The Imputation of Christs Righteousness, Polemic 1 · Chapter 7
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 Controverſie].
Anſw. That the Reader may ſee by what Weapons Theological Warriours wound the Churches Peace, and profligate brotherly Love; let him conſider 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 Socinus 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 Olevian, 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 Academical 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 very place, (and more fully elſewhere often)? Reader, the Author of the Aphoriſms, pag. 45. and forward, 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 bearing the Penalty, and thus (ſay they) is Chriſt's Righteouſneſs imputed to us, viz. His Paſſive Righteouſneſs 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 addition of a more excellent happineſs, ſo they will but receive his Son on the terms expreſſed in the Goſpel.
And as diſtinct from theirs, who would thus have the Paſſive Righteouſneſs only imputed, he profeſſeth 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 ſuffered 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 Righteouſneſs; 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, Bradſhaw, Gataker, &c. Reformed? Were not of late Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Truman, to paſs many yet alive, Reformed? Muſt that Name be ſhamed, by appropriating 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 Righteouſneſs, he ſaith, agreeth not with Reaſon or Scripture: 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 Righteouſneſs 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 vindicating 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 neither ſtand with Reaſon, nor the Doctrine of the Scripture, much less with the PHRASE of Scripture, which mentioneth no Imputation of Chriſt or his Righteouſneſs]. 1. Is this a denying of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs imputed? Or only of that intollerable ſenſe of it? 2. Do I ſay here that Scripture mentioneth 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 Reaſon, 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 Scripture ſpeaketh in his rigid ſenſe, and not in ours, is but to loſe time, and abuſe the Reader, the firſt being impertinent, and the ſecond the begging of the Queſtion.
§. 3. Dr. T. The Greek word anſwering to Imputation, is ten times in Rom. 4. And what is imputed 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 Righteouſneſs 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 Righteouſneſs is mentioned as the formal Relation of the Believer: 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 [Righteouſneſs] 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 Righteouſneſs 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 reverence, and our ſubſcription to the Scripture ſufficiently 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 imputed, but Faith.
§. 5. If it be imputed, it is either as ſome Virtue, or Humane Work, (the foreign Credere) or as it apprehendeth 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 Righteouſneſs, 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 voluntary 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 Condemned; not only whether we received Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, 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 believingly 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 morally good, (for a bad or indifferent Act doth not juſtifie). 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 Redemption, 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 Juſtifying 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 inſtead 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 neceſſary 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 Accuſations. 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 Enemy of Peace, aſſaulteth.