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.
that tho' he had performed all the service and obedience that 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 of it was no more than what was 〈◊〉 Now since the Light of Nature 〈◊〉 perfect and in the state of innocence was no more than sufficient what can we imagine of our decayed lapsed and dim light which comes so far short of the former Whereas if it could teach us how to obey perfectly the Law of Nature it shâ—uld be fully equal unto and run parallel with the same Reason III. This Natural light is much less capable to teach us the manner of that Worship which we owe unto God by vertue of the Covenant of Grace Because the Worship required therein is obedience unto God through Faith in Christ Jesus taking hold of the promises tender'd to us in his holy Gospel which Natural Reason can never conceive being ignorant both of the Object of this Gospel-Worship and the manner in which the same is to be perform'd as I shall more fully evince afterwards Assertion Fifth No Man by the sole light of Natural Reason without the help of Revelation can ever discover or comprehend that Sacred Mystery of the Holy Trinity viz. the distinct Hypostases of the Father Son and Holy Ghost one God Reason 1. Because if this Sacred Mystery had been cognoscible by the light of Nature then Pythagoras Plato Homer Aristotle c. would probably have known it But they have all past it over with a profound ignorant silence and where is the Man that hath ever discover'd it by the light of Nature Reason II. If the Mystery of the Trinity were cognoscible by the light of Nature then it would be such either as a principium unto which upon the first proposal we assent without any further probation or as a Proposition unto which we assent upon sufficient and demonstrative probation But to assert the former viz. that the Trinity is per se notum as a principium or axioma is too absurd and ridiculous to be refuted Besides many of the Schoolmen have deny'd that Deum esse is per se notum But we cannot assert Deum esse trinum unless we suppose Deum esse Ergo if the one be not of it self evident far less the other As to the other membrum viz. that it is cognoscible by us as a proposition which we assent unto upon sufficient and demonstrative probation Contrà All these propositions tho' they be not so evident as on the first proposal to gain an assent yet they are such as Nature can furnish us with sufficient media and praemissae whereby to know and prove their certainty as for Example This proposition God is infinite tho' iâ— be not of it self evident at the first proposal yet it is said to be cognoscible by the light of Nature because Nature can furnish us with sufficient means whereby to prove its certainty But this Mystery of the Sacred Trinity of the Persons in the Godhead is so far from being such as Nature could furnish us with media to prove its certainty that if it do not seemingly contradict Nature yet it far transcends its power to conceive what it is But 2. to use Aquinas's argument There is no other mean whereby we can ascend to the knowledge of God but by the Creature and all the knowledge we have of God from the Creatures is only deduc'd per modum Causalitatis as because I see such an effect therefore I conclude there must be a Cause endow'd with Power Wisdom c. Now how can the Trinity be deduced from the Creatures per modum Casaulitatis For God could have Created all the Creatures though he had not been trinus because the Divine Essence of the Father is a suppositum insinitae virtutis tho' there were no more persons in the Godhead than himself Assertion Sixth No Man can by the Light of Nature know the Works of the Second Person in the Trinity viz. his Redemption of Mankind his wonderful Incarnation Death and Resurrection c. Reason I. Because I have already proved that the three Persons of the Godhead cannot be known by Nature Light and consequently not the Second Person but if the Second Person be not known neither can the Works done by him be discovered that is quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to that special incommunicable manner and way that they were performed in by Jesus Christ It 's true indeed that the Redemption of the World is an opus ad extrà and competent to all the Persons of the Trinity and so may in some sense seem to be known by the help of Natural Light without the distinct knowledge of the Person of Christ But the particular and special way in which it was accomplish'd by him can never be known naturally for there were many things relating to that done in his Humane Nature such as his Death Resurrection c. which cannot be known without the knowledge of his Humane Nature whereas the Humanity and Miraculous Incarnation of one who is God is above the reach of Natural Reason to know Reas II. If any such thing had been cognoscible by Natural Reason it 's probable the Heathens would have found it but we find no such thing among them Ergo c. Reas III. It is not possible that the light of fallen Nature should know more of God and Christ than when it was in its Primitive Innocence but then it did not so much as Dream of the Death of Christ for the sins of the World Ergo c. Reas IV. The Redemption of the World by Christ depending upon and flowing from the meer good Will and Pleasure of God could never have naturally been foreseen before it came nor when accomplish'd understood by any except those unto whom God graciously reveal'd the same For how can any thing depending on God's free will be known by Natural Light since all the natural knowledge we have of God is by way of causality from the Creatures But the free Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ can never be deduced from the existence of the Creature by way of causality as though it be naturally known that Man is a sinner and miserable yet does it not follow that therefore God designs to redeem him by Christ no more than from the misery of some of the Angels can it be deduced that therefore God designs to redeem them by Christ Besides Man is fallen into this Misery by his own fault and it were just with God to leave him to wallow in that Misery that he hath purchased to himself for ever wherefore since God is no way obliged to Redeem Man how can we make the Misery of the Creature an Argument that he has or had any actual design to redeem the same yea dato non concesso that our own Miseries could demonstrate that God had a design to free us from it yet it could never discover that particular special way whereby our freedom is purchased viz. by the Blood of Christ
since the infinite Wisdom of God if so it had pleased him might have contriv'd many other ways and methods whereby to relieve us from our natural Slavery and Thraldom Reas V. We are not capable to know the free and deliberate purposes of Men much less those purposes of God all whose Counsels are unsearchable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which depend on his meer free Will and Pleasure unless he graciously vouchsafe to reveal the same unto us for if we could by Natural Light discover this one decree or purpose of the Redemption of Man by Christ then by the same consequence we might naturally know all the hidden Decrees and Counsels of God Quod est absurdo absurdius Er. c. Reas VI. That the Incarnation of the Son of God and the Redemption of the World by his Blood is a Mystery above the reach of Humane Knowledge to perceive is the constant eccho of almost every Page in the N. Test As St. Paul while speaking to the Colossians concerning the same Col. 1.16 saith Even the Mystery which hath been hid from Ages and Generations but now is made manifest to his Saints To whom God would make known what is the riches of the Glory of this Mystery among the Gentiles which is Christ in you the hope of Glory And according to St. Augustine it is essential to a Mystery that it be only cognoscible by Revelation But what more evident Testimony can there be than the general contradiction these Doctrines met with from People of all Ranks even in the Apostles days not only the commoner sort but even the greatest Doctors and those who had most improved their Natural Reason among the Athenians Romans Jews c. who laugh'd and flouted at the Apostles for Preaching such seemingly Irrational Doctrines Vid. Acts 17.18 19 20 32. Objection Many of the Heathens 〈◊〉 clearly printed at Christ by the meer 〈◊〉 of Nature as may be seen by the Oracles of the Sibyllae Zoroaster Trismegistus Hydaspes Orpheus c. where we find many things concerning the Trinity of the Persons the Redemption of the World by Christ and many other Gospel Truths Answ 1. As to the Sybilline Oracles there are a great many things go under that Name which are not genuine and true such as that Sibylla was in the Ark with Noah in the time of the Deluge which is openly false since Moses is generally acknowledged to be the Ancientest Writer which he could not be if Sibylla had been before him that the Sibylline Oracles were written 500 Years after the beginning of the Grecian Empire which would make the Oracles to be posteriour to the execution of the things themselves though ye reckon the beginning of the Grecian Empire from what Date ye will and many other such like palpable Errours as Dionys Halic Cornelius Tacitus and many others do abundantly evince Nevertheless I acknowledge that there are many things concerning Christ which are really the genuine Off-spring of Sibylla such as the Verses of Sibylla Cumaea paraphras'd by Virgil in his 4th Lelog the which though the Poet apply to Pollio's Son yet they are properly and roundly applicable to none but Christ as Eusebius shews at large in Orat. Constan ad Sanct. Coel. cap. 20. the Acrostick Verses of Sibylla Erythraea set down by Eusebius and demonstrated by him not to be spurious which is likewise confest by Dionys Halicarn These Acrostick Verses do so plainly point at Christ that the Initial Letters make up these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour Cross But all this doth in nothing infringe my Assertion because though Sibylla foretold Christ yet it follows not that therefore she knew him by Natural Light but only by Revelation Hence the Sibyllae were generally accounted Prophetesses that spoke not according to their own Natural Light but as they were inspired by God and were termed by the Ancients foeminae numine correptae afflatae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as Lactantius (a) Iust l. 1. p. 23. Eustathius (b) ad Homer B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strabo (c) Geogr. l. 14. p. 1614. Suidas (d) Lib. 17. 171. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Mantacutius (e) Apparat. 3. Num. 28. c. do plainly testifie Instatur How comes it to pass that Sibylla should speak more plainly of Christ than the Prophets in the Old Testament For the Psalmist says Psal 147.19 20. He shewed his word unto Jacob his Statutes and Judgments unto Israel He hath not dealt so with any Nation and as for his Judgments they have not known them And the Apostle to the Collossians ch 1. v. 26 27. calls the Incarnation of Christ a Mystery hid from Ages Answ 1. Perhaps she might pronounce many things which she did not understand her self as being design'd for the future benefit of the Church rather than her own of this Opinion was Justin Mart. and Montacutius in this compares her to Balaam's Ass but Eusebius seems rather to incline unto this that she spoke these Oracles only for her own private comfort and benefit as being pick'd out by God for an Object unto which he pleased to manifest himself and impart the knowledge of the truth Either of these is consonant enough with the Analogy of Faith and the Justice of God who discovers himself to whom he will though out of the visible Communion of the Church Militant 2. When the Apostle says the Incarnation of Christ was a Mystery hid from Ages it is not to be understood as if it absolutely excluded all knowledge of that Mystery for the Fathers under the Old Testament knew Christ though darkly and as it is elegantly expressed by the Apostle in Heb. 11.13 where reckoning up a Catalogue of the Faithful Patriarchs he subjoyns These all Died in the Faith not having received the Promises but having seen them afar off c. that is having had a weak imperfect and faint view of them as we see things afar off Yea not only they but the Gentiles had this dark knowledge of it as (a) Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 2. Art 7. ad tertium Aquinas evidently proves from that saying of Job's ch 19. I know that my Redeemer liveth c. So that the meaning of this saying of the Apostle must be that it was hid from Ages with respect to the degree and manner of knowledge since this Mystery was never so fully reveal'd and perfectly known till the coming of Christ and was formerly kept secret they saw it but very darkly whereas we now enjoy a far clearer Light which dispels those Mystical Clouds that formerly it was inveloped in 3. As for that saying of the Psalmist it cannot be understood as if the Nations were totally ignorant of the Divine Law since they had the Law of Nature and Moral Law written upon their Hearts by God's own Finger And yet still there is a sufficient difference betwixt the Jews and the Gentiles which might give the
and when used in Scripture 2. Lexicons for the meaning and significations of those words for things being far more than words hence it is that almost all words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. For Concordances we have many and some very convenient as these 1. For the Hebr. and Chaldee (a) Extant Concordant Hebr. per Mazium Calasium Tom. 4. Rom. 1621. in Bodley's Library W. 2 6 7 c. Jur. much greater than Buxtorf's but whether better Docti Judicent words too as many as are in your Bible Concordantiae Bibliorum Hebr. per Joh. Buxtorf Basil 1632. There be others and worse Editions 2. For the Hebr. and Gr. of the Old Testament Conradi Kercheri concordant Vet. Test. Graecae Hebraeis vocibus respondentes c. Francofurti 1607. And it will be convenient to have his Book explaining the use of his Concordance de Concordantiarum Biblic usu per Conrad Kercherum Quarto Whittberg 1622. 3. For the Greek of the New Testament Concordant Graecc Lat. N. Test ab Hen. Steph. Edit Genevae 1624. there are former and worse Editions 4. For Latine which are of less use in our Trade Concordant Bibl. Lat. ad Correctionem Romanam Editae vulgata c. Francofurti â—620 there are former Editions but imperfect 5. The use of the Hebrew and Greek Concordance is very great in many respects one and not the least when I doubt what this word signifies in this Text I turn to my Concordance see how many times the word occurs and by the circumstances of some of those places Vid. Corn. Jansenii Comment in suam Concordiam Evangel Mogunt 1612. 80. 2. Concordiam Evang. per Tâ—eol Parisiensem Octavo Paris 1660. 3. Osiandri Elench Harmoniae c. Basil 1561. 4. Comment Ja. Fabri Stapul in 4 Evang ibi post praefat Canones seu Concord Evang. 5. N. Test Graec. per Steph. Lutetiae 1550. Canones Evangelistarum ab Ammonio conditos ab Eusebio absolutos 6. Vid. eâ—sdem Canones apud Hieronymum Opum per M. Victorium Tom. 6. in initio 7. Et Dan. Tossanum in Evang. Harmoniam I find it must signifie such a thing in such a place being then sure it signifies so I apply that signification to the place of which I doubted and see whether it will be suitable with it For instance Heb. 11.1 Fides est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some render persona substantia expectatio c. Now to say that Faith is a person or substance or expectation does not only seem but really is incongruous and no way agreeing with the nature of Faith which is neither a person substance or expectation but an accident an assent of the Understanding and the Object of it Truth not bonum futurum which is the proper Object of Expectation or Hope Here in this doubt I consult my Concordance and find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to say nothing of the Old Testament where it occurs many times five times in the New Testam where 1. (a) Hebr. 1.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 9.4 11.7 It signifies a person 2. And twice it evidently signifies and we render it confidence 3. And in the (c) Heb. 3.14 fourth place tho' not so evidently yet probably it signifies Confidence too for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Faith opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 versu 12. 19. which is principium fundamentum fiduciae confidentiae nostrae the ground and foundation of all our hopes of Heaven 4. Now it being evident by the circumstances of the Text that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies confidence if we apply that signification to Heb. 11.1 the place doubted of it will appear to be most congruous to the nature of Faith and the thing there spoken of These words then Fides est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Fides est eorum quae sperantur (a) Tindal renders it so Faith is a sure confidence of things hoped for Glossae veteres in calct Cyrilli 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arguo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 probatio Oecumenio Theophylacto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in locum confidentia eorum quae non videntur Argumentum so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies and Hierom and the Vulgat render it Faith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an Argument as is the ground of all the Assurance and Confidence we have or can have of Heaven This seems to me the genuine sense of the place if we consider either the signification of the words or the nature of the thing signified it being certain and on all sides confessed that a true and firm Faith in the Promises of God in the Gospel is the foundation and evidence of all our hopes 2. For Lexicons and Glossaries will be necessary to find and know the signification of the words in the Originals of the Old and New Testament and amongst them we may consult for the Old Testament 1. Lexicon Polyglot 7 Linguis per Ed. Castellum Lond. 1669. 2. Lexicon Pentaglot Valent. Shindleri Han. 1612. 3. Masii Lexicon Hebr. Syriac sive Chaldaic Graec. Antwerp 157â— 4. Joh. Buxtorfii Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum Rabbinicum c. or his excellent Opus triginta annorum as he calls it Basil 1639. 5. Kercher's Concordance before mentioned may well be called and used for Lex Hebr. Graec. every word in the Bible and the various Translations of them being expressed by the LXX in their as they call it Hellenistical Greek 6. Nomenclator Biblicus Hebr. Lat. per Ant. Hulsium Bred. 1650. useful for all Divines 7. For proper (a) Vid. Hieronym de locis Hebraicis Tom. 3. p. 905 c. Theatrum Terrae Sanctae per Adricomium Names for these already named are for Appellative words such as these may be consulted 1. Gregorii Lexicon Sanctum Hannov. 1634. Octavo in which all proper Names in Scripture are explain'd 2. Onomasticon Sacrum in quo omnia nomina propria Hebr. Chaldaic Graec. c. quae tam in Vet. quam N. Test. Apocryphis occurrunt explicantur per Joh. Leusden Ultrajecti 1665. in Octavo in ejus calce de ponderibus mensuris c. For the New Testament 1. For Appellative words I need not tell you who know better of Hesychius Suidas Pharonius Etimologicum magnum Glossae veteres per Steph. Bonav Vulcanius of Steph. his Thesaur Harpocnation all these are useful 2. For proper Names Lex sanctum Greg. Greg. before mentioned gives an account of all the proper Names Hebr. and Greek in both Testaments so Steph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) There are two Supplements extant of Stephanus 1. Fragmentum Stephani de Vrbibus per Sam. Tennulium Amstel 1669. Quanto 2. Genuina Stephani Fragmenta c. per Abraham Berkelium Lug. Bat. 1674. Octavo of Cities Suidas of proper Names of Men c. 3. For Graec. Barbarous words which occur