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,…

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.

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.

P. 1. Alas! a great number of better men than you, have too oft and plainly said without distinction that [Faith is not imputed to us for righteousness]. I hope they meant better than they spake; but I would it could be hid from the world, that these words are not only in the Independents Savoy Confession, but even in the Confession of the Westminster Assembly, cap. 11. [Not by imputing faith it self, the act of believing or any other Evangelical obedience to them as their Righteousness: but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ to them.—] So also in the larger Catechism [Not as if the Grace of faith or any act thereof were imputed to him for his Justification.] How well soever they may mean, Gods oft repeated Word should rather have been expounded, than denied. 2. But what mean your cloudy words, [It is not faith as faith, but as connoting the object?] They that cannot speak clearly, seldom clearly understand what to speak. The Question is, Whether it be really and properly Faith, that is meant in all these Texts? or whether it be only Christs righteousness? If you say, that It is both in several respects, you grant then that it is saith it self in one respect, that is imputed to us for righteousness. If it be only the object and not faith, why is it so often called [faith, believing, being persuaded, &c.] Will you say, that It is not faith as an act of ours only? Whoever dreamt it was? For à quatenus ad omne: If as an act, then every act (even ploughing, and walking, and sinning) would justify us. Will you say, that It is not Faith as a Moral Virtue or Good act only? Who saith it is? For then every moral good act would justify men. Do you say, that It is not by faith as faith in genere? It is granted you: For else (à quatenus ad omne) any act of faith would justify, even believing that there is a Hell. Will you say, that it is not any other species of faith, besides our baptismal faith? We grant it you. But if you will also say, that It is not this species, even the Christian faith neither that is meant, but only the object of it, then, 1. Why say you, that it is Faith as connoting the object; contradicting your self: for if be not faith at all, it is not faith as connoting; that which is not, doth not connote. 2. And why say you, that it is not faith it self essentially? Is not the object essential as an object to the act in specie?

P. 1. Alas! a great number of better men than you, have too oft and plainly said without distinction that [Faith is not imputed to us for righteousness]. I hope they meant better than they spake; but I would it could be hid from the world, that these words are not only in the Independents Savoy Confession, but even in the Confession of the Westminster Assembly, cap. 11. [Not by imputing faith it self, the act of believing or any other Evangelical obedience to them as their Righteousness: but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ to them.—] So also in the larger Catechism [Not as if the Grace of faith or any act thereof were imputed to him for his Justification.] How well soever they may mean, Gods oft repeated Word should rather have been expounded, than denyed. 2. But what mean your cloudy words, [It is not faith as faith, but as connoting the object?] They that cannot speak clearly, seldom clearly understand what to speak. The Question is, Whether it be really and properly Faith, that is meant in all these Texts? or whether it be only Christs righteousness? If you say, that It is both in several respects, you grant then that it is saith it self in one respect, that is imputed to us for righteousness. If it be only the object and not faith, why is it so often called [faith, believing, being perswaded, &c.] Will you say, that It is not faith as an act of ours only? Whoever dreamt it was? For à quatenus ad omne: If as an act, then every act (even plowing, and walking, and sinning) would justifie us. Will you say, that It is not Faith as a Moral Virtue or Good act only? Who saith it is? For then every moral good act would justifie men. Do you say, that It is not by faith as faith in genere? It is granted you: For else (à quatenus ad omne) any act of faith would justifie, even believing that there is a Hell. Will you say, that it is not any other species of faith, besides our baptismal faith? We grant it you. But if you will also say, that It is not this species, even the Christian faith neither that is meant, but only the object of it, then, 1. Why say you, that it is Faith as connoting the object; contradicting your self: for if be not faith at all, it is not faith as connoting; that which is not, doth not connote. 2. And why say you, that it is not faith it self essentially? Is not the object essential as an object to the act in specie?

Is it not essential to our Christian faith to be a Believing in Christ? 3. But what sober unprejudiced Christian that readeth the Text throughout, and hath not been instructed to pervert it, can choose but see that it is Faith it self that the Apostle speaketh of? and that it is our personal Relation of Righteousness that it is said to be imputed for? And who can believe that this is the sense [Abraham's faith was imputed to him for ⟨p. 255⟩Christs Righteousness?] or this either [His faith, that is, Christs Righteousness and not his faith, was imputed to him for Christs Righteousness?] Undoubtedly by faith is meant faith, and by Righteousness is meant our own Relation. But it is most easy to discern, that the plain sense is [Christ being presupposed the Meriter of our Justification and Salvation, which he hath given the world conditionally by a Law of Grace, (or Covenant Donation,) by which now he ruleth and judgeth us, all that this Covenant, Gift or Law requireth on our part to make us Righteous, and entitle us to the Spirit, and everlasting life, is that as Penitent Believers we accept Christ and life according to the nature, ends and uses of the gift; (and this also by his grace).] Reader, hold close to this plain Doctrine, which most of the lower sort of Christians know (who have not fallen into perverters hands) and you• will have more solid and practical and peaceable truth about this point, than either Dr. Thomas Tully, or Maccovius, or Mr. Crand••, or Dr. Crispe, or the Marrow of Modern Divinity^*, or Paul Hobson, or Mr. Saltmarsh, or any such Writers do teach you in their learned Net-work Treatises, by which (being Wise or Orthodox overmuch, being themselves entangled and confounded by incongruous notions of mans invention) they are liker to entangle and confound you, than to show you the best method and grounds for the peace of an understanding dying man. Christs Righteousness is Imputed or Reckoned to be as it is, the total sole Meritorious Cause of all that Grace and Glory given us in and by the Conditional Law or Covenant of Grace, and of our Grace for performance of the Conditions; and it needeth nothing at all of ours to make it perfect to this use; nor hath our faith any such supplemental Office. But this condition of our part in Christ, and of our Right to his Covenant-gifts, must be performed:

and the sentence of Absolution or Condemnation, life or death, must be passed on us accordingly; it being not Christ, but we by this very Law, that are to be Judged, Justified or Condemned. And this is the Condemnation that light is come into the World, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil: But to as many as Received him, he gave Right to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe in his name: And there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit: For being perfected, he is become the Author of eternal Salvation to all them that obey him: And it is not they that cry Lord, Lord, that shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth the will of our heavenly Father: For Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that to come.

CHAP. X. Whether Gods justifying those to day that were yesterday unjustified, signify any change in God?

CHAP. X. Whether Gods justifying those to day that were yesterday unjustified, signifie any change in God?

P. IX. OF this also I have said so much in my Apology to Dr. Kendall, and in the two first parts of this Book before, that I shall now put you off with this short notice: 1. There is nothing changed, or new in God: That which on his part is in God the Cause of our Justification, is his eternal simple essence. 2. But Gods Essence, Understanding, or Will considered simply in it self is not to be called, Mans Justification: But the effect produced by it; And partly the extrinsic object as terminating Gods act, and so by extrinsic denomination or connotation, Gods Essential Intellect and Will is said, de novo to justify. But it is only man that is really changed. 3. The New effect in man from which God is said de novo to justify him, is 1. A new Right or Relation to Christ, pardon and life, and to the Father and the Holy Ghost: 2. A new objective termination of Gods estimation, acceptance and complacency: And 3. A new heart hereupon at the same instant given us. I think none of this is from eternity: And that as God did de novo make the world, and judge it existent, and love and order it as existent, without any change in him, (as also millions of creatures proceed from his simple Unity) so is it here. And this needeth no more words with knowing or teachable men: And to others there is no end.

P. IX. OF this also I have said so much in my Apologie to Dr. Kendall, and in the two first parts of this Book before, that I shall now put you off with this short notice: 1. There is nothing changed, or new in God: That which on his part is in God the Cause of our Justification, is his eternal simple essence. 2. But Gods Essence, Understanding, or Will considered simply in it self is not to be called, Mans Justification: But the effect produced by it; And partly the extrinsick object as terminating Gods act, and so by extrinsick denomination or connotation, Gods Essential Intellect and Will is said, de novo to justifie. But it is only man that is really changed. 3. The New effect in man from which God is said de novo to justifie him, is 1. A new Right or Relation to Christ, pardon and life, and to the Father and the Holy Ghost: 2. A new objective termination of Gods estimation, acceptance and complacency: And 3. A new heart hereupon at the same instant given us. I think none of this is from eternity: And that as God did de novo make the world, and judge it existent, and love and order it as existent, without any change in him, (as also millions of creatures proceed from his simple Unity) so is it here. And this needeth no more words with knowing or teachable men: And to others there is no end.

CHAP. XI. Whether a Justified man should be afraid of becoming unjustified?