A peaceable enquiry into the nature of the present controversie among our united brethren about justification. Part I by Stephen Lobb ...

CHAP. VI.

The sense of the Papists, Arminians, and So∣cinians, 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 Antino∣mians. 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, whe∣ther it be the Understanding only, or the Will, or both, the Learned have different Apprehen∣sions. And some great Men, sound in the Faith, are positive, that 'tis only in the Ʋnder∣standing.

The Papists, who for the most part make an Historick Faith to be Saving, confine it to the Ʋnderstanding: And yet Estius, conform to the sense of Aquinas, yields, that it hath its Rise from the Will, by which the Understand∣ing 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, out of whom I have taken these passages, the Papists, if they speak of their Li∣ving 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, 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, 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 'tis 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 con∣troverted amongst the Orthodox. Le Blanc brings in Chamier, VVendelin, Bucanus, Rivet, and Altingius as holding Faith to be seated both in the Ʋnderstanding, and VVill. Hoornbeeck adds to these as concurring with them the Dutch Catechism, Ʋrsine, Paraeus. Trelcatius, Ti∣lenus, 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 Facul∣ties. Dr. Ames in Le Blanc fixeth it only in the Will.

Cloppenburg saith, that 'tis 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. Hoorn∣beeck, tho' he placeth Faith in the Understand∣ing and Will, yet doth not esteem it necessary to contend about it.

Would not (saith he) every Difficulty be removed, and the whole Controversie so much agitated amongst Di∣vines about the Subject of Faith the composed, if, as well we may deny any real. Difference between the Understanding and Will, or be∣tween 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 Contro∣versie and are Zealous for Faith, being only an Act of the Understanding.

Baronius, 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. Last∣ly, with respect to its Fruits, Sanctification, and softning of the Will, follows the Illumination of Faith in the Mind; yet Faith properly, sub∣jectively, and with respect to its Essence, is only in the Ʋnderstanding.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 under∣stood 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 Scrip∣ture is attributed to the Heart. So it is Rom. 1.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Foolish Heart, or a Heart without Ʋnderstanding. 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 Ʋnderstanding; that is to say, to Believe is an Act 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 Ʋnderstanding, which the Will cannot but follow. The same Au∣thor on Matth. 18.7. hath it thus; 'Faith can∣not be separated from Love, and yet Faith is in the Understanding; the Ʋnderstanding therefore draws with it, and necessarily leads the Will, otherwise there would be no Incon∣sistency between a man's being a sound Belie∣ver, 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 imperti∣nence, we may assert, that Faith as to some part of it, is necessarily in the Ʋnderstanding. Now what is that part of Faith? they'll tell you. 'tis Knowledge. But that part of Faith, which doth necessarily work Love. Whatever is in the Ʋnderstanding, most cer∣tainly 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 in∣heres, affirms it to be the Ʋnder∣standing Faculty.

This (saith he) should be embrac'd by all, innascitur at{que} but controverted by none, ex∣cept 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 be∣long to the Ʋnderstanding. 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 Ob∣ject of Faith is said to be Truth; the Faculty the Heart, or Mind (Heart in Scripture, and amongst other good Authors, denotes the Ʋnderstand∣ing.) The Effect arising from Faith is Know∣ledge, 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 Ʋnbelief are Fools, and Ʋnwise. 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 Ʋniver∣sal Grace, provoking his Adversary to the Na∣tional Synod of Dort, endeavours to press him with that Synods declaring, 'That from the Holy Scriptures, it's clear, God infuses in∣to our Hearts the New Qualities of Faith, Obe∣dience, and the Sense of his Love, which cannot (saith Spanhem) consist with Amyrald's mak∣ing 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;

'Tis true, the Synod declares, that Faith, Obe∣dience, and the sense of God's Love are infused in∣to our hearts. For Faith belongs to the Ʋnder∣standing, 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 Justifica∣tion, 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 Testament.

As Crellius, in his Christian Ethicks gives this account of Faith; in like manner he doth the same, on the Romans, and Galatians, and con∣curs 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 Obe∣dience; and our coming unto God: For, Faith must be in him, who seeks God, before he doth it. Faith more largely by a Synechdo∣dochical Metonymy, comprehends within it its Effects, namely, all Works of Piety and Righ∣teousness.

Slichtingius, on John, thus;

Faith in Christ carries with it an observation of his Com∣mands, and without it all Faith is vain, yea dead.—In this Faith therefore an observation of Christs Commandments is included.

Wolzogenius,

Faith hath two Prin∣cipal parts; the one is a Trust in God through Christ, and in his Promises; the other is Obedi∣ence to his Commandments.

Smalcius in his Refutation of Frantzius is more express.

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; That Faith by which we are Justified, accord∣ing 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 figura∣tively, 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 in∣troduce Justification by Works; Not the Me∣rit of our Works: This they strenuously op∣pose. 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, 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. 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 de∣ny both the Satisfaction of Christ's Death, and Merit of his Righteousness.

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 signi∣fying 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 obedi∣ent, he would not have been Exalted. But that he did not Merit, is manifest from the following words [He gave him (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) a name above every name] for Merit, and Free Gist are incompatible with each other.

Slichtingius, on the Philippians saith,

That the word Merit. as it is not in all the Sa∣cred 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 Scrip∣tures 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 Es∣sential 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 ob∣tain Eternal Life, if he loves his Neighbour 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, and every other Good VVork from the Causes of our Salvation.

To speak accurately, Faith is not the In∣strumental 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. 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 Holi∣ness 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, 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.

VVolzogen••us is full in deliver∣ing the Socinian sense on this Point.

In every well constituted Go∣vernment (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. 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 Disobe∣dient. 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 Obe∣dience. By the Rule of the Precept the highest & most absolutely Perfect Obedience is injoyn∣ed. 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.

There is (saith Salm••cius) a two-fold Obedience, and a double consideration of Perfection: The first is, that we never trans∣gress, 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 ob∣servance 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 in∣sisted on, in those cases where somewhat of Ignorance or other Infirmity intervenes. The Promise of Eternal Life Requires an Observa∣tion of his Commands; but he, knowing our Frailties, will not impute to us our daily sins, if so be there remains in us an Ʋpright Heart, and True Repentance, and a certain Purpose of Amendment.

By this Distinction they endeavour to Re∣concile 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 be∣tween them will be made manifest. For Paul doth mean by [Faith] such a Trust in God through Christ, as necessarily begets Obedi∣ence to his Commandments, an Obedience that is as the Form, and Substance of Faith; and by [Works] he understands a Perfect Obser∣servance of the Divine Law, and all its Prae∣cepts: 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 on∣ly 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 him∣self, 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, Per∣fection in the strictest sense, as exclusive of the least Dissonancy from the Command, is re∣quired. 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 Com∣mands; 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, 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 Es∣sential 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 Justifica∣tion.

By this Notion they frame of Justifying Faith, they make it one Moral Habit, compri∣zing 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 Justifi∣cation. By the word [Faith] they understand Trust, Hope, Love, and Obedience, and consequent∣ly 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,

That whoever will impartially exa∣amine the Socinian Notion in this matter, can∣not

but confess, that Socinus, as to the sub∣stance 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 Re∣formed; 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 Ʋnderstanding, and make it to be a Work, do by no means allow of its Justi∣fying 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 di∣stance from the Arminian, and Socinian Errors.

Excellent Camero hath deliver'd the sense of them, who make the Ʋnderstanding, 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 Justi∣fied 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 ab∣surdity, 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 Preroga∣tives, 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. How∣ever, there is this difference between Faith, and Works: Faith gives nothing to God; it on∣ly receives: Works are an Eucharistical Sacri∣fice, 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 af∣firm. That Justification is by Faith, not by Works. 1. The Apostle, when he doth pro∣fessedly dispute of Justification, he never op∣poses 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 attri∣buted to Works. His Adversaries making it their business to expose him, as one, who, by by his Doctrine, lets loose the Reins to all

manner of Licensciousness, if he had thought that Justification had been by any Works, what∣soever, 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 Re∣pent 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 Perceiv∣ed? None surely but Faith. 'Tis Faith which Believeth God, who maketh the Pro∣mise. Hope is that, which expests the thing Promised: But Charity, beholding the Good∣ness of him who Promises, in the Excellen∣cy of the Promise Loves him. Whrefore seeing 'tis Faith only, which acquiesces in the Free Promise of God through Jesus Christ; and apprehends the Forgiveness of Sin; Justifi∣cation is by the Holy Ghost ascrib'd only an∣to Faith. However by the way it must be ob∣serv'd, That no one doth certainly and seri∣ously

believe the Promise made unto him, but he immediately Repents of his Sin. For on his be∣lieving all occasion of Dispair is taken out of the way, and such is the Excellency, Beau∣ty, 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 'tis Faith that purifyeth the Heart, Act. 13.9.

3.

The reason why God forgives the Sins of the Penitent is this, namely Because satis∣faction 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 urg∣eth 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 appre∣hended 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.

Notes

• Nam si Ser∣mo sit de fide vivâ, & per dilectio∣nem operan∣te, quam formatam ap∣pellant, dubitari non potest, quin illa etiam ex eorum mente, non intellectum tan∣tùm, sed voluntatem etiam occupet, & in eâ sedem habet. Le Blanc Thes. de Subj. Fid. p. 239.
• 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.
• Fides dus∣bus modis considerari potest; vel so∣la, vel cum suis effectis conjuncla; adeo{que} auplex iterum oritur fidei signifi∣catio; altera Propria; al∣tera Figura∣ta, 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 Volun∣tarem, aeque, aut magis, quam ad Mentem pertinet; est fiducia in Deum, aut etiam Christum collocata, quae est Asser. sus firmus Dei Promissis adhibitus, cum ve∣hementi desiderio conjunctus. Ita{que} haec fides spem quoque in se compleclitar. Crel. Christ. Ethic. lib. 1. cap. 5.
• Le Blanc ubi sup.
• Hoornb. Vet. & Nov. l. 3. c. 12.
• Clip. Com∣pend. Socin. Consat. c. 7. Le Blanc. ubi sup. Hurab. ubi sup.
• Nanne omnis difficultas tolleretur, &c. Wits. Oecon. Foed. l. 3. c. 7. § 4.
• See L. Blanc ubi supra.
• Cam. praelect. de Eccles. p. 214.
• Subjectum cui Habitus Fi∣dei innascitur at{que} inhaeret, facultatem eam esse quae in he∣mine Intellectus appellatur, de∣bet esse extra controversiam apud omnes, qui saltem rem istam considerant non omnino oscitanter, &c. Thes. Sal∣mur. de Fide par. pri. § 15. &c.
• Synodus pro∣fitetur, Sa∣cras Scriptu∣ras testari, Deum novas Qualitates Fidei, Obe∣dientiae, ac∣sensûs amo ris sui Cordibus noshis infundere. Hoc•• er•• consistere non potest, si Fidei Sub∣jectum sit tantum intellectus, ut docet vir doctus in Thes. suis de Fide. Span. Exercit. Grat. Univers. p 1675, 1676.
• Quod ait Synodus & Fidem, Obedien∣tiam, & sensum A∣moris Dei Cordibus nostris in∣fundi, 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, accusat••••s dictatum est; non est Synodi Decretum. Dall. Apol. p. 658.
• Crel. Ethic. Christ. lib. 1. c. 5.
• Rom. 3.22. Gal. 2.16. Est vero Com∣mentarius hic, vivente adbuc Jo∣anne Crel∣lio—Colle∣••a into desi∣deratissimo à me consectus & el••cubra∣tus, ita ut in eruendis Epistolae isti∣us sinsibus omnis mibi cum Crellio sociata fucrit opera, id{que} ita ut ei primas hic partes merito deferre debtam; Praesat. ad Lector. Slichtin. in Heb. c. 11. v. 1.
• John 5.24. Fides in Christum trahit secum observationem mandato∣rum ejus, quae nisi sequatur, vanam, & irritam esse sidem oportet.
• Fides duas habet partes Primarias; una est Fiducia in Deum per Christum, inque promissiones ejus collocata; al∣tera Obedientia, ac observan∣tia Preceptorum ••jus. Wol∣zog. Instruct. ad util. Lect. Lib. N. T. cap. 6.
• Smal••. Refut. Thes. de Caus. peccat. p. 450.
• Fidei siquidem nomine ex qua Justificemur, intelligit Pau∣lus Fiduciam ejusmodi in Deo, per Christum collocatam, ex quâ necessariô Obedientia Prae∣ceptorum Christi nas••atur; quae etiam Obedientia sit tanquam forma & substantia ist. us Fi∣dei. Socin Lect. Sacr. in Bibl. Polon.
• Welzog. in Luc. c. 17. c. 7.
• Crel. in Eph. c. 3 v. 1.11. Socin. Frag. de Justific.
• Et ••t no∣stram ••••••••••de ••e s••••a••, ••e••∣t•••••••••• ••••••atz. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 omnes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nui•••••• ••mnino dari Meri∣tum quem∣admodum nec ipsa ••ox MERITI in t••to sacro Codice us∣quam reperi∣tur, mequic∣quameiaequi∣pol ens; & quod ad Christum attinet, non ob aliam causam dicitur Phil. 2. eum idio Exaltatum esse, quòd us{que} ad mo••tem obediens suerit, quam quod sine isla obe∣dientia exaltatus non fuerit. Merit••m autem in to nullum f••isse, hinc apparet quod Apostolus ibidem mox addit; & donavit, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ei nomen quod (est) supra omne Nomen. Nihil autem me••ito propriè accepto cum Donatione Commine est. Smalc. contra Fran••z. Disp. 3. p. 88.
• Id•••• nec us∣quam in sa∣cris Lite••is Meriti, aut Mereudi ••oces m••••is de Christo quam de nobis, rispectu Dei, usu••pantur; ut longè praestat cum Scrip∣turâ 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. ••. v. 9.
• Slicht. in 1 Cor. 13. v. 13. and in Heb. 11.6.
• Disp. 4. p. 103. Socin. Synop. 2. Justisic.
• Socin. This. de Justific.
• LEGES, quae ad quodvis bene constitutum Regimen re∣quiruntur, sunt diplicis generis. Primò, sunt LEGES, quibus praescribuntur subditis OF∣FICIA quomodo se quis{que} in suis actionibus gerere debeat; seu quid cuique ••aciendum vel.
• Omittendum sit. Quae LEGES ad distinctionem caetirarum PRAECEPTA & INTER∣DICTA vocantur. Deind sunt LEGES, quibus propo nuntur sidis, ac morigeris sub. ditis PRAEMIA, pro ipsorun Obedientià ac malisivis merit, pae••ae. Haec duo LEGUN genera reperiuntur etiam i•• Regno Christi. Wolzog. In struct, ad Lect. lib. N.T.c.••
• Duplex dat Obedienti Pr••eceptis Divinis pr••¦standa, & ita duple. Perfectio¦nis consi¦ratio: A••¦ra est, ut¦mo nunqu•• quicquam co••••••itta adversus Praecepta Dei; altera est, at in nullo ullius Peccati habitu haer, — Islam priorem, &c. Smalc. contr. Frantz. Disp. 12. p. 427.
• Walzog. Instr. ad util. Lect. lib. N.T. c. 6.
• Lect. Sacr. Fragment. de Justif.
• Vid. Crel. in Rom. 8.32. Gal. 2.16. 1 Cor. 1.30.
• Et sant, si quis ••a, quae à Socino dicuntur in bâc materiâ, sine gratià sine odio expendát, is velit nolit, con∣fiteri tandem cogetur, eum in substantia Rei cum Reformatis consentire, manente hoc solum Descrimine causam semper 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 exeipe. Exam. Censur. cap. 10. pag. 114.