Various Quotes From Reformed Theologians on Faith as a Condition

I will continue to add sources to this list in the future. See also Travis Fentiman’s Faith as a Non-Meritorious Condition & Instrument of Justification for other citations.

Here are several from me for now:

Andreas Rivetus (1572–1651):

29. Furthermore, we do not say that the Gospel and the New Testament demand no condition at all, for the condition of faith and new obedience (which is everywhere impressed on us) is demanded. But God provides these conditions freely, and their imperfect quality forms no hinderance to salvation (which flows from another source), so long as they are genuine.

William den Boer and Reimer A. Faber, eds., Synopsis of a Purer Theology (Davenant Press, 2023), 1:256 (Disp. 23, §29).

Francis Turretin (1623–1687):

Third Question

Is the covenant of grace conditional and what are its conditions?

Occasion of the question.

I. This question was occasioned in a former age by the controversy about justification against the papists and was agitated among the evangelicals themselves, some of whom denied that the promises of the gospel (or of the covenant of grace) are conditional, while others affirmed that they are; those holding the former position that the law might not be confounded with the gospel and the promises of each; those holding the latter, however, that the necessity of faith and holiness might not be impaired and libertinism introduced. But it is easy to reconcile these views by laying down some distinctions.

Statement of the question.

II. (1) Condition is used either antecedently and a priori, for that which has the force of a meritorious and impulsive cause to obtain the benefits of the covenant (the performance of which gives man a right to the reward); or concomitantly and consequently a posteriori, for that which has the relation of means and disposition in the subject, required in the covenanted. (2) A condition is either natural, flowing from the strength belonging to nature; or supernatural and divine, depending upon grace. (3) The federal promise is twofold: either concerning the end or the means, i.e., either concerning salvation or concerning faith and repentance (because each is the gift of God). (4) The covenant can be considered either in relation to its institution by God or in relation to its first application to the believer or in relation to its perfect consummation.

III. These things being laid down, we say first, if the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned. It is wholly gratuitous, depending upon the sole good will (eudokia) of God and upon no merit of man. Nor can the right to life be founded upon any action of ours, but on the righteousness of Christ alone. But if it is taken consequently and a posteriori for the instrumental cause, receptive of the promises of the covenant and for the disposition of the subject, admitted into the fellowship of the covenant (which flows from grace itself), it cannot be denied that the covenant is conditional. (a) It is proposed with an express condition (Jn. 3:16, 36; Rom. 10:9; Acts 8:37; Mk. 16:16 and frequently elsewhere). (b) Unless it was conditional, there would be no place for threatenings in the gospel (which could not be denounced except against those who had neglected the prescribed condition)—for the neglect of faith and obedience cannot be culpable, if not required. (c) Otherwise it would follow that God is bound in this covenant to man and not man to God (which is perfectly absurd and contrary to the nature of all covenants, in which there always is a mutual agreement and a reciprocal obligation because the contracting parties are bound on both sides—as between a husband and wife, a king and his subjects, etc.).

IV. Second, if the promises of the covenant are understood concerning the end, no one can deny that they are conditional because they are always made under the condition of faith and repentance. But if they are taken for the promises concerning the means (to wit, concerning faith and regeneration or repentance), they certainly cannot be conditional, but are simple and absolute because otherwise there would be granted a progression into infinity and the condition of the condition would always be demanded (which is absurd).

V. Third, if the covenant be viewed in relation to the first sanction in Christ, it has no previous condition, but rests upon the grace of God and the merit of Christ alone. But if it is considered in relation to its acceptance and application to the believer, it has faith as a condition (uniting man to Christ and so bringing him into the fellowship of the covenant). If, however, in relation to its consummation with faith (obedience and the desire of holiness), it has the relation of condition and means because without them no one shall see God.

Source of explanation.

VI. Although the covenant of grace be conditional, the promises of the law and the gospel are not therefore to be confounded. There always remains a manifold difference: (1) in the matter, because the legal condition is an entire and perfect obedience to the law (Rom. 10:5), but the evangelical is faith (Rom. 10:9; Jn. 3:16)—not perfect and free from all blemish, but living and sincere (1 Tim. 1:5; Jam. 2:14); (2) in origin, because the legal condition should be natural, flowing from the strength belonging to nature, but the evangelical is supernatural, depending upon grace. The former is only commanded, but not given or promised; but the latter is both commanded and promised and also given (Jer. 31:33; Jn. 6:45; Eph. 2:8). (3) In the end, the legal condition has the relation of a meritorious cause (at least congruously and improperly) of the promised thing (namely, of life)—“Do this and live.” Thus life is granted to him because he has done and on account of his own obedience; but the evangelical condition cannot properly be called the cause of salvation, much less merit, because it is the pure gift (charisma) of God (Rom. 6:23). It may only be called an instrument by which the thing promised is apprehended (Acts 26:18; Rom. 5:17) and without which it cannot be obtained (Heb. 11:6).

VII. If the covenant of grace was said to depend upon an unstable human condition, its efficacy and immutability would be overthrown. But because the condition is supernatural and divine (produced by the efficacy of omnipotent grace), so far is it from being weakened by it that on the contrary it is more and more strengthened. According to Paul, “It is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed” (Rom. 4:16). The covenant does not rest upon a condition in us, but upon the mere grace of God and his inviolable faithfulness and the infinite merit of Christ.

VIII. When Christ answers the young man inquiring what he must do to inherit eternal life (“Keep the commandments,” Mt. 19:17), he does not mean to teach that the same obedience is demanded in the same manner in both covenants. In his answer to the man, he did not act as an interpreter of the covenant of grace, but of the Mosaic Law, that he might convict this boastful legalist (wishing to be saved by the law) of his own inability and thus bring him to the Mediator.

IX. Although the covenant of grace is set forth under the notion of a testament (which is suspended upon no condition, in respect to which all the duties of man which have the relation [schesin] of conditions are blessings of God, falling under his promises), still this is no reason why it should not also have a federal relation, according to which it is called “a covenant by a testament” (as was said before), and contain conditions on the part of man.

2. Question: What are the conditions in the covenant of grace?

X. Second, here arises the question—What are the conditions in this covenant and under what relation (schesei)? Is faith alone to be called the condition of the covenant of grace; or, with it, repentance and the obedience of a new life? And as to faith indeed, the question is not whether it is a condition of this covenant (Scripture so clearly asserting this, Jn. 3:16; Rom. 1:16, 17; 10:9), but (a) What relation does it here hold? (b) Does it alone perform this office?

How faith is a condition.

XI. As to the former, when we say that faith is a condition of the covenant, we do not mean it absolutely and according to its nature and essence. It is contained under obedience as being commanded by the law (just as the other virtues) and so it cannot be contradistinguished from it. Hence it cannot be accepted for righteousness or the obedience of the law because such a judgment would not be in accordance with the truth (since faith is only the smallest part of that righteousness). Rather it must be considered relatively and instrumentally, inasmuch as it embraces Christ and applies to him for righteousness and through him obtains the right to eternal life. First, it is distinguished from the works of the law (which could not be done if it were taken absolutely because thus it is a work of the law). Second, faith (taken instrumentally) can consist only (a) with the grace of God (for which nothing but a reception is required, which is the proper action of faith, Rom. 5:17; Jn. 1:12); hence Paul says, “It is of faith that it might be by grace”; for all the other virtues seem to give something to God, but this alone is purely receptive—“for by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8); boasting is excluded by the law of faith (Rom. 3:27). (b) Faith can consist only with the condition of sinful man because in the first moment of justification there is nothing in him except faith which can please God. (c) Faith can consist only with the satisfaction and righteousness of the Mediator because he applies that to himself. (d) Faith can consist only with eternal life as the gift and inheritance of God because faith apprehends this in the gospel (Rom. 3:24, 25; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:3, 4; 2:8). (e) Faith can consist only with the promises of the gospel, which sets life before man, not as to be acquired (like the law), but as already purchased. Third, Christ is our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21), in whom we have redemption and life. Therefore it cannot be ascribed to faith materially (inasmuch as it is a work), but instrumentally (inasmuch as it is the hand apprehending).

XII. Now in this covenant faith is opposed to righteousness or obedience, not on this account that they cannot subsist together (since it alone is true faith which is efficacious through love or obedience), but that they cannot stand together causally (since the causality of each is distinguished in its total species—the one meritorious and principal, the other only organic and instrumental). Righteousness gives, faith receives; righteousness consists in the mutual love of God, faith in a persuasion of God’s love. Hence what is taken away from the one is ascribed to the other, not by reason of the same causality, but by reason of the effect because faith in the covenant of grace is to us in the place of works, i.e., obtains for us (although in a different genus of cause) what works ought to have done in the covenant of nature.

XIII. That it may be known further how faith has the relation of a condition in this covenant, we must know that faith does not bear this relation except in reference to Christ (inasmuch as it is the means and instrument of our union with Christ which reconciles him to us: “I ascend to my Father and your Father; to my God and your God,” Jn. 20:17). Thus we cannot be received into God’s covenant except we are united to Christ, who is the foundation of the covenant and the bond of our union with God. However, because it is of great importance for us to know whether our faith is truly a faith of union, this can be perceived not so much a priori as a posteriori (from its operations). If it excites in us a fervent love of Christ (Cant. 5:10, 16; Phil. 3:8; Jn. 1:14; 21:15); a burning desire to enjoy him (Pss. 42:1; 84:1, 2; Phil. 1:23); a separation from all things earthly and carnal hindering our union to Christ, such as “the love of sin and of the world” (Hos. 4:8; Rom. 6:2; Mt. 10:37; 1 Jn. 2:15, 16; Jam. 4:4). Hence the gospel merchant sells all things for that most precious union (Mt. 13:46); Moses prefers the reproach of Christ to the treasures and honors of Egypt (Heb. 11:25, 26); the disciples leave all things to follow Christ (Mt. 19:27). It produces a presumption of one’s [un] righteousness because “they that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; and Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mt. 9:12, 13); unbelief, impenitency, other sins of this kind and works of the flesh are incompatible (asystata) with Christ (Rom. 8:1, 10). Especially if it produces two acts following together with that union immediately and necessarily. Hence, on the part of Christ, a sense of his love through the consolation of the Holy Spirit, who, by sealing adoption in our hearts, persuades us that we are the sons of God, heirs of God and fellow-heirs with Christ; that Christ dwells in us and has become ours (Rom. 8:15, 16; 1 Jn. 3:24). On our part, the mutual consent of our love through a desire of sanctification by which as Christ loves us, we in turn love him; as he gives himself for us, we give ourselves entirely to him, so that we no longer live to ourselves, but in the faith of the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us (Gal. 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:15). The spouse pathetically describes this, “My beloved is mine, and I am his” (Cant. 2:16).

XIV. In order that this consent may be true, it ought not to be a consent concerning the future (such as that of those who put off their conversion from day to day), but concerning the present, so that if today we hear the voice of Christ, we harden not our hearts, but receive the offered grace; not distinguishing between Christ as Redeemer and Lord, as surety and head, between the blessings and duties (as is done by those who willingly embrace the merit of Christ, but are unwilling to be in subjection to his dominion; are willing to enjoy the blessings, but not to be bound to the duties), but joining the whole Christ with his duties and benefits and receiving him not only as a surety, but also as a head; not only for righteousness, but also for sanctification; for a Savior to redeem, but also for a Lord to govern (and whom we are bound to obey in all things); not exceptive and conditional (such as theirs who consent to Christ and his gospel, but when the cross and persecution come recede and are scandalized), but total and absolute, so that without any limitation we follow Christ in every condition (not only triumphant and glorious in heaven, but also suffering and nailed to the cross on earth) wherever he may lead us, prepared both to live and to die with him. Thus our communion with Christ will be true and saving and with all the blessings of Christ: fellowship in the same Spirit (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 6*:17); “in the same life” (Gal. 2:20); “in the same righteousness” (2 Cor. 5:21; Jer. 23:6); “in the same glory and inheritance” (Jn. 17:21, 24; Rom. 6:8; 8:17). And as we receive the good things of Christ in communion with him, so in turn Christ expects from us love (Jn. 21:17; 1 Pet. 1:8) and subjection (Eph. 5:24; Mt. 11:29; Ps. 2:11; 110:3)—sincere, full and constant.

XV. Thus we have demonstrated how faith is a condition in this covenant. Now we must see whether it performs this office alone or whether other virtues are with it, particularly repentance. Concerning this, the orthodox dispute among themselves—some denying and others affirming. We think the matter may be readily settled by a distinction, if we bear in mind the different senses of a condition. It may be taken either broadly and improperly (for all that man is bound to afford in the covenant of grace) or strictly and properly (for that which has some causality in reference to life and on which not only antecedently, but also causally, eternal life in its own manner depends). If in the latter sense, faith is the sole condition of the covenant because under this condition alone pardon of sins and salvation as well as eternal life are promised (Jn. 3:16, 36; Rom. 10:9). There is no other which could perform that office because there is no other which is receptive of Christ and capable of applying his righteousness. But in the former, there is nothing to hinder repentance and the obedience of the new life from being called a condition because they are reckoned among the duties of the covenant (Jn. 13:17; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 8:13).

XVI. Second, the condition is either antecedent to the acceptance of the covenant (which holds the relation of the cause why we are received into it) or subsequent (holding relation of means and the way by which we go forward to its consummation). In the former sense, faith is the sole condition of the covenant because it alone embraces Christ with his benefits. But in the latter sense, holiness and obedience can have the relation of a condition because they are the mean and the way by which we arrive at the full possession of the blessings of the covenant. If they do not have causality either with respect to justification (or eternal life flowing from it), still in other respects they pertain to this covenant both as inseparable attendants of true and sincere faith because “faith ought to be effectual through love” (Gal. 5:6), as the qualities of those to be saved (Mt. 5:8; 25:35, 36; Heb. 12:14), as fruits of the Spirit in Christ (Rom. 8:2, 9, 10) and marks of our conformity with Christ (Rom. 6:4, 5; Col. 3:1; Eph. 2:4, 5), as proofs of our gratitude towards God (Tit. 2:14), as testimonies of our sonship (1 Jn. 3:3; Rom. 8:15) and as duties which the rational creature owes to God (Lk. 17:10).

XVII. There is not the same relation of justification and of the covenant through all things. To the former, faith alone concurs, but to the observance of the latter other virtues also are required besides faith. These conduce not only to the acceptance of the covenant, but also to its observance. For these two things ought always to be connected—the acceptance of the covenant and the keeping of it when accepted. Faith accepts by a reception of the promises; obedience keeps by a fulfillment of the commands. “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” And yet in this way legal and evangelical obedience are not confounded because the legal is prescribed for the meriting of life, the evangelical, however, only for the possession of it. The former precedes as the cause of life (“Do this and thou shalt live”); the latter follows as its fruit, not that you may live but because you live. The former is not admitted unless it is perfect and absolute; the latter is admitted even if imperfect, provided it be sincere. That is only commanded as man’s duty; this is also promised and given as the gift of God.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 2:184–89.

Sources in John Flavel (1630–1691):

And thus our pious and learned divines generally affirm faith to be the condition of the covenant. So* Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs, ‘Faith, (saith he) hath the honour above all other graces, to be the condition of the second covenant; therefore it is certainly some great matter that faith enables us to do. Whatsoever keeps covenant with God, brings strength, though itself be never so weak; as Samson’s hair. What is weaker than a little hair? yet, because the keeping that, was keeping covenant with God; therefore even a little hair was so great strength to Samson. Faith then, that is the condition of the covenant, in which all grace and mercy is contained, if it be kept, it will cause strength indeed to do great things.’

And as this excellent man, Mr. Burroughs, is in this sense for the conditionality of the new covenant, so are the most learned and eminent of our own divines. Dr. Edward Reynolds†, assigning the differences betwixt the two covenants, gives this for one: ‘They differ in the condition (saith he); there legal obedience, here only faith; and the certain consequent thereof, repentance. There is difference likewise in the manner of performing these conditions: For now God himself begins first to work upon us, and in us, before we move or stir towards him. He doth not only command us, and leave us to our created strength to obey the command; but he furnisheth us with his own grace and Spirit to obey the command.’

Of the same judgment is Dr. Owen*. ‘Are we able (saith he) of ourselves to fulfil the condition of the new Covenant? Is it not as easy for a man by his own strength to fulfil the whole law, as to repent and believe the promise of the gospel? This then is one main difference of these two covenants, That the Lord did in the Old only require the condition; now in the New, he also effects it in all the fæderates, to whom the covenant is extended.’ This is the man you pretended to be against conditions. Mr. William Pemble†, opening the nature of the two covenants, saith, ‘The law offers life unto man upon condition of perfect obedience; the gospel offers life unto man upon another condition, to wit, of repentance and faith in Christ.’ And after his proofs for it, saith, ‘From whence we conclude firmly, That the difference between the law and the gospel, assigned by our divines, is most certain and agreeable to the scriptures, viz. That the law gives life unto the just, upon condition of perfect obedience in all things; the gospel gives life unto sinners, upon condition they repent, and believe in Christ Jesus.’

Learned and judicious Mr. William Perkins‡ thus, ‘The covenant of grace is that, whereby God freely promising Christ and his benefits, exacts again of man, that he would by faith receive Christ. And again, in the covenant of grace two things must be considered, the substance thereof, and the condition. The substance of the covenant is, That righteousness and life everlasting, is given to God’s church and people by Christ§. The condition is, That we, for our part, are by faith to receive the aforesaid benefits; and this condition is by grace, as well as the substance.’

That learned, humble, and painful minister of Christ, Mr. John Ball║, stating the difference betwixt the two covenants, shews that in the covenant at Sinai, in the covenant with Abraham, and that with David, that in all these covenant-expressures, there are for substance the same evangelical conditions of faith and sincerity. Dr. Davenant* thus: ‘In the covenant of the gospel it is otherwise; for in this covenant, to the obtainment of reconciliation, justification, and life eternal, there is no other condition required than of true and lively faith, John 3:16. ‘Therefore justification, and the right to eternal life doth depend on the condition of faith alone.’

Dr. Downame† harmonizeth with the rest in these words: ‘That which is the only condition of the covenant of grace, by that alone we are justified: But faith is the condition of the covenant of grace, which is therefore called lex fidei. Our writers, saith he, distinguishing the two covenants of God, that is, the law and the gospel, whereof one is the covenant of works, the other the covenant of grace, do teach, That the law of works is that which to justification requireth works as the condition thereof: the law of faith that which to justification requireth faith as the condition thereof. The former saith this, Do this, and thou shalt live; the latter, Believe in Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’

But what stand I upon particular, though renowned names? You may see a whole constellation of our sound and famous divines in the assembly, thus expressing themselves about this point. ‘The grace of God, say they, is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him, and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith with all other saving graces, and to enable them to all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith,’ &c.‡

I could even tire the reader with the testimonies of eminent foreign Divines, as Cameron, de triplici fædere, Thes. 82. Ursinus et Paræus, explicato Catech. Quest. 18. de fædere. Wendeline Christian Theology, lib. 1. cap. 19. thes. 9. Poliander, Rivet, Wallæus, and Thysius, the four learned professors at Leyden, Synops. Dis. 23. sect. 27. &c. And as for those ancient and modern Divines whom the Antinomians have corrupted and misrepresented, the reader may see them all vindicated, and their concurrence with those I have named evidenced by that learned and pious Mr. John Craile, in his Modest vindication of the doctrine of conditions in the covenant of grace, from p. 58. onward; a man whose name and memory is precious with me, not only upon the account of that excellent sermon he preached, and those fervent prayers he poured out many years since at my ordination; but for that learned and judicious treatise of his against Mr. Eyre, wherein he hath cast great light upon this controversy, as excellent Mr. Baxter and Mr. Woodbridge have also done. But, alas! what evidence is sufficient to satisfy ignorant and obstinate men!
_______________
* Moses’s Self-denial, p. 288.
† Dr. Reynold’s Life of Christ, p. 512.
* Dr. Owen’s Treatise of Redemption, book 3. chap. i. p. 103, 104. And in his Tract of Justification, p. 299, &c.
† Pemble of Justification, sect. 4. chap. i. p. 214, 215, 216, 217.
‡ Perkins’ Order of Causes, chap. xxxi. p. 17.
§ Reformed Catholic of Justification, p. 570.
║ Mr. J. Ball, of the covenant of grace, chap. i. Of the New Covenant, p. 198.
* Davenant de justific. Act. cap. 30.
† Tract. 1. of justification, b. 6. chap. 8. sect. 10. and b. 7. chap. 2. sect. 6.
‡ Larger catechis. 4to. London 1648, p. 8.

John Flavel, “A Reply to Mr. Philip Cary’’s Solem Call, &c.,” in The Whole Works of the Reverend John Flavel, 6 vols. (London; Edinburgh; Dublin: W. Baynes and Son; Waugh and Innes; M. Keene, 1820), 3:528–31. See also my post on John Flavel’s Reply to Baptist Hyper-Calvinism from Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis and the Issue of Conditions.

Herman Witsius (1636–1708):

VIII. Divines explain themselves differently as to the conditions of the covenant of grace. We, for our part, agree with those who think that the covenant of grace, to speak accurately, with respect to us has no conditions, properly so called; which sentiment we shall explain and establish in the following manner.

IX. A condition of a covenant, properly so called, is that action which, being performed, gives a man a right to the reward. But that such a condition cannot be required of us in the covenant of grace, is self-evident: because a right to life neither is nor indeed can be founded on any action of ours, but on the righteousness of our Lord alone; who having perfectly fulfilled the righteousness of the law for us, nothing can, in justice, be required of us to perform, in order to acquire a right already fully purchased for us. And, indeed, in this all the orthodox readily agree.

X. Further, the apostle more than once sets forth the covenant of grace under the appellation of a testament, which is God’s immutable purpose, not suspended on any one condition: and as it is founded on the unchangeable counsel of God, and ratified by the death of the testator, so it is not possible it should be made void by any unbelief of the elect, nor acquire its stability from any faith of man; for in this very testament God has immutably determined concerning faith, as salvation. Thus, Gal. 3:15, we see the covenant of God with Abraham is called a testament; the ratification of which must also be the same with that of a testament. And the covenant to be made with Israel, Jer. 31 has the same appellation, Heb. 8:10; as also that covenant with Israel mentioned by Moses, Exod. 24 and the declaration of the manner of enjoying the love of God through faith in Christ, Heb. 9:15, 20. And likewise, the compact of the Father with the Son, Luke 22:39, “In which passage, first, the will of God is published, by which he decreed, that the Son should, by the divine power of the Father, obtain the inheritance of the world, and a kingdom: secondly, the will of Christ, that the apostles and others given him should, through faith, become heirs of righteousness, and of the heavenly kingdom and of that of the world.” Compare Gal. 3:8. “But why should the apostle call the covenant of Abraham, and that mentioned, Heb. 8:10, a testament, and whether it ought not to be so taken, Matt. 26:18, and in other places, shall be considered in its place.”—Cocceius de Fœder. §. 4. And, in a word, I know not whether Paul, when speaking of the covenant of grace, did at any time or in any passage give it any other name than that of a testament. “But at that time,” at least if we give in to Cocceius’s opinion, “that word signified, neither to Greeks, nor Hellenist Jews, nor to the Hebrews, any other thing but a testament.” Cocceius ad Gal. 3 §. 134. I do not assert these things, as if I wanted to confound the notions of a covenant and a testament; but to show that the covenant of grace is testamentary, and to be distinguished from a covenant founded on a compact agreement, or law. Nor do I conceal that I found this in Cocceius de Fœd. §. 87; which made me wonder that a certain learned person, who is a great admirer of Cocceius, should find fault with these things.

XI. The famous Cloppenburg, formerly the ornament of the university of Friesland, has accurately observed the same thing, whose words I shall subjoin from Disputat. 3, de Fœderibus, Thes. 29: “The other disposition of the covenant [which regards us] is testamentary, whereby the grace by which we are saved comes to us from the most perfect merit of Christ the surety. For we are reckoned to be in covenant with God by the new covenant of grace, without having superadded to the covenant confirmed with Christ, the surety, by the renewal of the old agreement, any condition by which God should transact with us, but giving a gratuitous call to the inheritance of the promises whose testament Christ ratified by his death, and whose mediator he now is in heaven; namely, of full reconciliation with God and of eternal life.” Junius, in like manner, in his Theses, Disputat. 25, §. 29, “The conditions being fulfilled by the Angel of the Covenant, the catholic church was, through and for him, constituted heir of eternal life, without any condition.”

XII. Besides, when God proposes the form of the covenant of grace, his words to this purpose are mere promises, as we have lately seen, Jer. 31 and 32. Our divines, therefore, who, in consequence of the quirks of the Socinians and Remonstrants, have learned to speak with the greatest caution, justly maintain, that the Gospel, strictly taken, consists of pure promises of grace and glory.

XIII. And indeed, if we were to take the promises of the covenant of grace altogether without exception, we could not, so much as in thought, devise any thing in us as the condition of these promises. For whatever can be conceived as a condition, is all included in the universality of the promises. Should God only promise eternal life, there might be some pretence for saying that repentance, faith, and the like, were the conditions of this covenant. But seeing God does in the same breath, as it were, ratify both the beginning, progress, uninterrupted continuance, and in a word, the consummation of the new life; nothing remains in this universality of the promises, which can be looked upon as a condition of the whole covenant. For we here treat of the condition of the covenant, and not concerning any thing in man, which must go before the actual enjoyment of consummate happiness.

XIV. It is, however, certain that God has, in a very wise and holy manner, so ordered it, that none should come to salvation but in a way of faith and holiness; and so ranged his promises that none should attain to the more principal or more perfect happiness, but they who should first be made partakers of the preceding promises. Whence we gather, that none can take comfort in the infallible hope of happiness, who has not sincerely applied himself to the practice of faith and godliness. And the Scripture now and then assures us, that it is impossible for any to please God without faith, or see him without holiness. From this, many were induced to call faith and a new life the conditions of the covenant; whereas to speak accurately, and according to the nature of this covenant, they are, on the part of God, the execution of previous promises, and the earnest of future happiness, and on the part of man, the performance of those duties which cannot but precede the consummate perfection of a soul delighting in God. Or if we will insist upon it, to call these things conditions, they are not so much conditions of the covenant, as of the assurance that we shall continue in God’s covenant, and that he shall be our God. And I make no doubt but this was exactly the meaning of those very learned divines, though all of them have not so happily expressed themselves.

XV. Let us again hear our own Cloppenburg on this subject, to whose accuracy on this point I have nothing to add. Disputat. 4, de Fœder. Thes. 26, 27: nor do the conditions of the new covenant, enjoined by a law adapted thereto, as repentance, faith, and the practice of love to God and our neighbour, destroy this evangelical display of the grace of the new covenant, which the testamentary donation, made on account of death, demands. For these conditions of the new covenant are inserted in such a manner in the testament, as to exclude the impenitent, the unbelieving, and the ungodly from inheriting the promises; but not as if the dispensation and donation of salvation depended on these, or that by our works of obedience to the law-giver we obtain a right to the promise of the inheritance. What then? Conditions of new obedience are inserted into the testament of the new covenant, under a legal form, indeed, as the rule of our self-examination, and of becoming gratitude, lest, without having the undoubted characters of the sons of God, we should, without any ground, think ourselves sure of the inheritance. However, repentance itself, consisting in the mortification of sin and the practice of good works, is also promised under another form, to wit, as the gift of God, which he himself works in us, that by this sign or evidence we may, from the time of our truly repenting and believing, perfectly hope in that grace, which is brought to us, at the revelation of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 1:13; having eternal life already begun in ourselves, together with the new creation of the new spiritual life, by the Spirit of God. Thus far Cloppenburg, the accuracy of whose dissertation nothing can exceed.

XVI. We are not to think, that by this sentiment the nature of a covenant is destroyed, which consists in a stipulation, and restipulation. For there is no absurdity should we maintain, that that disposition of the new covenant which was made to the surety, retained the proper notion of a covenant, signifying a compact between two parties of mutual faith; but that the other disposition made to us, comes nearer to the form of a testament, and is rather unilateral, or appointed by one party. Nor is the word ברית any obstacle, which we have shown, book i. chap. i. sect. 3, is of various significations, and often denotes the same as חק, a constitution, or signifies a certain promise, though not mutual.

XVII. Moreover, God, by a certain wonderful act of condescension, publishes the promises of his grace to his covenant-people in this manner, to show that it was his will, that they seek for and expect from him what he promises, just as if it was a promise of reward, and proceeded from covenant and agreement, and was irrevocable on the account of the right of him who sues for the performance of it; which is, indeed, an astonishing degree of the Lord’s goodness: nevertheless, we are not to use it as an argument for conditions of the covenant of grace, properly so called.

XVIII. But, which is the principal thing, we imagine, the best way to conceive of this constitution of the covenant is as follows: since the covenant of grace, or the Gospel, strictly so called, which is the model of that covenant, consists in mere promises; it prescribes nothing properly as duty, requires nothing, commands nothing; not even this, believe, trust, hope in the Lord, and the like; but declares, sets forth, and signifies to us what God promises in Christ, what he would have done, and what he is about to do; all prescription of duty belongs to the law: as, after others, the venerable Voetius has very well inculcated, Disput. Tom. 4 p. 24, seq. And we are by all means to maintain this, if, with the whole body of the reformed, we should constantly defend the perfection of the law, which comprehends all virtues, and all the duties of holiness. But the law, adapted to the covenant of grace, and, according to it, inscribed on the heart of the elect, enjoins to receive all those things which are proposed in the Gospel with an unfeigned faith, and frame our lives suitably to that grace and glory which are promised. When God, therefore, in the covenant of grace, promises faith, repentance, and consequently eternal life to an elect sinner, then the law, whose obligation can never be dissolved, and which extends to every duty, binds the man to assent to that truth, highly prize, ardently desire, seek, and lay hold on those promised blessings. Moreover, since the admirable providence of God has ranged the promises in such order, as that faith and repentance go before, and salvation follows after: man is bound, by the same law, to approve of and be in love with this divine appointment, and assure himself of salvation only according to it. But when a man accepts the promises of the covenant in the order they are proposed, he does by that acceptance bind himself to the duties contained in the foregoing promises, before he can assure himself of the fulfilment of the latter. And in this manner the covenant becomes mutual. God proposes his promised in the Gospel in a certain order. The man, in consequence of the law, as subservient to the covenant of grace, is bound to receive the promises in that order. While faith does this, the believer, at the same time, binds himself to the exercise of a new life, before ever he can presume to entertain a hope of life eternal. And in this manner it becomes a mutual agreement.

XIX. But let none here object, that life is promised in the new covenant, to him that believes and repents, no less than it was in the old covenant to him that worketh; in order thence to conclude, that faith and repentance are now, in the same manner, conditions of the covenant of grace, that perfect obedience was the condition of the covenant of works. For when life is promised to him that doeth any thing, we are not directly to understand a condition, properly so called, as the cause of claiming the reward; God is pleased only to point out the way we are to take, not to the right, but to the possession of life. He proposes faith as the instrument by which we lay hold on the Lord Jesus, and on his grace and glory; good works, as the evidences of our faith and of our union with Christ, and as the way to the possession of life.

XX. But we must not forget to observe, that faith has quite a different relation with respect to the blessings of the covenant of grace, from what the other works of the new life have. In this, indeed, they agree, that both, conjointly, are the way to the promised bliss; but faith has something peculiar. For as faith is an astipulation, or assent given to the divine truth, it includes in it the acceptance of the benefit offered by the covenant, and makes the promise firm and irrevocable.” “Here is my Son,” says God, “and salvation in him.” I offer him to whoever desires him, and believes that he shall find his salvation in him. Who desires him? Who believes this?” “I do,” says the believer, “I greatly long for him. I believe my salvation to be laid up in him. I take him as thus offered to me.” “Be it so,” saith the Lord. And in this manner the promise is accepted, the truth of God sealed, the donation of Christ and of salvation in him becomes irrevocable. From all which it is evident, that faith has a quite different relation in the new covenant, from what works formerly had in the old. What the difference is between giving and receiving, such seems to be the difference between a condition of works and of faith: which the celebrated Hornbeck has not unhappily explained in Socin. Confut. Tom. 2 p 280.

XXI. Let us now lastly consider the threatenings, whether there be any such in this covenant. It cannot indeed be denied, but that, in the doctrine of Christ and the apostles, we frequently meet with very many comminations, which have their peculiar respect to the covenant of grace, and which could not have thus been set before us if there had been no such covenant. For instance,—whoever shall not believe in Christ—whoever shall despise the counsel of God against his own soul—whoever shall not obey the Gospel, shall be condemned. And these threatenings seem to be distinguished from those which are evidently legal; such as the following: “Cursed is he that continueth not in all things,” &c. Yet, if we would weigh the matter narrowly, the covenant of grace has no threatenings so peculiar to itself, but what may well be referred to the law, from which every curse proceeds.

XXII. Which I would explain thus: we no where hear of any threatenings which may and ought not to be deduced from that threatening, which doubtless is purely legal, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things,” &c. In this most general threatening are included the other more particular ones. Moreover, when salvation by Christ alone is proposed, in the covenant of grace, as the principal truth, the law, which enjoins man to embrace with a firm faith every truth made known to him by God, obliges him to receive this truth in particular, and be delighted with the glory of God shining forth in it, and that his own salvation is connected with the glory of God. Should we deny that the law lays us under this obligation, we should then affirm that the law does not enjoin us to acknowledge God as true, and that there is a holy love of God and of ourselves which the law does not command; all which are most absurd. I go further: When man, as the law prescribes, receives the truth of the Gospel with a lively faith, then not the law, but the Gospel, promises salvation to him. For the law knows of no other promise, than what depends on the condition of perfect obedience. But should man slight and obstinately reject that truth proposed to him, he sins against the law, and so incurs its curse, according to the general rule so often inculcated. And since we have supposed the Gospel declaring that salvation flows from the faith of Christ alone, the law enjoins that all who desire salvation should seek it by the faith of Christ alone; and consequently it cannot but thunder the curse against those who, rejecting the Gospel, believe not on Christ. As, therefore, unbelief, or the rejecting the Gospel, is a sin against the law, which is the only perfect rule of all virtue (it can be called a sin against the Gospel, only objectively), so every threatening of the curse and of wrath against unbelievers and the despisers of the Gospel, must come from and be reduced to the law; but then it is to the law as now subservient to the covenant of grace.

XXIII. In the discourses of the Prophets, Christ, and his apostles, there is a certain mixture of various doctrines, which, indeed, are closely connected, and mutually subservient; each of which ought to be reduced to their proper heads, so that the promises of grace be referred to the Gospel, all injunctions of duty and all threatenings against transgressors to the law.

Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (London: T. Tegg & Son, 1837), 1:252–58; italics original. See also Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, 2 vols. (1822; repr., RHB, 2017), 1:284–91.

Robert Lewis Dabney (1820–1898):

May Faith be properly called a condition

The question has been keenly agitated between Calvinists, whether Faith itself should be spoken of as a condition of the covenant. One party has denied it, because they supposed that the language which represented man as performing a condition of his own salvation would make an inlet for human merit. But it is most manifest that there is a sense in which Faith is the condition, in all such passages as John 3:16; Acts 8:37; John 11:26; Mark 16:16. No human wit can evade the fact, that here God proposes to man a something for him to do, which, if done, will secure redemption; if neglected, will ensure damnation—and that something is in one sense a condition. But of what kind? Paul everywhere contrasts the condition of works, and the condition of faith. This contrast will be sufficiently established, and all danger of human merits being intruded will be obviated, if it be observed that Faith is only the appointed instrument for receiving free grace purchased by our Surety. It owes its organic virtue as such, to God’s mere appointment, not to the virtue of its own nature. In the Covenant of Works, the fulfilment of the condition on man’s part earned the result, justification by its proper moral merit. In the Covenant of Grace, the condition has no moral merit to earn the promised grace, being merely an act of receptivity. In the Covenant of Works, man was required to fulfil the condition in his own strength. In the Covenant of Grace, strength is given to him to believe, from God.

R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, Second Edition. (St. Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company, 1878), 438–39.

Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823–1886):

10. In what sense can faith be called a condition of salvation?

Faith is a condition sine qua non of salvation, i.e., no adult man can be saved if he does not believe, and every man that does believe shall be saved. It is, however, a gift of God and the first part or stage of salvation. Viewed on God’s side it is the beginning and index of his saving work in us. Viewed on our side it is our duty, and must be our own act. It is, therefore, as our act, the instrument of our union with Christ, and thus the necessary antecedent, though never the meritorious cause, of the gracious salvation which follows. Faith as the condition is of course living faith, which necessarily brings forth “confession” and obedience.

Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1878), 374.

Louis Berkhof (1873–1957):

f. It is both conditional and unconditional. The question is repeatedly asked, whether the covenant is conditional or unconditional. This is a question that cannot be answered without careful discrimination, for the answer will depend on the point of view from which the covenant is considered.

On the one hand the covenant is unconditional. There is in the covenant of grace no condition that can be considered as meritorious. The sinner is exhorted to repent and believe, but his faith and repentance do not in any way merit the blessings of the covenant. This must be maintained in opposition to both the Roman Catholic and the Arminian position. Neither is it conditional in the sense that man is expected to perform in his own strength what the covenant requires of him. In placing him before the demands of the covenant, we must always remind him of the fact that he can obtain the necessary strength for the performance of his duty only from God. In a sense it may be said that God Himself fulfills the condition in the elect. That which may be regarded as a condition in the covenant, is for those who are chosen unto everlasting life also a promise, and therefore a gift of God. Finally, the covenant is not conditional in the sense that the reception of every separate blessing of the covenant is dependent on a condition. We may say that faith is the conditio sine qua non of justification, but the reception of faith itself in regeneration is not dependent on any condition, but only on the operation of the grace of God in Christ.

On the other hand the covenant may be called conditional. There is a sense in which the covenant is conditional. If we consider the basis of the covenant, it is clearly conditional on the suretyship of Jesus Christ. In order to introduce the covenant of grace, Christ had to, and actually did, meet the conditions originally laid down in the covenant of works, by His active and passive obedience. Again, it may be said that the covenant is conditional as far as the first conscious entrance into the covenant as a real communion of life is concerned. This entrance is contingent on faith, a faith, however, which is itself a gift of God. When we speak of faith as a condition here, we naturally refer to faith as a spiritual activity of the mind. It is only through faith that we can obtain a conscious enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant. Our experimental knowledge of the covenant life is entirely dependent on the exercise of faith. He who does not live a life of faith is, as far as his consciousness is concerned, practically outside of the covenant. If in our purview we include not only the beginning, but also the gradual unfolding and completion of the covenant life, we may regard sanctification as a condition in addition to faith. Both are conditions, however, within the covenant.

Reformed Churches have often objected to the use of the word “condition” in connection with the covenant of grace. This was largely due to a reaction against Arminianism, which employed the word “condition” in an un-Scriptural sense, and therefore to a failure to discriminate properly [Cf. Dick, Theol. Lect. XLVIII]. Bearing in mind what was said in the preceding, it would seem to be perfectly proper to speak of a condition in connection with the covenant of grace, for (1) the Bible clearly indicates that the entrance upon the covenant life is conditioned on faith, John 3:16, 36; Acts 8:37 (not found in some MSS.); Rom. 10:9; (2) Scripture often threatens covenant children, but these threatenings apply exactly to those who ignore the condition, that is, who refuse to walk in the way of the covenant; and (3) if there were no condition, God only would be bound by the covenant, and there would be no “bond of the covenant” for man (but cf. Ezek. 20:37); and thus the covenant of grace would lose its character as a covenant, for there are two parts in all covenants.

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 280–281.

Quodvultdeus of Carthage or Pseudo-Augustine (died c. 450) on the Heavenly Redeemer of the World

10. Nonetheless, the virgin mother recognized whom she carried, she knew; let astonishment flee and faith enter. Behold, the one whom she carried is born. He does not yet speak, but awakens the whole world. 11. Heaven cries out, radiant with the light of a new star; earth, distressed by Herod, cries out; Magi, warned, come; Jews, troubled, inquire; [everyone] asks where is he who is everything: The maker of the world is sought throughout the world. 12. He was being sought, however, not that he might be acclaimed but that he might be killed, for “the world was made through him, and the world did not know him” [John 1:10]. O defiled world, he who would redeem you came, and you have become troubled; when he arranged to liberate you, you then wished to destroy him! 13. O wicked land of the Jews, you are at odds with heaven. Heaven discloses a sign that the infant be adored; you scour [the earth] that the infant might be killed [see Matt 2:13–18]. Heaven announces to you that God assumed man for you, and you wish to do away with him who came to redeem you.

Quodvultdeus, “The First Homily on the Creed,” in Quodvultdeus of Carthage: The Creedal Homilies: Conversion in Fifth-Century North Africa, ed. Dennis D. McManus, trans. Thomas Macy Finn, vol. 60 of Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Mahwah, NJ: The Newman Press, 2004), 34–35.

Bio:
Wiki

Information Regarding Lucidus and the Alleged Council of Arles (c. 475)

Sec. 212. Synods at Arles on the Doctrine of Grace in the Years 475–480

Two other Gallican Synods at Arles and Lyons, between 475 and 480, were occasioned by the Gallican priest Lucidus, the first who was known as a Predestinarian.¹ Prosper Tiro indeed says in his Chronicle that, in the twenty-third year of the Emperor Honorius, that is, a.d. 417, the sect of the Predestinarians arose through a misunderstanding of the writings of Augustine on predestination; and many have followed him in this.² On the other hand, the learned Cardinal Noris (Hist. Pelagiana, lib. ii. c. 15, p. 178 sqq. ed. Patav. 1677) showed that this could not possibly be correct, that in the time of Prosper there were as yet no Predestinarians, and that only the Semipelagians had maliciously reproached the true Augustinians with predestinationism. Not until the second half of the fifth century, he argued, were genuine Predestinarians to be found, and these mostly uneducated and unimportant people, who had allowed themselves to be urged on, by the sophistical objections of the Semipelagians, from their original Augustinian point of view to an extreme predestinationism.

Among these Noris numbers especially the priest Lucidus and a certain Monimus from Africa, who maintained that a portion of mankind was predestined by God to sin. On this point he was opposed by S. Fulgentius of Ruspe. The latter mentions that several others had denied human liberty, and ascribed all to grace (see Noris, l.c. p. 184). Such was also the opinion of Lucidus. Unfortunately we know very little of him or of the two Gallican Synods who sat in judgment upon him, and this little only from Faustus of Riez, who himself was not orthodox on the doctrine of grace, and, in opposition to Lucidus, was entangled in Semipelagian error.

From a letter of Faustus to Lucidus we learn that the former had already repeatedly by word of mouth warned the other of his error, but in vain. This letter, however, was written about the time when the Metropolitan Leontius of Arles convoked in his episcopal city a great Synod of thirty bishops, among them several metropolitans, about the year 475, in order to repudiate the predestinarian heresy. Faustus here wrote to Lucidus, representing that, as the bishops were already thinking of his suspension, he would, from love to him, once more endeavour by writing to bring him back from his error, although he thought there was little hope of this. He would quite briefly specify the points which must be recognised by Lucidus. He must (in general) always unite with the grace of God the agency of the baptized man, and condemn whoever excluded the co-operation of man and taught mere predestination on the one hand, just as he must condemn Pelagius on the other. Thus he must anathematise (1) anyone who, like Pelagius, denies original or hereditary sin and the necessity of grace; (2) anyone who maintains that the baptized and orthodox Christian, who becomes a sinner, is lost through Adam and original sin;¹ (3) anyone who maintains that it is through the foreknowledge of God that a man is thrust down to death (of the soul); (4) anyone who maintains that whosoever is lost (i.e. of the baptized, and of the heathen those who could have believed) had not received the grace by which he could have laid hold of salvation; (5) anyone who should say that a vessel of dishonour could not raise itself so as to become a vessel of honour; (6) anyone who should say that Christ did not die for all men, and did not will that all men should be saved.

If Lucidus would come of his own accord to Faustus, the latter said, or were summoned by the bishops, he would lay before him at length the proofs for the orthodox doctrine. He adds: “We, however, maintain that whoever is lost by his own fault, could have obtained salvation through grace if he had co-operated with it; and that, on the other side, whosoever through grace attains, by means of his own co-operation, to the goal of perfection, might also, through his negligence and his own fault, have fallen and been lost. We yet exclude all personal pride, since we maintain that we receive all from the hand of God as a gift, not as a reward.” He intimates that Lucidus should express himself on these points as soon as possible, and that if he did not send back a subscription to the contents of his letter, he should have to appear publicly before the Synod as his accuser.¹

In one manuscript this letter is subscribed by Faustus alone, in another by ten other bishops, so that we may improve upon the supposition of Noris (l.c. p. 185) by the suggestion, that Faustus may have sent it first from himself, and then, in order to give greater importance to the matter, may have had a second copy signed by ten of his colleagues, who perhaps had assembled at a preliminary Synod, held in preparation for the appointed greater Council, and sent it to Lucidus. The latter, seeing the seriousness of the matter, subscribed, as Faustus had wished, and this subscription of his is still found appended to the letter in question.²

Besides this, Lucidus addressed a letter to the thirty bishops assembled at Arles,³ in which he says that the Synod had drawn up certain statuta predicandi (forms of teaching), and that Lucidus, in accordance with these, now condemned (1) the opinion, that the work of human obedience towards God (i.e. human co-operation) must not be united with divine grace; and also (2) the assertion, that through the fall of the first man freewill had been entirely annihilated; (3) the assertion, that Christ did not die for the salvation of all men; (4) the assertion, that the foreknowledge of God powerfully constrains men to spiritual death, and that whoever perishes is lost with (cum) the will of God; (5) the assertion, that whoever sins after valid baptism, dies in Adam (i.e. is not lost in consequence of his own sinful actions; see above); (6) the assertion, that some are destined (deputati) to death, and others predestinated (prædestinati) to life; (7) the assertion, that from Adam to Christ no heathen has obtained salvation through the gratia prima of God, that is, through the natural law, hoping in the coming of Christ, inasmuch as all had lost freewill in their first parents; (8) the assertion, that the patriarchs and prophets and saints had been in Paradise even before the time of redemption. All these propositions, he said, he condemned as impious and sacrilegious, but the doctrine of grace he held fast, in such a sense as not to exclude human effort; and he maintained that the freewill of man was not annihilated, but only weakened and diminished (attenuatam et infirmatam); further, that one who was in a state of salvation should yet be conscious of the danger of falling, and, on the other side, that one who was lost might have obtained salvation. He said he had formerly maintained that Christ had come into the world only for the sake of those of whom He knew beforehand that they would believe; but that now he acknowledged that Christ had also come for the sake of those who are lost, and that they are lost eo nolente. Finally, he said, he maintained that some had obtained salvation through the law of grace, others through the law of Moses, others again through the law of nature, which God had written in the hearts of all, in hope of the coming of Christ; but that from the beginning of the world, on account of our union with our first parents, no one had been saved in any other manner than through the mediation of the holy blood of Christ.¹

We learn further from Faustus of Riez that Archbishop Leontius, in agreement with the Synod of Arles, commissioned him to write out at full length in a book all that was transacted at the Synod on the doctrine of grace and in opposition to the Predestinarians. In fulfilment of this commission, Faustus composed his two books, de gratia Dei et humanæ mentis libero arbitrio, in the prologue to which, addressed to Leontius, he sets forth the matter just referred to;² but his work is composed in a thoroughly Semipelagian sense, and under the show of combating predestinarianism, he carries on a continuous warfare against Augustine. At the end of the prologue he further states: “Because at the end of the Synod of Arles, and after all had subscribed its decrees, new errors emerged (probably new predestinarian views), it was ordered by a fresh Synod at Lyons that something should be added to the treatise de gratia Dei,” etc.

We have no further particulars of this Lugdunense Concilium, unless we are to refer to this Synod the note which is found in some old conciliar manuscripts to this effect: The holy Archbishop Patiens of Lyons laid before this Synod a book, De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus.¹ It is supposed that this book was a treatise of Gennadius which bears this very title; and if so, then the Semipelagian tendency, represented by the dominating intellect of Faustus, prevailed no less at the Synod of Lyons than at the Synod of Arles.
_______________
1 Mangin, in his work, Veterum Auctorum, qui ix. Seculo de prædestinatione et gratia scripserunt, etc., Paris 1650, t. ii. p. 165, maintains that this Synod of Arles, as well as that of Lyons (see at the end of this section) were invented by the Semipelagians.
2 In the Biblioth. Max. PP., Lugd. t. viii. p. 201.
1 Faustus, on the contrary, would say that “as original sin is forgiven in baptism, a sinful Christian must fail, not through Adam and original sin, but through misuse of his liberty.”
1 Mansi, t. vii. p. 1007 sqq.; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 806 sqq.; Sirmond, Concilia Galliæ, t. i. p. 147 sqq.
2 Mansi, l.c. p. 1010; Hardouin, l.c. p. 808; Sirmond, l.c. p. 150.
3 Cellotius was of opinion that this letter of Lucidus was addressed to the somewhat later Synod of Lyons; Noris, on the contrary (l.c. p. 186b), thinks it more probable that it was addressed to the earlier Synod at Arles.
1 Mansi, t. vii. p. 1010; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 809; Sirmond, Concilia Galliæ, t. i. p. 150 sq.
2 Noris, l.c. p. 177; Mansi, t. vii. p. 1007; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 805; Sirmond, l.c. p. 147 sq.
1 Mansi, l.c. p. 1011; Hardouin, l.c. p. 810; Sirmond, l.c. p. 152; Noris, l.c . p. 177; Remi Ceillier, l.c. p. 620.

Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. William R. Clark, 5 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895), 4:20–24.

ARLES (475). Held about the year 475. The errors of Lucidus, a priest, having excited the zeal of Faustus, Bishop of Riez, he endeavoured in several conferences to bring him back to the true faith. From the letters of Faustus, we learn what were the errors of Lucidus, for all his exhortations having proved useless, he at last wrote to the latter a letter, containing six articles, which he desired him to anathematize: 1st, the errors of Pelagius, viz., that man is born without sin, that he is able to save himself by his own works, and to be delivered without the grace of God. 2ndly, That which teaches that he who falls after baptism perishes in original sin. 3rdly, That man is made subject to damnation by the foreknowledge of God. 4thly, That those who shall perish have no power to save themselves, including those who have been baptized, and the heathen who might have believed but would not. 5thly, That a “vessel of dishonour” cannot become a “vessel of honour.” 6thly, That Jesus Christ did not die for all men, and does not will that all should be saved. This letter was signed by eleven other bishops, but the see of one only of them is known, viz., Patiens, Bishop of Lyons.² Whilst, therefore, Lucidus delayed making his recantation, this council was assembled at Arles, composed of thirty bishops. The ground for supposing that Arles was the place of assembly is this, that the name of Leontius, who was then bishop of that see, occurs first upon the list, and after his the names of Euphremius, Mamertius, Patiens, Eutropius, Faustus, Basil, &c. According to Faustus, they spoke strongly upon the subject of predestination, condemned the opinions which Lucidus had advanced upon the subject, and further insisted that he should himself condemn them. Lucidus obeyed, and addressed a letter to the bishops composing the council, in which he retracted his errors; which, however, are not identical with the propositions contained in the letter of Faustus.

Some imagine that Faustus himself drew up this recantation of Lucidus. Du Pin asserts that there are many things in it which savour strongly of Pelagianism. The condemnation of the errors of Lucidus, in this council, forms one of the proofs brought forward to show the existence of a sect of Predestinarians. The reader may see long dissertations upon the subject by Cardinal Norris, Pagi, and Alexander: the last shows that the errors of the Predestinarians were the same with those of which the priests of Marseilles accused St Augustine and his disciples. He allows, nevertheless, that the number of those comprising the sect of Predestinarians was very small, and proves such to have been the case, by the wording of this 25th canon of Orange: “Not only do we not believe that some men are predestinated by the Divine power to evil, but further, we, with the utmost detestation, anathematize those, if there be any (si qui sunt), who are willing to believe so grievous a thing.” Upon which words, Alexander remarks, “The fathers used this form of speaking, ‘si qui sunt,’ because the followers and disciples of Lucidus were few and of no repute.”

But to return to Faustus, he adds, after having related what passed in the council, that Leontius gave him a charge to collect together all that had been said upon the subject of Predestination, which he did, in two books upon Grace and Free-will, addressed to Leontius; but, according to Fleury, he erred in the opposite extreme, making too much of man’s natural strength.

The learned Benedictine, Dom. Maur, in his list of certain and known councils, speaks in express terms concerning those of Arles and Lyons; that they are only known to us through the writings of Faustus of Riez,—writings, he adds, which savour strongly of semi-Pelagianism, and which, as such, were ranked amongst apocryphal books by the Council of Pope Gelasius, in 496.—Tom. iv. Conc. p 1041.
_______________
2 In the best MSS. there are no other signatures than that of Faustus.—Du Pin.

Edward H. Landon, A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909), 1:48–50.

COUNCIL OF ARLES 475 (?)

[From the letter of submission of Lucidus, the priest]¹

Grace and Predestination

160a [DS 330] Your public reproof is public salvation, and your opinion is medicine. From this I also draw the highest remedy, that by blaming past errors I excuse [them], and by healing confession I wash myself. Just so in consequence of the recent statutes of the Council about to be published, I condemn with you that view which states that the work of human obedience does not have to be united with divine grace; [DS 331] which says that after the fall of the first man the free choice of the will was totally destroyed; [DS 332] which states that Christ our Lord and Savior did not incur death for the salvation of all; [DS 333] which states that the foreknowledge of God violently impels man to death, or that they who perish, perish by the will of God; [DS 334] which affirms that whoever sins after baptism which has been legitimately received dies in Adam; [DS 335] which states that some have been condemned to death, others have been predestined to life; [DS 336] which states that from Adam even to Christ none of the nations has been saved unto the coming of Christ through the first grace of God, that is, by the law of nature, and that they lost free will in the first parent; [DS 337] which states that the patriarchs and prophets or every one of the highest saints, even before the times of the redemption, entered into paradise. [DS 339] All these I condemn as impious and replete with sacrileges.

But I declare that the grace of God is such that I always unite the striving and efforts of man with grace, and I proclaim that the liberty of the human will was not destroyed but enfeebled and weakened, and that he who is saved, was tried; and he who perished, could have been saved.

160b [DS 340] Also that Christ, God and Redeemer, as far as it pertained to the riches of His goodness, offered the price of death for all, and because He, who is the Savior of all, especially of the faithful, does not wish anyone to perish, rich unto all who call upon him [Rom. 10:12].… Now by the authority of the sacred witnesses, which are found in great profusion through the extent of the Divine Scriptures, in accordance with the doctrine of our elders made clear by reason, I freely confess that Christ came also for the lost, because they perished although He did not will [it]. For it is not right that the riches of His boundless goodness and His divine benefits be confined to those only who seem to have been saved. For if we say that Christ extended assistance only to those who have been redeemed, we shall seem to absolve the unredeemed, who, it is established, had to be punished for having despised redemption. [DS 341] I declare further that by reason and through the regular succession of the centuries some have been saved by the law of grace, others by the law of Moses, others by the law of nature, which God has written in the hearts of all, in the expectation of the coming of Christ; nevertheless from the beginning of the world, they were not set free from the original slavery except by the intercession of the sacred blood. [DS 342] I acknowledge, too, that the eternal fires and the infernal flames have been prepared in advance for capital deeds, because divine judgment, which they deservedly incur, who have not believed these [truths] with their whole heart, justly follows those who persist in human sins. Pray for me, holy lords and apostolic fathers.

I, Lucius the priest, have signed this my letter with my own hand, and I affirm the things which are asserted in it, and I condemn what has been condemned.
_______________
1 ML 53, 683 ff.; Hfl sect. 212; Msi VII 1010 f.; Hrd II 809 f.

Henry Denzinger and Karl Rahner, eds., The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1954), 65–66.

LUCIDUS, presbyter (d. after 474). We learn of Lucidus V 2, p 629 from Bishop Faustus of Riez (Ep. 1 and 2, and Grat. prol.). Lucidus was a priest from the S of Gaul who in the 2nd half of the 5th c. aroused the suspicions of Faustus for certain ideas he held regarding grace and predestination, carrying Augustine’s thought to extreme consequences. Faustus attempted, first, to induce him to retract by putting before him certain anathemas to sign, then the question was discussed at a number of councils (Councils of Arles and Lyons, of uncertain dates, between 470 and 474), where the theses of Lucidus were condemned, and to which Lucidus submitted. The whole episode, which is difficult to reconstruct, was part of the long, protracted controversy between Augustinians and anti-Augustinians in the S of Gaul.

CPL 963; PL 53, 681–685; CSEL 21, 3–4 and 161–168; MGH, Auct. ant. 8, 288–291; DTC 5, 1020–1024, and Tables 3036; É. Griffe, La Gaule chrétienne à l’époque romaine, 2, Paris ²1966, 83f. n.44, 145, 289; 3, Paris 1965, 371–372.

Alessandra Pollastri, “Lucidus, Presbyter,” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo Di Berardino and James Hoover, trans. Joseph T. Papa, Erik A. Koenke, and Eric E. Hewett (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic; InterVarsity Press, 2014), 628–29.

After the death of Augustine and Prosper, Lucidus, a Presbyter, seems to have stirred up this question, which had been some time laid asleep. He taught in plain words, That Christ died not for all mankind. Against him arose Faustus, Bishop of Ries, the ringleader of the Semipelagians. He writes to him a terrible Epistle filled with anathemas. Among other things he pronounces an anathema upon those who teach that Christ had not died for all. At the close of this epistle he commands Lucidus to send it back to him subscribed with his own hand; and threatens, if he should refuse, that he would accuse him before the Synod of Arles, which was then sitting, and had subscribed these letters and anathemas of Faustus. Lucidus being frightened at this thundering epistle, subscribed it, and thus condemned with his own hand the opinion which he had promulgated. A short time afterwards, the Synod of Leyden was assembled, which added some things to the decrees of the former Council, to which also Lucidus yielded his assent. There is extant an epistle of Lucidus to this Synod of Leyden, in which he condemns those who say, That Christ our Saviour did not endure death for the salvation of all men; and, according to the new mode of preaching established in this Council, he asserts, That Christ our Saviour, according to the riches of his goodness, suffered death for all men. Both of these letters are extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum (p. 3. tom. 5), the names also of the Bishops being subscribed who are thought to have been at these councils. But the things which are boasted of in the name of these councils are not of much moment, since for the most part they rest merely on the veracity of the heretic Faustus. For if you set aside these letters of Faustus, you may in vain seek elsewhere the afore-mentioned decrees of the Council of Arles, as they are no where else to be found. Nor can those new decrees about preaching, of which Lucidus speaks in his epistle, be found among the canons of any Council of Leyden. The veracity of Faustus in these things is further diminished, because he seems to intimate in his Epistle to Leontius [Leontius, Bishop of Arles, according to Du Pin], that those books on grace and free-will, which are so full of poisonous sentiments, were not only written by the direction of this Council of Leyden, but were also approved of by it. And moreover, he pretends that he inserted nothing in this writing besides the opinion of this Synod. But indeed it is neither true nor credible that so many learned men could be so deceived by Faustus, as to approve of Pelagian doctrine by his vote. I say these things, not because I wish to condemn as errors those things which are thought to be defined in this chapter by Faustus on the death of Christ, under the approbation of those Synods, but lest any one, in a controverted point, should attribute too much to the authority, or rather, to the bare name of Synods, of which we have nothing certain from remains worthy of credit. This also is an argument with me, that those Fathers of Arles and Leyden, could not have sanctioned, under so grievous an anathema, that no one should preach that Christ died only for the elect, because in the commentaries of the Fathers who lived in the subsequent ages, that mode of speaking is often found, or at least is left in doubt.

John Davenant, “A Dissertation on the Death of Christ,” in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. Josiah Allport, 2 vols. (London; Birmingham: Hamilton, Adams & Co.; Beilby, Knott & Beilby, 1832), 2:330–32. See also John Davenant, On the Death of Christ and Other Atonement Writings, trans. Michael Lynch (Davenant Press, 2024), 18–20.

David L. Allen’s Lecture on Andrew Fuller: Particular Redemptionist Who Held to Universal Atonement