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
Pacti id est ubi à Promissario exigitur Conditio ficut inter Dominum servum ubi Dominus promittit stipendium ex Conditione servitutis adimpleuio illius Promissi est ex justitia Sic in Casâ— Sancta Clar. Deus Nat. Grat. p. 111. The Objection that lyeth against them is this If the Meritorious Act be so only from the Divine Promise or God's Gracious Acceptation then the Reward cannot be ex Justitiâ the good Work may be done and God not oblig'd in Justice to give the Reward The utmost that can be said is this God in Faithfulness is bound by his Promise to Reward the Doer but not in Justice and yet unless God be in Justice bound the Work cannot be meritorious ex Condigno To this Objection their Answer as I find it in Sancta Clara is that the fulfilling a Naked Promise is only an Act of Fidelity and Faithfulness But the fulfilling a Covenant Promise which is made on Condition as between a Master and Servant where the Master Promises a Reward on Condition of such a Service here for the Master to fulfil the Promise to his Servant on his Performing the Condition is an Act of Justice which is say they our Case Thus to make good Works meritorious they assert a Law with a Promise making the Dignity of the Work to lean on the Promise And that the Reward may be Due ex justitia the Law is turn'd into a Covenant where Obedience to the Preceptive Part is made the Condition that giveth Right to the Reward So that it is that Conditionality of the Covenant on which the Merit of Condignity is Founded All which is undoubtedly true of the Covenant given Adam For if he had but rendred the Perfect Obedience required by the Preceptive Part of the Law or which is the same if he had Perform'd the Condition of that Covenant made with him it would have given him a Right to the Reward it would have been in Justice due to him that is he would have merited it Ex Condigno Tho' his Temporary Obedience fell infinitely short of the Reward of Eternal Life yet because of the Promise made on a Covenant-Condition giving Right the Reward on his performing the Condition would have been Due to him ex justitia i. e. he would have merited it Ex Condigno In like manner if the word Condition when assign'd to the Covenant of Grace be taken in this sense viz. for that thing which being Perform'd gives Right to the Reward the Covenant of Grace is Confounded with that of Works and Merit of Condignity effectually established 'T is Confounded with the Covenant of Works and made a Covenant of the same kind with it for in both as there is a Precept enjoyning Duty and a Promise of Reward even so notwithstanding the Work falls infinitely short of the Reward yet the Reward being Promised on a Condition giving Right A Right unto it Results from the Performance of the Condition and the Reward is due ex justitia and so Merit of Condignity is also established Nor can it signifie any thing to say we exclude all Merit from our Good Works by ascribing all to the Grace of God enabling us and nothing to our own Strength making their Rewardableness to Lean on the Ordination and Promise of God That Grace is necessary to Merit the Papists industriously endeavor to Prove Gertum ex side est saith Gregory de Valentia Meritum Condignum esse Proprium effectum Gratiae Probatur 1. ex Script ad Rom. 6. Gratia Dei vita aeterna Vbi non est sensus Vitam aeternam dari GRATIS sed dari eam pro meritis quae contulit GRATIA Sine me nihil potestis facere Possemus enim sine aliquid facere si vitam aeternam promereri valeremus non insiti per gratiam Christo tanquam viti Palmites ut ipse ibi Loquitur Valent. ubi sup Suuâ—ma igitur est quod actus meâ—is dicitur meritorius quia elicitus seu Imperatus à Gratia ex Pactione Divina acceptatus ad Praemium unde ipsa acceptatio est Intrinsâ—â—a actui Sanct. Clar. ubâ— sup For the Papists make all these Necessary to Merit ex Condigno affirming That unless the Work proceed from Grace it cannot be meritorious of Eternal Life and that they give not any Dignity to their Good Works but acknowledge that in themselves considered and Precise as separate from the Ordination of God they are of no worth that their Rewardableness is founded on the Promise In these things lye the very Nature of Merit for which reason to deny our Works to be meritorious because their Rewardableness is founded on the Promise it is as if you would deny Peter to be a Man because he is a Rational Creature This being the Doctrine held by the Papists about Merit one Great Point Controverted between them and first Reformers Si quis hominem Justificatum dixerit non teneri ad Observatiam mandatorum Dei Ecclesiae sed tantum ad Credendum quasi vero Evangethum sit nuda absoluta Promissio vitae aeternae sine Conditione Observationis Mandatorum Anathema sit Concil Trid. Sâ—ss 6. Can. 20. was about Our Works being a Condition of Eternal Life and accordingly in the Council of Trent it 's Decreed with an Anathema That if any hold we are not bound to Observe the Laws of God and the Church but only to Believe as if the Gospel was but a Naked and Absolute Promise of Eternal Life without a Condition of Observing the Commands Let him be Accursed In the Scholia of the Reformed on this Canon as Lucas Osiander Represents it Epit. Hist Eccles ub sup their sense is manifest for say they The Assertion of the Council that the Gospel is a Promise of Eternal Life on Condition of keeping the Commands is altogether False the Gospel Promise of Eternal Life leans not on a Condition of keeping the Commands But Requires Faith whereby we lay hold on the Mercy of God offered to us If that Promise lean on such a Condition no Christian can be certain of his Salvation Calvin on this very Canon is Positive That the Apostles Placing the Difference between the Law and the Gospel is this Antidotum in Conc. Trid. that the Gospel doth not Promise Eternal Life on the Condition of Works as the Law did but to Faith is a standing Truth that can never be shaken What can be more clear than this Antithesis The Righteousness of the Law is such That the man that doeth these things shall live in them Rom. 10.5 But the Righteousness of Faith is after this manner Rom. 4.14 He that Believeth c. To the same Purpose is that other place If the Inheritance be of the Law then is your Faith Vain and the Promise of no Effect therefore it is of Faith that of Grace the Promise may abide Firm to every one who believeth I might give many Authorities more
the Suffrage of the First-Reformers Whereas on a Diligent search 't will Appear that the Difference between them is very great the Antinomians holding Actual Justification in the Sight of God to be before Faith and the Others Deny it To Vindicate the First Reformers from this Unjust Charge I will impartially propose what they held of it and show how they have opposed the Papists Arminians and Socinians and wherein they differ from the Antinomians The Account they give of Faith is the same with what I have laid down they make it to be a Firm Perswasion wrought in the Heart of Man that his Sins are forgiven him Luther defines it thus Faith is a Firm and Certain Knowledge Fides est firma certa cogitatio seu fiducia de Deo quod per Christum sit Propitius quod per Christum Cogitet de nobis Cogitationes pacis non irae Luth. in Gen. c. 15. or Perswasion that God is propitious through Jesus Christ and that through him he hath thoughts of Peace and not of Wrath concerning us Melanchton in the First Part of his Works saith That Faith is not only a Knowledge of the Scripture History Fides significat non tantum Historiae notitiam sed FIDUCIAM miserecordiae Promissae propter filium Dei but a Perswasion of the Mercy of God Promised in and through his Son That the Knowledge of the History would terrifie and frighten us unless we fix it in our Souls That Christ is our Propitiator who will lead us to the Father To clear thus much he assures us he could Produce Authorities Innumerable And amongst many others insists on the Testimony of * Addam Bernardi Testimonium Necesse est privio omnium credere quod Remissionem Peccatorum habene possis nisi per Indulgentiam Dei sed adde ut Credas hoc quod per ipsum Peccata Te TIBI donantur Melanch Oper. Pat. 1. St. Bernard who affirms it to be necessary in the first Place to believe that the Remission of Sins is to be had only through the Mercy and Grace of God and then to Believe that the Pardon of Sin is Given to Thee Melanchton also adds That to Place Faith in a Fiducia a Perswasion or Confidence of the Mercy of God in Christ is according to the sense of the Reformed Churches That the first and chief Object of Faith is God Reconciled according to the Promise or the Promise of Reconciliation That Paul takes Faith to be that by which we so Embrace the Promise as to Believe Melanct. Oper. Pars 2. our Sins in Particular are forgiven and that we are Reconciled Calvin in his Institutions makes Faith to be a Certain and Firm Knowledge of the Mercy of God towards Vs Nunc Jacta Fidei Definitio nobis constabit si dicamus esse Divine erga nos Benenolentiae firmam certamque Cognitionem c. Instit lib. 3. c. 2. §. 7. Founded on the Truth of the Free Promise in Christ made known and sealod to our Hearts by the Holy Spirit And his Catechism Translated into English and Joyned to the Form of Prayers c. used in the English Congregation at Geneva in Queen Maries Reign hath it thus Faith is a sure Perswasion and a stedfast Knowledge of God's Tender Love towards Vs according as he hath plainly uttered in his Gospel that he will be both a Father and a Saviour unto Vs through the Means of Jesus Christ Beza thus Quaest Resp That we may Distinguish the Children of Light from the Children of Darkness we must not make Faith to lye only in that Knowledge which is Common to us and the Devils whereby we know all those Things to be True which are contained in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles But moreover in a Firm Assent of the Mind whereby we do in a very Peculiar manner so Apply the Promise of Eternal Life as if it had been Actually fulfilled More fully in his Annotations on Rom. 1.16 Faith is that certain and full Assurance by which he that believes is perswaded Fidem esse disinimus fermam illam constantem animi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est certiorationem quà certus est apud se unusquisque sidelium Promissiones Dei de Gratuitâ per Christum Reconciliatione sed etiam istas per praedicationem Sacramenta sibi oblatas CREDIT AD SE PROPRIE ac PECULIARITER pertinere Bez. in Rom. 1.16 not only that the Word of God in General and more especially the Promises of Reconciliation through Christ are firm and sure but that these Promises in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments offer'd unto him do properly and in a peculiar manner belong unto him Faith is that by which the Promise of Eternal Life Purchased by the Blood of Christ for every one that Believeth is particularly embraced and applied to ones self Peter Martyr tho' he Defines not Faith thus Loc Com. Clas 3. c. 3. § 10. yet holds That every saving Believer is Perswaded he is by Adoption the Child of God and chosen to Eternal Life In like manner Zanchy affirms That he is not a sound Believer who is not with a strong Confidence perswaded that God is a propitious Tom. 8. Loc. 7. De fide p. 713. and merciful Father unto him Nor can he be esteemed to hope in God aright who doth not Confidently believe he is an Heir of the Heavenly Kingdom But Paraeus on the Romans saith That Faith is not only a General Assent to the Doctrine of the Gospel but a certain Knowledge Assent and Belief of the Gospel Promise concerning the Blessings procured by Christ for every Believer and therefore as belonging to me in Particular Or It is a Certain and Firm Assent unto the Doctrine of Christ with a full Perswasion of the free Pardon of our Sins Paraeâ—s in Rom. 3.21 and Eternal Life through Jesus Christ Hemingius is of the same Mind And who ever will Herping Opusc in his Enchir. Theol Clas 1 c. 12. may see in Le Blank many others making Faith to lye in a Firm Perswasion that our Sins are Forgiven Dr. Willet affirms it to have been held by Blessed Martyrs in Henry the Eighth Thes Theol. de Fid. Justif Nat. Symp. Papis Contr. 19. Part 2. Quest 2. and Queen Mary's Reigns and by the later Helvetian Saxony and Bohemian Confessions And sure I am that it is very Express in our Book of Homilies established by Act of Parliament This Notion of Justifying Faith the Lutheran and Calvinian Reformers insisted very much upon in their Opposition unto the Papists who held Faith to be but an Historical Assent And yet it must be acknowledged that Cassander offers some Considerations of great weight to Prove Consulâ— Art 4. that the Generality of the most Learned in the Church of Rome agreed with the Reformed herein Noâ— recte Protestantes Ecclesiâ—m prasâ—â—tem incusant quod doctat
Theologi Giessenses Hulsemannus Calovius and Dannhawerus as Men of Great Learning who made Faith to lye in a firm Perswasion of the Pardon of Sin and yet Affirm'd it to be the Instrumental Cause of Justification But 2. This will appear with more Conviction on an Equal Proposal of what the Reformers themselves have Deliver'd in Explicating the Notion they had of Justifying Faith whose Disquisitions for the Investigation of Truth were very Close and Profound They weighed the Difficulties on every hand and their Determinations were after much Consideration and with Great Judgment But this thing having been already done by the Learned Le Blank I must beseech my Reader to have Recourse unto him And yet for the help of such as have him not I will out of him and some other Judicious Writers on this Subject give the sense of the Reformed The Learned Robert Baronius in Le Blank Explicates the Notion about Fiducia thus First The Object of this Perswasion is not saith he only the Pardon of Sin to be Impetrated and had De objecto igitur sidei salvificae haec tenenda sunt Primo tenendum est Objectum fiduciae non solum esse Remissionem peccatorum impetrandam obtinendam sed etiam torum Remissionem jam Impetratam Secundo Fiduciam in haec duo tendere per duos distinctos actus quorum alter praecedit Justificationem ut ejus causa Instrumentalis alter eam sequitur ut ejus effectum Consequens Tertio actum fiducialem qui Justificationem praecedit ut ejus causa esse persuasionem de Christi satisfactione pro nobis in particulari deremissione peccatorum obtinendaper propter ejus satisfactionem Quarto Actum fiducialem qui Justificationem sequitur esse Persuasionem de remissiane Peccatorum jam Impetrata de nostrâ Perseverantiâ in eo statu usque ad finem vitae Baronius in Le Biank Thes de fid Justif Nat. § LXII but also as already obtain'd Secondly That this Perswasion respects these two Objects by two Distinct Acts The one of which goeth before Justification as its Instrumental Cause The other followeth it as its Effect and Consequent Thirdly The Fiducial Act which Precedes Justification as its Cause is a Perswasion of the Satisfaction of Christ for us in Particular and of the Remission of Sins to be obtain'd by and for his Satisfaction Fourthly This Fiducial Act which followeth Justification is a Perswasion of the Remission of Sins already Impetrated and of our Perseverance in that state to the end of our Lives Maresius saith That there is a Threefold Act of Faith distinctly to be Considered in our Justification The first Dispositive whereby I believe that Christ hath merited the Pardon of Sin for them that are his c. The Second is formally Justificatory whereby I who am now Sorrowing for my Sin and Purposing Amendment of Life do believe that all my Sins are at this present Forgiven The Third Consolatory whereby I Believe that all my Sins have been Pardoned and that I shall never more be in a State of Condemnation In the First sense Faith is before Justification In the Second Simultaneous with it In the Third it followeth it Paraeus expresseth himself to the same purpose Before the Act of Justification that is to say in order of Nature not of time Our Faith or Perswasion hath for its Object this Proposition de futuro My Sins shall be Forgiven me on my believing In the very Act of Justification it hath this Proposition de praesenti My Sins are Forgiven me After my Justification this de Praeterito My Sins have already been Pardoned The Authors of the Censure Omnes autem isti viz. Bellarmious Socinus Remonstrantes adversus Vmbram suam pugnant contra Chimaeram quam sibi confixerunt tela sua dirigunt supponentes nos statuere peccata nostra quoad efficaciam deleri priusquam credamus c. Censur Conf. Rem c. 11. p. 159. do on this occasion declare That the Remonstrants Fight against their own Shadow against a Chimaera of their own feigning when they insinuate as if we held that our Sins were efficaciously blotted out before we believe and that then we are Justified when we Believe that they are blotted out From which absurd Opinion 't would follow that the Remission of Sin was neither the whole nor a part of our Justification but that our Justification was somewhat after it Which cannot be allowed unless Justification be taken for the Sense of Justification in our selves or for a Manifestation or Declaration of it unto others We do not therefore say That that Perswasion by which we are Justified is of the Remission of Sins already had Or that the Object of this Perswasion is the Pardon of Sin before obtained But that Perswasion by which we all believe our Sins to be in praesenti forgiven us not properly in praeterito or in futuro altho' both belong to Justifying Faith yet not to the formal Act of Justification as we usually Express it Wherefore when the Mercy of God and the Pardon of Sin is offer'd to us in the Gospel through Christ we are not only in the General Perswaded that all who believe shall have their Sins forgiven them But he that savingly believes doth firmly perswade himself that the Promise of Pardon doth belong to him and is received by that very Act of Faith and accordingly then his Sin is forgiven him and that Blessedness spoken of in Rom. 6.7 made his Thus the Remission of Sin and a Perswasion of that Remission are in a Saving Believer at the same time But he who is Perswaded that if he believes he shall be Justified is not therefore as yet Justified Unless he doth Actually and in praesenti believe That that Righteousness is given him which he Receives with the same Act of Faith What he afterwards believes de praeterito doth not Justifie him but supposes him to be already Justified All these Acts are of one and the same Justifying Faith The First Disposes for Justification The Second Properly Justifieth The Third Quiets Conscience according to that in Rom. 5.1 2. From what hath been here said it 's apparent that there is no force at all in this Socinian and Arminian Objection against us for they oppose us as if we assign'd to Justifying Faith one only single Act whereas nothing can be more manifest than that we make them three Distinct Acts whence it 's easie enough to Conceive how Justifying Faith is a Perswasion of the special Mercy of God to be de futuro obtain'd and which in praesenti by the very Act of Believing is Perceiv'd This Fiducia or Perswasion as Described by the Remonstrants to be a firm Belief that it 's not possible for any to escape Eternal Death and attain to Everlasting Life any other way than by Jesus Christ and as he hath Prescribed is not a Justifying it is but an Historical or Dogmatick Faith It only respects
Testament Crel Ethic. Christ lib. 1. c. 5. As Crellius in his Christian Ethicks gives this account of Faith in like manner he doth the same Rom. 3.22 Gal. 2.16 Est vero Commentarius hic vivente adbuc Joanne Crellio Colleâ—a into desideratissimo à me consectus elâ—cubratus ita ut in eruendis Epistolae istius sinsibus omnis mibi cum Crellio sociata fucrit opera idque ita ut ei primas hic partes merito deferre debtam Praesat ad Lector Slichtin in Heb. c. 11. v. 1. on the Romans and Galatians and concurs with Slichtingius in his Commentary on the Hebrews in composing which he had a great hand as Slichtingius in his Preface doth ingeniously confess where it 's thus Faith if properly and strictly taken differs from Obedience and our coming unto God For Faith must be in him who seeks God before he doth it Faith more largely by a Synechdodochical Metonymy comprehends within it its Effects namely all Works of Piety and Righteousness Slichtingius John 5.24 Fides in Christum trahit secum observationem mandatorum ejus quae nisi sequatur vanam irritam esse sidem oportet on John thus Faith in Christ carries with it an observation of his Commands and without it all Faith is vain yea dead In this Faith therefore an observation of Christs Commandments is included Wolzogenius Fides duas habet partes Primarias una est Fiducia in Deum per Christum inque promissiones ejus collocata altera Obedientia ac observantia Preceptorum â—jus Wolzog Instruct ad util Lect. Lib. N. T. cap. 6. Faith hath two Principal parts the one is a Trust in God through Christ and in his Promises the other is Obedience to his Commandments Smalcius in his Refutation of Frantzius is more express Smalâ— Refut Thes de Caus peccat p. 450. Even as the Soul is the Essential Form of Man so are Works and Christian Piety the Essence and Form of Faith Trust in God through Christ may be Ratione distinguished from true Piety and Obedience but yet there is no Real difference between them Socinus himself thus * Fidei siquidem nomine ex qua Justificemur intelligit Paulus Fiduciam ejusmodi in Deo per Christum collocatam ex quâ necessariô Obedientia Praeceptorum Christi nasâ—atur quae etiam Obedientia sit tanquam forma substantia ist us Fidei Socin Lect. Sacr. in Bibl. Polon That Faith by which we are Justified according to the Apostle Paul is a Trust in God through Christ from whence Obedience to his Commandments doth necessarily flow for it is as the form and substance of this Faith Thus the Socinians distinguishing between Faith as taken properly or strictly and figuratively as largely make the first to be only a Fiducia the second which they affirm to be Justifying is comprehensive of Hope Love and Works which say they are the Essential form of a Living Justifying Faith whereby they introduce Justification by Works Not the Merit of our Works This they strenuously oppose So Wolzogenius who speaking of the Merit of our Good Works assures us That if we look closely into this matter nothing can appear to be more certain and true than that we cannot by our Good Works Merit any thing of God For he is our Creator and as such hath a right to all we can do without the proposal of any Compensation or Reward Besides it 's a Dictate of Right Reason that the Fruit belongs to him that soweth Welzog in Luc. c. 17. c. 7. and surely it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure These and some other considerations he offers against the Merit of our Good Works Crel in Eph. c. 3 v. 1.11 Socin Frag. de Justific The same is done by Crellius Socinus is vehement in his opposition against all Merit which must necessarily be done by them who ascribe so much to Free Grace as to deny both the Satisfaction of Christ's Death and Merit of his Righteousness Et â—t nostram â—â—â—â—â—de â—e sâ—â—aâ— â—eâ—tâ—â—â—â—â— â—â—â—atz 〈◊〉 omnes 〈◊〉 nuiâ—â—â—â—mnino dari Meritum quemadmodum nec ipsa â—ox MERITI in tâ—to sacro Codice usquam reperitur mequicquameiaequipol ens quod ad Christum attinet non ob aliam causam dicitur Phil. 2. eum idio Exaltatum esse quòd usque ad moâ—tem obediens suerit quam quod sine isla obedientia exaltatus non fuerit Meritâ—m autem in to nullum fâ—isse hinc apparet quod Apostolus ibidem mox addit donavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ei nomen quod est supra omne Nomen Nihil autem meâ—ito propriè accepto cum Donatione Commine est Smalc contra Franâ—z Disp 3. p. 88. That Frantzius and all others saith Smalcius may know our sense in this matter we declare against all Merit whatever for neither the word Merit or any thing signifying what is equivalent thereunto can be found in Scripture and what was said of Christ touching his Exaltation for his being obedient to the Death of the Cross imports no more than that if he had not been obedient he would not have been Exalted But that he did not Merit is manifest from the following words He gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name above every name for Merit and Free Gist are incompatible with each other Idâ—â— nec usquam in sacris Liteâ—is Meriti aut Mereudi â—oces mâ—â—is de Christo quam de nobis rispectu Dei usuâ—pantur ut longè praestat cum Scripturâ loqui Christi Obedientiae potius ac Morti salutem nostram tribuere quam Meritis per illud enim GRATIA Dei non tantum non obscuratur sed etiam logè magis illushatur sat per Meritum propriè dictum imminuitur tollitur Slicir in Phil. c. â— v. 9. Slichtingius on the Philippians saith That the word Merit as it is not in all the Sacred Writings attributed to Man's VVorks with respect to God so neither is it unto Chrit's Whence it 's much better with the Holy Scriptures to ascribe Salvation to Christ's Death and Obedience rather than unto his Merits for to do so doth not obscure but illustrate the Grace of God whereas Merit taken properly doth Eclipse yea Destroy Free Grace These passages may suffice to shew how much the Socinians are against the Merit of Good VVorks and yet hold our Works to be an Essential of that Faith which they say is a cause of our Justification Faith as it apprehends Christ's Righteousness for Justification they explode and by making it an Act of the Will they take within the compass of its Formal Nature Hope Love and Obedience and to bring in Good Works amongst the Causes of our Justification The Nature and Efficacy of True Faith saith Slichtingius lieth in this that it begets Love to God Who can believe he shall obtain Eternal Life if he loves his Neighbour
following Propositions as what do most fully Provide against the Arminian Antinomian Socinian and Popish Errors and shall always be Content that any Sermons or Books of ours be Interpreted by the said Articles and Confessions Desiring all others if they meet with any Expressions that are to them of Doubtful Signification they would Iudge of them and Interpret them by the Holy Scriptures the said Articles and Confessions It is further Declared That they Subscribe to all the main Parts of Doctrine contain'd in the fore-mention'd Articles Confessions and Catechisms as Iudging them Agreeable to the Word of God The Import therefore of the Subscription to this Agreement can't be less than to the Doctrines contained in these Propositions as exactly true according to the Word of God and so Providing most fully against Antinomian Arminian Socinian and Popish Errors and that even as a Rule by which Our Sermons and Books are to be Iudged and Interpreted which is enough to Evince that whatever Doctrines may be found in any of our Writings or Sermons Contrary unto or Dissonant from the main Doctrines contain'd in these Propositions are really Disown'd Renounc'd and Exploded For this Reason altho' it cannot be Denied but that many in their Opposition to Antinomianism have faln in with the Arminian c. and that Divers in running from Arminianism c. have plung'd themselves into the Antinomian Gulph and that they who bend their Strength against the one Error are in danger of being accused for Inclining too much towards the other yet in the Case before us we are bound in Justice according to the Desire of our Brethren to Judge and Interpret their Writings by the Subscribed Propositions Tho' it may be Difficult to Conciliat some Expressions with these Articles yet we must not charge them for holding Doctrines Contradictory unto them The Allowance that is to be made for the Different Abilities Educations and Peculiar ways of Expression which some Men Use will sufficiently Vindicate our Charity from being too Extensive in this Matter It is undoubtedly our Duty to forbear severe Reflections and hard Charges to Lament our many weaknesses which make it very near an Impossibility for us to understand one another and at the same time Adore the Wisdom and Grace of God that our Worthy Brethren who have not been able to Agree about the sense of one anothers Writings can Joyn in Subscribing the same Doctrines as Deliver'd by others CHAP. III. Intelligent and sincere Subscribers to the above-mentioned Propositions cannot be Antinomians What Antinomians are Their Principles laid down out of Melchior Adamus Lucas Osiander and Luther Luther's Disputations against them Abridg'd The Perniciousness of Antinomianism Detected It s Agreement with Libertinism Hoonbeeck 's Account of English Antinomianism It s Mischievous Consequences It s Inconsistency with the Subscribed Propositions What is not Antinomianism yet branded with that Odious Name TO make this the more clear and Evince not only the Possibility but Certainty of an Agreement in all the Substantials of the Gospel I will with the greatest Plainess I can show what the Antinomian Socinian Arminian and Popish Errors are and how inconsistent with the Subscribed Propositions In the first place then to begin with Antinomianism which because commonly Joyn'd with the Libertine Notions I will consider as Agreeing and Differing from them and lest any who are really tainted with this Poisonous Error think me Partial and too much inclin'd to the Arminian Party c. I will deliver nothing but what is Reported by such as have been the most Opposers of the Arminian Socinian and Popish Notions such as Calvin Luther and their Admirers about the Doctrine of Justification In the Year 1538. See Sleidan Comm lib. 12. p. 312. Johannes Agricola Islebius an Intimate Friend of Luther was the first that after the beginning of the Reformation did in Germany broach the Antinomian Errors of which Melchior Adamus in the Lives of Luther and Agricola give this short Account The Antinomians saith he held that Repentance was not to be Preached from the Law oppugning those who were for awakening Mens Consciences by the Law before they would Publish the Gospel unto them and affirm'd that How wicked and Impure soever the Life of any Man was yet if he believ'd the Promises of the Gospel he was Justified He was also for the Restoring Unction saying That if it might be he doubted not but that the Gift of Healing would accompany it for since his Return from Augusta he had by it Recover'd Four from Death to Life Hornbeck in his Summa Controversiarum is more full Lib. 7. de Brownistis speaking distinctly of them as distributed into three Periods of time to wit the Primitive in the Fourth Century the Beginning of the Reformation in Germany and since amongst us in England That in Germany Agricola was against the Preaching of the Law in this Gospel Day That we were not now under the Law as a School-Master to be frightned by it's Threatnings But under Grace That the Gospel only is to be Preached We must believe that tho' a Man be a Fornicator an Adulterer or the like yet he is in the Way to Salvation if he doth but lay hold on Christ That we must indeed beware of Sin and work Righteousness Not in Obedience to the Law but as Exercising our Christian Liberty and notwithstanding our Living in Sin must Apply Christ and his Promises as belonging unto us Lucas Osiander in his Epitome saith Hist Eccles Cent. XVI lib. 11. c. 39. That Johannes Agricola Islebius who A. 1530. did with Melancthon and Brentius Defend the Augustane Confession and after the Smal Kaldican War with Julius Pflugg and Michael Sydonius Framed that Unhappy Book in which there was a Composition of the Popish and Protestant Religion as a mean for Accommodation until a General Council should be Indicted and therefore called the Interim This Agricola as Osiander expresses it was in the Year 1538. stirr'd up by the Devil to broach a New Heresie affirming That the Law of Moses to wit the Decalogue was not to be Taught in the Church That the Doctrine of the Law doth not work Repentance in the Hearts of Men but the Holy Ghost doth it by the Preaching of the Gospel which showeth us the Filthiness of Sin that the Gospel Properly is the Preaching of Repentance That by Schlasselburgius many other horrid Errors are charged upon the Antinomians viz. That the Law is not worthy to be called the Word of God If a Whore a Fornicator Adulterer or any other such wicked Person doth only Believe they are in the way to Eternal Life The Law teacheth not Good Works nor is it to be Preached that we may do them and many others of a like Nature Against these Errors the Famous Dr. Luther did at Wittiberge Publish Six Disputations which are Extant in the first Tome of his Works Islebius being by Luther's Endeavors convinc'd of his Error makes his
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
but these are enough to make it Evident that the First Reformers denied the Gospel to be a Promise of Eternal Life on Condition of our keeping the Commandments which must be Understood to be in that sence in which the Papists held it that is they denied our Good Works to be such a Condition of Eternal Life as gave Right unto it as a Reward which may be done by them who are not Antinomians which is very clear from the Scholia of the Reformed on the Nineteenth Canon of the Council which is to this effect Let him be accursed who holds that nothing is Commanded in the Law but Faith That all other things are Indifferent and that the Ten Commandments belong not to Christians To which they Answer That there is no such Dogma held by the Divines who Subscrib'd the Augustane Confession that none but one Islebius was tainted with this False and Wicked Opinion that Luther oppugned and confuted this Error and brought its Author to a Recantation and that the other Divines rejected it 2. The word Condition is also taken in this very sense by the Arminians who argue so very Plausibly from the Grant of it against some Important Doctrines of the Christian Faith that many Orthodox and Judicious Divines are afraid to Use it They make it If I may use the word a Legal Condition that is Obedience to the Preceptive Part of a Law giving Right to the Reward It is that thing which being Performed gives Right to the Blessing Promised Or Conditio quatenus praestita est aliquomodo Medium sieri dici potest quo Consequimur Rem quae sub Conditione Promittitur Exam. Censur Cap. 10. P. 112. Conditio cujus Praestatio Medium sive causa salutis aliquomodo dici potest non modò est Gratiosa per se sed Gratia ad Eam praestandam perpetim necessaria est Praemium Praestanti promissum extra supra omnem Comparationem est Vb. sup Cap. 8. P. 95. it is that which being Perform'd is a means by which we attain to what was on Condition promised Again Condition whose Performance may be called a Mean or Cause of Salvation is not only in it self full of Grace but Grace is always necessary for the Enabling us to perform it and the Reward Promised thereunto Infinitely exceeds it However from the Grant that our Faith is such a Condition of Eternal Life they triumphantly oppugn some Important Truths Particularly Si enim Christus nobis meritus dicatur Fidem Regenerationem tum Fides Conditio esse non poterit quam à Peccatoribus Deus sub Comminatione Mortis exigeret imo tum Pater ex vi meriti istius obligatus fuisse dicatur necesse est ad Conferendum nobis Fidem Essiciendum in nobis omnia quae nobis sub Comminatione Mortis praescribit quo nihil absurdius Cogitari potest Exam. Cens Cap. 8. P. 59. they thus argue against Christ's Meriting Faith and Regeneration for the Elect. If Christ merited Faith and Regeneration for us say they then Faith cannot be a Condition which God exacts from Sinners under the Commination of Eternal Death They go Higher affirming That if Christ purchased the First Grace for Us then the Father by virtue thereof is obliged to give us Faith and work all these things in us which are prescribed under the Threatning of Death Than which nothing can be more absurd Such a Collation of Faith flowing from Christ's Merit doth effectually destroy the Divine Constitution by which Faith is enjoyned Sinners with a Promise of Life and Threatning of Death Thus much from the very Nature of the thing is most apparent If Christ be in this way our Saviour he can't be our Law-giver nor can our Faith or Obedience be Acts of Duty they can be but Effects of Christ's Merit Again they add That the Prescription of a Condition and an Efficacious working it in them to whom it is prescrib'd are Incompatible That Condition is not a Condition Conditio non est Conditio quae ab Eo qui Eam praescribit in Eo cui praescribitur efficitur Merus Effectus Praescribentis non potest esse Conditio Praescripta nedum Praestita Exam. ub sup P. 106. which is wrought in Him to whom it is prescribed even by the Prescriber The mere Effect of a Prescriber cannot be a prescribed much less a Performed Condition He that gives a Condition to another will that it be performed by that other If it be wrought in Him Haec Actio ludicra tota vix Scaena digna est it ceaseth to be a Condition and he that wrought it doth by that very Act null it 's being a Condition because he will not have it done by that other but will Himself work it in Him Right Reason dictates thus much unto us No Wise Man will act thus Legislator serius totam suam Legislationem ludibrio exponit cum Conditionem Praescribit iis quos irrevocabiliter Praemio afficere in quibus quam Praescribit Conditionem ipse efficere vult nor can any thing be more ludicrous these things are scarce fit for a Play That Law-giver who prescribes a Condition to them whom he has Irrevocably Designâ—d for a Reward will expose his Legislation to the utmost Contempt They carry it yet further asserting This Condition to be Inconsistent with the Particular Election of a Select Number of Persons A Condition Conditio omnis Stulte Ridicule Proponitur iis qui nominatim praecise jam ante destinati sunt saluti Exam. Cens c. 9. p 102. Destinatio Irrevocabilis ad vitam Promissio vitae sub Conditione non nisi Stulte Conjunguntur Exam. Voi sup p. 104. say they is Foolishly yea Ridiculously Proposed to them who are Particularly and by Name Ordain'd to Salvation An Irrevocable Decree of Salvation and the Promise of Life on Condition are most weakly Put together A Condition they say is that which when Performed gives Right unto a Reward That there is Grace glorified in that the Reward Excels Infinitely excels what is Requir'd of us as a Condition and that help is vouchsafed for the Enabling us to Perform it But then they add That what is a Condition of our Interest in Christ's Merits must be what was not merited for us by Christ To make that a Condition of our Interest in the Benefits merited by Christ that was merited by Christ is an Inconsistence Or to Affirm that to be a Condition Requir'd of us which is not Performed by us but wrought in us by him that Prescribes it is the Greatest Folly Or to make the Salvation of any to Depend upon a Condition that may or may not be Performed and yet assert the certainty of their Salvation flowing from the Unalterable Decree is Ridiculous This is the Improvement the Arminians make of the Gospels being a Promise of Eternal Life on Condition namely the denying Christ's meriting the first
necessary and that there were some Acts of Faith Dispositive and therefore Antecedent to Justification and to the Justifying Act of Faith of which I design if God will to treat more fully in my second Part. CHAP. VI. The sense of the Papists Arminians and Socinians about the Subject of Faith The different Apprehensions of the Orthodox about the same Camero Amyrald Dally held that the Understanding was the only Subject of Saving Faith yet not Antinomians How they hereby were enabled to oppose Justification by Works as held either by Papist Socinian or Arminian THE denying Saving Faith to be an Act of the Will is not Antinomianism Touching the Subject or Seat of Faith whether it be the Understanding only or the Will or both the Learned have different Apprehensions And some great Men sound in the Faith are positive that 't is only in the Vnderstanding The Papists who for the most part make an Historick Faith to be Saving confine it to the Vnderstanding And yet Estius conform to the sense of Aquinas yields that it hath its Rise from the Will by which the Understanding is inclin'd to believe Contarenus goeth further holding that it doth also terminate in the Will. Cajetane is for Faiths being an Act of both Faculties which according to the account Bonaventure gives of it hath been the Opinion of the Antient Schoolmen And as Le Blanc Nam si Sermo sit de fide vivâ per dilectionem operante quam formatam appellant dubitari non potest quin illa etiam ex eorum mente non intellectum tantùm sed voluntatem etiam occupet in eâ sedem habet Le Blanc Thes de Subj Fid. p. 239. out of whom I have taken these passages the Papists if they speak of their Living Faith their Fides formata must place it in the Will it being Love an Act of the Will that according unto them is the Form of Faith Limborch giving the sense of the Remonstrants Nos dicimus Fidem nec esse merum Intellectus nec merum voluntatis Actum sed mixtum partim Intellectus partim Voluntatis Limb. Theol. Christ lib. 5. cap. 9. § 23. saith That Faith is not meerly an Act of the Understanding nor meerly of the Will but mix'd partly of the one and partly of the other Crellius the Socinian in his Christian Ethicks Fides dusbus modis considerari potest vel sola vel cum suis effectis conjuncla adeoque auplex iterum oritur fidei significatio altera Propria altera Figurata in quâ Meconynda cum Synecdoche concurrit De Priori jam satis dictum iaque intelligitur 1 Cor. 13. ubi Fides à Spe Charitate distinguitur Posterior quae ad Voluntarem aeque aut magis quam ad Mentem pertinet est fiducia in Deum aut etiam Christum collocata quae est Asser sus firmus Dei Promissis adhibitus cum vehementi desiderio conjunctus Itaque haec fides spem quoque in se compleclitar Crel Christ Ethic. lib. 1. cap. 5. tells us That Faith may be considered after a twofold manner either as it is in it self alone or as in conjunction with its effects whence it hath a double signification the one proper the other figurative in which a Metonymy doth meet with a Synechdoche The first hath been oft spoken unto it being that Faith mentioned in 1 Cor. 13 where 't is distinguished from Hope and Charity The other is that which doth as much if not more belong to the Will as to the Understanding c. This Point hath been of late years much controverted amongst the Orthodox Le Blanc brings in Chamier Le Blanc ubi sup VVendelin Bucanus Rivet and Altingius as holding Faith to be seated both in the Vnderstanding Hoornb Vet. Nov. l. 3. c. 12. and VVill. Hoornbeeck adds to these as concurring with them the Dutch Catechism Vrsine Paraeus Trelcatius Tilenus and amongst our English Divines Preston and Ball. Davenant and Wotton tho' they are for Faiths being a Fiducia yet distinguish it from that which imports a firm Perswasion and make it to be a Relying on Christ for Pardon and an Act of the Will and to belong to both Faculties Dr. Ames in Le Blanc fixeth it only in the Will Cloppenburg saith Clip Compend Socin Consat c. 7. Le Blanc ubi sup Hurab ubi sup that 't is a Problem amongst the Orthodox whether the Understanding or Will be the Subject of Faith Le Blanc thinks that this Controversie is but Philosophical and may be passed by without Division Hoornbeeck tho' he placeth Faith in the Understanding and Will yet doth not esteem it necessary to contend about it Nanne omnis difficultas tolleretur c. Wits Oecon. Foed l. 3. c. 7. § 4. Would not saith he every Difficulty be removed and the whole Controversie so much agitated amongst Divines about the Subject of Faith the composed if as well we may deny any real Difference between the Understanding and Will or between these Faculties and the Soul However there are amongst the Reformed some Great Divines highly valued for their Learning who lay much stress on this Controversie and are Zealous for Faith being only an Act of the Understanding Baronius See L. Blanc ubi supra tho' he looks on Faith to belong to the Will in several respects as it hath its Origin and Rise from it assent it self being an Imperate Act of the Will and therefore may be denominated a Voluntary Free Act as also with respect to the Acts annex'd unto and concomitant with Faith for in that very instant Faith in the Understanding assents to Gospel-Promises and with a firm Judgment applies them to ones self the Will with an ardent Love embraces the Grace and Favour of God Lastly with respect to its Fruits Sanctification and softning of the Will follows the Illumination of Faith in the Mind yet Faith properly subjectively and with respect to its Essence is only in the Vnderstanding Camero discoursing of Effectual Calling refers to that Promise in Ezekiel 36. for the taking away the Heart of Stone and giving a Heart of Flesh saith That the Heart of Stone is by the Apostle Paul interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Carnal Mind In another place the Apostle is more express affirming the Gospel to be written in the Fleshly not Stony Tables of the Heart which cannot be understood of the Will the Law is not written in the Will but in the Mind whose part it is to understand it Besides to understand in Scripture is attributed to the Heart So it is Rom. 1.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Foolish Heart or a Heart without Vnderstanding So Deut. 29.4 the Lord hath not given you an Heart to Perceive and in Rom. 10. With the heart man believes to Righteousness where by the Heart the Mind undoubtedly is meant for to Believe is an Act of the Vnderstanding that is to say to Believe is an Act