I Humbly entreat you to tell me whe­ther you do not Judge it Sinful to stay at home on the Lords Day, ra­ther then go to Church only to hear the Common Prayer. Preaching doubtless is in no wise to be Negle­cted, but this I must say, that I cannot apprehend that that person has any Actings of that Faith which worketh by Love (without which All the Know­ledge we gain by Hearing Sermons does not Edify, but only Puff up the Mind) who when he comes to the Place of God's publick Worship, knowing that he may not expect a Sermon there, is not Con­fident that he shall be as much Edified by the Pray­ers, & Chapters &c. as he should be by never so good a Sermon. But however, by reason of the Ra­rity of the Habit of True Christian Faith (even in that part of the World, which we call Christen­dome) and the frequency of the long Interrupti­ons of its Actings, where it is, Various, & fresh Ex­pressions of Saving Truths (which are apt to Ex­cite the Minds of the Ʋnsanctifyed by the Phantasie to give heed to the Sense they import) are very Necessary. But This is most evident, that People are exceeding apt to take the Sensible Workings of [Page 2] their Soul stir'd up by the Novelty of Expressions in Sermons, & the Emphatical Pronunciation of the Preacher &c. for Fervency of SPIRIT; which Sen­sible Motions I presume you will grant are of no va­lue, otherwise than as they are Subservient to Ra­tional Abhorrence of all Sin, of all Inordinate Affe­ction to Finite Objects; or to a Rational, or Spiri­tual Inclination to the ONE INFINITE GOOD through JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, the Ef­fectual Notices of which INFINITE GOOD how is it possible but we should be continually stir'd up unto in the Hearing of the Common Prayer, if we would Apprehend the Free Offers of the Spirit of Truth, which the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ makes unto us in an Ʋnlimited Abundance in the Use of all such Means of Grace, as He calls us un­to. Here I could Run out with much Fervor of Indignation against the Despisers of these Means of Grace, & Strong Guards from those Accursed Er­rors, Socinianism &c. which whilst I liv'd in Ox­ford, seem'd to me to be coming in like a Mighty Torrent upon this Distracted Kingdom, whilst the Frequent Professions of Belief of the TRI­NITY, Gloria patri, and the Three Creeds were cast out of Our Churches. If it be say'd, what Refor­mation have we now? &c. I Reply, that one Reason of his Kingdom's Miscarriages, I might say Abo­minations, is, that some of those that are syncerely Learned, & Pious have not such an Esteem of our Liturgie, as they Ought to have; And hundreds of those that are thought by the Vulgar to be so, do themselves Despise it, or Countenance others in so doing.

You give me not any punctual Answer to my Question, whether you do not Judge it Sinful to stay at home (though to read Good Books &c.) on the Lords Day, rather than come to Church when nothing is to be heard there, but the Common Pray­er. You say you are more against spending the Lords Day in Idleness or in any thing which is worse, than in Hearing that alone. I thank God I was never so Mad, as to make a question of This: I have nothing to say to it but that I dislike these words, worse than the Common Prayer, which seem to insinuate that It is not Good. I am not guilty of slighting Preaching (as 'tis taken in contradistincti­on to Reading &c.) as you seem to Conceit.

I Affirm, that to Suit, or Proportion our Expe­ctations of Grace, in the Use of All Means whereun­to we are Called, to the Apprehensions of INFI­NITE Bounty, &c. is a Property of Saving Faith.

But, say you, GOD who appointeth several Means, doth usually work according to them; and when he with­draweth them it is a Judgment, which it were not, if he had promis'd as much Grace without them as with them.

I grant, that God who appointeth several Means, doth usually work according to them. But I utter­ly Deny, that when he withdraweth any Particular Means of Grace it is a Judgment to Him who is in the Act of syncere Love to the Blessed Jesus; for such a one is at All Times, and in All Places Under the Gracious Influences of the INFINITY of Light and Love, directing him how (by Submission to the Di­vine Will withdrawing any Particular Means of [Page 4] Grace, and by the Renewing his Resolutions to make a Right Use of all such Means as God shall at any time call him unto, &c.) He may Receive of the Fullness of Christ, in as great Measures, as he could have done in the Use of the Means withdrawn from him. The LORD give us both Understand­ing in all Things.

Now I have found the way by your Letter to discover your Thoughts concerning the Common Prayer, in your Printed Papers; I shall not trouble you with any more Post-Letters on that Subject: but shall stick to the Defence of this Great Truth, that the withdrawing of any particular Means of Grace is not a Judgment to him that is in the Act of Divine Love — Against which you Argue thus: That which tendeth to hinder his continuance in that Act of Love is a Judgment, but such is the withdrawing of some Means of Grace. I Answer, the withdrawing &c. is so far from being Directly, and in its own Nature that which tendeth to hinder &c. that, as It is in its own Nature, viz. the work of the Infinitely Good GOD, It is the Means of Grace, and he takes it for Such that is in the Act of Divine Love, as I endeavour'd to shew you in my last. We question not, say you, Gods bounty, but his Will: shew us a Promise that when a man is deprived of the Preaching of the Gospel, the Communion of the Church, the Company of all good men, and cast amongst impious deceivers, and haere­ticks, he shall have his love continued, and encreas'd as much as if he had better Means. I Answer, This Promise of Our Saviour, Whatsoever ye shall Aske the Father in my Name he will give it you (John 16.27.) [Page 5] would Ingage the Heart of any one in the Act of Divine Love, if God should put him into such a Condition, as you express, to expect from GOD through Our LORD JESUS, as much Grace or Im­provement of his Divine Temper under that Dispen­sation of Providence, as he knows he could have grounds to Expect in the Use of those Means of Grace which the Only Wise GOD has thought fit to Withdraw from him. But I am ready to say with you, If God should take away the Bible, and Preach­ing from the Land, I would take it for a Judgment, though the Common Prayer were lest us: neither did I ever say any thing to the contrary: but I have say'd implicitly, and shall upon all occasions say ex­presly, that nothing retains the Nature of a Judge­ment, or Sign of the Wrath of God, to him that is in the Act of Divine Love, which Essentially implies Rational Complacence in Every thing that proceeds from the Will of the Infinitely Good GOD, I do not Grant (as you may gather from what I have say'd) that any Particular Means of Grace are Better, or more Spiritually advantageous, than the being De­priv'd of them, will certainly be to him that Com­plies with the Divine Will in that Dispensation, Doing whatsoever is his Duty to do in Relation thereunto. If in saying we question not Gods Bounty, but his Will: and Gods bounty giveth Grace according to his Liberty of Will, you imply this Proposition (which I find asserted by a very Ingenious Person E. W. in his NO PRAEEXISTENCE p. 13.) that the Will of God sometimes Obstructs the effluxes of his Goodness; your meaning is False, as I shall Demon­strate, [Page 6] if you shall call me thereto. 'Twould be Absur'd indeed to say that Gods Bounty giveth Grace per modum naturae, quantum in se, but Gods Offers of Grace (as I have formerly exprest my self) are in an unlimited Abundance. Grace is Receiv'd by the Faithful Ad modum Recipientis: 'tis only the Measure, or Non-Ʋltra of the Recipients Expectancy that Stints its Influence.

I shall not give you, and my selfe the trouble of writing unto you any of my Reflexions on the for­mer part of your Letter, supposing that whatsoever is in it Opposite to my Assertion will be fully Refuted in my Reply to your Direct Answer to my last, beginning thus: But you have a Pro­mise that whatsoever we ask shall be given. Ans. yes; whatsoever you ask according to Gods Will: but it may be his will to punish a cold Love, and other Sins consistent with Love, and not to remove the punishment upon our asking; and indeed why should any man ask it that is of your opinion? But you describe him to be one that wholly complieth with the Divine Will, doing whatsoever is his Duty. You do not well to leave out these words of mine in that Dispensation and in Relation thereunto, for by them I signifyed the pray­ing conditionally for the Restoration of the Lost Means of Grace, and the using of all possile means for the Recovery of them, because it is our Duty so to do; not but that we may have sufficient grounds to Expect from God, in case he Judg'd fit not to Restore them, the same Grace we should Expect by the Restoration of them. This is a full Answer to those words of yours: one part of his Duty is to [Page 7] lament the Judgement of the removal of the Means, and to pray for the restoration (so that here you are self-con­tradictory) and to these words, why should any man ask it that is of your opinion? By an Act of Divine Love I understand such an Act of the Will, or Tendency of the Heart to God, as implies an Aversion from all Finite Objects, unless as they stand in Relation to Him, or (to speak more Accurately) As they are in Him. He that is in this Act has all things that are of God, actually Good unto him. And whatso­ever he Asks being Actually in this Divine Temper of Mind (which implies that Faith which Punishes the Heart) is certainly According to the Will of God, which is Our Sanctification (as the Apostle speaks) which certainly implies thus much; that God would have us to Ask nothing of him Prin­cipally and Absolutely but that we may be HOLY as He is HOLY. And that when we ask in Syncerity for Grace or Holiness in the Name of Jesus, It is alwayes the Will of God to supply the Defect of any Particular Means of Grace. But if you mean, say you, that as long as a man is perfect, and never sinneth no want of Means hurteth him, &c. I mean, as I have often say'd, that when a man is in the Act of Divine Love (as I have de­scrib'd it) no want of Means hurteth him, but it does not follow but it is Our Duty, as earnestly to Desire any particular Means of Grace when we are Depriv'd of them, as to make use of them when we have them, but this Desire, as of all things else but Grace, or Holiness, is but Conditional, or with Exception [...] (as the Royal Philosopher speaks) the Use of the Truth I Assert in this, and [Page 8] my other Letters, is to cure the Souls of men of this most dangerous Disease, viz. the Conceit that any thing can be Directly, and in its own Nature the Hindrance of our Attainment to further Degrees of Grace, or Holiness, save only the Naughtiness of Our own Hearts. From hence also it is manifest to those that understand that the Common Prayer is A­greeable to the Scriptures, that no man can be a Loser (as your word is in one of your Letters) by comming to the Place of Gods Publick Worship to Hear those Prayers when there is no Preaching there, unless by the Perverseness of his own Heart. I do not speak this to derogate from frequent Preach­ing; I know it is very Necessary, especially for Ʋn­sanctifyed people. I do not apprehend my self con­cern'd in what you bid me to demonstrate: but this proposition, Gods Will is the Same with Infi­nite Goodness, is a Demonstration of the Falseness of this, that Gods Will sometimes obstructs the Efflu­xes of his Goodness. I say further, that 'tis Essential to God being Infinite in Goodness, to Fill the Capa­cities of his Creatures According to His Infinite Wis­dom. Though the Almighty may not be say'd to give Grace per modum naturae, quantum in se, yet he may rightly be say'd to do it Secundum Naturam Bonitatis Infinitae. You do well to joyn Wisdom with Free-will, for All that the ALMIGHTY Does is According to the Councel, i. e. the Wisdom of his own Will, which imports the Communicativeness of his Goodness to all the Capacities of his Creatures. In Answer to my Saying that Gods Offers of Grace are in an unlimited Abundance, you write thus: Say you so? who made thee to differ? doth God do no [Page 9] more for any but offer them Grace? is the Recipient's Expectancy none of his Gift? can God make no man better than he is? nor take the Heart out of any man, otherwise than by offer? is not faith whereby we accept that offer, the Gift of God? doth a clod, or stone so stint Gods Influence that he could not make it an An­gel, if he pleas'd? nor make any creature nobler, or o­ther than it is? Doth God give as much Grace to all the Infidel Heathen World, as to Christians? or do they so stint his Influence that he can give them no more? Woe to us, if we have no more than the ge­neral Offers of Grace, and yet I believe not that this offer is unlimited, or equall to all the World. Good Sir, Be not so hasty, do not run on in a conceit that my words import that we make our selves to Differ from the Ʋnsanctified. Doth God do no more, say you, for any, but offer them Grace? I answer; that Gods Offering of Grace is the making of men presently Capable of Doing his Will, by the Assistance of his Good Spirit; So that All the Acts or Inclinations to Act, of Gra­cious Souls, as such, are the Gift of God. The Re­cipient's Expectancy is the Gift of God, but the Non-Ʋltra, or Desiciency of it, is of himself. Can God make no man better than he is? To this, I An­swer; Any mans being Better than he is, is not the Object either of Gods Volition, or Nolition: Not of the former, for then (you know) His Will would be Resisted: Not of the latter, for then he would be the Direct Cause of the Crea­tures not Doing what He hath Commanded him to Do: the onely Cause then that any man is not [Page 10] what he Ought to be, is the Perverseness of his own Will. As to the words following, Nor take, &c. If you think sit to continue this Dispute, and express what you mean by them in a plain way of Opposition to any thing that I have said, I shall give you an Answer. Doth a Clod or Stone, &c. I Answer; Any such Creature may be Annihilated, and another Angel Created, but that It should be made an Angel (if we speak in sensu rigoroso) implyes a Contradiction. Every Creature is in its own Nature Res OPTIMA, though some Crea­tures are Better to Us than others, because they do more Exhibit to us the Notice of the Divine Good­ness; and some Creatures are better to themselves than others, because they do more Enjoy It, which is ALL in them All. God knows, I do not Affect Obscurity of Expression, but such Deep Things cannot be set forth in Vulgar Phrase. To what you say of the Heathen World, I shall make no other Reply but this, that Gods Judgments are Ʋn­searchable, and his Wayes past finding out.

But though we cannot shew How Many Truths concerning his Boundless Goodness &c. do com­port with what we apprehend of His Wayes in ma­ny Instances of His Dealings with the Sons of Men, it does not follow, that we should thereupon in the least Scruple at these Truths.

That Gods Offers of Grace are in an Ʋnlimited Abundance (which you say you do not believe) I prove thus: If God cannot be the Direct Cause of Stinting the Influences of His Grace or Goodness into the Hearts of Men, Then his Offers of Grace [Page 11] are in an Ʋnlimited abundance: But God cannot be the Direct Cause, &c. The Minor is evident in this, That the Essence of God is Infinite Goodness.

I shall in this Paper give you my Reflexions but on some part of your last Letter, wherein there are many things so pertinently Express'd in Op­position to what I have written to you, that my Reflexions, or rather Animadversions thereon, are exceeding Advantageous unto me, for the Im­provement of my most Satisfactory Speculations concerning the Divine Goodness, whose Infinity we must be ever Careful that we do not derogate from, upon any Pretences of Preserving the Liber­ty of the Divine Will. Liberty of Will (so far as it implyes Perfection, must of necessity be implied in the Notion of the Infinity of Being. I declare This to be the Root of all my Apprehensions in Theological Matters, EST ƲNƲM SIMPLICI­TER INFINITƲM.

I shall now betake my self to the Consideration of what you say in your last Letter. I think I need not give any other Reply to that you say, No man doth use all possible Means for the Recove­ry, &c. but only to tell you, that by all possible Means, I understand All things which we Know to be such Means, being also Assur'd that 'tis possi­ble for us to use them as such. On my Explica­tion of what I understand by an Act of Divine Love, your Animadversion is this: How easie had it been for you to have told me, whether you mean a per­fect Love, or an Imperfect culpably, and a perfect [Page 12] Aversion, &c. or a culpably Imperfect? I must confess, I have observ'd so many Learned men needlesly En­tangling themselves in the hardest Knots of Con­troversie by reason of these words, Perfection, and Imperfection Attributed to the workings of mens Hearts, that I have thought it my Duty to do what I can do to avoid the use of them; but since you Urge me to it, I shall Tell you that the Motion, or Tendency of the Heart, which I call an Act of Di­vine Love, does not imply, or include in its Nature any culpable Imperfection, but is as contrary to all Love of Creatures, or Finite Objects (unless only such as arises from their Relation to the First Being) as Light is to Darkness.

To my saying that he who is in the Act of Di­vine Love has All things that are of God, Actually Good unto him, you Answer thus: While he is sin­fully imperfect in this Act, he hath not the perfection which he wants, nor that complacential acceptance with God, nor that perfect freedom from castigatory Pe­nalities internal, or external, nor that Glory which would be good to him; and all this is of God. I An­swer; As to Castigatory Penalties, so far as they import nothing but what may be imputed unto God, as the Author thereof, they are Actually good to Him, viz. they All ork together for his Good, whilst he is in the Act of Divine Love, and all his Reflexions thereon are the Rejoycing of his Heart. The Perfections he wants &c. are not, but only in GOD, the Fullness of All that he Wants: and cer­tainly it is actually Good for him, That there is in God whatsoever is Wanting unto him. By being [Page 13] Actually in this Divine Temper, I mean the exert­ing of an Act of Divine Love, or Adhaerence of the Heart unto God, in which Act there is nothing Culpable, though there may remain Dispositions in the Heart very contrary thereunto, from which it often comes to pass, that many of us who are in some measure Sanctified Sink deep into such Impu­rities of Heart, and Mind, as we sometimes Fancy our selves Elevated so far Above, that there's no Danger of Falling into them. But I can far more easily Describe what it is to be Holy, i. e. to be in the Light, than Discourse accurately, and Clearly of the Works of Darkness. He cannot Ask any thing not Agreeable to the Divine Will, who Desires no­thing, but This, or in Subordination thereunto, that his Will may be Conformable to the Divine Will in All things. Whether he Pray Directly, and Expresly for Things Temporal, or Spiritual, he Actuates his Heart in a way of Conformity to the Will of God, who Prays, as he Ought, viz. Ask­ing in Faith, which worketh by Love. I suppose by what I have already say'd, you will perceive, that in Asking for Holiness we Virtually Ask for Justifi­cation, or Pardon, and the continuance of being &c. And when we expresly Ask for these According to the Mind of Christ, We Virtually Ask for Holiness, or Purity of Heart. The Consummation whereof is the Fullness of Life, and Glory. All Desires of Ho­liness are Acts of Holiness Consider's with Respect to their Efficacy to make way for furhter Act, or Tendencies of Heart unto God. The Free Mercy of GOD in JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD is the [Page 14] Root, and Principle of all that Good which grow­eth in Us, or (if you will) in which We Grow: the Sense of which is implyed in all Motions of the Heart acceptable unto God. By Absolutely, I mean but what we are to understand by First in the Gospel, where Our Saviour sayes, Seek ye First the Kingdom of God, &c. i. e. Chiefly, and Principally, so as to Ask nothing else but in Sub­ordin ation thereunto, and upon Condition, if it conduce to our furtherance in the Ways of Holiness, which Lead unto Everlasting Glo­ry. I do still most confidently Averr, that this is a most Dangerous Disease of the Soul, to Conceit that any thing can be Directly, and in its own Na­ture, the Hind'rance of Our Attainment to farther Degrees of Grace, save only the Naughtiness of Our own Hearts. But, say you, Must we not care­fully avoid that which Indirectly hinders also? I An­swer, We must Avoid, or Set our Heart against no­thing but what we find to be the Will of God, Reveal'd in his Word, that we should Loath, or be Averse from. Any thing, which for ought we know, God will bring to pass, as to the Depriving us of any particular Means of Grace, we must en­deavour to prevent by all wayes of Duty to God, and Man, which we Apprehend probable to prove Successfull for the Prevention thereof. But we must have a Care that our Heart be Mov'd against this, which for ought we know God will effect for the Glory of His Name, [...], with Ex­ception, as I spake in my last.

You say the penal withholding of the Operations of [Page 15] the Spirit is a Direct Hindrance, and in its own Na­ture.

If it be True that whatsoever God is the Author of, can never be in any wise Evil to us, but only by our Wrong, or Perverse apprehensions of it, then I suppose you will grant that this Proposition of yours bears no Force against me. And whether this be a Truth or no, I shall referr you to Consi­der by taking a Review of what I have already Written of the Divine Goodness. And by your most Serious, and unprejudic'd Judgement of what I shall say hereafter in giving my Reflexions on your Animadversions, on my saying that Gods Will is the Same with Infinite Goodness, &c.

The Good Lord Lift up the Light of His Coun­tenance upon Us, that we may at length attain to the Full Enjoyment of the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I shall here present you some more of my Appre­hensions of the IMMENSE Influence of the Di­vine Goodness upon All, and Every Part of the Cre­ation. I am Conscious to my self of the smalness of my Abilities to Express such a Truth in any way answerable to the Excellency, and Importance thereof. But some Sparklings of that Light, viz. the Notion I have of the IMMENSITY of the Di­vine Goodness, which from my Youth up has given me far greater Satisfactions than I should ever have had in all the Learning in the World without it, some Sparklings, I trust, you will perceive in these following Lines.

You say to these words of mine, Gods Will is the Same with infinite Goodness, Very true: but the Que­stion is, what that Goodness is? I say it is not a Will to communicate to Creatures as much Good, as he can; For then the World had been Eternal &c. I Answer that the Goodness of God is Himself, the INFINI­TY of Goodness, Wisdom, Power, of all Excel­lency, and Perfection. 'Twas not Essential to Him to Create, i. e. not necessary for the INFINITY of Being to Produce out of Himself these Finite Essen­ces, But they being Produc'd by His Power, ac­cording to His Wisdom i. e. the Councell of His IN­FINITELY Good Will, 'tis Essential, or Necessary to His being INFINITE, to be ALL in them All. The Divine Power being INFINITE, such Expres­sions as these, as many Creatures as God can make &c. can in no wise import any Reality to the Ʋn­derstanding. To your saying that All Saints, and Angels would have the same Degree of Glory, I Answer, that there is no Want in Heaven, no Absence, or Privative Not-Being of any Degree of Glory, or Communicated Divine Goodness; there is nothing but Refulgency of the GLORIOƲS DIVINE NATƲRE. That one Creature should be better to It self, and to other Creatures, is most Rational to conceive, it being no way Inconsistent with the Notion of the One Infinite Goodness. As for Damnation, this I say, So far as it imports nothing else but what is of God; It is in its own Nature altogether Good: It becomes Evil only to those to whom the Infinity of Love is a Consuming Fire. There's nothing Absolutely, and in its own Nature Evil but SIN. But of all Instances, [Page 17] you say, there's non that confutes me more than the per­mission of Sin. To this I Answer, that by Permis­sion of Sin we must not conceive any thing of which we may say It is of God, but only His making such Creatures, whose Nature implies a Possibility of Sinning, and the continuing them in Being after they have Sinned.

There is, say you, an Higher thing in God, which is his Goodness, even his Infinite Perfection, and Love to himself, which is to be communicated according to his Wisdom and Free Will, and not as a natural ne­cessary emanation from his Essence to the utmost of his absolute Power. To this I Answer, first, that Ʋtmost Power is in no wise to be spoken of God, whose Power is INFINITE. Secondly, I do conceive that your Notion here is not Contrary to mine, though it come somewhat short of it. I think your Meaning is not Opposite to what I Understand by the Diffusiveness of the Divine Goodness, but only to any Conceit of the Limitation of the Divine Pow­er, which no Creature is Able to Resist. There can be no Impediment to It ab extra &c. but I add nei­ther ab Intra, call it Negative, or Self-Limiting, or what you please. Therefore I say again, 'tis Essen­tial to Infinite Goodness to fill the Capacities of His Creatures &c. which, I think, I shall clearly De­monstrate thus: That which does not Fill all Cre­ated Capacities is not Infinite, Therefore &c. But perhaps you will say is not a Sinner Capable of be­ing Sanctified. I Answer, that Sin is the Creatures making It self Uncapable for the present of the Divine Goodness through a false Conceit that the [Page 18] Creator is not All in All. For I hold, yea I know, and am perfectly Assur'd, that this Conceit is Virtu­ally, if not Formally implyed in all Sin, or Aversi­on of the Heart fro Our HOLY ONE. My using these words Secundum Naturam Bonitatis Infinitae, was not (as you say) to hide the Sense, but to pre­vent your Opinion that I should hold such an Ab­surdity as this, that God Acts any thing ad ulti­mum Posse, which words can in no wise be spoken of God: but it seems I had not my Aim. For in the Close of your Letter you tell me that you think my work is to Prove, that God communicateth Good Naturally to the utmost of his absolute Power, as the Sun doth its influence of Light, Heat and Motion. God Forbid that I should undertake to Prove that God acts like a Finite Agent, as Finite, as having any Ʋtmost, or Limited Power. Whether I misun­derstand Goodness (which is another Passage in your Letter) I shall entreat you to Consider, by what I shall say of it in my present Reflexions upon these words of yours. His Goodness, even his infinite Per­fection, and Love to Himself. This is GOD Him­self, He is His own infinite Joy, and Life, and Glo­ry. He is All in all Things, and events, Sin only excepted, Enjoying Himself in these small Crea­tures, which are so contemptible in the Sight of Men, no less than in the most Glorious of the Hea­venly Hosts. And the more we Partake of the Di­vine Nature the more we Delight Ourselves in all the Works both of Creation, and Providence.

Here I cannot but tell you, that I Hate as the Gates of Hell the Folly and Madness of some of the [Page 19] Adversaries of Our Liturgie, which prompted them to speak contemptuously (under Pretence forsooth of Zeal for the Pure Service of God) of that Excel­lent Hymn.

O all ye Works of the Lord, Bless ye the Lord, Praise him, and Magnifie Him for Ever.

O all ye Angels of the Lord, Bless ye the Lord &c.

There is, say you, a Negative Limitation which is not in Gods Power, and you seem to grant it to be in his Wisdom, which you truly call the Councell of his Will. But what Wisdom doth, it doth as the Guide of the Will, and therefore as Wisdom is the reason of it [I suppose you mean of a mans not being Actual­ly better than he is; for you say in the next Page, that our want of Goodness is the consequence of a meer Non Velle] negatione Directionis, so the Will must needs be the cause of it negatione Volitionis. To this I Answer, that the cause that any man is not better than he is, is not that God cannot make him Better, i. e. that there is any Defect of Power in God: neither can it be rightly said, that God can make him Better than he is, For I understand those words, as you rightly conjecture in sensu composito. But perhaps you will say God could have made him Better than he is. To this I Answer, that the mak­ing him better than he is was never the Object of the Divine Power, of which there can be no other Object ad Extra, but what is judg'd fit to be brought to pass by that Wisdom which is Essenti­ally the Same with Infinite Goodness. This deep thing (let me presume to tell you in all Humility) requires your Utmost Attention. Neither are these [Page 20] Negations (if we may put a Periphrasis of Nothing in the Plural number) of Wisdom to Direct, of Will to Execute the Cause, &c. For of meer Negation there is No Issue, or Consequence. All that you say, Reflecting upon my words con­cerning the Object of Gods Volition or Nolition, &c. I do most Affectionately Approve, as im­porting very much of the same Truth, for want of which Dr. Twisse (whom you mention) seems to me in many Passages of his Controversial Writ­ings, to Rave (and Talk indeed like a Scholar, but like one out of his Right Wits) rather than to Dispute. But you seem to Faulter very much, when you come to say, that our want of Goodness is the Consequence of meer Non Velle. For (as I said but now) of a meer Negation, or Nullity, i. e. of Nothing, there is no Issue or Consequence at all. I think, say you, that it is not true, that Volitio quà Talis efficit ad Extra, sed tantùm quatenus per Potentiam Operatur. To this I Answer, Volitio Di­vina ad Extra, quà Talis, Divina inquam, Efficit ad Extra, nam Essentialitr includit Sapientiam, & Po­tentiam Infinitam. To these words, Omnis Volitio non est Efficiens (for God willeth himself) much less omnis Nolitio, I Answer thus: Gods Willing of Himself may not properly be term'd Efficient, but it is Effectual, or to the Purpose; that is, which He Willeth to Be: And every Object of His Volition ad Extra, Is or Shall be, Through the Efficacy of His Power, set on work by the Infinite Goodness of the Councel of his Will. As for the Divine Nolition, this I say: By it we mean [Page 21] not the Negative of Volition, but an Adverse Act of the Will, which Essentially implying Infinite Wisdom and Power, can never be Frustrated, but alwayes Effects the Opposite to that, to which it is Adverse: So that if any man's being Actually Bet­ter than he is, were the Object of Divine Nolition it must needs follow that God would be the Direct Cause of the Opposite thereof, viz. that the man is Actually so Bad, as he is. What then is the Cause &c? I say again, Onely the Preverseness of his own Will: Sin only can be the Cause of Sin. What Cause than had the first Sin? why (as in effect I have say'd already) none at all. Mans own Perverse­ness of Will, say you, was not the Cause of his First Perverting, or Sin. When we speak of Perversness of Will with Reference to the First Sin, we mean nothing but the First Sin under that Notion, not that this Perverseness of Will is Really Distinct from the First Act of the Will Perverted. I can­not translate OPTIMA into any English, so suitable to my Conceptions, as these words FƲLL of Good­ness. I did not retire into Silence (as you speak) at the Instance of the Heathens, but Told you this Cer­tain Truth, That we Ought not to Deny our As­sent to such Evident Propositions, as this, that 'Tis Essential to Infinite Goodness to Fill the Capacities of all Creatures; so that properly, and in the strict­est sense there is no Evil, but the Aversion of the Will of the Creature from the Will of the Infinitely Good, and Wise, and Powerful Creator: To this, I say, we ought not to Deny our Assent, because we cannot give an account of some Particular Wayes of [Page 22] Providence i. e. of the Modes, or several Kinds of the Influence of Infinite Goodness upon some Parts of the Creation. Modes &c. we Attribute only ab Extrinseco to the Divine Providence, they being on­ly in the Creatures. The Reason, or Proof of this Consequence, if God cannot be the Direct cause of Stainting &c. is this, because if He cannot be the Direct Cause of Stinting his Influence &c. It is on His Part Ʋnstinted, that is to say, in an Ʋnlimited Abundance. But, say you, God may Non Agere without any Stinting Cause: what restrain'd him from making the World from Eternity? To this I Answer, though God may Non Agere without a Cause in such a Sense as you Instance in, yet there is al­wayes some Cause of his Not-Giving Grace to any man to Do what He Commands him; not that there can be any Impediment put upon God, but that He is ab Extrinseco Denominated Not-Giving Grace for that the Creature does not Receive it from him, the Cause of which Non-Reception is only the Per­versness of his own Will, which indeed is nothing else, but his Aversion from the Divine Goodness.

To your Objection against my Description of Gods Offering of Grace. viz. Offering is less than making, and making is more than offering &c. I An­swer thus: Every Real Offer must needs imply the Presenting of the Object of Reception: wherever there is an Object of Reception, there is a Capacity or Power to Receive: There can be no Power to Receive that which is Good, but only from GOD: Therefore I do again most Confidently a­verr, that Gods Offering of Grace is the making of [Page 23] men Presently Capable of Doing His Will, or (as we may speak) of receiving His Commands, By the Assi­stance of His Holy Spirit.

From my Description of Gods Offering of Grace there may be an Objection rais'd against what has been so Earnestly insisted on, viz. that the Divine Goodness fills all the Capacities of His Creatures &c. But the Answer is Easie. viz. that the Present Ca­pacity of Doing the Will of God is Fill'd, i. e. the Will of God is Done According to that Capacity, where the Capacity is not Instantly Nullifyed by the Creatures Sinning, or Averting itself from the Di­vine Goodness. The Sense whereof that I may more vigorously Excite in the Mind of the Learned and Pious Reader I shall here give him my Latine Translation (together with the Original) of an Ex­cellent Prayer compos'd in English Verse by the Incomparable Mrs. K. P. The Same Sense in two Languages seems to me to Condense the Thoughts of the Reader, and to give the greater Strength to their Influence upon His Affections.