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
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
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