedent.) So Vers. 23, 24. [It was not written for his sake only that it (that is, not faith, but Christs righteousness) was imputed to him; But for us also to whom it (that is, not faith) shall be imputed if we believe (is not that faith neither?) on him (that is, God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead (which is a distinct act from Consenting to have his righteousness:) who was delivered to death for our offences, and was raised again for our Justification;] Is the meaning that we are justified by the Imputation of Christs Resurrection so to us, as that in Law sense we rose again in him, and by Rising fulfilled the Law of Innocency? I will not for shame and weariness thus go over other such Texts: but I must be so faithful as to say, that if good men, and wise men, and men that cry down the Papists and others for adding to Gods Word, and corrupting it, and calling it a Nose of Wax, and introducing new Articles of faith, will yet own such Expositions as these, and accuse those that own

Lib. You have made a long discourse to make us odious upon a false supposition: We do not say, that in all or any of those Texts, by faith is not meant faith: but only that it is not faith as faith, or as an act of ours, but as connoting its object, the Righteousness of Christ.