that will not love him But because of some difficulties it may so happen that a Man may be more discouraged with the present Labour than mov'd by future Advantages Love is therefore required with Faith as a Condition annex'd to the Divine Promise that by the fulfilling it we may attain Salvation but it 's no wonder that they who define Faith by our apprehending and applying Christ's Merit do exclude Love Slicht in 1 Cor. 13. v. 13. and in Heb. 11.6 and every other Good VVork from the Causes of our Salvation To speak accurately Faith is not the Instrumental Cause of our Justification and yet it is an Efficient not a Principal but the Causa sine quâ non of it whence it is that we are said to be Justified by Faith But this Faith under the New Testament is not as Frantzius dreams an Application of Christ's Merit but a Trust in God thro Christ whose nature is in hope of the Eternal Life promised by Jesus Christ to Obey him Disp 4. p. 103. Socin Synop. 2. Justisic So Smalcius against Erantzius As we must take heed lest we as many at this time do make Holiness of Life the Effect of our Justification in the fight of God So we must look to it that we believe not this Holiness to be our Justification Or that it is an Efficient or Impulsive Cause but only a Causa sine quâ non Our Good Works that is the Obedience we render unto Christ tho' they are not the Efficient Socin This de Justific or Meritorious Cause yet are they a Causa sine quâ non of our Justification before God and of our Eternal Salvation So far Socinus But tho' they make Justification by Faith to be the same with that by Good Works yet that they may reconcile this their Doctrine with what hath been delivered by the Apostle Paul who denieth Justification by Works they find it necessary to assert That we are in this Gospel-day under two Laws the one called the Law of Obedience or the Rule of Duty the other the Law of Reward or Punishment LEGES quae ad quodvis bene constitutum Regimen requiruntur sunt diplicis generis Primò sunt LEGES quibus praescribuntur subditis OFFICIA quomodo se quisque in suis actionibus gerere debeat seu quid cuique â—aciendum vel VVolzogenâ—us is full in delivering the Socinian sense on this Point In every well constituted Government saith he there are Laws of two sorts The first are such as shew the Subject's Duty what he must do and what he must not Omittendum sit Quae LEGES ad distinctionem caetirarum PRAECEPTA INTERDICTA vocantur Deind sunt LEGES quibus propo nuntur sidis ac morigeris sub ditis PRAEMIA pro ipsorun Obedientià ac malisivis merit paeâ—ae Haec duo LEGUN genera reperiuntur etiam iâ— Regno Christi Wolzog. In struct ad Lect. lib. N.T.c. â— These Laws to distinguish them from the other are called Praecepts and Prohibitions Then there are Laws by which Rewards are proposed to good Subjects for the Encouragement of their Obedience and Punishments threatned against the Disobedient Both these sorts of Laws or Rules are in the Kingdom of Christ Answerable to these two Laws or Rules of Duty and the Promise there is a twofold Obedience By the Rule of the Precept the highest most absolutely Perfect Obedience is injoyned By the Law of the Promise or Rule of the Reward Faith and Repentance with a certain purpose of Amendment is what entitles to the Reward Duplex dat Obedienti Prâ—eceptis Divinis prâ—standa ita duple Perfectionis consiratio Aâ—ra est utmo nunquâ— quicquam coâ—â—â—itta adversus Praecepta Dei altera est at in nullo ullius Peccati habitu haer Islam priorem c. Smalc contr Frantz Disp 12. p. 427. There is saith Salmâ—cius a two-fold Obedience and a double consideration of Perfection The first is that we never transgress or deviate from God's Commands The other is that no one Habit of Sin remain in us The first sort of Obedience we do not think necessary to Salvation it being sufficient if there be always a Tendency towards it The other is necessary to Salvation and its observance possible That God in distributing Rewards observes another Rule than that of the Praecept even that of the Promise which contains a Grant of the Reward to him who is upright in heart VVolzogenius doth in the plainest Terms affirm Christ saith he is our King but so that as all other Kings ought to be he is at the same time our Father and Faithful Pastor His Promises are limited by certain Conditions and yet these Conditions are not over Rigidly insisted on in those cases where somewhat of Ignorance or other Infirmity intervenes The Promise of Eternal Life Requires an Observation of his Commands but he knowing our Frailties will not impute to us our daily sins if so be there remains in us an Vpright Heart and True Repentance Walzog Instr ad util Lect. lib. N.T. c. 6. and a certain Purpose of Amendment By this Distinction they endeavour to Reconcile Paul and James Tho' Paul saith Socinus affirms That we are justified by Faith and not by the VVorks of the Law and James That we are not justified by Faith alone but by VVorks yet on an explication of the words Faith and Works the Agreement between them will be made manifest For Paul doth mean by Faith such a Trust in God through Christ as necessarily begets Obedience to his Commandments an Obedience that is as the Form and Substance of Faith and by Works he understands a Perfect Obserservance of the Divine Law and all its Praecepts By which because of the weakness of our Flesh none can be justified James by Faith means such an Assent as is imperfect and without Good Works and by Works not the most perfect but that Obedience only which is necessarily required of us that we may appear Just before him And accordingly Paul declares that we are not justified by those VVorks which are in all respects conform to the Law but by a Faith informed by Obedience James we are not justified by a Faith void of Good VVorks but by VVorks which tho' they are not most perfect yet are such as may be justly denominated Obedience or Good VVorks To this Effect Socinus doth oft express himself Lect. Sacr. Fragment de Justif. which compared with what I have taken out of VVolzogenius and Smalcius is as if it had been said That we must distinguish between the Law of Pracepts or the Rule of Duty and the Law of Rewards or Rule of the Promise That by the Law as it is the Rule of Duty Perfection in the strictest sense as exclusive of the least Dissonancy from the Command is required But by the Law of the Rewaerd or Rule of the Promise that Obedience which is with a sincere and upright heart answering the
sub modo signifieth nothing until the Condition or Mode be perform'd Tho' it hath no Causality in Producing the Effect yet is the Effect as Really suspended thereby as if it had Thus it has Pleased the Testator to dispose and his Disposition none can disannul In this sense seeing Justification is Promised in the Last Will and Testament of our Lord Jesus to Him that Believeth Faith is the Modus Promissionis vel Donationis So that altho' Justification be not the Result of our Faith but of Christ's Righteousness alone yet Faith being made by the Testator a Modus of the Disposition or Donation there can be no Justification without it The Operation of Christ's Righteousness which in this Case is the Negotium or Principal Cause of our Justification is by the Non-Performance of Faith suspended and so long we remain Unjustified It hath pleased God to fix such an Order in the Dispensation of his Blessings that the one necessarily antecedes the other and what goeth before another hath an Influence upon that other as it is so setled and establish'd by the Ordinance of God Not that the former gives Right unto the latter but so it is appointed of God that such an Order be observed in the disposing of these Blessings that he who has not the first shall not have the second He that hath not Faith shall not be Justified But whether it be a Condition of the Covenant of Grace Or a Condition in this Covenant Or only a Condition of our Justification tho' our Divines have different Sentiments about it yet 't is generally held that Faith is a Condition of Justification They that scruple the use of the Word own the thing signified thereby The Learned Author of Anti-sozzo saith that Faith is a Condition in the Covenant of Grace tho' not of it and they who hold that the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as a Second Adam do assert that it is also made with the Faithful the Members of Christ Discourse of the two Covenants lib. 3. c. 3. p. 162. for which the Judicious Mr Strong gives several Reasons namely That the Saints may see that they are as strictly bound to Obedience in their own Persons under the Second Covenant as they were under the First And that the Doctrine of the Gospel tho' it be a Doctrine of Liberty is not a Doctrine of Licentiousness and that they may stand in awe of the Threats of God This Doctrine saith he I do the rather pitch upon in Opposition to the Licentious Tenent of the Antinomians who say that all is Required of Christ and nothing of Us. This Notion of a Condition as it doth most fully Provide against Antinomianism by Inferring the Necessity of Faith's being in Order of Nature before Justification so it doth as effecctually secure us from the Popish Arminian and Socinian Rocks in that it is not a Legal but a Testamentary Condition that cannot Establish the Merit of Good Works nor Interfere with Christ's meriting or the Spirits working the First Grace nor Subvert the Doctrine of Satisfaction or Particular Election All Testamentary Dispositions whatever be the Modes of Donation are of Free Grace not of Metit and being Given to us as the Children of a Testator the Merit and Gift of the First Grace which is necessary to our being such Children cannot be Destroyed by such a Modus or Condition These things will Appear with much more Clearness if we consider that the Holy Scriptures Represent Christ as a Second-Adam the Father of a Spiritual Off-spring Two things Christ did as a Second-Adam He undertook to beget a Seed and Raise that Seed unto Glory This Seed Christ Purchased and on his Purchase they are given him by the Father according to the terms Agreed on between the Father and the Son in the Eternal Compact That Christ begets a Seed and by his Word and Spirit Governs and Raises them unto Glory is so far from being inconsistent with his Meriting and Giving the First Grace that it is in Pursuance of it Christ merited a Seed and that he may have what he merited a Seed is Given him which is by the Fathers drawing the Sons gathering and the Spirits working Grace in them Christ also as a Second-Adam made satisfaction for his Children who as soon as they do spiritually by Regeneration Descend from him have a Right to Impunity If the Satisfaction had been made by Christ as a Mediator for the Elect as such then indeed as soon as they had any Being they would have been Discharg'd from the Debt But Christ making Satisfaction for the Elect as his Seed they cannot partake of the Right resulting from it but as they become his Seed As they are his Seed Virtually they have a Virtual Discharge but an Actual Discharge they cannot have till they are Actually born again Moreover the Covenant of Grace being made with Christ as a Second-Adam the Promises are made unto Christ as the Reward of his Obedience but for his Seed so that in Christ you must be by Faith that you may be Pardoned and Saved and yet your Pardon and Salvation Results not from your Faith but from Christ's Righteousness whereby it 's manifest that Gospel-Promises are Powerful Motives to Engage us to do our utmost to Believe and Repent and must be Preached to this Very-End and Purpose Thus the Doctrine of our Merit is laid by Christ's meriting and working the First Grace and his making Satisfaction to God's Justice and the necessity of our Faith Repentance and Sanctification are abundantly cleared by this Gospel-Representation that is made of Christ as he is a Second Adam with whom the Covenant of Grace is made and with his Seed as such which is so far from destroying Particular Election that it establisheth it For the Elect were Promised unto Christ merited by him and given unto him as the Reward of his Sufferings whereby it is made sure that the Death of Christ shall not be altogether in vain He shall see the Elect as the Travel of his Soul and be satisfied Thus as in Opposition to Popery Arminianism and Socinianism Legal Conditions are Justly Rejected so in Contradiction to the Antinomian Error Testamentary Conditions are here explicated and asserted CHAP. V. The Notion the first Reformers had of Justifying Faith not Antinomian Their Dectrine in Opposition to the Papist Arminian and Socinian Described That they did not hold Justification to be before Faith Nor did they Exclude all Doubtings from Faith nor hold that we might live as we list and whilst so Believe and be Justified To Assert 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 is not Antinomianism THE Antinomians I mean such as are really so have had too much Honour given them by such as Grant that their Notion about Faith is supported by
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
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
Rule of the Promise is accepted Besides there is a double consideration of Faith and of Good Works There is a Faith perfected with Love and Obedience and a Faith Inchoate a bare Assent without Love and Obedience There are Works answering the Rule of Duty in every respect conform to the Commands and there are Works which tho' Imperfect may justly be denominated Good to which by the Rule of the Promise the Reward belongs Faith Perfected or which hath Love and Obedience for its Formal Reason by which alone saith St. Paul we are justified in opposition to Works is the same say these Socinians with what St. James means by Works so that the Works Paul excludes from having an Interest in our Justification are such as are conform to the Rule of Duty Vid. Crel in Rom. 8.32 Gal. 2.16 1 Cor. 1.30 and absolutely perfect The Faith St. James affirms to be insufficient for our Justification is an Imperfect Faith without Works and the Works by which St. James saith we are justified is Faith inform'd with such Works as are conform'd to the Rule of the Promise This in short is the Socinian Scheme viz. Faith is an Act of the Will having for its Essential Form Hope Love and Obedience which tho' imperfect as not fully conform to the Rule of Duty and therefore no way Meritorious yet as Answering the Law of the Reward or Rule of the Promise is perfect and is a Cause not Instrumental but sine quâ non of our Justification By this Notion they frame of Justifying Faith they make it one Moral Habit comprizing within its own nature every Good Work and when they assert Justification to be only by Faith they in doing so raise Good Works to the dignity of being a Causa sine quâ non of Justification By the word Faith they understand Trust Hope Love and Obedience and consequently to be Justified by Faith is to be Justified by our Trust Hope Love Obedience or Good Works The Arminians are of the same mind with the Socinians for in their Apology they freely declare Et sant si quis â—a quae à Socino dicuntur in bâc materiâ sine gratià sine odio expendát is velit nolit confiteri tandem cogetur eum in substantia Rei cum Reformatis consentire manente hoc solum Descrimine causam semper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exeipe Exam. Censur cap. 10. pag. 114. That whoever will impartially exaamine the Socinian Notion in this matter cannot but confess that Socinus as to the substance of this Doctrine excepting that one particular about the External Procuring Cause of our Justification holds the same with the Reformed But how boldly soever the Arminian assert an Agreement between Socinus and the Reformed their Assertion can import no more than a Free Acknowledgment that there is a Harmony between themselves and the Socinians For the Reformed who place Faith in the Will as well as in the Vnderstanding and make it to be a Work do by no means allow of its Justifying us as a Work but exclude all Works from being either an Instrumental Cause or a Causa sine quâ non or any other cause whatsoever of our Justification And they that confine Faith to the Understanding hold that Faith is not a Work and therefore cannot justifie as such whereby they effectually destroy Justification by Works and set themselves at the greatest distance from the Arminian and Socinian Errors Excellent Camero hath deliver'd the sense of them who make the Vnderstanding the only Subject of Faith with much clearness assuring us That we must abide by this that Faith is not a Work The Papists saith he think they press us with this Argument viz. seeing Faith is a Work the asserting that we are Justified by Faith can import nothing less than that we are Justified by some Work There are others who profess to abhor nothing more than this Popish Doctrine who confess That Faith is a Work but then add that it doth not Justifie as a Work But the Scriptures do always distinguish Faith from Works yea oppose Faith to Works in the matter of our Justification And the Papists themselves when they say we are Justified partly by Faith and partly by Works unless they will be guilty of a very gross absurdity must distinguish the one from the other Faith therefore is not a Work that it is called the Work of God Joh. 6.29 is only by way of Allusion as Paul Rom. 3.27 calls Faith a Law The Jews continually glorying in their Works in the Law in their Prerogatives as they were the Children of Abraham Christ in answer unto them having attributed Justification to Faith useth their own words who expecting to be Justified by Works Christ doth as it were thus speak unto them Will ye have Life by your Works then work this Work Believe in the Son of God However there is this difference between Faith and Works Faith gives nothing to God it only receives Works are an Eucharistical Sacrifice which we offer unto God Faith is the Instrument it is as the Hand of the Soul by which we receive saving Benefits from God Laying this Foundation we go on and affirm That Justification is by Faith not by Works 1. The Apostle when he doth professedly dispute of Justification he never opposes the Works of Holiness or Sanctification unto Works of the Law which undoubtedly he would have done if he had thought that any thing in our Justification must be attributed to Works His Adversaries making it their business to expose him as one who by by his Doctrine le ts loose the Reins to all manner of Licensciousness if he had thought that Justification had been by any Works whatsoever could easily have answered them by saying He denyed not Justification by Works but earnestly contended for its being by the Works of Sanctification But that he never did for healways opposed Faith to Good Works 2. All our Salvation consists in the Free-Pardon of Sin which God in the Gospel doth offer unto men not singly but so as thereby to invite them to Repentance If there had been no place for the Remission of Sin a Sinner could never entertain a thought about Repentance and in this respect would be in the same case with the Devils who Repent not because without the least hope of Pardon God therefore to take away all Dispair from men offers them the Forgiveness of Sin that is to say in his Son Jesus Christ For no Remission without a Sacrifice and no Expiatory Attoning Sacrifice besides that of Christ Now what Faculty of the Soul is that by which the Remission of Sin is Perceived None surely but Faith 'T is Faith which Believeth God who maketh the Promise Hope is that which expests the thing Promised But Charity beholding the Goodness of him who Promises in the Excellency of the Promise Loves him Whrefore seeing 't is Faith only which acquiesces in the Free Promise of God through Jesus
Pleasure and Delight Rejoycing to Understand by them that your Ministers have not only most heartily Resolved to lay by their Jealousies and Bitter Invectives but to do what in them lyeth for Peace and Concord The God and Father of all Peace and Love give a Happy Issue to those Pious Resolutions according to that Promise When a Man's ways please the Lord he will make even his Enemies to be at Peace with him We must count upon it that some on both sides will Dislike our Endeavors for Concord and entertain hard thoughts and suspicions of us But if we who are Cordial and Sincere in our Desires do with Constancy and Diligence Prosecute this Design Certe quicquid ad promovendam concordiam faciet id pro virili ita agam ut ne quid in me possitis desiderare novit hoc Deus quem testem invoco per animae salutem Epist Luth Consul Helvetiâ—e Tiguri c. A.D. 1537. Our Gracious God and Father will soon give us his Assistance and in a little time the Remaining Heats will be over I humbly beseech you to believe that I shall do whatever may be expected from One that is serious and Hearty in this Matter that in this Cause of Promoting Concord I will to the utmost of my Abilities satissie your Desires and Expectations The Truth of this God knows whom I call for a Record upon my Soul For these Dissentions have neither Profited me nor any body else but have been Prejudicial to many so that not the least good could have been or can be hoped for from them Thus far Luther who gives me a fair Occasion to Consider the Mischievous Effects of Discord and Contentions among Christians How the Ignorance Rash Zeal and Peevishness of some the Selfish Designs Private Interests Pride and Malice of others have given the Devil opportunity to turn the Churches into Disorder and Confusion I will instance in the Quarrel between Peter of Alexandria and Miletius and touch the Rise and Progress of Arianism The Contest between these two tho' differently Reported by those who liv'd nearest these Times was in the esteem of all managed with that Indiscretion and Heat as brought on them all that Mischief they endured That they were both sound in the Faith and their chief difference about the time to be given for the Tryal of the Repentance of such as under the Persecution Revolted from the Truth cannot be denied Socr. Hist Eccles l. 1. c. 3. 6. Nicâ—â—h Caliist Hist. Ecclis lib. 8. c. 5. Tâ—â—dâ—r Hist. lib. 1. c. 9. Hâ—â—ret Faâ—ul lib. 4. de Meâ—â—â—is Sâ—â—om Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 23. Aust de Haeris And although Ashanasius Socrates and Nicephorus Callistus report that Meletius apostatiz'd and Epiphanius with whom St. Austin seems to agree represents the Matter quire otherwise yet it 's past doubt that the Different Opinions of these Orthodox Guides of the Church in the one Grounded on a Zeal for Truth in the other on Compassion to the Souls of the Weak occasioned a very wide Breach amongst those Christians when they were Groaning under the Violence of a Bloody Persecution For whilst in Prison the Fire brake out to that Degree as to issue in an angry Separation no wonder if it continued after Peter's Martyrdom and when Constantine gave Liberty was much Encreased It 's true Alexander who succeeded Achillas Peter's immediate Successor did during Meletius his life time carry it kindly to the Meletians but after Meletius his Death he violently Persecuted them who were thereby provoked to send some of their Bishops with a Petition to the Emperor for Liberty which being Rejected they apply themselves to Eusebius of Nicomedia then great at Court and a Favorer of Arius Eusebius refuseth to help them on any terms short of their admitting the Arians to their Communion to which that they might Escape the Cruel Persecution of their Orthodox Brethren they yielded and had the Grant of Liberty By this means the Arians gain'd so great an Advantage and grew so Strong that in some Years after they spread themselves so far as to Cover almost all the Christian Churches in the World It is amazing to consider from what a small spark the Arian Fire that turned the whole Christian World into a flame had its rise 't was only from the subtil and over curious Discourse of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria the undue Suspicion of Arius and the Indiscreet Heat of Both Hist. Eccles lib. 1. c. 3. for saith Socrates Alexander enjoying much Peace at Alexandria calls together his Priests and with them did so very nicely and subtilly Discourse of the Unity in the Trinity that Arius one of the Priests a Man of great Learning Suspecting him to be a Favorer of Sabellius who held that the Father Son and Holy Ghost were but Three Names of one and the same Person did in opposition to him affirm the Son to be so Distinct from the Father as to have a Beginning From whence it follows that he had his Subsistence from Nothing that he was a Creature not Coeternal nor Consubstantial with the Father This Controversie was managed with so much Bitterness that to use Socrates his own words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soc. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 3. from a very little Spark a great Fire broke out disturbing the Peace of all Egypt Lybia the Upper Thebais and many other places The Flame having thus got head Alexander with the utmost Vehemence Endeavors the suppressing it He Excommunicates Arius writes to the Bishop of Constantinople complaining of his Pride and Covetousness prayeth him not to suffer Arius nor any of his Followers to Preace within his Jurisdiction He calls in the Help of his Colleagues who Approv'd of what he had done against the Arians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Arius provok'd hereby doth also write to several Bishops giving them an account of his Faith in words so very like the Orthodox Confessions Cum Alexander literas ejusmodi ad Episcopos passim in sineulis â—ivitatibus scripsisset Latius Propterea serpevat malum quòd hi qui erant illis literis certiores facti consentionis Discordiae incendiis inter ipsos conflagrare caeperunt nam alii literis suffragari iisdemque subscribere alii penitus adversari Socr. ubi sup that he is by some Grave and Judicious Bishops esteem'd sound in the Faith This nettles Alexander who sends forth his Circular Letters throughout the whole Catholick Church with a Catalogue of the Arian Errors and the Names of those who adher'd unto them by which means Arianism saith the Historian was strangely Propagated all the World over Constantine observing how the Contentions spread from one Part to another of his Empire and how much Violent Methods contributed hereunto makes use of more calm ones He writes a Letter to Alexander and Arius which he sent by Hosius Bishop of Cordovia Declaring it to be his Opinion That the Controversie being about what