H. Common Commitments: The Need for Forensic Imputation
H. Common Commitments: The Need for Forensic Imputation
Newman and Vermigli are equally committed to upholding the doctrine of imputation. Newman, for example, stresses the forensic nature of justification by distinguishing the declaration from the gift that it declares. As noted, he regards them as notionally distinct even though they are unified in a single act.
Justification is the “glorious Voice of the Lord” declaring us to be righteous. That it is a declaration not a making, is sufficiently clear from this one argument that it is the justification of a sinner, of one who has been a sinner; and the past cannot be reversed except by accounting it reversed.916
Newman emphasizes the need for an “imputing righteousness,”917 an “estimation of righteousness [in Christ] vouchsafed to the past, and extending from the past to the present as far as the present is affected by the past.”918 Since the problem of human guilt is of such depth and is exhibited before the judgment seat of God, a judicial action is therefore required.919 Because this imputation consists in the divine presence, its basis is on one hand understood to be distinct from one’s soul, while at the same time it is considered to exist in nobis.920
Vermigli likewise recognizes the catastrophic problem of guilt, bequeathed to humanity from Adam, and the need for imputation to effectively deal with the legal dimensions of the problem. In this sense, Peter Martyr basically agrees with Newman by defining imputation as a judicial transference of righteousness to the sinner.921 The difference between their views comes down to the location of imputation’s formal cause. For Vermigli, it is not in the divine presence but rather in the righteousness of Christ, which God reckons to the sinner so that one is considered to be righteous coram deo.922 We shall examine this difference more thoroughly later; for now, we will focus on analyzing the basic similarities in their doctrines of forensic imputation.
Like Newman, Vermigli stresses that the crediting of Christ’s righteousness only happens by divine initiative. Commenting on Romans 4:1–4, Martyr explains how the concept of “imputation” is based entirely on grace: “[Paul postulates imputation] as an antithesis to merit or debt, so that he to whom something is imputed neither deserves it nor receives it as debt.”923 Furthermore, this imputation is two-fold in that the sinner receives a forensic crediting of Christ’s righteousness and also the non-imputation of his own sins.924 On this level, Vermigli and Newman are essentially of one mind.925
For Vermigli, imputation is also extra nos in that it addresses one’s legal status, and is not a form of iustitia in nobis, which affects the soul. Contrary to medieval Roman Catholic theology, Martyr asserts that justifying righteousness, “does not adhere [inhaere] to our souls, but is imputed by God.”926 As noted, Martyr also articulates a reverse imputation in which the sinner’s guilt is put upon Christ.927 This much is consonant with Newman, who likewise understands imputation in terms of one’s legal status before God apart from an inherent form of righteousness. Furthermore, Newman and Vermigli also agree on the result of imputation, that it entails the absolution of sin928 and the reception of divine favor.929 “Moreover, as to the remission of sins, a blessing promised to us,” Vermigli explains, “we should remember that the chief and principal point consists in this, that we are received into favor by God and our sins forgiven us.”930 With such favor, reconciliation is established between the defendant and the judge, bringing one into a position of righteousness coram deo.
Agreement between Newman and Vermigli on the need for forensic imputation grows from the realization that the problem of human guilt is of profound depth and of a particularly legal nature. Therefore, God provides forgiveness and favor through a forensic transference of his own righteousness.