Of Saving Faith, Section 4
SECT. IV.
TIll the eighth Consid. you do but express your further Consent.
In Consid. 8. pag. 334. 335. You say [that common and special Graces consist not so properly and primarily in the Acts and exercise of Faith and Love, &c. as in the Habits and principle from whence they come, so that the graciousness that is in them is not (as snares, &c.) ipsis actibus originaliter intrinseca, &c.] Answ. 1. I require some proof before I believe it, that Grace is not as much originally intrinsick in the Acts as Habits? Our Dvines that have long taught us that the Act of Faith is it that Justifies; (and also that the Acts of Faith and Repentance, go before the Habit,) thought otherwise. 2. For my part. I have irons enow in the fire: I have not engaged my self in this Controversie, and see no reason why I should [whether the Habit or Act be first? I long thought as Pemble, that the Habit was first. But second thoughts have made me at least doubtful, and loosened from that opinion; and finding that the stream of Protestant Divines have taken Vocation to be Antecedent to sanctification, and that Vocation conteineth (passivè sumpta) the Acts of faith and Repentance, and sanctifition the Habit; I have resolved that without further Light, I will never more oppose this opinion. Its a probable way (as Camero expresseth it) that the Holy Ghost by the word without a habit, exciteth the first Act by the means of the presented Object: and that eodem instanti by that Act he produceth a Habit, so that only in order of Nature the Act is first, but not of time: The Spirit is as the Hand, the Object and Word as the Seal, the Act of impression on the intellect is first in order of Nature, and so upon the Will the impressed Act and Habit immediately are effected by it. 1. We use to say, that Habitus infusi se habent ad modum acquisitorum: though they have a higher power effecting them, its improbable that they are effected in another order. 2. This suiteth with the Nature of man. 3. And this makes the word the Instrument of that work, whereas (which moves me very much) according to the contrary opinion, the Word cannot possibly be the Instrument, or means of our Regeneration, as to the Habit, but only a subsequent means to excite or educe the Act, which seems against the stream of Scripture, and Divines of all Ages. But truly my opinion is, that as the wind bloweth where it listeth, &c. so is every one that is born of the Spirit: And that no man can so trace the Spirit of God as to be able certainly to say whether the Act or Habit of Grace be first. But it seems more probable and congruous to Scripture to place the act first in Nature, but in one instance of time. But I will not contend with any man that thinks otherwise.
3. I am past doubt that the Acts of Grace are first discerned: Nay for my part, I know not what it means to discern any Habit in my self but by the Acts. And therefore the Acts in that respect must be first sought after.
4. But I am thus far wholly of your mind, that no act can prove a man truly sanctified, but as it proves a Habit: and that ungodly men may by sickness, convictions, common Grace, &c. be carried far in Acts: and that our principal satisfaction about our sincerity is by finding Predominant Rooted Habits, which are as a New Nature to the soul. Thus far we are agreed.
From all this I answer your inference, pag. 336. That he that enquires, whether common and special Graces differ specifically, or only gradually, should (if he will) rationally proceed first, and principally enquire concerning the Habits, &c.
Answ. But 1. You must not take your Reasons (from the Habits priority, &c.) for granted, as long as it is a singular opinion among Protestants, and unproved. 2. That must be first enquired after, which is first, (and only immediately in se,) discernable: but such is the act of Grace, and not the habit; Ergo, &c. 3. However, If you will confute me, you must confute the position that I (whether rationally or irrationally) disputed for, and not make another of your own, and dispute for that, and take it for a confutation. 4. But for my part, I take not the Acts and Habits so much to differ; but (as on the by I toucht it at first, so) I shall consent that you put both hereafter into the question: but yet remember, that I put them not in mine at first.
Page 337. You say, [We are now come to the hing and foundation of this Controversie, &c.] which you lay down in this Position, The habits of special and [saving Grace, are not only gradually, but specifically distinct from the habits and Acts of all common Grace whatsoever.]
Answ. 1. I am wholly on your side; and where you have wrote a leaf for it, I think I have written many: so that if bulk might go for worth and weight, I had over-merited you in this Controversie. 2. But I intreat you, if you delight in this kind of work, that hereafter you will make no hinges or foundations of controversies with me without my own consent: either let me agree with you in the stating of the question, or else pretend not that you dispute against me.
Your reasons to page 349, do learnedly militate for the Assertion that I maintain: and though some words on the by lie not so even with my conceptions, yet I thankfully accept your consent in the main.
Your principal position also pag. 352. is the same with mine and I have no mind to quarrel with so fast a friend, yet I am so far off Becanns and Maldonates mind, as to think that where miraculous and justifying faith are together, they differ no more (at most) then the sensitive and rational soul in the same man. But I am not of their mind, that they are not separable. And for historical Faith, if you mean the assent to the truth of Scripture, I take it to differ from justifying fai…h as much as the Intellect doth from the man, and no more. And for temporary faith, I take it to contain (oft at lest) more then bare Assent, and to be a superficial common Assent, Consent and Affiance, having materially all the Acts of saving faith, but none of them in sincerity, that is with a rooted predominant Habit, and prevalent effectual Acts, but is a liveless, dreaming, uneffectual thing. But this on the by.
To your reasons. 1. I consent (pag. 354.) that the heart is stony; yet (as D…. Harris saith,) hath a natural tenderness, sometimes, and a superficial tenderness from common Graces. 2. I consent that Temporary faith hath not [depth of earth] or [much earth,] as Christ saith, Mat. 13. 5. which is the same with [no root:] for had it not had superficial rooting, it had never come to a blade and ear. What insition the branch is in Christ not bearing fruit had, 1 John 15. I leave to further enquiry. But some, how they are said to be in Christ.
3. I grant that the Temporary faith brought forth no fruit that is no special Fruit: for no doubt, but it may bring forth, much common fruit; most think so far, as that such may give their bodies to be burnt. And Mr. Shepheard in your Book doth mention a great deal.
4, I easily grant also that Temporary faith is cowardly, and fails in trial: in all this we are agreed.
Page 359. You begin your more distinct confirmations: Though I agree with you in the cause, yet not in every word of your Confirmations. Your first difference is in [the Nature of the Principles, & causes whence they spring; Common belief being generally an acquired disposition or Habit produced by the ability of our Natural Ʋnderstanding, assisted with good education and industry: but saving Faith the immediate work of the Spirit: one is Habitus acquisitus, the other infusus.] Ans. 1, Either you mean here the Extrinsick [Principles and Causes] or the Intrinsick. If the Intrinsick, then either the soul, the faculties, or the Habits: not the Habits; For its those that are now the subject of your Question; and therefore you call them not [the Principles and Causes] of themselves, though you might call them so as to the Acts. Not the faculties, nor the soul; for you yield before that the soul or faculties of Regenerate and unregenerate differ not specifically. It is therefore the extrinsick [Principles and Causes] that you meant. And if so, it is either God himself, or some Action of God; hat is a middle thing between the Agent and the Effect, or it is the Instrumental Cause. Not the Instrument: For 1. You express a Higher cause, 2. and the same word is the instrument of God in causing a common & special Faith: the same seed fell on the good ground and the stony. Nor is it God himself you that mean: for he is not of a species, much less of different species, as he is the Principle and Cause of different effects: nor is his Will so: for his Will is his Essence. Yet I would (as aforesaid) confess that Denominatione extrinsecâ, his Will or Love may have divers Denominations, according to the diversity of effects: But yet not denominated specifically divers from every distinct specification in the effects. Nor can it be your meaning, I think, that specifically distinct-wills in God are the causes: For you say pag. 322. 323. [The favour and Love of God to his people comes not now into consideration,—1. This is subjective in Deo,—2. Because the Grace of God in this notion as it signifieth his love to us is not capable of any degrees; the Love of God, as all other Acts of the Divine Nature, being like God himself absolutely simple without any composition essential or gradual.] Not to enquire how that which [is God himself can be like God himself,] (for we all speak incongruously sometimes) from hence its plain that it is not the Love of God as in himself that you call [the Principles or Causes.] It remains then that it must be some Action or Emanation intermediate, or as passing from God to the effect, But thats not likely neither: For 1. You seem to be most friendly to the Thomists in other points; and you know that they and many more (with many of our own) do maintain that there is no more Execution or Operation necessary ex parte Dei but his meer Velle; and that his willing the effect to be thus or thus, at this or that time existent, doth produce it. 2. Your self said, ubi sup. [The favour and Love of God is subjective in Deo, & terminative only in nobis.] 3. If there be an operation distinct ab operante & re operatâ, it is a Creature or the Creator: Not the Creator, for he is the Agent; if a Creature, they that will prove a specifick difference in it, must first tell us what creature it is? and shew us the general Nature of it. 4. Many Philosophers think it inconsistent with Gods immediate Attingencie and Operation, immediatione virtutis & suppositi. So that I scarce think that in this you place the specifick Difference, or gather them to be toto coelo d…stant, as you say.
But it is not imaginable that you may mean to oppose the extrinsick and intrinsick Causes in the different persons, as if [mans own faculties] were the cause of Temporary faith, and [Gods will] the cause of saving faith? No, I dare not entertain such a conjecture. For 1. I doubt not but you will yield, that temporary faith could not be produced without the will of God: At least, they that think man cannot determine his own will to the act of sin, till God doth physically pre-determine it; will I hope yield that man cannot Temporarily Believe without the will of God. 2. And I rest assured that you will yield that that mans soul, or faculties, is the subject of both common and special Grace. 3. And that the faculties are as much efficient in the Production of special Grace as of common. So that if they are not efficient of special Grace, then not of common. Of which more anon. 4. Or if that were denied, yet as long as they have both the same will of God for their Original, you confess one to have as High a Principle as the other. And though (as is said) denominatione extrinsecâ, we may say that it is a special Love that is the cause of one, and but a common love that is the cause of the other, (because one is the willing a special good, and the other of a common) yet it is Ʋnity that is the Original of multiplicity. One Will of God causeth both.
One more conjecture: May you not mean that God immediatly is the cause of special faith, and God by the Word is the cause of Temporary faith, and so oppose the principal cause alone, to the Principal with the Instrument? No, that cannot be: because 1. As long as God is the Principal cause of both, by the same will, the use of an Instrument in one only will prove no specifick Difference. 2. Because our Divines (and others, except some Enthusiasts) are commonly agreed, that the word is the Instrument of working saving faith as well as Temporary (though I confess I know not how that will consist with their opinion, that say the Habit is before the Act, seeing it is scarce conceiveable how the Word should cause a Habit without first causing an Act.) 3. Besides, its commonly affirmed, that God doth effect immediatione virtutis & suppositi, as well when there is an Instrument as when there is none.
I am therefore left uncertain of your sense: but which ever it is, I see not how it will hold, It is most likely that you distinguish of Gods modus operandi, as to some Influxe, or causing Action between the Agent and the Subject, because the Infusion and Acquisition mentioned, rather intimates that then the other. As if by a meer General assistance or concurse God caused Temporary faith, and by a special coucurse or assistance or Pre-determination he caused special faith: But besides what is said before to that, if we might imagine such a mediate Being between God and the effect, as is capable of such a difference as you express, yet that here there can be no such thing, will appear by what follows, but I will first consider your own expressions.
You say, that [common Beliefe is an Acquired faith produced by the Ability of our own understandings, assisted with good education and industry.] Answ. 1. There is oft as much use of our own understandings, industry, and of Education for a special faith as a Temporary; But these alone will not serve turnly. 2. You seem here and all along this Paragraph, flatly to maintain that Temporary faith is only thus of our selves, or only Acquired, and not wrought by any other help of God, and his Spirit, then what is Generally necessary to all Acts. But that common or temporary Faith is the work of Gods Spirit as well as saving faith, is most express in Scripture: And that it may as truly be called Infused, and that it is from a special assistance of the Spirit, I shall prove: (speciall I say, as opposed to meer general help or concurse, though not special, as that signifieth what is proper to the saved.) 1. As to your self you confess, pag. 338. [that there are many common Graces of the soul—sometimes immediatly and extraordinarily infused by God.] And if some common Graces are infused, you are much disabled from proving that the Temporary or common Grace of the best of the unregenerate is not infused.
2. The word [Infusion] being a Metaphor, must be resolved into that proper expression which you will own. If it signifies but a Collation, Donation, or effectual operation of the Holy Ghost then common Graces are Infused as well as proper. If it signifie an Operation without means, so neither common nor proper Grace is ordinarily infused (at least into the Adult.) If it signifie that which is Given by more then General Providence, and requireth more then our own industry and Education (which you mention) to attain it, then this common Grace is infused: (We call it common, not because all have it, nor because a Help common to all is enough to work it; but because it is so common to the unsanctified, as not to be proper to the Saints.)
3. I know no Scripture that apporpriateth the Title of [Infused] to the Grace proper to the Saints! And sure I am that some means is appointed to be used for the Acquisition of special Grace: And therefore so far as those means succeed, it may be called Acquired, as well as Infused. Prov. 1. 23. The Promise of Infusion and Effusion, [I will pour out my Spirit to you] is either meant of common mercy, q. d. I will pou… out the teachings and perswasions of my Spirit to you, in my Word, and the teaching of my Ministers.] Or else, if it speak of Infusion especial Grace, it requireth [Turning at God… Reproof] as a meanes antecedent; that of Isa. 44. 3, 4, 5. & Joel. 2. 28, 29. are commonly expounded of common as well as special Grace: and one of them is so expounded by the Holy Ghost, Acts 2. 17, 18. Zech. 12. 10. seems to speak only of special Grace; but some extend it further.
4. Certain I am that both the Gifts of Prophesie, Tongues, Healing, &c. are Given, yea Infused by the Spirit; and that Temporary faith is the Gift of the Spirit, and not meerly Acquired as you describe. This therefore is the main thing that yet I find my self to differ from you in: I conceive that those that were enlightned, and tasted of the Heavenly Gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come [had more then meer aquired Acts or Habits. How else are they said to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost? And how are they said [to be sanctified by the blood of the Covenant, and after to do despight to the spirit of Grace, if they had none of the spirit of Grace? Heb. 10. 29. & 6. 4, 5. I speak on supposition that the common Exposition be sound, that takes these Texts as speaking of common Grace. I confess I have not such high thoughts of mans sufficiency as of himself in estate of unregeneracie, as to think (as you here seem to do) that he can acquire such things by his own understanding industry, and by Education, without the work of the Spirit of Christ, (yea the immediate work (though not without means) as Scripture tels us the unregenerate have possessed. I think their Grace is coeli soboles too; and that Nature and industry will not reach so high of themselves, or by general concurse, as to [wash these swine, and cause them to escape the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 2 Pet. 2. 20 21. To receive the Word with joy, Luke 8. 13. and believe for a while: John 2. 23. 24. To spare citations; see but all those great things that Mr. Shepheard in your Book ascribeth to Hypocrites, & judge whether they are not beyond our corrupt nature to reach, by way of meer Aquisition? When Paul hath [given us to understand, that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 12. 3. And though its like he hath respect to those times of persecution, when confessing Christ was the way to suffering, yet how far many unsanctified ones have gone in confessing him, and suffering for him, I need not tell you. [There are diversities of Gifts, but the same Spirit. To one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit, to another the word of Knowledge by the same Spirit: to another faith by the same Spirit—By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body—1 Cor. 12. 7, 8, 9, 12, 29. I find, One Spirit, and one way of Giving Gifts, without your distinction: but no mention of any such gifts without the Spirit by our own Acquisition. See Gal. 3. 1. 2, 3, 5. Eph. 59. 1 John 4. 2, 3.
I would give in many more of my Reasons, but they lie together in Gregor. Ariminens. in 2. sent. Dist. 26. 27, & 28. Q. 1. fol 84. &c. Who against some semipelagian Moderns maintaineth [1. Quod homo secundum praesentem statum, stante influentia Dei, generali non potest per liberum arbitrium & naturalia ejus, ab… speciali Dei auxilio agere aliquem actum moraliter bonum. 2. Ostendit aliam partem, fuisse de Articulis damnatis Pelagij: aut si in aliquo discordat, magis deviare à Catholica veritate quam dictum Pelagij (and yet some think verily they are running from Pelagianism, while they run into this opinion) & ab hoc ipsam non esse ab aliquo Catholico sustinendam. 3. He solveth the arguments brought for the affirmative. And though in defining an act morally good, he speaks as you and I do, yet he fully lets you know that he speaks of the acts of the Reprobate themselves, and such as antecede Justification, or true conversion; and therefore infers hence, fol. 85. quod nemo potest mereri primam gratiam de Condigno, nec etiam de congruo, contra aliquorum sententiam modernorum:] adding [nomine autem gratiae, non solum significo gratiam gratum facientem, sed etiam gratis datam, & universaliter quodcun{que} Dei speciale adjutorium ad bene operandum, &c.] Whereas according to your way of meer Aquisition of a Temporary faith; men may do that which the Papists call meriting de congruo the first Grace. Not that he denieth simply that which they call meritum de congruo, but that any have it without the adjutorium speciale as he cals it, in opposition to the influentia generalis. (And his Argument is considerable: Nemo potest habere ante primam gratiam, actum aliquem liberiarbitrij non culpabilem: igitur nemo de condigno vel de congruo potest mereri primam gratiam: Patet consequentia: quia nullus meretur nisi per actus liberi arbitrij? & certum est quod non per aliquem culpabilem meretur gratiam, sed potius …oenam.] And fol. 85. col. 4. He shews that he speaks even of the acts of Catechumens and such as are in mortal sin. So that it is not only the Acts that are proper to the Elect that he speaks of. His Arguments are many and weighty, which I shall not recite seeing they lie before you: And he confirms it largely from the consent of the Ancients, Cyprian, Ambrose, H…erome, Augustine, Damascen, Prosper, Gregory, Isidore, &c. And confuteth the contrary Reasons with much strength, which Scotus, and his friend Ockam, Adam and others bring for the contrary, which twelve Reasons contain. I conjecture the chief strength of what can be said for that cause. Many more you know have copiously done the same work: but I refer you to one, for brevity, as speaking most that sticks in my mind against your doctrine of Natural acquisition of the Temporarie faith; which Ariminensis thought is Pelagianism or worse, though I intend not so to charge you.
Lastly, I may add, that if you are of the now prevailing opinion, that no Agent natural or free can act without the Pre-determination of God as the first immediate Physical Cause. I cannot see how you can possibly specific common and special Grace from the manner of Divine production, nor why all our acts good and bad are not equally by Infusion. For though you may change the name, yet that which you call Infusion of special Grace, can do no more then physically, immediately, in superably as the causa prima simpliciter necessaria, determine the will; and so much is said to be done in every act of temporary Faith, yea in every natural, yea in every wicked act. (Though I must profess my self in this point of the Judgement of Jansenius, which the foresaid Greg. Ar. following Augustine) before him thus expresseth, that [Deus juvat nos ipsum actum immediatè efficiendo, & non solum juvat Deus ad bonum partialiter co-efficiendo, quod est modus Communis quo concurrit ad cuju slibet creati agentis quemlibet sed—Ad productionem actus mali solum primo modo (per influentiam generalem) Deus concurrit; quia non facit voluntatem agere actum malum, sicut facit eam agere actum bonum.] But ad hominem: this exception is valid against any that go on the Pre-determinate grounds.
Let the Jesuits then call all Temporaries, Graces [Habitus acquisitos & ordinis naturalis,] Let them call this faith but [fidem humanam] as produced by the power of humane Causes] as you say; For my part I will not Pelagianize with the Jesuits; nor can I believe what you further repeat, that [common Belief is not Divine in respect of the Principles from whence it flowes, but generally of an humane descent and pedegree.] I do not think that we are sufficient of our selves to think one of these good thoughts of our selves; but that all our sufficiency is of God, who worketh in us both to will and to do; from whom cometh evegood gift, even such as the Temporaries. Yet do I not charge [you or Suarez, or the many others] whoever they be, to be mistaken in your Metaphysicks: Far be it from me to compare with you there. Only I cannot be of every mans mind that excelleth me in the Metaphysicks.