necessarily presupposes and to believe that there is a God because God said so whose existence is in the mean time call'd in question were ridiculous Answ I. Tho' the Existence of God be an Article of Faith yet it may likewise be known by Natural light since there are many things in the Scriptures which we believe by Faith that can be demonstrated by natural light such as these known Principles that God is to be honoured Parents obeyed c. And the Reason is because Faith and Natural Scientifick Knowledge do not formally differ in their material Object for both may have one and the same Object viz. one and the same proposition both proved by natural demonstration and believed in by Faith because of the testimony of God but the main and principle difference lies in that which they call Objectum formale and the formality of the Object is taken from the principal Motive or mean by vertue whereof the proposition comes to gain an assent as in Natural things the motive of my assent is evident demonstration and in supernatural things the testimony of God so that I may assent unto a proposition that is demonstrable by natural light because of the clear probation of the same and this is call'd assensus scientificus and if God confirm it by Revelation I assent unto the same proposition because of the testimony of God and this is called assensus fidei or supernaturalis not as if the proposition it self were supernatural incomprehensible by natural light but because the medium or motive upon which I ground my assent unto it is supernatural So that one and the same proposition may be in ordine ad diversa motiva both the object of Faith and of a demonstrative Natural knowledge Instatur The Object of Faith is inevident for Faith is an inevident assent But if the Existence of God can be demonstratively proved by Natural Light then it cannot be inevident Ergo c. Answ There be three things to be considered in giving an assent to a truth 1. Firmitas or the stedfastness of the person in his belief not doubting of any thing 2. Certitudo or the certainty of the truth it self for some Men may be firmly perswaded of a thing which is not in it self a certain truth as the Hereticks are of their Errours 3. Evidentia or a demonstrative perspicuous manifestation of the truth For many things such as matters of Faith are certainly true and Men are firmly persuaded of their truth who yet cannot evidently shew and demonstrate that it is a truth because they believe upon the Testimony of another And of these truths that are evident some are more evident than others as the prima principia or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are more evident than the other conclusions that are deduced tho' with evidence too by a longer series of consequences Now whatever is an Object of Faith is indeed ineâ—â—â—ent yet there are some things more inevident than others such as the principal and cardinal truths of thâ— Christian Relâ—gion viz. The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead the divinity and incâ—â—â—nation of Christ and the whole Mystery of his Redeâ—ption of the World by his blooâ— and these are evâ—ry way inevident whereas there are some other truths which tho' in so far as they are believed in by Faith are justly denominated inevident because of the motive and medium of the Belief yet may be upon another occasional respect and per accidens called evident of which Nature is this of the Existence of a God which is truly an object of Faith and in that respect inevident viz. as assented unto upon the testimony of God But it is also upon another respect evident becâ—use it per accidens so falls out that it is likewise demonstrable by natural knowledge Answ 2. It does not follâ—w that the Existence of God cannot be believed by Faith because Faith depends on the Testimony of God which presupposes that there is a God for the contrary seems rather to be deducible from thence viz. That because all Faith is founded upon the Divine Testimony and because no Believer can give assent unto any truth unless he know the Testimony given unto the same to be divine therefore by that same very act of Faith whereby he believes this Testimony to come from God he likewise believes there is a God who sends it For by the same individual act of seeing I must of necessity see the colour and sensible species of a Wall as they call it that I see the Wall it self by No more can I know the testimony to the truth to be divine unless by the same very act of Faith whereby I believe the testimony to be God's I likewise believe the existence of God who gives this Testimony And this Divine Testimony is the ground of all my belief and the ratio a priori wherefore I give mine assent unto any thing yet there can be no ratio a priori given wherefore I believe the Testimony of God as when I see a Wall the ratio is because of the species but the species it self wants any ratio and is only â—â—en propter se so in all the objects of my â—aith I believe them because of the Testimony of God but I believe the Testimony of God propter se So that the Existence of God though it be sufficiently demonstrable by the light of Nature and in that sense the Object of a scientifick asâ—â—â— yet since God has confirmed it by his revealed Testimony it may well be stated as an Article of our Creed which we believe because God has testified and revealed the same and that in a more clear manner than bare Reason is capable to perform the demonstration of it Objection 4. There is no other way of knowing God naturally than by way of causality from the Creatures arising from the effect unto the cause but that we cannot do unless we can evidently know and demonstrate that the Creature is really the effect and work of God and this we cannot since the greatest Philosophers were ignorant of it and thâ—ught the World to be eternal which is also confirmed by the Apostle Heb. 11. By faith we know that the World was created intimating that the Creation of the World is a truth not comprehended by Natural Light Answer All the Philosophers have generally acknowledged that God was the Creator of the World Hence Aristotle frequently calls God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plato in Timaeo Tom. 2. pag. 31. asserts that God made but one World not many Plutarch commends Alexander for saying that God was the Father of all things Plutarch in Alex. Magn. pag 681. What more ordinary amongst the Poets than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I lle opisex rerum c Anaxagoras Hermotinus Pythagoras c. were all asserters of the same Doctrine so that they knew and acknowledged the Creation of the World in general though they could not condescend to the particular Circumstances
Universal Use of Scripture therefore that Preface totally and many other things in his Commentaries are damn'd by the Inquisitors * Ind. expurgat Belgico Vlyssiponensi verbo Jacob. Faber and all his Works prohibited by Clement 8. (b) Possevinus in apparatu sacro verbo Jacob Faber till they be purg'd i. e. corrupted and spoil'd by the Inquisitors and their Indices 3. Writers on the Epistles and Apocal. if not all or most are these 1. Antient as 1. Theod. in omnes Pauli Epistolas numero 14. He has nothing on the seven Canonical Epistles James Peter John and Jude nor the Revelation he is amongst the Antients one of the best 2. Ambrose in omnes Pauli Epistolas exceptâ ad Hebr. peradventure because that Epistle was not in his time received in the Roman Church (c) Epistolam ad Hebraeos inter Canon Scripturas consuetudo Latina non accipit Hier. in cap. 8. Isaiae Tom. 4. p. 32. Col. 2. idem ait cap. 6. Isaiae ibid. pag. 24. Col. 9. which may be the reason too why St. Hierom has no Comment on that Epistle nor any Preface to it as he has to most Books of the Bible but those Commentaries are denied to be Ambroses by many (a) Rivetum vid. ejus Critica Sacra lib. 3. cap. 18. p. 291. Bellarm. de Script Eccles in Ambr. p. 130 131 c. and suspected by more 3. Primasius Vtiensis circa annum 545. 4. Sedulius circa annum 430. 5. (b) Vbi supra in Oecumenio pag. 293. Oecumenius quisque demum fuerit in omnes Pauli Canon Epist cum quo conjungitur Arethas Caesariensis in Apocal. who he was and when he lived is uncertain Bellar. places him after the year 1000. and some sooner His Commentary indeed is a Catena taken out of (c) See their names in Posssevines Apparatus sacer verbo Oecumen about 121 Antient Authors for so many he cites and amongst them he often cites Photius whence 't is evident he liv'd after Photius who flourish'd after the middle of the 9th Century c. 2. Modern and 1. Protestants such as Conrad Vorstius on all the Epistles save that to the Hebrews who has 1. The Analysis 2. The Paraphrasis 3. Schola in Paraphrasin 2. The loci communes of every Chapter 2. Dr. Hammond on the Epist and Apocal. sed cautè legendus for he (d) See his Notes on Joh. 5.2 Lit. a the healing power not divine but natural 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Messenger not Dei Angelus So Act. 1.25 the Paraphr and Notes refers the words his own Place to Mathias not Judas and Act. 11.30 in the Paraph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops properly in the Note (d) no secondary Presbyters inferiour to Bishops once nam'd in Scripture 3. Secondary Priests not Jure Divino or no Divine proof that they are so hath divers Novel Opinions and Expositions inconsistent with the Text or Truth or the Judgment of Antiquity and several mistakes in Geograph Chronol (e) 2 Thes in the Argument praefix'd he says that Epistle was writ Anno Christi 51. then cap. 2. v. 3. the Man of Sin was not then revealed and yet he says in Paraphr Notis that Simon Magus was the Man of Sin and yet he and his Heresies were published if not much sooner â—â—an Anno Christi 44. as is certain out of Hiâ—â— de Illust Eccles Doct. cap. 1. Bar. Annal. Tom. 11. ad Ann. 44. 351 525. and Dr. Hammond himself on 1 Pet. 5.13 Not. Tit. D. History c. 3. Cameronis Mirothecium Evang. c. Lud. Capelli Spicilegium both bound up together Printed in Quarto Anno 1632. have many short and considerable Notes on many particular places in the Epist and Apoc. 2. Papist such as 1. Estius in Epistolas one of the best Popish Writers on that Subject 2. Joh. Gagnaeius in omnes Epist Apoc. brevissima facillima Scholia Octavo Ant. 1564. 3. Pet. Lombardus in omnes Pauli Epistolas he writ before Transubstantiation Opinionis Potentum Prodigium was decreed in the Lateran Council 1215. And in many things honest Peter is no Papist 4. Dionysius Carthusianus in omnes Pauli Epist and many other c. 5. Arias Montanus in omnes Apostolorum Epistolas Apoc. For the better understanding of the Scriptures it will be convenient to know and when occasion to consult such Books as have given general directions for studying Scriptures and particular explications of the Jewish Antiquities c. such as these Apparatus ad Scripturas intelligendas 1. Antiquitatum Judaicarum libri 9. per Ariam Montanum Lug. Bat. 1593. Quarto 2. Buxtorfii Tiberias seu Commentarius Historicus didacticus Criticus ad Illustrationem Operis Biblici Bas 1620. Fol. 3. Andr. Riveti Isagoge seu Introductio ad Scripturam sacram Vet. N. Test. Lugd. Bat. 1627. 4. Ant. Possevini Apparatus ad Studia Scripturae Theologiae Scholasticae practicoe Ferrariae 1609. Quarto 5. Ejusdem Bibliotheca selecta dicta Bibliothecae Lib. 2. 3. Colon. Agrip. 1607. Fol. There are many such more Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiae per Gilb. Voetium Ultrajecti 1651. lib. 2. sect 2. p. 841. de Apparatu Theologico Hen. Hollingeri Clavis Scripturae seu Thesaurus Philologicus Tiguri 1649. Quarto De Canone Scripturae 12. Seeing Controversies there are concerning the Canon of Scripture some Books being Canonical to some which to others are Apocryphal it will be convenient to have some who have writ ex professo on that Subject such as 1. Joh. Rainolds de Lib. Apoc. Tom. 12. sent 4. Oppenheim 1611. There are many Controversies learnedly discussed obiter in these two Volumes besides those about the Canon 2. The Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture by Dr. Cosin late Bishop of Durham Lond. 1657. 3. Hen. Limmichii vindicatio Librorum Apoc. 1638. 8 o. 4. Consulendi sunt cum opus fuerit Scriptores irestici Pontificii Reformati qui Controversiam de Canone Biblico tractant quales sunt Chemnitius in Exam. Concil Trident. Dan. Chamier Panstrat Cath. Tom. 10. Andr. Rivetus Catholici Orthodoxi Tom. 1. Tract 1. de Sacra Scriprura Bellarm Tom. 1. Controv. 1 de Verbo Dei G. Amesius contra Bellarminum Vetus Erbormannus Jesuita in suâ pro Bellarm. Replicâ contra Amesium Herbipoli 1661. 5. It will be convenient also to consult what the Antient Fathers and Canons of Council determine concerning the Canon of Scripture As 1. Canon Apostol 85.9 apud Balsamonem pag. 278. apud Zonaram Canon 88. p. 42. Dionysius Exiguus 1. Collector Can. Antiquissimus Apostolorum Canones 5. Tantum habet Spurius ideo est hic Can. 85. Vet. 84 c. 2. Canon Concilii Laodiceni 59. apud Justellum in Cod. Can. Eccles Vniversae Can. 163. seu ultimus 3. Canon 47. Concilii Carthag 3. apud Joverium Conciliorum part 2. p. 19. Col. secunda in Conciliis per Labbe Par. 1671. Tom. 2. 1177. But
Sancta Romana 3. where we have a long Catalogue of Authentick and Apoc. Books made by Pope Gelatius and his Council of 70 Bishops 494. the Canon (b) Vid. Crab. Concil Tom. 1. p. 991. Concil per Labbâ— Par. 1671. Tom 4. 1259 1260 1261. Surius Concil Tom. 2. p. 318. of that Council we have elsewhere better than in Gratian in Canon and Council they call some things Canon or Anthentick which they damn now as Apocryphal and so do we too and other things they approve as Authentick which now neither they nor we approve Vid. Johan de Turre Cremata in his Can. 15 16. Glossas especially the late (c) Editionis Par. 1612. 1618. ones where to reconcile the contradictions of this Canon and Council to the present Opinions of Rome they are glad to say that this Canon is so much corrupted (d) Toto hoc Canone tot modis distant ab Originali ut satis certo statui non possit quae vera sit Gelasii Lectio Nota ad verbum mandamus Can. 3. dist 15. in utraque Editione Parisiensi that they cannot tell which words in it are really the words of Gelasius and which not 15. It will be requisite to consult some Writers about the Authority and Use of Fathers c. such as these 1. Dallaeus de usu Patrum extat 1. Gallicè 2. Lat. per Joh. Mettaienum Genevae 1656. Quarto 2. Tractatus de Patrum Conciliorum Traditionum Authoritate in rebus Fidei c. Emenium K. Vyfalrinum cum praefat D. Parei Francofurti 1611. Octavo 3. Tractatus de Patrum Authoritate ad quid c. per Andr. Rivetum praefixus Libro suo quem Criticum Sacrum inscripsit 4. Vid. Gratian. Dist. 9. Glossam à Turre Cremata ibid. multo de Authoritate Scripturae Conciliorum Patrum c. The Socinians grant the Fathers no Authority (a) Totius Mundi praeter Apostolos Authoritas in Religione nulla esi Smalcius in Refutat duorum Lib. Smeglecii de Erroribus Nov. Arriaâ—oâ—um lib. 2. 16. p 225. ibid. p. 223. at all and the Papists are sworn never to expound (b) in Juramâ—nto pâ—ofessio nis Fidei in Concil Trident. Sess 24. de Reformat in Caicâ— câ—p 12. Edit Ant. 1633. Scripture but secundum unanim Patrum Consensum but very little and when they make against them none at all as we may see by Cajetan (c) Who allows an Exposition of Scripture tho' contra Torrentem Patrum ad Comment in 1. Genes Feuardentius (d) Feuardeâ—tius says If all were left out of the Fathers which we now believe not Bona pars Scriptorum Patrum periret Feuardentius in Iraenaeum p. 494. ad Lectorem Maldonatus (e) Maldonat in cap. 6. Joh. p. 1487. who tells us it was the Opinion of Augustin and Innocentius first that it was necessary to communicate Infants (f) Augustini Innocentii sententia sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia ibid. 116. p. 1488. and that August delivered this non ut Opinionem suam sed ut Fidei totius Ecclesia Dogma and that this Opinion prevailed in the Church about 600 years and yet denied now Historici Eccles 16. For the better understanding Scripture and Fathers the knowledge of Ecclesiastical History will be necessary such as these 1. As have writ general Comprehensions and Epitomes of Ecclesiastical Histories for instance 1. Timanni Gesselii Historia Sacra ordine Chronologico compendiosè digesta a Mundo condito ad Annum Christi 1125. Trajecti ad Rhenum 1659. Vol. 1. Quarto 2. Joh. Cluverii Historiarum totius Mundi Epitome ab origine Mundi ad An. Christi 1633. Lugd. Bat. 1639. Vol. 1. Quarto 2. Such as have writ Ecclesiastical History anciently and more fully As 1. Eusebii Hist Eccles cum Notis Hen. Valesii Par. 1659. 2. Socrates Sozomen per eundem Par. 1668. 3. Theodoreti Evagrii Philostorgii Theodori Hist per eundem Par. 1673. These give an account of Church-Affairs for almost 600 years And if Ruffinus his two Books of Ecclesiastical History by Ben. Laurentius de la Barre Par. 1580. And the Historia Tripartita composed by Cassiodore and published by B. Rhenanum Basil 1528. be added it may be compleat and facilitate the understanding of the forementioned Histories 3. Such as have writ lately but most fully Ecclesiastical History As 1. Historia Eccles per Centuriatores Mageleburgicos Basil 1624. 2. Or the Epitome of it in 7 Vol. Quarto by Lucas Osiander Tubing 1607. 3. Annal. Eccles Baronii a Nato Christo ad 1197. Continuati à Provio ad Annum 1431. a Spondano ad 1646. Not. de his Annal. 1. Quod ex Editionibus omnibus illam Ant. 1612. solam correctissimam agnoscit Baronius (a) Baronius in Lteris Chriâ— Plantino latis quae extan in Calce Tom. 10 Edit Ant. 1611. Monet Lectrem omne illua esse Adulteruâ— Spuriun quod Editio Dictae non est Consentatanum Besidâ—s Baroniuâ— we may consult Rob. Saliani Annales Eccles Vet. Test Tom. 8. Colon. 1620. in Fâ—lâ— Notand extat Epitome Annal. Card. Baronii per Ludov. Aurelium Octav. Monasterii 1638. 2. v. There were three or four former Editions 2. Even in this best Edition 1612. in the 4 5 6 7 Tomes the number of the Paragraphs are left out whether this omission of these numbers was Casu or Concilio I know not but sure I am that unless those numbers be supply'd by the Pen and writ in the Margent Quotations cannot without great trouble be found in those four Tomes which want them 3. Before those Annals of Baron be used the most Learned (b) Contra Casaubonum pro Baron scripseruit 1. Herebertus Rosweidus Lib. Cui Titulus Lex Talionis c. Quarto Ant. 1614. 2. Audreas Eudaemon Johannes Quarto Colon. 1617. Convi iis fortitèr sed Argumentis frigidè contra Casaub agunt Vid. ad Trebbechorii Exercitat ad Annales Baronii ubi desiit Cafanbonus Edit Kibonii 1673. in Qâ—arto Exercitations of Casaubon upon them will be of infinite use to discover the many Errours of that Annalist 4. And it must be remembred that Baronius studio partium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only zealous but every where factious in maintaining the Popes Prerogatives and all the received Errors and Superstitions of that Church and on the other side the Centuriators are in some things a little too strait lac d so that the truth many times lies between them so that an impartial Reader of their stories by collections of what they have said and the Grounds why they did so may find that Truth which they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either could not or would not acknowledge 4. Two Historians more I would commend for understanding the state of Religion since Luther both persons of great Moderation and Fidelity tho of different Religions and writ what they might and did know 1. John Sleidani Comment de
some others of their own Writers 4. Whereas that Popish Calendar asserts That the Papists in the Powder Treason and Conspiracy were Desperador's of a Religion which detests such Treasons And that all sober Catholicks utterly detest that and all such abominable Conspiracies our Prefacer to that Answers 1. That he easily grants those Gunpowder Traitours to have been indeed Desperado's or Desperate Villains because none but such could have been capable of so Devilish an attempt nor so Abominable Conspiracy as the Calendar truly terms it against their King and Country But then if those concern'd in that Plot were only Desperado's and not sober Catholicks he would fain know what those Great and Learned Popish Writers were who in writings approved by their whole party so highly commend those Gunpowder Traitours and other of their Faction justly Condemned and Executed for High Treason and who tell us they lived like Saints and died like Martyrs And was their renowned Father Parsons sober when he says of Garnet a Principal Gunpowder Traitour that he was an Innocent Man who suffered injustly That he lived a Saints Life and accomplish'd the same with a happy Death dying in Defence of Justice And was not his Brother Petrus de Ribadenira of the same Society a sober Man as well as the approvers of his Book Intituled a Catalogue of the Writers of the Society of Jesus Printed at Antwerp 1613. pag. 377. In the Index of the Martyrs when in the said Book he reckons Garnet Southwell Oldcorne c. Gunpowder Traitours amongst the Martyrs of the Jesuitical Society as likewise Campian who was justly Executed for (a) Cambdens Eliz. an Reg. 24. lib. 3 pag. 239. 240. High Treason whom he ranks among The most Renowned and Famous Martyrs of Christ And not to trouble the Reader with more Testimonies to prove a truth notorious to all that will Read their most approved Authors our Prefacer out of many only adds what one Abraham Bzovius in his Book of the Roman Pope or Pontif written to prove the Popes Extravagant Power to Depose Kings c. asserts and how rarely well he proves his Doctrine by the conformable practice of his Popes when he gives us a Catalogue of about (b) Abraham â—â—zoâ—ius de Pontifice Romano cap. 46. p. 611. 30. Kings and Princes deposed or by Solemn Anathema's Curs'd and Damn'd by the Pope and cites about (c) â—zovius ibid. pag. 619 620. 200 of their most Learned and famous Authors to prove and justifie it and how passing from them to Campian and the Gunpowder Traitours justly Executed in England for their Treasons he further boasts That an (d) Abraham 〈◊〉 â—bi◠〈◊〉 â—6 pâ—g â—â—â— â—ol 1. innumerable Company of English Martyrs following their Captain Edmund Campian taught the same thing that is they taught the Popes unlimited Supreâ—acy and pretended Power to damn and depose Kings and authorise their Subjects to take Arms against them they being alledged to no other end So that with them Treason and Innocence Traitour and Martyr seem to signifie the same thing which premises consider'd our R. Prefacer appeals to any sober and unprejudiced Reader whether such desperate and received Principles viz. That an Excommunicate or Heretick i. e. Non-popish King is ipso Facto devested of Majesty and all Royal Authority and vested with the Character of a Tyrant and Enemy to the Roman Catholick Cause and consequently may be killed c. And that such as ingage in any such impious design if they miscarry and suffer for it as 't is hoped they always will do as they have done hitherto are Famous and Renowned Martyrs of Christ and whether the certain assurance such Resolute Villains have that if they should change to suffer for any such attempt instead of being branded for Traitours they shall stand exalted in Red Letters in their Calendar and be magnified for Martyrs whether all this can be otherwise than a mighty encouragement to them to any Plot or Conspiracy how black and impious soever especially when they shall consider it not only to be Glorious and Meritorious thus to promote their Cause but their bounden duty so to do when the Jesuits give the Word And whether all this again can be less incouragment to them to design and Execute any conspiracies against any whole Nations of Protestants as well as their Princes whom they look upon as the worst of Hereticks and Prescribed Enemies of their Church not worthy to live in the World as being Condemned by the Popes Supream and Infallible Sentence to be Prosecuted More Romano with Fire and Sword Certainly such an Opinion says our Prefacer true or false must needs put them on with a strange fury to endeavour the utter Extirpation and ruine of those they believe to be such impious villains and so hated of God and Man And though our Prefacer Confesses he knows some of that Party and hopes there may be more of a better temper yet to shew his Readers what Opinion the Popish party have generally of Protestants both Prince and People here in England he inserts their Character of us in the Words of a Popish Pamphlet Publish'd since the late King Charles's Restauration to Poyson their deluded People with a hatred of all Protestants and of their Religion In which Pamphlet are these Assertions viz. 1. That the Protestant Religion is a Cheat Heresie and Heathenism pag. 3. 2. That the Protestant Bible is no more the Word of God than the Alcoran of the Turks pag. 4. 3. That all Protestant Bishops Ministers c. are Priests of Baal Cheaters and false Prophets ibid. 4. That they are false Bishops (a) Pope Pius in his Bull 4. of Damnation and Excommunication against Q. Elix An. 1570. §. 2. Calls them Wicked Preachers and Ministers of Impiety Sons of Iniquity and Fathers of Mischief and Antichristian ibid. pag. 16. 5. That the Protestant Religion is Ridiculous and Idolatrous 6. Again that all Protestant Bishops and Ministers are Priests of Baal Ministers of Satan and Enemies of God and our Souls pag. 32. 7. And lastly he adds that the King and the Parliament were Sectaries and Hereticks ibid. pag. 32. Which Pamphlet has this Title viz. Miracles not Ceased By A. S. London 1663. And contains as is pretended in the Title Page The most Glorious Miracles wrought by a Roman Catholick Priest about London and Westminster in 1663. in Confirmation of the Holy Roman Catholick Faith which Priest is there termed a Holy Man of God and is said pag. third to be sent by God to do Miracles in Confirmation of the Holy Roman Catholick Church and her Doctrine pag. 15 16. Our Prefacer tells us the words he has cited are that Popish Authors own words and the Articles of Impeachment he brings against Protestants and that he pretends he has clearly proved some of those Articles in another Book of his which he Intitules The Reconciler of Religion for so he calls it pag. 3. of the above cited
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.