thirst Where to come to him and believe on him are manifestly said to be the same things which afterward he calls eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood v. 53 54. Now the generality of the Papists interpret this place of St. John not to be meant literally And therefore the other of Hoc est Corpus meum may not be meant literally These expressions of This is my Body and this is my Blood that is Symbolical and Sacramental Signs Seals and Representations of his Body and Blood and Passion are most agreeable to the Common Dialect and Idiotisms of the Jews to the Genius and Language of their Countrey and the Place where and Persons with whom our Saviour lived as is manifest by several phrases and parallel expressions of the Holy Ghost in Scripture So the seven fat Kine are call'd seven years of Plenty And Ezekiel speaking of dry Bones saith These Bones are the House of Israel So in Daniel Thou O King art that golden head So in the Gospel The Rock was Christ And Hagar and Sara are the two Covenants the seven Heads are seven Hills The Woman is that great City c. And our Saviour saith of himself I am the true Vine Why should we not infer as well from hence that Christ was turned into a Vine as what the Papists infer from other words since he saith only This is my Blood not my true Blood and here saith I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Christ saith he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Papists Tenet is a thing gratis dictum a bare assertion without proof a begging of what should be proved This Popish Opinion would never have been receiv'd if the Tyranny of some and Ends and Interests of others did not unhappily cause it There is no more connection between the things contained in it than between Tenterton Steeple and Goodwin Sands no shadow of consequence Nor hath the antecedent any more Logical relation to the consequent than Chalk to Cheese And now I shall give you a clear account of what we Protestants at least what I believe in this particular Now that I may do this with as much clearness and sincerity as I can I shall say 1. That the Body and Blood of Christ may be said to be present in the Eucharist first respectu sui by a Corporeal Physical and Local presence as if Christ's Body it self were substantially in the place where the Bread and Wine is Secondly respectu causati effectus producti when Christ's Body tho' comprehended in Heaven that is the gracious effect of his Death and Passion goeth along with the Sacred Symbols and is really present to the Believing Receiver That we call a Local this a Virtual yet real presence Secondly As to the Local presence of our Saviour's Body we may say it is in Heaven only not here in the Eucharist and the Scripture saith so too in express terms It is in Heaven therefore not here it being impossible as involving a manifest contradiction that the same Numerical Body should at the same time be here and there too Thirdly As to the Virtual presence which is real too we say and believe that the gracious Effects of our Saviour's Body and Blood are really present and go along with the Sacred Signs in the Sacrament to those who are true Believers But for wicked Men who are Enemies to Christ and dead in their sins and trespasses Christ's Body and Blood are neither locally nor virtually present to them In that sense we now speak of they neither receive his Body nor Blood nor any benefit by them Fourthly We believe and say that the Cause of this presence is twofold first Moral secondly Physical First Faith being an Evangelical Condition on which all the Evangelical Promises and Blessings of God in Christ depend it is manifest that as the want of it is a Moral Cause why we want those Blessings so the having of it is morally a Cause why we have them For when once our gracious God doth promise us any thing upon condition of Faith and he doth promise Heaven it self on that condition the Condition being performed on our part there lies an Obligation on God who will not nay cannot break his promise to give us those Blessings which he promised on that Condition So that Faith being a conditio praestita ex parte nostri I call it a Moral cause and their own School-men call it so too of Christ's real presence to Believers in the Eucharist For as Faith was Conditio praerequisita a Condition required in those Adulti in the Acts who were to be baptized and the want of it was a Moral Cause why Baptism was not effectual and the presence of it a cause of all those gracious Consequents seal'd to Believers by Baptism So in the Eucharist Faith is a Moral Cause of the spiritual nourishment and growth of Grace seal'd to us in that Sacrament Secondly But there is another power which I call a Physical Cause of that real presence and that is our blessed Saviour himself as Mediator and Head of the Church For to him as such all Power is given of redeeming justifying sanctifying saving his Servants And he is both the Efficient and Meritorious Cause of all spiritual blessings bestowed on us So that the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament is from Faith as a Moral Cause and from another Power that of Jesus Christ as our Mediator as from the Efficient Cause You will find some of our Romish Adversaries so confident as to tell us that the first Christian World believed otherwise than the Protestants do in these and other Points But there they must of necessity if they will speak congruously by the first Christian World mean the first hundred years after Christ or that and some of the next Centuries following And to make this good surely they will bring some Authors of that time to prove it Some of them have cited St. Ignatius who lived in the time of of the first Century But why he is no Competent Witness will anon appear And as for D. Areopagite we know that he is a Bastard and no Father that the Works ascribed to him are adulterate and spurious Brats and confess'd so to us by the Papists and proved to be so many hundred years before Luther was born If Ignatius his Epistle to the Smyrnenses be not altogether forged yet it is so mangled and interpolated by the injury of time and the subtilty and knavery of persons enslaved to Interest that it is impossible to know which is genuine and which not and so the whole is of no competent Authority How strangely Ignatius is mangled and interpolated you may see by the vast difference of all Copies and Editions Greek and Latine as that of Videlius Vsserius J. Vossius You may likewise observe that the Papists do in some things go contrary to Councils For they go contrary to the Concilium Nicenum secundum that Council
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.
and Learn the Greek Tongue 3. But that which most incouraged and necessitated the study of Languages and especially the Hebrew and Greek was Luther and the Reformation by him begun Anno 1517. Luther which was rare in those times in a Monk understood Hebrew and Greek and having many disputes with Cardinal Cajetan who was then Legat in Germany the Cardinal urging Scripture against him according to their Vulgar Latin Translation Luther told him that Translation was false and dissonant from the Original This puzl'd the Cardinal though a great Schoolman who thereupon set himself to study both Greek and Hebrew which with great diligence he did that he might be better able to Answer and Confute Luther and his followers many of which were excellent Grecians such were Melanchton and many others And hence it was that the Pope and his Party seeing the necessity of Languages especially Hebrew and Greek for the Defence of their Religion or Superstition rather against the Protestants Pope Paul the fifth Renews the Decree of Clement the fifth and the Council of Vienna before mention'd and though that Decree had been neglected and the Greek Tongue damn'd in their Canon Law yet he earnestly injoins the profession of it and of the Hebrew Chaldee and Arabick in all their (a) Vide Constitutionem 67. Pauli 5. in â—â—llario Romano Editionis Rome 1638. pag. 185 186. Vniversities Monasteries and Schools to this end that they might be better able to Confute the Hereticks I am Sir Your affectionate friend and Servant Tho. Lincolne A Letter concerning the Kings being empower'd to make a Lay-man his Vicar-General Sir THAT my Lord D. of Ormonds Commission which you say you have seen has no particular mention of the Kings Ecclesiastical Power deputed I wonder not The Commission which makes him Vice-roy Deputy or Lieutenant to the King does ipso facto make him his Vicar-General to execute both powers Ecclesiastical and Civil and by that Commission he does so Does not the Lieutenant there de jure ordinario and as Lieu-tenants call Synods collate Bishopricks and other Ecclesiastical Dignities and Preferments does he not hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes by himself or some commissioned by him does he not punish Ecclesiastical persons when they are criminal Do not your Articles of Religion established in a National (a) Articles of Religion in the National Synod or Convocation at Dublâ—n 1615. § 57 58. c. Synod of Ireland give our Kings the same Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes there as he has here And do not our Kings here execute their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction partly in Person in giving Arch-Bishopricks Bishopricks calling Synods c. partly by Commission so the Chancellors of England by their Commission have power to give some Ecclesiastical Dignities and Livings to visit Winsor I mean the Collegiate Church there and all his royal Chappels and Churches of his Foundation if he have not otherwise appointed other visitors c. In short I do believe that in England never any but Cromwel had such a large Commission and full power to Visit all persons in all Ecclesiastical Causes yet I believe it most evident that he may when he shall think it convenient give such a Commission I am Sir Your affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. A Letter concerning the allowance and respect that the Sentences of Protestant Bishops may expect from Popish ones writ by way of answer to a friend of Mr. Collington's who acquainted the Bishop that the Court of Arches here was of opinion that the Sentence of the Arch-bishop of Turin could not here be question'd by reason of the practice of Popish and Protestant Bishops allowing each others Sentences Sir FOR the contempt they of Rome have of our Bishops and all their Sentences and Judicial Acts especially in foro exteriori contentioso it is notoriously known that they have no value at all of our Bishops and pronounce all their sentences and judicial Acts null and every way invalid For 1. They generally deny our Bishops and Ministers to be true Bishops or Priests but admit them to be Lay-men only A Sorbon (a) Anth Champney P. and D. of the Sorbonne Douay 1616. Dr. In a Treatise about the Vocation of Bishops and Ministers indeavours to prove against Du Plessin Dr. Field and Mr. Mason that Protestant Bishops particularly those of England are not true Bishops nor have any lawful Calling Another and he a Popish Bishop speaking of our English Bishops and Pastors says (b) R. Smith Bp. of Chalcedon in praefat ad Collationem Doctrinae Catholicorum ac Pr testant Paris 1622. Eos quos nunc pro Pastoribus habent NIHIL EORVM OBTINERE quae ad ESSENTIAM hujus muneris requiruntur Another thus (c) Rich. Bâ—istow Motivo 21. Qualis est illa Ecclesia cujus Ministri NIHIL ALIVD sunt quam MERE LAICI NON MISSI NON VOCATI NON CONSECRATI Our Countrey-man Card. Alan and the Rhemish Annotators say (d) Annotatores Rhemenses in Rom. 10.15 All our Clergy-men from the highest to the lowest are false Prophets running and usurping being NEVER LAWFULLY CALLED And Dr. Kellison speaking of our Bishops and Ministers (e) Kellison in Repl. contra D. Sutlisse p. 31. NEC ORDINES nec JVRISDICTIONEM habent And Bellarmine (f) Bellarmin De Ecclesiâ militant l. 4. c. 8. Nostri temporis Haeretici nec ordinationem nec successionem habent ideo longè inverecundiùs quam ulli unquam Haeretici nomen munus Episcopi usurpant And some Popish Priests in their Petition to King James expresly tell the King (g) Supplicat ad Jacobum Regem 1604. NVLLI ministrorum vestrorum ad Catholicam fraternitatem accedentes habentur alii quam MERE LAICI Lastly Not to trouble you or my self with more Quotations Turrian tells us that Donatists and Luciferian Hereticks have some kind of Bishops and Priests (h) Turrian de Jure Ordinand lib. 1. cap. 7. Protestantes vero NULLAM PENITVS formam Ecclesiae habent quia NULLOS PENITUS Ecclesiae Verbi MINISTROS habent sed MEROS LAICOS This is their opinion of our Bishops and Clergy that they have no just Call or Ordination and consequently no Jurisdiction and then it necessarily follows if this were true that all their Sentences and Judicial Acts are invalid and absolute nullities 2. They say that all Protestants especially the Bishops and Clergy are Hereticks and Schismaticks extra Ecclesiam and neither have nor can have any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so that whatever cause be brought before them in their Consistories it is coram non Judice and so whatever they do is a nullity That Hereticks and Schismaticks and such they declare all Protestants to be forfeit all their Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction their own (i) Gratian. Can. 4. Audivimus Can. vit Caelestinus 35. Can. Apertè 36. Can. Miramur 37. Caus 24. Quaest 1. vid. Card. de Turre-Cremata ad dictos Canones Canons expresly say And besides
or hating the same Sin at different times in the very same Degree or of any Volition or Nolition of the same Object in the same persons c. Consi VI. Whereas Mr. Baxter asserts That the Acts and Exercises of Common and Special Grace differ only in degree and so the difference between Common and Special Grace is only g adual and not specifical our Author humbly conceives this Position to be false and inconsistent with the just and kown Principles of both Divinity and true Philosophy and that for the following Reasons viz. 1. He supposes that Actions Evangelically good and well pleasing to God are sometimes specifically different as is an Act of true Charity from an Act of Saving Faith and sometimes only gradually different as is the least degree of Saving Faith in a weâ—k but true Believer from a stronger and more perfect Faith in a strong Believer For good and good in the same Species says he cannot possibly differ more than in degree But Acts of Common Grace in Hypocrites and Reprobates must needs differ more than so from Acts of special Grace in the Regenerate Because 't is certain that good and good in the same kind or species neither do nor can differ â—o much as good and evil these latter standing in a direct and formal opposition one to the other and being incompatible and naturally destructive one of the other And that Acts of Common Grace in Hypocrites and of Saving Grace in the Regenerate are Acs as far different as good and evil he proves in that it appears that Acts of Saving Grace are Evangelically good and well-pleasing to God but that the Acts of Common Grace in the Vnregenerate are not so For that how specious soever they appear when all their Circumstances are examined by the Touchstone of the Law and Gospel they are always found to be but as the Father calls them Splendida peccata Splendid perhaps but yet sins for all that false gloss that shines upon them Which says he seems further evident 1. Because since without Faith 't is impossible to please God those Acts in the Vnregenerate which are confessedly done without Saving Faith can neither be Evangelically good nor please God 2. Because Hypocrites are not good Trees but are compared to Thistles and therefore tho they may bring forth fair yet can never produce good Fruit. 3. Because Hypocrites and Vnregenerate persons are fleshly minded enemies to God and in a deadly or damnable condition in which they cannot please God Rom. 8.5 6 7. Rom. 8.8 And are spiritually dead in sins and have no spiritual life and much less the Acts of it which we can have only from Christ and his Spirit Col. 2.13 Eph. 2.1 2 5 12. 1 Joh. 5.12 Joh. 15.4 5. From whence it seems to follow that the Acts of common grace in such persons cannot be Evangelically good nor pleasing to God and therefore must needs differ more than gradually from the Acts of saving grace in the Regenerate which are confessed by all to be both Evangellically good and pleasing to God 2. Our Author desires us to Consider that it is upon evident Reason confessed even by Mr. Baxter himself in his Saints Everlasting Rest pag. 225. That the Acts of common and special Grace as they are morally considered differ specifically and not only gradually from whence our Author infers that it follows that whenever the Question is put How common and special Grace differ It must be always answered in the Affirmative that they differ in Specie and not in Degree only And that because the Acts of our Vnderstanding and Will are saving Graces in a Moral Consideration only and in no other And therefore that if in their Moral Consideration they differ specifically from common grace it can never be said without Nonsense that they differ only gradually in any other Consideration for that in a Physical or Natural Consideration they are no saving graces at all so that if in that consideration they should differ only gradually it will not therefore follow that common and special graces differ only in degree for the Reason abovesaid For adds he this argument viz. Common and special belief Physically considered differ only gradually therefore common and special graces differ only gradually means no more than that things which are no graces at all differ only gradually and therefore common and special graces differ only gradually Which being an illogical unconcluding inference the former which is but the same insence must be so too And that those particular Acts of the Will and Vnderstanding viz. Saving Faith and Saving Love as naturally considered are no saving graces at all our Author pretends to prove thus viz. 1. By the Contents of the second Consideration 2. By Mr. Baxters own Confession That saving Love and Belief are graces only in a Moral Consideration who in his Saints Everlasting Rest pag. 226. Tells us That they are graces and vertues formally in respect to the Law only and their Conformity with it and saving graces with respect to the promise of God who has proposed Salvation upon such conditions which is a Moral and not a Natural consideration of them so that concludes he to say that common and saving graces are specifically distinct in their moral consideration is to say they are only and absolutely so distinguisht because they are saving graces in no other Consideration but that Consid 8. It is to be Consider'd says our Author That Common and Special Graces consist not so Properly and Originally in the Acts and Exercise of Faith Love c. As in the Hâ—bits and principle from whence they flow according to Suarez and some others As for Example The Graciousness of our Actual Faith or Love consists not so much in the Essence of the Act Naturally consider'd as 't is the Natural product of the Natural Faculty from whence it flows as in the Circumstance Manner and Measure of it from whence its Goodness and Conformity with the Law proceeds which it has from the Habit and Principle from whence it flows the Act being more or less intense or remiss perfect or imperfect proportionably as is the Habit or Principle from whence it springs 2. And that as the Habits whether Common or special Graces are always in the Order of Nature and mostly in the Order of Time before the Acts which are the Acts only of them so they are much more lasting and permanent the Acts ceasing whilst we sleep or are in a swoon but the Habits always remaining in us And that since Habits do most primarily and principally denominate us Gracious therefore they are most properly and principally to be esteemed those Common or Special Graces which are the subject of the present Dispute And consequently to proceed Rationally in inquiring Whether those Graces differ specifically or Gradually we ought first to inquire into their Habits and then sâ—condarily into their Acts. And that for these Reasons viz. 1. Because the Acts derive