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
Pleasure and Delight Rejoycing to Understand by them that your Ministers have not only most heartily Resolved to lay by their Jealousies and Bitter Invectives but to do what in them lyeth for Peace and Concord The God and Father of all Peace and Love give a Happy Issue to those Pious Resolutions according to that Promise When a Man's ways please the Lord he will make even his Enemies to be at Peace with him We must count upon it that some on both sides will Dislike our Endeavors for Concord and entertain hard thoughts and suspicions of us But if we who are Cordial and Sincere in our Desires do with Constancy and Diligence Prosecute this Design Certe quicquid ad promovendam concordiam faciet id pro virili ita agam ut ne quid in me possitis desiderare novit hoc Deus quem testem invoco per animae salutem Epist Luth Consul Helvetiâ—e Tiguri c. A.D. 1537. Our Gracious God and Father will soon give us his Assistance and in a little time the Remaining Heats will be over I humbly beseech you to believe that I shall do whatever may be expected from One that is serious and Hearty in this Matter that in this Cause of Promoting Concord I will to the utmost of my Abilities satissie your Desires and Expectations The Truth of this God knows whom I call for a Record upon my Soul For these Dissentions have neither Profited me nor any body else but have been Prejudicial to many so that not the least good could have been or can be hoped for from them Thus far Luther who gives me a fair Occasion to Consider the Mischievous Effects of Discord and Contentions among Christians How the Ignorance Rash Zeal and Peevishness of some the Selfish Designs Private Interests Pride and Malice of others have given the Devil opportunity to turn the Churches into Disorder and Confusion I will instance in the Quarrel between Peter of Alexandria and Miletius and touch the Rise and Progress of Arianism The Contest between these two tho' differently Reported by those who liv'd nearest these Times was in the esteem of all managed with that Indiscretion and Heat as brought on them all that Mischief they endured That they were both sound in the Faith and their chief difference about the time to be given for the Tryal of the Repentance of such as under the Persecution Revolted from the Truth cannot be denied Socr. Hist Eccles l. 1. c. 3. 6. Nicâ—â—h Caliist Hist. Ecclis lib. 8. c. 5. Tâ—â—dâ—r Hist. lib. 1. c. 9. Hâ—â—ret Faâ—ul lib. 4. de Meâ—â—â—is Sâ—â—om Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 23. Aust de Haeris And although Ashanasius Socrates and Nicephorus Callistus report that Meletius apostatiz'd and Epiphanius with whom St. Austin seems to agree represents the Matter quire otherwise yet it 's past doubt that the Different Opinions of these Orthodox Guides of the Church in the one Grounded on a Zeal for Truth in the other on Compassion to the Souls of the Weak occasioned a very wide Breach amongst those Christians when they were Groaning under the Violence of a Bloody Persecution For whilst in Prison the Fire brake out to that Degree as to issue in an angry Separation no wonder if it continued after Peter's Martyrdom and when Constantine gave Liberty was much Encreased It 's true Alexander who succeeded Achillas Peter's immediate Successor did during Meletius his life time carry it kindly to the Meletians but after Meletius his Death he violently Persecuted them who were thereby provoked to send some of their Bishops with a Petition to the Emperor for Liberty which being Rejected they apply themselves to Eusebius of Nicomedia then great at Court and a Favorer of Arius Eusebius refuseth to help them on any terms short of their admitting the Arians to their Communion to which that they might Escape the Cruel Persecution of their Orthodox Brethren they yielded and had the Grant of Liberty By this means the Arians gain'd so great an Advantage and grew so Strong that in some Years after they spread themselves so far as to Cover almost all the Christian Churches in the World It is amazing to consider from what a small spark the Arian Fire that turned the whole Christian World into a flame had its rise 't was only from the subtil and over curious Discourse of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria the undue Suspicion of Arius and the Indiscreet Heat of Both Hist. Eccles lib. 1. c. 3. for saith Socrates Alexander enjoying much Peace at Alexandria calls together his Priests and with them did so very nicely and subtilly Discourse of the Unity in the Trinity that Arius one of the Priests a Man of great Learning Suspecting him to be a Favorer of Sabellius who held that the Father Son and Holy Ghost were but Three Names of one and the same Person did in opposition to him affirm the Son to be so Distinct from the Father as to have a Beginning From whence it follows that he had his Subsistence from Nothing that he was a Creature not Coeternal nor Consubstantial with the Father This Controversie was managed with so much Bitterness that to use Socrates his own words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soc. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 3. from a very little Spark a great Fire broke out disturbing the Peace of all Egypt Lybia the Upper Thebais and many other places The Flame having thus got head Alexander with the utmost Vehemence Endeavors the suppressing it He Excommunicates Arius writes to the Bishop of Constantinople complaining of his Pride and Covetousness prayeth him not to suffer Arius nor any of his Followers to Preace within his Jurisdiction He calls in the Help of his Colleagues who Approv'd of what he had done against the Arians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Arius provok'd hereby doth also write to several Bishops giving them an account of his Faith in words so very like the Orthodox Confessions Cum Alexander literas ejusmodi ad Episcopos passim in sineulis â—ivitatibus scripsisset Latius Propterea serpevat malum quòd hi qui erant illis literis certiores facti consentionis Discordiae incendiis inter ipsos conflagrare caeperunt nam alii literis suffragari iisdemque subscribere alii penitus adversari Socr. ubi sup that he is by some Grave and Judicious Bishops esteem'd sound in the Faith This nettles Alexander who sends forth his Circular Letters throughout the whole Catholick Church with a Catalogue of the Arian Errors and the Names of those who adher'd unto them by which means Arianism saith the Historian was strangely Propagated all the World over Constantine observing how the Contentions spread from one Part to another of his Empire and how much Violent Methods contributed hereunto makes use of more calm ones He writes a Letter to Alexander and Arius which he sent by Hosius Bishop of Cordovia Declaring it to be his Opinion That the Controversie being about what
in running from Popery they continue their flight so long till they return to that very Point from whence they did at first set out and Unwarily give Life to the Error they seem mostly to abhor Again if Guilt be Inseparable from the Sin there can be no taking away the Guilt by Pardon but the Sin it self the Fault ceaseth to be and consequently if the Sin of our Nature with those Inclinations and Lustings after Evil be Pardoned they cease to be sinful a Notion that will exceedingly Please the Roman Catholicks who deny Concupiscence to be Sin in those that Believe 2. The Imputation of Sin is made Impossible either from Adam unto Us or from us unto Christ. A Notion no way ungrateful unto the Arminian Party who hold That Adam's Sin was in no other sense Imputed unto his Posterity Fatentur vid. Remonstrantes Peccatum Adami Imputatum Dici Posse Posteris ejus quatenus Deus Posteros Adamo Eidem malo cui Adamus per Peccatum obnoxium se reddidit obnoxios nasci voluit sive quatenus Deus malum quod in Paenam Adamo Inflictum fuerat in Posteros Ejus dimanare transire permisit At nihil cogit Eos dicere Peccatum Adami Posteris ejus sic fuisse à Deo Imputatum quasi Deus Posteros Adami â—â—verâ censulsset Ejusdem cum Adamo peccati culpâ—e quam Adamus commiserat REOS Imo nec scriptura nec Veritas nec Sapientia nec Bonitas Divina nec Peccati Natura c. permittunt ut sic Imputatum peccatum Adami c Malum Culpae non est quia nasci plant Involuntarium est ergo nasci cum hâc vel Illâ labe c. Si malum Culpae non est nec malum Paenae quia Culpa Paena sunt Relata Rem Apol ad Censur c. 7. § 4. then as they are by Birth made subject to the same Calamities with Adam An Imputation of the Guilt of Sin they deny as contrary to the Holy Scriptures the Divine Truth Wisdom and Goodness the Nature of Sin as well as the Formal Reason of Righteousness Although we are born without an Original Righteousness yet there is not say they either the malum Culpae nor the malum paena the Evil of the Fault nor of the Punishment on any of Adam's Offspring by Birth Not the Evil of the Fault because not Voluntary and if not the Evil of the Fault it cannot be the Evil of Punishment the Fault and Punishment being Relata and Inseparable That those Acts which follow the Privation of Original Righteousness are not formally Sins or what is the same Nam Remonstr negant actus illos qui sequuntur Destitutionem sive Privationem illam divinam esse Formaliter Peccata i. e. illos valide Obligare ad Poenam Eos qui actus istos patrant Non negant quidem actus illos Materialiter Peccata dici posse quatenus actus sunt Dissormes voluntati Divinae at negant eos formaliter esse Peccata quae sc ad Paenam obligent eos à quibus fiunt Sitpol Vbi sup are not such acts as oblige to Punishment That they are materially Sins that is Disconform to the Divine Will they do not Deny but formally they are not Sins for they Oblige not to Punishment Whereby it is evident they make Guilt which is the Obligation to Punishment to be Formally the Sin and therefore Inseparable from it What Differences soever there may be between the Antinomian and Arminian in the Method taken to advance the Notion of Guilt 's being Inseparable from Sin yet they agree in the Assertion that Guilt and Sin are Inseparable But Dr. Owen gives a truer Account of this Matter Dr. O. Of Justificat p. 284 285. when he tells us That there is in Sin a Transgression of the Preceptive part of the Law and there is an Obnoxiousness unto the Punishment from the Sanction of it Sin under this Consideration as a Transgression of the Preceptive Part of the Law cannot be communicated from One unto another unless it be by the Propagation of a vitiated Principle or Habit. But yet neither so will the Personal Sin of one as Inherent in him ever come to be the Personal Sin of Another To which I add That as the Sin it self cannot Pass from one to Another in like manner if the Guilt cannot be separated from the Sin then the Guilt of Adam's Sin could not pass from Him to us It could in no sense be made Ours Not the Sin it self for that is Impossible nor the Sin in its Guilt because as they affirm it 's Inseparable from the Sin it self Socinus Smalcius and Ostorodius in Peltius his Harmony deliver themselves to the same Purpose giving us Light enough about the True Reason Commentum illud de Peccato Originis seu Parentum Culpae fabula est Judaica ab Anti-Câ—risto in Ecclesiam Introductum ad stabiliendum Perniciosa Dogmata nempe Dei Incarnationem Infantium Baptismum Socin Dial. Justif f. 11. Pelti Har. Remonst Socin Artic. 8. Parag. 4. f. 69. why they Deny Original Sin For say they the Doctrine of Original Sin is a Jewish Fable brought into the Church by Antichrist to establish as Socinus blasphemously expresses it these Pernicious Dogmata viz. The Incarnation of God Infant Baptism And in Peltius they Declare That if the Question be Whether seeing our Descent is from Adam we are by Birth obnoxious to any Punishment or Fault for Adam's Sin The Answer is That to the being Faulty it 's necessary there be some voluntary Act done by him who is Faulty And Punishment there cannot be where there is no such Anteceding Fault we are not therefore born either Faulty or Obnoxious to Punishment This Agreement between the Antinomian Arminian and Socinian about the Inseparableness of the Sin it self and Guilt is not only Inconsistent with the Doctrine of Original Sin but strikes at the very Root of Christ's Satisfaction A Physical Translation or Transfusion of Sin from One to another being Naturally and Spiritually Impossible there can be no Imputing the Guilt nor Inflicting the Punishment of our Sins on Christ The Links of the Chain lye thus If Christ did not endure the Punishment and suffer for our Sins he could not make Satisfaction for them If the Guilt of Sin was not Imputed the Punishment could not be Justly inflicted If the Guilt be Inseparable from the Sin it self and that Impossible to Pass from us to Christ as really it is the Guilt cannot be Imputed Thus if no Guilt be Imputed no Punishment can be by a Righteous God Inflicted if no Punishment Inflicted nor Suffering for our Sins no Satisfaction can be made And if Salvation may be without Satisfaction what need of the Incarnation of the Son of God This Assertion then that the Sin it self and Guilt are Inseparable doth not only give Advantage to the Papist by confounding Justification with Sanctification but to the Arminian in
necessary and that there were some Acts of Faith Dispositive and therefore Antecedent to Justification and to the Justifying Act of Faith of which I design if God will to treat more fully in my second Part. CHAP. VI. The sense of the Papists Arminians and Socinians about the Subject of Faith The different Apprehensions of the Orthodox about the same Camero Amyrald Dally held that the Understanding was the only Subject of Saving Faith yet not Antinomians How they hereby were enabled to oppose Justification by Works as held either by Papist Socinian or Arminian THE denying Saving Faith to be an Act of the Will is not Antinomianism Touching the Subject or Seat of Faith whether it be the Understanding only or the Will or both the Learned have different Apprehensions And some great Men sound in the Faith are positive that 't is only in the Vnderstanding The Papists who for the most part make an Historick Faith to be Saving confine it to the Vnderstanding And yet Estius conform to the sense of Aquinas yields that it hath its Rise from the Will by which the Understanding is inclin'd to believe Contarenus goeth further holding that it doth also terminate in the Will. Cajetane is for Faiths being an Act of both Faculties which according to the account Bonaventure gives of it hath been the Opinion of the Antient Schoolmen And as Le Blanc Nam si Sermo sit de fide vivâ per dilectionem operante quam formatam appellant dubitari non potest quin illa etiam ex eorum mente non intellectum tantùm sed voluntatem etiam occupet in eâ sedem habet Le Blanc Thes de Subj Fid. p. 239. out of whom I have taken these passages the Papists if they speak of their Living Faith their Fides formata must place it in the Will it being Love an Act of the Will that according unto them is the Form of Faith Limborch giving the sense of the Remonstrants Nos dicimus Fidem nec esse merum Intellectus nec merum voluntatis Actum sed mixtum partim Intellectus partim Voluntatis Limb. Theol. Christ lib. 5. cap. 9. § 23. saith That Faith is not meerly an Act of the Understanding nor meerly of the Will but mix'd partly of the one and partly of the other Crellius the Socinian in his Christian Ethicks Fides dusbus modis considerari potest vel sola vel cum suis effectis conjuncla adeoque auplex iterum oritur fidei significatio altera Propria altera Figurata in quâ Meconynda cum Synecdoche concurrit De Priori jam satis dictum iaque intelligitur 1 Cor. 13. ubi Fides à Spe Charitate distinguitur Posterior quae ad Voluntarem aeque aut magis quam ad Mentem pertinet est fiducia in Deum aut etiam Christum collocata quae est Asser sus firmus Dei Promissis adhibitus cum vehementi desiderio conjunctus Itaque haec fides spem quoque in se compleclitar Crel Christ Ethic. lib. 1. cap. 5. tells us That Faith may be considered after a twofold manner either as it is in it self alone or as in conjunction with its effects whence it hath a double signification the one proper the other figurative in which a Metonymy doth meet with a Synechdoche The first hath been oft spoken unto it being that Faith mentioned in 1 Cor. 13 where 't is distinguished from Hope and Charity The other is that which doth as much if not more belong to the Will as to the Understanding c. This Point hath been of late years much controverted amongst the Orthodox Le Blanc brings in Chamier Le Blanc ubi sup VVendelin Bucanus Rivet and Altingius as holding Faith to be seated both in the Vnderstanding Hoornb Vet. Nov. l. 3. c. 12. and VVill. Hoornbeeck adds to these as concurring with them the Dutch Catechism Vrsine Paraeus Trelcatius Tilenus and amongst our English Divines Preston and Ball. Davenant and Wotton tho' they are for Faiths being a Fiducia yet distinguish it from that which imports a firm Perswasion and make it to be a Relying on Christ for Pardon and an Act of the Will and to belong to both Faculties Dr. Ames in Le Blanc fixeth it only in the Will Cloppenburg saith Clip Compend Socin Consat c. 7. Le Blanc ubi sup Hurab ubi sup that 't is a Problem amongst the Orthodox whether the Understanding or Will be the Subject of Faith Le Blanc thinks that this Controversie is but Philosophical and may be passed by without Division Hoornbeeck tho' he placeth Faith in the Understanding and Will yet doth not esteem it necessary to contend about it Nanne omnis difficultas tolleretur c. Wits Oecon. Foed l. 3. c. 7. § 4. Would not saith he every Difficulty be removed and the whole Controversie so much agitated amongst Divines about the Subject of Faith the composed if as well we may deny any real Difference between the Understanding and Will or between these Faculties and the Soul However there are amongst the Reformed some Great Divines highly valued for their Learning who lay much stress on this Controversie and are Zealous for Faith being only an Act of the Understanding Baronius See L. Blanc ubi supra tho' he looks on Faith to belong to the Will in several respects as it hath its Origin and Rise from it assent it self being an Imperate Act of the Will and therefore may be denominated a Voluntary Free Act as also with respect to the Acts annex'd unto and concomitant with Faith for in that very instant Faith in the Understanding assents to Gospel-Promises and with a firm Judgment applies them to ones self the Will with an ardent Love embraces the Grace and Favour of God Lastly with respect to its Fruits Sanctification and softning of the Will follows the Illumination of Faith in the Mind yet Faith properly subjectively and with respect to its Essence is only in the Vnderstanding Camero discoursing of Effectual Calling refers to that Promise in Ezekiel 36. for the taking away the Heart of Stone and giving a Heart of Flesh saith That the Heart of Stone is by the Apostle Paul interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Carnal Mind In another place the Apostle is more express affirming the Gospel to be written in the Fleshly not Stony Tables of the Heart which cannot be understood of the Will the Law is not written in the Will but in the Mind whose part it is to understand it Besides to understand in Scripture is attributed to the Heart So it is Rom. 1.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Foolish Heart or a Heart without Vnderstanding So Deut. 29.4 the Lord hath not given you an Heart to Perceive and in Rom. 10. With the heart man believes to Righteousness where by the Heart the Mind undoubtedly is meant for to Believe is an Act of the Vnderstanding that is to say to Believe is an Act