Inquiry into the Nature of the Present Controversy About Justification Part 1, Chapter 6
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 'tis only in the Ʋnderſtanding.
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 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; adeo que 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. Ita que 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 '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 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 Ʋnderſtanding, Hoornb. Vet. & Nov. l. 3. c. 12.and VVill. Hoornbeeck adds to theſe as concurring with them the Dutch Catechiſm, Ʋrſine, 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 '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. 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 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 foreign, 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. foreign, 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.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 Ʋnderſtanding 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 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 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 foreign 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 Ʋnderſtanding Faculty. Subjectum cui Habitus Fidei innaſcitur at que 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 at que 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 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 Object of Faith is ſaid to be Truth; the Faculty the Heart, or Mind (Heart in Scripture, and amongſt other good Authors, denotes the Ʋnderſtanding.) 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 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 Ʋniverſal 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. Hoc… er… 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; 'Tis 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, accuſat…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 Ʋnderſtanding, 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 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—Colle…a into deſideratiſſimo à me conſectus & el…cubratus, ita ut in eruendis Epiſtolae iſtius 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. 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 …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. Smal…. 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 naſ…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 …t noſtram …de …e ſ…a…, …e… t… …atz. & … omnes, … nui… …mnino dari Meritum quemadmodum nec ipſa …ox MERITI in t…to ſacro Codice uſquam reperitur, mequicquameiaequipol 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 obedientia exaltatus non fuerit. Merit…m autem in to nullum f…iſſe, hinc apparet quod Apoſtolus ibidem mox addit; & donavit, (foreign) 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.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 (foreign) a name above every name] for Merit, and Free Giſt are incompatible with each other.
Id… nec uſquam in ſacris Lite…is Meriti, aut Mereudi …oces m…is de Chriſto quam de nobis, riſpectu Dei, uſu…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. …. 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 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 quiſ que in ſuis actionibus gerere debeat; ſeu quid cuique …aciendum vel.VVolzogen…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, pae…ae. Haec duo LEGUN genera reperiuntur etiam i… Regno Chriſti. Wolzog. In ſtruct, ad Lect. lib. N.T.c.…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 Pr…eceptis Divinis pr… ſtanda, & ita duple. Perfectionis conſiratio: A… ra eſt, utmo 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. There is (ſaith Salm…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 Ʋpright 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 …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 foreign 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 Ʋnderſtanding, 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 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 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, lets 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. 'Tis 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 'tis Faith only, which acquieſces in the Free Promiſe of God through Jeſus 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 'tis 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.