Socinianism in the Fundamental Point of Justification Discovered, Chapter 2 · Christian response 3 – Argument 3
Christianisme.
His second way of arguing to proue his opinions from the scope of the place, and the intent of the Apostle in this discourse of justification. His maine argument reduced into forme runs thus.
The scope of the place, and intent of the Apostle is to hedg up with thornes, the false way of justification which lay through works, and to turne men from it; as also to discover the true way to them, to wit, what they must do, and what GOD requireth of them, to their justification, and what hee will accept at their hands, instead of the workes of the Law: and that is it which he here saith is imputed for righteousnesse.
But faith, and believing (in a proper and formall signification) is that which they must do, and performe to their justification, which also GOD requires of them, instead of workes of the Law, and will accept at their hands instead of them. Therefore faith in a proper sense, is here said to be imputed
To this argument I answere, First, that in the first proposition there is some truth affirmed, but immediately contradicted, and many falsehoodes intermingled. That the Apostles scope and intent is to hedge up the false way of, justification, which lay through workes, and to discover the ture way, we grant for truth. But like a mad, or drunken man, he immediately contradicts the truth which he had affirmed, and tels us that the right way is doing, and performing, something which GOD requires at our hands to our iustification. And what is this, but the way which lyes through workes? For to doe and perform somthing required of us, that it may be accepted of GOD at our hands to our justification, is to seek justification by the way of working in the judgement of men, that are sober and in their wits.
Besides this manifest contradiction, I find also much falshood and evill meaning. 1. In saying the truth, that the false way lyeth through works, that is, works performed in obedience to the Law by every man in his own person (which is the true intent and meaning of the Apostle) he hath a further wicked meaning, namely, that our seeking after the righteousnesse of Christ, which consists in his works of obedience to the Law, is the way which lyeth through works to justification, and therefore the false way. And this he declares to be his meaning in that he immediatly after labours to beat men off from Christs righteousnesse. Wherfore, I justly tax him here, not onelyonly of blasphemy, in calling the righteousnesse Christ (who is the way, the truth, and the life) and seeking justification through it, a false way: but also of stupidity and blindnesse, in that he cannot see the difference between our seeking justification by the righteousnesse offered to us in the Gospel to be apprehended by faith, even Christs righteousnesse; and our doing works of the Law for our justification; or Christs performing works of the Law in his own person. For Christs righteousnesse as it was performed by himselfe, was legall and according to the strict termes of the Law: but as it comes to us by communion, and is applyed by faith, it is Euangelicall. 2. In that he saith God requires somthing to be done of men for their Justification, which God imputes to them, and accepts at their hands instead of the works or righteousnesse of the Law. Hereby he sets up justification by some thing which a man doth, and performeth, which the Apostle altogether opposeth in this discourse and his whole scope is bent against it; and his whole intent and drift is to shew, that we are justified, not by giving or doing, but by receiving that which is freely given of GOD, and reputed for righteousnes, even the righteousnesse of him, who is GOD, and is called therfore the righteousnesse of God, Chap. 3.21. and 10.3. Hereby also he brings in a doing and performing of somthing by men, which is accepted of God, over and above that which the Law requireth, which is a meere Popish fiction, tending to dishonour the Law, and to make it an imperfect rule of mans wel doing. And withall he makes the new Covenant a condicionall Covenant, and not of free Grace, promising justification and salvation upon condition of mens doing.
In the second place, his assumption, wherein he affirms that faith and beleeving in the proper and formall signification, is that which men must doe and performe, and which God requires and will accept at their hands instead of works of the Law for justification: it contains in it most grosse Socinian errour, and much absurdity and untruth. First, in that he calls faith and beleeving a thing done and performed by men, this is directly contrary to the Apostle, who teacheth, that faith is not of our selves, but is the gift of God, Ephes. 2.8. and that we of our selves are not sufficient to think much lesse to do that which God can accept: but our sufficiencies of God, 2 Cor. 3.5. and it is God which worketh in us both to will and to doe of his good pleasure, Phil. 2.13. so that faith and beleeving are not a condition performed by us to oblige God; but a part of the Grace freely promised in the Covenant, and given to us, even the worke and motion of his Spirit in us.
Secondly, in that he sets up faith instead of all righteousnesse and perfect fullfilling of the Law: hereby he doth professe himselfe a Socinian Hereticke in plain terms, and conspires with those Heretickes to overthrow the justice of God in our justification, and to make Christs satisfaction vaine and needlesse, as I have before shewed.
After his arguing for the imputation of faith, he proceeds here in his second way of arguing, as he did in the former, to dispute against Gods imputing of Christs righteousnes in iustification. His reasons are 3. First, because God required Christs righteousnes of Christ himselfe, and therefore it is not required of GOD for our righteousnesse, to iustification. Secondly, because the scope of the Apostle is to shew what must be done, and performed by us, and what GOD requires at our hands, to iustification, and Christs righteousnesse is not any thing performed by us, and therefore is not here said to be imputed. Thirdly, if the Apostle had said that we must be iustified by Christ and his righteousnesse, without any other thing performed by us, this had beene to cast a snare upon us, rather then to open to us a dore of life, and salvation.
To which I answere, that as his denying of Christs righteousnes to be imputed, is Hereticall, so also are his reasons brought to confirme his opinion. First in that he saith GOD doth not require of us the righteousnes of Christ, for our iustification; this phrase is not onelyonly harsh, and unsavory, but also full of calumny, and close slander. It is harsh and absurd, like as if one should say, that GOD requires the same particular, and individuall act, done by another, to be not done by him, but by us, which implies a grosse contradiction. It is also full of close calumny, for hereby he goeth about to make men beleeve, that the orthodox doctrine of iustification by the communion, and imputation of Christs righteousnes, is a teaching, and supposing, that GOD requires of us for iustification, that we be performers of the same individuall works of the law, in the propriety, and formality of them, which Christ performed, and so he openly expresseth his mind in another place, which is a base slander, as I have before shewed.
Secondly, in that he saith, God required Christs righteousnesse of Christ himselfe, and not for our iustification; This implies, that Christ had need of iustification, and was bound to fulfill the righteousnesse of the Law, as a thing requisit for himselfe, and it savours very rank of the Samosatenian, and Socinian heresie, which denyeth Christs eternall deity, for if Christ his humane nature, being from the first conception most pure, upright, and holy, was personally united to the eternall Son God, equall with the father, and so was the Son of God, and heir of all things: who can doubt but that he in himselfe was worthy of glory at Gods right hand from his birth; as his taking of our nature upon him was altogether for us, so his infirmities, sufferings, death, and continuance on earth for the performance of all righteousnes and obedience to the Law was for us, and for all the elect, both them who of old before his comming beleeved in him promised and to come; and also for them who now doe beleeve in him already come exhibited and exalted to glory in his humanity. To say or thinke that he had need to iustifie, and make righteous himselfe by his workes, and to merit glory in heaven by his righteousnes; is in effect to deny that hee is GOD infinitely worthy of all glory, as he was the onelyonly begotten sonne of GOD, and heire of all things.
His second reason is a manifest falshod, to wit, that the scope of the Apostle is to shew what is to be done, and performed by us, which GOD may accept at our hands to our justification. For the Apostles scope is to shew that wee are justified freely by GODS grace, by the things which Christ did for our redemption, cap. 3.24▪ and that obedience, righteousnes, and satisfaction of Christ, we must not obtaine by any workes of our owne according to the Law, it is freely given us of GOD, and faith is the hand by which wee receive it, and our evidence, that we are justified by it.
His third reason is blasphemy, and contradiction of Christs owne words. For our Saviour professeth and affirmeth that he alone is the dore, John 10.7. & the way, Iohn 14.6. and hee who makes him the way and dore, and seeks justification life and salvation by the way of his righteousnes, hee is a true disciple of Christ, and his Apostles. But to call the teaching of men in this way, the casting of a snare upon them is blasphemy. Far be it from me, and from all true Christians not to detest and▪ abhorre such impiety, and not to thinke him worthie of the curse of Anathema Maranatha, who with his mouth proclaimeth, and with an obstinate heart maintaineth, that teaching of iustification by Christ and his righteousnes is casting of a snare on men, and not of the dore of life and salvation to them.
Socinianisme.
THirdly that interpretation which is set up against it, and contendeth for the imputation of Christs righteousnes, is cleerely overthrowne by severall circumstances, and passages in the context;
First it hath no appearance of a likelyhood in it, that the Apostle in the great and weighty point of justification, wherein (doubtlesse) he desired, if in any subject besides, to speak with his understanding, as his owne phrase is, that is, that what hee himselfe conceives and understands may bee clearly understood by others, should time after time and in one place after another without ever explaining himself, or changing his speech throughout the whole disputation, use so strange & harsh and uncouth an expression, or figure of speech, as is not to be found in all his writings besides, to say that faith and beleeving is imputed for righteousnes, but to meane that indeed it is the righteousnesse of Christ that is imputed; were to speake rather that he might conceale his mind then reveale it.
Christianisme.
IN this third way of arguing he layeth downe his arguments against the true Orthodox interpretation of Saint Pauls speeches, concerning imputation of faith for righteousnes; which interpretation he goeth about to overthrow by severall circumstances, or passages in the context. I will first sift his first argument here laid downe, and then propound and answer the rest.
Answer to the first argument.
IN this argument there are more impudent lyes then full pauses, or sentences. The first impudent lye is, that the Apostle expressing the state of righteousnes, or of a man justified by Christs righteousnes; by the name of faith, and beleeving imputed for righteousnes to him, should use an harsh strange and uncouth speech, and expression: what is the man so ignorant of the first grounds of Rhetorick, that a trope or figure of speech, is harsh strange and uncouth with him? It is but a Metonymie to expres by the name of Faith, and beleeving, the state of a beleever or a faithfull man, or the object of faith, which faith hath laid hold on so fast, that they cannot be separated, but he who hath the one hath the other also, and by righteousnes to expresse the state of a righteous man justified. And when we say faith is imputed for righteousnes, to meane that the state of a beleever is counted the state of righteousnes, or of a man justified; or that faith as it comprehends Christs righteousnesse, is counted to him that hath it righteousnes: and Christs righteousnesse which the beleever by faith possesseth, is set on his skore for iustification.
A second notorious untruth is, that such a figure of speech as this, is not to be found in all the Apostles writings besides. For the same expression and figure of speeches used by this Apostle, Cap. 2.26. as I have before plainely shewed. Yea foure times in the foure last verses is the same trope used, uncircumcision first for a man uncircumcised, and secondly for the state of an uncircumcised Gentile, and circumcision for a circumcised Iew, and againe for inward sanctification whereof circumcision was the signe and Sacrament, and ten severall times doth he tropically by faith meane the Gospell, and Doctrine thereof, which is the obiect of faith, Gal. 3 (as I have before noted, where he discourseth about this weighty point of iustification.
A third impudent lye, and manifest falshood is that the Apostle time after time, and in one place after another useth the word faith or beleeving imputed, without ever explaining himselfe, or changing his speech. For that which he calls faith and beleeving, and faith it is imputed for righteousnes, vers. 3. and 5. he explaining himselfe, and changing his speech, v. 6.11. calls it righteousnes, and saith GOD imputeth righteousnes, and righteousnesse is imputed. In a word I doe challenge him to shew one place in all the writings of this Apostle, wherein he useth this phrase of faith, or beleeving, imputed for righteousnes, except onelyonly here in this Chapter, and in Gal, 3. In both which places he cites that testimony of Moses, concerning Abraham, that GOD counted faith to him for righteousnes, and urgeth it in the phrase of Moses, but in all other places, where he writes of iustification, he useth his owne expressions, and saith that wee are iustified by Christs satisfaction made for our redemption, as Rom. 3.24. and by his obedience and fulfilling of the Law Rom. 5.19. and 8.4. and 10.3.4. and that Christ is made to us righteousnesse, 1 Cor. 1.30. and we are made the righteousnes of GOD in him, 2 Cor. 5.21. If he cannot shew any place besides these, then let him bee ashamed of his doings, in that he hath bent his tongue and pen like a bow for lyes, and shootes out in every passage so many notorious untruthes, that hee may bee suspected to have full furnished his quiver, from the armorie of the father of lyes, the Prince of darknesse.
The second Argument.
SEcondly verse 5. it is said, that to him that beleeveth his faith is imputed to him for righteousnes. From which clause it is evident, that that faith (whatsoever we understand by it) which is imputed is his, somewhat that wayes truely, and properly called, his, before such imputation of it bee made unto him. Now it cannot be said of the righteousnesse of Christ, that it is any mans before the imputation of it to him, but faith properly taken is the beleevers before it be imputed (at least in order of nature, though not in time.) Therefore by faith which is here said to be imputed, cannot be meant the righteousnesse of Christ.
Answer.
THe righteousnes of Christ by spirituall union, and communion, which every true beleever hath with Christ, is as truely his, as his faith. For Christ is made unto him righteousnesse, 1 Cor. 1.30. and he is made the righteousnesse of GOD in Christ, 2 Cor. 5.22. and that in order of nature before it is counted his righteousnesse. For GOD whose judgement is according to truth, doth not count that to the beleever, which he hath not before communicated, or at the same time doth communicate to him. Secondly I answer, that if faith which is here called his faith, be faith in a proper sense, and be imputed for righteousnesse to justification, then is man justified by his owne inherent righteousnesse, and by a worke done and performed in his owne person, which every Orthodox Divine will tell him is flat popery or worse.
The third Argument.
THirdly granting a trope, or Metonymie in this place, and that by faith is meant the object of it, or the thing beleeved; yet it will not follow from hence, that the righteousnesse of Christ should be said to bee imputed here, but either GOD himselfe, or the promise of GOD made to Abraham For it is said verse 3. that Abraham beleeved GOD, not that he beleeved Christs righteousnes, except we set up another trope to maintaine the former, and by GOD will say is meant the righteousnes of Christ, which would bee not a trope or figure, but rather a monster of speech. Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is not here said to be imputed for righteousnesse, but faith properly taken. Yea whereas the object of faith as justifying, is expressed with great variety of words, and termes in Scripture, in all this variety there is not once to bee found the least mention, of the righteousnes of Christ: as if the holy Ghost foreseeing the kindling of this false fire, had purposely withdrawne, or withheld all fuell that might feed it. Sometimes Christ in person is made the obiect of this faith, Iohn 3.16. besides many such expressions. Sometimes Christ in his Doctrine, or the Doctrine and word of Christ, Iohn 5.46. had yee beleeved Moses, yee would have beleeved mee. Sometimes Christ in the relation of his person, and that either as he stands related unto GOD as his father, Iohn 20.31. or else as hee stands related to those ancient promises of GOD made unto the Iewes concerning a Messiah, to be given and sent unto them, Iohn 8.24. except yee beleeve that I am hee, yee shall dye in your sinnes. Sometimes the raising up of Christ from the dead, as Rom. 10.9. Sometimes GOD himselfe is made the obiect of faith. 1. Pet. 1.21. Sometimes the record or testimony of GOD concerning his sonne, is made the obiect of faith, 1. Ioh. 5.10. In all this variety or diversity of expressing the obiect of faith, as iustifying, there is no sound or intimation of the righteousnes or active obedience of Christ. Not but that the righteousnesse of Christ is, and ought to bee beleeved as well as other things revealed, and affirmed in the Scriptures: yea it is of nearer concernment to the maine to beleeve it, then the beleeving of many things besides comprehended in the Scriptures as well as it, but the reason I conceive) why it is not numbred or reckoned up among the obiects of faith, as iustifying is, because though it ought, and cannot but be beleeved by that faith which iustifyeth, yet it may be beleeved also by such a faith, which is so farre from iustifying, that it denyeth this Christ (whose righteousnesse notwithstanding it beleeveth) to be the sonne of GOD. Thus some of his owne nation (the Iewes) have given testimony to his righteousnesse and innocency, who yet received him not for their Messiah, nor beleeved him to be GOD. And this is the frame & constitution of the Turkish faith (for the most part) at this day.