Socinianism in the Fundamental Point of Justification Discovered, Chapter 1 · Christian response 3 – Question 5
Christianisme.
THe first thing in this passage, to wit, GOD imputing righteousnesse to every man in his justification, is a thing evident by the Scriptures, and I willingly grant it. But I abhorre and detest as heresie, that which he adds out of his owne conceit, to wit, that GOD doth rather impute somewhat in stead of righteousnes, which cannot make a man properly or perfectly righteous. This is a blasphemous imagination, that GOD can iudge falsly, and account a thing for righteousnes which is not, and esteeme a man righteous who is not properly righteous. Secondly that which immediately followes is no lesse blasphemous, to wit, that a man may be invested by GOD, with the great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous, namely deliv… rance from sinne and condemnation, and acceptation, into favour with GOD, though he be no such man. For hereby GOD is charged either with injustice and iniquitie, or with errour in his judgement. Thirdly his taking upon him to give a reason of GODS purpose, and counsell, is Luciferian pride and presumption. For who knoweth the minde of GOD, or hath beene of his counsell, Rom. 11.34. Saint Paul who was taken up into the third heaven, could never finde out any such counsell of GOD, neither durst give a reason of GODS purpose and counsell, but onelyonly the good pleasure of his owne will. Fourthly in the declaration of his reason I find many errours, and untruths, as first, that a mans conscience can hardly thinke of being justified by GOD, without a perfect legall righteousnesse. Every regenerate man and true beleever can upon his owne knowledge, and experience give him the lye, and tell him that the weakest conscience of any, who hath true Faith, being taught by the Gospell, can very easily thinke and beleeve, that GOD justifies him by an Evangelicall righteousnesse, even Christs perfect fulfilling of the Law, which is farre more perfect then that legall righteousnesse, which the Law requires of every man in his owne person. This Abraham beleeved, and was fully perswaded of it, this David professes, and Saint Paul preached, and I know no true Christian, who doth not both thinke and beleeve it. If any man be found doubting of this, it is because the spirit of Antichrist and Socinus doth worke strongly in him. Secondly the thing which he imagineth, being so notoriously false there can be no reason given of it, but a reason as false as the thing it self. And indeed so it is here. For first hee assure, most falsely that GODS purpose in the Gospell, is to justifie men without any such righteousnesse, as the Law requires in every man, that is the perfect fulfilling of the Law. For though GOD doth not purpose to iustifie men by their owne fulfilling of the Law, every one in his owne person: yet by Christs righteousnesse and his fulfilling of the Law in their stead, and by communicating and imputing that righteousnesse to them, he purposeth in the Gospell, and professeth that men shall bee and are by him iustified, and this is in Christ such a righteousnes as the Law requires, for proofe of this see Rom. 8.4. and 10.4. Secondly the fathers upon GOD his own false and wicked conceits, to wit First, that GOD goeth about to cure an infirmity in his people, which is not to be found in any of them, after they are called to beleeve in Christ, and to be his people; for then they bid their owne workes of the Law adiew, and do no more dreame of iustification by them. Secondly, that GOD for the cure of their weak consciences tells them in the Gospell, that if they beleeve in Christ, this beleeving shall bee as good as a perfect compleat righteousnesse: by this hee would make GOD a pure Socinian, one who takes the Crowne from Christ, and the righteousnes from GOD and man, and sets it on the head of mans Faith, which in the best beleevers, and even in Abraham himselfe was mingled with much doubting, and many infirmities. In a word, though all Orthodox Divines doe according to the Scriptures, acknowledge that upon a mans beleeving truly in Christ, GOD doth impute to him the perfect, and compleat righteousnes of Christ, which is made his before he can truly apply it by Faith. Yet it can never enter into the heart of a true Christian, but his soule will abhorre to thinke, that any mans beleeving should bee to him as good, as perfect compleat righteousnes, or that GOD should accept it in stead of perfect righteousnesse, and rather then the righteousnes of Christ GOD and man, who is made unto us of GOD righteousnes, 1 Cor. 1.30. and in whom we are found to have the righteousnes of GOD by faith, Philip. 3.9. To conclude this passage, let me adde this as a foule absurdity. For if hee speake by experience, that conscience leads men naturally to thinke that there can be no iustification without righteousnesse, which is a perfect fulfilling of the Law. Which I confesse my conscience and my reason tell mee, and GODS word teacheth▪ mee plainely: Then what is become of his conscience, who contrary to all truth and reason, and the common conscience of all men, will teach iustification, without any true righteousnesse at all either of Christ, or our owne, and will crowne mans weak Faith with the Crown of righteousnesse, which onelyonly belongs to Christ and his perfect obedience.
4. Part.Socinianisme.
SO that now the state and drift of the question is, not either First whether Faith without an object or as separated from Christ, bee imputed for righteousnesse; for such a Faith (doubtles) in the point of justification was never dreamt of by any man, that kept his … company; men may as well fancy a living man without a soul…, or a wise man without his witts, as a Faith without an object; much lesse was such a Faith conceived by any man, to bee imputed for righteousnesse.
Christianisme.
IN the fourth part, or passage, he first propounds five foolish quaeres, which he denieth to concerne the state of the question. Secondly, he propounds a sixt quaere, and that in plaine, and precise termes hee affirmes. I will first particularly answere the 5. quaeres: and after lay downe the …i…t at large, and addresse my selfe to the confutation of his discourse upon it.
And first, whereas he pronounceth him a mad man, who dreames of faith without Christ the object, or thinks that faith which believes not in Christ, should be imputed for righteousnesse: Here I must be bold to put him in mind; that thus he dreames in the next Chapter, where he boldly affirmes and by divers arguments laboureth, to prove that the Faith of Abraham which was imputed to him for righteousnes, was not a beleeving in Christ, neither was Christ and his righteousnes the object of it. And therefore by his owne confession and his owne wordes; hee doth there play the mad man, and keepes not his wits company, but his fancy runs wild, while he strives to prove that Abrahams Faith imputed to him for righteousnesse was not a beleeving in Christ.
The second Quaere.
NEither is it any part of the intent of the question, to enquire, whether Faith bee the meritorious cause of a mans justification. For both they that affirme, and they that deny the imputation of Faith for righteousnes; deny the meritoriousnes of Faith every way▪ how ever it is true, that they tha… would seeme most to disclaime it, and cast it further from them, doe yet in some of their most beloved tenets draw very neare unto it (as will afterwards appeare.)
Answer.
HEre behold either grosse ignorance or wilfull lying against knowledge, and conscience. For all the learned know that Faith and beleeving are held by the Church of Rome, to be a principall part of mans righteousnesse, and workes which GOD imputes and accounts meritorious, of justification, and of eternall life ex condigno. Yea he himselfe in the passage next before hath plainely affirmed, that Faith to him that beleeveth as Abraham did, is as good as perfect and compleat righteousnes; which if it be true, then Faith must needs be, (as perfect and compleat righteousnesse is) the meritorious cause of justification. And therefore that which he here saith is verified in himselfe, though he would seeme most to disclaime the merit of Faith, and to cast it furthest from him, yet in some of his most beloved tenets, hee drawes very neare to it, yea hee embraceth it with his heart in his whole discourse, the maine drift whereof is to exalt Faith into the place of Christs most meritorious righteousnesse, and to put the Crowne upon it. For what can be imagined more meritorious of justification, then that which GOD in a proper sense judgeth and counteth for righteousnes, and for which he doth justifie men, and counts them righteous.
The third Quaere.
NEither is it the question, whether faith be the formall cause of justification, that is, whether GOD doth justifie a man with his faith, as a Painter makes a wall white with whitenes, or as a Master makes his Scholler learned with knowledge, or learning conveyed into him; for both parties make the forme of justification to be somewhat really different from Faith (which is the genuine tenet of Arminius ▪)
Answer.
THis quere is very ridiculous, for to imagine a quality or act in man, to be the formall cause of justification which is GODS act, is the fancy of a distempered braine, and the conceit of a mad man. His exposition of his quaere shews his want of Logicall skill. For the whitenesse wherewith the Painter makes a wall white, is a forme introduced into the wall, it is not the formall cause of his action of painting; and so learning produced in a scholler, is forma docti, the forme of a Scholler as hee is made learned, not the formall cause, of his masters teaching, surely his expounding of his quaere, by such dissonant similitudes, sheweth that hee had need of a Master to teach him some better knowledg, and learning, and to set on him some better stamp, and superscription, of rationall authority. His phrase (of learning conveyed) is somewhat improper, for learning is not conveyed, into a Scholer, but produced, and begotten, in him. Let him not therefore condemne tropes of speech, seeing he himselfe can, and doth often speak tropically, and improperly.
But to come home to his quaere. If by justification hee meanes imputative justification, in which GOD justifies a man, by imputing righteousnesse to him; and man is justified by believing that GOD counts him righteous in Christ; then wee deny not that faith in some respect, is the formall cause of justification: For in this justification taken passively, as it is mans receiving by faith, that which GOD imputes to him; that is, as it is a mans believing, that God reckons him among the righteous, and counts him to be in the state of a justified person; so his actuall faith, and believing, is the forme of his justification: But take Justification, according to his owne opinion, for GODS imputeing faith in a proper sense, for righteousnesse; Then is faith that somewhat, by which a man stands in the state of a person Justified before GOD, even his formall righteousnesse, or that at least, which is in stead of formall righteousnes. Thus he is every way taken, and entangled in his owne words. Lastly, what that is, which hee saith is the genuine tenet of Arminius; hee doth not expresse whether it be, that faith is really different, or not different, from the forme of Justification; for his words are included in a parenthesis, which might very well be left out: onelyonly this I know, that Arminius professeth this to be his genuine tenet; That faith is imputed to the beleever, for righteousnes. sensu proprio, non m…tonymico, in a proper sense, without a trope, In Epist. ad Hippolitum de Collibus, If elsewhere hee alters his tenet, and writes otherwise; It is but the common disease, the vertigo, and giddinesse of the Socinian faction, to doe as here their fellow disciple doth in this his hovering, and wavering discourse; that is, to say, and gainesay, affirme, and deny, the same things, through the inconstancy of their windy braines, and mindes unsetled.
The 4 Quaere.
NOr yet doth the question make any quaere at all, whether Christ be the sole meritorious cause of justification of a sinner, for both they that goe on the right hand of the question, and they that goe on the left hand, are knit together in the same mind, and iudgment concerning this.
Answere.
WHosoever denyeth such a Spirituall union, & communion between Christ, and the penitent, and believing sinner iustified, as doth make Christs righteousnesse, and satisfaction to become his ransome, and righteousnesse, and to be imputed by GOD to him, and to make him accepted by GOD, as one cleane from the guilt of sinne, and righteous in his sight, This man denyeth Christ to be the meritorious cause, of the Justification of a sinner: For till Christ with his satisfaction, be communicated, and appropriated to the faithfull, yea, till his righteousnes be so made theirs, and set on their skore, that they have a right, and interest in it: Christ is no more meritorious of Justification to them, then hee is to Infidels, and reprobates: for it is as impossible for Christ to be actually meritorious of Justification to any man who hath not an interest in him, as for one mans money to ransom another, who is a captive, upon whose skore it was never set, no… so much interest therein given to him, that it is paid for him and accounted for his ransome.
5 Quaere.
NEither doth the question as it is here propounded, int…nd any dispute at all, whether the active obedience of Christ, falling in with the passive, and considered in coniunction with it, be that whereby Christ merited the Justification of sinners, or that which GOD hath a principall respect, and recourse unto, in the Justification of sinners, for this also is acknowledged on both sides (at least by the greater partie of both)
Answere.
BVt while he denyes GODS communicating, and imputeing Christs whole obedience▪ hee denies the merit of them in our Justification; and when hee affirmes, that faith, and not Christs righteousnesse, is the thing imputed for righteousnesse, to iustification, he denies Christs obedience active, and passive, to be that which GOD hath a principall respect, and recourse unto in the iustification of sinners, and therefore here he contradicts himselfe, and saith untruely▪ that all sides hold the merit of Christs whole obedience, when in his Doctrine he utterly overthrowes it.
The 6 Quaere, which he alloweth, and affirmeth.
BUt lastly the question in plaine tearmes is this, whether the faith of him that truly beleeves in Christ, or whether the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe, that is that obedience that Christ performed to the morall Law (consisting of all those severall and particular acts of righteousnesse, wherein he obeyed in the letter and propriety of it) bee that which GOD imputes to a beleever, for righteousnesse in his justification, so that he that beleeves is not righteous onelyonly by account, or by GODS gracious reputing and accepting of him for such: but is rigidly, literally, and peremptorily righteous, constituted and made as perfectly and compleatly, and legally righteous as Christ himselfe, no difference at all betweene them, quoad veritatem, but onelyonly quoad modum, the justified every whit as righteous as the iustifier, both righteous with the selfesame individuall righteousnes, onelyonly this difference betweene one and the other; the iustified weares i… as put upon him by another by imputation; the iustifier weares it as put upon him by himselfe, or by inherency. That the Scriptures no where countenance any such imputation of the righteousnes of Christ, I trust (the spirit of truth directing and assisting) to make manifest in the sequele of this discourse, and to give good measure of truth to the Reader, heaped up by testimonies from the Scripture, pressed downe by the weight of many arguments, & demonstrations running over, with the cleare approbation of many Authors learned and sound, and every way greater then exception.
Multa fidem promissa levant.