is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nec vola nec vestigium But say they if the Church be not infallible we need not obey it I answer that doth not follow Parents are not infallibe in their Commands yet Children are to obey them And under the Law the High Priest was to be obey'd tho' but fallible An fides sola justificat FAith is vocabulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First 'T is taken objectively pro fide quae creditur namely for the Doctrine of the Gospel reveal'd to us to which we assent Acts 6.7 Some are said there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrinae evangelicae obedire Thus we say symbolum fidei by which we understand the Doctrinal Articles of Faith Secondly Faith is taken subjectively pro fide quâ creditur namely for that Quality or Action inherent in us And it is threefold a Faith Historical a Faith of Miracles and Saving Faith A Faith Temporary is falsely put in and impertinently added in Catechisms For it is not distinguish'd from the other kinds of Faith And an Historical and Faith of Miracles if they end are temporary Wicked men may believe the History of the Scripture to be true and may be able to do Wonders as many shall say at that day Lord in thy name we have cast out Devils Thirdly as to Saving Faith most of our Divines since Luther's Days have made it to be certa fiducia quâ certò apud se statuit quis Christum pro se esse mortuum peccata sibi esse remissa Deumque placatum Thus the Palatine Catechism part 2. Question 21. Where true Faith is defined to be non solùm certa notitia quà verbo divino assentior sed Certa siducia quâ statuo non solum aliis sed mihi remissionem peccatorum aeternam justitiam vitam donatam esse Thus Vrsin in notis Catecheticis ibidem Thus Hier. Zanch. tom 1. Cap. 1. l. 13. Thus Calvin Beza and others generally and the Church of England in the Homily of Faith Part 1. pag. 22. And thus John Lord Bishop of Worcester in his late Controversiarum fasciculus De Redemptione Question 6. p. 269. But if this Certitude of a present Righteousness be essential to faith then faith cannot be without it And again this fiducia and Plerophory of assurance is an effect and Consequent of Faith And moreover this Opinion is against manifest Reason for a man must be first justified and his sins done away before he can certainly know it For every finite Act presupposes an Object to which it must tend So 't is necessary there should be a visible colour before Eye can see and that there should be objectum cognoscibile before the understanding can know any thing and that sins should be remitted before any man can know they are so And Justifying Faith must be precedent to this certa fiducia Nor is this fiducia intrinsical to Justifying Faith nor a necessary adjunct of it For there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is by many reslex Acts of Faith that this siducia or assurance is at last acquired We say then that illud in desinitione fidei malè ponitur quod non omni coâ—â—eâ—iâ— But this certa siducia doth not omni fidei Competere Matt. 14.31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 curâ—â—dubitaveras Now Justifying Faith doth therefore not consist in believing that Christ hath pardoned my Sins For that which supposeth a man just already cannot make him just For every intellectual assent doth necessarily presuppose that the Proposition is true that is assented to and so it is necessary that the Sins of Sempronius should be forgiven before Sempronius can believe any such thing But now to speak more distinctly there are three things in fide Salvificâ First The Knowledge of the Gospel that Christ was promised by the Father and sent to be vas sponsor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostrum Secondly The Assent to the Promises of this kind Thirdly That fiducia quâ anima multis peccati debitis Deo obnoxia Christum tanquam Vadem suum sponsorem patri loco nostro obligatum apprehendit in eoque pro solutione debiti a se contracto requiescit recumbit innititur The two former things namely notitia and assensus are as it were the materiale respectu fidei justificantis But the 3d. viz. that fiducia is quasi formale fidei and most proper to it For tho Saving Faith hath diverse Actings about divers Objects yet as it justifies it looks at Christ alone and him crucified As the Eye of a Jew under the Old Testament who was stung by Fiery Serpents did look at many things beside the Brazâ—n Serpent yet he grew well only by looking on that Serpent So the Eye of Saving Faith looks at many things besides Christ namely all Gospel Truths but doth heal us only as it applies Christ as a Medicine to the sick Soul In the next place we say though this faith be subjectivè only in the Vnderstanding yet it is effectivè in the Will and Affections and doth in a moral yet efficacious way determine them to love God and to obey him whence 't is called Faith that works by love And therefore this Faiih is no speculative Vertue in the head only but it is also practical in the heart Non tamen ratione inhaerentiae sed influentiae Now this Faith is said alone to justifie not in respect of its being without the company of good works but only in regard of its efficiency For though good works be in the same subject with this Faith yet they do not effectively concur with Faith in the business of Justification for Faith doth that alone that only applying Christ Moreover that doth justifie us not formaliter for so the Righteousness of Christ doth justifie us For he is made unto us of God righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 but effectivè Non tamen quod justitiam illam efficiat vel effectivè nobis imputet For it is God who thus justifies Rom. 8.33 but only because justitiam a Christo oblatam animae peccatrici applicat And this is that which the Divines of the Reform'd Religion do so often inculcate in their Writings that this Faith doth justifie not as it is absolutely consider'd in it self and ratione actus sed objectivè relativè in ordine ad objectum suum Christum Scilicet whom it accepts of So the hand of a man which receives a Plaister from the hand of a Chyrurgion is said to heal Not that it doth that formaliter and effectively but because it applies it to the Wound which it heals So a Window enlightens the House yet neither effectively if we speak properly nor formally but because it transmits light which doth properly enlighten Some Popish Writers tell us that the Apostle when he speaks against Justification by Works means Ceremonial Works But that is impertinently urged by them For Works are in the same manner excluded in our justification as they were in the
their Graciousness from the Habits and not è contra and that the Acts cannot be known distinctly nor first before we know the Habits from which as from their Cause those Acts proceed 2. Because if it be proved that the Habits differ specifically it cannot but follow without further proof that the Acts do so too which proceed from Causes specifically different Consid 9. So that now says our Author we are come to the main point or hinge of this Controversie which is to inquire how the Habits of saving Grace differ from those called common Graces In which he proceeds in this Method 1. He lays down a position viz. That the Habits of special and saving Grace are specifically different from the Habits and Acts of all sorts of common Graces And 2. He proves it by the following Reasons 1. The first principal Reason is that there are many common Graces or Extraordinary Free Gifts which are properly Corporeal and inherent in the Body as Sampsons strength Absoloms Beauty c. of which he supposes it undeniably manifest that they differ specifically and not only in degree from the Habits of saving Faith and Charity c. Reas 2. That there are likewise many common Graces of the Soul which enlarge our Vnderstandings and lead them to a more distinct Knowledge and Comprehension of Natural things than they could otherwise attain to which is sometimes immediately and miraculously infused by God as was the vast Wisdom of Solomon and sometimes acquired by the help of Natural Ingenuity Industry and the helps of an Vncommon Education such as might be the great Natural Knowledge of Aristotle Pliny c. Now such Knowledge of either of these sorts though a common Grace our Author takes to be so evidently more than Gradually distinct from Saving and Sanctifying Knowledge such as is produced by a lively Faith enlivening and sanctifying our Souls that he supposes it needs no proof and that no Man will deny it Reas 3. The Faith of Miracles is an instance of common Grace that differs more than in degree from special and saving Grace which our Author thinks cannot but appear to be manifest to any Man that shall impartially consider the following several ways in which they differ viz. 1. That they differ in their Principle for that the Habit of saving Faith is always an effect of the Spirit of Christ working new Life and Regeneration in us which the Faith of Miracles is not as having been many times de facto given to unregenerate and Reprobate Persons where though our Author confesses that both these effects flow from the same Spirit materially and absolutely considered yet it is under a several reason and formality which makes them several Formal Principles and different enough to distinguish the effects that flow from them more than Gradually So that the giving of saving faith is an Act of the Spirit inwardly Regenerating and dwelling in the Regenerate in such a peculiar way as is not in a Wicked Man as appears in Rom. 8.9 Joh. 14.16 17. Whereas the Faith of Miracles is an Act of the Spirit only outwardly governing again says he the giving of saving faith is an Act of Gods peculiar Love to that particular Soul to whom 't is given whereas the Faith of Miracles as the Schoolmen say is one of those Graces freely given to some chiefly for the advantage and Salvation of others See Becan in his Sum. of Scholast Divin part 2. Tract 4. cap. 1. paragr 4. pag. 719. And Aquin. 2. 2. Quest 178. Axiom Artic. praefix and Grotius upon Matth. 7.22 2. That they differ in their Subjects For that the Faith of Miracles may be in a Wicked Man that continues so till Death and is damn'd as appears from Deut. 13.1 2 3. Matth. 7.22 23. and is confessed even by the Popish Writers though they make Miracles a mark of the true Church As appears in Mart. Delrio Disput Magic lib. 2. Quaest 7. Maldonat in Matth. cap. 7. v. 21. Socrat. Hist lib. 7. cap. 17. pag. 744. of Paul Novatian Bishop Tolet. Comment in 3. Joh. Annot. 2. c. Theophylact. in Matth 7. pag. 41. Wheras a justifying faith can be only in Regenerate Christians and is often and most commonly where the Faith of Miracles never was nor ever will be for that the major part of just persons never did nor never will work Miracles and therefore these two sorts of Faith must differ more than gradually because if saving faith were only a faith in a greater degree than the faith of Miracles it would necessarily include in it the faith of Miracles as a heat six degrees strong includes a heat of four degrees but it is plain that saving faith includes not miraculous faith and therefore they must differ in Specie or Kind and not only in degree 3. That they differ Ratione sui and in themselves 1. For that Saving Faith sanctifies and justifies the Person who has it whereas the Faith of Miracles doth not so for which Reason Aquinas calls it A Grace freely given which is common both to the good and bad 2.2 Quest 178. in Axiom Art Praefix 2. In that Saving Faith is permanent and perpetual but the Faith of Miracles but Temporary 4. That they differ in respect of their Adjunct For that 1. Saving Faith is ahvays joyn'd with true Charity as its natural and inseparable Effect whereas Miraculous Faith may want it as appears in Matth. 7.22 where our Saviour says he never knew some such Miraculous Workers no not even when they wrought those Miracles that is as saith Theophylact on the place he never loved them or owned them for his which is a mark they had no true Charity says our Author because had they loved him he would have exprest more love to them See Theophylact in Matth. 7. pag. 41. See Grotius on the same place as also Lyranus 2. For that St. Paul if he speak of a thing possible as 't is most likely he does in 1 Cor. 13.2 plainly shews That the highest degree of Miraculous Faith may be without Charity and therefore true and saving Love and Charity is no necessary adjunct of Miraculous Faith though it be strong enough to remove Mountains See Calv. Inst lib. 3. cap. 2. par 13. pag. 188. and Faust Socin Epist 3. ad Matt. Radec. pag. 121. and Lyvan and Vorstus 1 Cor. 3.2 5. That they differ in respect of their Acts. For that 1. The Act of Saving Faith justifies and sanctifies its Possessour which the Faith of Miracles does not 2. Because the Act of Saving Faith is Immanent and acts within the Subject in which it is and not all in any other Subject without it whereas the Act of Miraculous Faith is transient as working Miraculous Effects in other Bodies besides that in which it is as healing the Sick opening the Eyes and Ears of the Blind and Deaf c. 6. That they differ in their Object for that Justifying Faith is an intire assent
3. cap. 2. parag 12. pag. 188. Gal. 5.22 But before becomes to the proof of this he confesses he has the Jesuits and some Remonstrants against him such as Maldonat in Joh. 9. c. and Mart. Becan in Compend Man lib. 1. cap. 16. Quest 3. pag. 335. and in Summ. Theol. part 2. Quest 8. pag. 802. and Pet. Bertius de Apostas Sanct. pag. 42 43. Act. Synod Remonstr in Defens Artic. 5. de persever Sanct. pag. 230 231. who in order to establish a worse Errour viz. The final Apostacy of the Saints assert That this common or temporary faith is not only specifically but even gradually the same with saving faith and would justifie if persevered in whose Arguments he passes by as undeserving a confutation being so pitifully weak and because his Learned and Ingenious Adversary Mr. Baxter proceeds not so far as to assert That such a faith can justifie However by the by he tells us that he conceives that it may be manifestly evinced against those Adversaries by many Circumstances of the Text in Matt. 13.5 6 21 22. where common faith is described by four Conditions that cannot possibly agree to a saving faith that it must needs be more than gradually different from it Now proceeds he though this were sufficient to prove his abovesaid position yet he will still add some more distinct Confirmations of it which he does by the following additional Reasons viz. Reason 1. Drawn from the vast difference between the nature of the Causes and first Principles of these two sorts of Faith because the one is Heaven-born immediately from the Spirit of Christ which sows in us an Immortal seed of faith which can never die but must overcome sin in the Elect and work Regeneration And the Other is only a Humane faith wrought by Humane Means and assents to Divine Truths out of meer Humane Motives and by meer Humane Causes as false Reasonings or more forcible Temptations and Persecutions may be overthrown and extinguisht Reason 2. From the different Nature and proper acts of both Qualities saving belief being the first Spiritual Life by which a Christian lives and is justified Heb. 10.38 whereas common belief is often in them who are dead in Trespasses and Sins and neither justifies sanctifies nor saves Reason 3. Because 't is evident common faith may be in a very high degree in some Impious and Vnregenerate Persons who have acute parts and are Learned and Industrious and thrive into a Radicated Habit and a great measure of knowledge of both speculative and practical Divine Truths which by their Learning they may be able to demonstrate and may really believe and assent to and yet never proceed to pay true obedience to c. And because though there are many degrees of saving faith too from the Child to the Strong Man in Christ which include far less knowledge than some degrees of common faith yet the weakest of them is saving whereas the highest degree of common faith can neither justifie nor save a plain Evidence these two faiths are of kinds as different as Heaven and Earth Reason 4. Is because common Grace as the knowledge of several Tongues and of many Divine Truths as it is generally a Habit or Disposition acquired by our Natural Faculties improved by Industry Education c. and so depending upon mutable principles as our Will and Vnderstanding so they may be lost again by negligence or malice whereas saving faith being produced by the Eternal and Immutable Spirit of Christ is incorruptible and can never die nor be lost John 17.3 1 Pet. 1.23 Heb. 10.38 John 6.47 51 54. See Aquin. 1. 2. Quaest 51. Art 4. in Corp. Artic. which he proves further by conferring 1 John 3.9 5.1.4 8. with 1 John 5.18 Reason 5. Is because though common and saving faith may have the same material object viz. Divine Truths revealed by God in the Gospel as that Jesus is the Son of God c. yet these truths are embraced by these two faiths upon different Motives and by far different means the one being built only upon Humane Mediums and Arguments such as Vnregenerate Persons by their natural parts helpt with Learning c. may attain to which is an assent like its Principles that begot it humane and fallible whereas saving faith proceeding from Christ's Spirit and built upon his immediate Illumination and Testimony which is Divine and Infallible must of necessity be an assent differing from the former more than in degree and be like its cause Divine and Infallible likewise which proof he further illustrates by comparing the difference between Opinion and Science with that between common and saving faith and by several Scriptural Arguments besides Reason 6. Is because if common and saving faith were essentially the same then Irregenerate and Impious Persons who have common Graces may be as gracious and as true Believers as the best Saints though not in so high a degree as the smallest grain of Gold is as truly Gold as the whole Wedge but that this consequence is de facto false Ergo c. And that it is really false appears by this says he that 't is as impossible for a Christian to have any other Theological Vertues or Graces without true faith as 't is for a Man according to the Moralists to have any other Moral Vertues without Prudence which is the Root of them all And further adds he if it be true as Mr. Baxter says in Exercit. de fid c. Art 30. pag. 279. Rat. 7. and Aphoris in Explicat Thes 69. pag. 266 and 267. That the Essence of saving faith consists in accepting Christ and loving him as our Lord and Saviour then it follows that those who do not so accept and love him have not the essence of saving faith and therefore that since 't is evident that no Irregenerate Persons though somtimes full fraught with common faith yet do ever so accept and love Christ therefore it follows their faith must needs be of a very different kind from saving faith Q.E.D. Reason 7. And last is Because if common and saving grace be essentialiy the same then it would follow that a Man who has an historical Faith whilst Unregenerate by the help of Natural parts Learning c. and afterwards should become Regenerate would by the Spirit of Christ receive only a greater degree of the same faith he had before and consequently that saving Grace would not be a Gift of God's as to its essence but only as to its degree because we should owe the essence of it only to our natural parts c. and the degree only to Christ's Spirit But this Doctrine says he is contrary to express Scripture and resolved to be so by the Ancient Church and by her expresly condemned in her Councils as Pelagian and Heretical and therefore it follows that the difference between common and saving faith must needs be specifical as appears in Concil Arausicann 2 Can. 4 5 6 7 8.
the begâ—tting but believing Abraham For to all and only these were the promises made Gal. 3.16 29. And all these are call'd the Fathers Rom. 15.8 to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers Acts. 26.6 There is mention of the Gospel or promise made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Abraham and his Seed 2. The Question speaks of these Fathers under the Old Covenant As to the Nature of a Covenant the word in the Hebrew is Benith coming from a word that signifies not as properly to create but to order and institute It s Nature is Artificially explain'd by Schielder and others and especially Buxtorfe in that Learned Work of his of Thirty Years And so what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is among the Hellenists and Faedus or Pactum among the Latinists Calvin the Lawyer and Schardius and Nebrissensis may be Consulted in their juridical Glossarys on the words Pactum and Faedus and Mynsinger and Sckneidwin on Instit lib. 3. Tit. 14. De Obligationibus may be usefully apply'd to for the Nature of Pactions and especially Grotius to name no more on the 1 of Mat. p. 1 2. This then is the thing we say that the Fathers or the Faithful who lived under the Oeconomy of the Law obtained the Salvation of their Souls by means of our Saviours Death Now here we shall demonstrate it distinctly in thesi ex parte Rei that the Fathers had Salvation by Christ's means and likewise in Hypothesi ex parte modi how they had it Now when we say the Fathers had Salvation by means of Christ it is confessed by all that they went to Heaven after their Deaths but whether by the Mercy of God or his absolute benignity their Sins were forgiven or for the merits of Christ is not so clear to all neither among all those Christians who have given up their names to Christ is it look'd on as a piece of Catholick truth for it appears out of the Racovian Catechism that the Socinians deny it and the Socinians argue from Isaiah 43.25 I even I am he that blotteth out thy Transgressions for mine own sake c. that therefore they had forgiveness only on the account of the Divine benignity without any respect to the Death of Christ But to shew that they obtained forgiveness by Christs means we may refer to Acts 4.12 Neither is there Salvation in any other for there is none other Name under Heaven given among Men whereby we must be saved But they will tell us That was true from the time the Apostle said so But I shall mind them of the foregoing Verse this is the Stone which was set at nought of you Builders which is become the Head of the Corner and that the Church in Scripture is compared to a Building and of which Christ being the Corner Stone both Jews and Gentiles meet in him and that according to Eph. 2.20 21. they come under the notion of Fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the Household of God and are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the Corner Stone in whom all the Building fittly framed together groweth unto an Holy Temple in the Lord. But yet to make it more clear if it be possible If the Death of Christ did give Redemption and Remission of Sins in the Old Testament then the People of God had Salvation by this means But they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Redemption as saith the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 9.15 And for this Cause he is the Mediatour of the New Testament that by means of Death for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the First Testament they which are called might receive the promise of Eternal Inheritance Two things are very clear from this place of Scripture First That Christ did procure for the Fathers that lived under the Old Testament Redemption from their Sins Secondly That he did procure an Eternal Inheritance for them which was the thing to be proved Now as to the place out of Isaiah of Gods blotting out Transgressions for his own names sake and therefore not for Christ's I deny the Consequence For that doth not exclude Christs merits but the persons whose Sins are there forgiven And thus God may be still said in the New Testament to pardon our Sins for his names sake And so 't is said Rom. 8.32 He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things God now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omnia nobis gratificatur i. e. gratis dat scilicet ex parte nostri non Christi qui pretio numerato captos nos è captivitate liberaverat For this you may see Lud. Lucium contra Michael Gittichium de Satisfact Christi in solutione arg 3. p. 27. Having shewn that the Fathers were saved by Christ ex parte Rei we shall now shew it in Hypothesis and by the special means by which the Fathers did gain Salvation by Christ And here we say 1. That they might gain Salvation by Christ First By being purely passive in receiving it without exerting any Act of Faith as Infants are saved by Christ But Secondly We say the Fathers under the Law were active in obtaining Salvation by Christ and that they did believe on Christ and did apply to themselves what Christ should merit The Socinians say they were justified by Faith but by Faith in God and not in his Son But that the truth may more plainly appear I shall lay down this Conclusion and prove it That the Saints under the Law did obtain Salvation by Faith in Christ Here we may Consider the Saints as such who were notae eminentioris as Abraham David and the Prophets or notae inferioris ut è plebe indocti literarum rudes and we may likewise Consider Faith as twofold I mean Faith in Christ First Explicit by which Christ is directly known in himself and is expresly believed Second Implicit by which Christ is not expresly known and believed but only implicitly and by Consequence Cum ex uno in thesi directè cognito creditoque sequitur Christum in hyyothesi implicitè esse creditum So he who believes that God will by means disposed by his Providence procure his Salvation though he knows not what those means are may be said implicitly to believe on Christ as the primary of those means Now here we say that the Saints of more eminent note did explicitly believe on Christ as their Redeemer This is asserted both by Papists and Protestants As we may see out of Canus Relect. part 2. p. 753. Becanus Tractat. de Analog V. N. Testamenti cap. 2. Q. 7. Lombard L. Sent. 3. Dist 25. Hooperus Glocestrensis in Symbolum Art 69. Rivet in Isag ad Sacram Script cap. 27. Cunaeus de Repub. Judaeor lib. 3. c. 9. I shall now shew that those Holy Men of Eminent note