A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 78
Aphorism.
IT had been as easie for the Holy Ghost to Page 227.have said, That Christ only is imputed, or Christ only justifieth, if he had so meant.
Animadvers.
1. In like manner do Papists stand upon hoc est Corpus meum, and dispute against our Exposition of those words.
2. The meaning of the Holy Ghost is to be gathered, by comparing one place of Scripture with another. Now as it is said, that we are justified by Faith, Rom. 3. 28. & 5. 1. so is it said, By him (i. e. by Christ) all that believe are justified, Acts 13. 39.
3. Therefore we are justified indeed by Christ, by his Righteousness imputed to us: Only Faith is required of us, that this benefit by Christ may be obtained; as the Medicine indeed doth heal, but yet it must be applied that it may do it.
Reply.
1. I hold fast the literal sense of Scripture, not as opposed to figurative (as the Papists in that point do;) but as it signifieth the plain meaning of the words, opposed to far-fetch'd forced Interpretation. For the figurative is oft the plain express sense, which is to be received according to the common use of those words, Again, if the Papists had divers express Texts of Scripture for their opinion, and we had none against them, I would be of their mind. It is a desperate thing to forsake the plain sense of God's Word, because Papists adhere to the literal sense of one Text, against the plain more obvious figurative sense, when also other Scriptures contradict them. If express Scripture be no proof, when-ever men can put a forced sense on it, or cannot reconcile it with other, what is a proof?
2. I agree to your Rule of Interpretation. But as to the Application, 1. You confess we are said to be justified by Faith; and I confess we are justified by Christ. But doth it follow, that therefore we are not justified by Faith, because we are justified by Christ? we are not fed by our hands or teeth, because we are fed by our meat? 2. But the Question was about [imputing for Righteousness.] The Scripture saith, [Faith is imputed for Righteousness,] but it no-where saith, Christ or his Righteousness is imputed to us for Righteousness. Now the Question is, Whether by [Faith,] the Scripture mean (not Faith, but) [Christ, or his Righteousness] and that only? He that will affirm this, must prove it. And do you indeed think, that when Scripture saith, [Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness,] James 2. 23. Rom. 4. 22, 23, 24. that by [it] is meant [Christ,] or [Christ's Righteousness?] Mr. Wotton, Mr. Gataker, and Jo. Goodwin, have said enough of this. Do you by [Faith] mean [Christ,] when you say, We are justified by Faith? Do not you confess that we are truly justified by Faith itself, as the Condition, as well as by Christ as the meritorious Cause? Why then do you oppose the same in me? It may you will say, Because I say, Faith justifieth as our Righteousness. I answer, 1. That is not the Question now under hand; but, Whether it be Christ only, and not Faith. 2. In regard of that Justification which I believe you mean, viz. from the Accusation of the Law of Works as such: I say, Faith is but a Condition, and no otherwise justifieth. But because it is made that Condition by a New-Law, per legem remediantem, and we must be judged by that Law; therefore when the case is, Whether we have performed the Conditions of that New-Law or not? then Faith is materially that Righteousness by which we must be justified, against all Accusations of non-performance.
3. I have still acknowledged the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness sanosensu; (that is, 1. Per Donationem ejus fructus: And, 2. Per Adjudicationem justitiae, nobis inde promeritae;) but yet I see no such evidence in your Consequence, that should force me to leave the plain sense of any Text. The Antecedent I embrace, [All that believe in Christ are justified;] But I see not how it follows, [therefore they are justified only by Christ's Righteousness imputed, and not by Faith imputed;] (for that's it you must say, or you say nothing to the point.) Indeed you must interpret Imputation very fairly, before you can hence prove Imputation it self, much less the sole Imputation.