Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable, Conference 11 · Chapter 9 – Chapter 10
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.
P.
Do you think any ſober Chriſtians here really differ? or is it only about the Names and Notions? Which ever it be; 1. Of the name, Is it not oft ſaid that Faith is and ſhall be imputed for Righteouſneſs, Rom. 4. 22, 23, 24. James 2. 23.
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 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 fiath, (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 ſignifie 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 perſwaded 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. [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 them not, they are as great Inſtances as moſt I remember, except the defenders of Tranſubſtantiation, how far education, or cuſtom, or humane dependance, 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.
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 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 [Abrahams faith was imputed to him for 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 eaſie 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 P…nitent 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 faln into perverters hands) and you… will have more ſolid and practical and peaceable truth about this point, than either Dr. Thomas Tullie, or Maccovius, or Mr. Crand…, or Dr. Criſpe, or the Marrow of Modern Divinity *(Written by an honeſt Barber Mr. Fiſher (as is ſaid) and applauded by divers Independent Divines.), 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 ſhew 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, ſignifie any change in God?
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.