Speculum theologiæ in Christo, or, A view of some divine truths which are either…

2. Its efficacy as to actual believing and willing.

3. Its efficacy as to perseverance in the faith.

The first thing is its efficacy as to the Principle of Faith, and other Graces. By the Principle of Faith, I mean not the natural power of believing. God doth not command us to take down the Sun, for which we have no faculties; but to believe, for which we have an understanding and a will; no natural faculty is wanting.¹ Hence St. Austin saith, the posse of believing, is of nature. This power in fallen man, because in conjunction with natural impotency, never arrives at the effect. The natural faculties are by the fall so vitiated, that though in a sense he can, yet he will not believe. Trahit sua quemque voluptas, one lust or other so attracts him, that he cannot a se impetrare ut velit, he cannot find in his heart to do it. He hath a kind of can in his natural faculties, but the corruption blasts the effect. Neither do I mean that power, which, as some Divines say, is supernatural, yet not an habit or vital principle of faith. Nature being fallen, Grace (say they) gives a second power to set the will in aequilibrio; but that power doth not, as an habit, incline or dispose a man to actual believing. This power, as I take it, is nothing but Nature and Free-will. I see not how it should be distinct from it. There are (as the Learned Doctor Twiss hath observed) three things in the soul; that is, Powers, Habits, and Passions. Powers may be the ⟨p. 271⟩subjects of Habits and Passions; but may a Power be the subject of a Power? A natural power of a supernatural one? This looks like a Monster. By the same reason Habits may be the subjects of Habits, and Passions of Passions. And is this power of believing, free or not? If free, then it is not supernatural; it may be a principle of not believing, and that nothing supernatural can be. If not free, then it determines the event, but to what? To not believing? then it is not supernatural. To believing? then all men (having, as these men say, the power) must infallibly believe, which Scripture and experience deny. I mean therefore such a Principle of Faith, as is an habit and vital Principle; such as is seminally and virtually faith; such as hath the nature and essence of faith; such as inclines and disposes to actual believing, and before the act, denominates a man a believer. When the act of faith comes forth into being, is it from a believer, or from an unbeliever? If from a believer, then there was an habit of faith before.