Theologi Giessenses Hulsemannus Calovius and Dannhawerus as Men of Great Learning who made Faith to lye in a firm Perswasion of the Pardon of Sin and yet Affirm'd it to be the Instrumental Cause of Justification But 2. This will appear with more Conviction on an Equal Proposal of what the Reformers themselves have Deliver'd in Explicating the Notion they had of Justifying Faith whose Disquisitions for the Investigation of Truth were very Close and Profound They weighed the Difficulties on every hand and their Determinations were after much Consideration and with Great Judgment But this thing having been already done by the Learned Le Blank I must beseech my Reader to have Recourse unto him And yet for the help of such as have him not I will out of him and some other Judicious Writers on this Subject give the sense of the Reformed The Learned Robert Baronius in Le Blank Explicates the Notion about Fiducia thus First The Object of this Perswasion is not saith he only the Pardon of Sin to be Impetrated and had De objecto igitur sidei salvificae haec tenenda sunt Primo tenendum est Objectum fiduciae non solum esse Remissionem peccatorum impetrandam obtinendam sed etiam torum Remissionem jam Impetratam Secundo Fiduciam in haec duo tendere per duos distinctos actus quorum alter praecedit Justificationem ut ejus causa Instrumentalis alter eam sequitur ut ejus effectum Consequens Tertio actum fiducialem qui Justificationem praecedit ut ejus causa esse persuasionem de Christi satisfactione pro nobis in particulari deremissione peccatorum obtinendaper propter ejus satisfactionem Quarto Actum fiducialem qui Justificationem sequitur esse Persuasionem de remissiane Peccatorum jam Impetrata de nostrâ Perseverantiâ in eo statu usque ad finem vitae Baronius in Le Biank Thes de fid Justif Nat. § LXII but also as already obtain'd Secondly That this Perswasion respects these two Objects by two Distinct Acts The one of which goeth before Justification as its Instrumental Cause The other followeth it as its Effect and Consequent Thirdly The Fiducial Act which Precedes Justification as its Cause is a Perswasion of the Satisfaction of Christ for us in Particular and of the Remission of Sins to be obtain'd by and for his Satisfaction Fourthly This Fiducial Act which followeth Justification is a Perswasion of the Remission of Sins already Impetrated and of our Perseverance in that state to the end of our Lives Maresius saith That there is a Threefold Act of Faith distinctly to be Considered in our Justification The first Dispositive whereby I believe that Christ hath merited the Pardon of Sin for them that are his c. The Second is formally Justificatory whereby I who am now Sorrowing for my Sin and Purposing Amendment of Life do believe that all my Sins are at this present Forgiven The Third Consolatory whereby I Believe that all my Sins have been Pardoned and that I shall never more be in a State of Condemnation In the First sense Faith is before Justification In the Second Simultaneous with it In the Third it followeth it Paraeus expresseth himself to the same purpose Before the Act of Justification that is to say in order of Nature not of time Our Faith or Perswasion hath for its Object this Proposition de futuro My Sins shall be Forgiven me on my believing In the very Act of Justification it hath this Proposition de praesenti My Sins are Forgiven me After my Justification this de Praeterito My Sins have already been Pardoned The Authors of the Censure Omnes autem isti viz. Bellarmious Socinus Remonstrantes adversus Vmbram suam pugnant contra Chimaeram quam sibi confixerunt tela sua dirigunt supponentes nos statuere peccata nostra quoad efficaciam deleri priusquam credamus c. Censur Conf. Rem c. 11. p. 159. do on this occasion declare That the Remonstrants Fight against their own Shadow against a Chimaera of their own feigning when they insinuate as if we held that our Sins were efficaciously blotted out before we believe and that then we are Justified when we Believe that they are blotted out From which absurd Opinion 't would follow that the Remission of Sin was neither the whole nor a part of our Justification but that our Justification was somewhat after it Which cannot be allowed unless Justification be taken for the Sense of Justification in our selves or for a Manifestation or Declaration of it unto others We do not therefore say That that Perswasion by which we are Justified is of the Remission of Sins already had Or that the Object of this Perswasion is the Pardon of Sin before obtained But that Perswasion by which we all believe our Sins to be in praesenti forgiven us not properly in praeterito or in futuro altho' both belong to Justifying Faith yet not to the formal Act of Justification as we usually Express it Wherefore when the Mercy of God and the Pardon of Sin is offer'd to us in the Gospel through Christ we are not only in the General Perswaded that all who believe shall have their Sins forgiven them But he that savingly believes doth firmly perswade himself that the Promise of Pardon doth belong to him and is received by that very Act of Faith and accordingly then his Sin is forgiven him and that Blessedness spoken of in Rom. 6.7 made his Thus the Remission of Sin and a Perswasion of that Remission are in a Saving Believer at the same time But he who is Perswaded that if he believes he shall be Justified is not therefore as yet Justified Unless he doth Actually and in praesenti believe That that Righteousness is given him which he Receives with the same Act of Faith What he afterwards believes de praeterito doth not Justifie him but supposes him to be already Justified All these Acts are of one and the same Justifying Faith The First Disposes for Justification The Second Properly Justifieth The Third Quiets Conscience according to that in Rom. 5.1 2. From what hath been here said it 's apparent that there is no force at all in this Socinian and Arminian Objection against us for they oppose us as if we assign'd to Justifying Faith one only single Act whereas nothing can be more manifest than that we make them three Distinct Acts whence it 's easie enough to Conceive how Justifying Faith is a Perswasion of the special Mercy of God to be de futuro obtain'd and which in praesenti by the very Act of Believing is Perceiv'd This Fiducia or Perswasion as Described by the Remonstrants to be a firm Belief that it 's not possible for any to escape Eternal Death and attain to Everlasting Life any other way than by Jesus Christ and as he hath Prescribed is not a Justifying it is but an Historical or Dogmatick Faith It only respects
what is Future not what is Past or Present nor doth it beget in the Minds of Believers any thing certain of the Impetration of Salvation but only of its Possibility Manner Censur Confes Rem c. 11. p. 158 159 c. and Reason c. So far the Censure of the Remonstrants Confession By what I have here gather'd out of Le Blank and some others it 's manifest That tho' the Reformed took into the Description they gave of Justifying Faith the Perswasion of the Pardon of Sin yet Generally they Agreed in Denying Justification to be before it The Methods they took for the clearing thus much you see were divers Zanchy Bucerus is lib. de Reconcil Ecclesiarum iâ— Artic. de Justific mul tis Demonstrat fidem 〈◊〉 fiducia differre quan quam sempe sint ambae in separabiliter Conjunctae Zanch. Oper. Tom. 7. de Persever Sanctor p. 354. following the Excellent Martin Bucer held Faith and Fiducia to be Inseparably conjoyn'd but yet the one different from the other Beza and Garisiolius took this Fiducia or Firm Perswasion to be an Inseparable Effect of Faith And they who made it the the Formal Reason and the Justifying Act considered the Objects of this Perswasion distinctly as the Pardon was either Future de praesenti or de praeterito As it was a Pardon that either should be Or as then actually had Or as what had been before and so made the Perswasion of a Pardon to be had Antecedaneous to Justification But as de praesenti obtained Simultaneous with it And the other after it That tho' they Defined it by Perswasion of a Pardon already had yet made it not the Justifying Act. The utmost Point to which they went was That this Fiducia or Particular Perswasion of Forgiveness de praesenti was Simultaneous and in the same Instant of Nature with Justification which is a Motion contrary unto and destructive of the Antinomian Error as hereby it 's made impossible for an Elect Person to be actually justified in the sight of God one Instant of Nature before he be by Faith United unto Christ that every such person so long as he is in a state of Unbelief and Unregeneracy is unjustified is in a state of Condemnation and under the Curse of the Law This particular is very clearly expressed by the Learned Dr. Ames who saith That this Justifying Faith doth Fides ista Justificans suâ Vaturâ producit atque adeo onjunctam secum habet specialem ac certam persuesionem de gratia ac miserecordia Dei in Christo unde etiam per istam persuesionem Fides justificans non malè saepe describitur ab Orthodoxis praesereim cum impugnant generalem illam Fidem â—ui omnia tribuunt Pontisicii Ame. Medul l. 7. c. 27. § 19. of its own Nature beget and therefore hath conjoyn'd with it a special and sure Perswasion of the Grace and Mercy of God in Christ whence it is oft described by the Orthodox to be such a Perswasion especially when they oppugn that General Faith to which the Papists ascribe every thing Or as Le Blank hath it If any enquire Sed siquis jam quaerat cur Fidem Justificantem difiniunt â—b Actu qui revera non juâ—tificat sid siquitur jamfictam Justificationent potius quam ab â—â—lo quo revera justisicamur ad â—stud â—o videntur inducti quod â—ctus iste posterior praecidentem supponat clarius Fidei perâ—ectionem explicet ad coâ—solationem sidelium maxime faâ—iat c. Thes de Fid. Just â—at § 68. why they define Justifying Faith by an Act that doth not really justifie but follows Justification rather than by an Act by which we are justified It seems very evident they were induced thereunto by these considerations namely That that last Act praesupposes the former and doth more clearly explicate the entire nature of Faith and contribute more to the comfort of Believers In a word this Assurance of the pardon of sin was the more insisted on by the Reformers because so much opposed by the Papists with whom the Controversie then mostly was So far Le Blank To give a more particular Account of the the Lesser Differences among the First Reformers as well as among our Modern Divines and show how they variously explicated the Doctrine of Justification by Faith being more to gratifie the Curiosity of some than satisfie the Consciences of any I will wave it and go on to The second That many Fears and Doubts are consistent with Justifying Faith Tho' they made Justifying Faith to be a firm perswasion of the pardon of sin yet they meant not such a perswasion as was so exclusive of all Doubts and Fears about our Salvation that whoever in the least doubted was destitute of Faith This Perswasion saith Dr. Amés as to the sense of it doth not always accompany Faith For it may be and often is either through the weakness of Judgment or by reason of many Temptations and Troubles of Spirit that he who savingly believes and is by Faith justified in the sight of God may for a time judging of himself by what he feels conclude that he neither savingly believes nor is reconciled to God Thus much the Dr. adds immediately after he had told us that many who were Orthodox described Faith by a perswasion of the Grace and Mercy of God in Christ whereby he seems to insinuate a distinction to be between the Perswasion of Pardon and the sense of that Perswasion as if they who had not the sense of it might yet have the perswasion And it must be granted that there is somewhat of this nature obvious to the Experience of those Divines who are most conversant with troubled Consciences For it is commonly observed by them that godly persons even when under the Horror of Despair crying out They shall be damned if asked whether they will part with what Interest they have in Christ will answer they 'll not do it for a World which intimates as if they had a secret perswasion of pardon tho' they wanted a sense of it which the first Reformers explained by distinguishing between the Habit and Act of Saving Faith True Justifying Faith say they may be taken in a two-fold sense 1. For the Habit it self or for that power which is by the Holy Ghost infused into the hearts of the Elect. Or 2. For the Act which proceeds from that Quality Habit or Power by which we are said Actually to believe in Christ Or that by which we do by an actual perswasion believe in him That Faith in Scripture is oft taken for an Act no one doubts That it is an Habit Power or Quality those Scriptures evince which say The Just shall live by Faith And Without Faith it is impossible to please God For the Just when asleep and by an actual Faith think not on Christ do yet then live by Faith and please God Faith is also in the Scriptures call'd Science Knowledge
more moderate judged of Amsdorffius we shall see enough to oblige us to think they meant the same thing and that the Controversie was more owing unto the mistakes and misrepresentations made of one another than to any Real Differences amongst them George Major to vindicate himself from the Charge brought against him Major in Confessione Publicè editâ Disputationibus testatus est nunquam se ita sensisse nunquam ita docuisse sed totum Justificationis nostrae negotium salutis Beneficium in solidum acceptum retulisse referre miserecordiae Divinae atque unici Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi merito idque solâ fide aâ—cipi quam bona opera ut fructus certissimi sequantur Quin imò disertè testatus est se positione illâ quâ videret aliquos offende deinceps non usurum Melch. Adam Vit. Major emits a Confession of his Faith and at Publick Disputations declares He never taught as Illyrious c. suggested nor ever held any such Doctrimes but always believ'd That the whole of our Justification and Salvation must be ascribed to the Mercy of God and Merit of Jesus Christ our only Saviour and that it is receiv'd only by Faith attended with Good Works as indubitable Fruits thereof further protesting that seeing this Proposition Good Works are necessary to Salvation was offensive he would never use it more On the other hand Kromayer mentions some excusing Amsdorffius they being of Opinion Sunt qui Amsdorffium excusant ac si bona opera perniciosa dixtrit ad salutem per accidens quatenus Fiducia in Operions collocetur Krom Theol. Pos Po. Art 12. de bon oper he held Good Works to be pernicious to Salvation only by Accident as men place their Trust and Confidence in them And adds that Amsdorffe in a Book written in the German Tongue against George Major complains of his being unrighteously reproached by Major George Major saith he so interprets me as if I had taught that Good Works are a hinderance to Salvation and a shame to a Christian God forgive him I never believed nor so much as thought that our Opinion should have been so falsly and untrully reprepresented Such ungodly words should not be mentioned or heard in a Christian Church Thus they both complain of Misrepresentation which gave little or no Relief for there being amongst 'em many Forming of Parties and Factions what he who best understands his own sense avers is not to be regarded The Accuser tho' under the Government of his Passions and knows least of his Adversary obtains the greatest Credit with the generality which occasioned Adamus to say Sed quae est hominum Credulitas ac calumniae efficacitas effugere suspicionem Doctrime diversae nunquam potnit Adeo verum est illud Calumniare Audacter semper aliquid haeret Melch Adam Vit. Maj. That such is the Credulity of most such the power of Calumny that Major could never wholly free himself from unjust suspicions So true is that saying Calumniare audacter semper aliquid haeret However tho' there were different Opinions amongst them managed with most violent Heats they were rather about words and lesser matters than about what was substantial Kromayer ubi supra as the Formula Concordiae in Kromayerus has it The first Schism amongst certain Divines was occasioned by some mens asserting Good Works to be necessary to Salvation that it 's impossible for any to be saved without them and no one ever was And others taught that Good Works were hurtful Another Schism arose amongst some about the words Necessary and Free one Party holding that the word Necessary is not to be affirm'd of our New Obedience for that is not to proceed from Necessity or Constraint but from a Free Spirit Others plead for the Retaining this word because New Obedience is not left to our pleasure to render it as we list for the Regenerate themselves are bound to New Obedience This being the true state of the several Controversies about Good Works which were held to be Necessary to Salvation by George Major to be Free by Andreas Musculus and to be Hurtful by Amsdorffius The Formula proceeds to a Decision thus We reject and condemn these following Phrases Good Works are necessary to Salvation No one was ever sav'd without them It is impossible to be saved without Good Works We do also reject and condem that most offensive Phrase as pernicious to Christian Discipline That Good Works hinder our Salvation We Believe Teachâ— and Confess Credimus docemus proficemur omnes quidem homines praecipuè vero eos qui per Spiritum Sanctum Regenerati sunt Renovati ad BONA OPERA facienda DEBITORES esse Et in hâc sententiâ vocabula illa NECESSARIVM DEBERE OPORIERE recte usuâ—pantur c. that all men more especially they who are Regenerated and Renewed by the Holy Spirit are bound to do Good Works And that in this case these words Necessary Ought Obliged are rightly used even with respect to them that are Renewed and are agreeable to the Form of sound words And yet nevertheless these words Necessity Necessary when spoken of the Regenerate must not be understood as if they imported the same with Coaction or Force but only of that Obedience which is Due to which we are Bound and Obliged which true Believers as Renewed do perform not by the Compulsion and Force of the Law but spontaneously with a Free Spirit in as much as they are no longer under the Law but Grace They condemn not the men as Embracers of Unsound Doctrine but reject and condemn the usage of some unsafe and hurtful Phrases all holding Good Works to be a Duty to which we are obliged by the holy Commandment not to be perform'd by Force and Constraint but freely not to be trusted in for our Justification or Salvation and yet springing out necessarily of a True and Lively Faith are acceptable unto God From what hath been collected out of the Writings of the first Reformers we may see that the Antinomians can find no place to shelter themselves under their shadow for tho' they asserted that Justifying Faith lay in the perswasion of the forgiveness of sin yet they did consistently enough with this Notion deny that Pardon was before Faith or that Fears and Doubts and Justifying Faith could not stand together or that a man whilst remaining under the Reigning Power of his sins could have Faith They were positive that the Justifying Act of Faith was in order of Nature as most antecedent or at least simultaneous as others with Justification that true Believers were continually conflicting with Fears and Doubts and that that Faith which was not fruitful in producing Good Works was not a Saving 't was a Devilish Faith Nor did they make it the duty of all men in the World immediately to believe their sins were pardoned But held convictions of sin arising from the Knowledge of the Law to be
necessary and that there were some Acts of Faith Dispositive and therefore Antecedent to Justification and to the Justifying Act of Faith of which I design if God will to treat more fully in my second Part. CHAP. VI. The sense of the Papists Arminians and Socinians about the Subject of Faith The different Apprehensions of the Orthodox about the same Camero Amyrald Dally held that the Understanding was the only Subject of Saving Faith yet not Antinomians How they hereby were enabled to oppose Justification by Works as held either by Papist Socinian or Arminian THE denying Saving Faith to be an Act of the Will is not Antinomianism Touching the Subject or Seat of Faith whether it be the Understanding only or the Will or both the Learned have different Apprehensions And some great Men sound in the Faith are positive that 't is only in the Vnderstanding The Papists who for the most part make an Historick Faith to be Saving confine it to the Vnderstanding And yet Estius conform to the sense of Aquinas yields that it hath its Rise from the Will by which the Understanding is inclin'd to believe Contarenus goeth further holding that it doth also terminate in the Will. Cajetane is for Faiths being an Act of both Faculties which according to the account Bonaventure gives of it hath been the Opinion of the Antient Schoolmen And as Le Blanc Nam si Sermo sit de fide vivâ per dilectionem operante quam formatam appellant dubitari non potest quin illa etiam ex eorum mente non intellectum tantùm sed voluntatem etiam occupet in eâ sedem habet Le Blanc Thes de Subj Fid. p. 239. out of whom I have taken these passages the Papists if they speak of their Living Faith their Fides formata must place it in the Will it being Love an Act of the Will that according unto them is the Form of Faith Limborch giving the sense of the Remonstrants Nos dicimus Fidem nec esse merum Intellectus nec merum voluntatis Actum sed mixtum partim Intellectus partim Voluntatis Limb. Theol. Christ lib. 5. cap. 9. § 23. saith That Faith is not meerly an Act of the Understanding nor meerly of the Will but mix'd partly of the one and partly of the other Crellius the Socinian in his Christian Ethicks Fides dusbus modis considerari potest vel sola vel cum suis effectis conjuncla adeoque auplex iterum oritur fidei significatio altera Propria altera Figurata in quâ Meconynda cum Synecdoche concurrit De Priori jam satis dictum iaque intelligitur 1 Cor. 13. ubi Fides à Spe Charitate distinguitur Posterior quae ad Voluntarem aeque aut magis quam ad Mentem pertinet est fiducia in Deum aut etiam Christum collocata quae est Asser sus firmus Dei Promissis adhibitus cum vehementi desiderio conjunctus Itaque haec fides spem quoque in se compleclitar Crel Christ Ethic. lib. 1. cap. 5. tells us That Faith may be considered after a twofold manner either as it is in it self alone or as in conjunction with its effects whence it hath a double signification the one proper the other figurative in which a Metonymy doth meet with a Synechdoche The first hath been oft spoken unto it being that Faith mentioned in 1 Cor. 13 where 't is distinguished from Hope and Charity The other is that which doth as much if not more belong to the Will as to the Understanding c. This Point hath been of late years much controverted amongst the Orthodox Le Blanc brings in Chamier Le Blanc ubi sup VVendelin Bucanus Rivet and Altingius as holding Faith to be seated both in the Vnderstanding Hoornb Vet. Nov. l. 3. c. 12. and VVill. Hoornbeeck adds to these as concurring with them the Dutch Catechism Vrsine Paraeus Trelcatius Tilenus and amongst our English Divines Preston and Ball. Davenant and Wotton tho' they are for Faiths being a Fiducia yet distinguish it from that which imports a firm Perswasion and make it to be a Relying on Christ for Pardon and an Act of the Will and to belong to both Faculties Dr. Ames in Le Blanc fixeth it only in the Will Cloppenburg saith Clip Compend Socin Consat c. 7. Le Blanc ubi sup Hurab ubi sup that 't is a Problem amongst the Orthodox whether the Understanding or Will be the Subject of Faith Le Blanc thinks that this Controversie is but Philosophical and may be passed by without Division Hoornbeeck tho' he placeth Faith in the Understanding and Will yet doth not esteem it necessary to contend about it Nanne omnis difficultas tolleretur c. Wits Oecon. Foed l. 3. c. 7. § 4. Would not saith he every Difficulty be removed and the whole Controversie so much agitated amongst Divines about the Subject of Faith the composed if as well we may deny any real Difference between the Understanding and Will or between these Faculties and the Soul However there are amongst the Reformed some Great Divines highly valued for their Learning who lay much stress on this Controversie and are Zealous for Faith being only an Act of the Understanding Baronius See L. Blanc ubi supra tho' he looks on Faith to belong to the Will in several respects as it hath its Origin and Rise from it assent it self being an Imperate Act of the Will and therefore may be denominated a Voluntary Free Act as also with respect to the Acts annex'd unto and concomitant with Faith for in that very instant Faith in the Understanding assents to Gospel-Promises and with a firm Judgment applies them to ones self the Will with an ardent Love embraces the Grace and Favour of God Lastly with respect to its Fruits Sanctification and softning of the Will follows the Illumination of Faith in the Mind yet Faith properly subjectively and with respect to its Essence is only in the Vnderstanding Camero discoursing of Effectual Calling refers to that Promise in Ezekiel 36. for the taking away the Heart of Stone and giving a Heart of Flesh saith That the Heart of Stone is by the Apostle Paul interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Carnal Mind In another place the Apostle is more express affirming the Gospel to be written in the Fleshly not Stony Tables of the Heart which cannot be understood of the Will the Law is not written in the Will but in the Mind whose part it is to understand it Besides to understand in Scripture is attributed to the Heart So it is Rom. 1.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Foolish Heart or a Heart without Vnderstanding So Deut. 29.4 the Lord hath not given you an Heart to Perceive and in Rom. 10. With the heart man believes to Righteousness where by the Heart the Mind undoubtedly is meant for to Believe is an Act of the Vnderstanding that is to say to Believe is an Act
Testament Crel Ethic. Christ lib. 1. c. 5. As Crellius in his Christian Ethicks gives this account of Faith in like manner he doth the same Rom. 3.22 Gal. 2.16 Est vero Commentarius hic vivente adbuc Joanne Crellio Colleâ—a into desideratissimo à me consectus elâ—cubratus ita ut in eruendis Epistolae istius sinsibus omnis mibi cum Crellio sociata fucrit opera idque ita ut ei primas hic partes merito deferre debtam Praesat ad Lector Slichtin in Heb. c. 11. v. 1. on the Romans and Galatians and concurs with Slichtingius in his Commentary on the Hebrews in composing which he had a great hand as Slichtingius in his Preface doth ingeniously confess where it 's thus Faith if properly and strictly taken differs from Obedience and our coming unto God For Faith must be in him who seeks God before he doth it Faith more largely by a Synechdodochical Metonymy comprehends within it its Effects namely all Works of Piety and Righteousness Slichtingius John 5.24 Fides in Christum trahit secum observationem mandatorum ejus quae nisi sequatur vanam irritam esse sidem oportet on John thus Faith in Christ carries with it an observation of his Commands and without it all Faith is vain yea dead In this Faith therefore an observation of Christs Commandments is included Wolzogenius Fides duas habet partes Primarias una est Fiducia in Deum per Christum inque promissiones ejus collocata altera Obedientia ac observantia Preceptorum â—jus Wolzog Instruct ad util Lect. Lib. N. T. cap. 6. Faith hath two Principal parts the one is a Trust in God through Christ and in his Promises the other is Obedience to his Commandments Smalcius in his Refutation of Frantzius is more express Smalâ— Refut Thes de Caus peccat p. 450. Even as the Soul is the Essential Form of Man so are Works and Christian Piety the Essence and Form of Faith Trust in God through Christ may be Ratione distinguished from true Piety and Obedience but yet there is no Real difference between them Socinus himself thus * Fidei siquidem nomine ex qua Justificemur intelligit Paulus Fiduciam ejusmodi in Deo per Christum collocatam ex quâ necessariô Obedientia Praeceptorum Christi nasâ—atur quae etiam Obedientia sit tanquam forma substantia ist us Fidei Socin Lect. Sacr. in Bibl. Polon That Faith by which we are Justified according to the Apostle Paul is a Trust in God through Christ from whence Obedience to his Commandments doth necessarily flow for it is as the form and substance of this Faith Thus the Socinians distinguishing between Faith as taken properly or strictly and figuratively as largely make the first to be only a Fiducia the second which they affirm to be Justifying is comprehensive of Hope Love and Works which say they are the Essential form of a Living Justifying Faith whereby they introduce Justification by Works Not the Merit of our Works This they strenuously oppose So Wolzogenius who speaking of the Merit of our Good Works assures us That if we look closely into this matter nothing can appear to be more certain and true than that we cannot by our Good Works Merit any thing of God For he is our Creator and as such hath a right to all we can do without the proposal of any Compensation or Reward Besides it 's a Dictate of Right Reason that the Fruit belongs to him that soweth Welzog in Luc. c. 17. c. 7. and surely it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure These and some other considerations he offers against the Merit of our Good Works Crel in Eph. c. 3 v. 1.11 Socin Frag. de Justific The same is done by Crellius Socinus is vehement in his opposition against all Merit which must necessarily be done by them who ascribe so much to Free Grace as to deny both the Satisfaction of Christ's Death and Merit of his Righteousness Et â—t nostram â—â—â—â—â—de â—e sâ—â—aâ— â—eâ—tâ—â—â—â—â— â—â—â—atz 〈◊〉 omnes 〈◊〉 nuiâ—â—â—â—mnino dari Meritum quemadmodum nec ipsa â—ox MERITI in tâ—to sacro Codice usquam reperitur mequicquameiaequipol ens quod ad Christum attinet non ob aliam causam dicitur Phil. 2. eum idio Exaltatum esse quòd usque ad moâ—tem obediens suerit quam quod sine isla obedientia exaltatus non fuerit Meritâ—m autem in to nullum fâ—isse hinc apparet quod Apostolus ibidem mox addit donavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ei nomen quod est supra omne Nomen Nihil autem meâ—ito propriè accepto cum Donatione Commine est Smalc contra Franâ—z Disp 3. p. 88. That Frantzius and all others saith Smalcius may know our sense in this matter we declare against all Merit whatever for neither the word Merit or any thing signifying what is equivalent thereunto can be found in Scripture and what was said of Christ touching his Exaltation for his being obedient to the Death of the Cross imports no more than that if he had not been obedient he would not have been Exalted But that he did not Merit is manifest from the following words He gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name above every name for Merit and Free Gist are incompatible with each other Idâ—â— nec usquam in sacris Liteâ—is Meriti aut Mereudi â—oces mâ—â—is de Christo quam de nobis rispectu Dei usuâ—pantur ut longè praestat cum Scripturâ loqui Christi Obedientiae potius ac Morti salutem nostram tribuere quam Meritis per illud enim GRATIA Dei non tantum non obscuratur sed etiam logè magis illushatur sat per Meritum propriè dictum imminuitur tollitur Slicir in Phil. c. â— v. 9. Slichtingius on the Philippians saith That the word Merit as it is not in all the Sacred Writings attributed to Man's VVorks with respect to God so neither is it unto Chrit's Whence it 's much better with the Holy Scriptures to ascribe Salvation to Christ's Death and Obedience rather than unto his Merits for to do so doth not obscure but illustrate the Grace of God whereas Merit taken properly doth Eclipse yea Destroy Free Grace These passages may suffice to shew how much the Socinians are against the Merit of Good VVorks and yet hold our Works to be an Essential of that Faith which they say is a cause of our Justification Faith as it apprehends Christ's Righteousness for Justification they explode and by making it an Act of the Will they take within the compass of its Formal Nature Hope Love and Obedience and to bring in Good Works amongst the Causes of our Justification The Nature and Efficacy of True Faith saith Slichtingius lieth in this that it begets Love to God Who can believe he shall obtain Eternal Life if he loves his Neighbour
although there may be some Imperfect Resemblances found in Natural or Political Vnions yet the Vnion from whence that Denomination is taken between Him and Vs is of that Nature and arises from such Reasons and Causes as no Personal Union among Men or the Vnion of many Persons hath any concernment in Dr. O. of Justific p. 250. 2. Christ being our Substitute or Delegate Believed and Repented for us so as to exempt us from the necessity of doing it 2. Christ did not Repent for us nor exempt us from the necessity of doing it our selves 'T is true that Christ our Surety who Satisfied and Merited to exempt us from the necessity of doing either our selves did undertake to enable the Elect to Believe Repent and Personally Obey the Holy Commandments but never undertook to exempt them from the necessity of Believing and Repenting Assertion II. That the Guilt as well as Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ We have made it clearly to appear that though the Guilt and Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ yet the Sin it self in its formal Nature the Macula or Filth of Sin was not Guilt as I have shown is a Relation which hath a Formal Sin for its Foundation The Foundation of Guilt is Sin formally considered the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Macula the Filth and Guilt the Reatus Culpae doth immediately Result from the Sin that is a transgression of the Praecept It is not then the Sin it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Macula the Filth that was laid on Christ but the the Guilt which resulted from it the Macula the Filth remained in us the Guilt that immediately resulted from it as it respected the Sanction of the Law was laid on Christ but this being somewhat distinct from the Moral Filth Christ remained Pure and Spotless notwithstanding 't was transferr'd over to him The Opposition Antinomian Truth 3. Sin and Guilt are the same 3. Sin and Guilt are Not the same 4. Not only the Punishment and Guilt but the Sin it self the Filth of Sin was laid on Christ 4. The Punishment and Guilt of Sin was laid on Christ but not the Sin it self its Macula or Filth In this particular the Difference is manifest And it 's plain that tho' the Antinomian blaspheme the Son of God by making him Inherently a Sinner yet they who are against the transferring the Filth of Sin on Christ are far from it for whilst They are opposing the Papist and Socinian they do most effectually Fence against Antinomianism Assertion III. That the Covenant of Grace is not Conditional in that sense the Papists hold it to be so The sense in which the Papists are for the Conditionality of Faith and Good Works hath been already stated and the Difference between the First Reformers and Modern Protestant Divines cleared All Popish Conditions that is to say All Such Conditions in us as give Right to the Reward are excluded from having any Interest in our Justification And yet Faith is made so necessary to our Justification that without it we cannot be Justified that our Justification is suspended during its absence and that Faith is an Instrumental Cause of Justification That the Promise of Pardon and Eternal Life is not made to Sinners as Sinners but it is made to them that have Faith and are in Covenant with God and only unto such The Opposition Antinomian Truth 5. That the Covenant of Grace is without All Conditions in every sense 5 The Covenant of Grace is not without Conditions in every sense for Faith is the Condition of Pardon 6. That the Promise of Pardon is to Sinners as Sinners 6. The Promise of Pardon is not to Sinners as Sinners it is only to them that have Faith and are in Covenant Thus whilst the Popish Doctrine of Merit is opposed there is wrested out of the hands of Arminians and Socinians that by which they endeavour to destroy Particular Election Christ's meriting and the Spirit 's giving the first Grace together with the glorious Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and a sufficient Provision is laid in against the Antinomian Doctrine of Vniversal Redemption Assertion IV. That Faith is a Certain and Full Perswasion wrought in the heart of Man through the Holy Ghost whereby he is Assured of the Mercy of God promised in Christ that his Sins are forgiven him By such as have not throughly enough search'd into this Controversie the First Reformers for holding this Assertion have been charg'd with Antinomianism But we have shown 't was unjustly For tho' of late years our Divines who have indeed rather describ'd than defin'd Faith and so for the help of Doubting Souls have put them on Enquiries after the constant Concomitants and inseparable Effects of Saving Faith to the end they might be help'd to well-grounded Evidences of their Interest in Christ yet the First Reformers in the ensuing Instances about Saving Faith differ'd very much from the Antinomians Opposition Antinomians First Reformers 7. Faith lieth in a confident Perswasion that my Sins were forgiven before I did believe 7. Faith tho' it lies in a Perswasion of the Forgiveness of Sins yet not that Sin was Pardoned before Faith but in the Instant of Believing 8. This Faith admits of no Doubtings 8. Faith admits of Fears and Doubtings 9. A Person may have this Faith and apply the Promise of Pardon as well whilst under the Power of Sin as after 9. No Man whilst under the Power of Sin can apply the Promise of Pardon as well as after Assertion V. That Justifying Faith is not an Act of the Will but of the Understanding only That Faith is only an Act of the Understanding hath not been embraced by Protestants universally the chief Defenders of it being Camero Amyrald and Dally However to do the New Methodists Justice that I might set forth this Controversie in its proper Light and shew how they hereby secure themselves from the Popish Arminian and Socinian Notions about Justification and how far they are from the Unjust Charge of Antinomianism I have added the foregoing Chapter The Opposition Antinomians The New Methodists 10. True Faith may be where no change of the Will is 10. Tho' Faith be not an Act of the Will yet is it not where the Will remains unchanged Here then we may see not only the Difference there is between the above-mentioned Assertions and Antinomianism but have set before us such a Scheme of the Antinomian Errors as makes the Law of no use at all But let us consider what manner of Persons would be brought within the Antinomian Verge if these Assertions were Antinomian Really the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster and all that drew up the Savoy Confession with the whole Body of Vnited Ministers must come in for Receiving the First Assertion the Lutherans and Calvinists for holding the Second the First Reformers generally and many Learned Protestant Divines at this time particularly Dr. Witsius Divinity Professor at Vtricht who with the greatest Respect is earnestly desired to communicate his Thoughts freely on this occasion for Defending the Third All the First Reformers for the Fourth and the New-Methodists for Propugning the Fifth and none but the Papist Arminian and Socinian would be able to escape the Slander And yet according to the best of my Judgment the chief reason why some worthy Brethren have been Reflected on as Antinomians hath been their Zeal for the first Four Assertions For they do not make Christ our Delegate or Substitute who Believed and Repented for us to the end he might exempt us from the necessity of doing either our selves Nor do they make the Filth and Guilt of Sin the same and lay them on Christ making him thereby Filthy Nor do they say that the Covenant of Grace is in every respect without Conditions or that the Promise of Pardon is to Sinners as Sinners or that Faith lieth in a Perswasion that Sin was Pardoned before we Believe or that Faith is Exclusive of the Least Fears or Doubtings or that an Elect Person can apply the Promise of Pardon to it self as well before Regeneration as after nor do they make the Law useless but do hold That in reference unto the work of Regeneration it self positively considered we may observe that ordinarily there are certain Praevious and Praeparatory works Sunt quaedam effecta interna ad Conversionem PRAEVIA quae virtute verbi spiritusque in nondum Regeneratorum cordibus excitantur qualia sunt NOTITIA VOLUNTATIS DIVINAE SENSUS PECCATI TIMOR POENAE COSITATIO de LIBERATIONE spes aliqua veniae Synod Dord Suffrag Theol. Brit. and Art 4. Thes 2. or workings in and upon the Souls of Men that are Antecedent and Dispositive unto it But yet Regeneration doth not consist in them nor can it be educed out of them This is for the Substance of it the Position of the Divines of the Church of England at the Synod of Dort I speak in this Position of them only that are Adult And the Dispositions I intend are only materially so not such as contain Grace of the same Nature as is Regeneration it self A Material Disposition is that which Disposeth and some way maketh a subject fit for the Reception of that which shall be communicated added or infused into it as its Form So Wood by dryness and a due composure is made fit and ready to admit of Firing A Formal Disposition is where one degree of the same kind disposeth the subject unto further degrees of it The former we allow not the latter So far Dr. Owen in his Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 191 192. And for thus much are the Accused Brethren and on no more do the other Brethren who have been charged with favouring Arminianism insist so that in all these things so far as I understand them they mean the same thing and are in the Substance Agreed My next work is to enter on the consideration of the Arminian and Socinian Notions But this Part having swoln so big and to give a just account of these Errors and shew what is not Arminianism nor Socinianism will make the Discourse too large I am content that this Part go forth by it self which shall be followed with the other as soon as God gives opportunity to finish it FINIS
a man Terrified at the Sight of Sin cannot in his own Strength Purpose any good thing for he is neither at Peace nor Safe 6. But confounded and over-whelm'd by the Power of Sin falls into Desperation and Hatred of God or as the Holy Scriptures have it Descends into Hell 7. To the Law therefore the Promise or Gospel is to be added which do quiet and revive the terrified Conscience and broken Heart that it may Purpose what is Good 8. That Repentance which is Only from the Law is but the half or Beginning of Repentance or Repentance by a Synecdoche because there is wanting the good Purpose 9. If it be Persevered in it becomes the Repentance of a Cain a Saul a Judas and of all such as Distrust of the Mercy of God and Despair that is to say who Perish 10. These Sophists learn't their Definition of Repentance viz. That it is a Sorrow and Purpose c. out of the Fathers 11. But they understand not the Terms of this their Definition Sorrow Sin Purpose c. 19. Nor need we wonder at this their Ignorance for they neglecting and slighting the Scriptures can't be thought to know what is Law or what Gospel 20. Indeed quite bound up in Humane Commands and Injunctions they only Dream when they Judge of Sacred and Divine Things 21. But the Gospel teaches us in Opposition to these Masters of Despair that Repentance ought not to be a meer Horror and Despair 22. But that Penitents must hope and trust and hate Sin out of love to God which is the only Good Temper and Purpose of Mind 23. This some Unmindful of any Proofs or Reason and indeed Heedless of the Matter in Hand assert to be contrary to the Law of God 24. And very erroneously teach that the Law of God is totally and without any Distinctions or Limitations to be taken out of the Church which is Blasphemous and Sacrilegious 25. But the Scriptures throughout inform us that Repentance must be begun by the Law which likewise the Order and Nature of the thing it self requires and common Experience proves 26. They viz. the Scriptures say Let all them be turned into Hell who forget God and Set O Lord a Law-giver over them that Men may know c. 27. Fill their Faces with Shame that they may seek thy Name O Lord and the Sinner is caught in the Works of his Hands 28. And this is the Stated Order that Death and Sin are in us before Life and Holiness 29. Nor are we now Righteous and Alive to be delivered over to Sin and Death but actually and in our Present State Sinners and Dead in Adam to be Justified and made alive by Christ 30. Wherefore we must be first taught the first Adam i. e. Sin and Death who is the Figure of him who was to come i. e. Christ now in the second Place to be Preach'd unto us 31. Sin and Death must of Necessity be shown us out of the Law and not by the Word of Grace and Comfort 32. And experience clears it Adam first stood convicted a Transgressor of the Law was afterwards Restored to Hopes by the Promised Seed of the Woman 33. And David was first struck dead by the Law telling Him by Nathan Thou art he is afterwards Saved by the Grace of the Gospel saying Thou shalt not Die 34. Paul trembling under Law-Stroaks first heard Why Persecutest thou me then was Enlivened and Quickned by the Gospel Arise c. 35. And Christ Himself says Mark 1. Repent and Believe the Gospel for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand 36. Likewise it behoved that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be Preached in his Name 37. Thus the Holy Spirit convinces the World first of Sin that it may teach Faith in Christ i. e. Forgiveness of Sins 38. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans observes this Method he teaches first that all are Sinners to be Justified by Christ 39. Luke in the Acts informs us of the same thing that Paul taught both Fews and Gentiles that no man can be Justified but by Christ The Second Disputation of M. Luther against the Antinomians ' Of the Law ' 1. The Law is not only Not-necessary to Justification but also manifestly Unprofitable and altogether Impossible 2. And to them who keep the Law with a Respect to be Justified by it it becomes as Poison and most Pernicious 3. When we discourse of Justification we cannot say too much of the Weakness of the Law and against a most Dangerous Confidence in the Law 4. Neither is the Law given that it may Justifie or give Life or any way to Help unto a Righteousness 5. But to shew us Our sin work Wrath and convince the Conscience of our Guilt 8. In short Heaven is not more distant from the Earth than the Law must be separate from Justification 9. Nothing is to be taught said or thought on in the Matter of Justification but only the Word of Grace exhibited in Christ 10. And yet nevertheless it doth not follow that the Law is to be abolished and not to be Preached in the Church 11. But it is the more needful it should be taught by being Useless nay Impossible for Justification 12. That so Proud Man confident of his Abilities may be instructed that he cannot be Justified by the Law 13. For Sin and Death are therefore to be shown us not that they are Necessary for Life and Innocence 14. But that Man may be sensible of his Unrighteousness and lost State and so be humbled 15. If we see not our Sin we conceit our selves Innocent as is visible in the Heathen and Pelagians 16. If Death were unknown to us this Life would be the only Life to us nor should we look for a future one 17. But since both are taught us only by the Law it is evident that the Law is very Necessary and Profitable 18. Whatever shews us Sin Wrath or Death that belongs to the Law whether it be in the Old or New Testament 19. A Discovery of Sin cannot be but by the Law and is its proper Effect and Force 20. The Law Manifestation of Sin and Revelation of Wrath are Reciprocal Terms as much as Man and Risible or Rational 21. To take away the Law and Retain the Revelation of Wrath is as if one should Deny Peter to be a Man and yet affirm Him to be a Risible Rational Creature 22. After the same sort do they Reason who take away the Law and then hold that Sin remains to be forgiven 23. Whereas the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures teach that Sin is Dead without the Law and where there is no Law there is no Transgression 24. So that it is Impossible that Sin should either be or be known without the Law either Written or Vnwritten 25. Whence it follows that seeing on the taking away of the Law there Remains no Sin there can be no Christ to Redeem from Sin for Christ Himself saith they
a full Perswasion all which reside in the heart when we do not actually think of God As Scientia is by Philosophers put into the praedicament of Quality Thus a Child in whom can be no Acts of Knowledge Sense or Perswasion has yet the Spirit the Power or Habit of Faith as All the Learned do confess particularly Martin Bucer Besides they are very particular and distinct in their Endeavours to make it manifest that Faith and Fears are consistent For they suppose Faith to be oft conflicting with Doubts and Fears which they to continue the use of Zanchy's words thus solve There is no absurdity in asserting Faith to be a firm Perswasion and yet the Believer disturb'd with afflictive doubts for there being in everâ— Believer Flesh as well as Spirit when the Spirit prevails there is a sense of goodness sweetly refreshing the Soul a looking to the Gospel-Promise a relying on it an apprehending Eternal Life as prepared for him rejoycing in it But when the Flesh conquers there is a sight of sin and misery filling the Soul with the anguish of sorrow a view of its obnoxiousness to death at which he trembles fearing lest he die eternally which is occasioned by the weakness of our Faith which never whilst in this Life arrives to that degree of Perfection Zanch. Oper. Tom. 8 â—e 7. de Fide as to cure the Believer wholly of his Unbelief and Diffidence It 's true the first Believers have not explicated Justifying Faith as distinct from Assurance so clearly as our more Modern Divines have done amongst whom the Westminster Assembly in their Confession as Le Blanc hath well observ'd have excelled However they did carefully endeavour to express their Sentiments so as to prevent the despair of such who tho' sound Believers were afflicted with many fears and doubts about the pardon of their sins and their interest in the Mercy of God They insisted on a perswasion a firm belief of the forgiveness of sins but on such a perswasion as admitting of different degrees was in many so weak and feeble as not to be always perceptible A Notion as they explicated it easie enough to be understood For in other Instances what more common than to distinguish between Acts and Habits That the Acts are seen when the Habits from whence they flow lies undiscover'd Every one knows whether he believes this or the other Report loves this or the other person as well as whether he seeth this or the other Object The Acts of the Understanding and Rational Appetite when exerted are as perceivable in their way as our Sensitive Acts. But then it should be minded that these Acts are oft look'd upon in their Habits and when actuated are commonly blended with such other as are conversant about contrary Objects and their prevalence over these other so inconsiderable that it 's not at all times discernable to which if we add the consideration of the World's Allurements Satan's many subtle Temptations c. it cannot but be that true Believers fall into great perplexities about the forgiveness of their sins which tho' great destroy not their Faith nor are they inconsistent with this firm perswasion Strong fears and many doubts may consist with a moral certainty of the same Truths How many have a moral certainty of the Immortality of their Souls and yet grievously tormented with amazing frights about it This very Point the Learned Mr. Baxter in discourse with me did thus illustrate It is saith he as with a Man so firmly chain'd to the top of a high Spire as to have the Greatest Certainty of his Fastness yet looking down could not but fear a Fall We may then easily perceive that from the making Faith to lie in a perswasion of the pardon of sin it cannot be justly inferred that whoever doubts of God's Mercy in Christ is destitute of Justifying Faith for this perswasion may be in the Habit where not in the Act and is consistent enough with strong fears and many doubts as the first Reformers expresly affirmed which is enough to free them from the Reproach of driving by their Doctrine every sound Believer who hath any doubts about his being pardoned into the Horrour of Despair Nor did they so describe Justifying Faith as to give unto any an occasion to expect Heaven whilst they lived under the Reigning Power of their sins On the contrary they held III. That none who continue to live under the Reigning Power of their Lusts had or whilst so can have Saving Faith 'T was constantly asserted by them That to true Justifying Faith whether strong or weak Life and Perpetuity were too essential and inseparable Properties the first is necessary that it may be a Living Faith exciting in the Believer the Life of Christ that is to say such a Life as stirred up in his heart such new and heavenly motions thoughts and desires conform to God's Law as drove out all earthly Affections Thus much they said was the Import of those Scriptures which speak of purifying the heart mortifying the flesh quickning of the spirit crucifying and burying the Old Man putting on the New The Holy Ghost in the Sacred Scriptures doth so very much press this one thing especially in the Epistles of James and John that it must be acknowledged that this is so Essential a Property of Faith that it cannot be true Justifying Faith without it as all of us unanimoustly hold These are the words of the Learned Zanchy De Persev Sanct. Confess p. 349. who in answer to an Objection against the Perseverance of the Saints carrying in it this very Calumny That the Protestant Doctrine is such as makes Repentance of nouse le ts loose the Reins to all manner of Profaneness rendring men so very secure as to embolden them to venture on sin contrary to the convictions of their Consciences doth further declare That true Justifying Faith cannot be where sin doth reign that sound Believers altho' they sin not as the wicked do Ipsorum vid. fidelium lapsus suapte naturâ aternâ morte esse dignissimos item displicere Deo item punitum iri à Deo c. Zanch. de pers Sanct. p. 159. yet the sins they fall into are in their own nature most worthy of Eternal Death Displease God and are punished by him The Fervour of the Holy Spirit in them much abated the flames of their Faith quenched their minds troubled let them therefore repent of their sins return to the Lord as Children to their Father not cut off from Christ nor wholly forsaken of the Holy Spirit Again This is the nature of true Faith to stir up in us true Repentance Zanch. Oper. Tom. 6. loc 5. de Fide p. 43. and inflame our hearts with Love to God and a Zeal to please him and promote his Glory to provoke us sincerely to love our Neighbour that as much as in us lieth we may live peaceably with all men that it fill our Souls with a
that hath Truth for its Object and therefore must be in the Mind Our Lord Jesus Christ who promises Eternal Life to Faith alone defines Faith by Knowledge This is Life Eternal to know thee the Only True God c. By the Heart then in Scripture we must understand the Mind not that which Philosophers call simply Theoretick but rather the Practick Vnderstanding which the Will cannot but follow Cam. praelect de Eccles p. 214. The same Author on Matth. 18.7 hath it thus 'Faith cannot be separated from Love and yet Faith is in the Understanding the Vnderstanding therefore draws with it and necessarily leads the Will otherwise there would be no Inconsistency between a man's being a sound Believer and a most vicious person To this it may be objected That Faith at least as to some part of it is in the Will It 's not our business at this time to dispute concerning the Subject of Faith and yet without being guilty of any impertinence we may assert that Faith as to some part of it is necessarily in the Vnderstanding Now what is that part of Faith they 'll tell you 't is Knowledge But that part of Faith which doth necessarily work Love Whatever is in the Vnderstanding most certainly is Knowledge not every Knowledge but that Knowledge by which thou dost fix it in thy Soul that the thing is thine and cannot be separated from Love Nor can it be granted that any one simple Habit should be in divers Subjects They are Distinct Habits of the Understanding and Will so that the Will and Understanding are distinguished from each other In a word who can deny that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere to believe is an Act of the Mind Certainly Belief hath Truth for its Object so that he who believeth not is said to make God a Lyar c. Amyrald in the Theses Salmurienses speaking of the Subject in which the Habit of Faith inheres affirms it to be the Vnderstanding Faculty Subjectum cui Habitus Fidei innascitur atque inhaeret facultatem eam esse quae in hemine Intellectus appellatur debet esse extra controversiam apud omnes qui saltem rem istam considerant non omnino oscitanter c. Thes Salmur de Fide par pri § 15. c. This saith he should be embrac'd by all innascitur atque but controverted by none except by such as have not closely studied this Point To have Faith imports nothing else than to Believe to believe is to be perswaded of the Truth of a thing and therefore must belong to the Vnderstanding For Truth is the Object thereof and Perswasion is no otherwise than by admitting or receiving into the Mind those Reasons and Arguments by which a thing demonstrates it self to be True Nor can any other thing be gathered from the Holy Scriptures If we consult those expressions used to represent Faith unto us whether they be Proper or Metaphorical they all direct us to conclude Faith to belong to the Mind To begin with what words are proper The Object of Faith is said to be Truth the Faculty the Heart or Mind Heart in Scripture and amongst other good Authors denotes the Vnderstanding The Effect arising from Faith is Knowledge Wisdom c. The State of them who attain unto this is such that they who are in it are said to be Intelligent and Knowing and they who are in Vnbelief are Fools and Vnwise The Metaphors which import the same Notion of Faith are numberless This and much more hath Amyrald with whom many great Divines agree Spanhemius in his Exercitations about Vniversal Grace provoking his Adversary to the National Synod of Dort Synodus profitetur Sacras Scripturas testari Deum novas Qualitates Fidei Obedientiae acsensûs amo ris sui Cordibus noshis infundere Hocâ— erâ— consistere non potest si Fidei Subjectum sit tantum intellectus ut docet vir doctus in Thes suis de Fide Span. Exercit. Grat. Univers p 1675 1676. endeavours to press him with that Synods declaring ' That from the Holy Scriptures it 's clear God infuses into our Hearts the New Qualities of Faith Obedience and the Sense of his Love which cannot saith Spanhem consist with Amyrald's making the Understanding the only Seat of Faith To this the Learned Dalley in his Apology for the two National Synods namely Abenson and Chaventon in France returns this Answer 'T is true Quod ait Synodus Fidem Obedientiam sensum Amoris Dei Cordibus nostris infundi verum esse fatentur FRATRES Fides enim Menti quae Cor est sensus item Menti sentire enim Mentis est non voluntatis Obedienna partim Menti partim Voluntati quae ipsa Cor est convenit Cor vero an Intellectu distinctum sedem esse istorum omnium Spiritus donorum accusatâ—â—s dictatum est non est Synodi Decretum Dall Apol. p. 658. the Synod declares that Faith Obedience and the sense of God's Love are infused into our hearts For Faith belongs to the Vnderstanding and so doth a sense of Love to perceive a thing being the part of the Understanding not of the Will Obedience is partly in the Mind and partly in the Will which is also the Heart But that the Heart as distinct from the Mind is the Seat of the Gifts of the Spirit is the Dictate of the Accuser not a Decree of the Synod However tho' they made Faith to lie only in the Understanding yet held it to be such a Practical Assent unto Gospel Truths as effectually engaged the Will most intensely to Love Christ and this Love to be such as influenced them to receive the Lord Jesus on his own Terms and keep his Commands asserting also Faith and Love tho' distinct Graces to be Inseparable and Saving Faith to be Prolifick of Good Works so that where these were absent there the Faith was not saving so carefully did they Fence against Antinomianism Besides by this Notion of Saving Faith they kept themselves at a great distance from the Arminian and Socinian Dogmata about Justification as will appear plainly on a fairer and just proposal of their Sentiments in these Points Crellius considering Faith as conjunct with its Effects such as Hope Love and Obedience asserts it to be Justifying as thus conjoyn'd and so makes Good Works to have the same Interest in our Justification that Faith hath That Faith saith he by which we are Justified or which on our part is the nearest and only Cause of our Justification is a Firm Hope in the Divine Promises placed in God through Christ begetting Obedience to the Commands the Fiducia or Firm Hope taken properly may be the Genus of Justifying Faith but Obedience to Christ's Commands flowing from this Firm Hope may be the Form or as St. James hath it is the Life the Soul of Faith This Faith thus defin'd is that which is required as necessary to Salvation under the New
Christ and apprehends the Forgiveness of Sin Justification is by the Holy Ghost ascrib'd only anto Faith However by the way it must be observ'd That no one doth certainly and seriously believe the Promise made unto him but he immediately Repents of his Sin For on his believing all occasion of Dispair is taken out of the way and such is the Excellency Beauty and Glory of the Promise as to take off the Heart from the Love of the World whence it may be truly said that we are Justifyed by Faith alone and that we are Sanctifyed by Faith alone for 't is Faith that purifyeth the Heart Act. 13.9 3. The reason why God forgives the Sins of the Penitent is this namely Because satisfaction is made to Gods Justice by Jesus Christ who has purchased this Grace for us But the satisfaction of Christ cannot be apprehended by us any other way but by Faith Justification therefore must be ascribed only unto Faith So far Camero There are other Arguments which he urgeth to this very purpose But from what he hath here delivered It 's plain that Faith not being an Act of the Will is not a Work but is distinguished from it and opposed unto it and that therefore when it is said we are Justified by Faith it cannot be that we are Justified by a work That Christs satisfaction hath purchased Pardon which can be apprehended by us no otherwise than by Faith that Faith is the Instrument or as the hand of the Soul by which we receive forgiveness That tho from this Faith Hope Love and Obedience immediately slow and are inseparable yet they are no cause at all of our Justification which is enough to make it manifest that one who is far from Antinomianism may deny Faiths being an Act of the Will and confine it wholly to the Understanding For Faith Hope and Love may be distinct Graces though whilst in this Life inseparable and so long as Hope Love and Gospel Obodience are held to be inseparable from Faith there is there can be no danger in placing Faith only in the Understanding But many Advantages against the Papist Arminian and Socinian to the Exaltation of the Glory of Free Grace are hereby obtained CHAP. VII A Summary of the Principal Antinomian Errors compared with the opposite Truths The present Controversie not with the Described Antinomians The Agreement between the Contending Brethren in Substantials suggested The Conclusion THese Doctrines I have thought meet to vindicate from the unrighteous charge of Antinomianism because by a giving them up for Antinomian not only many who abhor it are accused for being Abettors of it but some important Truths which strike at the very Root of this Error are represented to be Antinomian It hath been the care of the Papist Arminian and Socinian to insinuate into the minds of Persons less studied in these Controversies as if the Orthodox Protestant had in opposition unto them run into the Antinomian Extreme and have inserted in the Catalogue of Antinomian Errors several Gospel-Truths particularly the ensuing Assertions 1. That Jesus Christ is a Second Adam a Root Person and Publick Representative with whom the Covenant of Grace is made 2. That the Guilt as well as Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ 3. That the Covenant of Grace is not Conditional in that sense the Papists hold it 4. That Faith is a certain and a full Perswasion wrought in the heart of a man through the Holy Ghost whereby he is Assured of the Mercy of God promised in Christ that his Sins are forgiven him 5. That Iustifying Faith is not an Act of the Will but of the Understanding only Tho' the Papists for some special Reasons oppose not this Notion yet the Arminians and Socinians do to the end they may bring in Works among the Causes of our Justification These Assertions are of such a Nature as do really cut the very sinews of Popery and Socinianism as I have already in part cleared and hope more fully to evince in my Second Part But by those who deviate from the Truth all but the last have been heretofore and now the last is by men more Orthodox made the Source of Antinomianism the Spring and Fountain from whence the following Conclusions do naturally and necessarily flow Thus they infer from the First That Christ must be our Delegate or Substitute who Believed Repented and Obeyed to exempt the Elect from doing either as necessary to their Pardon and Salvation Second That Christ so took our Person and Condition on him as to have the Filth and Pollution of our Sins laid on him Third That the Promise of Pardon and Salvation is made to Sinners as Sinners Fourth That the Pardon of Sin was before Faith even whilst we are in the Heighth of Iniquity and Enemies against God and Despisers of Jesus Christ Fifth That We may have Saving Faith tho' our Wills remain onchanged and obstinately set against God These are the Antinomian Errors said to flow from the above-mentioned Assertions which if once granted we shall be necessitated to acknowledge that there will be no Vse at all of the Law nor of Faith Repentante Confession of Sin c. but we may live as we list and yet be saved But we have made it plainly to appear that these Points are so far from being Antinomian that they do carry with them a Confutation of that Error That the Reader may the more clearly see the Difference there is between the one and the other I will be very particular in shewing the opposition Assertion I. That Jesus Christ is a Second Adam a Root-Person and Publick Representative with whom the Covenant of Grace is made From this Assertion it necessarily follows that Christ must have a Spiritual Seed and be the Representative of that Seed so far as Adam would have been of his if he had perfectly obeyed And it is certain that if Adam had rendred the Required Obedience his Posterity would have been not only made Righteous and derive a Holy Nature from him but be also obliged to Personal Holiness In like manner so is it with the Posterity of the Secoud Adam The utmost then that can be fairly inferred from Christ's being a Second Adam c. is That he hath a Spiritual Off-spring That they be Justified by his Righteousness derive a New Nature from him and be obliged to a Personal Obedience The Opposition Antinomian Truth 1. Christ is our Delegate or Substitute 1. Christ is a Second Adam but not our Delegate or Substitute As the First Adam was the Head and Publick Representative of his Posterity but not their Substitute or Delegate so Christ tho' a Publick Repeesentative yet not our Substitute as D. O. doth excellently well show when he saith That Christ and Believers are neither One Natural Person nor a Legal or Political Person nor any such Person as the Laws Customs or Vsages of men do know or allow of They are One Mystical Person whereof