love to true Holiness a hatred unto all sin and that in all things we walk worthy of the Gospel of Christ But the sense of the Reformed may be more fully seen in our Book of Homilies touching the Doctrine of Justification Serm 3d of Salvat highly approved of by the generality of the Reformed where it 's thus Now you shall hear the office and duty of a Christian-man unto God Our office is not to pass the time of this present Life unfruitfully and idly after that we are Baptized or Iustified not caring how few good works we do to the Glory of God and Profit of our Neighbours Much less is it our office after that we be once made Christ's Members to live contrary to the same making of our selves Members of the Devil walking after his Inticements and after the Suggestions of the World and the Flesh whereby we know that we do serve the World and the Devil and not God For that Faith which bringeth forth without Repentance either Evil Works or no Good Works is not a Right 〈◊〉 and Lively Faith but a Mean Devilish Counterfeit and Feigned Faith as St. Paul and St. James call it For the Right and True Christian Faith is not only to believe that Holy Scriptures are true but also to have a Sure Trust and Confidence in God's Merciful Promises to be saved from Everlasting Damnation by Christ whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey his Commandments And this true Christian Faith neither any Devil hath nor yet any Man which in the outward Profession of his Mouth and the outward Receiving of the Sacraments in coming to the Church and in all other outward Appearances seemeth to be a Christian-man and yet in his Living and Deeds showeth the contrary For how can a Man have this True Faith this Sure Trust and Confidence in God that by the Merits of Christ his sins be forgiven and be reconciled to the Favour of God and to be partaker of the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ when he iveth ungodly and denieth Christ in his Deeds Surely no such ungodly man can have this Faith and Trust in God For as they know Christ to be the only Saviour of the World so they know also that wicked men shall not enjoy the Kingdom of God They know that God Hateth Unrighteousness that he will destroy all those that speak untruly that those that have done good works which cannot be done without a Lively Faith in Christ shall come forth into the Resurrection of Life and those that have done Evil shall come unto the Resurrection of Judgment Very well they know also that to them that be contentious and to them that will not be obedient unto the Truth but will obey Unrighteousness shall come Indignation Wrath and Affliction c. These great and merciful Benefits of God if they be well considered do neither minister unto us Decasion to be Idle and to live without doing any good works neither yet stireth us by any means to do evil things But contrary-ways if we be not Desperate Persons and our hearts Harder than Stones they move us to render our selves unto God wholly with all our Will Heart Might and Power to serve him in all good Deeds obeying his Commandments during our Lives to seek in all things his Honour and Glory not our Sensual Pleasures Vain Glory evermore dreading willingly to offend such a Merciful God Loving Redeemer in Word Thought or Deed. Thus much and more to the same purpose in the Book of Homilies evincing how that the First Reformers were far from encouraging any to please themselves with hopes of Heaven whilst they remained lovers of their Pleasures more than lovers of God For as they oft declared that Justifying Faith was a lively working Faith that Faith without Repentance Love to God and a Holy Life was a Dead a Devilish Faith So altho they denied the meritoriousness of Good works yet asserted their necessity even such a necessity of their presence of their following Faith as made it certain that no Salvation could be had without them They who were offended with their being made necessary to Salvation fearing lest such an Assertion should introduce the merit of good works held good works necessary necessitate Pracepti as also necessitate Medii taking the means not for an Ethical but Physical or Mathematical middle between two extreams as the Aequator is between the two Tropicks and the Ecliptick Line in the Zodiak affirming them to use the words of Cromayer to be necessary Ante tho' not Ad salutem To give my Reader a clearer light into this matter I will acquaint him with a Controversie that disturb'd the Churches Peace soon after the Beginning of the Reformation George Major who as Melchior Adamus in his Life reports being an Intimate of Luther and Melancthon and chosen with Martin Bucer Brentius Sed cum nihit sit quod non made into pretando possit depravariâ— inâ—â—rrit Major in Grarislimam Inviâ—â—am Odium quod aliquando ut fuit Zelotis Sanctimoniae Commendator summus dixerat FIERI NON POSSE VT QVI NON STVDE ANY BONIS OP ERIBVS SALVTEM CONSEQVANTVR AETERNAM BONORVM OPERVM STVDIVM ESSE NECESSARIVM AD SALVTEM Adversarii enim ejus de quibus Antesignani suerunt Matthias Flacius Illvricus Nic. Gallus Nic. Amsdorffius pup sitionem hanc Bona Opera necessaria sunt ad salutem interpretari sunt ira quasi statutrat Major jurta Origenicam Pontiticiam Synecdochen BONA OPERA CVM FIDE MERERI REMISSIONEM PECCATORVM ESSE CAVSAM JVSTIFICATIONIS CORAM DEO Melch. Adam Viz. Geor. Major and Erhardus Snepsius to concert matters Religious at Ratisbone with Petrus Malvenda Eberbardus Billicus Johannes Hofmeisrerus and Johannes Cocklaus was a zealous Promoter of Holiness asterting that he who was not studious of good works could not obtain Eternal Life and that the study of good works was necessary to Salvation This Great Man tho' extraordinary useful in carrying on the Reformation having laid down these Assertions could not escape the Hatred the Malice and Rage of Good Men but soon feelingly knew what were the Fatal Effects of Evil Surmisings and Rash Censurings for no meaner persons than Flacius Illyricus Nicholaus Gallus and Nicholaus Amsdorffius affirmed that according to the Origenic and Popish Synecdoche Major meant nothing less than that Good Works with Faith do merit the pardon of sin and are the cause of our Justification in the sight of God In opposition unto Major Amsdorffius who with Hieronymus Schuffius a Lawyer and Justus Jonas a Divine accompanied Luther to Wormes held Good Works to be Noxious and Hurtful to our Salvation This Controversie in its first Appearances is great Milch Adam in Vit. Nich. Amsdorf and through a warm and peevish management in its Effects was very pernicious and yet if as in Charity we are bound we do but believe George Majors Solemn Protestations and Regard what the
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
Places throughout the Holy Scriptures asserted to admit of a Denial But Christ could not justly suffer for our Sins unless in a sound sence he bore the Guilt of them To Punish the Innocent as Innocent is Injustice Jesus Christ therefore tho' Innocent in himself voluntarily becoming our Surety took on him the Guilt of Sin and suffer'd Justly because as being Guilty To clear this is the Difficulty and many in the Attempt fall into dangerous Mistakes They who make Sin and Guilt the same thing by asserting the Guilt to be laid on Christ Quantum in se do make Christ Inherently a Sinner which is Antinomianism and they who say the Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ but not the Guilt give up the Cause to the Socicinian For if not the Guilt then nor the Punishment whence no Satisfaction The Guilt lyeth between the Sin and its Punishment It is an Obnoxiousness unto Punishment for Sin which as it Results from the Sin or Fault is called the Guilt of the Fault But as it respects the Punishment being an Obligation thereunto 't is Guilt of Punishment This Guilt is not Intrinsick to the Sin The Sin is Entire without it It is only an External respect of it to the Sanction of the Law and Separable from the Sin it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that tho' the Sin Remain in us the Guilt Passeth from us to Christ The Entire Nature of Sin lyeth in a Respect unto the Preceptive Part of the Law being as hath been already Observed a Transgression or a Want of Conformity unto it The Sin is in its Formal Nature Entire without any Regard to the Sanction From this Sin as it respects the Threatning Results Guilt which is an Obnoxiousness unto Punishment or the Dignitas Paenae propter Culpam and is Extrinsick to the Sin separable from it and may be laid on him who never transgress'd the Commandment Nor can it morally Defile or Pollute the Person on whom it is laid Christ therefore tho' in him there was no Sin might bear the Guilt of our Sins and nevertheless remain Pure Harmless Vndefiled and without Spot which is sufficient to Vindicate this Doctrine from Antinomianism and those other Absurdities that flow from the making Sin and Guilt the same thing and yet hold it to have been laid on Christ What I have here deliver'd amounts to no more than what is carried in that Common Distinction of our Sins being laid on Christ not Inherently but by Imputation If the Sin in its formal Nature had been on Christ there would have been Ground enough for that Charge of Blasphemous Consequences which Bellarmine and the Socinians load us with That would indeed be to make Christ Inherently a Sinner â—ay Filius Diaboli But to deny this and affirm that Christ was made Sin Duly by Imputation that is by the laying the Guilt of our Sins not only the Punishment but the Guilt on him is consistent with his Freedom from all Moral Filth or Defilement and is necessary to Defend the Gospel Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction against the Socinian for Kromayer Theol. Pol. Pos Art xi De Justif p. 631. as KROMAYERUS well expresses it Absque Peccatorum Imputatione Paenarum Perpessione Satisfactionem hic nullam cogitariposse CHAP. IV. What Antinomianism is not in some other Instances Cleared To Deny the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace not Antinomian The State of this Controversie as managed by the Papists and First Reformers The sence of the Arminians and Socinians about Condition Faith a Condition Asserted In what sence IT is not Antinomianism to Deny the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace There is not it may be any one Point in the Body of Divinity of greater Difficulty than this about the Covenant of Grace and its Conditionality They that search deeply into the many Controversies agitated between us the Papist Arminian Socinian and Antinomian will find that the most Important Parts of it Turn on this Hinge The Papist Arminian and Socinian cannot see how the Covenant of Grace could be made with Jesus Christ as a Second Adam and with the Elect as his Seed which is One Reason of their many Mistakes And the Antinomian fixeth his thoughts so very much on the Covenant of Grace's being made with Christ that there is no Room left him to Consider how it can be made also with his Seed which occasions their Asserting That Christ perform'd the whole requir'd of us in order to our being actually Interested in him and his Benefits as well as make Satisfaction by his Sufferings and Merit by his Righteousness for them that Believe That Christ Believed and Repented for us as if there had been no other Reason for our Doing either than to Obtain the Knowledge of our having what actually was ours whilst under the Power of Unbelief and Impenitency But it not being my Province to enter on a Large Debate of these things I will only show that there are such Senses in which the word Condition is used by the Papists Arminian and Socinian as do Confound Gospel Grace with the Law of Works and establish Merit Destroy the Doctrine of the Spirits working the First Grace and subvert Christ's satisfaction and so make it Evident That One who Detests Antinomianism may yet Deny the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace If the word Condition when spoken of the Two Covenants namely of Works and Grace be taken in the same sence in both the one will be Confounded with the other To Evince thus much I will show the Import of the Condition of the Covenant of Works and how it agrees with the Popish Doctrine of Merit and leave it to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader to consider the Truth of my Assertion The Condition of the Covenant of Works is ea res quae Praestita dat Jus ad Praemium It is that Obedience to which the Promise was made and from the Performance of which a Right to the Reward immediately Results and for which in Justice it is due This Condition being Perfect Obedience was to a Law enforc'd with Rewards and Punishments which Obedience the Reward becoming due to it ex Justitia is Meritorious And as on the Rendring the Required Obedience the Reward is Justly Due so seeing the Performance of the Condition is the same with the Render of Perfect Obedience the Blessing Promised is thereon Justly due unto it and the Performing the Condition is meritorious for Merit is nothing but that Actio quâ Justum est ut Agenti aliquid Detur There is much much variety I must confess amongst the Papists in stating their Doctrine of Merit but the Prevailing Opinion is Meritum Mercâ—s ad Idem referuntur Tho. 1 a 2. e. Q. 114. Art 1. That Merit and Reward Essentially Respect one another That Merit is a Good Work freely done Exhibitio at MERITI Redditio MERCEDIS actus ad alterum sunt secundum aqualitatem Rei
non which leaves us at as great an Uncertainty as to the Nature and Efficacy of this Condition as we were before Nor is the true sense of things at all Illustrated but rather darkned by such Notions Conditio in the best Latine Writers is variously used answering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek That is Status Fortuna Dignitas Causa Pactum initum In which of their Significations it is here to be understood is not easie to be determined In common use among us it sometimes denotes the State and Quality of Men that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes a valuable Consideration of what is to be done that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But herein it is applied unto things in great variety sometimes the Principal-Procuring-Purchasing-Cause is so expressed As the Condition whereon a Man lends another an Hundred Pound is that he be Paid it again with Interest The Condition whereon a Man conveyeth his Land unto another is that he Receive so much Money for it And sometimes it signifies such things as are added to the Principal Cause whereon its Operation is suspended As a man bequeaths an Hundred Pound unto another on Condition that he come or go to such a Place and Demand it This is no valuable Consideration yet is the Effect of the Principal Cause or the Will of the Testator suspended thereon And as unto degrees of Respect unto that whereof any thing is a Condition as to Purchase Procurement Valuable Consideration necessary Presence the Variety is Endless We therefore cannot obtain a determinate sense of this word Condition but from a particular Declaration of what is intended by it wherever it is used And although this be not sufficient to exclude the use of it from the Declaration of the way and manner how we are justified by Faith yet it is so to exclude the Imposition of any Precise signification of it any other than is given it by the Matter treated of Without this every thing is left Ambiguous and uncertain whereunto it is Applied For Instance It is commonly said That Faith and New Obedience are the Condition of the New Covenant But yet because of the Ambiguous signification and various use of that Tern Condition we cannot certainly understand what is intended in the Assertion If no more be intended but that God in and by the New Covenant doth Indispensably require these things of us that is the Restipulation of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead in order unto his own Glory and our full Enjoyment of all he Benefits of it it is Unquestionably true But if it be intended that they are such a Condition of the Covenant as to be by us perform'd antecedently unto the Participation of any Grace Mercy or Priviledge of it so as that they should be the Consideration and Procuring Causes of them that they should be all of them as some speak the Reward of our Faith and Obedience it is most false and not only contrary to express Testimonies of Scripture but Destructive of the Nature of the Covenant it self If it be intended that these things tho' promised in the Covenant and wrought in by the Grace of God are yet Duties Required of us in order unto the Participation and Enjoyment of the full End of the Covenant in Glory it is the Truth which is asserted But if it be said that Faith and New Obedience that is Works of Righteousness which we do are so the Condition of the Covenant as that whatever the one is ordained of God as the means of and in order to such or such an End as Justification that the other is likewise ordained unto the same End with the same kind of Efficiency Dr. O. Of. Justific or with the same Respect unto the Effect it is expresly contrary to the whole Scope and Express Design of the Apostle on that Subject But notwithstanding the various senses the word Condition is Capable of and how mischievous soever the Popish Arminian and Socinian Usages of it are there is a Sound Sense in which the Word may be used Relativa Quis Qui Quae Quod Juncta verbo futuri temporis faciunt suum Antecedens ' Conditionale Ot. Phil. Zepper Cynos Legal That Faith is a Condition if we may in our Interpreting of Scripture observe the Rules of the Juncts is as certain as if it had been expresly mention'd in the Holy Scriptures These words He that believes shall be saved Import a Condition For Relativum junctum Verbo futuri temporis conditionem facit which our Modern Divines who Reject the above-mentioned Errors do yet approve but in what Sense is our Business at this time to Explain Condition then may be Distributed into Legall and Gospel or Testamentary A Legall Condition is Obedience to the Preceptive Part of a Law giving Right to the Reward such was that of the Covenant of Works made with Adam and of this sort are the Popish Arminian and Socinian Conditions A Gospel Condition is of the same Kind with what Peculiarly belongs to Testamentary Disposition It is say the Civilians Lex Negotio apposita unde Ipsius Eventus pendet Or Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur suspendit Eventum Which says Dr. Owen signifies such things as are added to the Principal Cause whereon its Operation is suspended As a man bequeaths an Hundred Pound unto another on Condition that he come or go to such a Place and Demand it This is no Valuable Consideration yet is the Effect of the Principal Cause or the Will of the Testator suspended thereupon To understand this Testamentary Condition we must consider that there is a Principal Cause whose Operation is suspended till a Rule added thereunto be observed There is the Promise or Donation of a Legacy which must be given according to the last Will of the Testator But to this Promise or Donation there is added a Rule that must be Regarded viz. That this Legacy be given either in such a time or Place or in such a way or manner This is the Lex addita Negotio that must be observed before the Legacy be actually given It is the Condition which till Perform'd suspends the Event namely the giving of the Legacy And as the Learned Mr. Baxter explains it 't is only the Modus Promissionis Donationis Cath. Thiol lib. 2. p. 248. vel Contractus where the fulfilling of the Promise is as Really suspended until this Modus be observed as if it had Resulted from the Observation of it Dispositio enim facta sub Conditione vel modo nibil valet nisi Conditio Nodus adimpleatur Nunquam â—nim actio in Essictu competit nisiprius oblat â praeslit â Cautione de made adimplendo quia alias locum habet Exceptio doli Mode deficiente extinguatur debitum perinde ac si deficeret Conditio Or. Phil. Zepper Cynos Legal A Disposition made on Condition or
jubeat de gratia Dei vita Aeterna dubitarâ— atque hane blasphemam ut aiunt Doctrinam inter praecipuas Causas poâ—unt cur ab ea Discedendum sibi putent blaming us for insinuating as if they taught the People to doubt of the Grace of God and of their Salvation and then make it a Reason of the Separation In the Enchiridion of Christian Religion Published by the Provincial Council at Cologne A. D. 1536. it is saith Cassander expresly granted That to our Justification it 's Required not only to believe in general that Sins are forgiven all that Repent but that my sins in Particular through Christ by Faith are forgiven me That this very Explication of Faith is in the Emperor's Book drawn up at Ratisbone and Approv'd where 't is thus It is sound Doctrine to hold that a Sinner is Justified by a lively Efficacious Faith By a Lively Faith we mean a Motion of the Holy Ghost Firma sana Doctrina est per fidem vivam efficacem Justificari peccatorem Vocamus autem sidem vivam motum Spiritus Sancti quo vere poeâ—itentes veteris vitae eriguntur ad Deum verè apprehendunt miserecordiam in Christo promissam ut jam verè sentiant quod Remissiorem Peccatorum Reconcitiationem propter meritum Christi gratuita Dei bonitate acceperunt c. Cassand Consult Art 4. whereby they who Repent of their past Life are turn'd towards God and do truly apprehend the Grace Promised in Christ so as that they do Really perceive they have Obtain'd the Pardon of their Sins and Reconciliation through the Merit of Christ However Alfonsus de Castro will have it that not many of their Church were of this Opinion that the Enchiridion of Christian Religion was not much to be regarded because Hermannus the Archbishop of Cologne who called the Provincial Council by which 't was Published was an Heretick But Binius Consiliam Coloniense Provinciale Auctoritate Hermanni Archiepiscopi qui POSTEA in Haeresin lapsus est pro Reformatione c. in the Title prefixed to this Council saith 't was after this that the Archbishop fell into Heresie And yet nevertheless it must be yielded That 't was greatly Controverted between Papist and Protestant Whether Faith was a Fiducia and lay in a firm Perswasion of our being Pardoned Or only a General Assent And as the Reformed Defended this Notion about Faith in Opposition to the Papists so they did it also against the Arminian and Socinian Bodecherus Bodecher Socin Rem 6.11 p. 79 80. in his Sociniano-Remonstrantismus doth out of the Remonstrants Confession and Writings of Socinus show an Agreement between the Socinian and Arminian in their Denying this Fiducia or Perswasion to be Saving Faith Johannes Peltius in his Harmony out of Arminius Episcopius Arnoldus the Remonstrants Conference at the Hague their Confession and Apology c. as also out of Ostorodius and Socinus puts it out of all Doubt that the Arminians and Socinians concur in their oppugning Faiths being such a firm Perswasion And out of the Belgick Confession and Catechism and the National Synod at Dort He makes it manifest that the Reformed held Faith to be a Perswasion that our Sins are Pardoned Polyander Rivet Walaeus and Thysius in their Censure of the Remonstrants Confession having shown the Parallel between the Arminians and Socinians are Positive that the very Hinge of the Controversie between them Nobiscum Remonstrantes consentiunt quod fides salâ—ifica FIDUCIA dicatur sit quam etiam Sociniani ut vidianes VERAM FIDUCIAM esse dicunt Sed in quo talis Fiducia consistat quodnam sit ejus Objectum proprium in eo totius Controversiae quam nunc omnibus Ecclessâ—s Reformatis movent vertitur CARDO Cersa c. 11. p. 158. and the Reformed Churches Turn on this Point That Saving Faith is a Fiducia or full Perswasion the Socinians themselves as these Great men Express it do Confess But the Enquiry is What is the Proper Object of this Fiducia or Perswasion Whether it be the Special Mercy of God through the Merit of Christ which he who Believes doth by this Fiducia Apply unto himself or what To this these Authors of the Censure in Opposition unto the Papist Arminian and Socinian do give it as the sense of the Reformed that the Remission of Sin de praesenti is the Proper Object of this Fiducia or Perswasion and that Justifying Faith lyeth in such a Perswasion as that by which we Believe our Sins in praesenti are Forgiven us Against this Doctrine Bellarmine Socinus and the Remonstrants raise several Objections Exposing the Notion and all that Defended it to the utmost Reproach and Contempt as if hereby the Pardon of Sin was made a Necessary Antecedent unto Justifying Faith and none could have Faith but they who had a Comfortable Assurance and that whoever could but Confidently Perswade himself his Sins were Pardoned how wickedly soever he lived had Saving Faith and was Justified Besides amongst Protestants themselves there have been of late years too many who not searching diligently enough into the Writings of the First Reformers have too hastily condemn'd them and given too much Countenance to the Unrighteous Accusations of Papists Arminians and Socinians and Encouraged the Antimonians to go on the more boldly in their Error as if they had Luther Calvin and all their Followers to Abet it whereas on a fair and equal Tryal these Charges will appear to be Groundless and Unreasonable which with much clearness may be evinced if we consider How the First Reformers held That Iustification is not before Faith That many Fears and Doubtings are consistent with it And That none who continued to live under the Reigning Power of their Lusts had or whilst so could have Saving Faith These things for the Readers greater Satisfaction I will with all the Plainness I can particularly Prove To the First That Iustification is not before Faith 1. Thus much necessarily flows from their Asserting Faith to be the Instrumental Cause of Justification If Faith be a Cause tho' but a less Principal One of Justification Justification can't be before it 'T would be the Greatest Injustice Imaginable to Insinuate that the first Reformers affirmed That Justification was before Faith and yet Faith any Cause of Justification They could not be so grosly Ignorant as to think the Effect had an Existence before its Cause That they insisted on Faiths being the Instrumental Cause of Justification is so much the Burden of their Writings that whoever consults them can't find room for the Least Doubt concerning it De Reconcil Par. 1. lib. 2. c. 11. Our Learned Wotton instances in Calvin Vrsin Hannius Bastingius Chemnitius Bucanus Willet and Perkins as Asserters of it And he might have added Paraeus Beza Peter Martyr Zanchy and many others Quenstedius Theol. Didact Polem Par. 3. c. 8. § 2. q. 6. a Lutheran mentions Gerhardus Battus Dorscheus Kester the
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
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