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
although there may be some Imperfect Resemblances found in Natural or Political Vnions yet the Vnion from whence that Denomination is taken between Him and Vs is of that Nature and arises from such Reasons and Causes as no Personal Union among Men or the Vnion of many Persons hath any concernment in Dr. O. of Justific p. 250. 2. Christ being our Substitute or Delegate Believed and Repented for us so as to exempt us from the necessity of doing it 2. Christ did not Repent for us nor exempt us from the necessity of doing it our selves 'T is true that Christ our Surety who Satisfied and Merited to exempt us from the necessity of doing either our selves did undertake to enable the Elect to Believe Repent and Personally Obey the Holy Commandments but never undertook to exempt them from the necessity of Believing and Repenting Assertion II. That the Guilt as well as Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ We have made it clearly to appear that though the Guilt and Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ yet the Sin it self in its formal Nature the Macula or Filth of Sin was not Guilt as I have shown is a Relation which hath a Formal Sin for its Foundation The Foundation of Guilt is Sin formally considered the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Macula the Filth and Guilt the Reatus Culpae doth immediately Result from the Sin that is a transgression of the Praecept It is not then the Sin it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Macula the Filth that was laid on Christ but the the Guilt which resulted from it the Macula the Filth remained in us the Guilt that immediately resulted from it as it respected the Sanction of the Law was laid on Christ but this being somewhat distinct from the Moral Filth Christ remained Pure and Spotless notwithstanding 't was transferr'd over to him The Opposition Antinomian Truth 3. Sin and Guilt are the same 3. Sin and Guilt are Not the same 4. Not only the Punishment and Guilt but the Sin it self the Filth of Sin was laid on Christ 4. The Punishment and Guilt of Sin was laid on Christ but not the Sin it self its Macula or Filth In this particular the Difference is manifest And it 's plain that tho' the Antinomian blaspheme the Son of God by making him Inherently a Sinner yet they who are against the transferring the Filth of Sin on Christ are far from it for whilst They are opposing the Papist and Socinian they do most effectually Fence against Antinomianism Assertion III. That the Covenant of Grace is not Conditional in that sense the Papists hold it to be so The sense in which the Papists are for the Conditionality of Faith and Good Works hath been already stated and the Difference between the First Reformers and Modern Protestant Divines cleared All Popish Conditions that is to say All Such Conditions in us as give Right to the Reward are excluded from having any Interest in our Justification And yet Faith is made so necessary to our Justification that without it we cannot be Justified that our Justification is suspended during its absence and that Faith is an Instrumental Cause of Justification That the Promise of Pardon and Eternal Life is not made to Sinners as Sinners but it is made to them that have Faith and are in Covenant with God and only unto such The Opposition Antinomian Truth 5. That the Covenant of Grace is without All Conditions in every sense 5 The Covenant of Grace is not without Conditions in every sense for Faith is the Condition of Pardon 6. That the Promise of Pardon is to Sinners as Sinners 6. The Promise of Pardon is not to Sinners as Sinners it is only to them that have Faith and are in Covenant Thus whilst the Popish Doctrine of Merit is opposed there is wrested out of the hands of Arminians and Socinians that by which they endeavour to destroy Particular Election Christ's meriting and the Spirit 's giving the first Grace together with the glorious Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and a sufficient Provision is laid in against the Antinomian Doctrine of Vniversal Redemption Assertion IV. That Faith is a Certain and Full Perswasion wrought in the heart of Man through the Holy Ghost whereby he is Assured of the Mercy of God promised in Christ that his Sins are forgiven him By such as have not throughly enough search'd into this Controversie the First Reformers for holding this Assertion have been charg'd with Antinomianism But we have shown 't was unjustly For tho' of late years our Divines who have indeed rather describ'd than defin'd Faith and so for the help of Doubting Souls have put them on Enquiries after the constant Concomitants and inseparable Effects of Saving Faith to the end they might be help'd to well-grounded Evidences of their Interest in Christ yet the First Reformers in the ensuing Instances about Saving Faith differ'd very much from the Antinomians Opposition Antinomians First Reformers 7. Faith lieth in a confident Perswasion that my Sins were forgiven before I did believe 7. Faith tho' it lies in a Perswasion of the Forgiveness of Sins yet not that Sin was Pardoned before Faith but in the Instant of Believing 8. This Faith admits of no Doubtings 8. Faith admits of Fears and Doubtings 9. A Person may have this Faith and apply the Promise of Pardon as well whilst under the Power of Sin as after 9. No Man whilst under the Power of Sin can apply the Promise of Pardon as well as after Assertion V. That Justifying Faith is not an Act of the Will but of the Understanding only That Faith is only an Act of the Understanding hath not been embraced by Protestants universally the chief Defenders of it being Camero Amyrald and Dally However to do the New Methodists Justice that I might set forth this Controversie in its proper Light and shew how they hereby secure themselves from the Popish Arminian and Socinian Notions about Justification and how far they are from the Unjust Charge of Antinomianism I have added the foregoing Chapter The Opposition Antinomians The New Methodists 10. True Faith may be where no change of the Will is 10. Tho' Faith be not an Act of the Will yet is it not where the Will remains unchanged Here then we may see not only the Difference there is between the above-mentioned Assertions and Antinomianism but have set before us such a Scheme of the Antinomian Errors as makes the Law of no use at all But let us consider what manner of Persons would be brought within the Antinomian Verge if these Assertions were Antinomian Really the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster and all that drew up the Savoy Confession with the whole Body of Vnited Ministers must come in for Receiving the First Assertion the Lutherans and Calvinists for holding the Second the First Reformers generally and many Learned Protestant Divines at this time particularly Dr. Witsius Divinity Professor at Vtricht who with the greatest Respect is earnestly desired to communicate his Thoughts freely on this occasion for Defending the Third All the First Reformers for the Fourth and the New-Methodists for Propugning the Fifth and none but the Papist Arminian and Socinian would be able to escape the Slander And yet according to the best of my Judgment the chief reason why some worthy Brethren have been Reflected on as Antinomians hath been their Zeal for the first Four Assertions For they do not make Christ our Delegate or Substitute who Believed and Repented for us to the end he might exempt us from the necessity of doing either our selves Nor do they make the Filth and Guilt of Sin the same and lay them on Christ making him thereby Filthy Nor do they say that the Covenant of Grace is in every respect without Conditions or that the Promise of Pardon is to Sinners as Sinners or that Faith lieth in a Perswasion that Sin was Pardoned before we Believe or that Faith is Exclusive of the Least Fears or Doubtings or that an Elect Person can apply the Promise of Pardon to it self as well before Regeneration as after nor do they make the Law useless but do hold That in reference unto the work of Regeneration it self positively considered we may observe that ordinarily there are certain Praevious and Praeparatory works Sunt quaedam effecta interna ad Conversionem PRAEVIA quae virtute verbi spiritusque in nondum Regeneratorum cordibus excitantur qualia sunt NOTITIA VOLUNTATIS DIVINAE SENSUS PECCATI TIMOR POENAE COSITATIO de LIBERATIONE spes aliqua veniae Synod Dord Suffrag Theol. Brit. and Art 4. Thes 2. or workings in and upon the Souls of Men that are Antecedent and Dispositive unto it But yet Regeneration doth not consist in them nor can it be educed out of them This is for the Substance of it the Position of the Divines of the Church of England at the Synod of Dort I speak in this Position of them only that are Adult And the Dispositions I intend are only materially so not such as contain Grace of the same Nature as is Regeneration it self A Material Disposition is that which Disposeth and some way maketh a subject fit for the Reception of that which shall be communicated added or infused into it as its Form So Wood by dryness and a due composure is made fit and ready to admit of Firing A Formal Disposition is where one degree of the same kind disposeth the subject unto further degrees of it The former we allow not the latter So far Dr. Owen in his Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 191 192. And for thus much are the Accused Brethren and on no more do the other Brethren who have been charged with favouring Arminianism insist so that in all these things so far as I understand them they mean the same thing and are in the Substance Agreed My next work is to enter on the consideration of the Arminian and Socinian Notions But this Part having swoln so big and to give a just account of these Errors and shew what is not Arminianism nor Socinianism will make the Discourse too large I am content that this Part go forth by it self which shall be followed with the other as soon as God gives opportunity to finish it FINIS
after Luther's Death which was 1546. return'd to his old Antinomian Vomit and in 1548. ran to the other Extream joyning with some Papists in composing the Interim in which the Doctrine of Justification is fram'd according to the Popish Model which yet he would have Bucer subscribe unto and was a great Stickler for miraculous Cures by Anointing with Oyl Thus the Reader may see from what Manner of Men these Errors have had their Rise by what Methods propagated and how Pernicious their Tendency is to the Souls of Men. The Antinomians that got into New-England are so fully set forth in their proper Colours by Mr. Welde that I need do no more than Recommend that Account given of it And go on to consider what Errors have been held by them in this Kingdom And because the Learned Hoornbeeck in his Summa Controversiarum doth with much Respect unto them make his Enquiry after their Principles being a great Enemy to Arminianism I will lay down the State he gives of their Notions which he Reduceth to these Six Heads 1. That Christ in Suffering for our Sins did not only bear their Punishment and Guilt but moreover had our Sins themselves Imputed to Him 2. That Christ did Redeem all and every Man 3. That the Soul is United to Christ and in Covenant with Him before any good Quality be wrought in it and can equally apply the Promises of Grace unto it self whilst unregenerate as when a Believer 4. That a Man Believeth after he is justified his Faith following his Justification 5. That in order to our being Comforted by the Promises of Christ and our making them sure we ought not to Grieve and Repent of the Sins we have committed from sights of the transgressed Law and of the deserved Punishment and so to be humbled in Heart 6. That the Moral Law must not be Preached to Believers and Regenerate Persons This is the Account Hoornbeek gives of the English Antinomian who in the first Question is more Kind to them than Just to the Truth in saying they hold That Christ in Suffering for our Sins did not only bear the Punishment and Guilt but moreover had our Sins themselves Imputed to him whereas the Imputation of Sin and otherwise than in its Guilt is Impossible and the Author whom he chiefly consulted is Positive That tho' he had diligently searched the Holy Scriptures could not in any one Place find Trat Sin was laid on Christ by Imputation farther affirming That Guilt is not only inseparable from sin but is the sin it self the Fault the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply sin * In answer to an Objection laid down in these words For that Objection about Guilt that the Lord lays the Guilt and Punishment but not Simply the Sin it self It is replied For ought that I can see it is a Simple Objection I do not think as some do that Guilt differs from Sin In this Assertion there is a Complication of Errors of divers Kinds even Popish Socinian and Libertine Not that I dare charge every one that holds this Principle with the mischievous Consequences that too easily flow from it That is nor fair nor just for they may not see the Connection there is between the one and the other and may Renounce and Disclaim the more offensive Part. However in the Oppugning an Error and Defence of Truth for the sake of the Unwary It is necessary to show in the Point before us How Error of one kind is link'd to that of another which is thus By making Guilt to be not only Inseparable from the Sin it self but to be the same thing with it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fault it self as it respects the Command 't will unavoidably follow 1. That the Pardon of Sin is the same with Mortification and that in Justification there is more than an External and Relative there is an Internal and Physical Change wrought on the Justified Person whereby it is as the Papist would have it confounded with Sanctification To clear this we must observe That Sin essentially Relates to a Law it being a Transgression of it The Law hath its Preceptive and Threatning Parts And Sin Properly and Formally consider'd is a Transgression of the Precept and whatever is a Transgression of the Precept or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is formally and Properly Sin To Understand yet more fully wherein lyeth the True Nature of Sin it being a Relation our Enquiry must be after its Subject Foundation and Term. The Inclinations Propensions Dispositions Acts Habits Thoughts Words and Works of a Rational Being are the Subject The Term is the Preceptive Part of the Law under whose Regulation the Inclinations c. do fall The Ratio fundandi or Foundation from whence the Relation Immediately Results is the Contrariety Disconformity Deviation or Dissonancy of our Inclinations Propensions Dispositions Acts Habits Thoughts Words Or Works to the Preceptive Part of the Law When either our Inclinations Propensions c. are contrary unto or Dissonant from the Precept which is Pure and Holy we Sin are Vnclean Filthy and Impure The Contrariety Dissonancy or Obliquity is the Uncleanness the Filth and Impurity It is Sin Properly and Formally To Distinguish therefore between the Filth of Sin and the Sin it self and at the same time make Guilt to be the Sin it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Dissonancy to the Command is too Intollerably Gross and Absurd to admit of a fair Construction It is to Confound the Precept with the Threatning to Change the Natures of things and Pervert the Plainest Truths it is to call Light Darkness and Darkness Light For the Filth of Sin is Contrary to the Precept Intrinsick to the Sin Inseparable from it it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Guilt is Extrinsick to the Sin it 's only an External respect of it to the Threatning of the Law It 's not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's not contrary to the Command but it is God's Will and Pleasing unto him that he who Commits the Sin be liable unto Wrath that is be Guilty But the Filth of Sin is in no sense Pleasing unto him Besides Guilt is separable from the Sin On this Distinction between the Sin and its Guilt the Reformed do found that other between Justification and Sanctification holding that Justification imports only an Outward and Relative Change whereby the Soul is freed from Guilt c. That Sanctification Denotes an Inward Physical Change by which the Filth of Sin is taken away and the Sin it-self mortified But by making Sin and Guilt the same Pardon of Sin also and its Mortification must be the same too and that in Justification an Inward and Physical Change is wrought on the Soul In a word in that Great Controversie the most Important One agitated between Us and the Papist even touching the Glorious Doctrine of Justification the Cause is in Fact given up by the Antinomian unto the Papist Thus
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
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
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
Testament Crel Ethic. Christ lib. 1. c. 5. As Crellius in his Christian Ethicks gives this account of Faith in like manner he doth the same Rom. 3.22 Gal. 2.16 Est vero Commentarius hic vivente adbuc Joanne Crellio Colleâ—a into desideratissimo à me consectus elâ—cubratus ita ut in eruendis Epistolae istius sinsibus omnis mibi cum Crellio sociata fucrit opera idque ita ut ei primas hic partes merito deferre debtam Praesat ad Lector Slichtin in Heb. c. 11. v. 1. on the Romans and Galatians and concurs with Slichtingius in his Commentary on the Hebrews in composing which he had a great hand as Slichtingius in his Preface doth ingeniously confess where it 's thus Faith if properly and strictly taken differs from Obedience and our coming unto God For Faith must be in him who seeks God before he doth it Faith more largely by a Synechdodochical Metonymy comprehends within it its Effects namely all Works of Piety and Righteousness Slichtingius John 5.24 Fides in Christum trahit secum observationem mandatorum ejus quae nisi sequatur vanam irritam esse sidem oportet on John thus Faith in Christ carries with it an observation of his Commands and without it all Faith is vain yea dead In this Faith therefore an observation of Christs Commandments is included Wolzogenius Fides duas habet partes Primarias una est Fiducia in Deum per Christum inque promissiones ejus collocata altera Obedientia ac observantia Preceptorum â—jus Wolzog Instruct ad util Lect. Lib. N. T. cap. 6. Faith hath two Principal parts the one is a Trust in God through Christ and in his Promises the other is Obedience to his Commandments Smalcius in his Refutation of Frantzius is more express Smalâ— Refut Thes de Caus peccat p. 450. Even as the Soul is the Essential Form of Man so are Works and Christian Piety the Essence and Form of Faith Trust in God through Christ may be Ratione distinguished from true Piety and Obedience but yet there is no Real difference between them Socinus himself thus * Fidei siquidem nomine ex qua Justificemur intelligit Paulus Fiduciam ejusmodi in Deo per Christum collocatam ex quâ necessariô Obedientia Praeceptorum Christi nasâ—atur quae etiam Obedientia sit tanquam forma substantia ist us Fidei Socin Lect. Sacr. in Bibl. Polon That Faith by which we are Justified according to the Apostle Paul is a Trust in God through Christ from whence Obedience to his Commandments doth necessarily flow for it is as the form and substance of this Faith Thus the Socinians distinguishing between Faith as taken properly or strictly and figuratively as largely make the first to be only a Fiducia the second which they affirm to be Justifying is comprehensive of Hope Love and Works which say they are the Essential form of a Living Justifying Faith whereby they introduce Justification by Works Not the Merit of our Works This they strenuously oppose So Wolzogenius who speaking of the Merit of our Good Works assures us That if we look closely into this matter nothing can appear to be more certain and true than that we cannot by our Good Works Merit any thing of God For he is our Creator and as such hath a right to all we can do without the proposal of any Compensation or Reward Besides it 's a Dictate of Right Reason that the Fruit belongs to him that soweth Welzog in Luc. c. 17. c. 7. and surely it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure These and some other considerations he offers against the Merit of our Good Works Crel in Eph. c. 3 v. 1.11 Socin Frag. de Justific The same is done by Crellius Socinus is vehement in his opposition against all Merit which must necessarily be done by them who ascribe so much to Free Grace as to deny both the Satisfaction of Christ's Death and Merit of his Righteousness Et â—t nostram â—â—â—â—â—de â—e sâ—â—aâ— â—eâ—tâ—â—â—â—â— â—â—â—atz 〈◊〉 omnes 〈◊〉 nuiâ—â—â—â—mnino dari Meritum quemadmodum nec ipsa â—ox MERITI in tâ—to sacro Codice usquam reperitur mequicquameiaequipol ens quod ad Christum attinet non ob aliam causam dicitur Phil. 2. eum idio Exaltatum esse quòd usque ad moâ—tem obediens suerit quam quod sine isla obedientia exaltatus non fuerit Meritâ—m autem in to nullum fâ—isse hinc apparet quod Apostolus ibidem mox addit donavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ei nomen quod est supra omne Nomen Nihil autem meâ—ito propriè accepto cum Donatione Commine est Smalc contra Franâ—z Disp 3. p. 88. That Frantzius and all others saith Smalcius may know our sense in this matter we declare against all Merit whatever for neither the word Merit or any thing signifying what is equivalent thereunto can be found in Scripture and what was said of Christ touching his Exaltation for his being obedient to the Death of the Cross imports no more than that if he had not been obedient he would not have been Exalted But that he did not Merit is manifest from the following words He gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name above every name for Merit and Free Gist are incompatible with each other Idâ—â— nec usquam in sacris Liteâ—is Meriti aut Mereudi â—oces mâ—â—is de Christo quam de nobis rispectu Dei usuâ—pantur ut longè praestat cum Scripturâ loqui Christi Obedientiae potius ac Morti salutem nostram tribuere quam Meritis per illud enim GRATIA Dei non tantum non obscuratur sed etiam logè magis illushatur sat per Meritum propriè dictum imminuitur tollitur Slicir in Phil. c. â— v. 9. Slichtingius on the Philippians saith That the word Merit as it is not in all the Sacred Writings attributed to Man's VVorks with respect to God so neither is it unto Chrit's Whence it 's much better with the Holy Scriptures to ascribe Salvation to Christ's Death and Obedience rather than unto his Merits for to do so doth not obscure but illustrate the Grace of God whereas Merit taken properly doth Eclipse yea Destroy Free Grace These passages may suffice to shew how much the Socinians are against the Merit of Good VVorks and yet hold our Works to be an Essential of that Faith which they say is a cause of our Justification Faith as it apprehends Christ's Righteousness for Justification they explode and by making it an Act of the Will they take within the compass of its Formal Nature Hope Love and Obedience and to bring in Good Works amongst the Causes of our Justification The Nature and Efficacy of True Faith saith Slichtingius lieth in this that it begets Love to God Who can believe he shall obtain Eternal Life if he loves his Neighbour