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
nothing in this for their purpose 2. They make much use of Aristotle's Philosophy 3. Decretal Constitutions of Popes and all the received Doctrines and Rites of Rome were Authentick with them and whatever seem'd contradictory was denied or construed to a complying sense 2. Scholastica Media ab Alberto Magno 1220. ad Duranduâ— 1330. In hoc Intervallo Aristoteles aut Scholasticâ superiori ad Theologiae limen in ipsa Adâ—â— a Sacrarii Theologiae Introductus scripta ejus demonstratione niti censentur qua autem Verbum Dei docet credulitate opiâ—â—â—râ— probabili teâ—â—â— quod etiam expressè publice patentur Gal. Ockamus â—n Câ—ntiloâ—â—â—â—â—iâ—sculè asserunt eorum Docâ—â—â—â—â— Hac 〈◊〉 â—uaeâ—tioneâ— (b) Vid. Lamâ—ertâ—m Danaeum Loco citato ubi earum aliquas plurimae enim sunt brevi Catalogo Lectori exhibet Curiosas â—â—pâ—as Blasphemâ—â—â—â—mere pâ—oâ—â—nunt Scholaâ—â—icâ— Impie di cutiâ—nt ex principiis Philosoâ—â—â—â— Peripateticae potias quam Scripturae statuunt definiunt que 3. Scholastica tertia ultima pessima ab Anno 1330. ad 1517. Haec aetas says my Author longè Impudentissima nam quae modestia in veteri media Scholastica adhuc manserat ne temere de quibusdam ritibus Quaestionibus adhuc dubiis affirmaretur istâ aetate periit Vtrum Papa sit simplex (c) Hence that blasphemous piece of Popish Poetry Papa stupor Mundi qui maxima Rerum nec Deus es nec Homo quasi neuter es inter utrumque Vid. Glossam verbo Papa in Praemio Clemuntinarum Homo an quasi Deus an participet utramque Naturam cum Christo An potestas ejus sit supra Concilium An Mariae conceptio erat Immaculata An Calix fit Laicis negundus Haec similia sub deliberatione quadam posita quaesivit Scholastica prior sed haec ultima temerè decrevit 1. But if any desire a fuller Account of the School-men and their Theologia Scholastica and the approbation Rome gave it he may consult 1. Hospinian Hist Sacramentariae Tom. 1. l. 4. cap. 9. p. 401. 2. Lamb. Danaeus in Prolegom ad Lib. Sent. Lombardi 1. cap. 1 2. fusi 9. 3. Sixtus Senensis Biblioth Sanctae Lib 3. p. 216. Edit Colon. Agr. 1626. 4. Possevinus Bibliothecae Selectae Lib. 3. cap. 12 c. The two first give a true account of the Iniquity and Ignorance of those Times of the Corruption of Divinity Introduction of Errours and Superstitions and the Schoolmens industrious endeavours to vindicate what the Pope and his Adherents had as impiously introduced The two last mince the matter conceal the truth and tell a confused Tale of the Original of School-Divinity and at last highly commend it and its Authors even for their Learning which all know they were never guilty of (a) Sixtus Senensis Bibl. Sanctae lib. 3. p. 217. and excuses their bad Latine with a piece of Scripture transferring that of St. Paul to Peter Lombard and his Followers (b) 2 Cor. 11. v. 6. tho' I am made rude in speech yet not in knowledge But others and more sober Papists are of another Opinion and candidly confess that truth which Protestants affirm and know I shall name one or two more and 1. Johan Tritthemius Abbas Spanhemiensis speaking of the Time of the Emperour Conradus tertius and the Year 1140. tells us (c) Tritthemius de Script Ecclesiasticis in Pet. Dialectico seu Abilardo p. 161. Edit Colon. 1546. ab hoc Tempore Philosophia saecularis Sacram Theologiam suâ curiositate inutili foedare caepit c. Tritthemius finish'd that Work long before Luther Anno 1494 * Johan Aventinus no Papist I confess yet commended by Learned and sober Papists and Conradus Aldermannus Canonici Augustiani 2. Quod Legem Historiae (d) Johan Andr. Quenstedt Dialogo de Patrum Illustrium Doctrinà Script Virorum Veritatem scilicet religiosè in scribendo observavit I say Aventine speaking of Lombard who was made Bishop of Paris 1159. saith thus Eâ Tempestate Petrus Longobardus Lutetiae Parisiorum Creatur Pontifex Is quidem Theologumen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 Lib. scripsit sed Sacrosanct (e) Joh. Avent Anal. Boiorum lib. 6. p. 392. Edit Basil 1615. Edit Basil 1580. p. 508. Philosophiae Veritatem Fontemque purissimum sicuti plus millies a Jac. Fabro Jodoco Chichtoveo Praeceptoribus meis and they not Lutherans or Calvinists we are sure accepi atque audivi Coeno Quaestionum rivulis Opinionum conturbavit id quod usus Rerum magis nisi caeci simus satis superque docet Verba haec lineis inclusa ex fussu Inquisitorum ex Indic Expurgat Hispan Madriti 1667. Lusitanico Olysipone 1624. sunt delenda vid. dictos Indices in Joh. Aventino Floruit Aventinus circa 1500. One thing more may be observ'd of the School-men and of Popish Casuists and Commentators especially those before Luther that when they speak of Moral Duties and those things which lie within the compass of Natural Reason to know and judge of we shall find many things well and some things acutely said but when they speak of those things the knowledge of which depends on Scripture and Revelation as of Faith Repentance Sacraments Justification their ignorance of Tongues Antiquity and consequently of the meaning of Scripture besides they 're inslaved to maintain all the Errours and Superstitions of Rome which at that time were very many In their discourses of Subjects it is no wonder if their mistakes ex inscitiâ aut partium studio be many and great 21. It will be necessary for a Divine to have some Casuists c. Amongst the Popish Authors there are very many so that all persons of their Faction may find most Cases at least in general stated and determin'd according to the Principles and Interest of their Church and their prudence in this is great were their Cause good For Protestants there is no part of Divinity which has been I know not why more neglected very few have writ a just comprehensive Tract of Cases of Conscience However 't will be convenient to consult such as we have Protestants and Papists 1. For helps to understand Cases of Conscience we may amongst others which are Protestants consult such as 1. Bishop Sanderson's two Tracts or Praelections de Obligatione Conscientiae de Juramento are of great excellence and use for in them he has so plainly explain'd and prov'd many Propositions concerning Oaths and Conscience in Thesi and in general that he who understands and remembers them and can in Hypothesi hic nunc rightly apply them may determine many other Cases not mentioned by him 2. There are five Cases of Conscience determined by a late Learned Hand c. London 1666. Octavo No name to them but Parentem referunt they look so like that good Bishop that any would suspect they are his and worthy any persons perusal 3. Amesius de
utterly denying the picturing of God the Father and yet they of Rome approve and practise it This Doctrine of Anti-transubstantiatioâ— is no new Doctrine crept into the World since Luther's time but the Antient Faith of the English and indeed of all Christendom long before the Conquest in the time of our Saxon Progenitors And so we find it in an Antient Homily writ originally in Latine but among many others translated into Saxon by Aelfricus Abbot of St. Albans in King Edgar's time Vid. Saxon. Homil die Sancto Paschae p. 35. That Homily was no private thing but commanded by Authority to be read in Churches on Easter-day where speaking of the Sacred Symbols in the Eucharist we are told that it is naturally corruptible Bread and Wine and is by might of God's Word truly Christ's Body and Blood yet not so bodily but ghostly And then there are divers differences put between Christ's Body in which he suffered and his Body in the Sacrament As first That was born of the Virgin Mary had flesh and blood But his ghostly or spiritual Body is gathered of many Corns without Bones Blood or Limb and without Soul therefore nothing to be understood therein bodily but all ghostly And a little after This Mystery speaking of the sacred Host is a pledge and figure Christ's Body is Truth it self This was the Antient Faith of the Church of England seven hundred years ago and 't is ours still If at or after the Lateran Council Transubstantiation and another new Doctrine was broach'd by the Tyranny of Rome and the slavish Credulity of some of our Predecessors let Roman Catholicks ingenuously tell us who are the Innovators But suppose a few persons believed so suppose any Fathers quoted for it were uncorrupt yet it doth not follow that because they believed so therefore the Christian World believed so And again suppose that the Major part of Fathers and Doctors of the Church were for such an Opinion I ask if this doth bind Posterity to be of their Faith I shall here shew you that tho' none pretend more to Antiquity than the Papists or make a greater noise with Fathers and Councils yet they slight them as much as any when they speak any thing against the sense of the present Church As for instance what I partly before hinted Cardinal Cajetan a very Learned Man in the beginning of his Commentaries on Genesis hath this passage Si quando occurrit novus sensus textui consonus quamvis à torrente Doctorum alienus â—quum se praebeat lector Censorem And a little after he adds Nullus detestetur novum Sacrae Scripturae sensum ex hoc quod dissonat à priscis Doctoribus Maldonat in cap. 6. Johannis that he might oppose Calvin confesseth which no Witness but my own Eyes could make me believe that he chose a new Interpretation on the place against all the Antients But in the next place to prove that Papists have sometimes gone against General Councils since you give me occasion further to dilate on what I before referr'd to by way of hint I shall tell you that the Canon of the great Council of (b) Concil Chalced. Can. 2. in Collect. Can. Graec. Lat. per Eliam Elingerum 29. In Cod. Can. Ecclesiae Vnivers per Christoph Justellum Chalcedon one of the four which Pope Gregory would have receiv'd tanquam quatuor Evangelia made by 630 Bishops confirm'd by the 6th General Council held at Constantinople And by that of (c) Conc. Constant in Tâ—ullo Can. 36. for so it is acknowledged tho' Binius and some o herâ— would fain deny it in the bâ—dy of the Canon Law C. râ—novaâ—â—es Dist 22. in the last and best Editions of it See Greg. 13. his Bull given at Rome July 1. 1580. Gratiano praefixum Constance too Sess 39. fol. 39. Edit Antiquae Mediolani 1511. is yet every where slighted by Popish Authors For Canon the 28th or as in some Editions the 29th Canon of Chalcedon is quite left out in that Edition of the Councils by P. Crab and in that of Dionysius Exiguus in the Vetus Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Romanae in Caranza c. And tho' Franciscus Longus (d) Summa Concillor per Francisc Longum à Coriolano p. 402. apud illum Can. 27. a Coriolano hath that Canon yet in his Annotations he flatly denies it and goes about to prove it false in divers particulars So that the Canonical determinations of 360 Fathers met in a General Council whose Constitutions their own (e) Extra De Renuntiationâ— cap. post Translationem Pope Gregory would have receiv'd as Evangelical Truths when they make against them signifie nothing but are flatly denied And if it be said that this was no Canon of the Council the contrary is manifestly true for it is in all the Original Greek Copies Printed and Manuscript (f) Videsis Cod. Canonum per Christoph Justellum Ecclesiae Vniversae Can. 206. p 25. Zonaram in Canon Concil p. 118. Theodorum Balsamon in Can. 28. Concil Chalcedon Can. Concilior Graec. Lat. Quarto An. 1560. per Andr. Gesnerum p. 48. Vid. Caranzam in Notis ad Marginem c. 36. Concil Constantinop p. 635. where he tells us that Canon is in the Greek Copies sed deest in Latinis exemplaribus and expresly confirm'd by the 36th Canon of the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Registred by Gratian Can. Renovantes Dist 22. tho' with insufferable falshood and corruption of the Canon as will manifestly appear to any who will compare Gratians reading with the Oriâ—inal (g) Vid. Vetus â—â—sc Syâ—â—â—icum in Biâ—l B â—leâ—â— iâ—â—er Mâ—c Gâ—â—â—ca è Mâ—s o Barociano I know they of Rome sliâ—ht this of â—onstantinople as much as that â—f Chaâ—cedon For first Binius tells us it smells more of ambition than truth and (h) Caranza in Aâ—not ad Can. 36. Conc â—ii 6. Gen. p. 635. Caranza â—rroneus a quibusdam existi â—â—ur hic Canon And Indeed iâ— is â—ecessâ—ry for them to deny that Canon for it positively asserts and determines such truths as utterly overthrow their Popes pretended Supremacy which they so much and so irrationally contend â—â—r For First that great General Council gives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not sâ—â— lia only as Gratian falsely reads it (a) Gratian Can. Renovantes dist 22. even in the last and best Edition of their Canon-â—aw equal Priviledges to New and Old Rome that is declared and pronounced Constantinople or the Patriarch of that Imperial City to have equal Priviledges with the Pope or Patriarch of old Rome Secondly That the Roman Bishop had not those Priviledges among other Bishops by any Divine right or succession from St. Peter as now they would pretend but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were given by ecclesiastical and positive constitution of the Fathers Thirdly And they to make this manifest tell us that Rome had those antient prerogatives not as its Bishop was St. Peter's Successor or with
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.
dubious 2. And further 't is evident that we neither have nor without some new Divine revelation can have any infallible means to know that a General Council is Infallible For 1. Scripture never so much as names a General Council much less says it is Infallible 2. Nor does it legally tell us who can call it 3. Nor who must chuse Representatives or how many or what power they can give them 4. Nor when they are called Commissioned and come whether all must concurr to make an Infallible Decree or the Major part of Votes will be sufficient 5. Nor what means they must use to make their Decree certain and infallible or whether they shall be infallible in their definitions whether they be good or impious persons whether they use good means to find out the truth or none at all I say 't is evident that neither our Blessed Saviour nor his Apostles have assured us of any of these in Scripture nor any acknowledg'd General Council since ever defin'd Synodically and declared a General Council to be Infallible And therefore we have just reason to say that it is irrational to perswade Men there is an Infallible Guide and that a General Council on whose Judgment we may with certainty and undoubtedly rely when there is neither Scripture nor General Council and therefore no infallible means for universal and uninterrupted Tradition neither is nor can be pretended to nor indeed any thing else to prove a General Council to be infallible He who thinks otherwise let him shew me any place in Scripture or Canon of any legitimate General Council to prove what he says and if I cannot make it appear to any impartial Judge that 't is impertinent and his reason from it inconsequent he shall have my hearty thanks and subscription to his opinion if so proved For I should count him no less then a Mad man at least highly irrational who travelling towards Heaven would refuse an infallible Guide to bring him thither if he could be assured there were such an one And he is little wiser who without such assurance follows any who pretends to what he cannot prove 3. 3. Not necessary There is no necessity of such a pretended Eternal Guide Our Blessed Saviour who is the (a) Rev. 15.3 King of Saints and (b) Eph. 5.23 head of his Church governs and directs it with his Holy word the Scriptures (c) Externâ— per verbum interne per spiritum Aquinas without and his holy Spirit within nor is there or can be any true Member of his Church and Mystical Body which has not his holy (a) Rom. 8.9 Spirit to direct and comfort it His holy word is fidei morum Regula an Infallible Rule of our actions and belief and his Spirit where really it is and it is really in every Member of his Mystical Body is an internal Principle which enlightens the understanding of all in whom it is and sanctifies their will and affections and enables them to believe and obey the truth Whence it is that every pious person and Member of the true Church of Christ is said to be (b) Joh. 6.45 taught of God and our Blessed Saviour has promised that all such shall understand and (c) Joh. 7.17 8.32 know the truth of the Scriptures This means our blessed Saviour and his Apostles left in the Church and it was and still is sufficient for Salvation without any General Council for an infallible Guide That it was sufficient for 325 years after Christ is undeniably evident thus 1. It is certain and on all sides confess'd that there was no General Council in the world 'till the first Nicene-Council which was in the year 325. I ask then were the Primitive Christians saved in that 325 years when there was no General Council to guide them infallibly or were they not If you say they were not saved then your Roman Martyrologie all your Missals and Breviaries are manifestly false and your Church errs in all which are hundreds of Martys and Saints acknowledged and in your Sacred Offices Prayers made to them which if they were neither Saints nor Saved were not only erroneous but highly impious And if you say that they were saved in those 325 years when they had no General Council to guide them infallibly as of necessity you ought and must say then say I that Christians might have had Salvation if no General Council had ever been For there neither is any reason nor can any be given why Christians should have more need of an infallible Guide in the following than they had in the first Ages And therefore if there was no necessity of an infallible Guide then there will be none now but as they were so we may be saved without one If iâ— be said that the many Heresies whiâ—â— arose in after Ages made an Infallible Guide a General Council more necessary it will be reply'd with evident truth that there were more wild Heresies in those first Ages we now speak of than in any since as will be manifest to any who seriously read and impartially consider the Writings of those Ancient (a) Such as Iraeneus Epiphanius Augustine Theodoret Philâ—stinus c. Fathers who have given us just Catalogues of the Hereticks and Heresies of those first Ages And therefore if those Primitive Christians for 325 years notwithstanding all the Heresies in their times were for Zeal and Piety excellent Persons Saints and Martyrs without any infallible Guide so might we too if we should do as they did that is diligently read the Scriptures believe and obey them exercising all those acts of Piety towards God and Charity towards our Neighbours which are there clearly enough required of us so that there is now no necessity of an infallible Guide which without any proof is vainly pretended to 4. Nor ever was there any General Council 4. And we say further that there never was any Council in the World such as is pretended to be infallible which was truly General Oecumenical For 1. It is and must be confessed that a General Council truly and properly so called and none else is pretended to be infallible must consist of the Representatives of the whole Christian World 2. It is also certain and evident that the Representatives of a very great if not the greater part of the Christian World were never called or sent or came to any Council which has been held any where since the Apostles times I mean none out of Aethopia Persia India c. were either called or came to any of those Councils which hitherto have been held as is manifest by their Subscriptions and yet all Histories agree that the Gospel was Preached and Christians planted in those Countries So that the greatest Councils we have yet had are only Imperial not truly General call'd by the Roman Emperours and consisting of Bishops within their jurisdiction If it be said that both Protestants and Papists call the
natural Law binds all men to believe in Jesus Christ so no positive Law doth and therefore all Men are not bound to believe on him That this may appear I say that to bring a positive obligation on all Mankind two things are necessarily required First Latio legis Secondly Publicatio First 'T is necessary such a Law should be made For every legal obligation presupposeth a Law made which may oblige all those to and for whom it is made And to the making of such a Law there are two things required First Potestas that the Lawgiver be Persona publicâ authoritate praedita and have a just power and authority to command see Fran. Suarez De Legibus l. 1. c. 8. Secondly Voluntas obligandi that he be willing to give such a command as may induce a legal obligation to obedience Suarez ibidem c. 5. Occham in 3. Quest 22. A Castro lib. 2. De lege paenali cap. 1. For if either of these be wanting it is impossible to make a Law to bind any much less all Secondly Nor is latio legis sufficient to induce an obligation but there must be a sufficient promulgation of it too L. Leges Sacratissimae C. De Leg. Suarez ubi supra l. 1. c. 11. § 3. p. 35. For suppose a Monarch who hath a supream Nomothetical power to make a law and when it is made and written should lay it up in archivis imperii so that it be not known nor publish'd to his Subjects it is manifest that such a Law neither is nor can be obliging till he takes care for the publishing of it so that a legal and sufficient publication must of necessity precede the obligation of any Law Cum lex per modum regulae constituatur saith Aquinas 1. 2. quaest 90. art 4. in Corp. Vasquez ibidem eam ut obligandi vim habeat promulgari ad eorum qui legi subjiciuntur notitiam deduci oportet Thus much in Thesi I conceive evident and now in hypothesi that I may apply it to our present purpose Admit that there were such a Law made in the Gospel as did intend to oblige all Mankind to believe in Jesus Christ for Salvation yet I deny that de facto it doth oblige all Men to that belief for want of sufficient promulgation and publication since 't is clear that many Millions of men never heard of it During the legal Oeconomy and dispensations of the Old Testament God did discover somewhat of Christ to the Jews yet not so to the Gentiles which were infinitely the Major part of the World And of the Gentiles none knew of it but such as were proselytes and brought to an union with the Jews who were few in comparison of the rest who save in Darkness and in the Shadow of Death Hence it is that when the Gospel was publish'd among the Gentiles and the Apostles preach'd every where that men should believe on Christ for Salvation Act. 17 18. They call'd our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strange Deity or Daemon not heard of before The times of ignorance God winked at that is the men of those times as Grotius on the place See Deut. 22.1 2 3 4. You cannot say that God did promulgate such a Law to the Gentiles before Christ as obliged them to believe on Christ for Salvation By the later discoveries of the World it is apparent that many Nations never heard of Christ And some say there are whole Nations that worship no God Episcopius the Arminian was of this opinion of mine and quotes that place How shall they believe on him that they have not heard of And how shall they hear without a Preacher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Promulgator or publisher for so in Suidas the word is taken and praedicare is to publish in the Civil Law A Third reason why I deny this assertion is because Infants are not bound to believe in Jesus Christ and they are a considerable part of the World And therefore all Men are not bound to believe on Christ The great and good Law-giver binds none to impossibilities And if you can make it appear upon just and carrying grounds that Infants Naturals to whom God hath not given the use of Reason and those many Millions in all ages who never heard the Gospel are bound to believe in Christ for Salvation then I shall grant your Minor and admit your Argument to be good namely that Christ died for all without exception because all without exception are bound to believe in him I shall now weigh your reasons which make you think your notion to be as clear as the noon-day The first Objection of yours is Now Gods commanding all men to Repent as it is in the Acts. But Quid hoc ad Iphicli Boves It doth not follow because to Repent therefore to Believe For the Light of Nature commands all men who have sinn'd to repent of that Sin and would have done so if Jesus Christ had never been reveal'd to the World If Sempronius hath sinn'd he is bound by the Law of Nature to Repent For the Law of Nature obligeth men to love God with all their Hearts and therefore to repent and turn to him and be sorry for their sins And so the Law of Nature bound Adam to Repent because he had sinn'd and that before the New Covenant was made Adam had a command to repent from the Law of Nature but not to believe Your other Objection is He that believes not shall be damned I answer Infidelity is twofold First Privative When we do not believe the things which we are bound to believe And this is a Vice and Moral obliquity opposed to the Vertue of Faith That Principle in the Schools is a clear Truth Omne malum Morale est Carentia boni debiti inesse pro eo tempore pro quo est debitum Secondly Infidelity is Negative and this is taken to be Carentia fidei in iis qui non tenentur Credere Those Reprobates to whom Christ was never reveal'd shall not be try'd by the Law of the Gospel nor the positive Law given to the Jews nor any part of it Moral Ceremonial and Judicial as far as it was positive For in this sense the Gentiles are said to have no Law Rom. 2.14 and therefore not to be Judged by it Rom. 2.12 But they shall be try'd by the Law of Nature For so St. Augustine hath long since stated the Question Aug. in Johannem eos speaking of the Gentiles ad quos Evangelii praedicatio non pervenerit excusari a peccato infidelitatis damnari propter alia peccata quorum excusationem non habent utpote in legem Naturae Commissa Thus Sir have I in the way of a libera theologia communicated my Thoughts to you If you can convince me that I have therein erred we shall both of us be gainers by your so doing You will gain the Victory and I the Truth And this is all at present from Sir
Your very humble Servant Septemb. 1651. An Account by way of Abstract of Mr. John Goodwin's Book call'd The Pagans Debt and Dowry c. Printed at London in the year 1651. returned by way of answer to the foregoing Letter of Dr. Barlow MR. Goodwin there in p. 4. acknowledgeth that Dr. Barlow hath pleaded the cause of what he asserted with as much ingenuity and strength as any man whatsoever could have done But in pag 6. he mentions that he will answer some of the more material parts of Dr. Barlow 's Discourse tho' not in the same order to which he might be directed by his Papers but only as they came to his remembrance he not having leisure for a second Review But 't is pitty that he had not endeavour'd for the Worlds satisfaction to have answered Paragraph by Paragraph as is usually done by the answerers of Discourses writ with such accurateness of method as Dr. Barlow's is However some of the more material replies of Mr. John Goodwin shall be here set down and left to the Worlds consideration He saith in pag. 10. and seque 4. That the Scriptures in several plâ—ces plainly insinuate a capacity in the Heathen yea in all men by the light of Nature to attain or make out this Evangelical conclusion that some mediation some attonement or other hath been made and accepted by God for the sins of Men. But I demand saith the Aposâ—le Paul Rom. 10.18 Have they not heard Yes verily their sound went forth into all the Earth and their words unto the end of the World He had said in the verse immediately foregoing that Faith comes by hearing in this verse he shews in an answer which he gives to a demand or question put by him what hearing it is by which Faith comes or at least what hearing is sufficient to believe upon or produce Faith This hearing he saith is the hearing of that sound and of those words which the Heavens and the day and the night speak and that are gone forth into the end of the World as appears by the Place in Psal 19. from whence these words are added If you ask me but what is the sound or what are the words which the Heavens and the Day and the Night i. e. The constant course of the Providence of God in the Government of the World speak in the Ears of all Nations and of all People that Faith shall come by the hearing of them I answer They are the words of Eternal Life too as well as those which as â—eter acknowledgeth our Saviour himself had to speak yea and did speak upon all occasions only they are not so plainly spoken as he was wont to speak their Parable is somewhat more dark and harder to be understood but the sense and import of what the Heavens moving still in their Natural courses and the gracious Providence of God jointly speak in the Ears of all Flesh is that God is taken off from the fierceness of hâ—â— displeasure against sin and that he holds forth his White Flag and offers terms and conditions of Peace unto the World and that upon their coming in to him by Repentance they shall be received into Grace and Favour And what is this but the very tenour sum and substance of the Gospel which yet is more plain from that of the same Apostle Acts 14. to the Men of Lystra who saith he speaking of God in times past suffered all the Gentiles to walk in their own ways nevertheless he left not himself without witness in that he did good and gave us Rain from Heaven and fruitful seasons filling our hearts with food and gladness In respect of what was it that God left not himself without witness amongst the Gentiles even then when he suffered them to walk in their own ways viz. without admonishing and directing them how to walk and what to do after any such manner as now he doth by the Letter of the Gospel sent amongst them what did the witnesses the Apostle here speaks of witness concerning God or on his behalf doubtless he doth not speak here of his Godhead nor of his Power nor of his Wisdom as if his meaning were that God left not himself without witness of these tho' it be true that he did not leave himself without witness i. e. means of convincing men of these also but the works of Creation as distinguished from the works of Providence whereof he here speaks are sufficient witnesses of these according to the Tenour of Rom. 1.20 and besides there are natural impressions of these in the Spirits and Consciences of Men which are witness on Gods behalf thus far but doubtless that in God or concerning God which as the Apostle here saith God intended should be testified or witnessed on his behalf unto men was somewhat more secret more out of the way as it were of mens common thoughts or apprehensions and particularly it was that gracious and good affection which he bears unto the World through Jesus Christ his inclination unto peace with men upon their Repentance which is the substance of the Gospel This appears first By the nature or quality of the Witnesses here spoken of which were God's giving men Rain from Heaven and fruitful seasons his filling their hearts with food and gladness such witnesses as these are only proper to testifie Grace and Love and desire of the good of those to whom they are given in him that givâ—th them They plainly shew that he that shews them is not extreme with hath not extremity against those that do amiss and consequently that he is by one means or other taken off from the rigour of his Justice and severity of his wrath against sinners And 2. It appears from hence because Paul who was not only a diligent and faithful Preacher of the Gospel where ever he came but was in special manner design'd to be an Apostle to the Gentiles Preached no other Doctrine than this at Lystra a City of the Gentiles Upon that great opportunity that was now offered him we cannot think that he should Preach a Philosophical or Metaphysical Sermon concerning the Essence or Natural proporties of God only but which was Evangelical and savouring of the Gospel now the Holy Ghost recording either the whole or at least the sum and substance of what he Preached in this place reporteth nothing Evangelical as spoken by him except this be acknowledged for such so that clear it is from the Scriptures that all the World even those that are most straitned and scanted in this kind those that have not the Letter of the Gospel have yet sufficient means of believing granted unto them of believing I mean 1. That God is 2. That he is a Rewarder of those that diligently seek him which is all the Faith or Belief the Apostle makes simply and absolutely necessary to bring a man unto God i. e. into grace and favour with him Heb. 11. There are several other Scriptures that speak home