Of Saving Faith, Section 1
SECT. I.
YEt more contending work? No: Whatsoever it may seem to those that judge of Books by their Titles; it is an acceptable amicable closure of Consenters, and a Learned Defence of the Truths which I have been long too unlearnedly and unskilfully Defending. And if so many good and Learned men have been so deeply displeased with me, for maintaining the specifick Difference between common faith and that which is proper to the Justified; Let them now prepare their patience or their valour, when under my name) they are encountered by a stronger hand. For my part, whatever mistakes of my writings this Learned Author may be guilty of, it sufficeth me to find him maintaining that Truth, which is deservedly precious to him and me, and which needeth so much clearing in these times, that when we have done all, too many will remain unsatisfied.
In the second Edition of a Book called The Saints Rest, I ende…voured according to my weakness, to shew the true difference between the common Grace that may be found in the unsanct…fied, and the special Grace of the Saints which accompanieth Salvation. After divers explicatory Propositions, I asserted (in the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth) Proposition 8. that [God hath not in the Covenant promised Justification and Salvation upon any meer Act or Acts, considered without that degree and sutableness to their Objects, wherein the sincerity of them as saving doth consist] (the foregoing Propositions explain this) [9. That there is no one Act considered in its meer nature and kind without its measure and sutableness to its Object, which a true Christian may perform, but an unsound Christia… may perform it also.] (E. g. An unsanctified man may esteem God as good, and notionally as the chief Good; but till we esteem him 1. as the chiefest Good, 2. And that with such an effectual serious prevalent estimation, as may win the heart to the most prevalent or predominant Love, it will not save us.) [Prop. 10. The su…remacy of God and the Mediatour in the soul, or the Precedency or prevalency of his Interest in us, above the interest of the flesh, or of inferiour good, is the very point wherein materially the sincerity of our Graces as saving (i. e. as they are conditions of salvation, and not meer duties) doth consist, and so is the One mark by which those must judge of their states that would not be deceived.] Prop. 11. [For herein the sincerity of the Act as saving consisteth, in being suited to its adequate Object, considered in its respects which are essential to it as such an Object. And so to believe in, Accept and Love God as God, and Christ as Christ, is the sincerity of those Acts: But this lyeth in Believing, Accepting and Loving God as the only supreme Authority, &c. Ruler and Good, and Christ as the only Redeemer, and so our soveraign Lord, our Saviour, our Husband, and our Head.] (This I called the moral specification of the Act.) [Prop. 12. Therefore the sincerity of saving Grace as saving, lyeth materially, not in the bare Nature of it, but in the Degree; not in the degree considered Absolutely in it self, but comparatively as it is prevalent against its contrary.] And among much more for explication I added, [I must tell you, that you must still distinguish between a Physical or Natural specification, and a moral: and remember, that our Question is only of a Physical difference, which I deny, and not of a moral, which I make no doubt of.—] And [And furthermore observe, that sincerity of Grace as saving, lyeth in the degree, not formally, but as it were materially—Because the Promise giveth not salvation to the Act considered in its meer Being, and Natural sincerity, but to the Act as suted to the Object in its essential respects: and that sutableness of the Act to the form of its Object consisteth only in a certain Degree of the Act, seeing the lowest Degree cannot be so suted: therefore I say that sincerity lyeth materially as it were, only in the Degree of those Acts, and not in the bare Nature and Being of them.]
By this and much more for explication, I thought I had made my Assertion intelligible, while I maintained, 1. That there was a moral specifick difference, between the Graces of the Regenerate and others, 2. That only the Acts of saving Grace were suited to the very essence or form of the Object; 3. And that it was only materially and Physically, that I said the difference lay but in Degree: that is, a gracious Action is in order first quid Physicum, a natural Being, before it be quid morale: Or else our Divines would not so commonly teach de causà mali, that God is the Author of all the entity of the Act, but not of the evil: Now as to the Physical Being of the Act, an unsanctified man may have a Belief of the same truths as the sanctified, and a Love to the same God, and a Belief in the same Christ, and a Love to the same Christians, Sermons, Ordinances, &c. Yea more then so, they may notionally apprehend the same Reasons for Believing, Loving, &c. as the sanctified. But they cannot effectually apprehend these Reasons, and therefore do not esteem God or Love him, with their highest predominant estimation and Love, nor Believe with a faith that is prevalent against their unbelief. And therefore morally, strictly, properly, they are to be said to be no true Believers, not to love God, &c. because we are speaking of moral subjects, and of that faith and Love which is the famosius analogatum, and most properly so called. And therefore I maintained, that all the unsanctified are called Christians, Believers, &c. but Equivocally, or Analogically: But yet that the faith and Love, &c. which they have is not all feigned, but true, or Real in its own kind. And this was the sum of my Assertions then.
A while after Dr. Kendal wrote a large digression against some part of my Assertions: to whom when I had prepared half an Answer, at his own peaceable motion, and the Reverend Bishop Ʋshers, we agreed on a mutual silence, as most sutable to our duties and the good of the Church. But before this Agreement, I had printed one sheet in the end of the fifth Impression of the Saints Rest, in which I more fully opened my meaning, and shewed that Dr. Kendal himself did seem to consent to what I had asserted. The same sheet I had also put into the press to be affixed to my Confession. Besides in my Apologie I had at large defended against Mr. Blake, that all that will be regularly Baptized (at age) or admitted to Churchcommunion and Sacraments must make a credible profession of a saving faith specifically distinct from the faith of the unregenerate. Hereupon Mr. Blake in his Reply had manifested much displeasure against this Assertion, professing his abhorrence of it, that I called the unjustified but Equivocally Believers, Christians, Disciples. Hereupon I wrote a Volume of Disputations on this very subject: Proving that it must be the profession of a Faith specifically distinct from that of the unsanctified, which all must profess that we must admit to the Sacraments; and that the ungodly are but Equivocally called Believers, Christians, &c. In other Treatises also I had insisted on the same. And yet all this did not content me, because I heard that others were still discontented. And some Reverend Learned Ministers of other Countries, told me with admiration, that though I had so expresly maintained a moral specifick difference between common & special grace, yet they never spoke with one offended man about it, that ever observed that, or understood me: but perswaded people confidently that I denied any specifick difference; and had put the question without any such distinction or limitation, whether common and special Grace differ only Gradually, or specifically? It seemed to me an incredible thing that such dealing should be so common as they told me: But if it were possible, I thought I would yet speak plainer, and cause men to understand that were but willing; and therefore before the explicatory sheet that was printed in the end of the fifth and sixth impressions of the Saints Rest, and in my Confession, and besides both the foresaid Volumes of Disputations, I did somewhat correct the seventh impression of the Saints Rest; and added yet another explicatory sheet in the end of it. So that I knew not what I could do more, to be understood.
And now after all this, is brought to my hands a Book of a worthy Gentlemans writing, Mr. W. S. a Serjeant at Law, with an Aditional exercitation pretended to be written against my Assertion, by a very Learned man; who doth not only overlook all the forementioned Treatises and explications, but the very Question it self which I discussed, and my forementioned Assertions: feigning me to maintain this general unlimited Assertion, that [Common and special Grace differ only Gradually.] At first it struck me into an admiration! But having long known what man is, and considering the quality and employments of the worthy Author, I had store of Apologies presently at hand, sufficient with me to excuse all this, and because I think they should be sufficient with others, that I foresee are like to be Objecting against such kind of dealing: I shall therefore express them, that the Reader may know, that as we are both for one cause, so we are far from any personal distasts, or disaffection, or any uncharitable malicious projects in the management thereof.
If unwritten Tradition may but be taken for a sufficient Reporter of the Authors Name, (which I have no cause to doubt of) I must say, that he is one that I have honoured and very highly esteemed about this twenty years, even ever since I read his six Metaphysical Exercitations, and should have thought it a very great honour and happiness to have been but one of his Pupils: And though I know him not by face, I have reason to be confident that no uncharitable design doth dwell in the breast of a man so Learned, moderate and ingenuous as he is commonly fam'd to be. And therefore as long as we both agree in Loving and defending the Truth of God, the matter is the less if we shew our selves but men towards one another. Nay, I have some reason to call it a happy mistake of my words and meaning in him, which occasioned the communication of this Learned Vindication of the Truth which I more weakly and unskilfully asserted. And I make no doubt but the principal fault is my own, who by some unfit expressions have hindred such judicious men from understanding me.
Object. But were not so many Explications and Disputations sufficient to satisfie any man of your meaning?
Answ. What Obligation lay on this learned man to read or take notice of any thing of mine? I doubt not but he had better work to do.
Object. He should have found time to read and understand a mans writings, before he find time to confute them upon a misunderstanding.
Answ. He read that which he wrote against: And truly if I had lived in the publique Library at Oxford, I should have been loth my self to have cast away my time in reading any such Disputations or Explications as these of mine. If men are so unskilfull that they cannot in fewer words so speak as to be understood; let them at their own blame be misunderstood.
Object. But he should have read the additional Explications in the same Book.
Answ. Its like he never saw any of those Impressions that did contain them.
Object. At least he should have observed the section which he confuted.
Answ. So he did: For pag. 332. He confesseth that I assert, [that the Acts of common and special Grace, as they are morally considered do differ specifically, and not only in degree.]
Object. Why then doth he contend? If he agree, why doth he seem to differ, and think it worthy his publique labor to seem to differ, where he doth not?
Answ. I suppose it is my terms that he intends his Labor against, which he thought might be unfit and seem to intimate somewhat contrary to my own Assertions.
Object. But why then did he not tell us that it was words only that he strove about, and tell us of more convenient expressions in their stead? Nay, Why did he overlook the principal terms in your Proposition? and when you say that it is but Materially, and not Formally, that you place the difference in degree; why doth he still leave out Materially? and when you profess to speak only of such a Material Physicall Gradation, Why doth he make the Reader believe that you speak of the formal difference, and simply denyed a specifick difference?
Answ. One word is easily overlookt, yea many: perhaps he lookt only on the following words, where in some impressions the word Materially was not repeated, (as being before exprest in the Proposition.) But what great matter is it if we mistake one another, as long as we mistake not the Truths of God.
Object. It tendeth but to prejudice common Readers, and cause them to cast away mens labors, that might profit them, for Brethren to multiply quarrels, and against them; especially when they confess that there is no real difference to occasion it, the thing is the more without excuse.
Answ. And what harm is it to the Church or any soul to be brought to a suspicion or distast of any thing of mine, or to have any of my writings become unprofitable to them? Are there not more enough, more usefull and less offensive in the world? Through the Mercy of God it is an age of plenty, and he that savoureth not one mans writings, may savour and be saved by anothers. I confess some railing rabious men have done some wrong to our common Hearers, by teaching them to fly from their Teachers as deceivers: but this Reverend Man is an enemy to such waies; and therefore I know not why such a peaceable collation of our different thoughts or expressions should be so offensive as I find it ordinarily to be.
Object. But was not this work sufficiently done already? What need such a multitude of stones to be cast at one mans words, even at a few sentences, which they close with themselves when they have done? Is not that which is here said the same that Dr. Kendal had said before? And what need the same be done so oft?
Answ. Many witnesses give the stronger testimony to a Truth; many may read the writings of this learned man, that would not have seen or read Dr. K. And the great reputation of so eminently learned and discreet a man; may add much advantage to the promoting of any truth which he shall defend. Or else Mr. Tombes would not have printed the letter against insant-Baptism (which fame saith was written by this learned hand) in his Epistle before his third part of Antipedo-Baptism; but that thinking the Truth was on his side, he thought it would be some advantage to it, that so learned a Pen should put a deleantur upon the Arguments against it, saying, [I have read what my learned and worthy friend Dr. Hammond, Mr. Baxter, and others say in defence of it; and I confess, I wonder not a little that men of such great parts, should say so much to so little purpose; for I have not yet seen any thing like an Argument for it.] (Though in this I must still profess my Dissent from this very learned worthy man) Yet in the point before us, I rejoyce, that my infirmities have occasioned such an advantage to the truth, as the publication of his Testimony. When I first received his Book, I was busie about satisfying some Reverend Brethren, that were displeased with me for going his way; and therefore received it with some gladness, as that which might ease me of some of my burden, and promote the satisfaction of some of the offended. I have heard somewhat that causeth me to suspect, that a reverend Brother intendeth to write against my second, fourth, and fifth Disputations of Right to Sacraments, especially the last, which asserteth that the unregenerate are but equivocally or analogically called Believers, Christians, Disciples, Sanctified, &c. If any be upon that work, I intreat them to trie first how they can confute this learned Author; who hath done the same work better (as against me) then I could do. For I will not take the cause as gone, till his Reasons are answered as well as mine. (Perhaps I was beholden to my Appendix to that Disput. for a Testimony from him that never read it.)
This much I have said to let both Papists, and all other Adversaries understand that there is not so much distance among us, for them to reproach us with, as some of our concertations do seem to import. Fencing is not a sign of enmity, though fighting be: and that there is as little disagreement in our Judgements, I shall further manifest by a perusal of the several parts of this pretended Confutation: yet freely acknowledging as I go; Those differences, which indeed I find.