OF Saving Faith: That it is not only gradually, but specifically distinct from all Common FAITH.  
The Agreement of Richard Baxter with that very Learned consenting Adversary, that hath maintained my Assertion by a pretended Confutation in the end of sergeant cords Book of Sincerity and hypocrisy.  
With the Reasons of my Dissent in some passages that came in on the by.  
Dr. Preston Golden sceptre, pag. 210.[ Object. It seems then that the Knowledge of a carnal man and a regenerate man differ but in Degrees, not in Kind.] Answ. The want of Degrees here alters the kind; as in Numbers the Addition of a Degree alters the Species.  
red this point practically improved in Mr. Pinks excellent Sermons of Sincere Love to Christ, on Luke 14. 26. pag. 1. and pag. 33. &c.  
LONDON, Printed by R. W. for nevil Simmons Bookseller in Kederminster, and are to be sold by him there; and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-Yard. Anno Dom. 1658.   

To the Worthy and much Honoured Mr. W. S. sergeant at Law.  
SIR,  
YOU have very much honoured me in the choice of an Opponent: but I perceive by his Conclusion that he hath other business, and I am not altogether without. And therefore I entreat you the next time to choose me an Adversary that differs from me, or to give me leave to live at Peace. Or if he differ not, let him rather reprehend me for agreeing with him, than pretend a difference where there is none. If your learned Friend do think it as well worth his labour to prove us disagreed, as I thought it worth mine to prove us of a mind, if I live I shall be willing to red what he lordships; but if it come not of a greater Errand; I'll promise you no more. As to your own pious labours, they are so honest and savoury to me, that they tempted me to differ from you in one thing, and to think that[ an Hypocrite cannot writ or preach as well as a good Christian can] there being an unexpressible Spirituality that I savour in some men more thenothers: but I'll not stand to this. You give at least as much to the Hypocrite I think as ever I did; and you confirm it by much Scripture-evidence. But I must confess I th●nk not that all your Notes of sincerity are exact or will hold the trial; but ye they be useful in many Cases. You affirm that Hypocrites have common Grace, even to the height expressed by you: but you say, It is not true Grace. Either its Grace or no Grace: if none, call it not common Grace,( or common Faith, Desire, Hope, Love, Joy; if it be none.) But if it be Grace, and not true Grace, then Ens& Verum non convertuntur. I maintain that it is not true saving Grace, but yet true common Grace: You maintain in the general that it is not true Grace, and yet its truly common Grace: There being then no controversy that I see to be disputed between you and me, but whether Ens& Verum convertuntur, I crave pardon for my further silence, resolving rather to give you the best( though not to assent) than to dispute it: I remain  
A great Esteemer of your Piety and many labours, Richard Baxter. MARCH 31. 1658.   

Reader, I suppose thee to have the Book at hand which I here deal with; and therefore have recited but the sum and principal Passages, and not every word; which thou ●aist red in the Book itself.   

The Contents.  

SECT. 1. The Occasion of this controversy. An apology for this friendly consenting Adversary, to them that are like to be offended with a pretended difference where there is none. fol. 1  
Sect. 2. Our Agreement: The pertinency of my Impertinencies. Whether it was not some false Transcript of my words, that the learned Opponent was put to confute? The true Reason of my words in the Saints Rest which he writes against, with the meaning of them. Of my Improprieties and incongruities. The point feigned to be mine, which I expressly wrote against, and frequently. fol. 9  
Sect. 3. Whether Acts of common Grace are Evangelically good? About the stating of the Question. Whether because common and special Grace specifically differ in Morality, it follows that they cannot congruously be said to differ only gradually in any other consideration? Nothing lower than a predominant degree in the matter is capable of the moral form of saving Faith, Love, &c. in specie. fol. 15  
Sect. 4. Whether Grace be as properly and primarily in the Act as in the Habit? and which goes first, which is first to be inquired after? In what principles of habitual Grace it is that special and common Grace or Faith be only acquired by natural abilities with good Education and Industry, or to be infused or wrought by the Spirit as special Grace is? fol. 20  
Sect. 5. Whether common Faith be Life? Why not so called? Whether Every Degree of accidental forms denominate the Subject? A further Explication of my meaning in this controversy. fol. 31  
Sect. 6. Whether the least special Grace be not stronger than the greatest common Grace? Whether the Temporaries Assent be proportionable to the Mediums that produce it? Whether the physical forms can be name that specify common and special Grace? Intuition of special Faith none of the difference. Common Grace prepareth and disposeth for special Grace. Arguments for the contrary answered. Calvins[ Quasecunque seemen fidei perdunt.] Whether those that have common Grace, or those that have it not, are more ordinarily converted? What I mean by common Grace. The council. Arausic. against them that make common Grace to be merely acquired by ourselves; but not against any thing that I say. How far common Grace thus disposeth to special? This Disposition further proved. The losing of common Grace proves not the specific. difference. fol. 35  
Sect. 7. Whether it may be a saving Faith that takes the Scripture to be Gods Word, but upon probable motives or mediums? And whether the mediums here prove the specific difference? Whether the immediate Revelation of the holy Ghost be a Premise, or Medium, specifying saving Faith? And whether all other be fallible and human? Ten Reasons to prove that such a Revelation as is in question, is not necessary,( nor ordinarily existent.) fol. 50  
Sect. 8. Whether Hypocrites have no premises for Faith, but such as are human, dubious and fallible? Six Reasons to prove that they have better. More of the non-necessity of demonstrative or infallible certain mediums, or evidence to prove the Scripture Gods word, as to the being of true Faith. Whether Faith be argumentative, or a simplo Adhesion, or Affiance? Faith anatomised, as to its divers Acts and Uses, in answer to this question. fol. 56  
Sect. 9. It is no Article of saving Faith; nor divine Faith at all,( much less proving a specific difference) that I. A. B. a● actually justified, freed, pardonned, adopted, and an Heir of Heaven, proved by twenty Reasons. fol. 64  
Sect. 10. I made not Love( strictly taken) the form of Faith That Affiance is in the Will as well as in the Intellect. The enquiry made as of four sorts of Belief. 1. The Belief of divine History, or Truth merely as such. 2. Of divine threatenings. 3. Of divine Promises, &c. in general, 4. Of the Gospel in special. Of nine several Acts in the third, and ten in the fourth, apparent in the Anatomy. The Acts of Affiance in saving Faith: One of God as Promiser or Revealer: The other on Christ as Saviour. None of these is the Plerophorie which Rob. Baronius and the Opponent pled against. fol. 72  
Sect. 11. The Protestants defended for placing Affiance or Trust in the Will. Baronius's two Arguments produced by the Opponent, refeled. Difference how far in the Will. There is aliquid spei& amoris in Affiance or Faith, and yet Faith is not Hope or Love. We trust only for good. Eight Reasons proving Affiance in the Will. fol. 76  
Sect. 12. Some Propositions containing my opinion, How far Love belongs to Faith, Et de fide formata charitate, necessary to be observed by the learned Adversary, if he will not lose his labour in the next assault on that Subject. Of his Conclusion, and no danger of a passionate railing Reply. The vanity of human applause, and tolerableness of mans Censures. fol. 82    

Reader, I entreat thee first to correct these ERRATA, because they are many and mar the sense.  
PAg. 4. lin. 36. red beside. p. 7. l. 12. blot out and. p. 10. l. 14. r. common Belief& special. l. 20. blot out it. l. 34. r. red. p. 11. l. 14. r. that here. p. 12. l. 23. r. that they have. p. 13. l. 22. r. thee. p. 15. l. 8. r. Wills. p. 20. l 11. r. Suarez. p. 23. l. 4, 5. r. branches. p. 24. l. 35. r. is it. p. 26. l. 15. blot out ly. p. 27. l. 13. r. of special. p. 28. l. 35. r. ob. p. 31. l. 21. r. in Christ. p. 32. l. 13. r. denominate. p. 37. l. 26. r. ex re praesenti p. 39. l. 5. r. speciei. l. ult. r. us to be. p. 4●. l. 7. r. Heathens with. l. 10. r. they l. 34. r. while. p. 42. l. 18. r. prompti. l. 19. r. carnis. p. 44. l. 1. r. present. l. 10. r. Arts. p. 46. l. 12. r. is. l. 37. r. that. p. 47. l. 25 r. Death. l. 29. r. scrue. p. 49. l. 15. r. losing. p. 50. l. 13. r. its. l. 15. r. say, that. and for therefore r. so. p. 53. l. 10. r. recited. p. 54. l. 9 r. by, so that. p. 55. l. 35. r believe. p. 56. l. 20, 21. r. Opinion, nor Science. p. 57. l. 6. r. superficially. p. 60. l. 25. r. of. p. 64. l. 20. blot out in. p. 68. l. ult. blot out the. p. 69. l. 31. r. Truth. p. 73. l. 4. r. {αβγδ}. l. 7. r. in Scripture. p. 77. l. 12. r. the opinion. l. 29. r. of Affiance in the Veracity. p. 78. l. 32. blot out essential to hope. p. 79. l. 10. r. but. p. 80. l. 4. r. confine. l. 15. r. posthumous. p. 81. l. 2. r. threatenings. l. 12. r. as well as of the Intellect. p. 83. l. 23. r. want work. l. 25. r. I have first. l. 35. r. fides. p. 84. l. 25. r. that every. p. 86. l. 28. r. Heshusius. p. 87. l. 22. r. me. p. 88. l. 28. r. lamenting. p. 89. l. 14. and l. 20. r. To. l. 20. r. Arminius. p. 94. l. 16. r. answerable.  
There are many mis-pointings which mar the sense, which the Reader may observe.   

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 specific 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 show 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 mere Act or Acts, considered without that degree and suitableness 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 mere nature and kind without its measure and suitableness 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 mediator in the soul, or the Precedency or prevalency of his Interest in us, above the interest of the flesh, or of inferior good, is the very point wherein materially the sincerity of our Graces as saving( i.e. as they are conditions of salvation, and not mere 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 lieth in Believing, Accepting and Loving God as the only supreme Authority, &c. Ruler and Good, and Christ as the only Redeemer, and so our sovereign 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, lieth materially, not in the bare Nature of it, but in the Degree; not in the degree considered Absolutely in itself, 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, lieth in the degree, not formally, but as it were materially— Because the Promise giveth not salvation to the Act considered in its mere Being, and Natural sincerity, but to the Act as suited to the Object in its essential respects: and that suitableness 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 suited: therefore I say that sincerity lieth 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 specific 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 apprehended the same Reasons for Believing, Loving, &c. as the sanctified. But they cannot effectually apprehended 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 Ushers, we agreed on a mutual silence, as most suitable 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 apology I had at large defended against Mr. black, 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. black 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 expressly maintained a moral specific difference between common& special grace, yet they never spoken with one offended man about it, that ever observed that, or understood me: but persuaded people confidently that I denied any specific 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 sergeant 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 itself 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 distastes, 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 red 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 famed 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 show ourselves 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 hindered such judicious men from understanding me.  
Object. But were not so many Explications and Disputations sufficient to satisfy any man of your meaning?  
Answ. What Obligation lay on this learned man to red 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 red and understand a mans writings, before he find time to confute them upon a misunderstanding.  
Answ. He red that which he wrote against: And truly if I had lived in the public Library at Oxford, I should have been loth myself to have cast away my time in reading any such Disputations or Explications as these of mine. If men are so unskilful 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 red 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 public labour to seem to differ, where he doth not?  
Answ. I suppose it is my terms that he intends his labour 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 striven 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 physical Gradation, Why doth he make the Reader believe that you speak of the formal difference, and simply denied a specific difference?  
Answ. One word is easily don't, yea many: perhaps he looked only on the following words, where in some impressions the word Materially was not repeated,( as being before expressed 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 labours, 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 distaste of any thing of mine, or to have any of my writings become unprofitable to them? Are there not more enough, more useful 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 ways; 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 red the writings of this learned man, that would not have seen or red 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. tombs would not have printed the letter against insant-Baptism( which famed 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 red 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 rejoice, 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 busy 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 writ 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 entreat them to try 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 red 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.   

SECT. 2.  
page. 1. HE tells us, 1. That he believes the difference to be more then gradual, and so said I.[ 2. And that my discourse doth not concludingly evince the contrary;] nor did it ever pretend it: Thus far we are agreed.  
Pag 2.( i.e. 332.) He saith that[ To prove that common and special Grace do differ only gradually, I reason,] as followeth. But I never asserted such a thing, and therefore never reasoned for it. It was but overlooking the terms[ Materially,] and[ Physical specifications;] and some such like, that caused this mistake.  
Here is culled out those words of mine, that were easiliest mistaken, and several considerations added. As to the first, we are agreed that the Question is not of Grace, as it is in God, but in us, or of gracious acts as of us. But my weakness was such, That, 1. I thought, as a presupposed, thing to meet with some that insisted on the name, I might have mentioned exclusively this Grace which this Reverend Brother excludeth, as I did. 2. I thought that Amor Complacentiae vel acceptatio divina, had denominatione extrinseca been capable of a gradation; and that as truly, as we say, God loveth one man, and hateth another, and that he loveth him converted, whom he( so) loved not unconverted,( amore complacentiae,& acceptationis) as truly might we say, that he loveth( with that love) a holier& more heavenly upright man, above a scandalous weak Believer, that hath the least goodness, and the most sin that is consistent with sincerity. But I am resolved so far to stoup to the learning of this Reverend man, as not to maintain this opinion against him( though I may not be cured of such conceits so soon as he desireth.)  
As to his second Consid. pag. 323. We are fully agreed, that Grace is {αβγδ}, and that if ever Titius and Sempronius had Grace, it was not in order of Nature, till after they were men. But I confess I think still, that Grace to Adam was not aliquid naturae superadditum, unless you confine the word Nature to his mere faculties, as distinct from, those right Dispositions, which were natural to them, though separable.  
In his third Conclusion, he receipts some of my words[ Our Understandings and Wils are physcially the same, &c. and faith that,[ This Assertion as 'tis here expressed, is evidently untrue; for our Understandings and Wils, are so far from being the some in specie, &c.] Still we are agreed whether he will or no. But did I writ this false Assertion? yes, all saving one word, yea a syllable, which is easily don't. And 2. The false meaning which the adjoined words do justify it from; being speaking of the Matter of saving and common Grace, I thought it not impertinent to mention it as a common Concession, that all of us agree in;[ That common knowledge and special common belief; and specially agree in this general Nature, that both are real knowledge and belief; and that our Understandings and Wills are all Physically the same, and that they agree in the general nature of an Act, yea such as( substantially at least) have the same Object.] These are the heinous words, or the fruits of my greatest weakness it seems, that it is manifested in that discourse now here. 1. This most learned Author did both. Pag. 322. and pag. 324. still leave out the word[ All,]( that's but a syllable.) And 2. The more easily feigneth that I speak of the understanding and Will, of the same person, contrary to the drift and plain expressions of the discourse which treats of the difference between the Grace of the regenerate and unregenerate: Because I saw this exact Disputant leave out the word[ All] more then once or twice, I was willing to have found that in some one Impression the Printer had omitted it: but I am frustrated of that conciliatory excuse, finding it in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh Impressions( which were all: For that discourse was not in the first.) But yet I have one excuse: Perhaps the Reverend Confuter never reads the Book, but received these passages transcribed by his Scholar, that may be more prove and willing to mistake. And if I had said, that the said faculties are but formaliter, vel denominatione extrinseca, distinct from the soul, and from each other, he very well knows what great store of company I had had, and that of the highest foorms in the scools which might have put some honor on a person so inconsiderable as I: and every man of the third form, that calls the difference real, is not in love with the notion of a specificke difference, though commonly they agree: But this is nothing to our Debate.  
page. 325. He saith, That[ this makes nothing to the present purpose, nor any way proves that common and saving Grace differ not specifically.]  
Answ. ●ill we are agreed, whether he will or no: Though it make not to the purpose, it may be mentioned exclusively, or as a common concession, presupposed to the purpose as himself here innocently mentioneth it: and if it will not prove that there is no Difference, it will show here that the Difference is not.  
But he saith, It is wholly impertinent, &c.]  
Answ. 1. See all you that are adversaries to the honor of our Unity, that we are so far from disagreeing in Articles of faith, that we will not suffer so much as an Impertinency in one another without a reprehension. 2. I am sorry for an Impertinency, but I am glad that it is not false. 3. Its imperpertinent to your purpose, but not to mine.  
Once for all, this was my reason of these passages. 1. I knew by long experience, abundance of people that credibly and confidently professed to have some real undisembled desires to be sober, and yet lived in drunkenness; and to be godly, and yet had little of it in their practise, and to have a Love to the godly,( and truly would do and suffer somewhat for them, but yet loved the world and themselves so much better, that they would be at no great cost or danger for them: such a Love they professed to Christ himself, and a credible profession they made of a true dogmatical belief. And these men were many of them deeply possessed by mistaking our Divines, that the least true( or real) desire after Christ or Grace, was saving Grace itself, and would certainly prove that the person should be saved, so that some of them that lived in ordinary drunkenness for many years, would after they had been drunk cry out of their sin, and be ready to rear their hair, and profess themselves unworthy to come among Christians; and yet still would profess that they were confident of pardon by the blood of Christ, because they were as certain as that they lived, that they hated their sin as sin, and desired to be godly, and could wish themselves in the state of the best, and did believe all the word of God to be true, because it is God's that cannot lye, and had felt experimentally the sweetness and power of it on their hearts, and did trust on Christ alone for Salvation. I do not feign this, but have found it in old and common Drunkards, and such like, for many& many years together. Now the work that I had to do with these persons was to convince them that such good desires as are habitually, and in ordinary practise conquered by fleshly, worldly desires, will never prove the soul to be sanctified: and such a Belief as is conquered by unbelief or sensuality, will never prove a man to be justified; and such a love to God and the godly, as is conquered by a greater love to carnal self, and the world, may stand with a state of condemnation. O but say they, we are certain that we dissemble not; These desires, Belief, Love, &c. we have. Should I say, that they lye, and have none such, they would never believe me, nor should I believe myself, because I believe the Scripture, and the credible Professions of men. I conclude therefore they have that such acts as they affirm, and that they are Analogically good( in moral sense,) and come from the common Grace of Christ: but that besides the Reality of these acts, they must have them in such a predominant degree, as is suited in its Essentials to the Object, and will overcome their contraries in the main bent of heart and life, and prove predominant habits in the soul, before they can hence conclude that they are sanctified: Where note, that the men that I speak of, try not their acts by a suitableness to the object in its relative perfections, nor do they once know, or at lest consider of the moral respective formality of these Graces; but look all at the Act as it is exercised on God, Christ, Scripture, Saints, substantially considered, or if considered as Good, True, &c. yet not effectually apprehended as the chief good, most certain necessary Truth, &c. So that it is the substance or matter ( as its commonly called) of their Belief, Love, Desire, &c. That our question with such men is about: And therefore my business with them was to show them what it is in the Matter and Substance of these Acts that is necessary to prove them formally, specifically saving, viz. that besides the right conceptions of the object, the act must be in such a prevalent Degree, as will prove a predominant Habit in the soul; and that such uneffectual Actsas are before described, may stand with a state of condemnation. Hereupon it is, that though Grace is specified and to be denominated from its moral form; yet my business lead me to prove that this moral form was inconsistent with any degree of the physical Act, but what was ordinarily thus prevalent or predominant: And therefore to asert that this moral form did lye in a physical degree of the matter, and that a lower subdued degree of the Act, was matter uncapable of such a form, though it was capable of the general Nature of( an Analogical at lest) virtue, Duty or moral Good, denominated from some answerableness to the Precept,( at lest sacundum quid) yet it was not capable of the special form of that Faith, Love, Desire, &c. to which God hath promised Salvation, as the Condition.  
Reader, Once more I have as plainly given then my meaning as I can speak: Forgive, me these Repetitions, and consider the occasion. So that you see, this Learned, Reverend man doth build all his opposition on a mere mistake, supposing me to speak of the Form, who spoken only of the Nature of the Act, or the Physical Matter,( as before expressed.) And now I make thee the Judge of my Impertinences.  
The same answer serves to his fourth Consid. and his[ quid hoc ad Iphicli Boves,]( who have been so long in the yoke that they are ready to lye down:) and to his Question[ Will it hence follow that all Belief, &c. are specifically the same?] Answ. No We are here agreed too: But it is no such new thing to call either our faculties the subject matter of the Acts, or the Acts the Matter of our Grace, but that I might pardonably suppose, that I might meet with some such silly soul as would use such a notion: and if it will but follow, that[ In this much, there is no physical specific d●fference] It serveth my ends.  
page. 327. Consid. 5. He again receiteth the same passage, that[ The Understanding and Will-are physically the same.] And again, The third time leaves out All, when I said, Our Understandings and Will are physically all the same: which more persuades me that he never red the Book which he confutes, but took his scholars transcript, and see still our happy Agreement. The charge here is but[ impropriety and incongruity.]( And I heard ere now from one of his scholars, that I could scarce speak congruously.) but I would I could have spoken Intelligibly. But I am glad that I spoken not falsely. The first Incongruity or Impropriety is, that I call all our understandings and wills[ like substances] when they are but Accidents.] But 1. An Act is but an Accident, and yet what more common phrase, then substantia Actus, when we distinguish it from the Moral Form. red first his own Exercitation, de malo. and then judge. 2. I ventured long ago to tell him, my Reconcileableness to the Scotists Nominals &c. and that I made it no Article of my faith; that the faculties are Really distinct from the soul, and then they may be substances. For I am of their mind that think the soul is not a mere Accident. And if all the rabbis of that mind in the Popish schools have no Authority, I may modestly say with one of our highest Foorm at home[ Quod Phylosophantur voluntatem& intellectum, esse duas Potentias reipsâ distinctas, dogma Philosophicum est, ab omnibus haudreceptum,& Theologicis dogmatibus, firmandis aut infirmandis, fundamentum minimè idoneum. Davenant Determ. Q 37. pag. 166.]  
My next incongruity is, that I say they are of[ like substance] having said that they are Physically the same. Answ. Had I said that they are Numerically the same, and yet[ of like natures] I had spoken incongruously. But O that I were as wise or Learned a man as they that ordinarily call a spec●fick un●ty by the name of[ a likeness;] if the latin[ similes] fit them not, yet the English[ Like] may. For our[ Like] in English is most ordinarily extended to express[ a species]( But think not that I am teaching you English, but excusing my incongruities as far as is meet.) And if all this will not do, I will try to prevent your n●xt work in this kind, by showing you what a discourageing task is before you. If you will but writ upon all the improprieties of my writings, it may put you to such a voluminous toil, as may make you repent it before you have done, and make your Reader think me some worthy learned man, whose very improper speeches deserve the observation of so eminent a man.  
3. You next grant me that our several Understandings and Will, are not specifically distinct,) so far still we are Agreed. But you say[ it follows not but their Acts may.] still we are Agreed. And in N. 5. and 6. you say, that[ they do not only gradually differ,] still we are Agreed, even in your instances.  
Pag. 329. Your sixth Consid. reciteth my opinion as you thought, but indeed not mine, viz.[ that the difference is only gradual, and not specifical.] Again you leave out[ materially] and the other limiting expressions: And why did I say,[ You thought th●s mine] When pag. 332. You confess the contrary is mine.  
Yet here let me tell you once for all, that if my terms of[ a Physical spec●fication] on the reason given of that Name, be judged by you improper( which I yet find you not affirm) I am resolved not to defend them against you, but am ready with thankfulness to learn a fitter manner of expression, as verily believing myself to be fitter to be your scholar, then your Antagonist in Philosophy, especially the terms.   

SECT. III.  
YOur first Reason for my Opinion( pretended against it) is long ago agreed to: Nay, see the height of our Agreement: I have over and over expressed my consent to this part of your Reason, in which you know how currently the schoolmen and our own Divines are against you, viz.[ That the Acts of common Grace in the unregenerate, are not so much as Evangelically good.] But yet that I seem not to hold what I do not, I must add, that I mean that they have not that Moral goodness, which in the first and most proper sense deserves that Denomination; but yet that they are, not only less evil, nor only materially good; but also that they are properly good, secundum quid,& in tantum, and that they have such an Analogical goodness, as Accidents have an entity: which is not Nothing: And though they may all be called sin, yet they have somewhat in them that is better then sin: or else you were to blame for calling them common Grace: yea, I doubt not but such Acts as you say are but splendida peccata, have had from God a temporal Reward; yea and have been preparatory to the Reception of saving Grace. Some Duties God requireth of the unregenerate, as a means to their Regeneration, which some of them do perform. And though he Accept them not so far as to esteem them either conditions of Justification, or Properties of the justified, yet so far doth he Accept them, as that ordinarily he judgeth and useth them as fitter for saving Grace then others. If they could do nothing towards their own sanctification, God and his Ministers would have spared many words that are used to them. And if there were no more likelihood that they should find Grace in Hearing, Reading, consideration, Asking it, &c. then in doing nothing, or plunging themselves in sin, we would say less to them then we do, to put them on such means. I hope you will not differ from me in this.  
page. 332. The explication of my mind, you call a Confession, and so confess[ that upon evident Reason, I confess that the Acts of common and special Grace, as they are morally considered, differ specifically, and not only gradually.] So that if the Reader believe either you or me, we are agreed in the decision of the Queston itself. And then I can easily excuse the opposition of a professed Consenter, though I understand not the intent of it.  
But you say that[ When the Question is put, how common and special Graces differ? the Answer must ever be Affirmative, that they differ specie, non gradu solùm.] Answ. 1. I thought that Question[ How common and special Graces differ?] Had not been capable of an Affirmation or Negation: But if my thoughts were improper, I submit. 2. I am confident that in sense, I shall here also agree with you, whether you will or no.  
1. If the Question be put in your terms, I confess my opinion was, that the Answer should be applied to the comprehensiveness of the Question, and I should say that[ They differ formally thus,& quasi materially, thus and thus] and so speak to both. But if 2. the Question had been,[ Whether common and special Grace do differ specifically.] I should always affirm it( supposing but such a specific difference, as between substance and Accident, or an Egg and a bide, or an embryo and a Beast, remembering that omne simile est etiam dissimile, least I be misinterpreted.) For when we speak of a moral subject, we must suppose the Question simply put, to be morally meant according to the nature of the subject: which are my very words in several published writings. And I think verily that this is all you mean. 3. But this was nothing to my Question, which was[ Whether materially, or by a physical specification, common and special Grace do differ.] And this I did deny, and thought a gradual difference enough, supposing the Acts in both persons to be such as go commonly under the same name, and have at least substantially the same object( as to believe the Promise, Christ, &c.) Now I apprehended that if you had put the Question to me.[ How man and beast differ quoad Corpus, or quoad animam sensitivam, &c.] the answer must not be the same as if you had simply asked me, how man and beast differ.] Had I been asked,[ Whether the Love of a suitor and of a Husband differ specifically as to the matter?] I should have said, No( nor perhaps gradually;) but yet formally, in a civil moral sense, they differ specifically,( yet I know heres greater difference in the matter in our case). Had I been asked[ Whether the reverence and heart-subjection, which I have to a Captain and to the General, to a Justice of Peace, Lieutenant, &c. and to the sovereign, do differ specifically quoad materiam:] I should have said No, but gradually. But yet quoad formam civilem, they differ specifically? Yet I am ready to let go these expressions when you will; I must profess, a word under your hand would have caused me to disuse them, without this public work that you are put upon. Do but tell me you dislike the phrases, and you shall never hear( without such Necessity as I expect not) that ever I will publicly use them more. I hate troubling the Church with contending for mere words at least, unless I were better at wording my conceptions then I am.  
But stay, I find myself already under the Obligation: Pag. 333. You plainly say,[ that if in their moral consideration, they still differ specifically from common Graces, it can never with any congruity be affirmed, that in any other consideration, they differ only gradually?] Strange! Why so?[ For instance, when its said that in their Natural and Physical consideration, they differ only in Degree; I Reply, that the Acts of the Will and Understanding in that consideration are not saving Graces at all.] You have silenced me, when I have done with this account of my Dissent, though you have not convinced me,( having as great advantage as most men living to have done it, in my esteem of your great abilities.) 1. If this Reason be good, then I must speak of nothing but the form of any Being; nor may I congruously mention any material or Accidental difference. For they are not denominated from matter or Accidents. May I not say that a Crow and an Ousel are of one colour, because that quâ colorati they are not denominated such. May I not say that a Swan and a sheep quoad colorem do differ only gradually, though quoad colorem they are not a Swan or sheep? May not say, that materially a Ship and a Barge do differ but gradually, because ex materia they are not a Ship or Barge? Or that materially a Dagger and a sword do differ but gradually, because that ex materia they are not called a sword or dagger? I am not yet convinced of these things; but for your sake I purpose to say no more of it publicly.  
You add,[ And therefore if it be granted that in that consideration they differ only Gradually, yet it will not thence follow, that common and special Graces differ only in Degree.] Answ. Very true: because this is an Assertion of them simply considered, and formally, and not limited ad materiam. But if you will grant that materially they differ but in Degree, you grant my Proposition in terminis( as to that much.)  
I rather suspect that when the business is well opened, the Difference will be between me and most that are offended with me,[ whether indeed they materially differ so much as in degree? And they will say, that a Lower Degree may consist with the true Form: And then men will see that it is their bringing Grace materially lower then I do, and not their advancing it formally higher that is our Difference. Sure that Reverend Doctor that hath already opposed me in this Point, doth harp upon that string. But I could wish they would let this be plainly understood: I think not saving Grace materially so Low a thing as they: and formally I think it as high as they do. But let such understand that it is towards the same object, that the Acts, must be compared, and not as exercised on different objests. A wicked man may have a clearer knowledge of earthly things then a true Christian hath of God and Heaven; but not so intense, and powerful, effectual a knowledge of God and Heaven as a Christian hath: so for Belief, Desire, Love, &c.  
You add[ This Argument, common and special Belief as they are Physically considered, differ only, gradually: therefore common and special Graces differ only gradually] in plain English, is no more then this,[ Things which are no Graces at all differ only gradually; therefore common and special Graces differ only in Degree.]  
Answ. But the conclusion is yours and not mine; or equally renounced by you and me: My Proposition was, that[ materially they differ but in Degree.] And in plain English, thats no such thing as you make it of your own pleasure; but this much[ Those things which in respect to the Precept are called Duties; and in respect to the Promise are called Conditions, do yet materially d●ffer but in Degree.] Or[ those gracious Acts which have Analogically the form of Duties, and so of Graces, but not the Form of Conditions, that is, saving Graces do yet materially differ but in Degree from those that have that Form.] This was the true sense of my Proposition. And whereas I put[ as saving] into it, it was but to express that it was Grace as saving,( respecting the Promise) and not Grace as mere duty( respecting the bare Precept) whose material Difference I inquired after. Only I think that there is a certain Degree of the Physical Act of Necessity to make it the matter of such a Form. For it will dwell in no other matter. Against this the late Opponents seem to make a lower Degree of matter capable: And those that formerly I was wont to converse with, did think that a higher sort of matter was Necessary, of whom I spoken after that Proposition: of which more anon about infused Grace.   

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 intrinsic 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 enough in the fire: I have not engaged myself in this controversy, 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 containeth( 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 myself 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 inquires, whether common and special Graces differ specifically, or only gradually, should( if he will) rationally proceed first, and principally inquire 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 inquired after, which is first,( and only immediately in se,) discernible: 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 touched 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 hang and foundation of this controversy, &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 controversy. 2. But I entreat 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 lye 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 faith 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 lifeless, 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. shepherd 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 Understanding, 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 extrinsic[ Principles and Causes] or the intrinsic. If the intrinsic, 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 extrinsic[ 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 simplo without any composition essential or gradual.] Not to inquire 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 mere Velle; and that his willing the effect to be thus or thus, at this or that time existent, doth produce it. 2. yourself 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 operant& 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 specific difference in it, must first tell us what creature it is? and show 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 specific 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 extrinsic and intrinsic 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 Unity that is the Original of multiplicity. One Will of God causeth both.  
One more conjecture: May you not mean that God immediately 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 specific 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 conceivable 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 mere General assistance or concourse 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 belief 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 ourselves, 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:( special I say, as opposed to mere general help or concourse, though not special, as that signifieth what is proper to the saved.) 1. As to yourself you confess, pag. 338.[ that there are many common Graces of the soul— sometimes immediately 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 signify an Operation without means, so neither common nor proper Grace is ordinarily infused( at least into the Adult.) If it signify 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 persuasions 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 means 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 prophesy, Tongues, Healing, &c. are Given, yea Infused by the Spirit; and that Temporary faith is the Gift of the Spirit, and not merely Acquired as you describe. This therefore is the main thing that yet I find myself to differ from you in: I conceive that those that were enlightened, 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 mere 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 despite 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 tells 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 concourse, 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. shepherd in your Book ascribeth to Hypocrites,& judge whether they are not beyond our corrupt nature to reach, by way of mere 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 lye 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, stant 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 catholicon 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, said etiam gratis datam,& universaliter quodcunque Dei speciale adjutorium ad been operandum, &c.] Whereas according to your way of mere 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 calls 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, said potius ●oenam.] And fol. 85. col. 4. He shows 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 lye 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 temporary 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 myself 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 said— 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 human 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 flows, but generally of an human descent and pedigree.] I do not think that we are sufficient of ourselves to think one of these good thoughts of ourselves; 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 metaphysics: Far be it from me to compare with you there. Only I cannot be of every mans mind that excelleth me in the metaphysics.   

SECT. V.  
[ Second. YOur second Reason is drawn from the nature and proper Acts of both qualities,( page. 362.) saving Belief is the first spiritual life, but common Belief no part of it.] Answer. This Reason seems to be further fetched then I dare allow of, if you mean by[ The nature of the quality and Acts] the matter itself. For if the term[ Life], be Metaphorical here, or it be a Civil or Moral Life that is meant, then I shall allow you, that only special Grace is this special moral Life: but if you should mean a natural Life, or a common moral Life, I should not grant that all but the Saints are destitute of these. 1. You cannot prove that the term Life may not be given to common faith( as goodness is; and as Entity is to Accidents) though that most eminent species of Faith, called saving, be also eminently called our Life, for I find in Jud. 12. That the heretics or Apostates there mentioned, are said to be twice dead, and plucked up by the roots, which implieth, that some kind of life they lost which once they had, and the seed that sprung up by the stony ground and among thorns had a blade that had some kind of life; and the branches of Christ that are f●uitless yet whither not, till they abide no more in him, John 15. 26. The receiving of the Jews into a Church-state again will be[ life from the dead] Rom. 11. 15. Ezek. 16. 6. And its called a Life, that the backsliding fall from, Ezek. 18. and 33. 11. But suppose the name of Life be improper to give to the Temporary( who wants no doubt the special Life.) This proves not a physical specifike difference. And to the Question,[ Why common belief is not this spiritual Life in a less degree?]  
I answ. Because it is a matter uncapable of that moral form which is denominated Life, your instance of Calor, being of mere physical consideration, is alien and impertinent: your instance of virtues is more pertinent. And to that I answer. That though fortitudo moralis in minori gradu denominat subjectum suum fort; Yet are there some degrees of the matter, which are incapable of the form and name of fortitude; ( though in our case, the lower degree is capable of the name of Faith, yet not of Faith, yet not of the same specifike form, as the higher degree.) Yea some degree of fortitude, overcome by a far greater degree of cowardice, may not denominate the subject simply fort, but only secundum quid: nay if the question be simply put, whether that man be valiant that always runs away, &c. it is simply to be denied, though he may have some small conquered measure of fortitude, because the man is to be denominated from his predominant dispositions, and therefore to be called Pusillanimous, and not valiant. Temperance, Justice, &c. consist in a certain mediocrity of matter, and neither of the extremes are capable of the form: And where somewhat of the form is, it will not serve to dedominate the man against a contrary predominant 'vice. One man may be so far temperate as to abstain from excess of meat, and not from excess of drink, recreation, &c. And another may have so much universal Temperance as shall restrain him for a few daies, and against small Temptations, but yet once or twice a week, a stronger Temptation leadeth him into fornication, gluttony, drunkenness, &c. If you ask me whether this be a temperate man, I should say no, but an intemperate: But if you ask me whether there be any degree of Temperance in him, and whether in tantum, or secundum quid, he be temperate, I should say yea.  
The least degree of Subjection or Obedience may in tantum vel secundum quid, denominate the subject accordingly; but yet such subjection and obedience as is due to a Judge or Justice of Peace, denominateth not the person loyal or subject, and Obedient as is necessary to the sovereign Power. As all Power of Government denominateth the Subject Potent or a Governor. But there is none but a certain degree( even the highest) that will denominate a man a sovereign or majestic simply. So I have still acknowledged that the very specific form and name of saving Faith is not agreeable to that degree which Temporaries have, though a sort of Faith it is, and is called so in Scripture.  
The sum of all my discourses on this Subject is but this. To the Essence of saving Faith, Love, Subjection, &c. It is necessary. 1. That the Object be apprehended in all its essential Respects. 2. That the Act be so intense and serious, and suitable to this Object( and so the habit) as that it may be statedly predominant in the man against its contrary. Two sorts of Faith therefore fall short of being formally this saving faith. 1. The one is theirs that do seriously believe in the same Christ personally considered, and in the general or in most parts of his office, as we do: but they leave out somewhat of the Object, that is essential to him as the Saviour. e. g. They believe in him as God and man, as one that hath undertaken the office of a Redeemer and Mediator, and hath died for sinners;& in general is the Priest, Prophet and King of the Church, and a Justifier and Sanctifier, giving Repentance and Remission of sin; but withall, when it comes to the applicatory consenting part, they believe not in him as their King, and their Sanctifier by his Word and Spiri●, nor as one that shall save them from their reigning sin. Now this it not really the Christian faith, or saving faith, because it wanteth an essential part, it being essentially to Christ, as the Saviour offered, and the object of saving faith to be applicatorily[ My Saviour in particular for the pardoning and destroying of my sins.] Not that we have assurance, that he will eventually be so to me: but that we ourselves do consent that he be so to us. As a physician is not believed in by me( a sick Patient) as a physician, unless I consent that he is my physician, and that he cure my Disease, though yet I may possibly have doubts of his willingness, or of the success. As the Act is specified by the Object, so these Believers have a faith in the same Christ as we, but secundum quid, and not entirely, and therefore simply; They are not Believers in the Christian saving sense, or if they believe in Christ as God and man that will pardon and sanctify, but not as a Sacrifice for sin; This is not simply and fully( taking in all the Essentials of his office) the same Christ that we believe in, and so not the same Faith. So if they love God as good, but not as the only surpassing superlative Good, this is not to love him as God and so not to love the same God as we do.  
2. The other sort of the unsound are such as do apprehended Christ under all the same considerations as sound Believers do, and do apprehended God as the chief superlative good, and have some answerable motions of the Will and Affections: but it is but by a notional superficial, uneffectual apprehension; and hath but an answerable consent, and is overtopped and mastered by a contrary Habit and Action of the soul; either as the unbelief is more then the Belief, and therefore rules the heart and Life, or as the regard to the Creature, is more then the regard to Christ( for want of so effectual and operative an apprehension of his Truth and Goodness as we have of the Creature,) and consequently the Heart is carried out more to the creature then to Christ or to the Father. This is not the Christian faith, because it is not an intense& serious act or habit, such as is fit to denominate the man He doth not believe or love God hearty at all: A Belief and Love indeed he hath, but morally and reputatively it is as none, for God will take it as none, as to any saving benefit: for he that hath more Unbelief then Belief, is not simply a Believer, but an Unbeliever: He that hath more averseness then Love is simply no Lover: He that hath more disloyalty and Disobedience then loyalty and obedience, is not simply to be called Loyal and obedient at all. He that considering all things, sees reason to hate his sin, and hath some mind and Will against it, and yet hath in other respects more mind to it, and more will to keep it then to leave it, is simply impenitent, and hath no Repentance. And yet a real subdued motion of Belief, Desire, Love, Repentance there may be in all these persons, and such as sometimes in Act will seem prevalent, though Habitually, and in the course of Action they are not so. As sin in Act seemed prevalent for a time in David, when in Habit and the bent of life it was not so.  
Suppose a soldier take such a man for his general, and obey him ordinarily as a General, and yet being corrupted by the General of the enemies, hath a prevalent Will or Purpose to desert him, betray him, and do him a mischief when time serves. This man is in a sort a soldier and obedient but deserveth hanging rather then Reward. So much more for explication, and to show you why a common faith is not called by the name of our spiritual life( the person that hath it, being still under condemnation, and in a state of death:) yea why it is not to be called the Christian faith, nor the person a Christian, but Analogically,   

SECT. VI.  
page. 364. TO your third Reason I answer, 1. That I am not of your mind, nor do you prove it, that common Belief is made up but of two principal Ingredients, Notitia& Assensus: It hath as many Acts as saving Faith. An Affiance or resting on Christ, and on the Promise with some kind of consent of the Will, may be in this common Faith.[ They stay themselves upon the God of Israel the Lord of hosts, &c. Isa 48. 2.]  
2. I grant that a certain strength may be found in common Faith; but the strongest, greatest firmest, is even in degree below the weakest of a sound Believer. For, 1. As the difference( for ought I yet have heard) is not immediately discernible in the Acts of the Intellect themselves but in those of the Will, and so of the intellectual Acts by the Will; so the weakest Belief of the sanctified prevaileth with the Will, and overpowreth all resisting Arguments, when the strongest faith of others cannot do it. 2. And though the Grace infused into the Will itself, be a cause of this, yet doubtless the Intellectual Assent is also a cause; And therefore that Assent that can do more is surely the stronger. There is a difference even in strength and vigour, where there is so great a difference in the efficacy. What species soever it be of, that Light which will show all visible things,( suppositis supponendis,) is a greater Light then that which either shows but greater things, or shows them but dimly. And that heat is greatest which will heat most,( caeteris paribus.) The unsanctified would not be so often called the Children of darkness, and said to be blind, and in darkness, and the sound Believers called the Children of light, and said to be in and of the Light, if we had not a greater light then they.  
3. Nor do I believe that the Temporaries[ Assent, is proportionable to the mediums that produce it,]( or that in some such, at lest produce it.) I think such Believers may have infallible media, and the very same as produce the saving faith of others( not including all causes as media, but the objective motives of our first faith.)  
4. I grant what you say, pag. 365. That the lowest degree of saving faith is really our spiritual Life, justifies, &c. which the highest degree of common faith doth not.] Because the highest degree of common faith either leaves out some essential part of the object, or is lower and weaker then the lowest degree of saving faith is. And you must not take it for granted that it is the Intellectual Acts or Habits only where the difference lies which you express, or the chief part of that d●fference. It is the Wills Act.( for such there is in faith) that doth most or much to this Acceptance, Justification, Sanctification, which you mention; which proceeds not only from the difference of Assent, but from the Grace which the Will itself also hath received.  
5. A common knowledge I easily grant there is in the unsanctified, stronger in its kind then the knowledge of the Saints. That is, Gramatically and Logically they may have a far clearer understanding of the sense of words, and of terms of Art, and complex Objects, which are appointed to be the means of knowing the incomplex, and things themselves( as God, the Redeemer, Heaven, &c.) and may be able better to defend any sacred verity, and express their minds. And this you may call Acquired knowledge if you please,& in some sort say it remaineth a distinct thing from the other knowledge even in the sanctified: not but that itself also is in them sanctified& embodied with the rest of the new Man, but that the knowledge of words and Propositions, which is but an Instrumental, mediate, subservient part of knowledge, is not the same with the knowledge of the things themselves, even God, Christ, &c. But then I still maintain 1. That Temporary Believers may have more then this mere Disciplinary knowledge, even a certain illumination of the Spirit Revealing to them Christ himself, and the powers of the world to come, in some Degree, Heb. 6. 4. 2 Pet. 2 20, &c. some inward taste of the matter, as well as a Grammatical, and Logical knowledge of the words, and sense. 2. That as the Disciplinary knowledge of the sense of Propositions, in the sanctified and unsanctified do not quoad materiam differ by any Physical specification, so neither dath the common and special illumination or knowledge and taste of the subject matter, or incomplex object.  
6. You say much in general here, sounding as if you thought( beyond what your Thesis requireth you to prove) that there were a Physical specific Difference in the matter. Because you do not plainly assert it, I will suppose it not to be your meaning: But if really it be so, and God shall direct you to any more of this work, I earnestly entreat you above all the rest of your undertaking to tell us plainly what the Physical Forms are that specify and denominate these several sorts of Knowledge, Faith, Love, Desire, &c. That there is a moral specific Difference we are agreed: If you assert a Physical, plainly describe and denominate each Form,( for I doubt not but we are agreed that a Form there must be thus to specify and denominate.) I find Amesius( Assertion Theolog. de lum. Nat.& Grat.) Disclaiming a difference as to the Object, subject, or lumen deferens& de lucens objectum, &c. as he calls the medium; limiting the controversy to the[ Lumen disponens& elevans subjectum: ut recipiat] which he maintaineth must be supernatural, and so do I: but withall I maintain that somewhat of the supernatural Light is given to many of the unsanctified. And whereas he saith that one sort of knowledge is Disciplinary such as a blind man( born) hath of Light, and the other is Intuitive; ex representi& sensim perceptâ: 1. I am not convinced that any man in this life, doth intuitively or sensibly know God, or the Lord Jesus Christ God and man, or the invisible Glory, or Relative Benefits, such as pardon, Justification, Adoption, &c. And I am confident I have your consent. 2. And for the History or any Enunciation of the Scripture, which must be understood by a Grammatical and Logical knowledge, we are agreed. 3. It is nothing therefore in all the world, that I remember, that can fall into controversy about this Intuitive knowledge, but the inward passions or actions of our own souls. That the soul doth know its own knowledge and Volition intuitively, is the opinion of some Schoolmen, and opposed by others. Upon which account perhaps those of the first sort, may also ●ay, that a sanctified person may Intuitively see the sincerity or holy nature of his own knowledge. But 1. if that were so and a common thing, me thinks doubting of sincerity should not be so common with such. 2. Our affections and Wills are thought by many to be more properly said to be. felt, then intuitively known. 3. It is certain that the first act of saving faith can be no such thing as this: for a man must, at least in order of Nature, first have a saving faith, before he can intuitively see it in himself. 4. And this is nothing to our business: for it is not our own faith or love, or other inherent Graces, that is the Object of our saving Faith; but it is God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and the Promise, &c. which are not known by us intuitively or sensibly.( Though the Letter of the Promise is, yet the sense is not; much less the Truth.) Yet I make no doubt but a true Believer being once justified by faith, hath sometimes after such Peace with God,& shedding abroad of his Love in the heart, as gives him( not an intuitive or sensible knowledge of God himself immediately, but) a lively Relish and feeling of those precious fruits and tokens of his Love, which may be called an experimental knowledge that God is, and that he is gracious, faithful, &c. Seeing him more clearly in this Glass of his Image on our own souls, then in our first faith we saw him in the mere extrinsic Glass of the Gospel, Works, &c. though in both the Spirit causeth the apprehension. 5. And if this were any thing to us, yet some inward tastes the unsanctified do attain. So that I cannot yet reach to understand, that between the Knowledge, Assent, &c. of the sanctified, and the highest Temporaries, there is Physically any specific Difference, but only morally: but a very great gradual difference also Physically.  
Your Similitude of the Light of the Sun and Moon, proves not that the matter of common and proper faith are s●ecififically-physically different, and then( whatever you intend it for) its not against me. It is the same Spirit that illuminateth both sorts; but the Sun and Moon are not the same Illuminating luminaries: Nor is it a thing fully agreed on, whether the Light of the Sun and Moon are specifically distinct; nor of the Heat of the Sun and of fire, Saith Ockam, Quodi l●b. 3 q. 21. fol. 48.[ Effectus diversi ejusdem speciei, possunt esse à Causis diversarum specierum, licèt non idem effectus: patet de calore, qui potest esse ab igne& à sole.] His Application somewhat concerneth our Cause,[ Ita est in proposito: Primus actus potest causari ab objecto sine habitu;& alius actus ejusdem specie, non potest causari nisi ab habitus,]( Therefore you cannot thence prove a specific Difference of the Acts that one is from a gracious Habit, and the other not.)  
page. 367. You add, that[ Common faith is not any disposition, moral or Evangelical, whereby the subject that hath it, is or can be disposed( in the way we now speak of) for the introduction of the Habit of saving Faith.]  
Answ.[ The way you now speak of] Are words that refer to so many or uncertain passages, that thence I will conclude, that you mean some way which we disown as well as you, though I fully know not what you mean. But that common Grace is preparatory to special, is so commonly held by Protestants,( especially practical Divines) and so plain in Scripture and Reason, that I shall not trouble you with many words about it. 1. He that useth Gods appointed means as well as he can, i● more disposed for the blessing of those means, then the wilful despiser or neglecter of them. 2. He that is nearer Christ is more disposed to come to him by faith, then he that is at a further distance. 3. He that doth not so much resist the Spirit, but with some seriousness beggeth for the Spirit and for saving Grace is better disposed for it, then such as obstinately resist or scorn it.  
Your first Argument is, from our Death in sin: the dead are undisposed: I answer, As dead they are so: But 1. It is such a Death as hath a Natural Life, and Reasonable soul, and moral virtues and common Graces conjoined: and by these the dead may be Disposed, though not by death, nor as dead: Allow your simile its dissimilitudes. 2. A condemned traitor thats dead in Law, may by humble supplication do somewhat to dispose himself for pardon, and Life: though I know our case requireth much more. As I said, God would not have appointed any means for an unregenerate man to use in order to his Conversion, if the use of them did no whit dispose us be converted. I say the more of this, because I am greatly troubled with two sorts of people in my own Parish that are harping on this string,[ We cannot give Grace to ourselves, nor be saved without it; nor can we have it till God give it us: which if he will do, we shall be saved: if he will not, all that we can do will not help it.) This is the main objection that Satan hath furnished 1. some Apostate Heathens, that speak it in design. 2. And many of the ignorant and profane that thus are settled in a neglect and contempt of the means of Grace: Its as good say we lye dead in our pleasures till God will give us Life, as lye dead in Prayers and Hearing Sermons, and forbearing our Delights; for we can do nothing to the quickening of ourselves.  
Your second Reason is,[ That our new birth is a new Creation, which is ex materia indisposita.] Answ. It is a new creation ordinarily in materia disposita: Adams soul was created in a Disposed or prepared Body. The Rational soul is created in the embryo in the womb, in a disposed body, yea many Philosophers would persuade us, not only in a body that hath first a vegetative, but a sensitive soul. Sure I am God can appoint men a course of means in which they shall wait for his New Creation, and ordinarily bless his own means and make a lesser blessing a Disposition to a greater, though all this be little to our first controversy. For when I call the common faith[ a Disposition] I talk not of Dispositions preparatory to further Grace.  
To your third Reason I answer, 1. Some common Grace is as solely and wholly a gracious and supernatural work, as saving Grace: yet men may have a Dispositon to that, therefore to this. 2. The highest Grace of the unregenerate is very ill supposed by you to be but a[ natural or artificial product of our understandings.] A lower supernatural Grace may be a Disposition towards a higher supernatural Grace. Mans corrupted heart seems too much exalted by you, wile you call him Dead, and yet think he can Acquire the highest Graces of Temporary Believers without supernatural Grace. Why then do you call it common[ Grace.] You know who taught men to call 〈◇〉 by the name of Grace.  
In your fourth Reason, you run again on the same supposition, that[ our own understandings helped by education, learning and industry, can acquire common faith.] Even the highest of the Temporary( which you must mean, or you say nothing.) Against which I again refer you to the foresaid Disputation of Ariminensis, who thinks he proves this Pelagianism or worse. It is not only saving Grace that is infused. 2. Infused supernatural common Grace is no more of ourselves, then infused supernatural special Grace. 3. To say that Gods common Grace disposeth us for special Grace, is no more to say that[ it is of ourselves] then it is, if we say that a less Degree of special Grace disposeth us to a greater Degree( Though in other respects the cases differ.) Do you as fully agree with Paul, 2 Cor. 3. 5. that[ we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, and Phil, 2. 13. That it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do] with the rest before cited, and then we shall not differ in this. For I easily believe that faith and saving Grace is not of ourselves, but the gift of God.  
To your fifth I say, I am of your mind, that[ Faith is not promised us on any precedent condition &c.] The Arminians think otherwise. Your Consequent taken of moral specification, I still grant: but taken of Physical, seems to go into the contrary extreme. There are certainly Dispositions, where there are no Covenant Conditions. See what of this I have said out of Chemnitius in answer to Mr. tombs Animadversions, in the Disputation of Justification, if you see cause.  
To your sixth I say, 1. That no carnal man, or temporary, so pleaseth God, as that the person is accepted into Son-ship or Reconciliation; or the action be ex pacto, rewa●dable,( at least with any eternal Reward) Though some think that[ Giving a cup of could water to a Disciple in the name of a Disciple, may be done by a Temporary that would not suffer much for Christ; yet I cannot say that the Text is not to be expounded of such a giving, as comes from saving Love to Christ) But yet secundum quid or in tantum: A man unregenerate may do that which is so far pleasing to God, as that he will oft●times and ●rdinarly deal the better with him in outward Respects, and deal the better with h●m for his soul. If God bid him red, Hear, Pray, Consider, or inquire of Ministers, as he bid Cornelius sand for Peter, or bid them search the Scripture daily, &c. he is better pleased that men do thus use his means, then that they despise or neglect them; and in this way he usually gives his Grace. And those that have the best common Disposition, he usually takes as most prepared for saving Grace. Our Hooker, John Rogers, and other Preachers ordinarily thought so, when they preached so much for preparatory works to Conversion: naming Humiliation, Desire, some Hope, &c. I leave you to expound that, Acts 17. 11, 12.[ These( Berean Jews) were more NOBLE then those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and preached the Scriptures daily whether those things were so: THEREFORE many of them Believed.] Though Calvin thinks that it was not the searchers but others because of them, that are said[ therefore to Believe]( which seems not the most likely sense.) Yet he thinks that[ hic primus est ad fidem ingressus, ut prorupti simus ad sequendum,& abdicato proprio carni sensu dociles nos Christo& morigeros praebeamus.] And how many Volumes had been written against me if I had said but as Calvin( abide, in Act. 17. 12.[ Non spernenda est haec virtus sedulitas, ad) quam intentos fuisse praedicat Lucas fideles in fidei suae confirmationem; multi enim qui principio ebulliunt, statim se ignaviae dedentes, dum nulla profectus cu●a tanguntur, qualecunque fidei seemen perdunt.] So that Calvin thought common Grace was such a Preparation or Disposition, as might be called[ a Seed of Faith.] But it were an endless task to city all Protestants that writ for this Preparatory Grace.  
2. I further answer, that carnal men may have much in them that is not carnal even the common graces of the Spirit, and these are not enmity to God, though the carnal mind be; nor is God an enemy to them.  
To your seventh I answer. 1. That though not Hypocrites as such, or Devils be prepared for Grace, yet such as[ begin in the Spirit] and have the highest graces that the unsanctified may have, are so far disposed for more, as that they do much more ordinarily receive saving Grace, then others do.  
But you say,[ If the Gospel is true, Its evidently otherwise, and generally those have been converted to Christianity which had not such measures of Knowledge and common Gr●ces: when those have not which had, as the Pharisees, &c. Answer, That the Gospel is true, I hope we are agreed: though we are too much unacquainted ourselves with the nature of our own faith by which we do believe it. And yet I am confidently persuaded that my Assertion here is truer then yours, unless( as its like) by this common Grace, you still mean another thing then I do. I do not think that Aristotle or Galen, or the Scribes or Pharisees had much of the common Grace that I speak of, much less the highest measure. That is not the highest and most dispositive common Grace, which consisteth in Arts or disciplinary knowledge, in being acquainted with the Letters and Words, and Propositions of the Law; much less where it is joined with proud self-conceitedness, and presumption and self, delusion, being settled( by the mistaking of their parts and formalities for true godliness,') in a conceit that they are already sanctified, and so become the most negligent of all others in making out to Christ for Sanctification: The men that I speak of that have a dispositive common Grace are other kind of folks then you seem to talk of. They are such as are as far abased in the feeling of their sin and misery, and humbled by Attrition,( as the Papists call it) and cry out of their sin and folly, and day and night do beg for Grace and Mercy; As common Grace will carry them to do. And far it will carry them. And they are such as like the word and ways of God, and think his servants the best and happiest men, and have many a wish that they were such themselves, and that avoid as much of gross and wilful sinning, and continue as much in hearing, reading the word, inquiring consideration, as common Grace may bring them to do, and they are such as have as much belief of the Gospel, and as much desire after Christ and holiness, and heaven, and as much love to God and the Redeemer, and the Saints, as common grace can led them to. And wi●hall, that have either a knowledge that yet they are short of true Christianity, or at lest, are much afraid of it,( which no doubt but common Grace may bring them to.) And therefore are under a prudent Impatiency till saving Grace come in, and the Spirit have sealed them up to the day of Redemption, and are crying out, What shall we do to be saved? These are they that I speak of, and not proud Pharisees or unsanctified Philosophers, or learned self-esteeming men, that make themselves believe, that they have infused special Grace, because they can talk of it: And that are further from Christ in the capital sins of heart rebellion, Pride, vain-glory, hypocrisy; Worldliness, if not sensuality, then most other men. Its none of these men for all their Acts, Sciences, Languages, &c. That I suppose to have the highest common Grace. Your Instances therefore are not to the purpose and your conclusion. p. 373. is either impertinent or very unsound.  
I know that the conceit that common Grace is saving, may make the condition of such persons more dangerous, then of some scandalous sinners that are easilier convinced. But, 1. Those persons that are so conceited, are far from the height of common Grace, as Pharisees are commonly inwardly more wicked then many of the scandalous. 2. And it is not the common Grace, but the mis-conceit. for want of more that is the cause of the danger of such men. Even special Grace itself may be abused: For though Austin and the Schoolmen put it in their definition, that it is such[ quâ nemo malè utitur,] yet that must be meant efficiently and not objcteively: For I think a man may be proud of his Grace, and so objectively misuse it: much more may common Grace be misused; and yet it proves it not to be no Disposition to special Grace.  
The Canon. 6. council. i. Arausicani, which you city, is at least as fully consented to by me as by you, viz.[ That those that think that Mercy is given to men that without the Grace of God do believe, Will, desire and knock;& confesseth not that it is given us from God by the infusion and inspiration of the holy Ghost in us, to believe, will, and be able to do all these things as we ought, &c. resist the Apostle.] But I will desire you to consider what the same council saith of the opinion, which you seem to propugn before you go on in it. The next Can. 7. saith,[ Si quis per naturae vigorem bonum aliquod quod ad salutem pertinet vitae aeternae, &c. Haeretico fallitur spiritu, non intelligens vocem Dei in Evangelio dicentis, sine me nihil potestis facere:& illud Apostoli, Non quod idonei sumus cogitare aliquid a nobis, &c.] And Canon. 22. Nemo habet de suo nisi mendacium& peccatum. Siquis autem homo habet veritatem atque justitiam, ab illo font est, quem debemus sitire, &c.] And Can. 16. Nemo ex eo quod videtur habere glorietur, tanquam non acceperit, aut ideo se putet accepisse, quia litera extrinsecus velut legitur, apparuit, &c.] Can. 3. Siquis per invocationem humanam gratia Dei dicit posse conferri, non autem ipsam gra tiam facere ut invocetur à nobis, contradicit Apostolo, &c.] If therefore the common Grace in question, be bonum aliquod quod ad salutem pertinet, or if it be but aliquid cogitare, or if it may be called invocation for Grace, or be better then mendacium& peccatum. This council thought it Pelagianism to ascribe it to our mere Naturals without Grace. This you observe, pag 375. But so that you would limit dispositive or preparing Grace, to that which the Schoolmen call preventing Grace, even saving ●aith with love: but( as sometime they call all that preventing Grace that goes before Justification and merit of congruity, as they call it so.) Arminensit ubi supra, hath fully proved that they with the Fathers ascribe much of that Grace that is found in the unjustified to the special Grace of God,( as special is distinct from general influence.) And therefore take heed lest while pag. 376. you would bring the opinion which you argue against, under the suspicion of Pelagianism, &c. You run not into the same:( which yet I intend not to charge you with.) Caranza thinks, the council Arans. speaks only of special saving Grace as out of mans power; but he confesseth that many Moderns think otherwise.  
For my part, though all this new controversy of dispositive Grace do little concern that which I asserted, which you undertook to oppose, yet the Reasons which I gave here in the beginning of this Question, with the concurrent Judgement of Protestant Divines, and above all, the plain and frequent passages of Scripture do satisfy me, that common Grace is truly preparative and dispositive to saving Grace, not as one degree of the same species in morality disposeth to another degree,( for this we are agreed against.) But, 1. As it is a less unpreparedness and undisposedness then a worse estate. 2. As it removeth many and great Impediments. 3. As it is a use of the means appointed by God for obtaining his saving Grace. 4. As it is in tantum or secundum quid a thing pleasing to God, and loved by himyea,& as he loveth such as have it more then those that are without it, with the love of complacency and Acceptation, so as it is a state much nearer Christ then other mens of obstinate wickedness are in; in these five respects I think it prepareth& disposeth to saving grace. Though I think not that this same common Grace is the very thing that it turned by any Improvement of ours, or elevation of the Spirit into saving Grace. But this much I am satisfied of.( between the Arminian& the contrary exstream) 1. That God hath not entered into Covenant or Promise with any unregenerate man to give him saving Grace upon any condition to be performed without it. 2. But yet that he hath commanded him to use certain means to obtain it, and to avoid the resistance and hindrances. 3. And that a very Command to use such means as means, is a strongly encouraging intimation, that God will not deny men the end and blessing, that use the means as well as they can. For it is certain, that he appointeth no means in vain. 4. That unsanctified men may do less evil and more good then they do, and particularly in the use of those means. 5. And that they have so much encouragement,( though no Promise) to the use of those means, that they are left unexcusable( not only as originally disabled, but) as wilfully graceless, and even at the Bar of Grace( or the Redeemer,) if they neglect them. 6. And that no man can stand out, and say, I did the best that ever I could to obtain saving Grace, and yet went without it because God would not give it me. This much I am satisfied of, as to preparatory Grace.  
And yet my Controversies with the late Reverend Servant of Christ, Mr. black and others, do tell me to my trouble, that some Protestants that are no Arminians, go so much further in this then I; then they would have it a principal use of Baptism, the Lords Supper, &c. to receive these men of common grace( though they seem not to have more, or say some, profess no more) and advance them to Saving Grace. And that it is the first visible Church state according to Divine institution, by which men must pass into the invisible Church of the sanctified. But I see I shall have your vote against this way.  
But yet really I should think( if I were of your opinion about Baptism, if Mr. tombs Letter be yours,) that men should ordinarily be a while Catechumens before they are Bapt●zed: And according to the Opinion I am of( for Infant Baptism) if I were( as the Ancient Churches were) among Heathens, where a principal part of the Baptized must be adult,( though I would not needlessly delay a through Convert, yet) I should think that commonly the state of Catechumens must be a Preparatory state; and that the Catechumens were to be supposed in a more disposed state, then most that stood at greater distance.  
I do verily think that a man of the Highest knowledge and Belief of sin and misery, Christ and Mercy, God and Glory, that common grace can reach to, with the highest Love, Desires, Humiliation, Fear, Confession, Petition, Obedience, that common grace can reach to, is in all the five Respects forementioned, more Disposed for Saving Grace, and Prepared, then one that is an Apostate, or under the sin against the Holy Ghost, or unto Duty or one that heareth and hateth the Minister and the Word, or that so hateth that he will not hear: and that persecuteth godliness out of hatred to it, and liveth in wilful Drunkenness, Murder, Whoredom, &c. I know not what men may seem out of their own Principles, and some misinterpreted Texts, but sure I am I find in experience such an exceeding difference between the success of my Labours on the more humble considerate, teachable sort of people, that are not drowned in wilful wickedness and sensuality with the worst: and the old self-conceited, ignorant persons, and the proud and haughty Spirits, and old drunkards, and such like rooted sensualists, that there is no comparison to be made: and I am fully satisfied to persuade Thieves, Adulterers, Drunkards, Scorners at godliness, Neglecters and despisers of means, and professed Infidels, rather to come out of these sins, and use the means, and believe the Scripture to be true, though but with a Dogmatical Faith, then to continue as they are. And I shall take such Believers, and Reformers, to be more prepared and Disposed for Saving Grace, then they were before. And I hope this is no heresy.  
Sure I am that Agrippa that was almost persuaded to be a Christian, was nearer it and better disposed then the haters of Christianity. And I am sure that Christ was well able to resolve our controversy, and that he  told the Scribe, Mark 12. 34. Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God:] acquainting us that there is a state thats near and next to the state of Grace, when other men are further off. And as sure I am that he that said,[ All this I have observed from my youth] was Loved by Christ, and  told that he yet lacked one thing, Mark. 10. 21. and that this is a better disposition to Grace, then they that are not so much loved, are in, and that lack more things: Though yet even such may go away sorrowful, through the powerful temptation of Riches, Luke 1. 17. It was the work of John to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.] And if such were not more undisposed to receive true Grace, we should not so oft have heard that threatening, Mark. 4. 12. Acts 28. 27.[ The heart of this people are waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.] This was not the state of all the unconverted. Tyre and Sydon were not so undisposed for Grace, as Capernaum was. But enough of this, unless I were sure that there were any real difference between us. I speak but to your words, as they may be interpnted by any Readers, to oppose the Truths which I assert, imagining that yourself intend it not, however you might mistake me.  
To your fourth Reason pag. 376. I answer, 1. We are Agreed still of the Conclusion.  
2. But I still think you are very much out, in taking the highest common Grace to be but such as the knowledge of Tongues, &c. which you there mention, and to be but[ the product of our natural understandings, advanced by education and Industry, now since Miracles are ceased.] For though Education and industry be a means to common and special Grace, yet without the help and Gift of the Spirit, men can have neither special Grace, nor that common grace which I speak of. I much fear lest many Learned, Civil, Orthodox men, do take common grace to be special, and so delude their own souls, in the trial of themselves. Mr. shepherd hath  told you from many Scriptures( in your Book) of higher things then these you mention, that Hypocrites or Temporaries may attain. And all that they had from the Spirit in the Primitive times, was not only the power of Miracles, as is shewed: therefore they may have more from the Spirit now.  
3. I do not think your Consequence good, that the losing of one, and not loosening, or not loosableness, of the other, will prove a specific difference. For 1. There are many common gifts in man that are no more loseable then saving Grace. 2. And on the other side, it is not from the mere Nature of inherent Grace that it cannot be lost; but from the Divine Decree, Love and engagement( of which I have spoken in a Discourse of Perseverance,) For Adam had saving Grace, even the Image of God, and yet lost it: yet I believe the Apostle, that it is because the seed of God remaineth in us; but I think it is not a good Argument, that because it is the seed, or such a Seed, therefore it will remain: but it Remaineth in us, because the Love of God in Christ, and the operation of the Spirit causeth it to Remain. For Adam had a Seed of the same Nature, and yet it did not Remain in him.   

SECT. VII.  
page. 380. TO your fifth Reason, 1. I grant both your Conclusion stil, and that Habits are distinguished specifically when the formal Objects are so distinct. 2. And I am of the same mind with Rob. Baronius, as you city him; that no man but the Regenerate is truly a Divine or Christian, and hath properly theology, but only Analogically: Though perhaps I may have censures enough for coming so near to you in this, for all you think me to differ so much from you. It is but the same thing that Disput. 5. of Right to Sacraments I maintained. 3. But I am not yet satisfied that saving faith believes many things or any thing materially, which a common faith doth not believe in his manner, of which more anon.  
4. That which is the formal Object of the Act of Faith, is it you say, specifieth the Habit: and therefore you afterward describe it as respecting the Act. But it is not all the Motives and M●dia that are the formal objects of the act of Faith; but it is the Veracity of the Revealer, or Speaker, or Testifier. He that believeth the same material Truths because of the Veracity of God the Revealer, hath a true Divine faith; though in regard of the Motives or Media by which men discern or are persuaded, that the Revelation is indeed Divine, there may be differences between several true Believers, and some of them may make use of insufficient or mistaken mediums or motives. If you deny this, you will leave but few Christians among Christians, and perhaps not any of the ignorant sort; nay perhaps not one at all in the world, as to their first Act of Faith, if your following grounds be annexed. For my part, if I see a poor Christian that believeth all the Articles of the faith, because God hath Revealed them, who he is fully persuaded cannot lye, to be yet at a loss as to the Media or Motives that should persuade him to take the Scripture to be a Divine Revelation; or if he Receive this but on insufficient grounds or Receive the Articles of Faith by Tradition without Scripture and yet give up himself hereupon to the Obedience of the Doctrine which he receiveth, I shall take him to be a Believer or Christian indeed. Many thousands believe the Doctrine of Scripture upon Gods credit, and therefore with a Divine Faith, that are not able to give you such proofs of the Revelation being Divine, as the cause requires or deserves.  
5. The Divine Veracity is so far known by men, as they know indeed that there is a God: For a lying god is not God, but an Idol. And so far as common grace may led men from Atheism, so far it may led them so believe upon the credit of God, or to aclowledge Gods Veracity, and so to Believe the Gospel fide Divinâ, when they once take the Gospel to be the Word of God. So that the faith of Temporaries may have the same objectum formale, as the faith of Saints: that is, the Veracity of God: And the Media to prove the Revelation Divine, are not the formal object of faith; though the Revelation be of necessity, as a Condition sine qua non, to the act of Faith, as Promulgation of a Law is to the Act of Obedience. Of this I have spoken more largely in the Preface to part. 2. of the Saints Rest.  
6. Where you say pag. 381.[ That saving Faith is built on better Principles, as proceeding from the Spirit of Christ and being built upon his immediate Revelation and Testimony, &c.] I Answer, I doubt I differ from you more in this, then in the Conclusion. I have in the first and second part of my Treat. against Infidelity, specially, pag. 82. part. 2.§ 2. and through that part purposely shewed how much I ascribe to the Spirits Testimony in our Belief. As also in the Saints Rest, part. 2. pag. 197.( Impression 7,) c. 2.§ 1. and in the Preface to that part: and its fully and Judiciously handled by the Amyrald in Thes. Salm. Vol. 1. pag. 122. Thes. de Testimon. Spirit. And by Rob. Baronius in Apodix. ad Turnbull. pag. 733. I readily yield that the illumination of the Spirit is necessary, and that when once men have Received the impress of the Word, and the Image of God by the Spirit on their hearts, they have then in themselves a Medium whence they may conclude that Scripture is the Word of God. But your plain Doctrine is[ that common Belief hath only an uncertain fallible Medium, and all saving faith hath a certain infallible Medium, and that is the Testimony( immediate) of the Spirit within us. Now 1. Here I may well take it for granted that by this Testimony, you mean not the Spirit as a mere efficient cause, giving us the Rectified power of Believing, or the Habit, or exciting and educing the Act, as a Pre-determining, or other efficient cause: For as we all confess this Medicinal Grace and efficient illumination as well as you; So this is none of the controversy, nor the thing that you express. Its one thing to give us eyes and Sight and to cure their diseases, and set open the windows, and another thing to propose an Object, or to see in our stead. We confess that the Holy Ghost gives us the moral power or Habit, and educeth the Act, and so efficiently causeth us to see, and that sufficient Objects and Reasons for Believing are laid before all men that have but a sufficient internal Sight. But your Testimony which is made the Medium, must needs be supposed to be an objective Medium or Evidence, or an internal Affirmation or Enunciation, as by another within us as saying[ This is the Word of God, or this is true] by way of full Testimony, not only opening the eyes to see the evidence already extant in the Word, &c. but also being itself the evidence, as a full inartificial Argument, and as an inward witness that is to be believed himself, and not only causeth us to believe a former word. Now that besides all the efficient illumination that causeth us to believe the Divine Testimony or Enunciations already extant in the Word, there is no such inward word of the Spirit objectively necessary as the Medium of our Belief to the Being of Saving Faith, and to prove its specific difference; besides what is said; I briefly add, these few Reasons, 1. This Doctrine is papal or worse, making the Word of God insufficient in suo genere, to the use it is ordained for. I know that in other kind of Causality, it is no disparagement to the Scripture, to say that it is not sufficient: but it is sufficient in its own kind; which is to contain the matter of our Faith, and objective Testimony of God thereto. And though we yield that the Transcript or effect of this word on the heart is objectively useful, as well as efficiently, to confirm us in the Faith as a secondary Testimony, yet it is not the prime Testimony, nor Necessary to supply any defect in it: nor is Scripture in that kind insufficient without it to afford us a valid Medium for Belief: many Papists,( of whom Baronius against Turnbullus treat● at large) do indeed suppose such an inspiration or immediate Testimony necessary in the Pope or Church to ascertain us that the Scripture is the word of God: but we are not of that mind.  
2. If the objective medium be uttered by a voice as it were, or any thing answerable within us, either it is aliunde, fetched and receited from without, that is, from Scripture, or it is primarily from the inward Testifier, If the first, then the scripture Medium is sufficient, for it is the same receited within; and so the common and saving faith have the same Medium. If the later, then it is mere Inspiration prophetical, and so, 1. None should be Christians or saved but Prophets, which is Euthusi●sm, and more. 2. And the ordinary way of mens Conversion should be without the word, or the word be unnecessary to it. For what need another tell me that by a fall●ble way; which the Spirit within doth primarily utter by an infallible Testimony.  
3. The holy Scripture is the medium of the common Believer,( as Gods veracity is his formal object.) But the holy Scripture is no uncertain, human, fallible Medium, as you say the Temporaries is.  
4. Your Doctrine,( as your words import,) doth excuse all Infidels before God as guiltless: For if there be not propounded to them in Scripture, nor any other way, a certain Div●ne, infallible objective Medium of Belief; then cannot they be obliged to believe. For to believe without a necessary Object is naturally impossible. And though moral Impotency, which is but their viciousness, do not excuse, yet natural Impotency at lest, not caused by sin, doth excuse. That their understandings are so blind, as to have need of the Illumination of the Spirit, to enlighten them to see a sufficient Object or Medium of Belief, this is there own fault, But that they cannot see or believe without a certain Medium or object, this is no more their fault, then it is that they see not non-existents, or that which is a thousand miles of, or that they cannot see it in the dark.  
5. According to your Doctrine, most of the Christians in the world, and all that I know( as far as I can learn) must be unchristened, and cast into a state of Condemnation. For though I know many that have such a Testimony of the Spirit as I have described in my Treat, against Infidelity, Part 2. Yet I never knew one that had any other, that is, that had an immediate word uttered by the Spirit within him, distinct from Scripture, which his first faith was resolved into, as the Medium that must specify it. At lest, it is a terrible Doctrine, to put poor Christians on the rack, so by that, few will ever know that they have faith, if they must prove it specified by a prophetic Revelation. And if you make any difference between this, and the Revelation of the Prophets, let us know wherein the difference lieth.  
6. The undoubted fruit of this Doctrine received, would be the inflation of audacious, fiery, fantastic spirited men, that are ready to think that all strong impulses within them are of the Spirit of God, as poor humble Christians that feel no such thing, must fall into despair, for as they feel it not, so they know not how to come to the feeling of it.  
7. If this inward Testimony be the certain Medium of knowing the Scripture to be the word of God, then either all the Scripture or but part: If but part, which part, and why one part rather then another? If all, whence is it that never any of the millions of Christians have from this inward Testimony taught us which Books be caconical, and which not: but all go for that to other Testimonies or Media.  
8. If we have infallible certain Media, to prove the Scripture to be the true word of God without any internal Medium as necessary,( supposing the efficient Illumination of our minds by the Spirit to see the Media already extant) then the supposed Medium of the Spirits immediate Testimony, is not of necessity to saving Faith. But that the Antecedent is true, is manifest thus: we can without that inward word or Medium, show sufficient proof. 1. That all that God saith is true. 2. And that the Scripture is his word. And. 3. Consequently that all in Scripture is true. Ergo. &c. 1. That God is verax, and cannot lye, is as easy to prove as that he is God. 2. That the Scripture is his word, is proved by certain Arguments, by Eusebius, Angustine, and many other Fathers, by Ficinus, Vives, Duplessit, Grotius, Davenport, Garbut, Camero, Polanus, and an hundred more. Yet still we maintain. 1. That a natural Light is necessary to such a belief of this, as the mere natural man may reach. 2. A common Illumination is necessary to the higher apprehensions, and faith of the temporary. 3. And a special Illumination is necessary to saving Belief.  
9. If we are in doubt of an inward word of Testimony, whether it be from the Spirit of God or not, how shall we know but by trying the Spirits, and how shall we try them, but by the Word? The word therefore is a sufficient Medium,( though not sufficient to enlighten us to discern it.)  
10. The medium that is an inward objective Testimony, must be some word, or some work of the Spirit on the soul, A word distinct from a work: the common experience of Believers doth deny, or not know, such a work, that is the objective motive, must be in order before the Faith that is caused by it: But before the first Act of saving Faith, there is no such experience or objective motive or Medium in the soul: therefore the first act of saving Faith is not thus specified: and therefore it is not necessary to the specification. Yea, and thus there should no man ever be bound to believe, because he must have that inward experiment, Word, Medium, or Motive extant in him, before he first believe( if this were necessary as is said) and yet its certain that no man hath that experiment, Medium, &c. till he do believe: for Infidels have it not.  
I confess that a sanctified man hath an inward Principle and Habit, which others have not, and that for confirmation after his first belief, the experience of that may be a subservient Medium. But I know not of any one Article of Faith, or any Medium objective for the discerning of that Truth which is necessary to a saving Faith, which Temporaries have not some knowledge of. They know all the same Articles of faith, and believed them by the same Media, though not by the same illuminated, sanctified minds and not with a faith of the same species saith Pemble truly,( vindict, Grat. pag. 215.) But it must be diligently observed what kind of Revelation and testimony of the Spirit it is, whereby we may be said to be assured of the Scriptures divine Truth. It is not any inward suggestion and inspiration different from those Revelations that are in the Scriptures themselves, as if the Spirit did by a second, private particular Revelation assure me of the Truth of those former revelations made in the Scriptures: we have no warrant for any such private Revelation now, nor is there any need of them. How then doth the holy Ghost reveal to us the Truth of Scriptures? I answer, by removing those impediments that hindered, and by bestowing those Graces that makes us capable of this Knowledge. There's a twofold Impediment. 1. Ignorance.— 2. Corruption.— This holy Spirit cureth the 1. By Illumination restoring our decayed understanding.— The second by Sanctification, infusing into our Desires and Affections some Degrees of their primitive holiness.— pag. 216. Other inward and secret Revelations of the Spirit we aclowledge not in this Business.]   

SECT. VIII.  
AS to your passages, pag. 382, 383. about opinion and science. 1. Faith is commonly said to be neither opinino nor Sciences:( Though for my own part, I have given my reasons for its evidence against Baronius and Rada, Apol. Part. 1. pag. 134. &c. and against Hurtado in Treat. against Infidel. Determ. pag. 68. Fransc. Mayco, and many others maintain it to be evident and demonstrable. Ariminensis, and many more with him deny it, saying,( ut Arminens. contra Mancon) that it hath evidentiam credibilitatis, non autem certitudinis: which satisfieth not me: but if it hold, it may show the impertinency or invalidity of your arguing. 2. If Faith must have a scientifical medium, or if a credible medium be enough and distinct, yet still this Medium is extant to the unsanctified in the word of God, without an inward prophetical Inspiration. And though they see it not savingly, yet they see it superficially, and with a common faith. It was the same Reasons that prevailed with many of the sanctified and the Temporaries to believe, but not apprehended by the same faith. Amesius( ubi supra) tells us that we are past question: that in the Lumen deferens objectum as he calls it there is no difference. It was the same Seed that fell and grew among the thorns, and in the stony ground, as in the good ground, though it had not the same ground and entertainment, being received but superficiently into the one, and being over-topt and choaken with predominant enemies in the other. If an unsanctified Divine may study, preach and defend every Medium necessary to Saving Faith, then may they have some apprehension and use of every such Medium, but the former is true: Ergo—.  
Where therefore you say, pag. 383. that[ Hypocrites and impious persons have no Prem●ses to infer( the Articles of Faith) but such as are human and dubious and probable.] I exceedingly Dissent in this particular. They may have all the same Premises as you may have at your first Believing. You had Help and Light to cause you to see the premises which they had not, but you had no Premises more then they may have. They have the same Word as you. He that Believes because of Gods Veracity, and his Scripture Revelation, believes upon Premises, that are better then human dubious, and probable: but thus may Temporaries believe: Ergo—.  
But you ask,[ What Mediums and Motives have they to believe that to be Gods Word. For their Assent to the Divine Truth of Gods Word can be no firmer and certain then the Premises which infer that Assent: Now Hypocrites neither have nor can have any Premises or Motives to Believe the Divinity of that Word, but such as I name:] Answ. Far am I from the Belief of this Doctrine. 1. All the Arguments to prove the Scripture to be Gods Word, which all the forenamed Writers use, and Temporaries red, and study and preach,( besides the inward Testimony which you pled for) are more then human, Probable and dubious. But all these may a Temporary use in his way: Ergo—.  
2 All the Premises that you had for your first Belief that Scripture was Gods Word a Temporary may have: For you had a work or word of the Spirit to be made use of as a Premise to infer Belief from, before you believed. But your first Premises( to your Saving Belief) were not such as you Describe Ergo—.  
3. Take heed of dashing out the Christian faith at a blow, and giving up the cause to the Infidels. For, if the inward Testimony of the Spirit which you mention and pretend to, be no surer a Medium or Premise, to infer Scripture to be Gods Word from, then some of the other that you affirm to be but dubious, human or probable, then according to you, there is no Argument for Scripture, that is better then so: But the Antecedent is certain. For all those Arguments mentioned by the forecited Writers, from that intrinsic Light, by which the Scripture, as the Sun is seen, and from Prophesies fulfilled, uncontrolled Miracles Sealing it, &c. are as sure, as any a man before his first believing or in the Act,( yea or after) can fetch from within him:( Though still he must have a Light within him from the Spirit to see them: which is none of his Premises.) Yea, if inward Holiness or the Spirits Testimony be the only Evidence, yet that Holiness and Spirit in all the sanctified,( which is more then in one man) is one of the Premises or a Medium which an unsanctified man may use: And though he have not the experimental knowledge of it, and so not the same manner of apprehension, yet the Medium is the same.  
And what a Task do you set the Preachers of the Gospel here, and what a case do you leave their Hearers in? If there be no Premises but this of an inward Testimony, better then human, dubious, &c. then no man breathing can produce any better to unbelievers to persuade them to believe. But they must say,[ We have no infallible, certain Medium to prove Scripture to be true; or Christianity to be true: but only human, dubious Premises.] For his own inward Testimony his Hearers have not, nor can know it but by Believing him, which is a far more uncertain way then that you call uncertain. And how then shall we expect that men believe us? This is it that Knot and other Papists falsely charge on our Religion that we have no infallible certainty of it.  
5. The Apostles and Evangelists did produce infallible Premises for faith, besides the inward Testimony of the Spirit in the Hearers: therefore there is other infallible Premises to be produced.  
6. Few good Christians do believe upon the Premise or Medium of the Testimony you mention( though by the Spirits work efficiently they do?) Therefore it is not of necessity to the specifying of Saving Faith.  
Lastly, I again enter my D●ssent also from your great Supposition of the Necessity of infall●ble Premises to a Saving Belief of Scripture being Gods Word. The word of Revelation, is itself but the Means of our Faith: the Essentials of our faith are the matter and Form( as we may call them:) the essential material Object is the particular Articles of Faith Essential to Christianity: the formal Object is Divine Veracity; that Scripture is the Word of God, is neither the formal Object, nor any essential part of the material Object; but( as I said) it is necessary as a Condition sine quâ non, or a Medium, that the Matter be Revealed as from God by Scripture, or( as before the writing) by some other way, as Promulgation of a Law is necessary to obedience. Now as a man must hear the Law promulgate, and believe that it is really the sovereigns Act and will before he can obey it; So we must hear or red the Word, and be persuaded that it is the Word of God before we can fide Divinâ believe it. But yet as a man may by mere Report, or by the Badge on his Coat, on some mere probable Reason, think this to be the herald authorised to Proclaim this Law, and yet a● long as he takes it to be the Kings Law, and reverenceth and obeyeth it as his, he performeth the Loyal Obedience of a true Subject, and perhaps better then some Lawyers that were at the making of it: So he that heareth the Gospel; and is persuaded that it is Gods Word, though but one weak or probable grounds, and yet doth therefore believe it because of his confidence in Gods Veracity whom he takes to be the Revealer, hath a true Divine Faith. For there is both the material and formal Object: the true Articles of faith are believed, and therefore believed because God that cannot lye is the Author of them: And that he is the Author, is first an object of Knowledge, and but secondarily of Belief. For the two Principles of faith[ That God is True, and that this is his Word,] are in order first to be known, and then the Act of faith is built on them: Though secondarily they are both the object of Belief itself.) And if you must of Necessity to the essence of your Faith, have demonstrations, or scientifical, or infallible Premises apprehended to prove that the Medium the Scripture is of God; then must you have still as good and certain Premises, for the proof of every one of those Premises; which is not necessary. I confess the better Evidence we have of the truth of Scripture, the stronger our faith is like to be. But the millions of Christians that take it to be the Word of God upon the common vote of the Church and their Teachers, with probable intrinsic Arguments; and yet therefore firmly believe it because of Gods Veracity may have a saving faith. If I deny this, I must unchurch and unchristian almost all, or the far greatest part of the Churches and Christians in the world.  
I must here expect that it be objected to me, that Faith is Argumentative( what need you else talk of Premises) and the conclusion cannot excel in certainty, the weaker of the Premises, nor be more Divine. Answ. This calls for a whole Digression that it may be satisfactorily answered: But because all this is besides our main Question, I will content myself with this short touch.  
It is a very great controversy among Divines, whether Faith be by Argumentation, and the Reception of a Conclusion as resulting from the Premises, or a simplo Act; and whether it have a certainty and Evidence or not. In a word, as Faith hath its material and formal Object, so hath it its material and formal parts to constitute it. And as the material objects are the Essential Articles of the Christian faith( considering now but the Assenting part of Faith) So the Belief of these Articles is the essential matter of Faith: And as the formal Object is Gods Veracity, so the form of this Faith, is a crediting or Believing God as God: And as the Revelation is the Copula or bond of both these Objects, so the Reception of the Revelation is the conjunction of the Matter and form of Faith. In the ends and uses of Faith there is considerable 1. The Acceptableness of it to God. 2. The satisfactoriness, and operative force with ourselves, Accordingly is its nature mixed and suitable, having somewhat of the will, and somewhat of the Intellect, The will hath 1. an affiance on the Veracity of God the Author, 2. And an acceptance of the Good that is offered in the material Object: the former belongs to faith in genere: the latter also to the Christian Faith, or the Belief of any Promise, in specie. The Veracity of God, which is the formal Object, is the Result of his three grand Attributes, his infinite Power, Wisdom and Goodness. These are Essential to God as God. Because he is Omnipotent, he will not break his word through any impotency to fulfil it: Because he is most wise, he will not break it through ignorance. Because he is infinitely Good, he will not break it by unfaithfulness, fraud injustice, &c. The last of these Attributes is most eminent in Veracity. Accordingly, the formal act of Faith, which is the Giving credit to God containeth in it, or supposeth both a persuasion or assent to the Truth of this in God,( even that he is God) and a pious Affection of the will by which we have a complacency and closure with, and an Affiance in this Veracity of God: All may be comprehended in Affiance. I am not speaking of Affiance in the Redeemer to do the works of his Office for us: that belongs to Faith in specie: but of Affiance in the Power, Wisdom, Goodness, and so in the Vera●ity or F●delity of God-Revealing or Prom●sing: which belongs to Divine Faith in General( when good is in the matter, and when it is a grace.) This voluntary Affiance in Gods Veracity, being the formal Act of Faith,( together with the Acceptance of the good in the special Object,) is it wherein the Acceptableness of Faith, to God consisteth) so that hence you see, that faith formally as faith, is not the Assent to the conclusion of this Argument[ What ever God saith is true: but this God saith, therefore this is true:] but it is this Affiance in Gods Veracity. But Faith as comprehending matter and form, is both. Also that faith is Acceptable to God, as it is such an Affiance in his Veracity. And thus it needeth no formal Argumentation: or no more then to conclude that God cannot lye, because he is most powerful, wise and good. But now as to the satisfactory and operative use of faith about the material object, there it proceedeth Argumentatively, and is called an Assent to the conclusion, and it hath alway before us( objectively offered) such evidence of certainty, that where it is rightly apprehended, it is of the nature of Science;( but advanced by the formal Act of Affiance, by which it is informed to be more Acceptable then any bare Science.) But multitudes, and most by far discern not this evidence so clearly, as may make it scientifical to them. Nay many may discern but part of it( to prove that Scripture or these Articles are the word of God) or some few of the weaker evidences of these Revelations, or if they have the most demonstrative or certain evidences, yet they apprehended them not as such, but so weakly, that perhaps their assurance or belief of the Truth of the word, may not exceed a strong probability. The stronger any mans Assent to the matter is, the more satisfaction he hath in his mind,( and caeteris paribus) the more operative and effectual his faith is like to be, and so to procure further Acceptance. But yet be it never so weak, if it be sincere, it receives an acceptableness from the formal Act of holy Affiance in Gods veracity that informs it, that we may discern the material part to be sincere. It is not necessary that we find out, that it was by a certain infallible Divine Medium, that we took the Scripture to be the word of God( and indeed many a one that sees it by such evidence, may yet see so little of the nature and force of that evidence, that his mis-apprehension or dark and weak apprehension may make it as unsatisfactory and uneffectual to him, as great probabilities clearly apprehended may be to another) But as a human Belief of our Teachers is an ordinary preparative or concommitant( if not some part.) So where the formal Act is firm and true( which makes it acceptable) and the material object entirely apprehended in all its essentials, the degree of apprehension is next most regardable to discern the sincerity; and because the use of this material Act is so far to satisfy us, as to led up the Will to the acceptance of Christ offered, and to close with the felicity promised, and to be operative in us; therefore the best way to judge of the sincerity of the Assent, is, If it prevail habitually, and in the course of our lives actually, with our Wills to accept Christ as Christ, and Love God and Heaven as such, and so to prefer them before all things in the world. As Dr. Jackson( of saving faith) saith; what ever doubtings there may be, or weakness of belief, even concerning the Truth of Scripture, and the promised Glory: yet he that is so far persuaded of it, as that he is resolved to venture all upon it, and rather to let go sin and pleasure, profit and honor, life and all, then venture the loss of what is promised, and the suffering of what is threatened: This is a saving Acceptable faith, for all the weakness in the evidence or apprehension. This Anatomy of faith I give to make my sense as intelligible to the Reader as is possible. To which add the Preface to the second part of the Saints Rest, the Preface to my Treat. against Infidelity, and you will see most that I have to say concerning this particular Subject.  
As to what you add to this till pag. 394. to prove that Believers have the Spirit, its easily granted: but the Question is not so general, nor of the word[ Testimony] in general, but of such a Testimony as shall be the Medium, or Premise, from which objectively the first Act of saving faith must necessary be specified, which I deny. In a whole Treatise( against Infidelity) I have pleaded for the witness of the Spirit to the Truth of Christianity.  
page. 394. Your sixth Reason is, that[ else the unregenerate were as truly gracious and Believers as the Saints.]  
Answ. Your Reason is good in my opinion: though those that d●spute against me must disclaim it, who say that the unregenerate are called in Scripture Saints, Believers, justified Sons, &c. and that not equivocally. Taking faith for that which is truly Christian and saving, you might easily have known if you had desired it, that I consent to your conclusion, that the unregenerate do not believe. But yet with another sort of faith, they do believe; and in this I suppose we are agreed, because we believe Christ. And this other sort is differenced but as aforesaid. And that its true in its kind, I hope will be no controversy between you and me, though I know not whether Mr. shepherd and I are so far agreed but I dare venture to say that you and I are, that ens& verum convertuntur. And therefore doubtless you that call it so often[ common Grace and Faith] do take it to be[ true common Grace and Faith.] To gratify you with additions to your double Testimony, p. 398. from Calvin and Baronius, I have heretofore produced 33. for the same Conclusion,( Disput. 5. of Sacram,) and sixty more for another of the same Importance. Yet do I not intend by this to blame you, for bringing your two witnesses forth as against me, who had openly produced so many score against the same Doctrine that you charge me with; for you might have Reasons for it that I know not of, or at lest be excusable by your mis-information.   

SECT. IX.  
page. 398. YOU let fall a point of great moment wherein I have long differed from you, viz.[ That Regenerate men by saving faith believe that Christ hath already satisfied for their sins, so as the debt is paid, and they freed, that he hath reconciled his Father to them, that their sins are pardonned; or they justified, that they are Sons of God here, or shall he Heirs of Heaven hereafter.] And all these you say.[ The common Believers, neither do, nor upon any just ground can believe.] And so at last we have Many Articles of faith, in which the regenerate believe and others cannot: and if so, the difference is more material then I thought it: but I am pretty well satisfied long ago; that this Doctrine is much contrary to the Gospel, and the nature of saving faith.  
Had you spoken only of that Conditional pardon and Justification, &c. That is given in the Gospel to all that hear it, that may be believed by the unregenerate, as your foregoing expressions testify[ They may really believe the whole history of the Scripture to be true,] But you mean not this, but plainly speak of actual freedom, Reconciliation, Pardon, Justification, Adoption, and futurity of Glorification. And of these I am fully satisfied that they are no Articles of divine faith at all. But yet it is none of my purpose to enter the lists with you about it, though it be a point of exceeding weight. I have in my Apol. to Mr. black, my Directions for Peace of Conscience, and in the Saints Rest, and many other writings given some of my Reasons already against this opinion: and therefore may be here the more excused. And as long as the testimony of our great Divines at Dort stands on Record against you, and the stream of our present Divines is against you, in point of Authority I have the advantage of you, though Chamier, Calvin, and some more transmarine Divines be on your side, or seem to be so. Mr. Down long since effectually confuted one of my name that held your opinion: And I must confess I the more incline to think that saving faith is no such thing as you describe, because such a multitude of holy men( that doubtless have saving faith) do deny that it is any such thing: But yet to cast in a breviate of my Reasons,( that saving faith is not the divine Belief, that we are actually freed, pardonned, justified, Adopted and Heirs of Heaven) may breed no quarrel.  
Reason 1. The Gospel containeth all the necessary material Objects of saving faith: The Gospel containeth none of these propositions forementioned( that you or I, or A. B. &c. is actually justified, Adopted, &c.) therefore none of these propositions are the objects of saving faith.  
The Gospel sufficiency in this is believed by all Protestants that I know, and by many Papists as to necessary Articles of faith. If any deny the Minor, let him show me the Text that saith he is justified or adopted expressly, or by necessary consequence; If any say that it is a Consequence from the Premises, whereof one is in Scripture, and the other in us; I have answered this to Mr. black, that this makes it not purely de fide, nor at all to be denominated de fide, unless the word of the Gospel were the debilius praemissorum.  
Rea. 2. If this which you mention were the difference between a saving and a temporary faith, then the difference should be, that one believeth only the written word, or the Gospel& the other the( saving faith) believes also an unwritten word, and that which is not in the Gospel. But this is not the difference, Ergo. &c.  
Rea. 3. The material object of saving faith is propounded by God to all men that hear the Gospel, and all commanded to believe it. But this;( that they are actually justified, &c.) is not so, nor all commanded to believe it, Ergo, &c.  
If it were all mens duty, some must believe a fashood. If you say that it would be a Truth consequently, if they could believe it: I answer It must be a truth antecedently, or else the first act of faith is false. If you say, that men are first commanded to repent and then believe, I answer; No repenting without faith will prove them justified: therefore upon no such repenting may they believe they are justified. If you say some other Act of faith goes first, and justifieth us, I answer; Then it is that other Act that is justifying faith.  
Rea. 4. The unbelief that condemneth men is not the not believing that they are already justified, Adopted, &c. Therefore the faith that saveth men is not the believing that they are justified, Adopted, &c. for they are contraries.  
Rea. 5. The material Object of divine faith( of assent) is some word of God, at lest written or unwritten. But the Articles mentioned by you, are( as to the Church ordinarily) no word of God, written nor unwritten: therefore they are not the Object of divine faith. If they be in the written word, let it be produced; which cannot be done. If it be an unwritten word( in the heart) they that affirm it must produce or prove it, which they cannot do. And the common experience of Believers is,( as far as I can learn from themselves) that there is no such thing; for though they know of a Spirit effectinf faith in them, that is, causing them to believe an Object already revealed, yet they know of none, propounding a new word or Object of faith to be believed as the Gospel is. The effects of the Spirit indeed( Faith, Love, &c) are the Objects of a reflex knowledge( as its called) but not of Faith: though they consequentially confirm us in the Faith, having therefore no ordinary divine word is us, we can have no divine faith.  
Rea. 6. If our own inward Graces be the object of saving Faith, then are we saved by believing in ourselves, or somewhat of ourselves,( viz, That we are justified, adopted, &c.) But the Consequent is untrue, therefore so is the Antecedent. Saving faith is a believing in Christ.  
Rea. 7. That which no man hath before his first believing cannot be the material Object of his first saving faith( and therefore specifieth it not, nor is essential to it.) But no man hath before his first believing either actual Justification, Adoption, &c. Therefore neither of these can be the object of our first saving faith. The mayor is plain, because the object is before the Act. The Minor is proved, in that Unbelievers are not justified, Adopted, &c.  
Rea. 8 The Doctrine that makes Justification, Adoption, &c. to go before faith, and be the portion of Infidels, is unsound: but such is yours. For men must have these before they can truly believe that they have them, and so before your saving saith.  
Rea. 9 If that I be bound to believe( to Salvation) that I am actually justified, then either that I am justified by faith or without faith: not without, for that's against the Gospel; not by faith for I yet have it not at first, and after either I am bound to believe that I do believe or not, if not still the conclusion will not be de fide, because my believing( which is not by a word of God affirmed) is the pars debilior of the Premises. If I am bound to believe that I do believe, then also must I be be bound to believe, that I believe, that I do believe, and so on: for why should I be bound to believe one Belief, and not to believe another, even that Belief also. It was never known that faith was its own specifying Object.  
Rea. 10. If my own inward qualifications or receivings from the Spirit are the Object of saving Faith, and the Gospel the Object of common saith; Then common Faith hath a perfect Object, and saving faith( where it differs from it) hath an imperfect Object:( for such is both our sanctification, and our Justification at lest, as revealed to us, or the Revelation of our Just●fication.) But the Consequent is unsound, therefore so is the Antecedent. I dare not compare my inward evidences with the Gospel.  
Rea. 11. If the Spirits inwards Testimony that I am justified, Adopted, &c, be the object of saving faith, then one true Christian hath more to believe, and another less, and there are as great variety of Objects as of Christians; and some are bound to believe much seldomer, as well as less, then others:( For he that hath not the Object is not bound to believe it: but some Christians( at most) have it but seldom, and but little;) But the Consequent is untrue, therefore so is the Antecedent. Though Christians have several degrees and seasons of exercising faith, yet they are bound to exercise it more and oftener then they do. And it is not made impossible for want of a word to be the Object.  
Rea. 12. Also it would follow that the same man is one day bound to believe( if there be such a Testimony) and another day not: and perhaps another month or year: yea perhaps some should never be bound to believe: for none have that Testimony constant, and many Christians never have that at all, which is unfitly called an inward word or Revelation; that we are adopted by immediate Testimony, But &c.  
Rea. 13.( Though the Spirit work faith, yet) the testifying sealing Spirit is given to Believers and after faith, therefore saving faith goeth before it, and is without it.  
Rea. 14. If our own Adoption, Justification, &c. be the Objects of our saving Faith, and it be an Article of Faith that you are justified, &c. then to doubt of your Justification, Adoption, &c. is to doubt of the word of God: and to deny your own Justification, is to deny the word of God, and so all that you thus speak against yourselves in your doubtings, you speak against the Truth of the word of God: But the Consequent is unsound, Ergo. &c.  
Rea. 15. Our inward real Graces are the objects of our knowledge by the reflection( or as some say, by i●tuition.) Therefore they are not the Objects of saving faith. For though the same thing as extrinfecally revealed may be the Object of both, because of different Revelations, yet I suppose such different intrinsic Revelations, will not here be pretended: nor is it necessary that when the Spirit hath first given us Grace, and then by an inward light and efficiency, caused us to perceive it, and know that we have it, he should after give us an immediate word to tell us of that which he had before caused us to know( as he causeth us to discern extrinsic Objects.)  
Rea. 16. The Articles of saving faith may be expressed in the Churches Creed, but so cannot these new Articles that you mention: For there must be the names of so many, and such individual persons, as cannot be known; nor will it be certain. For you will not be content with the general, that he that believeth shall be saved; but there must be in your Creed,[ I am justified, Adopted, &c.] which who can know but they that have it? And so their Creed is utterly uncertain to the Church, yea and every man hath a distinct Creed of his own: There being one Article in it( that he is justified) that no man else is bound to believe: and so there must be as many Creeds as Believers.  
Rea. 17. The Articles and Object of saving faith may be preached to some( at lest) that are uncalled, and they required to believe: But your Object and Articles can be preached to no man, therefore they are not the Articles and Objects of saving faith. No one unconverted man in the world can be called on to believe that he is justified, unless he be called to believe an untruth, or according to the Antinomian Doctrine of Justification before Faith, he can have no knowledge or discovery first that it is the true.  
Rea. 18. Were your Articles necessary Objects of a saving Faith, then all presumptuous ungodly persons are justified for not believing( yea and all others.) For, 1. Its as natural Impossibility( as is aforesaid) to believe without an Object, as to see without Sun or Light. The holiest man could not do it, 2. And presumptuous persons have the Act; and its not long of them that there is no object for it: They are confident that they are justified, Adopted, &c. But you say[ They do not or cannot believe it.] But why is that? Because they believe not, even when they do believe it. I mean,( having no word of Revelation,) the name of Belief is not due to the Act: but thats not long of them. They are confident that God hath Justified them and will save them, as well as you. Though you say you have a word for it within you, which they have not.  
Reason 19. The Scripture telleth us an hundred times over of another Faith as certainly saving, without your Articles: therefore these Articles are not necessary to saving Faith, to city but a few Texts, Rom. 10. 8, 9, 10, 11.[ That is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness, &c.] Here note 1. that this is the Word that is said to be in the heart, vers. 8. And 2. yet it is the same that the Apostles preached. Now the Apostles did not preach to men such Articles as yours, viz.[ You are already actually justified, Adopted, &c.] by name: but only this conditional Justification here mentioned. It is a Believing to Righteousness, and not a Believing that we are Righteous which they preach and require: It is a Believing Christs Resurrection, &c. and not our own honesty or felicity or pardon, &c. So that this same word which is preached by the Apostles, is it that is in the heart, and not another Gospel or Word of God; viz[ Thou A. B, art justified.] So John 1. 12. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe in his name.] They must believe that they may become Sons; which is not a believing that they are sons, Rom. 4. 24. Faith[ shall be imputed to us for Righteousness, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.] This is the saving Faith, which is imputed to us for righteousness; and therefore is not a Believing that we are righteous. Acts 13. 38. 39. Forgiveness of sin is preached through Christ, and by him all that believe are Justified from all things, &c.[ They believe before they are justified, and therefore not that they are justified. But I have said enough of this heretofore in my Confession.  
Reason 20. All the Articles of the true saving Christian faith, have been still owned by the catholic Church; These Articles that you mention have not been still owned by the catholic Church, therefore they are not Articles of true saving Faith. They are not to be found in the Creeds of the Church, nor Writings of the Fathers of the Church, therefore they are not owned by the Church. All in the Creed that is pretended is, the[ I Believe] with[ the Remission of sins,] which is not[ I believe that my sins are already remitted: For the Catechumens were to profess this faith, and all were bound to believe it. Other Reasons I have given elsewhere.  
I cast in all these Reasons hastily, not improved as I should do, if I were to make a Defence of the Truth; but to give you an account of the cause of my Dissent, because I find this the principal point of all our Difference.  
Yet that we seem not to differ more then we do, I must again refer you to my Treatise of the Spirits witness within us to the Truth of Christianity,§ 2. &c. to know my Concessions. To which I also add, that all that believe in Christ, do believe in him for Remission of their own sins, and do by consent Accept him and pardon offered by and with him: and when they profess to be Believers, they profess those Premises from whence they may conclude that they are pardonned: And so far as they know that they sincerely believe, they may and ought to conclude that they are pardonned. Yet its not a Word of God, much less an Article of saving Faith.   

SECT. X.  
page. 399. YOu next instance in Acceptance and Love to Christ. And I grant you still the conclusion, that these are not in the unregenerate in the same species as in the Saints. But that there is a Love and Acceptance true in its kind, and how it materially differs from that in true Believers, I have oft shewed, and shall do here further in my Additional Explication.  
I said in my Aphorisms, that[ the Acceptance of an offered Christ is the essential Form of Justifying Faith.]( not of Faith in genere,) and you say that I said so of[ Love.] I know there is Love in Acceptance, or Consent, or choice: but if I might have chosen, I had rather you had charged me with what I indeed wrote, then with what you imagine may be implied in it.  
page. 403. Your eighth Reason for the Cause that I maintain, is sound and undeniable.  
Hence you pass page. 404. to another controversy, answering this Objection[ Love may be Essential to faith, because its agreed that Fiducia is an Act of Faith, and that in the Will, and not only Mr. Baxter, but Bellarmine and many reformed Divines say so.] Answ. 1. I looked in Bellarmine, and find him with the common vote of Schoolmen, and Divines placing Fiducia in the will, but so far is he from making it an Act of Faith, that the Position that he is there proving is, that[ fides non est fiducia,] against the Protestants, and concludes as you, that that fiducia ex fide oritur, non potest esse idem cum fide. Sure you did not indeed mean to prove hence that Bellarmine is of the Protestant opinion which he writes against. I suppose your intent was to limit his consent to the last clause of the Subject of Affiance.  
2. You might well say many Reformed Divines are for the point which you assault; for it is so common, that with Papists and ourselves, it goes commonly as the Protestant cause.  
As to your first Reason( and your whole cause) you utterly mistake and mis-report the cause. It is not a {αβγδ} that Protestants commonly mean by Affiance; no nor a {αβγδ} neither as that word most usually signifieth the confidence or persuasion of the intellect in a high Degree. But it is the very {αβγδ} or Faith itself, which we commonly express in English by[ Crediting, or giving credit to a man; Trusting him, or having affiance in him.] And therefore our Divines do commonly maintain against the Papists that {αβγδ} inscriptum signifieth fiduciam ponere; and fidem habere; which is our Affiance. And our Translators thought sure that to Trust in God, and to hope in him was all one,( and so to Trust or Hope in Christ) when they so ordinarily translate {αβγδ} by Trusting, as in Luke 24, 21. {αβγδ} &c. The sense also shows it is not Hope as commonly defined that is here meant. So Matth. 12, 21.& Rom. 15. 12. {αβγδ} And in his Name shall the Gentiles trust. And the first Believers of the Ephesians Paul calleth {αβγδ}, those that first trusted in Christ, which is all one in Pauls sense with believing in him; for in the next verse[ {αβγδ}] is used as Synonimal, to signife the same thing. And so in 1 Tim. 4. 10.& 6. 17. Phil. 2. 19 and other places, our Translators call this[ Trusting in God,] which is our Affiance; and undoubtedly an act of the Will. And when other words( as frequently) are used, it is the same thing that is intended in many places of Scripture, which our Translators call[ Trusting in God.] Now besides your Plerophory or persuasion, there is in the nature of saving faith not only another Affiance, but a double Affiance essential to it in some degree: as I shall take the liberty according to my apprehension to open it.  
Belief is either voluntary and a Duty, or involuntary, and no moral good. The latter is the faith of the Devils, and all that believe the Truths of God as things that are against them, and would not have them to be true, and perhaps had rather not believe them( for the understanding is not free in itself.) This kind of belief is merely of the Intellect: The voluntary virtuous Belief of God, is either of some things that we apprehended as merely True, and having no other good in them as to us but the Truth( nor perhaps to others) There are no such Revelations; but yet our apprehensions may be such of them. Here Truth itself is a certain sort of Good. And thus the Intellect receiveth these Truths, but not alone: For the Will hath a double concurrence. 1. Looking with Complacency on the good of verity Revealed, 2. Looking with a Complacencial Affiance or Trust to the Veracity of God the Author or Revealer. Thus it is that we believe some Histories. II. Or this voluntary Belief is of things hurtful to us, in our apprehension, as in case of our belief of threatenings. Here the Will hath an averseness to the material Object; but still hath a complacency joined with it both in the General Good of Verity, even as in a threatening, and a Complacency in, and voluntary approbation of the Veracity of God in his threatenings. Thus it ought to be: And this compliance of the Will with Gods Veracity in a threatening, is not commonly called Affiance; but a consenting or Complacencial Approbation. III. This Belief hath sometime a Revelation apparently good to us,( or to the Church, or our Brethren and Gods honour) for its Object. Thus all merciful Narratives, Offers and Promises, are believed? And here are these Acts. 1. The Intellect apprehendeth the Veracity of God-Revealing. 2. The Will hath a Complacencial Approbation of this Veracity of God as good in itself and a Divine perfection. 3. The Intellect Apprehendeth the Letter and sense of the Revelation. 4. And the Truth of it as proceeding from Divine Verity itself. 5. And the Goodness of it as its Truth in General. 6. And the special Goodness of it from the Matter in special. 7. And the Will concurreth in these Apprehensions by Commanding the Intellect according to that Degree as the acts are Imperate. 8. And the Will hath a special Affiance or Trust( together with the Intellect acquiescing herein) in the Veracity of the Revealer as it respecteth this special Object. For as 9. The same Will hath a Complacency, or Consent or Acceptance, as to the Good Revealed, Promised, Offered; so it hath an answerable respect to the Power, Wisdom and special goodness of God that promiseth; and so looking at his Veracity( the result of these three) as the Foundation and formal Object of his faith, he must needs look at it with a special Volition, which we commonly call Affiance or Trust; and this last is the very Act that is called by the name of fides, or fiducia, or Affiance, comprehending the rest, but so as that they are all denominated usually from this as the perfective Act. And this is the Affiance, that we say is essential to Faith in general as it hath a Promise, for its material Object, and which is directly signified by {αβγδ}, To trust a mans word, or to credit him, or take his word, or trust his credit, and to believe him, and have Affiance in him, are all one. IV. The special faith of the Gospel called faith in Christ, containeth all these nine Acts aforesaid, and a tenth superadded which is a special Affiance in Jesus Christ as the Saviour to do the works of his undertaken Office, in our Salvation. So that all these ten Acts are in saving faith, as they are distinguished by the several objects; which yet are all but one faith in a moral sense, and all these but the several parts of the Object. He that denieth this, must in equity except against those particular Acts that he thinks may be left out.  
By this much I have  told you what acts of the Intellect, and what of the Will are in faith, and what Affiance is in it: Two acts of Affiance are in saving faith. The first is an Affiance, or Trust in, or crediting of God as the Promiser, because of his Veracity: This is in the Genus. The second is, An Affiance in the Redeemer as such, by which we Trust in him for the effects and Ends of his Office. And this is essential to the Christian faith in specie. All these are comprised in these three General acts. 1. Assent. 2. Consent or Acceptance. 3. Affiance. This last Affiance in the mediator, is not the same with the General Affiance in God as Promiser, before mentioned. This is the act that was commanded the Jaylor,( comprising the rest) Act. 16. 31. {αβγδ} &c.] To these is Adoption given, John 1. 12. {αβγδ},] So Rom. 4. 5. and 10. 14. & passim.  
Now the Plerophorie that you call Affiance, is either an Assurance or Confident persuasion of our own particular state of Grace; or of our particular Acceptance with God in our addresses, or else some high Degree only of the forementioned Affiance or Asssent. Now it is none of these that we call Affiance, when we make it essential to saving faith. Amesius shows somewhat of the difference in Medul. Theolog. l 1. c. 3.& l. 2. cap. 5. Where also he largely proveth faith to be in the Will; and yet your forementioned special Articles are none of its object: Assensus vero special is quo statuimus Deum esse nostrum Deum in Christo, non est actus primus fidei, said actus ex fide emanans. Nulla enim est mayor in te quam alio certitudo hujus veritatis, nec verior ejus apprehensio, antequam te ad Deum fide singulariter applicaveris, saith Pemble, Vindic. Grat. pag. 260.[ that kind of Fiducia which we call Assurance, and full persuasion of the pardon of our sins, is a fruit of the other Fiducia, or Trusting unto the Promise itself, wherein stands the proper Act of Justifying Faith. And it follows it not always presently, but after some long time, after much pains taken in the exercise of Faith and other Graces.] But that the other Fiducia is essential to faith he proves by several Arguments; pag. 258.( In which our more voluminous Disputants against Popery are much more copious.) And pag. 170. 171. Where in the Margin he saith,[ It is an erroneous curiosity to make Fiducia a Consequent of Fides, and to say therefore I trust a man because I believe the truth of his promise, that he will do what he says; there can be no good construction of such a saying: for it is as much as this; I trust him because I trust him. &c.]  
And thus your first Censure is answered: Affiance is essential to true faith.   

SECT. XI.  
page. 406. YOur second answer of the Objection you choose is, by alleging from Rob. Baronius two Reasons to prove that Fiducia is not in the Will. The first is[ Because D●ffidence is not in the Will.] Answ. Fiducia is an act both of the Understanding and Will, and Diffidence is seated in both. D●ffidence in the Will is mostly a Privation of the Trust and Affiance aforementioned. Your Argument from Baronius to prove it only in the Understanding is,[ because men may distrust themselves, which signifieth not a hatred. &c.] Answ. 1. Though it signifies no hatred or aversation, it may signify a Privation of the Trust and boldness, and expectation of the will and understanding both. If uti and frui be acts of the will, then so may Affiance. Do you think Hope is in the will or not? I do not think you will be so singular as to deny it. And then I would ask whether Despair be in the Will? If Despair be, so may Diffidence. And here I may put you to answer your own Argument. A man Despaireth of himself and his own affairs, without Hatred or Aversation: therefore Despair is not in the Will. If you say there is a certain Aversation of the will from the evil of his affairs, in Despair I shall say, it may be as truly said of that Diffidence which is a full contrary to Trust, If you say that Despair is in the will, as a Privation of Hope, I shall say then so is this Diffidence as a Privation of Trust.  
page. 407. You confirm thee in opinion of Baronius from the[ the use of mediums to breed Confidence] But, 1. That proves Affiance, as its taken for strength of Assent to be in the Intellect, but not as taken for the fiducial acquiescence or expectation of the Will. 2. It proveth Affiance in the Scripturesense( as taken for faith) to be in the understanding but not to be in the understanding alone: For affiance as hope is a complicate Act of the Intellect and Will, not physically one, but morally one, and Physically so admirably complicate, that it s very hard to distinguish them.  
page. 408. You give us Baronius his second Argument[ si formaliter esset actus voluntatis, nile aliud esset quam de siderium, seu amor objecti:& multi amant& desiderant objectum, qui non habent fiduciam: &c.]  
Ans. The Consequence is without all appearance of Truth( in my eyes) for it is the material object; whose love he and you do blainly speak of: but the love of the material object as the end is presupposed to the Act of the Affiance in veracity and word of the Promiser as the means: and it is from this formal object, that Affiance is denominated I do not trust the pardon of sin Justification, Adoption, though I love and desire them: but I trust Gods Promise, because of his veracity for the pardon of sin: But if the Promise itself be the object which you mean; yet I answer, 1. My love to the Promise is because of the good promised,& therefore primarily to the benefit, and but secoundarily to the Promise: but my Trust is primarily in Gods veracity, and next in the Promise as the product of that veracity, and not at all in the benefit, but for the benefit promised: I love the Benefit or good promised formally, and I love the Promise for the benefits sake finally, and as mediately participating of the goodness loved. But I trust in the Divine veracity formally, and in the Promise secondarily, as partaking of it as the matter in which it is expressed: But the good of the benefit is only finally pertinent to Affiance, and the good of the Promise as the means to that end.  
2. I further answer to this( and at once to the confirmation of the Minor) that there is aliquid desiderii& amoris in affiance, and essential to it, as there is aliquid boni essential in the object. But being a compound act, it follows, not that it must be denominated Love or Desire, or that it is nile aliud. Even the divine veracity is the formal object of affiance, not simply, but as the Author and Informer of a Promise of good things: For it is not called the object of affiance; if it produce only an assertion that maketh to our hurt. And the Promise is the object of affiance as a relative thing that hath respect at once both to the veracity of the Promiser and the good that is promised. Hope hath somewhat of Love and somewhat of Desire in it essentially, And yet it is not to be called Love or Desire no more then a man is to be called[ Reason or Intellect, or Will, or a Body, or a Soul: so faith hath somewhat of Hope and of Love in it, and yet is not to be called Love or Hope: of which more anon.  
To the confirming Reason I answer; Its true that many love and desire that which they have no affiance or trust to obtain: and that proves that Love and Desire are not terms convertible with Affiance or Faith: but it proves not that affiance or faith hath no participation of Love or Desire. There is Love essential to all Desire:& yet a man may love that which he desireth not( if he have it already,) though he cannot desire that which he loveth not There is Love& desire essentially in hope, and yet essential to hope, a man love& desire that which he hopeth not for. There is expectation essential to Hope and yet I may expect that( as a hurt or injury,) which I hope not for. And yet you will tell me that which I know not, if you tell me of any thing essential to Hope besides this desire( comprehending love)& expectation: I take it to be a compound of Desire and expectation( or at most with some acquiescence and pleasure of the mind conjunct.) Yet neither of them alone is Hope.  
page. 409. You add a third Reason to prove that Affiance is not in the Will, from[ the use of the words in all good Authors:] But what words? {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}; but 1. Amesius( Medul. li 1. ubi sup.) tells you that even these, words in several Texts of Scripture signify saving faith 2. But what's this to our Question, you should have limited it to one sort of Affiance, and not have spoken thus of all Affiance in general, nor of that which Protestants pled for in special. Prove it if you can that {αβγδ}, or the english Trusting or Affiance, or the latin fiducia or fides, are not acts of the Will. And of this, we call not for proof from profane Authors, but sacred, as knowing that {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} is not the same thing with them and with the Scriptures: See Mr. Gatakers Cinnus, pag. 383, 384 385. And against Pfochenius de novi instrumenti stylo, pag. 88, 89. where he citeth abundance of Scripture Texts, where {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} are used for Faith and Affiance, or Trust to his Word that promiseth us some good, which is not the use of the words with profane Writers. And of your own sense of fiducia, see Chamier de fide, li. 12. chap. 11. in Panst. And Amesii Bellarmini. Enervat. Tom. li. 5. 2, and 3. proving that faith is Affiance, and cap. 1. citing carded. Contarenus, Alexand. Ales, Bonavent, Durandus, Cajetan, affirming it to be in the Will as well as the Intellect. To conclude therefore your Plero horie is not( always at lest) in the Will, but fides vel fiducia, Trust, Affiance, Faith are in the Intellect and Will.  
You conclude that[ He that after all this, shall still say that fiducia is in the Will, I will not say he is impudent, but sure a little thing will not make him blushy.]  
Answ. For my part I was naturally sufficiently bashful, but my Brethren have notably assisted me in the cure of it: But I must confess that I see nothing yet in your Arguments, nor in the badness of my cause or company to make me blushy. Much more hath been said by Bellarmine and many more, since this controversy begun among us; then you have here said; and yet almost all Protestant Divines that ever I red or heard of,( excepting very few noted for singularity) do without blushing hold to the old cause in this point, asserting Faith to be essentially fiducia, and in the Will: And the few that confirm it to the Intellect, do most of them make that Intellectual Assent to contain an intellectual Affiance.  
And for Baronius, whose reasons, you urge, he was young and raw when he wrote those exercitations, and since that did change his mind in many particulars; as you may for instance see in your point of the Spirits Testimony, which in his Disput. against Turnbullus, he otherwise handleth then here. I ever looked( since I had any acquaintance with them and those matters) on his exercitations, as the unripe fruits of an excellent wit: and valued then more for what they promised and attempted,( then in many points) for what they performed: but his after-labors, even the post-humours have so much more Maturity and solidity of conceptions, that I must say it is pitty they had not been more perfected, and God had not longer spared us that man, whose Judgement I value as highly as almost any mans since the primitive times of the Church. But what reason gives he why fiducia in his second sense is not an Act but effect of faith? viz.[ ut accipitur pro interna acquiescentia in divina benevolentia& gratiâ, per quam toti ab illa pendemus, &c.] page. 233. Or rather as it is an Acquiescence in the veracity of the Promiser. You know also that he is put to defend his singularity by answering these Objections.[ Si fiducia est in intellectu non differt ab assensu, ut hoc repugnat Doctrinae omnium Orthodoxorum,] page.. 241. Et nullus unquam Orthodoxus Theologus dixit fiduciam esse assensum aut judicium mentis.] page.. 242. I confess I have long taken those passages of Baronius which you allege, for some of his chifest oversights: and I yet see no cause to think otherwise.  
Among others( commonly given by our Divines) these following reasons move me to think that Affiance as signified by {αβγδ}, &c. in Scripture, and by our english word Trust, is in the Will as well as in the Intellect.  
Rea. 1. If Affiance or Trust be only in the Intellect, then may we be said to put our Trust or Affiance in threatening, whose Object is some mischief to us: but this is inauditum, and so the Consequent is false, therefore so is the Antecedent.  
Rea. 2. The Gospel or Promise, as the Object of our faith or Trust, are essentially good as well as true: therefore faith must be essentially in the Will as well as the Intellect.  
Rea. 3. Christ himself as he is the Object of our faith or Trust, is good as well as true: therefore that faith must be the act of the Will as well Intellect.  
Rea. 4. Justification, Adoption, Glorification, and the other benefits, which by faith are to be received, are offered as good, therefore the receiving of them belongs to the Will.  
Rea. 5. Hope and despair are not only in the Intellect, therefore Affiance is not only in the Intellect, for they differ very narrowly. Our Divines, Chamier, Amesius, and other ordinarily make all hope to be fiducia, though not all fiducia to be hope, making this the difference, that the fiducia fidei is about the object as present, and the fiducia spei about the object as future.  
Rea. 6. Frui and Uti are Acts of the Will: But one or both these are in Affiance, therefore Affiance is an Act of the Will. For the Minor, as God is the perfect Fountain of all Verity, and his Veracity is his Divine perfection; so the soul in Affiance doth frui, in some initial sort which Viators are capable of, enjoy God in this his perfection. For Affiance is a certain Acquiescence and complacency of the soul in Gods veracity. 2. And as his Promise is the means of the benefit to be received, so the Will doth by affiance use this Promise to its end.  
Rea. 7. Veracity which is the formal object of Faith, is as much the Result of Gods infinite goodness, as of his Wisdom and Power: therefore it is by faith or trust as necessary restend on by the Will as the understanding.  
Object. Then the Belief of a threatening is Affiance.  
Answ. No: There goes more then mere veracity and revelation, to the Object of Affiance. It is faith in general, if there be but these, and when we believe a threatening: But all faith is not Affiance: It is not Trust or Affiance unless it be some desirable thing that is revealed, and then in relation to that our Credence or Belief in the Divine veracity is thus name; even when both these objects do concur. 2. Yet I add that a christian Belief, even of the threatniugs of God, must be voluntary and contain a Complacency of the Will in the Will and veracity of God, though not in the evil threatened, and though so it be not called Trust. And they that believe any Truth in oluntarily upon the credit of Gods veracity, taking no degree of complacency in his veracity or Will, have not true faith in genere, save analogically or secundum quid.  
Rea. 8. Scripture being a Doctrine of morality, and not of mere physics, is morally to be understood: and therefore according to the common use of these words in morality, Trust, Faith, Affiance are not to be limited to any one physical Act, nor any one faculty of the soul, nor to be shut out of the Will. If this Town were all infected with the Plague, and only one Physician able to cure them; if he offer them to do it freely, and some slander him as a Deceiver, and he tell them again, If you will trust me I will cure you: All the world will understand here that by trusting him, he means both the trust of the understanding and the Will, arising from some satisfaction both of his ability and honesty, and so taking him for our physician, and putting our lives into his hand: and so in other cases.   

SECT. XII.  
YOU conclude, page. 410. with these censures.[ 1. That this Assertion[ common and special Grace are essentially the same.] Is not only erroneous, but far more dangerous then many, nay most men think.] Answer. The more dangerous you take it to be, the loather you should have been, after so many explications and Disputations for your own opion written by me) to have openly suggested that I maintain the very same thing that I deny and writ against.  
2. You say, pag. 411.[ That the other proposition, that Charity is essential to justifying faith, is a worse mistake then the former, in respect of the many ill Consequences, &c.] Answer; As you purpose[ To manifest this, when there is necessity or any just opportunity to do it.] as you after say, and thereby put us in hopes of more of your labours; so I think you are the Judge of necessity and opportunity, and seeing either will serve, I hope you will not want the later, if you do the former. But I would desire you that if God shall call you to this work, and satisfy you that it is the best improvement of your precious time to spend in the confutation of any errors of mine, that you would do me that great favour as to understand me( if I speak intelligibly) before you confute me, and to charge me with no opinions but my own, and that as delivered in my own words, and that taken together as they make up the full sense, or at lest that you will not confute any opinion as mine, which I have written purposely against: and also that you fix not on my Aphorisms, till a corrected edition come forth; the substance of the same Doctrine being more plainly expressed by me in many other books. And if this be the opinion that you are arguing against, I entreat you to say no more as my words,[ that love is the essential form of faith;] But that you may neither work want, if you are destinated hereunto, nor yet lose your labour; I will before hand tell you my opinion, how far love belongs to faith; when I first  told you. 1. That I resolve by Gods assistance to say no more in substance, then is the common Doctrine of Protestants, as far as I can understand it; and therefore will have company in my cause. 2. That I will not say so much in terms as many of the most famous Protestants do; I will instance but in two.  
Chamier Panstrat. Tom. 3. li. 12. De fide, cap. 4. proving faith to be in the Will, hath this Argument.[§. 16. Est& hoc Argumentum certum: Omnis amor est actus voluntatis. At fides est amor. Ergo est actus voluntatis: mayor per se vera& cognita; Minor probatur, quia vera fide, est ea, quae credit in Deum, at credere in Deum, est amare Deum. Augustinus, in Psal. 130, Hoc est oredere in Christum, diligere Christum. Et in Johan, tract. 29. Quid est credere in Deum? Credendo amare;& vero victus hoc argumento Gropperus in Enchiridio, &c.] and so he cites him as consenting.  
The other is, Macchovius, who, 1. Colleg: Disput. de Justific. Disp. 14.§. 10, 11. 12, 13. answering Camero's objection, that by placing faith in the Will we confounded it with Love, answereth,[ That the love of Complacency is required in faith, to its object. Hence Chemnitus on Melancthons come. places, pag. 660, saith,[ Faith is such a knowledge in the mind, to which followeth assent in the Will, and a motion of the heart apprehending and applying to itself with desire and Affiance, that object which is manifested to be good, so that it resteth in it: Object. But thus faith is confounded with Charity: which two the Holy Ghost distinguisheth specially, 1 Cor. 13. Answ. Charity there is considered, as it is carried to God and our neighbour, and not as it is carried to Christ as the meritorious cause, and the benefits by him obtained and promised to us in him, which is the Charity or Love of faith, and is distinguished from the former.] Here he proceeds to show the difference. Now my Judgement which you have to oppose( if that be your work) is this.  
1. I take it as a certain and weighty Truth that saving faith is in the Will as well as the Understanding: and so do the stream of Protestants; though yet I highly honour Chamero, and the French Divines of his mind, that think otherwise.  
2. I think the very Act of the Will is not properly called Love, according to the received use of that word.  
3. I think that all gracious Love is not the thing directly meant by the Apostle, when he extolleth Charity as the everlasting Grace.  
4. I think that Faith, Hope, and Charity, are three distinct Graces.  
5. I suppose that this noble Grace of Charity is the simplo Love of the Deity, as our beginning and end, and all, and of all things else for his sake, as he appeareth in them: or the Complacency of the soul in God as our God, Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier and Felicity, or as the chief good. And that the lawful Love of ourselves, and of food, raiment, wealth, books, Sermons, humiliation Duties, &c. may participate of some beams from this highest Charity, but is not directly the thing itself. And that faith is the fiducial Assent before described; and that Hope is the fiducial desirous expectation of the promised Glory, and the future blessings that are its necessary Foregoers.  
6. I suppose that these moral acts and habits are totius hoins, and not to be confined to any one faculty, as mere simplo physical Acts, at lest not ordinarily.  
7. I suppose that as there is( as aforesaid) aliquid dilectionis in Desire, and yet it is to be called Desire and not Love; and aliquid dilectionis in Hope essentially, and yet Hope is not Love, nor so to be denominated; every Grace being denominated not from all that is in it, but from that which is eminent and special in it, as to the Object; even so there is aliquid fidei in spe,& aliquid spei in fide,& aliquid amoris in fide& spe, and yet Faith is not Hope, nor Hope Faith, nor Love Faith.  
8. The Schoolmen having some of them taken up a custom of distinguishing between Love in the affection and in the Will, and of calling all volition by the name of rational Love: if any be resolved to use their language, and to call the very act of Affiance, or of choice, or of consent, or Acceptance of an offered Saviour by the name of Love, though I will use the ancient terms and not his, yet for the thing signified I firmly hold, that it is as essential to saving Faith in Christ, as the Intellects Assent is; and that as Davenant speaks, Faith begins in the Intellect by Assent, and is completed in the Will by the Acceptance of the offered Saviour. But this acceptance( or if you will needs call it Love) to Christ as the Mediator or Way to the Father, doth much differ from the forementioned Love of God as our chief good and ultimate end.  
9. We are not said in Scripture to be justified by Hope or by Charity, but by faith: but it is such a faith as hath aliquid spei& Amoris in it: and will operate by these Graces.  
10. What sense soever the Schoolmen make of their distinction of fides informis,& formata Charitate, yet in this following sense it may truly be said, that the Love of God doth as it were animate all Graces and Duties whatsoever: that is, not as they are particular accidents which have every one, no doubt, their own form; but as they are Right Means to the End: For as the Respect to the end is essential to the means as means,( though not to the Act that materially is that means,) and the end intended or Loved is the cause of the means,( it being the very nature of a final cause to be amatum& desideratum efficaciter ab efficient, propter quod amatum fit effectus, as Ockam Quodlib. 4. qu. 1.& in sent, passim:) So the Love of God as our end, must have the same essential respect and influence into all the means, that are in usu truly and acceptably such, as the Intentio finis hath into all ordinary means whatsoever. If this be the sense of fides informis& formata charitate, I think the distinction of very great use and moment: For I think that no Prayer, Study, Alms, suffering, is any further truly and fully moralised or Theological, or Religious, that is, are acceptable means to our fruition of God( which is our Salvation) then it is caused and animated by the Intention of God as our End, which is the Love of God; and so that faith in Christ, and Repentance, and Obedience, are all mediate Graces, and must be thus caused and animated by the Love of God( yet so, as that in some respect faith goeth before this Love, and in some respect Love before this faith, which having lately occasion to discuss, I shall not here digress again to do it.) Of this I have said somewhat in my annexed Explicatory Propositions. I confess I never understood whether any Papists took their distinction in this sense: But I remember Aquinas and some other of them say something that bendeth that way, though they seem not clear in it. And so much for my sense, that you may not assault me next in the dark.  
If you join with the Lutheran Hethusius whom you city in detesting them that mix Faith and Love in the act of Justification, you will detest the Generality of Protestants, who mix that is conjoin them in the act, though not to the act of Justification as of equal use: especially if you call all acts of the Will towards Good, by the name of Love, for then they commonly make them one.  
As for the heretics you mention, p. 411. 412. I have no business with them, I'll study Gods word, and there is no heresy. And for the right understanding of it, I have exceeding great cause to distrust myself, and depend on the gracious teaching of his Spirit. But I am resolved to be as impartial as I can, with respect to the Judgement of the catholic Church of Christ.  
As to your conclusion, pag. 413. &c. I freely confess that when such unlearned scribblers as we, impune,& infelici puerperio as you speak, do tyre the( yet unsatiable) press, unhappily bringing forth our impertinencies( I leave the impious and monstrous Heresies to the fathers or the finders to dispose of,) it were unworthy dealing if such as you should be denied liberty, to cleanse& save the Church from our Errors. And for my one part, as I think not myself meet to speak when I may be your hearer, so let my travail be never so hard, if there were but one press in England, which offered me its help to deliver me of my impertinencies, I were much to blame if I would not readily discharge it for your service, there being not many whose judgement( conjecturing by your Exercitations) I have preferred before yours. And therefore I take it for an honour( though not to have been mistaken by you, nor to have been the occasion of your so much trouble, yet) that I have the encouragement of so much of your Consent, and that you condescend to be at so much pains with me; where you did but think I had differed from you.  
Though you choose to conceal your name, yet Tradition having published it, your labour is to be a great deal the more acceptable for the Authors sake. And if you despair of my Conversion by it, its more likely to be, because of the unreachableness of my dull understanding, them from the imperfection of your Arguments, had you but aimed at the right mark. And where I dissent with confidence because of my Reasons that seem somewhat cogent, yet is it with a mixture of self-diffidence, when, I think what a person I dissent from.  
And for your Resolution[ to own and vindicate your writing if occasion be.] It were strange if any thing of yours should be unworthy to be owned by you; but instead of a vindication, were I your adviser, you should search after some of my greater errors, and Assault me rather in another point( if this be your Harvest work,) at least in something where really we differ, lest the world think that we are not in good sadness, and dispute not ex animo. But yet I leave this to your graver judgement, being so far from deprecating any of your labours to save men from the danger of my opinions, as that I am tempted to be a little proud that I am chastised by so learned and eminent a man; and can promise you that your Light shall be welcome to me, and your rebukes not altogether lost. But for[ the explication and confirmation of my new untrue Hypothesis] as you call it, you speak so much too late, that I confess I have not the skill to speak much plainer then I have already done: I have here done something, but its little but what was done before. And for the confirmation, you have saved me that labour.  
Had I known which are the[ by-mistakes] in yours, which you would not have severely touched, I should have past them over without any touch at all: But if I had not expressed my Dissent from you on those points that you bring in on the by, I should have had nothing to say, but to have joined with you against that Baxter whoever he be, whom you assault. And, taking me for so angry a fellow as your suppositions of a passionate Reply do intimate, I knew not whether you let not fall these passages on the by, lest, I should, like the angry man in Seneca, have fallen upon you for saying still as I say, and bid you differ from me in somewhat that we may be two.[ Impertinencies] I dare not promise you to avoid: But I were very unworthy if I would be passionate with so learned and sober a man as you. But had I to do with a passionate man, I should expect to be charged with passion when ever I make him angry: as if nothing but anger could provoke anger. Even Agitation with pressure sometime sets the Turners wood on fire. When I have been readier to nod then to be Angry, yet if I have fitted verbarebui, I have oft been called angry, when the Truth is, I am daily lamented that my pitutious brain and languid spirits, have deprived me of the passion that once I had; and which I daily find the want of in my stupidity. But at least I shall promise you, that if I be[ impertineut] the very Position and Design of my whole Book shall not be Impertinent, nor left to the Vindication of a Non-Putarem. Your prayers and pitty I shall need I doubt not, and gratefully accept. But you shall not have the excuse of a Passionate Reply to deprive us of your Labours. As for your Ability not to Reply; your potui bonas horas non sit perdere, and your other business, I have the impudence as to vie with you, and purpose so far to overgo you, as that you shall see I was able to be silent, tho●gh your writings be never so free from Passion, if they concern not me or the cause of God, any more then this that you have written And if by your fore-intimations of[ Railing rhetoric signifying nothing but want of Reason,] your Readers shall be brought into a conceit that they even hear me Rail before I speak, I intend to be so long silent till I have awaked them by saying nothing, and made them know that they did but dream. And whether I be reputed Reasonable or unreasonable, Passionate or calm, Erroneous or Orthodox though I undervalue not the Judgement of worthy men, yet am I so near another kind of Judgement, that I have the less regard to spare for this. Even good and learned men do judge of Persons exceeding variously, as the variety of their prejudice, and interests leads them. So the Great and famous Scaliger, Frans. Junius was so great a man that[ Ab Apostolorum temporibus hactenus parem Theologum nullum vidisse seculum] was his elegy( referent constantino L. Emperour.) But to the great and famous Dr. Twiss, how unacquainted is he with School-Divinity? How unmeet for such Disputations? How over-witted by Arminians? How obscure and what not? So our excellent Bishop Hall. he was[ The Glory of Leyden, the Oracle of Textual and school-divinity, rich in Languages, subtle in distinguishing, and in Argument invincible.] Epist. 7. And to the great Thuanus, he was[ Vir desultorio ingenio, qui multa Conatus, an adsecutus sit quod moliebatur, doctorum erit judic●um.] Hist. To. 3. l. 79.] What can be more contrary then the censures of these men? Who more Learned, more modest, and faithful in reports, then the two that are on the one side, and the two that are on the other? How vain a thing is the esteem and applause of men ●● we stand or fall to the Judgement of the most Great infallible God. They that take him sincerely for their God, do take him as Enough for them. And they that find not enough in him, will never be satisfied.  
March 31. 1658.  
FINIS.   

REader, Because many that have bought the former Editions of my Book called the Saints Rest, do grudge that I have annexed a Sheet to the seventh Impression, on this Subject, which was not in the former, that they may have it here without buying that Book again, I shall here also annex it.  

To the READER.  
Reader,  
I Am so loathe to leave thee under any mistake of my meaning in this point, that I shall yet make some further attempt for the explaining of it. And whereas I understand that some Readers say that this nice distinguishing doth but puzzle men: and others still fear not falsely to give out, that I make common Grace and special to differ only gradually and not specifically, in despite of my express asserting of the contrary; I entreat the first sort to tear that leaf out of the Book which speaks of this Subject, that it may not trouble them, or to be patient while we speak a few words to others; that understand that which they are but puzzled with. And I desire the second sort once mo●e to remember. 1. That I still affirm that common Grace and special do differ by a moral specific difference, and not a gradual only. 2. But that this moral specific difference doth materially consist in a Physical Gradual difference. 3. And it being a Moral subject that we have in hand, our terms must be accordingly used and understood, and therefore it is most proper when we speak of any unsanctified man, to say that[ he is not a Believer, he hath no faith, he hath no Love to God, &c.] because we are supposed to speak only of a true Christian saving faith, Love, &c.] 4. But yet when it is known that we speak of another faith and love, we may well say that an unsanctified man hath these: and when we inquire of the difference, w● must be as exact as possible, in showing wherein it lieth, lest we delude the hypocrite, and trouble the Regenerate. That the Faith, and Love, and Sanctity of the Ungodly are but Equivocally or Anologically so called, in respect to the Faith and Love of the Saints, I have proved in my fifth Disputation of Right to Sacraments.  
That which I shall now add to make my sense as plain as I can, shall be these following Distinctions and Propositions.  
We must distinguish between, 1. Those Gracious acts that are about our End, and those that are about the means. 2. Between God considered generally as God, and considered in his several properties and attributes distinctly. And Christ considered personally, and considered fully in the parts of his Office, whether the essential or integral parts. 3. Between the Goodness of God in himself considered, and as suitable unto us. 4. Between the simplo act of the Intellect, and the comparing act. 5. Between the simplo Velleity of the will, and the choice that followeth the Comperate act of the Intellect. 6. Between the Speculative and Practical act of the Intellect. 7. And between the Acts of the will that answer these two. 8. Between an End that is ultimate, but not principal and prevalent, and an End that is Ultimate and chief also.  
Prop. 1. An unsanctified man may Love him that is the true God, and believe in that Person who is Jesus Ch●ist, the Redeemer. This is past controversy among us.  
Prop. 2. An ungodly man may love God as the Cause of his Prosperity in the world.  
Prop. 3. He may know that his everlasting happiness is at the dispose of God, and may believe him to be merciful and ready to do good, and that to him. And consequently may have some love to him as thus Gracious and Merciful.  
Prop. 4. He may by a simplo apprehension know that God is Good in himself, and Goodness itself, and preach this to others. And consequently may have in his will a consent or willingness hereof, that God be what he is, even infinite Goodness.  
Prop. 5. He may have a simplo Apprehension that God should be Glorified, and honoured by the creatures: and so may have a simplo Velleity that he may be Glorified.  
Prop. 6. He may have a General dim apprehension that everlasting Happiness consisteth in the sight of the Glory of God, and in his love and favour and heavenly Kingdom; and so may have some love to him as thus apprehended.  
Prop. 7. He may compare God and the creature together, and have a s●eculative or superficial knowledge that God is better then the creature, and better to him; and may writ and preach this to others: And so may have an answerable superficial uneffectual Velleity or love to him, even as thus considered.  
Prop. 8. One and the same man may have two contrary Ultimate ends of his par●icular Actions: Even the pleasing of God, and the pleasing of his flesh: proved.  
Argument 1. If the same heart may be partly sanctified and partly unsanctified( that is, in some degree) then it may have two contrary ends: Or if the same man may have flesh and spirit, then he may have two contrary Ultimate ends. But the Antecedent is certain, Ergo— so far as a man is carnal and unsanctified, flesh-pleasing and carnal self is his End.  
Argum. 2. If the same man might not have two contrary Ultimate ends, then the godly sbould never sin but in the mis-choosing of the means, or abating the Degrees of love to God: But the consequent is false and against experience, Ergo.— Peter did not only mischoose a means to Gods Glory when he denied his master. A godly man when he is drawn to eat or drink too much, doth it not only as a mistaken means to glorify God, but Ultimately to please his flesh. Either David in Adultery did desire flesh-pleasing for itself, or for some other end. If for itself, then it was his Ultimate end in that act: If for somewhat else as his end, For what? no one will say his end was Gods Glory. And there is nothing else to be it.  
Prop. 9. There is a continual striving between these two contrary ends where they are, One drawing one way, and the other the other way; and sometime one, sometimes the other prevailing in particular acts.  
Prop. 10. But yet, every man hath one only Prevalent Ultimate end, which is to be called Finis hoins, or is the chief Ultimate End of the Habitual Predominant Inclination or Disposition of his soul, and of the tenor or bent of his course of life. And that which goes against this Habitual bent, is said to be the Act[ not of him, but of something in him] that is, not of that predominant disposition which should denominate the man to be Godly or ungodly, but of some subdued disposition that by accident hath got some advantage▪  
Prop. 11. As Godly men have God for their end. as to the predominant habit of their souls, and bent of their lives, so all wicked men in the world have the creature and carnal-self for their end, as to the Predominant Habit of their hearts, and bent of their lives: so that this is simply to be called their several end, which is the Ruling end, and hath the greatest Interest in them: But yet as carnal self is a subdued, resisting end in the Godly, prevailing in some particular Actions;( as is too sure,) so God and Salvation may be a stisted, abused▪ subjected end of the ungodly that have but common Grace, and may prevail against the flesh in some particular outward Actions.  
This is evident in the foregoing Propositions. If a man by common Grace may have such a simplo and superficial apprehension of God as is before mentioned, knowing him to be good in himself, yea best, and good and best to him, when yet at the same time he hath a more deep predominant habitual apprehension that the Creature is best for him, then certainly he may have a subdued Love to God as best in himself and to him, that's answerable to this superficial knowledge, and consisteth with a predominant habitual Love to the Creature and ca●nal Self. I would desire every Divine to beware that he tell not the unsanctified, that whoever hath the least degree of Love to God for himself, or not as a means to carnal ends, shall certainly be saved: For he would certainly deceive many thousand miserable souls that should persuade them of this. He that believeth that there is a God▪ believeth that he is the chief Good, and best for him if he could see his Glory, and fully enjoy his Love for ever: And many a wicked mandoth preach all this, and think as he speaks; but it is all but with a superficial opinionative Belief, which is mastered by more strong apprehensions of a contrary Good; and so they love but wi●h a superficial Love, that's answerable to a mere opinionative Belief, and is conquered by a more potent Love to the contrary. So that strictly if you denominate not that single act, nor the person as thus disposed, but the bent of his affections, or the Person according to what indeed he is in the Predominant habit of his Soul; so it is fittest to say that the godly loveth not the world, nor the things of the world, and the wicked loveth not God, nor the things of God as such.  
Prop. 12. The sincere intending of the end, doth concur to constitute a sincere choice of the means. And therefore the Schoolmen say, that Charity( or Love to God) informeth all other Graces: not being the form of them as such or such Acts or Habits, but as gracious means: As the means are essentially as means for the end, and so animated by it; so the mediate Acts of Grace as mediate, are essentially animated by the love of the end, and participate of it. In this sense their Doctrine of the informing of other Graces by love, is not only true, but of very great weight, and giveth light to many other points. And thus as men of common Grace have only an abused, subdued Will or Love to God as their end, that's conquered by the contrary, so they have but an unanswerable faith in Christ, as the way to God the Father, and an answerable use of all other means, which will never bring them to attain the end that is so superficially and uneffectually apprehended and intended. I desire the learned Reader to peruse well the first Disputation of Rada for Scotus, on this question.  
Prop. 13. The Act of Love or Faith are considerable. 1. Physically: 1. In general as Faith and Love. 2. In special, as this Faith and Love about this object, the Father and the Son. And thus by common Grace men may have True Faith and Love; that is, such as is physically a true or real Act. 2. They are considerable morally: and that, 1. Either as Duty answering a Precept[ believe and love God.] And thus they have an analogical defective Morality in them, and so are that far, sincere or true; but not that same true Love or faith in specie moral which the Command requireth. For it commandeth us to love God above all, &c. 3. They are considerable as conditions of the Promises and Evidences of spiritual life in the soul, and thus wicked men by common Grace are never made Partakers of them. They have not the things themselves. Their Faith and Love is not the same thing which hath the Promises made to them in the Gospel; and so are not true or sincere.  
Prop. 14. By common Grace, men may love God under the Notion of the chiefest good, and most desirable end, and yet not with that Love which the chiefest good must be loved with; and therefore it is not morally sincere or saving.  
Prop. 15. There is no notion whatsoever that a true Christian hath of God, and no word that he can speak of him but an unregenerate man may have some apprehension of that same notion, and speak those words; and know every proposition concerning God and Christ as Redeemer, which a godly man may know: and so may have some love to God, or faith in Christ in that same notion: though not with such a clear effectual apprehension and lively powerful love, as the sanctified have.  
Object. He cannot love God as his end. Answer. I have proved before that he may with a superficial uneffectual subdued Love.  
Object. He cannot love him as the chief good. Answ. I have proved that he may love him under that notion, though not with that love which the chief Good must be loved with.  
Object. He cannot believe in Christ, or desire him, as a Saviour to free him from every sin. Answ. Not with a prevalent faith or desire; for still he hath more love then averseness to that sin; and therefore more Averseness then love to Christ as such: But as in general he may wish to be free from all sin, so in particular he may have uneffectual wishes to be from his most beloved sin in several respects.  
Object. But not to be free from sin as sin, or as against God. Ans. Yes: A man by common grace may know that sin as sin is evil, and therefore may have uneffectual wishes to be freed from it as such: but at the same time he hath stronger apprehensions of the pleasure, profit or credit that it brings him, and this prevaileth. Indeed mens carnal interest which in sin they love, is not its opposition to God, nor the formal nature of sin. Doubtless all men that are ungodly do not therefore love sin, because it is sin,& against God, at lest this is not so total in them, but that there may be a subdued mind to the contrary, and dislike of sin as against God. Many a common drunkard I have known, that when he hath heard or talked of sin& as sin, as against God, hath cried out against himself, and wept as if he abhorred it: and yet gone on in it for the pleasure of the flesh.  
Object. But where then is mans natural enmity to God and Holiness? Answ. 1. Its doubtful whether man naturally hath an enmity to God and Holiness, considered simply; or only considered as being against mans carnal interest. 2. But were the former proved, yet common Grace abateth that enmity, and gives men more then corrupted nature doth.  
Object. But the experience of the godly telleth them that it is another kind of Light and Love which they have after conversion then before. An. 1. It is not all Converts that can judge by experience in this; because all have not had common grace in the highest, or any great observed measure before conversion. 2. Its hard for any to make that experiment, because we know not in our change just when common Grace left and special Grace began. 3. A Physical gradual difference may be as great as that which your experience tells you of. Have you experience of common light and love before conversion, and of another since which differeth from it, more then the greatest flamme from a spark: and more then the sun-shine at noon from the twilight when you cannot know a man? Or more then the sight of the cured blind man, that saw clearly from that by which he saw men like trees,; or more then the pain of the strappado frrm the smallest prick of a pin.  
Object. But it is not common gifts that are worked up to be special Grace; one species is not turned into another. Answ. True: Imperfection is not turned materially into perfection. The dawning of the day is not materially turned into the greater light at noon. But a greater light superveneth, and is added to the less. The blind mans seeing men like trees, was not it that was the perfect following sight, but an additional light was it.  
Object. But special Grace is the divine Nature, the image of God, the new Creature, &c. and therefore doth differ more from common. Answ. I easily yield the Antecedeet, but deny the Consequence. The difference is as admirably great as these terms express, though it be but a moral specific difference.  
Reader, I will trouble thee no more, but to entreat thee, if thou be of another mind, to differ from me without breach of Charity, as I do from thee, and to remember that I obtrude not my explications on any; and if I have done thee wrong, it is but by telling thee my thoughts, which thou hast liberty to accept or reject as thou seest cause. But again, I entreat thee rather lay this by, or tear it out of the book, then it should he any stumbling block in thy way, or hinder thee from profiting by what thou readest. The Lord increase our Light and Life, and Love.   
Jan. 15. 1657.