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
Christ and apprehends the Forgiveness of Sin Justification is by the Holy Ghost ascrib'd only anto Faith However by the way it must be observ'd That no one doth certainly and seriously believe the Promise made unto him but he immediately Repents of his Sin For on his believing all occasion of Dispair is taken out of the way and such is the Excellency Beauty and Glory of the Promise as to take off the Heart from the Love of the World whence it may be truly said that we are Justifyed by Faith alone and that we are Sanctifyed by Faith alone for 't is Faith that purifyeth the Heart Act. 13.9 3. The reason why God forgives the Sins of the Penitent is this namely Because satisfaction is made to Gods Justice by Jesus Christ who has purchased this Grace for us But the satisfaction of Christ cannot be apprehended by us any other way but by Faith Justification therefore must be ascribed only unto Faith So far Camero There are other Arguments which he urgeth to this very purpose But from what he hath here delivered It 's plain that Faith not being an Act of the Will is not a Work but is distinguished from it and opposed unto it and that therefore when it is said we are Justified by Faith it cannot be that we are Justified by a work That Christs satisfaction hath purchased Pardon which can be apprehended by us no otherwise than by Faith that Faith is the Instrument or as the hand of the Soul by which we receive forgiveness That tho from this Faith Hope Love and Obedience immediately slow and are inseparable yet they are no cause at all of our Justification which is enough to make it manifest that one who is far from Antinomianism may deny Faiths being an Act of the Will and confine it wholly to the Understanding For Faith Hope and Love may be distinct Graces though whilst in this Life inseparable and so long as Hope Love and Gospel Obodience are held to be inseparable from Faith there is there can be no danger in placing Faith only in the Understanding But many Advantages against the Papist Arminian and Socinian to the Exaltation of the Glory of Free Grace are hereby obtained CHAP. VII A Summary of the Principal Antinomian Errors compared with the opposite Truths The present Controversie not with the Described Antinomians The Agreement between the Contending Brethren in Substantials suggested The Conclusion THese Doctrines I have thought meet to vindicate from the unrighteous charge of Antinomianism because by a giving them up for Antinomian not only many who abhor it are accused for being Abettors of it but some important Truths which strike at the very Root of this Error are represented to be Antinomian It hath been the care of the Papist Arminian and Socinian to insinuate into the minds of Persons less studied in these Controversies as if the Orthodox Protestant had in opposition unto them run into the Antinomian Extreme and have inserted in the Catalogue of Antinomian Errors several Gospel-Truths particularly the ensuing Assertions 1. That Jesus Christ is a Second Adam a Root Person and Publick Representative with whom the Covenant of Grace is made 2. That the Guilt as well as Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ 3. That the Covenant of Grace is not Conditional in that sense the Papists hold it 4. That Faith is a certain and a full Perswasion wrought in the heart of a man through the Holy Ghost whereby he is Assured of the Mercy of God promised in Christ that his Sins are forgiven him 5. That Iustifying Faith is not an Act of the Will but of the Understanding only Tho' the Papists for some special Reasons oppose not this Notion yet the Arminians and Socinians do to the end they may bring in Works among the Causes of our Justification These Assertions are of such a Nature as do really cut the very sinews of Popery and Socinianism as I have already in part cleared and hope more fully to evince in my Second Part But by those who deviate from the Truth all but the last have been heretofore and now the last is by men more Orthodox made the Source of Antinomianism the Spring and Fountain from whence the following Conclusions do naturally and necessarily flow Thus they infer from the First That Christ must be our Delegate or Substitute who Believed Repented and Obeyed to exempt the Elect from doing either as necessary to their Pardon and Salvation Second That Christ so took our Person and Condition on him as to have the Filth and Pollution of our Sins laid on him Third That the Promise of Pardon and Salvation is made to Sinners as Sinners Fourth That the Pardon of Sin was before Faith even whilst we are in the Heighth of Iniquity and Enemies against God and Despisers of Jesus Christ Fifth That We may have Saving Faith tho' our Wills remain onchanged and obstinately set against God These are the Antinomian Errors said to flow from the above-mentioned Assertions which if once granted we shall be necessitated to acknowledge that there will be no Vse at all of the Law nor of Faith Repentante Confession of Sin c. but we may live as we list and yet be saved But we have made it plainly to appear that these Points are so far from being Antinomian that they do carry with them a Confutation of that Error That the Reader may the more clearly see the Difference there is between the one and the other I will be very particular in shewing the opposition Assertion I. That Jesus Christ is a Second Adam a Root-Person and Publick Representative with whom the Covenant of Grace is made From this Assertion it necessarily follows that Christ must have a Spiritual Seed and be the Representative of that Seed so far as Adam would have been of his if he had perfectly obeyed And it is certain that if Adam had rendred the Required Obedience his Posterity would have been not only made Righteous and derive a Holy Nature from him but be also obliged to Personal Holiness In like manner so is it with the Posterity of the Secoud Adam The utmost then that can be fairly inferred from Christ's being a Second Adam c. is That he hath a Spiritual Off-spring That they be Justified by his Righteousness derive a New Nature from him and be obliged to a Personal Obedience The Opposition Antinomian Truth 1. Christ is our Delegate or Substitute 1. Christ is a Second Adam but not our Delegate or Substitute As the First Adam was the Head and Publick Representative of his Posterity but not their Substitute or Delegate so Christ tho' a Publick Repeesentative yet not our Substitute as D. O. doth excellently well show when he saith That Christ and Believers are neither One Natural Person nor a Legal or Political Person nor any such Person as the Laws Customs or Vsages of men do know or allow of They are One Mystical Person whereof
Controversie being about the Great and Important Doctrines of the Gospel and managed as it hath been Not only many Weak but some Wise and Judicious Christians have been tempted to think our Differences to be Fundamental and that it 's not easie to arrive to a Certainty about the Truths most Necessary to Salvation I will therefore lay by all Prejudices and in my Search observe the Christian Rules but now mentioned if possible to Understand whether the Differences be so Momentous as by some Apprehended whether they be about the Substance of the Doctrines in Controversie or only about the Way and Manner of their Declaration It 's very clear to me as well as to Men of Great Learning and Judgment That tho' it hath Pleased God very Plainly to Reveal unto us those Doctrines that are necessary to Salvation yet such hath been the Industry and Craft of the Tempter and such the Darkness and Infirmity of our Minds that they who Consent unto their Truth have faln into Divers Mistakes about the most Proper and Exact way of Stating them Thus it hath been amongst Protestants touching Justification it self who therefore have been Represented by Bellarmine out of Osiander to hold no less than Fourteen or Twenty Distinct Opinions about it as if the many Different ways of Declaring the same Doctrine had been as many Different Doctrines Dr. O. Of Justis p. 77 78 79. But it hath been some time ago observ'd by a late Reverend and Leading Divine That as to the Way and Manner of the Declaration of this Doctrine viz. Of Justification among Protestants themselves there Ever was some Variety and Difference in Expressions Nor will it otherwise be whilst the Abilities and Capacities of Men whether in the Conceiving of things of this Nature or in the Expression of their Conceptions are so various as they are And it is acknowledged That these Differences of late have had as much Weight laid upon them as the very Substance of the Doctrine generally agreed in hath had P. 293 294. such is the humour of some In another Page the same Author very judiciously gives this Suffrage That tho' Protestants have Differ'd in the Way Manner and Methods of the Declaration of this Doctrine and too many Private Men were Addicted unto Definitions and Descriptions of their own under Pretence of Logical Accuracy in Teaching which gave an Appearance of some Contradiction among them yet they generally agreed in the Substance of the Doctrine So far this Good Dr. unto which I add That there hath not been so much Variety among us in the Terms and Expressions used in the Stating our Doctrine but there is much greater among the Papists themselves about the same Points and their Greatest Doctors mis-represented by one or another of themselves Vasquez is Positive that Merit in a strict sense is not held by the most Learned of the Roman Church but Arriaga in Express Opposition to him will have it Arriag Disp Thâ—ol in 1. Tho. Tract de Just Disp 1 31. Sect. 2 c. that the most Learned of their Communion are for the Meritoriousness of Good Works by the Rules of Commutative Justice Alfonsus à Castro who calls the Doctrine of the Reformed about Justifying Faith a Pestiferous and most Pestilential Haeresie affirms A Cast advers Haeris lib. 7. Verb. Gratia Haeres 3. lib. 12. Verb. Preadestinatio Haeres 2. Cassand Consult Artic IV. that 't was embraced only by Claudius Guilliandus and One or Two more in the Council of Trent On the other hand George Cassander Proves that the same Notion Protestants have of Faith was generally owned by Men of the Greatest Learning in their Church That 't was approv'd of by a Provincial Council at Colon as appears by their Publishing the Enchiridion of Christian Religion in which this Doctrine is asserted with the Decrees of that Council and highly applauded by their most Learned Divines throughout Italy and France Differences about Religious Matters have not been Confin'd to any one Party of Christians but have stretch'd themselves to the utmost Bounds of Christendom so that no one Party can Upbraid the other with their Divisions We are so much in the Dark that wherein we are Agreed de Re we can't always Perceive it so that many a time when a Controversie only de nomine arises we Pursue it as vehemently as if it had been Real Men of the same Particular Denomination are so Unreasonably suspitious of one another as to take it for granted That every Obscure or Unpleasing Phrase is Heterodox whereas were we more Exact in our Disquisitions more mindful of Humane Frailty and more Compassionate and Charitable we should with Greater Temper and more Justice Judge both of Persons and Things and find an Agreement much Greater than now we can Imagine it to be To come more close to the Controversie before us I am very sensible that our Contending Brethren and some others esteem the Differences among us being about the weightiest Matters indeed of the Gospel to be such that the Two Poles may as soon meet as their Doctrines be found in Substance the same The Noise I confess is That the most Important Doctrines of the Christian Faith have receiv'd a Wound almost if not altogether Incurable But I must humbly crave leave to whisper to the Reader that I think otherwise and do hold my self in Charity oblig'd to believe they mean the same thing for the Substance of it In my closest Converses with each Brother He who seems to be most for the Exaltation of Free Grace abhors nothing more than to give the Least Encouragement to an Elect Person 's Living in Sin or Expecting an Enjoyment of the Future Glory tho' he die under the Reigning Power of his Lusts Unregenerate and finally Impenitent And the other Brother who so much presses the Necessity of Faith Repentance and a Holy Life detests nothing so much as in any one Instance to Diminish the Glory of Free Grace or to add any thing of our own to Christ's Righteousness in our Justification Besides They have both Subscrib'd the same Propositions which do not only contain in them the Truths about which the Contest hath been but are so framed as to Provide fully against the Errors they have been supposed to Embrace The Errors about which many have been Apprehensive are the Antinomian Arminian Popish and Socinian Errors all which with the greatest Caution Imaginable are Really Renounced by the Subscribers Their Renunciation is so full that there is no Room left them for coming off with that Distinction of Subscribing them as Articles of Peace and not of Faith The words of the Agreement are these namely P. 2 3. That in order to the more effectual Composing of Matters in Controversie we all of us having Referr'd our selves to the Holy Scriptures and the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England the Westminster and Savoy Confessions the Larger and Shorter Catechisms do Subscribe These
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
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