Socinianism in the Fundamental Point of Justification Discovered, Chapter 2 · Answer 8
Answer.
THis argument is no more but his owne bare affirmation, that it is probable the Apostle in this place where he handles the point of imputation, would speak plainly, and it is more plaine to speak of faith, imputed in a proper sense: the tropicall and metonymicall sense or interpretation brought in, is a compelling of Paul to meane by faith the righteousnesse of Christ, and thereby we cloath the sun with sackcloath, in which multiplicity of words, wee finde much vanity. As for imputation in justification, it is not the maine and principall point which the Apostle insists upon, the maine and principall points of justification are in the 3. and 5. Chapter handled plainely, and in the 8, 9, and 10. Chapters, where he plainely teacheth that the righteousnes by which wee are constituted, and made righteous before GOD, is Christs obedience and fulfilling of the Law. The imputation of faith comes in onelyonly by the way, being occasioned by that testimony of Moses concerning Abraham, which the Apostle brings to prove that iustification is not by our owne performance, or workes of the Law, but by a righteousnes which GOD gives, even the fulfilling of the Law by Christ for our redemption, which wee receive and enioy by faith so certainely, that if we bee faithfull beleevers in Christ, then are wee righteous euen in GODS account; for true faith cannot be nor subsist in any who hath not communion of Christs righteousnesse. This to all iudicious men is more plaine, and limpid and cleere, then to take faith in a proper sense, and to set on it the Crowne of Christs righteousnesse, especially seeing the Apostle in the 6. and 11. verses sheweth that the thing properly imputed is righteousnesse, and therefore not faith, which cannot properly be called or counted righteousnes: yea he tells us, it is a propitiation to cover our sins, which in no case can bee properly said of faith. As for his words wherein he affirmes, that there is more comfort in faith imputed, then in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed; they are most wicked and more hatefull then any poperie, yea blasphemous in exalting mans faith into the royall Throne of Christs righteousnesse, and calling the teaching of the imputation thereof, the laying of a stumbling block in our way. It is to be feared that he who thus speakes and writes hath stumbled at Christ the precious stone, which GOD hath laid in his Zion, as the Apostle intimates, speaking of them who make the righteousnes of Christ a stumbling block, and stone of offence. Rom. 9.33. In the next place after these frivolous arguments, hee takes upon him to answer some places of the Apostle which are produced by us and objected against him, wherein faith and hope are used to signifie their obiects, that is, the things beleeved and hoped for, as Gal. 1.22· and 3.23. and Colos. 1.5. And here he doth use notable trifling, and most absurd tergiversation. First hee grants the Apostle doth use in his writings such tropes of speech, which is a thing so manifest, that impudency it selfe is ashamed to deny it. And by granting this, he contradicts what hee hath before affirmed, to wit, that in all the Apostles writings such a trope is not to be found.
Secondly hee opposeth what before hee granted, by a forged and false distinction, affirming that the habit of faith may bee used to signifie the obiect, but not the act, Cujus contrarium est verissimum. For in the places obiected, the act as well as the habit, and especially the act of faith and hope are to be understood, for the habit is ordained to be exercised about the proper obiect, but it never is exercised about it, nor reacheth to it but by the act, faith by believing comprehends Christ and his righteousnes, and so doth hope by the acts of it, reach that within the vaile. And indeed, if wee observe it, we shall see in this discourse, that faith which signifies the habit, as well as believing which is the act, is here said to be imputed for righteousnes, as ver. 5. and 9. and therefore this distinction helpes him nothing at all.
Thirdly, hee contradicts himselfe againe, and grants that the act may be used to expresse the object, but then he flees to his old shift saying that Christs righteousnesse is not the object of justifying faith, or of faith as justifying, which error I have before confuted, and indeed it is contrary to all reason; for the proper object of faith, as it is an instrument of justification is nothing else but righteousnes.
Fourthly, he utters a notable untruth, when he saith, that the Scripture where it speakes of faith as justifying, makes not the least mention of Christs righteousnes, and fulfilling of the Law. Let him read Rom. 3.24. and 10.4. and tell me whether the believing of the man, to whom Christ is the end or fulfilling of the Law, for righteousnes be not justifying faith, & when we are said to be justified by the redemption which is in Jesus Christ, whether our beleeving of that our redemption be not a true justifying faith.
Lastly, he argues without reason, that though Christs righteousnes be a thing which is to be belived, & so is a partial object of faith, yet it is not the object of justifying faith, because creation of the world, & Christs being born of a virgin, and his ascention are partiall objects, and yet not of faith as it is justifying; but either Christ himselfe, or the promies of God, concerning the redemption and salvation of the world by him. To which I answere, 1 that his sylogism is without mood or figure: it is as if I should thus reason, That Master Goodwin, though he be a living creature, yet because some living creatures, as Asses, and Apes, are not reasonable creatures, therefore he is not a reasonable creature. 2. I must tell him there is but one true saving faith, and that is iustifying faith: and he who can by true holy faith beleeve aright the creation, or the nativity of Christ borne of a virgin, or his ascention, he hath iustifying faith, though when faith is acting about iustification, the proper obiect is righteousnes, even Christs full satisfaction for our redemption, and salvation, and the iustifying act, is beleeving that Christ is made unto us of God righteousnes, and we are made the righteousnes of God in him. And faith imputed for righteousnes, ver. 3. is righteousnes imputed. ver. 6. and 11. Thus you see all circumstances in the context stand up in contestation with his exposition, which by faith here said to be imputed, understands faith in a proper sense, and per se, not faith in respect to Christs righteousnes.
But that I may not seeme to conceale any thing, nor give any thing for his upon trust, I will set downe these tergiversations in his owne words.