is of a Person which likewise is twofold 1. Of Christ as Man For so he was in the Number of the Elect. Math. 12.18 2. Of those United with Christ namely of the Angels who persevered in their Obedience and of Men God ordain'd and Elected some Men to Offices and Honour in this World as Saul to the Government Others he Elected to Salvation and Glory in Heaven and of these our Question is Now here we say that this Divine Election by which God chooseth Certain Men from Eternity to Salvation is not an Act of the Divine Intellect or Knowledge by which he knows but of his Will by which according to his good pleasure he determines of us The Reason is because the Divine Knowledge is Natural and necessary so that it is impossible that God should not know every object that could be known but Election is a free Act since it is a thing confessed pâ—tuisse Deum vel nullos Condidisse vel Conditos non elegisse vel plures vel pauciores vel alios pâ—oâ—suo benâ—placito jure absoluto quo in Creaturas utitur The Divine Knowledge doth equally look at all objects possible or future but not so his Election which is a Discretive Act and passeth by some to perish for ever while it prepares Grace and Glory for others Now when it is ask'd if Election be from Faith foreseen First We do not deny that Faith was foreseen from Eternity since 't is manifest that the Knowledge of God is equally Eternal with his Will For sicut quicquid est futurum erat ab aeterno futurum ita etiam ab aeâ—erno Cognitum But Secondly We enquire of the habitude that the fâ—reseeing of Faith hath to Election This habitude for foreseen Faith in order to Election is threefold and may have the Notion First Antecedentis so that God chooseth none to Heaven in whom he had not seen Faith to come or did see that Faith would come before they were actually Elected Secondly It may have the Notion Conditionis and so Faith may be consider'd as a Condition necessarily required in Election Thirdly Foreseen Faith may further have the Notion of a Cause and so not to be only an Antecedent and a Condition of Election but to have the Notion of a Cause from whence Election follows as the Effect Now when 't is enquired if Election be of Faith foreseen Historical Faith is not meant nor a Faith of Miracles the which Unregenerate Men may have but the meaning is of justifying Faith which is proper only to the Regenerate These matters being thus setled Our Principal Conclusion is this viz. In illis qui Eliguntur Praedestinantur ad gloriam non datur aliquis Actus aut qualitas a Deo praevisa aut aliud quodcunque quod sit meritum causa ratio aut Conditio vel antecedens quolibet modo ita Praesuppositum Decreto Electionis ut ex positione talis Praecedanei in Praevisione divinâ ponatur Electio ex negatione negetur Or you may take the Conclusion thus viz. Nulla datur ex parte nostrâ Causa ratio vel Conditio sine quâ non Praedestinatioâ—is seu Electionis Divinae The first Reason of this Conclusion is If Election be from Faith foreseen then Faith foreseen is some way a Cause of Election the which Consequence though the Remonstrants will sometimes deny and seem not to allow foreseen Faith as the Cause of Gods Electing as may be seen in the Collatio Hagiensis p. 103. Yet elsewhere they speak it out plainly in Writings held by them most Authentical namely in Actis Synodalibus Part. 2. p. 6. where they tell us Fidem Perseverationem in Electione Consâ—derari ut Conditionem ab bomine praestitam ac proinde tanquam Causam They add this Reason Because the Condition prescribed and perform'd doth necessario alicujus Causae rationem induere And indeed they must needs be forc'd to Confess this For if we ask them why God chose Peter and not Judas they say because God foresaw that Peter would believe So that from their Hypothesis it must needs be that foreseen Faith was the Cause that Peter was chosen before Judas Now I do subsume that foreseen Faith is not the Cause nor Reason nor Motive any way of Election First Because the Scripture allows of no Cause of Election extra Deum ipsum but refers it altogether to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beneplacitum For this Consult Ephes 1.11 and Rom. 9.11 On the other hand If you will believe you shall be Elected is no where to be found in Holy Writ either expresly or by equi valence There is I confess this proposition in Scripture He that believes shall be saved but not he that believes shall be predestinated because God never required Faith as antecedaneous to his decree Secondly If Faith be an effect and Consequent of Election then is it not the Cause of it or antecedaneous motive because 't is altogether impossible and implies a manifest Contradiction ut idem respectu ejusdem sit antecedens consequens causa effectus But Faith is an effect or Consequent of Election therefore 't is not a Cause or antecedent motive of it The minor I prove out of Eph. 1.4 According as he hath chosen us before the Foundation of the World that we should be Holy c. And v. 5th sheweth that God did predestinate those whom he would adopt for Sons not such as were Sons But if he had chosen such as believed then he would have chosen Holy Men and Sons But Sanctity and our Sonship are not the Cause nor Antecedent Motive of Election For Rom. 8.29 For whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to be Conformed to the Image of his Son not as if they were then so Again if Election were of Works then the Apostle might have had an Answer to his Objection in a readiness as to what he mentions in the 9th of the Romans about the Children neither having done any good or evil and in vain had the instance there been brought of the Potters power over the Clay of the same lump to make one Vessel unto Honour and another to dishonour Whereas if Election had been from foreseen Faith he had spoke more aptly thus Hath not the Potter the art to know the difference in several parts of Clay and to separate the good from the bad But the Apostles similitude is exactly pertinent if we suppose Election to be absolute and all Creatures to be in an equal State The Bishop ends his determination with another Reason for his Conclusion Namely that Infants are Eleoted but not from Faith and perseverance for they are not capable thereof Partes sub antiquo saedere per Christi Mortem salutem sunt Consecuti TO begin with the sâ—â—tinâ— of the Question 1. By Fathers here we do not understand the Patriarchs and Prophets but all the Faithful under the Old Testament All the Children of Abraham I mean not of
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
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
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.