Socinianism in the Fundamental Point of Justification Discovered, Chapter 2 · Socinian position 5 – Socinian position 6
Socinianisme.
IF it be obiected, that faith is sometimes put for the obiect of faith, as Gal. 3.23 before faith came, and Gal. 1.22. he preacheth the faith, &c. And may be so used with a good propriety of speech, (marke this bull, that faith put for the obiect of it, is a proper speech) as hope is put for the thing hoped for, which is an expression usuall in Scripture. To this I answere, first by concession, it is true, the name of the faculty is sometimes put for the obiect appropriated to it, neither is there any hardnes or cause of offence▪ or mistake in such an expression, but it rather addes a grace and countenance to the sentence wherein it is used seasonably, and with iudgement, as might be exemplified by severall Scripture instances, if it were pertinent. But 2. by way of opposition, I answer (Here observe how he playes Jack a both sides.) First though the faculty bee sometimes put for the obiect, yet the act is seldome or never (to my remembrance) the act or exercise of hope, is never put for the things hoped for; but hope it selfe is sometimes found in that signification, as Col. 1.5. for the hope which is laid up in heaven, so Tit. 2.13. looking for the blessed hope. Now that which is here said to bee imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse was not the habit of his faith, but Abraham beleeved GOD, that is exercised or put forth, an act of faith, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse.
Secondly though it should bee granted, that as well the act, as the habit or faculty may be sometimes put for the object, yet when the act and object have beene named together, and the act expressed and specified by an object proper to it, and somewhat immediately ascribed to the act under that consideration, all which is plainely seene in this clause (Abraham beleeved GOD, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse) in this case to conceive or to affirme, that what is so ascribed is neither ascribed unto the act it selfe, there mentioned (which is here Abrahams beleeving) nor to the obiect mentioned likewise with it (which is here GOD, Abraham beleeved GOD) but to something really differing from them both, & not so much as once mentioned in all the discourse (as namely to the righteousnes of Christ, what is this but to turne a mans back upon the text, to looke out an interpretation & to exchange that which is plainly affirmed, with what is not so much as is obscurely intimated, or implyed, & to make the Apostle to speake as never man spake besides, not for the wisedom and excellency of his speech, but for the uncouth abstrusenes of his meaning. Doubtlesse no instance is to be found of any Author whatsoever sacred, or prophane, who so farre abhorred to be understood in what he spake, as to put his mind into wordes of such a construction.
Thirdly and lastly, neither is the righteousnesse of Christ the object of faith, as justifying (as hath bin said) nor doth the Scripture where it speaks of faith, as justifying, which are places not a few, make the least mention, or give the least intimation of such a thing. It is true the Scriptures often propound the righteousnes of Christ, or his obedience to the law, as that which is to be beleeved, and so it may be termed a partiall object of faith, somewhat that is and ought to be beleeved: but so the creation of the world is propounded to bee beleeved, and that Cain was Adams sonne, is somewhat to bee beleeved. And generally whatsoever the Scriptures affirme, may be called a partiall obiect of faith. But the obiect of faith properly as it iustifieth, is either Christ himselfe, or the promise of GOD concerning the Redemption and salvation of the world by him. The righteousnes of Christ is no more the object of faith as iustifying, then either his being borne of a Virgin, or his ascending into heaven, or the like, and either the one or the other might as well be here said, to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnes, in that respect as his righteousnesse. Thus you see at large how many passages and circumstances in the context, stand up in contestation with that exposition which by Pauls faith in this Chapter, will needes understand Christs righteousnesse.
Answere.
THat which I have noted before gives light to see many tergiversations, and much trifling in this passage. Let mee onelyonly here desire him to repeat the wordes which he chiefly stands upon, to wit, Abraham beleeved GOD, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse, and tell mee whether righteousnes bee not named, which was imputed to Abraham ▪ and all who truely beleeve, as appeares, verse 6. and 11. and what righteousnesse can bee found fit to justifie a man before GOD, besides Christs righteousnesse?
Socinianisme.
FOurthly and lastly, this interpretation we contend for, according to which the word faith, or beleeving is to bee taken properly in all the passages mentioned, and not tropically or metonymically) was the common interpretation anciently received, and followed by the Church of GOD from the primitive times, and for 1500. yeares was never questioned or contradicted, neither did the contrary opinion ever looke out into the world, till the yesterday of the last age, I speak this somewhat above the analogie, and proportion of mine owne reading in matters of antiquitie, (which I confesse will not amount to any such confidence) but I am confident in this behalfe upon the undertaking of another, who searched diligently what interpretation of this Scripture ruled amongst the learned and Orthodox writers from time to time, so that it is but a calumny of evill report brought upon the opinion and interpretation of this Scripture which we maintaine, unworthy the tongue or pen of any learned or sober man, to make either Arminius or Socinus the Authors, or first founders of either. And for the last hundred yeares and upward, from Luther and Calvins times, the fairest streame of interpreters so runs, as to water and refresh the same interpretation: you will easily incline (I presume) to beleeve both the one and the other, that both former and latter times have beene friends and favourers to the interpretation given; if you will please with diligence, and without partiality, to examine these few testimonies, and passages following, as they stand in their severall Authors respectively.