Creators] A word, never before, as I think, heard of in our Church. All the Churches Christian have been forbidden, by the Catholick Religion, to say, there be Three Lords, or Three Almighties: and why not, Three Creators also? for so he saith, that saith Creators, because of the Trinitie of Persons, according as his Answer is to the fifth Question. But he consulted the Original, and found it so, as we are told in his margin: but he should withall have been advised by them that are skilfull in the He­brew, whether Jews or Christians, and then perhaps he would have found it to be no more than Enallage numeri, one number for another, the plural put for the singular. Every one is to be credited in his own art, and every one in his own language. Mercer, of whom Thuanus spared not to write, Neminem un­quam Christianum feliciùs Hebraisâsse, would not turn it, Memento Creatorum: but this he tells us there, that the Jews, de Deo passim solent loqui pluraliter, when they speak of God, use to speak in the plural num­ber. And Aben-Ezra goes further, as I finde him in M^r Scldens Titles; Every tongue, saith he, hath its property. As it is honourable in the languages of Eu­rope for an inseriour to speak to a great man by the plu­ral [Page 13] number: So likewise in the holy tongue it is honour­able, to speak of a Potentate plurally, as Adonim, Baa­lim] the Idiome of their language is not of God onely, but of any great Person, to speak in the plu­ral number.

Amama might have satisfied him in this matter: who censureth the Vulgar for Deos alienos, in the first precept, and thinks with Drusius, and divers Papists, it should be, Deum alium: if therefore the Catechist intended to alter the English version, and shift the numbers, he should have done it for the better, and not for the worse. 1 Sam. 28.13. I saw gods ascend­ing. They may alledge good reason, who make it Divum ascendentem, I saw a god ascending, or rising up out of the earth, (Samuel was a Judge, and Jud­ges are gods) whom we have reason to hear for congruities sake, who read that which follows thus; What form is HE of? in the singular. When Zanchy had written De tribus Elohim, Grotius took exception at that Title; and Ludovicus Capellus de­fendeth it so, that withall he excuseth it, as Cata­chrestical, and an [...] It is not good trusting children and common people, with such expressions, as offend some, and put others, of the learnedest men that this present age hath seen, to explicate and mol­lifie. Yet I enter not the Controversie, in which so great parties are dissenting, What soliditie or strength of Argument, may be had from hence, for the Article of the Sacred Trinity: I insist onely upon this; The Noveltie, & the Scandal, of rendring such words plurally in vulgar languages.

I think him much mistaken in unfolding those words of our Church-Catechisme [The sinfull lusts of the flesh]. It had been a good work to have in­structed his scholars, in the right meaning of the word flesh, as it is taken in that place. The Jews, as Buxtorfius tells us in his Synagoga, when their chil­dren come to be past seven, are wont to learn them Nomenclations, and how to call and know by the right names, those things that are of daily use in life and common converse. Without presumption to give direction, a great part may be allotted in the first in­stitution, to the explication of Divinitie-terms, for want of which, wholesome and sound discourses are often either quite lost, or serve to breed in men, mis­takes and errours.

Our three enemies, to be fought against, and re­nounced, are the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. Now in this Answer M^r Horn takes the word Flesh, for the work of God, or created nature, even such as [Page 15] was in our blessed Saviour, as by his text of Joh. 4. appears. But it is not the sinfull lusts of the Flesh; it is the Flesh, which in Scripture ordinarily, without any manner of Addition, is spoken of, as our Spiri­tual enemy, and it signifies, not the Body, nor yet sense and appetite, inferiour to reason; but it signi­fies the corruption of our nature, repugnant to the Law of God, defiling Body and Soul, and the high­est faculties of the minde. And thus the best of Po­pish expositours interpret the word; howsoever o­thers of them so give the meaning, that many of their common followers, think that to crucifie the flesh, is to starve themselves; as they think that to renounce the world, is to go into a Monastery, where they enjoy the plenty of the world, without the trou­ble that belongs to it. A man would think, saith Saint Augustine, De Civ. Dei, lib. 14. cap.2. that the Epi­cureans lived according to the flesh, because they followed bodily pleasures: and the Stoicks accord­ing to the Spirit, because they placed happiness in the minde; Sed sicut loquitur Scriptura divina, secun­dùm carnem vivere utrique monstrantur: but accord­ing as the holy Scripture speaketh, both of them live according to the flesh. That which deceived him, was, as I suppose, the Epithet of sinfull: as if there­fore some lusts of the flesh were not sinfull. Where­as Epithets are not always put for distinction, but of­ten for Amplification and Efficacy. So may we read Vastum aequor, gelidum Boream, for Emphasis, and not Difference: and in Hebr. 12. 23. Spiritus justo­rum [Page 16] perfectorum: out of which one of the Pontifici­an writers would prove Purgatory: This sheweth, saith he, that there are spirits of just men, not yet made perfect. A weak argument: as it was a wicked one of another, that said the Apostle Peter did insi­nuate some service of Idols to be lawfull, because he said, 1 Epist. 4. 3. according to their vulgar, illicitis idolorum cultibus, unlawfull services of Idols.

The World, Flesh, and Devil, which we have re­nounced, are enumerated by the Apostle, Ephes. 2. v. 2, and 3. This world, said he there: our Church added an Epithet, This wicked world. The lusts of our Flesh, said the Apostle: our Church added an E­pithet, sinfull lusts; but neither of them for diffe­rence, but for Emphasis and Aggravation.

Qu. and Answ. 40. in marg.

Good and Evil here, do not signifie, Duty, and Sin; or, Obedience, and Disobedience; but Happi­ness, and Misery: happiness to be enjoyed; and mise­ry to be undergone.

And Knowledge here, signifieth Experience, or as we commonly call it, Wosull Experience; when they [Page 17] should know Good by the losse of it, and Evil by the sense of it. Howsoever Satan took occasion from the name, to abuse the womans credulity, and curio­sity, as if she should, have attained some rare know­ledge, that would have made her blessed, and even God-like.

As therefore the one of the two, was called the Tree of Life, so might the other be called, for so it was, the Tree of Death, and plainly they were told, that whensoever they did eat of it, they should die the death. This being the reason of the name, as it is in a manner agreed upon by all, I marvell why our Authour should balk it, and give us two other reasons why it is called the tree of Knowledge; whereof, the one is obscure; and the other unsound, referring it to Gods knowledge, as if God did there­by come to know what man would do.

Yet should I not have noted this, or made any stay at it, but that I know how far the Socinians have gone in denial of Divine Prescience, and what haste some of the Remonstrants make in following after them, and what Doctrine one of the prime Univer­salists delivered long ago, namely, Fr. Puccius in his Catholick Assertion of the Efficacie of Christs Death in all men, as they are men; confuted both by Papist and Protestant above three score years now past. The ways of Men and Angels, saith he, before the fall, and after the fall, which they might have gone in, and did not, as well as those they did go in, were both alike foreseen of God; not these, more then those; adeòut [Page 18] juxta sensum humanism possemus dicere cum ignoras­se quae nos contingentia dicimus.

I grant that in holy Scripture, God is said to Tempt or trie, and no more then that is said here; and that in Genes.22. 12. Now I know thou fearest God, is just as much as is said, v.1. God did tempt Abraham. But who knoweth not, that this, and many the like are spoken humanitùs, in a manner of speech bor­rowed from men; as when he doeth, as a man being angry useth to do; then is he said to be angry: and when he doeth, as a man that repenteth him of any­thing, useth to do, then is he said to repent: So com­manding Abraham to offer his son, yet not intending that he sould offer him, he is said to tempt, or trie him; because he did ad similitudinem tentantis, after the manner of men, who will usually do or say this, or that, onely to learn or know, the purpose or disposition of another, as yet unknown. And in like sort it may be said, that God did tempt or trie Adam, in the Precept touching the tree of know­ledge: But then, first, let us not make more figu­rative or tropical locutions than need, or than there are. And secondly, whatsoever improper speeches there are found in Gods word; that should be pro­per, and plain, and easie, that is intended for the ca­pacity and instruction of children. They should be told, and the common people also, what irreligious principles, those who plead so hard, for Their liber­tie of mans will, after all their tragical declamations, are forced to maintain, that so they may tremble to [Page 19] set foot in such ways, as necessarily, and naturally end, among other things, in denying Gods fore­knowledge of humane actions. For what good Christian is there that will not soon take check at this, though but meanly seasoned with Religion?

In the Question and Answer 83. he sheweth how Christ did exercise the office, of a Prophet, of a King, and of a Priest; of the last, in these words.

The preparatives, that were, to Christs death, or Sacrifice of himself, we may call those infirmities, which together with our nature, he took upon him: meaning not personal infirmities, as diseases, or distempers, of this or that sort, but such as accom­pany mankinde in general, hunger, thirst, weariness, fear, pain, grief, and mortalitie: we may reckon also his devout obedience, his humilitie, & voluntary hu­miliation, or empoverishing of himself, his vehe­m nt supplications, with strong crying and tears. As these, did forego his Sacrifice, so did they prepare so it: but that his death should be a preparation to his Sacrifice; and that his Sacrifice should onely be prepared on earth, and offered in Heaven; is a new part of learning, and soundeth somewhat strange, out of what shop soever it came and to what pur­pose soever it was first forged.

Our Church hath taught us, that Christ suffer­ing upon the cross, did make THERE, a full, per­fect & sufficient Sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, and our Saviour said upon the Cross, It is finished. [Page 21] And when the Apostle to the Colossians, C.2.V.14. saith that the handwriting was blotted out, and ta­ken out of the way, or, out of sight, and (to make it past all fear of ever being produced against us) that it was nailed to his cross, that is, cancelled, and torn in pieces; there needeth nothing more to be said, to let us know that there needeth nothing more to be done, for perfecting the Sacrifice and expiation. For whether he speaketh in reference to the Cere­monial, or the moral law or both, it was a full and complete Sacrifice to the purpose intended. And holy Scripture plainly speaketh of his death, and Sa­crifice, as precisely the same: the altar being the cross, and no other propitiatory Sacrifice, but his body crucified and dead. Hebr.9. 26, 28. Christ must not offer often, because he must not suffer of­ten, and he must not suffer often, because it is ap­pointed for men once, and but once to die: To offer, and to suffer, and to die; are in this case, made the very same thing. And even in common speech, and in common sense, the sacrifice of any thing consist­eth in the killing of it: and if it be of a thing ina­nimate, then it consisteth in the consuming of it: but neither killing nor consuming, is the preparing of the Sacrifice. Where was Christ slain? was it not upon the earth? yes: and shall he be sacrificed in heaven? or where was ever the killing the sacri­fice, called the preparing of it?

There was among the Jews, the Preparation of the Pass-over; and the killing of the Pass­over, [Page 22] and the eating of the Pass-over, these three. It is true that the killing of it, did prepare for the eating of it. But the eating of it, was the Sacrament of it, not the Sacrifice of it. The pla­ces or texts of Scripture, such as carry any colour, may be considered. Hebr. 8. 4. For if he were on earth, he should not be a Priest, seeing that there are Priests that offer gifts according to the law.] From which words, he may as well gather, that Jesus Christ was not a Priest at all, upon earth, as that he did not complete his sacrifice upon earth: but it was granted he was a Priest in preparing the Sacrifice. Answ. to Qu. 83. By shewing the meaning of that place, his mistake will appear. The Apostle prefer­reth Jesus Christ before the Levitical High Priest, among many other respects, in this for one, The place, where now he is. Our High Priest is in hea­ven, made higher then the heavens, c. 7. v. 26. c. 8. v. 1. A minister of the Sanctuary, vers. 2. that is, The Holy of Holies, the Oracle, or most sacred Quire, wherein, under the law, the High Priest one­ly did officiate: which place, as formerly, it did ty­pifie, so here it doth signifie heaven it self. On this, dependeth the fourth verse: wherein he pro­veth that if a Christ be a Priest, as that [...] was ta­ken for granted; he must be a Priest in heaven, for if he were on earth, he should not be so much as a Priest, much less a High Priest. For Priests on earth offer gifts prescribed by the Levitical law: such gifts Christ did not offer: such a Priest therefore [Page 23] Christ was not, he was not of the tribe of Levi: no Levitical Priest, therefore he offered no Levitical gifts: other earthly Priests there are to do that. Therefore must he be a Priest offering in heaven, or no Priest at all. Now our Catechist should have considered, how these words, in verse 4. are brought in, and to what they belong, the Apostle speaketh not now of sacrifices, slain and offered in the Tem­ple, by the Priests; but of such oblations as were made by the High Priest in the most holy place, in­to which he entred once a year, and thereby did sha­dow out our High Priest, who entred into heaven, and offered there such services as we needed, af­ter that he had finished the Sacrifice of himself on earth.

In this Epistle are often mentioned, and distin­guished, gifts, and sacrifices: in this fourth verse, onely, gifts are named; all sacrifices are gifts, but all gifts are not sacrifices. Our High Priest being ascend­ed into heaven, offereth, as a Gift, not as a Sacrifice, himself; and the merit of his passion, as the High Priest carryed the bloud into the Oracle: And as Aaron did bear the names of the twelve tribes upon his breast, so doth our High Priest, the names of all his faithfull people: he offereth prayers for them, and incense with their prayers, that they may be accepted.

But especially he would abuse his Reader here upon the Homonymie or ambiguitie of the word, offer: which though by frequent use it be in some [Page 24] sort appropriate to sacrifices, yet is it sometimes otherwise used, as, To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other; and, if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? it may mean no more than to tender, exhibit, shew: no more than to proffer, produce, or bring forth: as much as to pre­sent, or represent, if we take this word, after the Latine use, which is, to bring forth any thing and make it present. Suetonius of the Emperour Claudi­us: poenas parricidarum repraesentabat, he would see them suffer before his face, or in his presence. Such is the use of it in Cyprian, and often in Tertullian. And in this sense did our High Priest offer himself at the throne of Majesty; on the cross he offered his Sacrifice; but in heaven, he presenteth his Gift, his body, his merits, his prayers, his incense, our names also, or persons, in some sort; gifts or services, all of them, but Sacrifice none of them.

These two words [offer and present] are coupled together in the Answer thus. He in his Ascension offered, and presented himself as the prepared Sa­crifice to his Father] To offer a prepared Sacrifice, is one thing; which Christ then did not; it is another to present himself, who was before offered in Sacri­fice; and thus did our Priest and Advocate, and In­tercessour, appear in the presence of God for us, Hebr. 9. 24.

So this is the abuse, to make us beleeve, that be­cause whatsoever is presented may be said to be of­fered, therefore it must be offered as a Sacrifice.

[Page 25]Another Text is, Psal. 110, Thou art a Priest for ever. The eternity of his Priesthood can be no where but in heaven. Therefore, no where but in heaven was his Sacrifice perfected. Thus he seemeth to ar­gue thence. Answ. Priest, and Sacrifice, are relative, where one is, the other is also. A priest must offer sacrifice; but it is not requisite that he should do it always in actu exercito, it is enough that it be done in actu signato; that is, that he will offer, or hath of­fered, or can, according to Law and Rite, offer sacri­fice. Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever, but he doth not ever, or always sacrifice. The Sacrifice was of­fered but once (and how often doth the Apostle re­hearse that word Once?) by vertue of which, he was consecrated a Priest for ever. One Text more Hebr. 9. 12. by his own bloud he entred into the Holy place having obtained eternal redemption for us] Answ. But this bloud was shed upon the cross, as the bullock and the ram, were first slain, and then their bloud was carryed into the most holy place. The Sa­crifice was without, the Application of it, was with­in the veil.

Having obtained] that is, formerly by his passion, and this Redemption thus obtained, before his A­scension, is called eternal, because it did abide and continue; so that there was no need of any se­cond, any other Redemption, to follow after Ascension.

The Church is considered two ways. (1) Gene­rally, consisting of all those who are joyned toge­ther in profession of Christianity and outward means of salvation. (2) more especially, consist­ing of those who are the best and principal, united to God in faith and love.

The former of these, is termed the Church vi­sible, or, The many called: the other, is termed the Church invisible, or, The few chosen. The visible Church Catholick is the whole number of profes­sing Christians thorowout the world, All that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ. This great body, or societie Ecclesiastical, contain­eth, and comprehendeth under it, as parts of it, all the parish Churches, all Classical, Diocesan, Pro­vincial, and National Churches.

Of the Catholick invisible Church, Jesus Christ [Page 27] is the onely Head and Lord: but he hath not sub­stituted any other in his stead, nisi vicarium spiritum sanctum, unless the Holy Ghost. He hath indeed ap­pointed officers in the Church visible; which officers have hitherto usually been divided into two sorts: first, Temporary & extraordinary; and secondly, Per­petual, and ordinary: which division, I think, it had been better to retain, than to give us a new one, which will not hold. For certainly the Apostles and Evangelists, did govern outwardly; and as certain it is, that the Bishops or Elders did teach, and feed the flock of God, for inward growth and helpfulness, Acts 20. 28. and 1 Pet. 5. 2.

It should seem that he means here, The Catho­lick Church visible; for such was the Church he de­scribed in Answ. to Qu. 158. A company of men called out of the world, and gathered into the wor­hip of God.] In this Church indeed our Saviour hath set officers, 1 Cor. 12.28. in which whole cha­pter, the Apostle treateth of this kinde of Church: and it is true also that Jesus Christ may be said to be Head of this Church, in regard of the Graces of E­dification, derived from him, for the Offices, Mini­stery, and Government of his Church, and in regard of the common benefits, and common gifts of a spi­ritual kinde: and thus is said v. 12. So also is Christ: where he meaneth, by Christ, this Body of the Ca­tholick Church visible, of which he is in some sort the Head; and which is, in some sort his Body, and therefore called Christ, Though most properly he [Page 28] is, as most commonly he is said to be, Head onely of that Body, whereof he is also the Saviour, Eph. 5. 23. which as his Spouse, or wife, shall live and reign with him for ever in heaven. And I have some reason to think, that our Catechist did not intend, in this place, so much to exclude the Bishop of Rome from being the spiritual head of the Christian world; as he did intend to exclude the Christian Magistrate, from ruling in a National, or any other particular Church.

Many years now past, that the King of England should be called Head of the Church, offended the parties of each extremitie: As those of our own were sorely troubled at it; so was it the point or sting of the charge against the Bishop of Rochester:& when Hadr. Junius was blasted from Rome, for that in the Dedication of his Greek Lexicon to Edward the VI. he called him Supreme Head of the Church of En­gland; he pleaded for himself by letters, to the Court of Cardinals, that here with us, to clip the Kings Title, was almost as Capital, as to clip his Coin.

Howbeit, it was thought fit, in the beginning of the Queens Reign, whether to alter it, or explain it, by putting Governour in stead of Head. More, as I suppose, out of charitable condescension, then any necessity, or harm in the word; inasmuch as the word doth not note any internal efficacy or influ­ence, but onely outward regiment; the title or term of [LORD] being as liable to exception, both the [Page 29] one and the other signifying no more then Superio­rity or pre-eminence: and a King or Queen regnant, might as well be called Head of these National Churches, as Saul was called by Samuel, Head of the tribes of Israel, 1 Sam.15. 17. And that argument had with it more fallacy, then civility, which some formerly have used: Omnes filii participes, &c. All that are sons, are partakers of chastisement or Di­scipline: No true, or right-bred son that is extra Disciplinam: Therefore the Supreme Magistrate being a Christian, must be censurable as others are, because he is a son of the Church. But of what Church is he a son? of the Church Catholick he is: but of a particular or local Church, of this or that denomination, he is the Father, not a son: nor any member is he, but the Head. But I return, and at­tend upon our Catechist, with my suspicion to his

Nothing is here of the power of the Magistrate in matters of Religion; That, is left out of his Com­mission [Page 30] in this place. This being so great a Contro­versie at this present; and this so proper a place to have spoken to it, I think my negative argument will hold good; He sets down nothing of it here; therefore he beleeves it not; therefore he would not have it taught. One of his Texts in the margin, if he had marked it, speaks of Godliness, as well as Peace, 1 Tim. 2. 2. and since he hath thought good to alledge some texts out of the Old Testament, the proper place indeed where to inquire, what authori­tie Ecclesiastical, Kings and Supreme Powers, have by Gods allowance; he might there have found evi­dence enough for that claim. But there hath scarce been known any man, that hath a teeming head, or goes big with new fansies, and chooseth to leave the common-road, rather than walk by vote, that ever ca­red much for the Magistrates intermeddling in the Church, or matters of Faith, but is ready to cry out of Sacriledge, and encroachment upon Christs royal office; and scornfully to ask, if God be not able enough to defend his truth, but must be beholden to men. It is one of the many points wherein the old and new Donatists do meet. Optatus lib. 3. Dona­tus solito furore succensus, in haec verba prorupit, Quid est Imperatori cum Ecclesia? Let worldly Potentates look to the peace and welfare of their Realms, and let the people alone with their Religion.

But that I be not thought somewhat too quick, in gathering his denial of the Magistrates office circa sacra, from his omission of it in this Answer, or out [Page 31] of the doubt raised out of his Answer to Qu. 160. I pray give me leave to call to minde the complaint that he makes to his Reader of the Open Door: For speaking of his own opinion, that is, the Universa­lists Doctrine; and of the Doctrine of the seeming Orthodox, and comparing them together, and liken­ing them to Tamars Twins; he saith, That his own Doctrine is indeed the elder, and came forth first, howsoever the world, like the midwife then, will needs have the other Doctrine the Eldest, and would have a scarlet threed upon it, establish it by a bloudy Civil Sanction.] So may we know, what they are in his account, Bloud-thirsty men, that think of settling their Religion by Authority: and yet it is the same man, who very lately, hath sent abroad a piece to tell the world, how much the Principles of the Orthodox have contributed to breeding of the Quakers: giving instance in six particulars; the last whereof is, Their vein of Allegorizing. If he be pleased to sweep his own house first, and begin to them in his example; it is somewhat probable, that they will do what they think fit to be done in that matter.

In the mean time, and untill they reform their vein of Allegorizing, I would, with all due respect, beseech him, to forbear his vein of scoffing; the which of the two, doth bring the greater prejudice to Religion, and doth more expose it to contempt of strangers: as when he calleth his brethren that dissent from him, Minis [...]ers of the Gospel, and Ortho-Philistines. [Page 32] For as they who please themselves in this humour, do more revive the memory of Mar­tin Marprelate, with his scurrilities; so if they fur­ther add any invectives whatsoever in a critical sea­son, against either Academy, or Clergy; they too much resemble in face and feature, that bastard brood, which yet now must be left at some others door, the lamentable and besotted persons a­bove-named. They who set on foot new opinions, should do it modestly, if not timorously; or else with evident, and invincible proof, or demonstration. If his differing doctrines be indeed true, yet are they but new, yet are they forein, and, as I may say, in­truders, to the constitution of our Church; and I hope he doth not think his adversaries to be so ve­ry weak, as to be flouted out of their possession.

And the same man it is (to give another instance that the same man is not always of the same minde) who in the Dedicatory before his Caveat, com­mendeth the Magistrates, or the Parliament, as ha­ving done worthily in the Act they made to pre­vent and punish blasphemy against God; and would have them stop the spreading of blasphemy against Christ (so he calleth the opinion of the seeming orthodox) by the like provision.] that which is one while a bloudy Sanction, at another time he thinketh were a good deed. And whether the two Doctrines he speaketh of, be like the twins, or no; he is but too like the father of the twins: he is very fervent in the case, till he perceives [Page 33] it come too near himself, and his own partie; and then, as the persons varie, the case is al­tered.

The brief Instruction to be gathered out of these Questions and Answers, is this: that the Law (that is, the Decalogue or ten Commandments) is of good use to bring us to Christ: but after that we be [Page 35] brought to him; then his Grace and Spirit be suffi­cient to direct us, so that we shall not much need the Law to be a Rule to us, at leastwise not regard it more than any other piece of Scripture.

To this I answer: We have hitherto in our Church been taught, and have learned, that the Decalogue is a Rule directing, and, a Law binding, even justified and regenerate Christians, though o­therwise than it bindeth persons unregenerate.

Artic. 7^th of the 39. Though the Law given by Moses, as touching Ceremonies do not binde Chri­stian men, nor the civil precepts be of necessity to be received, yet no Christian man what soever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral. No man, be he never so perfect a Christian. So the Articles of K. Edw. 6.

Assemblies larger Catechisme. The Moral Law is a Declaration of the will of God to mankinde, di­recting and binding every one, as well persons rege­nerate as others, to perfect and perpetual conformi­ty and obedience thereunto.

The Congregational Churches in the Declaration of their Faith chap. 19. § 5, 6. The moral Law doth for ever binde all, as well justified persons as others to the obedience thereof, and is a Rule of life to true beleevers, as well as to others.

Thus have these taught, agreeably to the Cate­chismes and Christian Institutions of other reform­ed Churches, and writers. For whether they have made the ends and uses of the Moral Law, fewer, [Page 36] or more; this hath still been one; to be Norma vi­vendi, a Direction to order our life by. We thought, we had attained hitherto, to walk by the same Rule, and to be of one minde in this matter, whatsoever our other differences be; And why this Authour should by teaching otherwise draw away disciples af­ter him, let him see to it.

Open door, Preface. § It's injurious. [Many preachers in stead of Gospel-preaching, become teachers of the Law, and jumble Law and Gospel together: so that they neither preach Law nor Gospel, but a mingle mangle of both, not knowing what they say, nor whereof they affirm, talking of Duties to them, who want Principles to perform them rightly] by these words of his, it should seem, that as the Law, must not be a Rule of Duties, to persons unconverted: so it must be no Rule at all, to any person whatsoever.

But I prove, that the ten Commandments, even As given by Moses, do oblige justified persons, to the Duties therein enjoyned. First, by Scripture. When Jesus Christ came, he confirmed the Law Moral, Matth. 5. 17. Think not that I came to destroy the Law, I came to fulfill it. Now that he meant the Law Moral, and that As given by Moses, ap­pears by the following explication of the several Commandments, vers.21. and 27, and 33. Matth.22. v. 38,39. He gave the sum of the first and second Table, calling them the first and second, the two great Commandments. Moses gave the Law, in [Page 37] ten Precepts, and two Tables, and as so given, Christ confirmed it.

The Apostles also in their Epistles, exhort Chri­stians to the Duties of the Law, As given by Moses; as well for manner, as matter. Jam. 2. He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. And the Apostle Paul, Ephes. 6. calleth the fifth command­ment, The first commandment with promise; the first, to wit, of the second Table. Moses gave the Law in ten precepts, and two Tables, and as so given, the Apostles do mention it, and urge the Duties of it.

Secondly, I prove by his own words, the Law to be a Rule to them that are in Christ. Qu. and Answ. 197. he saith, The first lawfull use of the Law, is, to shew us what is sin, and to convince us that we do sin; that is, that the regenerate do sin, as appears by his Text, 1 Joh.1.8. If we say we have no sin, &c. How can the Law shew us that we do sin, but by being a rule against which we sin. Then next he alloweth the Moral Law, to be profitable with all other Scri­ptures, to instruct, exhort, rebuke, &c. indeed he doth not say, to direct, rule, binde, unless these be con­tained in his, &c. But if all other Scripture be a rule or Canon to us, in belief and life, why may not the Decalogue be so also? or what reason can be given, why the Decalogue written in the 20 Chapter of Exodus, should be of use above other Scripture to discover sin, and convince men, Before Justification; and yet after Justification, should be of no more use, then other Scriptures are, to rule and direct us in our [Page 38] obedience? for plainly he teacheth in his Answ. to Qu. 197. (What is the lawfull use of the Law?) That for justified persons to use the Law as a Rule of obedience, More then other parts or places of Scripture, is to use it unlawfully.

I answer, First, that place now named, I beleeve, he misunderstandeth: for he taketh it to be meant of Sanctification, whereas, most probably it is meant of the righteousness of Justification, as is evident by conferring the fourth verse with the first, being both of the same import.

Secondly, Whatsoever the teacher intends to sow, the scholar may likely pick up here, a seed of Enthusiasime: for, if walking in the Spirit, and grace of Christ, and Acting forth faith and love, do bring a Supersedeas to the ten Commandments; then why not to all the Scripture as well? why may not the written word in general be thought needless to teach us our duties, or minde us of Comfort, Reproof, or Instruction? since this may be as well supplied in us, as the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us,

by walking after the Spirit. But the Spirit of God [Page 39] directs us by the word, not discharging it, but cau­sing us to understand, beleeve, embrace, and remem­ber it.

Thirdly, whereas he produceth that text in the margin, Rom. 13. Love is the fulfilling of the Law, to prove that if we act forth love, we shall not much need to walk in the observation of the Decalogue. I shall now endeavour to shew his mistake.

To fulfill, is taken two ways; First, to perform perfectly: To fulfill all righteousness, Matth. 3. To fulfill the Ministery, Coloss. 4. And thus the Ceremo­nial Law of Moses was fulfilled, while the Priests, Levites, and people, performed the rites and Ordi­nances which were enjoyned them. Secondly, to bring to an end, issue, or event. So Predictions and Prophesies, Types and Figures, are said to be fulfil­led, when the things are come to pass, which those did foresignifie: So the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, He was numbred with the transgressours: and thus the Ceremonial Law of Moses was fulfilled, when Christ came and died for us, and put an end to it.

Now of these two significations of the word [fulfill] in this sentence [Love fulfilleth the Law] he seemeth to take it in the latter sense, as if it were said, The Spirit of God and Grace of Charity, hath made the Law out of Date, and put a final period to it; so that now it is not to be regarded any other­wise than the prophesies and shadows which have accomplishment in Christ: whereas the word fulfill, [Page 40] is not to be taken in this sense, but in the former. And yet if he doth take the word, fulfill, in the former sense, namely perfectly to perform, as the word is taken there, (understanding the while, perfection of parts, not of degrees) then, he is mistaken in thinking that love fulfills the Law per actus elicitos, doing it self all that is required, whereas it doth not fulfill the Law otherwise than per actus imperatos, by setting others, other faculties and graces on work. The Sun giveth light to the world, per actum elici­tum; it bringeth forth flowers and fruits, per actum imperatum. Love causeth us to be well and kindly affected, this is the own and proper work of it: but over and above, it layes a command upon us to be serviceable in several Duties. Love is not the fulfil­ling of the Law by elicit actions (for fear and trust, are required moreover in the first Table; upright dealing and mercifulness in the second) if it were, it should indeed bring some discharge to the Law; be­cause it should contain in it self, all the several parcels of the Law: But because it doth fulfill the Law onely, by exciting us, or setting us on work, to do the several duties enjoyned, therefore it is needfull, nevertheless, that the Law should still abide in place and force, that we may know what the particulars are that God requireth of us, and that we may do them out of obedience to his will, who command­eth these particulars to be done.

And certainly, Love is not more, a fulfilling of the Law, after that Christ is come, then it was before his [Page 41] coming: for to love God above all, was ever the sum of the first Table: and to love our Neighbour as our self, was always the sum of the second Table: and howsoever meant, the meaning was ever the same: and as much did charity put an end to the Deca­logue, in the Old Testament, as it doth in the New.

One chief place of Scripture, by occasion of which, and by following the sound of it more than seeking after the sense of it, he is mis-led, and mis-leadeth others, is that which he quoteth to the Qu. 167. of the Law being a schoolmaster to Christ: which text, as some others also do, he mis-understands thorowout. For first by the Law, they mean the Moral, or ten Commandments; whereas indeed it meaneth the Law Ceremonial, chiefly, if not onely, which hath as much of the Gospel in it, as of the Law; the seve­ral rites and Ceremonies, being but appendices Evan­gelii, annexed to the Doctrine of the Gospel, then, though somewhat darkly, revealed. That the Apo­stle means this, and not the Law Moral, considered, as a Covenant of works, holding nothing for the present of a Saviour, appears by the scope of the Apostle to the Galatians; which is against them, that would have circumcision, and all the Ceremo­nies of Moses retained in the time of the Gospel, as necessary to our Justification in Christ: the very same opinion, that beginning at Antioch, the Apo­stles condemned at Jerusalem, Acts 15. The er­rour of the beleeving Pharisees was not, that it was needfull to be circumcised, and to keep the ten Com­mandments, [Page 42] but to be circumcised, and keep the Law of Moses, namely, that Law of Moses, which was of the same kinde with circumcision, which properly is the Law of Moses; the law Moral, being the Law of Nature, written in mans heart before, and by Moses ministery written out fair, in Tables of stone. Yet is it true that the Apostle speaketh in that Epistle against the Moral Law, so far as it was supposed to justifie us: but this he doth by way of argument against his adversaries; and not as if he made the cause of the Moral Law, and Ceremonial, all alike, in respect of retaining, or not retaining them; his way of arguing being, à genere ad speciem negativé. We are not justified by the Law, any Law whatsoever; therefore not by the Law Cere­monial.

And as our Authour mistakes the term [Law] here; so doth he also in the fourth lawfull use of the Law, which is to witness to Christ, quoting Rom. 3. 21. where it is said, that the Righteousness of Christ is witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. Where the Law, signifies the Books of the Law, not the ten Commandments. In the promise made to A­dam, Gen 3. to Abraham, Gen. 12. is testimony given to Christ and his grace, and in all those places where Moses wrote of him. The Law and the Pro­phets, being the same in that place, that Moses and the Prophets, Acts 26. 22. Moses in his five books wrote of Christ, so did the Prophets.

So for the Law. The word Schoolmaster mistaken, [Page 43] helpeth to deceive them further: for upon hearing of that, they presently imagine great rigour, and hard usage to be intended: they think of nothing but stripes and scourges, and ruling with a wooden sceptre, as if he must needs be an Orbilius plagosus, such a one as Fr. Junius met withall, that he com­plains of so much in his life: Corpus suum exercitavit in corpore meo: whereas the best authours that treat of teaching young scholars, as Plutarch and Quinti­lian, will not allow of striking of them. But be it as it may, for that: Paedagogus, howsoever through penury of words we be forced to turn it, is, Formator morum: such a one as was allowed and appointed to wait on great mens sons and heirs apparent, and to teach them how to behave themselves; and to frame their pliable and waxen age, to love of good­ness, and practise of vertue, and detestation of vice, to fashion them betimes, so far as might be, for what they were to be another day. [...], so calls it Constantine Manasses, speaking of him that was Pedagogue to the Emperour Augustus: he did set him in right tune for his carriage, and made his be­haviour congruous to himself, so great a Personage. Thus Cyrus had one who taught him before-hand, not to respect: persons in matters of Justice, by re­proving him for that he would have adjudged a coat, that was in question, not to the true owner, but to another whom it best fitted. And Iulian in his Mi­sopogon, checks the soft and effeminate people of Antioch by his own education, which was no way [Page 44] suitable to them: My Pedagogue, saith he, taught me, when I went into the Theatre, to look upon the ground; he would have him cast his eyes downward; not look up, upon the wanton and lascivious ob­jects there presented to spectatours.

His office likewise was, to accompany his young master, when he went abroad, or from home: Thus the famous Cato, the latter of the two, and the last of the Romanes, aged fourteen, when upon a visit he went to Sylla, being then at the height of his tyrannies; and saw the heads of the proscribed lye by heaps at the gate of his Palace; had a Pedagogue attending on him: and well it was he had so; for he talked so desperately upon their return, that (as my Authour saith, semper postea adduxit excussum) when ever after they were to go thither, care was taken that he might be searched left the fierce youth should bear any thing about him, that might carry danger with it.

Yea, more than all this, the Pedagogue, did wait upon this his charge, when he went to school, to learn letters and literature: Barthius Advers. 21. 1. Paedagogi sequebantur pueros heriles literis operam daturos: and Chrysostom saith that the Pedagogue, is not contrary to the Master ( [...]) but joyns with him in the work, and prepares the scholar to take the lessons that are to be taught him: Mani­festly distinguishing him from a Schoolmaster, ta­ken in the common and vulgar notion. So our Au­thour, with many others, mistakes the second term, in, lex Paedagogus noster.

[Page 45]Thirdly, they mistake as much, and as ill, the word noster; for, the [Nos] included in that Posses­sive, they take tor particular Christians now living, and for such as shall hereafter live in the Church of God. Answer. to Qu. 167. The law was given for a Schoolmaster to tutour men to Christ] men, indefinitely, and indifferently; meaning to humble unconverted Christians in a sense of their sins, till such time as they have attained peace and pardon, and then the Law hath done the work belonging to it; when they have attained faith, they are no long­er under such a master. Whereas the Apostle doth not speak of particular persons, nor of the differing condition and estate of a man before his conversion and after; Although it be true that the work of the Law, is needfull to prepare for Justification through Christ Jesus, and a distressed conscience makes way for saving grace and spiritual comfort; yet that is not it, which the Apostle teacheth there; he ma­keth comparison (not between two several estates of the same person) but between two several people. He compareth the Judaical Church, and the Christian Church; and considering them both together, as a congregative body, or one entire person, he speaks of the several ages of that Body or Person. The Church of God under the old Testament was a Childe, or Heir in his mi­noritie: But the Christian Church in the new Te­stament, is as a man grown up, or of full age: as if he had thus said: We the Jews were under the law of [Page 46] Ceremonies, and circumcision, but now we are no longer so. For neither doth he say, in the present time, The Law is, but it was, heretofore a School­master to Christ. And lastly, they mis-understand the word Christ, in this sentence, The Law is a Schoolmaster to Christ. For they take Christ here for a Saviour, at large: as faith, in the next verse Gal. 3. 25. for justifying faith, or faith in a Saviour: whereas Christ here signifyeth, Christ revealed, or manifested in the times of the Gospel, as chap. 2. verse 4. Our libertie which we have in Christ Jesus, and chap. 6. vers. 15. in Christ Jesus neither circum­cision availeth, nor uncircumcisison: in the old Te­stament, it was something, now it is nothing. And Faith in the place now named, [after that faith is come] meaneth Tempus Evangelii, the Gospel, or Doctrine of Christ exhibited in the flesh.

Whereas therefore, they take the meaning of these two verses to be this; (Gal. 3. 24, 25.) The Moral Law, shewing what God requireth of us, and what the curse is, that is due to the breach of it; driveth us to Christ, and forceth us to seek a Savi­our: but after we be jastified by faith in Christ, we are no longer under that Law; the Apostle saith not so: but this it amounteth to, which he saith: The Ceremonial law under which ye would still conti­nue, was but to train you up, and prepare you for the full manifestation of Christ incarnate, and now when Christ Jesus is come, the Church of God hath no more need of shadows and Ceremonies: [Page 47] their work is done, and we are freed from being un­der them any longer.

That this is the meaning of the words, and that S. Paul, by being under a Schoolmaster, meaneth not. Being under the spirit of bondage, (as some call it) and that he speaks not of Christian liberty, from the curse of the Moral Law, but onely from the burden of the Ceremonial law, is evident by that which follows in the fourth chapter. For they who were under this Schoolmaster, whosoever they were, were the mean while heirs or children, not servants, although in some regards not much distant from servants. A servant knoweth not what his lord doth: A servant knoweth as much as the heir doth, before he be of age, being kept in ignorance, little acquainted with his fathers minde, yet he knoweth that his father loves him, and will make him inheritour of his estate. But they who are un­der the malediction of the Moral Law, know not thus much, know not so much as this comes to; neither are they heirs, or lords of all.

The Jews, whiles under this Schoolmaster, were children; after Christ came, they were sons: they were sons before, but how? naturâ, non libertate, sons in their minority, and under tutelage. They were made partakers of Christ, but not of Christ fully manifested. So that the Apostle maketh op­position, betwixt these two, Children, and Sons, by sons understanding adulti, men of age. The diffe­rence of which words in the Apostles text chap. 3. [Page 48] vers. 26. and chap. 4. vers. 1, 6. is not observed ac­cordingly in some translations; though in some o­thers it be: and among the former, Ours is. Cle­mens Alex. Paedag. 1. 6. [...], when he called them Sons, he meant they were men, to distinguish them from infants or little ones under the Law. So then there is nothing spoken by St Paul here, that giveth countenance to them that make void the force of the Decalogue to beleeving Chri­stians: and though our Authour in expounding of the words, goes not alone; yet approved writers never go so far, as to teach that when a Christian hath attained faith, he is no longer under the Re­gulation of the Moral Law, though they teach he is no longer under the malediction of it.

Professours] I do agree with him thus far, that our Saviour appointed Professours to eat; that is, that the Profession of Christian faith, doth warrant [Page 49] both the Minister to deliver, and the Communi­cants to receive, the Eucharist, if they be not under Church-censures, though they be not as yet endued with justifying faith, or saving grace; Otherwise, if competency of knowledge, and freedome from scan­dal, without convincing signes of regeneration, be not sufficient; it would follow, that the Sacraments should be, in their own nature intended, as badges or marks of difference, not betwixt Christians and Pagans, a Church, and no Church; but betwixt hypocrites and true beleevers: the converted, and the non-converted: and should serve to separate the Church visible, from the Invisible: and the Lords Supper should be as a fan to sever the wheat from the chaff: which to do is a work belonging to the last day, both generally, and respectively.

But that Professours should be appointed to break bread, this hath with it some umbrage and suspicion. For it doth seem to authorize, any Christian, though unordained, to administer that Sacrament. and this suspicion is increased, because in sixteen Questions and Answers, containing the Doctrine of the Sacraments, this is all the mention he maketh of any Minister, and this upon the matter is no men­tion at all. To take, and eat, belongeth to each com­municant; but to take and break, is an action Mini­sterial; and by the Evangelists relating, and the Apostle repeating the Institution, constantly spo­ken of our Saviour Christ onely.

The Council of Trent framed a curse against [Page 50] those who held that all Christians have power to ad­minister the Sacraments: but the Protestants an­swered, that they were not concerned in it. It might touch the Anabaptists, whom they opposed, as much as who most: And Bellarmine rehearseth Cal­vins words, relating to that Curse or Canon; Nemo sanus Christianos omnes, &c. that is, no man that is in his right senses, doth think, all Christians have power alike in administring the Sacraments; and concludeth thus, itaque cum Calvino nulla nobis hoc loco controversia est: who should administer the Eu­charist, in this we differ not, saith he, though we be not fully agreed, who should administer Ba­ptisme.

Therefore, whether it were carelesly done, or purposely, it was ill done, to teach that Christ ap­pointed Professours of his name, (Christians at large) to take and break bread, (to administer the Lords Supper) a doctrine disclaimed by all Chri­stians, but Anabaptists.

There is no ground for this answer in any of the Texts quoted, there is some colour indeed out of the first of them, if you take it alone, and separate [Page 51] from the verse foregoing, and the verse following; The Dead in Christ shall rise first: the Apostle doth not mean that those who are none of Christs shall be raised next, or in the second place, for he com­pareth not together the raising of these two sorts, namely, the Dead that are Christs, and the Dead that are none of his; but he compareth, of those that belong to Christ; the dead, and the living: or the raising of the dead, and the changing of the li­ving: so it followeth: Then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them, &c. But the other two have not so much as any colour at all: for that in 1 Cor. 15. speaketh not of the Resurre­ction of the unjust: and that in Revel. 20. speaketh not of the last Resurrection.

Now I come to the Quest. and Answers that look toward the Cinque-Points, which I have reser­ved to consider together, howsoever scattered tho­rowout the Catechisme.

This Answer is true, and without exception; save that here seemeth to be a reasoning, from the power [Page 52] of God, to his act: he hath done it, because he can do it, which is not safe.

And considering the usual argumentations of this sort of men, I do suspect herein, a Dark, but Dan­gerous insinuation, That God hath done for us all that he could do, and that Man thinks fit he should do. He that speaks but darkly, is oftentimes best understood, and made out by his companion; and that shall now be the Authour of [...], p. 33. How dwelleth the love of Man in God, if having means and opportunity in his hand to relieve the whole world of mankinde, without the least incon­venience to himself, he yet shall suffer the far great­est part of them to perish, without intending re­lief to them.]

Which conceit, when it is once taken in, and while it is made use of, though not improved, doth una­voidably expose men to Epicurcan Atheisme: for when they shall see in those things, wherein we walk by sight, and not by faith, as we do in the mysteries of faith; when they shall observe in the world, that God Almighty doth not do all the good that we may well think he can do; and that he doth not free the creature from the servitude that it yet groans under; and doth not put forth his helping hand, without the least inconvenience to himself, for the relief of man and beast, but suffers evils and miseries to continue and abound; It must needs follow, that being poi­soned with this principle, they should hereupon be tempted, to doubt of, perhaps to denie, either God [Page 53] himself, or his Providence, or his Power, or Wis­dome, or Goodness. But the Prophet Malachi saith, God had residuum spiritus, yet he made but one: so hath he infinite treasures of power and goodness: yet it pleased him to deal according to his infinite wisdome, and not according to our thoughts. This is but a chip of the old Marcion: and when time shall come, God will be cleared and justified, in his sayings, and in his doings, and all his holy attributes, with little thank to the censorious.

The controversie is not, Whether Christ did die for all, or no: but how, and in what sense, it is so said. There be many places of holy Scripture, and many arguments, not easily solved; because, as I think, insoluble; which are brought to prove, that Jesus Christ did suffer death for all men: But when it is also said, that he died for his sheep; and for his Church; and that for whom God delivered up his son, to them he giveth all things; and when his [Page 54] Death, Resurrection, and Intercession, do as in a chain, one draw the other, Rom. 8. And when it is certain, that God doth not give all things to all men, as namely, not Faith and Repentance; we are of ne­cessity put upon it to distinguish: which we do so as to satisfie our selves; yet finding withall, that Con­tention is fed with a fire that is unquenchable.

We beleeve, as our Church hath made professi­on, and taught us, that the Son of God did offer a full, perfect, and sufficient oblation and satisfaction. for the sins of the whole world, and that he died for every man. And although notice of this be not gi­ven to every man, or all the world; yet may it be given, and truly declared to them.

Such love did God bear to Humane nature, or all mankinde, more than to the lapsed Angels; that there was, and is a possibility for every man whatso­ever to be saved, though he do not perform the Law, or Covenant of works. Gods justice is so far satisfied, that way is made for mercy, pardon, and favour. Nevertheless, for the actual participation of benefit by Christs Death, and application to each particular person, there is more to be done, than what is done by Christ for all the world. The fruit of his passion, as to life eternal, is derived onely to his body mystical, to such as are more nearly united to him, than by the common Relation, or kin, or claim of humane nature, which he took upon him, and for which he suffered. And although by his bloud he obtained, as well Universal, as eternal Re­demption; [Page 55] yet by Faith in his bloud are we justified. And he who is said to be the Saviour of all men, is said also to be the Saviour of his Body; that is, of such as partake of his Spirit, and are subject to him, and joyned to him, as the parts of the Body are to the Head: So all men are not.

In this Nation at some especiall times, comes forth a General Pardon: in which case though we set aside the Exceptions, or the excepted; Those persons to whom it is really and truely intended, must sue out their pardon: otherwise, they may be sup­posed not to accept of it. And if then, any shall urge the Term, and Title of the General Pardon, and in­sist, without end upon this, That a pardon it is, and such a pardon as is general to all the people, without taking notice of any thing else further to be done; he that hath but small skill, can easily see, how weak such kinde of reasoning is.

Now whereas Faith is Gods gift, and he bestow­eth his Spirit where he will, and man cannot beleeve of himself, nor perform the condition required; here beginneth the first overture of that secret difference that is betwixt man and man: and here first openeth it self, the great mystery of Election, in that the Ransom, or Satisfaction which God hath accepted, as general, and sufficient for all men, that whosoever beleeveth should not perish; doth not actually, and ef­ficaciously, profit all men to life eternal, because to all men it is not given, to beleeve and perform the condition.

[Page 56]Whereas others think best to distinguish here, the unversal particle All; all, both Jews and Gentiles: or all, that is, the several kinds, or estates of men: or all, that is, all the Elect. I do now distinguish the Intentional particle, For: which denoteth the end, or intention; and sometimes moreover the effect of the Intention.

The death of Christ was for all, but not for all alike, or in the same manner, or with the like issue & event. He gave himself, and suffered sufficiently, with a general Intention for all; but efficaciously, with a special Intention, for some onely.

When we say sufficiently, we do not mean a mere or bare sufficiency, as if there were onely price and worth enough in Christs bloud, to redeem all. As a rich man may have money enough in his chest, to re­lieve all the poor in the Town: But we mean a suf­ficiency with promise and proffer of benefit for all, yet not without a condition to be performed: As when a rich man doth give such a sum of money, to be by dole distributed to all the poor of that Town where he liveth: provided that they orderly attend at such a time and place to receive it. The Gift is intended for them all. But some it may be, had no no­tice of it: and perhaps some others have no minde to take it. Yet were the alms intended for them all, and to each of them who did absent themselves, it may be truly said, Had you waited as was appointed, you had received your dole. But so it cannot truely be said to such poor, as live in distant places, because [Page 57] it was not intended, nor provided for them.

There is no possibility for Satan and his angels to be saved by the death of Christ, not onely because their nature was not assumed, but because Christs death in the purpose of God, was not ordained for them, as it was for mankind. This Proposition there­fore [If Satan beleeve, he shall be saved] is not true, because Christ died not for him. But this Proposi­tion [If Judas Iscariot beleeve, he shall be saved, was true, because Christ died for him.

A favourite may procure a place at Court, for his friend in the Countrey; who nevertheless doth choose to live retiredly, and in the shadow, rather then in the view and glory of the world: the prefer­ment in the mean time being ready for him, intended for him, and proffered him.

And that in this sense, our Blessed Saviour did suffer death for all men: as our Church hath framed the Answer; Jesus Christ redeemed me and all man­kind, may be proved out of those words, 1 John 3. 23. This is his Commandment, that we should beleeve in the name of his Son. There is not onely a Com­mand or Commission to the Apostles, to preach the Gospel to every Creature: But a Command also to every one that hears it, to beleeve it. Now, first, God doth not command any thing to be beleeved that is not true: and whosoever beleeveth in the Son of God, must beleeve, this at the least, that he died for him; therefore God commandeth every man that heareth the Gospel, to beleeve that the Son of God [Page 58] died for him. Now whatsoever I beleeve, is not therefore true because I beleeve it; but it must be true before it be beleeved: so for all those that are commanded to beleeve, did Christ suffer Death, and offer Sacrifice.

And if any man shall hold on the contrary, that Faith doth not consist in beleeving this or that pro­position, as, Jesus Christ gave himself for me; but in laying hold on, and apprehending and receiving Christ a Saviour, and that this is the right object of that kind of Faith, which is given in command to every one that heareth the Gospel; Then I argue, secondly thus: God doth not command any thing that is impossible. I mean not, that is impossible to such a person as now he is, and at such a time; but that is impossible in it self to be done. But now it is a thing not possible or any way feasable, for me to lay hold on Christ a Saviour, unless he be ordained and appointed a Saviour for me: and this cannot be, but by Gods appointment and institution, setting him forth to be a common Sacrifice and propitiation: thus it is in life spiritual, even as in corporal life, and the course of nature, it is impossible to be fed and nourished by a stone, because it never was ordained of God for food. Therefore Jesus Christ did give himself a Sacrifice for all men that hear the Gospel: and as for them who never heard of him, he offered Sacrifice for their sins also: and whosoever shall go and tell them so, shall tell them but the truth. Al­though, untill they hear it, they do not sin, in not [Page 59] beleeving it; as they do, who hear, and beleeve not. So much for the general intention, and ordi­nation of Christs Death for all men.

But as there is this general Redemption, by means of that one Sacrifice for all men; so there is proper to those who are chosen to life, A special Re­demption; which, as it proceeds from Election, Eph. 1.4. so it consists in actual forgiveness of sins, v.7. in whom we have Redemption, the forgiveness of sins. All men are no where said to be elected, All men are no where said to be forgiven. So some Redemption belongs to all; but, not every kinde of Redemption.

And that the intention of benefit by Christs Pas­sion, was not alike to all, on his part; but more to some than to others; appeareth hence, that there was not the like application of it, made by him to all. He who offered himself a Sacrifice for the sins of all men, yet did pray for some onely, Joh. 17. 9. And God who gave his son, that whosoever be­leeveth in him, should not perish, did absolutely in­tend, that the benefit of that promise should infal­libly take place, in some, by removing that infideli­tie, which might have hindred them, and by giving faith which enabled them, to perform the conditi­on, and lay hold on the promise, for want of which faith, others are lost. If in time, and in execution, he dealeth not alike the fruit of Christs Death to all men; then may we safely gather, that his purpose and intention, touching the fruit of Christs Death [Page 60] was not alike to all men. Executio est speculum De­creti, we may safely behold and view, Gods purpose and determination, in what he doth in time effect and bring to pass.

And if any man shall now murmure within him­self and say: I know not whether I be of that sele­cted number, for whom Christs Death was intended to be actually & every way efficacious; nor whether Gods love and good will be as much to me, as it is to any other, and shall thereupon neglect the duties of Gods law, and the means of his own eternal safety, giving ear to the whispers of some false teachers, by whom he is encouraged so to do, or at leastwise excused for so doing, rather than listening to the grave and wholsome advice, of our Church-Articles; which is, To receive Gods promises, in such wise, as they be generally set forth in holy Scriptures; I shall onely desire him to call to minde that saying of Moses Deut. 29. Secret things belong to the Lord, our God; but things revealed belong to us. In which words the Man of God setteth bounds to our know­ledge, and to our search, as once he did to the peo­ple at the foot of the mount, that they might know their distance and keep it, and not at their utmost peril, break thorow, ani gaze. And whosoever he be that shall refuse, to entertain and embrace points of belief, and the Doctrine of godliness fully re­vealed; and in the mean time busily intermeddle with secrets reserved; shall add to disobedience, the sacriledge of curiosity, and may fear that God will [Page 61] set his face against him, that shall dare to cross and thwart, in such a manner, so severe an Edict made known and published.

Having delivered, by way of Question and An­swer, that Christs Death was a satisfactory Ran­some for all, and that nevertheless the greatest part go to destruction, he proceedeth.

The Brief of these Instructions is this:

All sin, and sins whatsoever; Original and Actu­al; of all men whomsoever, whether they repent of those sins or not, do obtain at Gods hand for­giveness as due debt, by means and vertue of Christs satisfaction; those sins excepted which are against the Gospel; and Christ coming a light into the world, yet these may be forgiven too, if they be repented of, because Christs gift for Justification superaboundeth for the forgiveness of more sins than Adams transgression brought upon us.

An accusation that is found to be false, rebound­eth with greater force upon him that brought it: I will not charge the Catechist with this opinion now set down by me. It is charitable to think, he wrote here, he could not well tell what: but I do charge [Page 63] his words, his Questions and Answers with the col­lection abovesaid.

The worst of Pagans, may claim, it seems, as due debt, the pardon of their most atrocious crimes, be­cause these are sins, that Adams sin brought upon them, Answ. 97. that Christ found upon them, Answ. 99] Original sin produceth, or bringeth up­on us, all actual sins, as the root produceth the fruit. The greatest sins of all, those by the Apostle enu­merated, Rom. 1. Sins against the law of nature, sins ripe to judgement, filled in measure and run­ning over: such as for number, and greatness, and multiplication, follow one another till they reach to heaven, Revel. 18.5. these all, if they be but against the Law of nature, and not against the Grace of Christ, claim pardon, as due debt, first, without asking pardon, (it is but just, and just it is, to give, or pay due debt, though it be not demanded.) se­condly without Repentance: indeed for sins against Christs Mediation, there is a Condition or Proviso, that they be repented of: but none at all for other sins, they are forgiven absolutely, without further suit or service. So that according to this Doctrine, it is far better, to hold of the first Adam, as our Head, and as our Root, than to hold of the second, or to hear of him: For, by the first Adam, and the privi­ledge procured for him, we are clear of our old debts, and by means of the second, we contract new.

If any shall say, to salve his words, from this [Page 64] worse than heathenish Divinity, that whereas he speaks Answ. 96. of sinning against Christs Medi­ation, he may haply mean that Mediation, which the works of Creation do speak, according to his Instructions Qu. and Answ. 152, 153. and that thus all hainous sins against the law of nature, may be said to be against the Grace of Christ; and thus the Sodomites might be said, to sin against Christs Mediation, obscurely intimated in that God gave them a pleasant countrey, and caused the sun to rise upon their city: To this I answer, He cannot mean the Mediation and Grace made known by the crea­tures, but must mean the Mediation made known by Christs Incarnation, because Answ. 97. he saith Christs Death was a Ransome for those sins that were upon us Before, and considered Without, Christs coming a light into the world: now I think Christs coming, cannot possibly be understood otherwise, than of his coming in the flesh; and Answ. 96. He here-through coming: that is, by his Death, as is plain by the Question. And howsoever, there weit no sins before God did speak his goodness, in the heavens and works of Creation, or that can be con­sidered without Christs Mediation supposed to be shown in temporal blessings. So that the sense which the words yeeld, cannot be, but as is said.

There be some opinions, if they be fit to be re­hearsed in Christian ears; need nothing but their mere rehearsal for their confutation, for their dete­station. I love not to rake in this worse than Pela­gian [Page 65] puddle, where the Preaching of the Gospel is so far from being made a benefit or a blessing upon a People, that Christians, and none but Christians thorowout the world, are capable of being cast a­way or perishing. But for his Pelagian Crambe (I call it so, as by him urged) of the Universal par­ticle [All] he hath alledged two texts. One, Rom. 5. 18. By the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men, to justification: the other 1 Cor. 15.22. (for I take that verse and not the 21 to be meant, as being the parallel place). In christ shall all be made alive: concerning this last place, whe­ther it be the 21, or 22, or both, somewhat is to be premised, because it may be diversly understood. I think it is to be taken of a glorious vivification, or Resurrection to life: for this properly is a Resur­rection: and of this onely is treated, in that whole chapter; for the wicked or cast-aways shall arise, not by efficacy of Christ the Saviour, but by sen­tence of God the Judge: for being by him, senten­ced to Death, they must come forth of prison to be led to execution: That Resurrection, which is a priviledge of the holy Catholick Church, in the Apostles Creed: That which is spoken of Luke 20. 36. children of God, being children of the Resurrecti­on; is that spoken of in this chapter: also in 1 Thess. 4. the comfort of Gods people being in­tended both there, and here.

Now for the Texts brought to prove, the for­giveness of mens sins, that were brought upon [Page 66] them by Adam, to be Due Debt, I answer, he might have looked within a few verses of his second text, and thus have read: [But when he saith all things, it is manifest that he is excepted, &c.] In some uni­versals, there be manifest exceptions: and in every universal, there is restriction to the subject matter, or that which for the present is spoken of: he char­geth us somewhere, with broad denial of Scripture­sayings. Not so: but it is the Denial of the broad sense of some Scripture-sayings, this we own and acknowledge. All things that are said in Scripture, or any where else, are not to be taken in the full latitude. Divinâ gratiâ opus est, saith St Chrysostom. Hom. in Joann. 39. nè [...] insistamus: itâ haeretici in errorem incidunt; We had need pray that God would give us grace, not to stand too much up­on the bare words, for so come hereticks to fall into their errours. Gods word is written for them that are awake, and have understanding, and make use of it, when they read, But for those two places he needed not to have looked far, to finde a limitation of the universal particle all: for Rom. 5.18. it is li­mited in the very next verse, vers. 17. recipientibus, to them that receive the abundance ot Grace. And in 1 Cor. 15.22. it is limited in the very next verse, 23. to those that are Christs. christ the first fruits, afterward they that are christs.

And as tor the difference he hath given us, be­tween the sins against the Law of Nature, and the sins against the light of the Gospel, that Christs [Page 67] Death should be properly, for the pardon of the former, and not of the other, I can no where finde; nor do I acknowledge any ground for it. St John telleth us, that the bloud of Jesus Christ, cleanseth us from all sin: and the Apostle Paul, who persecu­ted Christ, when he was come a light into the world, was nevertheless made a pattern to those that should afterwards believe, 1 Tim. 1.16. if he who fiercely persecuted Jesus Christ, be made of God a Pattern and Precedent to others, of the ver­tue of his Death; surely then was Christs Death as proper for him, as for others; and as proper for them that sin as he did, as for him. They who ne­ver heard of Christ are commanded to repent; Act. 17.30. as well as they who crucified the Lord of life, Act. 2. 38. Christ died for both, and both must repent, and neither of them can claim for­giveness of due debt, without Repentance.

M H. talks much, and unseasonably enough of the extent of Christs Death; and makes it almost an unpardonable crime, to limit it to Gods elect, or them that shall be saved: But who ever made so odious a restraint of it, as he hath here made? as if it were not properly and absolutely a Ransome, for any person this day in England, or yet in all Chri­stendome; for all the sins of Christians must needs be against the light of the Gospel, their sins cannot be considered before, or without Christs coming. One text he alledgeth, but depraveth it, that it may serve his purpose, Rom. 5.16,17. The judgement [Page 68] was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences to justification, therefore Christs Death was properly for those sins he found upon us, for those sins, which were brought upon us by Adam; but for no other sins properly and absolutely. One­ly out of the superabundance of Christs Grace, up­on our Repentance, shall be forgiven more sins than ever came by Adam: as if infidelity, and sin­ning against the light of the Gospel, and refusing to be saved, and love of darkness more than light; were not found upon us by means of Adams trans­gression. And secondly I answer, the meaning of the Apostles words is this. The first Adams sin was but one: but when the second Adam cometh, doth he onely take away that one sin? not so: he doth set us free from many offences; that is, from the multitude of offences or actual sins committed by us: Now S. Paul doth not distinguish of those ma­ny offences, (and why should any other then?) but would be taken to mean all kinde of offences, whe­ther considered before, and without Christs co­ming; or else proceeding out of love of darkness, when his coming is made known. From all kinde of actual sins, properly and intentionally, though not absolutely without Repentance, Christs off-spring or children are discharged, through Christ their Head and Father.

The question is propounded concerning Election: the main or chief part of the answer is returned concerning the Incarnation of the son of God; or the uniting the man Jesus Christ with the eternal word. A bold Innovation, Confusion, and Elu­sion.

Innovation, so will I think it, and call it, untill I can finde who hath gone before him, of the Papists, Protestants, of the Remonstrants, Lutherans, or any other in this definition.

Confusion, in that he hath confounded, and in a manner, made all one, those things which are of a quite differing and disparate nature.

Elusion, for what greater abuse or mockage can by any man be put upon his friend, than to stretch forth his hand and hold out one thing, and when he [Page 70] should take it, to give him quite another? Should any man take such libertie as to imitate him, he might reduce not the Incarnation onely, but most of the Articles of the Creed, and most of the works of God, to Election. And even this great Mystery of the Incarnation, which appertained not to this place, he hath expressed very untowardly. Had he been so wary as to keep himself to the Athanasian Creed, he had not used those words of God choo­sing the man Jesus Christ to be united with the word, but of Christ assuming the manhood into God, or to the Eternal word. The Man denotes the Person, The Manhood denotes the Nature. Jesus Christ did not assume mans Person, but mans Na­ture. The Humanity was framed, and united, both, at the same instant of time: the making & taking to himself our flesh, was but one Act. If the Son of God had taken to himself, a man already made and perfected, and having personal subsistence; then there should have been two persons in Christ, whereas there is but one person consisting of two natures; as our Authour hath soundly and fully de­livered, above, in the Answer to the 68 Question. So that here, wresting that to his purpose which did not belong to it, to the intent he might be thought, not to deny all personal Election, but that God chooseth One man, particularly and definitely; he hath unwittingly dashed himself upon Nestoria­nisme.

And if any man shall say now, That I deal not [Page 71] fairly, thus to aggravate a mistake of this kinde, where no harm is intended, but all is meant well, as I am willing to acknowledge out of his own words elsewhere, I shall alledge that for my self, which is to be found, if I mistake not, and is observed in the Civil Law, and as I think, in our Laws too: Res illi­cita & jocularia, casum reddit atrociorem. He that be­ing seriously employed in his honest calling, or any lawfull action, doth by way of mis-adventure pro­cure some danger or damage, to his neighbours goods, or life, or limb; shall not incur the same guilt, nor draw upon himself the same punishment, that another shall, who doth the very same harm, whiles he is either in sport and idle, or else bent up­on some other mischief. Our Authour was medi­tating a Mock-answer to a serious Question, and studying how to elude, and evade, and make void, Gods Election of particular persons: to that pur­pose wresting both the word of God, and the Ana­logy of Faith: a bad intent, an ill designe and work; in prosecution of which, while he stumbled upon an old condemned heresie, the blame of what be­fell him, may with right and reason rest upon him.

After the prime and principal part of his Answer, followeth something touching what is mentioned in the Question; (the other I called a Mock-Answer) but in such a manner, as if he were afraid of being guilty of following his Elders Tradition, or of deli­vering what he hath received of our Church, affect­ing [Page 72] to be wiser then his Teachers, who yet have de­livered nothing, but what they have received of Christ and his Apostles. This may appear by these particulars.

First whereas he saith, [chose, or purposed to choose] I do mis-doubt his disjunctive, as tending to overthrow all precedaneous Election. In Copula­tives, both must be true, to make the proposition true: but in Disjunctives, it is enough, if one of them hold true; and it is likely that with some of his partners, he will betake himself, if need be, to the sole purpose or intention to Elect. So abundant­ly cautelous he is, that there should be no Election whatsoever, ab aeterno, though it be but such, as one would think, might very safely have been yeelded. open door, Preface. [That any uncalled, are ever called Elect, I can no where finde in Scripture,] In what terms would he have it delivered that he might say, Now have I found it? There are Elect from the beginning; Elect before the foundation of the world: therefore as yet uncalled: he may finde Election placed before Vocation, in that chain, Rom. 8.

When as they hear the Elect spoken of, they will tell you, that Elect doth not signifie chosen, but choise, or Excellent. Tell them, it is Electos quos elegit: the Elect whom he hath chosen: they will say, That God chooseth them then, when they beleeve. Tell them, that God doth choose his Elect before the foundation of the world: that is, say they, [Page 73] He did purpose to choose them when they come to beleeve. But so were they justified, and glorified before the world was: so was the world at an end, before the foundation was laid. Thus no words of holy Writ, how plain soever, can secure the truth against the perverse wits, of such as are corrupt and self-willed.

Secondly, he teacheth here, That in the Doctrine of Election we must begin with Christ: and there are given abroad certain verses of his, which tender this as a Main-principle to be born in minde, That Christ fore-known is the foundation of all, and the not knowing, or learning of this, breedeth many er­rours: these texts subjoyned, Isa. 28. 16. 1 Cor. 3. 11. Agreeably whereunto it hath been taught by others of his way, and by such as led the way to O­thers. That Gods first Decree, is, De mittendo Chri­sto, to send his son into the world. Answ. There must be something of necessity, precedent to the Mission or Manifestation of Christ, or to Gods pre­ordination to send and manifest him. I know that in God, who is eternity it self, all things are toge­ther, nothing properly going before or following. And to us, as we now are, it is a hard matter to know how to speak or think of Gods manner of acting or proceeding in his Decrees: Nevertheless, as when he speaketh unto us in holy Scripture, he is pleased to condescend to our capacities, and to borrow his man­ner of speech from our custome and usage, to the in­tent he may be understood of us; So he giveth us [Page 74] leave, when we speak of him, to use our own ex­pressions, so they be agreeable to his holy Word, and with due regard to him who is in all things infi­nite. Accordingly whereunto we say; That as some things in the order and manner of the Creatures, are simul tempore, together as to their beginning in time, which are not, simul naturâ, together in their own nature, one of them causing the other to be; as the Sun, and the light of it; Fire, and the heat of it: In like sort, Gods election of men, and his pur­pose to send Jesus Christ; these two, though they be both alike ab aeterno, yet naturâ, the Election of his Church, goeth before his purpose to send his Son. And this I prove by those words, So God lo­ved the world, that he gave his Son: 1. John 4. He loved us, and sent his Son. Therefore whether it be Gods love and mercy to mankind, in the general; or in special to the Elect; and whether election be of particular persons, or beleevers in general; Gods love doth go before his purpose or decree to send his Son, because he sent his Son out of his love to Man.

When a Christian Prince, hearing of such a num­ber of his subjects, held captives under the Great Turk, doth send such a sum of money as is demand­ed; in this case certainly his good will that he bear­eth to those his subjects, doth precede his sending, or his purpose to send the money for their Ran­some.

The Love of God, is, Causa proegumena, quae in­tus [Page 75] movet ad agendum, which some call causa antece­dens, the cause moving from within, The Death of Christ is, Causa procatarctica, quae extrinsecus mo­vet ad agendum, the cause moving from without: and therefore subsequent to the other, though both be considered together; as he that resolves upon the end, doth therewithall deliberate and resolve of the means tending thereto. Gods Love, or good will is an antecedent cause to Christs manifestation. And as a foundation is for the good and benefit of what is laid upon it; so was Christ given in caput Electorum, to be a Head, and a Mediatour, that by him the E­lect might be brought to Glory. Although there­fore the son of God, be the Authour and finisher of our Salvation, if we speak of the Execution of it in time; yet if we speak of the Decree of it, before all time; So Christ is not the foundation of our Ele­ction, but Gods love is. And yet I hope, he will not say, we lay any other foundation then Christ, according to the Apostles sense, 1 Cor. 3. any more then the Apostle himself did, when he said in one place, The foundation of God standeth sure, 2 Tim. 2. and in another, We are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Eph. 2.

Thirdly, he teacheth that Christ is not onely Fun­damentum electionis, but subjectum also and primus Electorum, as if God did choose Christ first, and then others; and two places are brought in the mar­gin, wherein he is said to be Gods Elect; Isa. 42. 1. Behold my servant whom I uphold, my Elect in whom [Page 76] my soul delighteth: and 1 Pet. 2.4. To whom coming as to a living stone, disallowed of men, but chosen of God, and precious. These two places are alledged to make good his new Doctrine, that the Great My­sterie of Election, which in his Title he promised to open, is in the prime notion to be understood, of Gods choosing of Christ.

I answer, It is needfull that be done, that he hath omitted; and that is, to distinguish, and remove the darkness, that ariseth from ambiguity. There is a fourfold Election.

• 1. To an office So David was chosen King, whiles he followed the sheep: and our Saviour chose the twelve to be Apostles.
• 2. To the Church visible; So God chose the people of Israel, Deut. 7.6. The Lord hath chosen you te be a special people.
• 3. To the Church invisible, or the mystical bo­dy of Jesus Chri [...]st, Joh. 15. 19. I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
• 4. To salvation, or life eternal, Eph. 1.4. Accord­ing as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world. 2 Thess. 2.13. God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation.

Now both the places abovesaid, where Christ is said to be Elected, are meant of an Election to an Office, or Place, Honour and Dignity, as the con­text, and plain reason evidently shew: in Isai 42. he is, To give judgement, to make Laws, to be a teacher, to be a light of the Gentiles, to open the blinde eyes, and to [Page 77] bring forth the prisoners. All these belong to his Royal and Prophetical Office. And in that place of Peter, his office is likewise spoken of. To whom co­ming] as to one in chief place, that in him we may be established: a chief corner stone] this is for the good of others, to hold the building firm: and such as was the Reprobation, or Rejection; such was the Election surely. But the Rejection was in this to be in no place at all: therefore the Election must be in this, to be in the chief place of all. So we may say that our Saviour was predestinated, and preordina­ted, ad officium; but if we say, that he is the first of the predestinate, or primus Electorum, who then is secundus? None: for none is there of that order to follow. Jesus Christ is chosen to an Office: Belee­vers are chosen to salvation, Each of these is called Election. But the one is not of the same kinde, that the other is.

Therefore, inasmuch as he hath not brought any place where it is said, that Christ was elected other­wise than to an Office: and inasmuch, secondly, as Election to salvation or life eternal importeth either a lost estate, as in men; or a changeable and hazard­ous estate, as in Angels, who are said to be elected, I Tim. 5. and inasmuch thirdly, as the Manhood of our Saviour never had any personal subsistence, but was immediately assumed to the God-head, past all possibility of falling into sin and misery; in these re­gards, I leave it to be considered, whether or no, and how Christ may be said to be elected to salvation. [Page 78] But if in no place of Scripture this Election be spo­ken of, then sure I am, this is none of the Election that ought to have been spoken to, in the Answer to the Question above-said.

Fourthly, he teacheth that Christ is not onely the first Elected, but the onely elected personally [in him all the seed springing forth of the travel of his soul] All, in the general, not one in particular, not any de­terminately. But the Apostle saith, 2 Tim. 2. 19. The, foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth WHO are his. Qui not Quales, who, not how qualified, as, that they are true be­leevers, and obedient. This general consideration may soon be known by every one. But you may say again, Every one cannot tell who they be that are truly faithfull and obedient: but the Lord know­eth in particular who they be that are such: to this, I return, That unless final perseverance be yeelded, this is no sure foundation: this is no seal, the which useth to be for certainty and assurance: that founda­tion standeth not sure, that is subject to change, re­volt, and apostacy. Qui sint, therefore cannot be, beleevers in general: if you say, Qui sint, be cre­dentes perseverantes, beleevers that hold on in faith and obedience to the end: then I say, this is not to the scope of the Apostle, which is to comfort the peo­ple of God against the fearfull example and offence of Apostates. Hymeneus and Philetus have erred and overthrown the faith of some: if some fall away, and draw others after them, who can be se­cure? [Page 79] We may all be seduced, first or last: No, saith the Apostle. Nevertheless] that is, though some fall away, and others follow, yet Gods elect shall stedfastly abide; But here were no comfort for belee­vers, if onely those who persevered in true faith and continued to the end, should then, upon their perse­verance and continuance be sure not to fall away, as Hymeneus and Philetus did.

It is true that when men do beleeve, they may be said, and are said sometime, to be Elected then; But who takes upon him, either to write a Systeme of Divinity, or a Catechisme pretending to lay open these great mysteries, useth not, and ought not to term this Election, but vocation; according as the Apostle doth call it, and distinguish it from Electi­on, in that chain, Rom. 8.29,30. And he hath here in his Margin made a kinde of Medley, of all the four sorts of Election above specified, as may appear by view of his Texts.

1 Pet. 1.2. is spoken of Election to life eternal chap. 2. vers.9. a chosen generation] of election to [Page 80] the Church visible. Joh.15.16. I have chosen you, that you should bring forth fruit] is meant of choice to their office of Apostleship. vers.19. I have cho­sen you out of the world] is meant of Election to the Church invisible, which is all one with Vocation, That of the fourth psalme, The Lord hath chosen (so our English vulgar, but others, separated) to himself the man that is godly] is to be understood of Electi­on, or separation to an office, namely the King­dome. Psal.65. Blessed is the man whom thou choo­sest] is meant of choosing or admitting to the Church visible, namely of a particular congregati­on; so it followeth, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts, we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy Temple. Isai.14.1. The Lord will choose Israel and set them in their own land] is meant of Election to the Church visible constituted: and 2 Pet.1.10. of E­lection to life eternal.

Thus hath he obscured what he undertook to open, whether out of too much artifice, or too little Art; I will suppose the former.

[Page 81]As if they might not be considered personally, and in themselves, and either standing or fallen; and yet withall, be chosen in Christ, Not in Adam, saith he, standing or fallen, but in Christ.] So then as it is commonly said by some, that the Elect were considered standing, by others, fallen; before, or when Christ did choose them; So now they must be said, to be in Christ when they were chosen [In Christo] must not go to Elegit, but to Nos,] Elegit nos existentes in Christo. God chooseth us when we are true beleevers. But this is not his sense, although divers have so taken Eph. 1.4. He hath helped us elsewhere to know his meaning here. In the Pre­face to his other work. § For the matter. [We were chosen to blessing and holiness in him, as the present Freemen of Lynn, might be said to have been, by foregoing Kings, chosen to such priviledges as they have now, in the first choosing it to be a Corporation, and in those that were then made members of it.] We see how small and faint a matter he maketh of Election, if any thing at all: A King of England, that above a hun­dred years now past, did choose a Corporation (if you call it choosing) neither did, nor doth, choose them who are admitted freemen since that time, any more than he did choose their chief Magistrate, this year; or their Burgesses that were sent thence to the last Parliament. There is no Election, where there is no knowledge, of what is chosen, what re­fused. This similitude therefore can neither prove [Page 82] nor illustrate being false in the ground of it: yet it helpeth us to his meaning, or interpretation of those words, Elegit nos in Christo; which is this, God chose us in choosing Christ: Chose Christ first, in him chose them, who should in after ages beleeve in him. This gloss did well become the Problems of that hardy adventurer, who attempted to wrest and winde up our English Articles to the Church of Rome. But for Mr Horn, who promised to cleave perfectly to the word, he might very well have looked onward to the next verse, vers. 5. where it is, per Christum, by him; which might very well in­terpret in ipso, in him: and he might very well have looked on to the seventh verse, where it is in quo, in whom we have forgiveness. What? had Christ for­giveness first, and then we in him? had he Redem­ption through his bloud, and then we in him? No: but God did forgive us, and redeem us, and bless us, and choose us through him, or by means of him, or with respect to him, as our Mediatour: or he might have interpreted this place by 1 Thess. 5.9. God hath appointed us to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ; which is as much as this, he hath cho­sen us to salvation in Christ. And as his similitude is not true, so neither is it fitted to the Mystery now spoken of. For God Almighty did chiefly, and in the first place (so far as we may be able to make difference) choose his people to salvation, and in the next place chose Jesus Christ, to the office of Mediatour (no other Election of him I know spo­ken [Page 83] of) Jesus Christ was the gift of God; for ha­ving chosen his Church, he gave his son to be their Head to bring them together, and to hold them to­gether, that they might not fall and be lost, as they were under the first Adam.

But to prove Election to be personal, and not of the generalitie of beleevers; and yet withall to be in Christ, I alledge that place in Revel. 13.8. where it is described by Names written in the book of the Lamb slain. A book, here is a Catalogue of Names, as Gen. 5. and Matth. 1. and names are of persons. And the book of life, is the book of the Lamb slain, because God doth not save, or bring to Glory his Elect, but by intervention of Christs satisfaction, that Justice and Mercy may stand toge­gether. This place of Scripture, hath our Authour in his Essays, a late piece of his, in a long and labo­rious discourse, vindicated from this sense, and this purpose. The sum is this. Names, saith he, written in Gods book, are not those by which we call men, as John, James, &c. but their qualities in the general, by which men may be called. The wise in heart shall be called prudent, Prov. 16. So the Elect are called Righteous, Meek, Mercifull, Godly, Fear­ers of God; these names, were always in the book of life, but are newly put upon beleevers, when they receive Christ, and be qualified, with new frames and dispositions, and this, he saith, appears clearly & beyond all contradiction, to be the genuine import, of those so often abused Scriptures, touch­ing [Page 84] names written in the book of life.] I answer, not beyond all, for it is in some contradiction to him­self; it is his common Doctrine, and in particular beneath at the Qu. and Answ. 202. That we may not gather Gods love or Election, from our duties of obedience, or inherent graces. Are these quali­ties and dispositions names always written in heaven, and put upon beleving persons when they do re­ceive Christ, and are endued with those qualities; and shall they not signifie that God hath then elect­ed, and doth then love such persons? Shall they be names in the book of life, and shall they not no­tifie the persons upon whom they are put, as heirs of life? This therefore is in clear contradiction to himself. He should not be so forward as he is, to accuse his brethren for making a mingle-mangle, of some matters they take in hand; for he hath here most confusedly mingled together Qualities with Names, Names proper with names appella­tive, and if his Atchievements take place, and be answerable to his essays, he will go near to bring us all to Babel, that none shall understand other. If the Messenger that bringeth to a Corporation, the pre­cept for Election, should deliver it to the chief Ma­gistrate there, with these words; Sir, I have brought you here a writing for choice of Burgesses, together with the names of those whom you are to choose, for to serve in Parliament; hearing this, he would perhaps think, there were sent him a Cónge d'eslire, and fear some infringement of libertie: but opening [Page 85] it and finding nothing but some general and usual qualifications, well consisting with freedome of choice; he might very well chide him for such abuse, and ask him where he learned to talk so frivolously and so fondly. Qualities are not Names; neither are Names Qualities: Qualities are inherent in us; Names are imposed on us: neither is that a mans Name al­ways by which he is called. Noah was righteous and he was called so, yet that was not his name. Moses was meek, and was called so; yet that was not his name. In the language of holy Scripture, Names do signifie Persons, and individual Substances: he calleth the stars by their names: I know thee by name, Exod.33. I have called thee by Name, Isai.43. He cal­leth his own sheep by name, Joh.10. Can any take these places to be meant otherwise, than of individual and personal notice? Nothing will serve Mr Horn, but such names, as John and James, and so long as we cannot finde these spoken of in Gods word, he will not yeeld, there are any such written in heaven; nor any personal Election: but what if he can finde such names as Clement? Will that satisfie him? when the Apostle saith Phili. 4.3. with Clement also, and other my fellow-labourers, whose Names are written in the book of life; I take his meaning to be this; as if he had said, with Clement, and those others, whom though I name not now in this Epistle, as I do Clement; yet are their names written far more happily elsewhere, even in the book of life with God in heaven. Such names there­fore, [Page 86] as John, James, Clement, we say, but understand still what we say, [...], are written in the book of the Lamb slain.

First, Let it be supposed, that the words are not taken personally, but are to be taken of the Israe­lites preeminence above the Edomites in outward and temporal Priviledges: yet this is enough by ac­commodation, to shew that God is free in his choice, and refusal; in that they who are every way alike, are not alike dealt withall, whether it be in worldly blessings, or spiritual, or eternal: if temporal inhe­ritance be of Gods purpose wholly, not of works; then also the heavenly: and why may not one Per­son, as well as one People, be loved, and another hated, before either good or evil done?

But secondly, The Election and the Rejection were Personal. The Scripture in Genesis, speaketh primarily of their Persons: in Malachi, secondarily, and by application, of their posterity. Answ. to Qu. 143. [Him and his Posterity] The persons there­fore of the Heads of the respective nations, are not to be excluded. And in particular, for the personal Reprobation of Esau, it that must be spoken to: 1. Holy Scripture saith, he was a profane person, for that he sold his Birth-right for a Break-fast: it is not said, he was unwise, to make so foolish a bargain; but profane, so to under-value and part with his inheri­tance of the land of Canaan, the right he had to the promise, and to the covenant made with Abraham, [Page 88] in so contemptuous a manner. 2. It is said he was hated of God. Now though hatred may sometime signifie less love, yet not always, yet not here like­ly, where there are such Synonymous phrases, as hardened vessels to dishonour, vessels of wrath. 3. The Apostle bringeth Esau for an example, or proof, that some of Abrahams children may be re­jected, may be children of the flesh, and not children of God, not children of the promise, Room. 9.8,13. Let us not go about to make void the Apostles ar­gument. Nevertheless, if any man will contend, that as the blessings conferred on Jacob, and denied to Esau, were typical; so also was the Election of the one, and the Rejection of the other: and that Esau was onely Typus Reproborum, and that he did repent afterwards, being reconciled to his Brother, Gen. 33. and return to the Church of God; The Allegorical exposition of these two texts, in Genesis and Malachi, are sufficient to confirm the Apostles Doctrine of Election and Reprobation, which he treateth of in those three chapters, Rom.9,10,11.

Secondly, whereas our Authour would have the Election of Jacob to consist in this, that he and his posterity were priviledged, with the choice means of salvation. 1. It moveth some wonder that so great weight should be laid upon the greater or less means of salvation, by them who hold all men in the world to have sufficient means of salvation.

2. Jacob and Esau were brought up alike in the same family, instructed in the same religion, made [Page 89] alike partakers of the seal of the righteousness of Faith, thus far they were not differenced.

3. A Catechist who pretends to deliver common grounds of Divinity, should deliver them in com­mon terms of Divinity In his Title, was, the my­sterie of Election: But to be priviledged with the means of salvation, this is, and ought to be called Externall vocation, which is expresly contra-distin­guished from Election, by our blessed Saviour, when he saith, Many are called, few are chosen. And ac­cordingly S. Paul here shews the difference, betwixt the Church visible, and invisible; and that all are not Israel, that are of Israel, because God chooseth and refuseth whom he will, of those who belong to the Church, and partake of the outward Call: but he makes no comparison or opposition betwixt Israelites and Ethnicks; nor betwixt Christians, and Infidels; nor betwixt those that have more means, and those that have less means: But to remove the offence, which did arise from the Jews rejection of Christ and his righteousness, he sheweth that God doth keep his promise with Abraham, in that he saveth his children of the promise, whom he chooseth to Glory, whether they be many or few, whether they be Jews or Gentiles.

4. It had been agreeable and tending to our Au­thours designe, if he could have shewed, that in these three chapters, 9,10, and 11; there is no other love nor hatred spoken of, or intended, but onely as thus far, that God offers to some the more choice means [Page 90] of Salvation; to others, but ordinary and common means: and that to shew mercy, and to harden, is the same with affording choice means, and ordinary means. But this he could never do. Did God love his Church of the Old Testament, less than us of the New Testament? Was his love so much less to the Kings and Prophets, who desired to see Christs day, then it was to the Apostles, who saw what the others desired to see, but could not see? Or was Caperna­um more beloved of God, then Tyre and Sidon, so far as the one should be said to be loved, the other ha­ted? the one elected, the other reprobated? In what­soever way it be, that God may be said to harden, he hardeneth them that he sends the best means to, as soon as any other: yea, by his word he hardeneth them. To the Prophet he saith, by whom he sends, and when he sends his word, Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy; and the Gospel preached by the Apostles themselves, was the sa­vour to death, as well as to life. Luke 11.49. The wisdome of God said, I will send them Prophets and Apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute; He sends oftentimes, and in wisdome sends, where he knoweth little good will be done. Or he should have shewed, that there is no Election or Rejection spoken of, in all that discourse of S. Paul, to or from salvation. But this he could never do: for the Apo­stle speaketh of an Election that is made out of those who have choice external means: a choosing out of these. Among the Israelites who were for number [Page 91] as the sand, a remnant saved, chap.9.27. of whom Paul was one, chap. 10.1. there was a people whom God fore-knew, vers.2. that is, a people not onely called, but chosen. Israel hath not obtained, but the Election hath obtained, vers. 7. Out of the Israe­lites therefore, who were elected to choice means of saluation, there was an Election to life eternal, which properly is called the mysterie of Election. But now it is to no purpose all that he hath said, concerning Jacob and Esau, unless he intended to prove that the Apostle hath not rightly alledged the Testimonies concerning them, out of Genesis, and the Prophecy ot Malachi.

Here the Catechist plays the Mimus, and in a scoffing imitation puts not a proper question, but a figurative Interrogation, crudely enough and invidi­ously; which being negative, must be resolved affir­matively; Says not the Scripture? q. d. the Scri­pture [Page 92] doth certainly say so, at least, as the pretended Orthodox, have made the world beleeve. And yet they never said more in this, then the Scripture saith, namely, that God raised up Pharaoh to shew his wrath upon him, for his own glory. The word is di­versly rendred and expounded: but whether it be Feci, Creavi, Excitavi, Posui, Feci surgere, Feci stare, (any of these) or whether it be Feci restare, h. e. superstitem mancre, agreeably to the Septuagint: I have reserved thee, preserved thee, or kept thee till now; it is not much material. They who give the sense according to any ot the first forenamed, do think it suits with Prov. 16. 4. The Lord hath made the wicked for the day of evil; and do think that the Apostles word, Rom. 9. doth suit with it, ver. 17. and there is nothing, ver.22. against it: They think the Apostle may explain himself, ver.20. Why hast thou MADE me thus? ver. 21. —of the same lump to MAKE —. Howsoever those sound Inter­preters who follow the Septuagints meaning [I have kept thee from former judgements] do not think it any prejudice to that cause, in opposition of which it is here produced: for if God Almighty did defer and suspend his judgements, and continue him in being, for to shew his glory in taking vengeance; the Apo­stle might well apply it further; whether he were raised, or reserved; it shews the freedome of Gods Sovereignty, and power to dispose of his Creature to his glory, whether by shewing mercie, or by hard­ening.

He telleth us when God doth make any man a vessel of honour, and leaveth it plain enough to be understood, when he maketh any man to be a ves­sel of dishonour; that is, when he vouchsafeth him a less degree of the favours specified. When he al­loweth any man less means of salvation, than he doth to another: and when he sheweth less power, for the good of one, than he doth for the good of some other. For God forbeareth all men, and exer­ciseth power for the good of all men, more or less. Thus much being premised. I come to observe as followeth.

[Page 94] First, it is a matter that causeth scandal to the common people, to ascribe so much to the diffe­rence of the means, conducing to salvation, that the very Degree, of greater means or less, should be able to make men vessels of honour or dishonour. They need not be assisted, in setting up such super­stitious fancies, and conceits of their teachers, and outward helps to holiness and happiness. For 1. some are too forward to think themselves safe, so long as they live under an eminent ministery, though they learn little, and practise less. And 2. some others are too ready to lay the blame here, and give this the reason, why they and the world about them amend no faster, because they are no better taught. World­ly men, when they have no minde to finde the way to true conversion, and reformation; begin often­times to quarrel with their Ministers and Pastours, as not being qualified with awakening gifts: their way of preaching is not efficacious: and, who was ever known to be converted by a Liturgy? forget­ting in the mean time the 16 chapter of S. Luke: where, as there is set before us and laid open the state of the other life or world; so is there also a window opened to mens breasts & thoughts, that we may know what fond conceits they have. Nay, fa­ther Abraham, but if one went to them from the dead, they would repent; and he said unto them, if they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be per­swaded, though one rose from the dead.

Secondly, A Doctrine it is uncomfortable, and [Page 95] uncharitable, to teach, that those persons, for ex­amples sake, who living in the darker corners of this Land, have not so plentifull instructions, as others have, are therefore made of God to be vessels of dishonour. God seeth not as man seeth; chooseth not according to outward appearance and accommo­dation; but requireth of Christian people, according to what they have, and not according to what they have not: it lies not all upon the edge of the instrument, or weapon; but strength of the hand, in this work: and oftentimes, the first are last, and the List first. Mans life consisteth not, whether it be corporal or spiritual, in the abundance of the means that he possesseth, but in Gods blessing and heaven­ly influence, which causeth often, as good health and habitude with. Daniels pulse, as Benjamins double Mess.

Thirdly, A like Doctrine it is to teach, that whom God forbeareth not, but chasteneth and scourgeth early, they are therefore vessels of dis­honour, but who knoweth not that Judgement useth to begin at Gods house? and that if there be a difference, he least of all forbeareth those that be his own? the fruit of this Doctrine would be, to add affliction to the afflicted, and help to make up the measure of their sufferings, who finde not the power of God exercised for their good, with the mark and designation of reprobates.

In the very next verse following the mention of vessels to honour and dishonour, it is said that, God [Page 96] endureth with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, Rom. 9.22. and doth forbearance help to make a vessel of honour? spoken of vers. 21. Our Authour either could not or would not see what was next at hand, and lay plain before his eyes: otherwise, Al­mighty Gods forbearance to punish, had never en­tred the description of a vessel made to honour.

Fourthly, he interprets that to be a vessel to ho­nour, upon which any honour is conferred though for the duration, temporary and transitory, for such are all the honours that he mentioneth. Thus Ju­das, even then, when an Unbeleever, Thief, and Devil, was notwithstanding a vessel of honour, ac­cording to the Dialect of these instructions, be­cause he was born withall, and preferred in outward means to life eternal before thousands of others whereas this preposition, In, I N honorem, I N con­tumeliam, not of, but to honour, and dishonour, being a final particle, and denoting the end; cannot otherwise well be taken, than to denote a final state, and condition permanent. Had it been his aim to take the Apostles sense, and not to force a meaning upon him; in the very next verse, vers. 22. he might have seen explained what is meant by vessels of dis­honour, namely, vessels made up and fitted to de­struction, not less forborn, less regarded, and ho­noured.

Fifthly, according to the tenour of the answer abovesaid, the same person may be a vessel to ho­nour, and dishonour both; successively, at several [Page 97] times; that, confessedly: but not onely so, but sensu composito; at the same time, he shall be a vessel of honour, because he is preferred before some others, and a vessel of dishonour, because some others a­gain are preferred before him, in participation of di­vine patience and goodness, and outward aid. For thus it must needs be, in the several degrees, and the variety of these kinds of savours vouchsafed of God to the sons of men.

Sixthly, if we view the words before, that gave the occasion to these, we shall soon perceive how unlikely a matter it is, that either Jew or Gentile, should charge God above with injustice, or that the Apostle should defend Gods justice, by checking the presumption of humane reason; and yet nothing be objected but this, that God useth some men bet­ter than he useth others, in patience towards them, and means tending to life, and power exercised for their good.

Lastly, there would be no colourable cause of complaint against God, nor should any man need to say, why hast thou made me thus? if it be in his power to make himself otherwise, to make him­self, even as he will, notwithstanding any thing that God hath done. He may haply honour one man more than another, in outward mercies, and dis­pensations, which thereafter as a man shall well or ill make use of, he shall make himself accordingly a vessel of wrath, or mercy.

God in mercy made the people of Chorazin and [Page 98] Bethsaida, vessels of honour (if we can be perswa­ded so to call it) by the mighty and gracious works wrought among them. But they by abusing this honour, made themselves truly and indeed, vessels of dishonour. And others again who were disho­noured of God, by having fewer Talents, through good improvement of them, became vessels of glo­ry and honour. The rule of our belief teacheth us otherwise, Gods purpose of Election doth stand or abide firm, Rom.9.11. his Counsel is immutable to­wards the heirs of promise, Hebr.6.17. vessels of ho­nour and dishonour, being no more interchangeable here, than gold and silver, wood and earth, of which the divers vessels are made, 2 Tim. 2. 20.

Thus much concerning Election.

Of the means of salvation, he hath formerly spoken sundry times, in several Questions and Answers. But he did not tell us how far that term should be extended; whether beyond the Church or no. Now he asketh in

The brief of these instructions is this; according to the New light that some blazing Comets have afforded us: The works of Creation and Provi­dence, bring men to the knowledge of Christ our Saviour, and the Sun, Moon, and Stars preach the Gospel.

As for Christs interposing betwixt God and us, I do in the first place acknowledge, that his Mediation is not onely sufficient, that is to say, potentially effi­cacious, [Page 100] but moreover actually efficacious, for all men in the world, whether they come to know any thing of him or no; yea, for the other creatures also: thus far, as to that mixture and measure of mercy which they enjoy, and conservation of them in that estate, wherein we now behold them. God did so far accept of Noahs sacrifice, Gen.8. from which he smel­led a sweet savour; that he said, I will not again curse the ground any more: but while the earth remaineth, Seed­time and Harvest, Cold and Heat, Summer and Winter, Day and Night shall not cease. It is more likely that the weight of so great a promise, and of such ex­tent, to the worlds end, should rest and bear it self, upon the virtual contents of Noahs sacrifice; than upon the Dutie, Obedience, or Religious ex­ercise of Noahs person at that time. The sacrifice of Noah might please God, but that with which he was pacified and appeased, was the virtue of Christs sa­crifice, contained Sacramentally in that of Noah, as it was also in all the Propitiatory offerings of the Old Testament, in which was offered and performed true satisfaction and propitiation, though not truly, or in truth, but onely in Type and figure.

And as this promise or purpose of God, touching the preservation and upholding of Man, and all flesh; although it were absolute and not conditionate, nor with any contract made, is yet called in Scripture, a Covenant, Gen.9. taking that term at large and im­properly: So hath the Rain-bowe been called a Sa­crament of it, in like large and improper acception. [Page 101] Thus far we hold that Jesus Christ did interpose as a general Mediatour: but this no way conduceth to the purpose of these Questions and Answers: and that for these two reasons: 1. Because thus much is not known to all men by means of the works or crea­tures of God, but to some onely, and that by means of his word. 2. Because this Mediation availeth onely, and extendeth onely, to temporal and world­ly benefits, not to salvation, or life eternal. Where­as in this Catechisme, the works of God are said to speak a further Mediation, and to be means with which Gods spirit and power is conversant [To bring men to faith in Christ, and so to the bles­sings in him, even to be vessels of mercy. Quest. and Answ. 146, 147, 148.

In gainsaying which opinion, I craveleave to ask this question: Do the Sun, Moon, and Stars toge­ther with other works of Gods Creation, speak any other language now, then they did before the fall of man? it must be answered, No. As the Sun doth shine alike, at this day upon the just and the unjust; so did it upon Adam, while he was in Paradise, and when he was thence excluded. All things continue alike from the beginning of the Creation, 2 Pet. 3. which though brought in as the saying of the Im­postours, yet doth not the Apostle deny the truth of what is said, but onely their false collection and reasoning thence: namely, that because the world hath so long continued, therefore it must always continue, and never have end. Now shall we think, [Page 102] that Jesus Christ did interpose as Mediatour be­tween God and us, when as yet there was no need? Or, that there was a Remedy published to the world, before the Maladie was known, or was? If any dif­ference there be in the Dialect and voice of the crea­tures and works of God; then, they do not utter his goodness towards men more, than they did before sin came into the world, rather his anger and punish­ing hand: The vanity and servitude of corruption, to which the creature is unwillingly subject, testifying as well the frown of Gods countenance, as the sin and fall of man. The characters of Divine Provi­dence, though they be not very dim to be discerned, yet are they very difficult to be disciphered, and do present to the quickest view and apprehension, the Bounty of the Supreme Lord, and the curse of his Law, set one over against the other; but not the contents of the Gospel, or the mercy of a Saviour: The Gospel being Tidings must be brought; and being News, must be told, before it can be known; and being tendred by way of Covenant, implyeth a necessity that notice be given to the parties concern­ed: Faith in Christ comes by hearing: how can they beleeve in him, of whom they have not heard? Our Redemption is taught us in the school of Christ, not in the Theatre of the world. 1 Cor.1.21. After that in the wisdome of God (that is, in the Glass of the Creatures, where shineth Gods wisdome, and pow­er, and goodness) the world by wisdome, (that is, by their own wisdome, and search, and interpretations, [Page 103] and collections) knew not God (not God a Saviour) it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching (that is, by making known to the world, that the eternal Son of God was crucified for them) to save them that beleeve. No mystery is known by nature. The Gospel is a mysterie or secret, 1 Tim.3.16. a myste­rie which none of the Princes of the world knew.

And whereas he saith, Qu, 152. The works of Creation do speak of Christ, but more obscurely] against this, I argue thus. If heathen persons by means of the creatures were brought to know Christ a Saviour, though more obscurely; Then, when Christ a Saviour is evidently taught, they would have entertained him: But when he was evidently taught, they refused him, and counted his Gospel foolishness: Therefore they did not know him be­fore, no, not so much as obscurely.

When Paul preached Jesus at Athens, where was highest improvement of natural light, he was not onely encountred by the Philosophers, even the Stoicks, the best of the pack; but a worse matter then so, he was had before the Highest Court, and endited for innovating in Religion. And every where, as well as there, was the Gospel spoken a­gainst, Acts 28.

He who should have counted all fabulous, that was reported of America, or the Western world, at the first discovery; certainly that man never had former­ly, any such suspicion or surmise, as Columbus had: namely, that of the huge space or quantity of the [Page 104] Globe terrestrial, which the Sun in daily motion compasseth, and which was not then taken notice of, there might be as well land as sea, and that land habitable and inhabited: for had he thus imagined of himself, he would not then have laughed at the story of the New-found land, and held it as a foolish fiction.

Had the Mediation of Christ a Saviour been dark­ly gathered from the fabrick of the world, and works of Providence; then would it not, when fully, faith­fully, and credibly published, prove to be matter of offence, and be judged folly, as it was of them who had no other call but outward. And how could that be seen of them by the less light, that was not seen of them by the greater light, arising, and shining on them?

And whereas he saith, that Gods works speak christ, as the work the workman] it comes in here impertinenly, and belongs to the former member of the Division; They speak of God, but do they speak of Christ? So asketh the Question, which is as much as to say thus; The works speak of a Crea­tour, but do they speak also of a Saviour? Now they speak God the Creatour, and not Christ the Saviour, as the work the workman. Secondly, it is true that the work shews the workman: but as a workman, and no further: it shews qualis, or qualis artifex, but not quis: not his name: if it did, we should not see Artists set their names upon their curious pieces, Such a one Fecit, Sculpsit; or if his [Page 105] name, not his disposition, and moral character: or if that, not his Will and Testament.

If a Nobleman should build a large and fair house, furnishing it with all things needfull, and making it his place of residence, should freely entertain pas­sengers, for the time they stay with him; thus far may they well reason and conclude: Surely this great man had money enough, neither did he spare for any cost in rearing this edifice. One of good judge­ment he is, and discretion, thus to contrive the rooms, and order his family in so frugal, and so plen­tifull a manner: A good and courteous man he also is, to treat us so liberally, that we want neither meat, nor drink, nor lodging, nor atendance. Thus far should they argue well, from the effect to the cause; from the work, to the workman. But too simple and shallow should he be among them, that should conclude thus from the premises: Therefore surely, he will pay my debts; therefore he will put me into his Will, and give me such and such Legacies: therefore he will make me one of his heirs. The works which God hath made, and the blessings he bestoweth on us, with an open hand, and daily load­eth us withall, do witness of him, his goodness, his eternal power and Godhead. But they shew not who he is, they declare not his name, nor that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that brought Israel out of Egypt: This is his name; and this is his memorial: they shew not his nature; nor the persons of the Trinity; and therefore not the se­cond [Page 106] person, or the Mediatour: not his Will, how he must be worshipped, and served, in the Cove­nant of works: much less his Gospel or Covenant of Grace, that he made, and that by way of Testa­ment, with his Church and people, designed by him, to be heirs of his kingdome.

They who have hitherto denied, and opposed the Doctrine of that Universal Grace, which the Patrons of it maintain to be presented to all men, and met withall by all men; have desired, and called for, at the Adversaries hands, the Names of some of those persons, that have at any time by this Grace, been brought home to God; and have fur­ther said, that if any there were to be found, they [Page 107] should have heard of them, long ere now, on both ears.

Mr Horn in this Question, puts himself upon the service; and accepts the challenge, which had better be waved, and holds up the cause in such a manner, that he lets it quite fall to the ground: for in the Answer, he produceth onely a pair of Proselytes; the which were Jews in Religion, though not by birth, or nation; and therefore had as distinct knowledge of Christ, as the true Church of God then had. Thus by naming these two, he hath cau­sed withall, good proof to be given in, that none can be named.

When he saith, [by what means he affords them] he speaketh as if it were already gained and granted, that there is variety of means to the attainment of saving faith; and as if Gods non-acception of per­sons, were partly in this, that he regards not how men come by Grace so they have it, whether by work or word; whether by Nature, or Creature, or Scripture. Whereas Rahab and Cornelius had no means, but the onely means. And let him finde out whom he can perswade, that the one of them did not learn the faith and fear of the true God, from those whom Joshua sent to Jericho; nor the other living in the Metropolis of Palestine, from the na­tion Jews; but rather from the view and contem­plation of heaven and earth.

Cruel] This is an arrow shot upward, and must fall somewhere: let them look to it, who are most therein concerned. He seeth little who seeth not, which way this, and the like rude and unsavoury girds do look. This is but a taste for his new begin­ners, who may afterward, be laid in, with a larger al­lowance to feed on, from his own party, or if need be, from his own pen, with Abaddon, [...]. and such like poysonfull stuff, as help to swell the Preface to his open door. When Andradius, another universalist, had argued for his opinion, that Faith indeed is necessary to righteousness and life; but may be obtained by that knowledge, which is in part written in mans heart naturally, and in part acquired by the consideration of the Creatures; otherwise; Non posse Deum vel ab injustitia vel à crudelitate de­fendi: Chemnitius took the boldness to say, that these were Cerberei latratus, pag. 108. de operibus Infidelium, and yet Chemnitius was no Calvinist; and yet Andradius his words, were not direct and po­sitive; but through his confidence spoken, out of [Page 109] supposition, and putting case, that his own opinion should be false, and his Adversaries true. But it seems some men, choose to be deeply engaged, and resolve to take no quarter; being sworn to their be­loved cause, even after the manner of the old Sol­durian's law: they strengthen their partie with the uttermost breach: and as they who landing sink their ships, they intend not to listen to sound of re­treat, nor proffer of compromise. Whereas were their opinion true, and certain, touching Gods de­crees, and dealings towards the sons of men; Ne­vertheless, as earthly Princes love not to hear their power, or prerogatives disputed, much less circum­scribed; it were neither true nor safe, to say, that God were unjust, if he should do otherwise.

And I do observe here, the Catechists partiality. He hath included in a different character, four seve­ral instances of such as have false conceptions touch­ing God Almighty. The first is, some of the Pa­pists, who worship God in the picture of an old man. The second, his Adversaries, whom he select­ed to deal withall, in this Catechisme, and against whom principally it was composed, as intentionally for his chief aim, so intensively, for his greatest earnestness: these he meaneth who conceive of God as cruel. The third, they who hold God to be all Mercy, as the old Marcionites, and many others now, their near allyes. The fourth the Epicureans, who denie Providence; these four. Now of these four, he represents the first, so as they themselves [Page 110] do willingly own, what he chargeth them withall. Bellarmine saith, that though it be not a matter of Faith, but of Opinion, yet for his part, he holds it lawfull, to picture God, in forma hominis senis; and the 7th of Daniel is commonly alledged, where it is said, that the Ancient of days did sit, and the hair of his head was like the pure wooll, (that is, white as wooll) as white as snow. Rev.3. And yet perhaps, and by the way; the ground of the proof from thence, may be found to fail. For, first, Candidum, and canum, are not the same: whiteness, most likely, meaning not hoari­ness, or age, but purity, or sanctity. Mundities, not canities, as well in hair, as garment. Secondly, An­tiquus, and Senex, are not the same. Ancient, doth signifie Gods Eternity, before all times; but an old man, is looked upon as decaying, and going out of the world, Et quod senescit prope est interitum, Hebr.8. The heavenly Spirits whom God hath placed next himself, in condition and state, as well as in station, are pourtrayed with younger faces commonly: Even as that Angel, that rolled away the stone from our Saviours sepulchre, was in forma [...], in the form of a young man, or youth; quia Angeli nun­quam canescunt aut consenescunt, sed perpetuò florent, vigent, vegéntque, as the most learned Vossius, hath noted in his Harmony of the Gospel: that is, be­cause the Angels do never wax old, or wither; but are still and always, lively, vigorous, fresh and flou­rishing. But whether the practice can be made good or no, it is not denied, nor disowned.

[Page 111]No more is that which is charged upon the third sort, who make God all goodness, and mercy; they think they need not be ashamed of this, so pleasing it is, and plausible. And our Authour himself gives them no great discouragement, pag.268. of his work abovenamed, where the question being concerning Gods desire of mans salvation, how great it is, and of his helpfulness thereto, he makes a kinde of won­der at it, that any man should think [that we can speak too well of God.] Our selves in the mean time being judges, what is well and what is ill, thought or said, and understanding goodness, not absolute, but related, which is no other but beneficence, or bounty.

The fourth sort are likewise forward to maintain the opinion that is laid to them, and think it ho­nourable to the supreme governour of the world, not to look after matters of small regard, one of their founders boasted Relligionum animos nodis ex­solvere porgo: and his followers freely make pro­fession. These three the Catechist deals fairly with­all, and does them no wrong. But when he comes at the second instance, or the partie, as he calls them in the preface, he most invidiously lays to them, that which they never said, nor thought: as if they taught God to be cruel, and as if he were by them so conceived and apprehended to be.

Opposite to mercy named by him, on one hand, standeth Justice, or Severity, as well as Cruelty: but those terms were not for his turn, Cruelty is unjust [Page 112] Severity: God punisheth none but for sin, and pu­nishment of sin is no injustice; therefore doth the Apostle abominate the thought, of ascribing to God any injustice, even there where mans reason must least of all be satisfied. This is not their opinion, but a false and odious deduction of his own. So much for his partiality in this place.

The holy Scriptures do clearly set forth mans mi­sery [Page 113] to be general, or belonging to all men; but the remedy of that misery is not clearly and plainly set forth to be general or universal, and belonging to all men, otherwise than according to the sense before specified, which is sufficient to encourage any person that taketh notice of it, to lay hold upon it.

That chapter by him quoted, Rom. 3. doth in di­vers verses testifie mans loss, and sinfulness, to be universal, and over all; but the remedy by Christs righteousness, in respect of actual efficacy, is restrain­ed, ver.22. to them that beleeve. Which restriction is very often expressed, and must be understood in those places, where it is not expressed, and where the universal particle All, is barely and solely laid down.

This answer of his, to the question abovesaid, being committed to the memory of the younger sort of people, may do them hurt; and it is not like to do them good, as being no way apt to teach them, either the fear of God, or the reverence of man. Not the fear of God, because it carries with it to­wards him, so much arrogance; as to prescribe and set down what it behooved him to have done, though it doth not appear he hath done it: Not the reve­rence of man, because it carries with it towards him so much virulence, as to judge all those to be led blind-fold by the Devil, that are not perswaded God hath done, what is here thought behoovefull to be done, though it be plain and certain he hath not done it.

[Page 114]A multitude is held inexcommunicable; What presumption is it then to deliver up multitudes of Churches to Satan for their teacher, because they refuse to follow him, who professeth to leave that road, in which Their guides and worthies have gone before them!

As for that he directs us to, 2 Cor. 4. I answer: Those persons, to whom the Gospel being preach­ed by the Apostle, was hidden; whose minds the god of this world had blinded, that they should not see it in the brightness of it, and hereby were lost, and did perish; Were not so much beloved of God, as others were, to whom the Apostle preached with better success; although they had the same choice means of salvation that others had: neither was there so much good will towards them, as there was to others, whose eyes and hearts the Lord did open, that they might see, and beleeve, and affect what was taught, and be saved: much less was there so much good will towards a third sort of men, that were never so much as outwardly called. This we think, this we beleeve, and hold. And if any man shall say, That whiles we are of this minde, and because we think thus much, therefore Satan blind­ing our eyes, hath perswaded us to it: We will with more modesty return him this advice, that he would beware of another kinde of blindness, which Ter­tullian speaks of, Apolog.9. Coecitatis species videri videre quae non sunt: it is a kinde of blindness to see that which is not, or to see more than is to be seen: [Page 115] after the same manner do we think him to be blind, who can discern that Grace is of the same extent in the world, that Sin is: and that the Salve provided for mankinde, is full out as broad as the sore, (other­wise than as before explained upon Qu.93.) and that looks upon the Gospel, with a false pair of specta­cles, by means of which it appeareth far larger, than God hath thought fit it should be.

In the Questions and Answers 200, 201. he gi­veth many reasons, reduced to five heads, why it is behoovefull, that the remedy should be as general, and as plain, as the misery: as, [Because it gives us ground to repent, and bless God, and have good thoughts of him: condemnation of unbe­leevers will be more just; a man shall not be laid open to despair; he shall have good ground to love, and help, and pray for others.

It is sufficient to speak to these reasons in the general.

First, I think it no way bebooveth, nor becometh man, to say, what it behooved God to have done: because by this means Man is made judge of Gods doings: it behooveth, or, it must be, tenetur, decet, dcbuit, are words no way suitable to us, who ought rather to apply our selves, to learn what God hath done, than to take upon us to teach, what he should do.

[Page 116]Just thus is the Popes infallibility pleaded for, and a living Judge. Regula viva infallibilis. Very use­full, very needfull it were, that there should be some, one to end all questions, and without further argu­ment or appeal, to determine controversies. So were it also that every Bishop were infallible, and that e­very Parish-Priest were so: and if every particular person were infallibly directed, they should have the greater reason to be thankfull, and their condemna­tion would be the more just, if certainly knowing their duties and matters of faith, they should refuse to beleeve and do accordingly.

I answer secondly, Not every thing must be taught, whether it be true or false, because some; good may likely come of it, if it be beleeved. Nei­ther on the other hand, must we forbear to teach the truth, because it may be abused to evil.

The Doctrine of Merit, is a great encourage­ment to good works; yet, as he will not be held a skilfull Architect, that shall dig up the foundation of a Town; that he may have wherewithall to finish or repair the top of it: So let our builder take good heed, how he doth weaken, and how he doth tam­per with the ground-work of free Grace, pretending great need and much benefit that may come thereon. If men will not otherwise bless God, and have good thoughts of him, unless they be taught that he lo­veth one man as much as another; we must not any whit the more be found false witnesses of God, 1 Cor. 15. 15. false witnesses, I mean, as the Apo­stle [Page 117] meaneth, not against him, but for him, alledg­ing more in his behalf, than will hold true, because we think it makes for him, and his glory. Will ye ac­cept his Person? saith Job, chap. 13. that is, do you think that he will take it well, or be beholden to you, if you go about to shew him more favour, than his cause will well bear, in the truth of it? Plain­ly, this will fall out to be an accusation, not de­fence.

Thirdly, his Adversaries, who hold universal Re­demption, though not every way as he doth: do re­pent, and bless God, and think well of him, and hope in him, not running into despair, and do love others, and pray for them, and help them: all this they do, and are called upon to do, by vertue of that Do­ctrine, which they have learned touching Gods love, and Christs Death.

And lastly, it would be weighed, whether the people being taught to reason after this manner, be not endangered so far to forget the charge of Moses, Deut. 29. abovementioned, as quite contrary to it, to be careless in doing duties commanded, and con­forming to Gods revealed will; because they are made no further acquainted with his secret intenti­on and purpose; and whether they be not hereby in­structed, to stand and capitulate, and be upon points of certainty, with God the Judge, in whose debt and danger nevertheless so much they are: And for his reasons, this may suffice.

[Page 118]Next after these reasons, shewing the necessitie of beleeving the extent of Christs righteousness to all, he proceedeth thus.

By his beleeving] in the Question, Beleeving is opposed to, and set against the word. ‘[not so well by beleeving, as by the word of God]’ whereas we cannot know any thing by the word, otherwise than by beleeving the word. By beleeving therefore, as I suppose, he meaneth, the inherent grace or gift of Faith: and by beleeving and wel-walking, I take him to understand Faith and Obedience: and when he saith in the Question [or the like] I think he mean­eth good affections, and desires, and dispositions. The greatest ambiguity and confusion lieth in those words [the remedy to be FOR HIM] for they may bear a double sense. 1. He knoweth the remedy to be for him, that is, undoubtedly informed, that God hath done graciously for all, and so for him] as our Authour speaketh in his Answer to Quest. 200. or [Page 119] that knoweth that Christ died for all the world, that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish. Thus the remedie is for him, provided that he seek­eth to enjoy it, and attain it. 2. He knoweth the remedy to be for him, to whom it is so applyed, that he is assured it hath taken place on him, that he hath found relief, and is cured, and hath obtain­ed Peace and Pardon and Justification. He that knoweth the remedie to be for him in the first sense, may possibly not know it to be for him in the second. So plainly they be two several matters, and yet here they are made all one. The Orthodox do say, That a Christian by faith, obedience, and the testimonie of the Spirit, may assuredly know, that the reme­die of Christs Death, and the benefits of his Passi­on are his own, and efficaciously applyed for the rai­sing him to spiritual life, and hope of inheritance in­corruptible. But can any man know the remedie to be for him thus, by the word of God alone, set­ting aside the consideration of faith and obedience? he cannot. Well may he question the truth of his faith, that hath no better ground to beleeve that Christ hath done away his sins, than this; That he hath done away the sins of all the persons in the world.

How he demeaned himself in delivering the Do­ctrine of the Moral law, we saw before: here we have another smack of his Antinomian leaven, whiles he denieth works, or graces, or faith either, unless it be of his own mark and allowance, to con­fer [Page 120] any thing to the consolation of a Christian.

He telleth his opinion with some passion, in the Preface to his other work, §. Onely whereas. [Their daubings that tell souls, they may know that Christ loves them, by their good desires and endeavours, strifes and labours, my soul abhorreth.] We have little reason to think, that he remem­breth the profession that he made at the beginning; To follow the rule of Gods word, howsoever he might leave the common-road, for most certainly he hath here left both the one and the other. Holy Scripture teacheth us to argue from our Sanctifica­tion to our Justification, as being two things never severed in the person, or their subject; though they be distinguished in their nature. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: and he that is renewed, may be assured, that he is in Christ, and that Christ loves him. They are the Characters which he gave: Blessed are the mercifull, the meek, the pure in heart, and they who have good desires, hungring and thirsting after righteousness: and he hath told us, that they who do the will of God, shall enter in­to the kingdome of heaven; and that they are in the mean time to him, as his brother and sister and mo­ther. I trust his sheep will never hearken to the voice of any stranger, to the contrary, nor much re­gard great words. They hear the Apostle Paul say, 2 Cor. 1. 12. Our rejoycing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity we have had our conversation in the world. And they hear the [Page 121] Apostle Peter say 2 Epist. 1. chap. if vertue, and temperance, and patience and godliness be in you, you make your calling and election sure, and you shall never fall: and they hear the Apostle John say 1. Epist. 3. chap. in this the children of God are manifest, even in doing righteousness, vers. 10. and vers. 14. We know we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. There is great cause that that kinde of faith should be suspected, how much soever it be cried up, that must assure our in­terest in Christ, without good actions, or good af­fections.

And whereas also he excludeth Revelation, we oppose like wise the Apostles testimony, Rom. 8. 16. the Spirit beareth witness that we are the children of God. and 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received the Spi­rit which is of God, that we may know the things that are freely given to us of God. I know no other Re­velation the pretended orthodox do pretend to, and he sets himself against none else, and his words are general [not any other pretended revelation.

I think that under those words in the Qu. [or the like] may be meant also, changes and alterati­ons, in mens hearts and lives from bad to good: In a funeral sermon of his, pag. 18, 19. he plyeth this matter, much disheartening those that think they beleeve, and are of Gods Elect, because they finde themselves changed and reformed: he telleth them, they ground their faith of Christs Media­tion upon their works. Answ, Those who are [Page 122] taught, that good works are the product and fruit of faith, cannot ground their faith upon their works. Neither can good Christians value such talk as this while they remember what S. James saith, Shew me thy faith by thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. He that is suspected to be dead, may by a stander by, be certainly known to be alive, if he perceive him to draw his breath; and if another of of the by-standers shall argue, that it is a great weak­ness to ground any mans life upon his breath, and that it can be no true life that is so grounded; he would by others, be thought in this, not to be rea­sonable, but ridiculous.

Mans Conversion is a work of that nature, that it is not always easie to be discerned; neither ought men to be too scrupulous, or curious, in finding the time, means, and manner of it. But where these are obscure, or uncertain, and when doubts and diffi­culties arise, touching these; the help hath always been from consideration of the change that is wrought in us. If a man may assuredly know that he hath attained his journeys end, and arrived at the desired haven; he ought not too much to trouble himself, about the way, how he came there. Let not therefore Christians be beguiled of this supply and relief, but pass by, if need be, the circumstances, of time, and place, and way, and insist upon the substance, which is the alteration that is made, which they may do, as well, and upon as certain ground, as to this work upon the soul, as the blinde [Page 123] man did concerning the work that our Saviour wrought upon his body, saying, Joh. 9. One thing I know, that whereas I was blinde, now I see. So may a true convert say, I was sometimes darkness, but now am I light in the Lord, Eph. 5. 8. And the pro­digal son, had as much cause of comfort and joy, as the father had, upon the new return, and change appearing, that He who was dead is alive, and he that was lost, is found.

And whereas he told his Auditory then, pag. 19. that it is Pharisaical to conceit, that God loveth us, because of reformations, and frames begotten in us by his grace and [a certain secret insensible work­ing of power in the heart] it may be answered, If the work of the Spirit be secret and insensible, what better way can there be, to take notice of it, than by the change and alteration that is made in us? He that would know whether the Sun moveth or not, must not look upon the Sun, nor can he see the shadow move upon the Dial; but if he comes an hour or two hence, he may easily discern, that the Sun and the shadow are removed, and that therefore they did move before. But the truth is, our Authour holds no such internal work, or power needfull to conversion, for of the six helps to Qua­kerisme, afforded by such as are counted orthodox, this is by him counted the second [Their speak­ing of faith as wrought by some immediate power, as besides the word preached.] but so much for this.

[Page 124]I think, by [the like] in the Question last re­hearsed, he may mean also, Consolations, and sense of heavenly joy: for in a discourse of his, called A Caveat to true Christians, pag. 84, 85. he much mis­likes, that men should gather comfort or assurance, from sensible feeling and visits, and saith that such are thence called sensual, as not living by Faith, but upon matters of sense: thus he there. But where are they called sensual? who ever called them so? A little before, pag. 82. upon those words of the Apostle Peter, They that are un­learned, wrest the Scriptures; he noteth thus. [He means not unlearned in Aits and languages] But I suppose, there be few among us, though so far il­literate, as they be not able to read his book, but even by custome of our English language, have learned the difference betwixt Sensual, and Sensible. The word [sensual] is twice found. Jam. 3. and Jude vers. 19. in both places it stands opposed to spiritual, and signifies as much as Carnal: such as intend onely, and are led by, their part sensitive, or carnal appetite, or nature, common to us, with the bruits: (sensual, having not the Spirit) and in our common speech, a sensual man, is one that is given to brutish pleasures. Now shall such a Chri­stian, as is visited with the consolations of God, and is made sensible of heavenly light and joy; that can in some sort take up the Prophets words, in the mul­titude of the sorrows that I had in my heart, thy com­forts have refreshed my soul; be called Sensual? It [Page 125] is true that the sense of divine comfort, and the light of Gods countenance, may denominate per­sons sensible, namely, thereof: yet not absolutely sensible, for such we call them that are apt to per­ceive and understand readily what is done or said. But to say they are, absolutely Sensual, is so gross a mistake, that I cannot but wonder it should fall from him who is skilfull in Arts and languages, how so­ever undervaluing them in others. Not living by Faith, saith he, but upon matters of sense.] Faith, and Sense, may be opposed, and are sometimes, ve­ry distant and contrary; but not as sense is taken here. For they who have, as holy Scripture speak­eth, joy in beleeving; or that, as the Apostle Pe­ter saith, beleeving, rejoyce with joy unspeakable and glorious; do live by faith, and upon sense too, that is upon sensible consolations, or perception of di­vine favour: as a man may comfort and chear him­self, in a winters night, by the heat of the fire, and the light of it too.

But what is the reason, why we may not beleeve that Christ hath dealt graciously with us, in that he hath bestowed upon us, the gifts of Faith and Obe­dience; or that we may not conclude spiritual life, from spiritual affections and desires? It is this, because a mans heart is deceitfull. The Scripture saith indeed, Mans heart is deceitfull; but it saith not, that every mans heart, is at all times and in every thing actu­ally deceived. Some men have a custome lacerare Scriptur as; to rend the Scripture, as it were, to tear [Page 126] a text out of the Bible, which they think is for their turn, though against reason, against the Ana­logie of Faith, and quite contrary to other places, which should, by collation, help to interpret. One Scripture saith, Mans heart is deceitfull above all things. Another saith, that our heart doth gives right and true verdict concerning our estates: If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things. If our heart condemn us not, it is so good a signe that we may have confidence to­wards God. A faithfull Christian may rightly judge of his own condition, though an hypocrite be mis­taken in judging of his; whose heart yet, as it is heavy in the midst of his mirth and laughter; may, likely enough condemn him, in the midst of his con­fidence and self-deceit. I answer secondly, and af­firm, that this rule, here given, or this saying of Scripture, without right interpretation, or due restriction, That Mans heart is deceitfull, and no sure foundation of beleeving a thing, being applyed to other matters in like sort (and why not to others as well as to this?) is a sure foundation or prin­ciple of Scepticisme, or beleeving nothing at all; which is not many removes distant from Atheisme. With the heart man beleeves: and if the heart be deceitfull in every thing, how can he beleeve any thing? And thirdly he doth not well, to make opposition betwixt a beleeving mans heart, and Gods word. He who collecteth that God loveth him, because he hath bestowed his sanctifying [Page 127] graces upon him; doth not make his own heart, but Gods word, to be the foundation of his be­lief. Nor doth he, as the Text pointeth, Prov. 28. Trust in his own heart, but maketh use of his own heart, or reason, in applying the word of God to his own case, and his own benefit, ac­cording to the will of God. Now followeth the second reason.

This is his second reason, preferring the faith of the Universalist, before the faith of the pretended Orthodox: The one is no character of Gods Ele­ction, the other is. The meaning is this, as if he had said; He who beleeveth that God loveth all alike, and Christ died alike for all men, as to the intention of benefit by his Death; hath a right faith, even before any grace of Sanctification wrought. But he who beleeveth that the benefit of Christs Death, [Page 128] who died for all, is more intended to some than others, hath no true faith, nor signe of Gods Ele­ction, though his faith be accompanyed with obe­dience, good desires and changes, and a pretended testimony of the Spirit. An Assertion, I know not whether he more boldly, or more blindly uttered. I shall touch now onely upon these two particulars. 1. How uncharitable he is to his adversaries, or the dissenting partie. 2. How uncomfortable, to his own partie. 1. He hath no charity for that party, that is not of his own way. I take charity now for that effect or fruit of charity, which is shewed in belee­ving all things, and hoping all things: that is, the best things that may be beleeved, and that may be hoped, touching others. He assirmeth the faith of the Universalist, to be the onely distinguishing character of Gods Election; the faith of all others, be they never so vertuous, pious, sanctified, morti­fied, to be a false and feigned faith: it seems they set their soot in the wrong way, at first: they began amiss; and now how far soever they go, and how fast soever they go, they still wander and go astray in a by-path. What good can be expected from an ill beginning? what firm building, from a sandy foundation? if the root be rottenness, the fruit can be nothing but dust and smoke. But I answer: That every one may be saved in his own Religion, is an Opinion Anathematized in our Church-Articles. Nevertheless Christians are not wont, I am sure they ought not to be peremptory, in condemning [Page 129] one another, upon matters of no greater importance. But of all men, an Universalist, how ill doth it be­come to be a Monopolist! How ill accordeth that charity to it self (if at least that be not a false charity, that overthroweth the true faith) which is in so high a flow to Heathens, and in so low an ebb to fellow-Christians! But it must not be any great matter with us to be judged by man. That person, who with a true belief can say; The Son of God lo­ved me and gave himself for me: and with an hum­ble and thankfull minde can say, God hath put his fear in my heart; if not researching but adoring Gods secret judgements; he shall forbear to think, that there was as much good intended to every one as to him; hath far more reason to suspect this Ca­techist for a seducer, than himself for an hypocrite, or unsound beleever. For, supposing it were true, as we are verily perswaded it is not, that God had such a love, and such a gracious intention towards all persons in the world, as this Authour teacheth; yet is not the belief of it, so necessary an ingredient to justifying faith, that it should be no true justify­ing faith without it. For as the faith of Peter, and many others of the Jews, was a true and saving faith, even then when they were ignorant of the ex­tent of Gods Love and Grace in the Gospel, towards the Gentiles, Act. 10. and 11. So we doubt not but the faith of a Christian beleever, may be, and is, a sound faith, and character of Gods E­lection; although he be to seek in this New disco­very [Page 130] very of Gods good will, and grace extended to­wards all men in an equal dispensation.

2. As he is uncharitable to all others, so is he un­comfortable to such who do think it best, to leave the beaten path of Gods Church, and follow him For he doth deprive and spoil them of that assu­rance and testimony of Gods love, which they had from sanctifying gifts, and inherent graces: having been heretofore rightly taught, that though they might not put confidence in their works, and good desires; yet they might raise and gather confidence and comfort from their works, and good desires, te­stifying, that their faith is true. And that Apostle who said, That his rejoycing was the testimony of a good conscience, and good conversation; adviseth every man to rejoyce in himself, Gal. 6. 4. And whosoever goeth any other way to work, to get a comfortable assurance, than by these marks of ho­liness, and fruits of faith; will never be able to dis­tinguish, betwixt a false peace of conscience, and a true; but will be unavoidably exposed to the delu­sions of Satan.

But it may be thought, that he takes his follow­ers from their former stay, and prop, to help them to a better. What is that? It is to be of his judgement of Universal Redemption, and Universal Grace Well: suppose that a sinner were fully perswaded that God did wish him as well, from the foundation of the world, and as really intend the benefit of Christs Death for him, as for any other Saint, now [Page 131] glorified in heaven; There cannot hence arise any strong consolation, whiles withall he is perswaded that God intended as much good from the begin­ning to Cain and Judas; and whiles withall he taketh notice of our Authours Quest. and Answ. 95. Shall all men then be saved eternally? No, the greatest part go to destruction.] So small relief can be had for a distressed conscience, from the common love, or the generality of Gods good will towards all men.

His texts in the Margin, Tit. 3. 5. Not by works of rightcousness, but according to his mercy he saved us: and Rom. 3. and 4. treating of Justification, cannot be applyed against the knowledge of Gods love that may be obtained by means of Sanctifi­cation.

His last reason, why we may not gather out of in­herent graces, that there is mercy and remedy for us, is in these words:

Not every one that shall do what the Pharisees did, and did amiss, shall presently be a Pharisee, un­less he doth it with the Pharisees minde. He that washeth his hands before meat, or when he cometh from market, and concourse of people; must not be [Page 132] called Pharisee, unless it be done with an opinion of cleansing himself from his sins; or from pollution contracted in company. Not the bare words of the Pharisee, Luke18. but the scope of our Saviour is to be attended; which is, to teach us when we pray to God, to come in humility, and to beware of justi­fying our selves in his sight and presence, upon con­fidence of our own righteousness: and to teach us also, that when we approach to God the Judge, it lies not all upon this, Whether we be more or less sinfull, but whether we be penitent or no. For one man may be guilty of many and great sins, and yet truly repenting of them, and craving pardon, and fleeing to Gods mercy, shall be justified and saved. Another man whose sins are comparatively small, if he stands upon his own righteousness, and good deeds, shall be lost. The Pharisees words were un­seasonably spoken, and to an ill intent, which never­theless may be well spoken [God I thank thee, I am not as other men are]. It is rightly observed, Finis dat esse in moralibus: it is our intention that doth formalize our words, or our actions; towards God, or man. As the very same terms may serve(materially) for a Reproach, & a Reproof, according to the dif­ferent manner and end of the speaker. Thou fool, is a reproach, yet Abigail called her husband so; and Paul called the Galatians so, out of their love and good will. So a Saint may say, just as the Pharisee said, and yet deserve no blame for pride nor con­tempt of others. Nehcmiah did call to minde what [Page 133] good he had done for his people, when he presented his prayer to God: and Hezekiah said, Remember, O Lord, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth: yet who will say that these were like the Pha­risee. And the Prophet David, Psal. 119. doth of­ten make complaint, how others did break the Law of God; and as often doth he make profession, how he kept the Law of God, and was zealous for it; and yet who will say, he was a despiser of others?

I observe of our Authour, that though he think good to conform in his opinions to the Remon­strants, and militate under their Banner, for the most part either following them in their way, or else therein going beyond them; yet he often march­eth over into the Tents of the Antinomians, and closeth with them as their own: which two par­ties, nevertheless, and their Principles, are wholly in­consistent, and opposite in extremes. I instance now, in his opinion touching Good works done after grace received, in this place, and elsewhere touch­ing works morally vertuous, done before Grace re­ceived: which by the one partie are magnified near to the Merit of Congruitie, as if God did bestow Faith according to the good use of natural gifts, in whomsoever: And by the other part are so vilified as if they were no way to be thought upon, other­wise than as hinderances, and not steps, in the Church of God, towards true Conversion.

Essayes p.18. he maintaineth, an equal dispensati­on of Grace to all men, and answering that Sophisme, [Page 134] or captious question, why of two men, every way alike disposed, going to the same sermon, one should be converted, the other not; he rendreth this reason among many others: Because one may be more vi­tious outwardly, and having less conceit of his good­ness, may sooner receive instruction, than another that is civilly and religiously inclined, as the Publi­cans and harlots entred into the kingdome sooner than the proud conceited Pharisees.] But first, These two sorts of men, are not every way alike disposed: and secondly, If he had said, That the civilly and religiously inclined, are more ready to re­ceive instruction, than the vitious, he had said some­what probable: But the quite contrary by him there delivered, is an errour; and whether it be a vulgar one or no, it is a very weak one, and very scandalous to weak people. Not that I think there is any efficiency in natural or moral perfections to­ward the producing of the least degree of saving Grace; But because God Almighty doth for the most part, and in the ordinary way of bringing men home to him, make use of Civil vertues, and out­ward conformity to Christian duties, as previous and preparative to conversion and regeneration. Nei­ther can I see any manner of solidity in his proof, be­cause it can never be made good, That the Scribes and Pharisees were not vitious, or that they were re­ligiously inclined, notwithstanding their ostentation and hypocrisie.

Trusters in themselves] This appellation recoil­leth [Page 135] forcibly, and therefore better had been spared. He did not well remember here those of his own belief, who had never taken such pains, and trou­bled the Churches of God in promoting their five articles with such eagerness; in hewing and repairing those broken cisterns with such diligence; but that they had a minde to trust themselves, rather than another. They who will have no decrees touching mens estates, but revocable; They who plead so much, and in such a manner, for freewill, and against free grace; They who like better of their general and sufficient grace, than of any special & efficacious grace; do give us leave to guess, whether they be trusters in themselves or no.

If he be pleased to enquire, it may be, he may finde, that they were of his own party, who thought that saying of our Saviour, that Salvation was not onely difficult, but impossible with men, howbeit pos­sible with God; to be too harsh and rigid; and there­fore sought to make it more soft and pliable, by ta­king up an odd conceit, that turned the Camel into a Cable-rope, which might by their own hands be un­twisted, and pass the needles eye. Little reason was for this, but that they had a minde to keep the staff in their own hands, and trust themselues rather than any other. Yet I say not, that they are as the Pha­risees were, trusters in themselves, that they are righteous: but trusters in themselves, that they can be so when they will. Thus wicked men are taught by them, to beleeve that God would never be so [Page 136] unreasonable, as to command any thing that is im­possible; or bid them work if their hands were bound; or invite them to come to him, if their feet were not at liberty; and so long as God calls them, they have power to come. Such who are loth for the present to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, are encouraged to defer their repentance, thinking that they can leave their sins, and be converted, and become new men at their own leasure, before their death, at furthest when they come to leave this life, that so they may be elected (for that is the onely time of peremptory election) to life eternal. Their adversaries Doctrine should not be pressed with the inconvenience of breeding men in security, & sloth, and presumption. No Doctrine but may be abused: and their own is obnoxious, and liable to the abuse of security and confidence, and self-confidence, at least, as much as the other.

[Page 137]In this Question and Answer, he instructeth his followers in the Doctrine of the Remonstrants, touching The work of God in mans Conversion. Posset disputari (said they at first, so soon as they were known by that name, Col. Hag. P. 311.) sítne hic nobilissimus agendi modus qui fit suadendo: it may be disputed, whether or no it be not the most noble way of dealing with man, by perswading of him: and whether it be convenient to use any other way, with safetie to the properties of humane nature: and whe­ther it be not enough, if as much be done for mans conversion, as Satan useth to do, in drawing men to sin, though there may be some other actions beyond the power of Satan, as immediate illumina­tion of the understanding, which in this business doth much help. So wrote they then. Without further doubt, resolved now, and thought fit to be put a­mong Principles, these two, for Conversion of a sin­ner; Illumination, and Perswasion: as if it were no more then to bring a light into a dungeon, and to tell the prisoner, it is better to be abroad at his liber­ty, then to lie there. Some of those who love not to hear of Pelagius, are loth to go much beyond him.

As for Moral perswasion, he hath laid us in a text before-hand, by a new translation, Epist. to Open Door. for those words, Eph. 5. 6. [The children of disobedience,] he hath altered to [the children of un­perswasibleness.] As if the worst that is in them, were this; that they will not be perswaded: and [Page 138] would they but be perswaded, the work were done. But I take his word, and argue thence; If wicked men be unperswasible, as I think they are; then perswasion will not do it; that will not do it alone. There must be that, and somewhat more done. There is no charming of deaf ears: the contumacious will not listen to fair words. No such hooks will draw Leviathan to the shore; no such darts enter his scales, while he sporteth in the deep.

But if not by perswasion, how then? what? by compulsion? Neither. Never yet was any man compelled to either good, or evil. We must, and will think that to be the best and noblest way that God Almighty is pleased to use: and that is, to give a new spirit, and frame of heart; to incline and bend the will to good: yet not to break it, or deprive it of the native liberty, but to cure the depraved nature of it; to amend and rectifie the chief spring or wheel of motion. And this is not to offer violence, or force, any more than was offered to that band of men that followed Saul, whose hearts God had touched; or to Saul himself, that was turned to an­other man, 1 Sam. 10.

To draw a man to that which is against his na­ture, this indeed is rather violent, then kindly work­ing. When a Physician hath cured the dropsie once, it is then an easie matter to perswade the patient to forbear immoderate drinking; but before that be done, it is either labour lost, or force offered. The strength of Gods grace overcometh the reluctancie [Page 139] and rebellion of mans heart, yet not in a hostile way: for as it overcometh the heart strongly; so it incli­neth it mildly, and changeth it gently, and healeth it, and raiseth it to a right temper, and better state; so here is more than perswasion and yet no preju­dice to the liberty of will.

And as for Illumination, he hath likewise pro­vided a text; Open Door, p. 141. whereupon those words, 1 Joh. 1. 7. [If we walk in the light] he giveth his paraphrase: Whosoever receiveth the light that comes from God, and walks therein, as God is in it, affording power, and strength to him there-through] as if all men within the Church were within the light there spoken of, and they walked in it that receive it, being presented to them, and met withall, as our Authour loves to speak.

But by Light, the Apostle meaneth Goodness, and Truth, and Purity, as by Darkness, Ignorance, and Sin: verse next before, if we walk in darkness: and chap. 2. vers. 9. he that hateth his brother is in dark­ness; speaking of Christians, not Infidels. To walk in the light therefore, is not to entertain the means, that God affordeth to his Church, universally, as the light of the Sun is spread in the air: but it is to live in Gods faith and fear, in holiness, truth and justice. I grant that God is a Sun, as the Psalmist calleth him, and as S. James meaneth, when he termeth him the Father of Lights: yea, a spiritual Sun: yet doth he not shed forth his spiritual beams [Page 140] any otherwise than by a voluntary dispensation, when, and how, and to whom he will; not present­ed to all alike, not by every one to be met with­all, or to be walked in: so that hence cannot be made good that Universal Objective Grace, by some maintained.

Now that saving Faith is not produced, in the heart of a sinner, by Illumination and Perswasion onely; may be proved by these two arguments. First, because they are far unable to do it; for cor­ruption is so deeply fastened in mans nature, and such is his Death in sin, that though his under­standing be enlightened, and his affections perswa­ded, yet if his heart and will be not renewed, and changed and quickened, the work will still be un­done.

To perswade, is but to present objects outward­ly, and these are looked upon, according as the Subject is disposed; these are apprehended, ad mo­dum recipientis, as the party stands affected. Never was there foul love, nor fair prison. Sin, and sinfull lusts are more beautifull in the eyes of a wicked worldling, and are more suitable to him, than the Grace and Glory of heaven, though set forth by a potent Oratour. And the wilde Ass, that hath long been wonted to the range of the hills, scorneth the populous and pompous city.

Illumination likewise, is but an outward work; though it be wrought within man, yet it is external to the heart of man; it is from without, and as I may say, [Page 141] forinsecal, and therefore cannot much confer to the power of the soul. It is not Light, but Eye-salve, that must help the facultie, and recover the sight. And this is to be noted further, that where the ho­ly Ghost doth enlighten the minde, and not with­all correct the innate pravitie of the heart; may fol­low, and sometime doth follow, the sin against the holy Ghost: which sin, is so called, as we know, not because it is against the person, but against the office, or work of the holy Ghost, which is, to con­vince, and to illuminate. And the Devils are thought to be guilty of this kinde of sin, because of the height of light in them joyned with the height of malice.

Secondly, suppose that these two, could produce true faith, yet this were not enough to make good, what we are often taught, namely, that Faith is not of our selves, but it is the gift of God; yea such a gift as is wrought by the exceeding greatness of his power, even that power that raised Christ from the dead: for what is done should be chiefly by the ef­ficacy of the object, thorowly laid open. And as Satan on the one hand enticeth to the pleasures of sin, so should the Spirit of God on the other, prof­fer holiness, and heaven; and promise, and excite, and invite, and commend: but the will when it co­meth to, must cast the scale, and like an impar­tial judge, no way bent, or made beforehand, give sentence and determine, what is to be done, and what must be followed: and thus shall faith be pro­duced [Page 142] by man himself, and not be as it is called, Gods gift.

And whereas he saith, that God doth work Faith [by the cooperation of the holy Ghost] it is to be noted that the Spirit of God in working Faith (if it be meant of the first production of it) is not said in sound Divinity to cooperate with man, as if man did co-work with God. For what is done, is the sole work of Gods grace and power. As La­zarus being dead, could do nothing, could not co­operate to raise himself to life: but being by di­vine power quickened, he could then eat, and walk and speak. So man being dead in sin, hath no free will to Good, to Faith or Conversion: but having received Grace, as a principle of spiritual life, he can then walk in the Spirit, and Serve God in a spiritual manner.

This Question and Answer, what man can do, and what power he hath or hath not, in order to life eternal, doth of right appertain in Divinity to the [Page 143] place or Head of Free-will. Yet whereas he saith here: No man can hear outwardly of himself, but it is Gods gift: it may admit a twofold sense: The first is this: No man can come to hear the Gospel outwardly, unless God of his Grace be pleased to send it to him. And this should be his meaning by one of his texts which he quoteth, Rom. 10. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Which words signifie thus much, if at least the A­postle may explain himself. Men cannot beleeve in him, of whom they never heard: neither can they hear but by the word of God: that is, by mandate, or commission from God, to some or other, for to go and preach to them. But this is not his meaning: for he is giving the reason, why Faith is not wrought in all those, that have the Gospel; which is this: because they do not hear and learn, but stop their ears and refuse Gods gift.

The second sense therefore is this: That any man is able outwardly to hear the Gospel, is the gift of God by nature, in whom we live and move, and are. This, I think, he means. But First, this is not proved by his text out of the Proverbs, The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them. For as God did frame the earth, and yet the earth doth bring forth fruit of her self, the blade, the ear, and the corn; Mark 4.28. So may man hear the word of God, and see the Moon and Stars, of himself, though God did frame both the hearing ear, and the seeing eye.

[Page 144]And secondly, the pretended Orthodox, who are thought by some, too much to denie free-will, did never yet denie that man hath free-will to natural, and moral actions, and religious too, though not in a spiritual manner untill he be regenerate. There­fore to say, as here he doth, that man hath not abi­lity of himself to hear outwardly, is a note beneath Gammoth, and a great deal more than needs, what­soever the matter is, that he stoops so low. But seeing he goeth so far in denying free-will, I hope he will never be so fierce, as some have been before him; who, for the Semi-Pelagian objected to them, have returned roundly the Sesqui-Maniche­an; with somewhat more rage, than reason: The Manicheans did indeed deny free-will: but how, quo­ad naturam, sive radicem liberi arbitrii, according to the very nature of it, or free choice, which is essen­tial to man. 2. to evil. 3. before the fall: this was the Manichean. Whereas the Pelagian affirmed, vires liberi arbitrii, the power or strength of mans will to good after the fall. And who they be that claim kindred more or less, to each of these is an easie matter to judge and determine. But thirdly, over­much courtesie and condescension, do always give some cause of suspicion: yet I proceed no further, than to suspicion, or conjecture. He who can, upon quitting the point of free-will, gain in exchange the point of Universal Grace, may think himself no looser, having found out a way to corroborate the title of Universalist, which is thought now, well [Page 145] worth the owning and affecting. We know who it was of old time, who talked much of Grace, but when it came to be explained it was nothing but Nature. To hear outwardly, is by nature: to hear inwardly is by grace, both of these, are in this An­swer, called, both alike, without any difference, Gods gift: And as far as we may guess by his words, here, and in other places, both of them are of like extent, thus far, that look where God giveth the outward hearing, he giveth the inward hearing also. Now though it should be granted, that Grace may possibly be Universal, and bestowed upon all men, and yet be grace still, and that it doth not consist in being a Priviledge vouchsafed to some onely; yet how universal soever it be, it cannot be universal Grace, unless it be superadded to Nature, and natu­ral endowments. Gods Grace is always beside, or, over and above humane nature.

Barely to hear, is not Grace but nature, so is it to live and move, with inward attention to hear, is not universal, but belongeth to internal vocation, which is the special Grace of God, opening the ears and inclining the heart to hear and obey. So that from the power of hearing, can no way be made good, Universal Grace.

He that would rightly answer this Question, of falling from Faith, as I think, should first distin­guish true justifying faith, from false, unsound, and temporary faith: and not speak of these two, as if they were all one, as in this Answer is spoken.

Such a faith as is feigned and unsound, may be lost: but true faith, that is of a right kinde, is not lost. Our blessed Saviour hath learned us this dif­ference, and taught us this Doctrine, Matth. 13, vers. 21, 23. True faith hath rooting, and is fruitfull, and abideth. False faith hath no rooting, is unfruit­full, and endureth not.

This therefore, may well be added, and inserted into his Answer. Such faith from which any man doth fall, was never true faith, even while he did stand therein. The temporary beleever had no root, before he withered: and the foolish virgins took no oyl with them from the first, and the house that fell, had no good foundation, before it fell, and there­fore did it fall.

The Apostles speaking of Apostates, do usually put a difference presently after, betwixt them, even whiles they stood, and true beleevers; lest true be­leevers should take offence, and be discouraged, and [Page 147] suspect themselves to be in no better condition, than those revolters were whiles they continued. This may appear by these places following.

2. Thessal. 2. Having spoken of the fearfull judgements of God, upon such as should be seduced and perish, for want of love to the truth, he addeth vers. 13. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, because he hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation.

2 Tim. 2. Hymeneus and Philetus fell into a here­sie: drew others along with them. Neverthaless the foundation of God standeth sure; and, the Lord know­eth who are his, vers.19.

Hebr. 6. having largely described the cursed estate of those that totally and finally fall away in five ver­ses, from the 4th to the 8th, he addeth v, 9. But beloved we are perswaded better things of you and things that ac­company salvation. As if he had said thus: We do not onely think that you are now in better state than they are, but that you will always abide so. Though it might be but perswasion of charity, that these were so qualified: yet is it matter of certainty, that true grace, wheresoever it be, doth accompany Sal­vation: not onely cometh near, as neighbouring, or bordering upon it; nor yet as contiguous onely, for so it may fall short: but it is so contiguous with salvation, that it is withall, coherent with it, de­pendent on it, not to be severed: yea continuous with it, in one un-interrupted piece, or progress. It is such kinde of Grace, in which Salvation is wrap­ped, [Page 148] and folded up, and contained, as the bird in the egg: As the several ages of man, infancie, youth, manhood, do differ one from the other, and do follow one the other, yet withall they are the same life still continued, although in differing de­grees. Joh. 5. 24. He that beleeveth hath everlast­ing life, if he that beleeveth hath life, and that life be everlasting, then a beleever cannot fall away.

Hebr. 10. two last verses. If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them that beleeeve to the saving of the soul: to beleeve, and, to draw back; these two, are contrary, and incon­sistent, as salvation and perdition are.

2 Pet.2. 22. When he had shewed the dangerous estate of some, who had turned from the way of righteousness, and were again entangled in the pol­lutions of the world, after they had escaped them, he concludeth: But it is happened to them according to the true Proverb; The dog is turned to his own vo­mit again, and the sow that was washed, to her wallow­ing in the mire. His meaning is, though they were washed and reformed outwardly, yet they still re­mained what they were: they still retained their old unclean disposition: and their nature continu­ing, caused this return. A sheep differs from a swine newly washed: so differs a true convert from a false.

Joh. 2. 19. They went out from us, but they were not of us, and chap. 5. 9. after that he had men­tioned [Page 149] the sin unto Death, the worst kinde of Apostacy of all, he addeth: We know that whosoe­ver is born of God sinneth not: still making a dif­ference, betwixt true beleevers and Apostates be­fore their falling away.

Will is sometime Command: thus the Princes will and command is, that the Rebels lay down their arms by such a day. Will, is sometime Intention and purpose: thus the Princes will and purpose is, to pardon and receive to favour those that do lay down their arms by such a day. In this case, to keep the Princes command, is good sense: so is it not, to keep the Princes intention or purpose.

That God doth will, or intend and purpose to save all men, howsoever it be understood; is matter of belief, not of practise: therefore not of precept, and therefore not to be kept, or done. Whereas to keep, is to observe and do, as to keep the command­ments, [Page 150] Matth. 19. 17. to Keep the whole Law, Jam. 2. 10. I think it is no sense, and therefore can be no truth, to say, That we vowed in our Baptisme, to keep Gods holy Intention, that all men, or each man respectively, should be saved.

How much better a transition, then this, do we finde in the Church Catechisme? You said, you did promise in your Baptisme to keep Gods holy Command­ments: Tell me how many there be? Ten, &c. So that the meanest capacity understood that question, far better without this answer, then with it

As for the Text, 1 Tim. 2. 4. God will have all men to be saved, & to come to the knowledge of the truth: it may be thus explained: S. Paul sheweth there the reason, why at that time kings and worldly powers were to be prayed for, more than in former times, because God now intended to enlarge the limits of his Church, and shew mercy to all the world, exclu­ding no nation or people. And as it was more suita­ble to Gods nature, who is a Spirit, to be worshipped in spirit and truth, Joh. 4. and not as before Christs coming, in outward rites, shadows, and ceremonies, which then bare a great part of Gods service; So was it more agreeable and consonant: That where­as there is one God, Creatour of all mankinde, there should be now access to him for all people, by one Mediatour, and not for one nation onely as hereto­fore. And because this cannot be done so well, not quietly and peaceably, unless Kings and earthly Po­tentates embrace the Christian faith; Therefore [Page 151] especially must they be prayed for.

So that Gods will, in this place, is not his com­mand; and to be saved, is matter of reward, not of work; a reward which he bestoweth on us, not a work which he commandeth us to do. And to come to the knowledge of the truth, is not to beleeve, but to be made partakers of the Gospel, by publication: The which was joyned indeed with a command or charge to his Apostles, to preach the Gospel; but no command there was to the Nations to receive it, untill it were brought them, and they did come to the knowledge of it.

But may the universalists now say: If it be indeed the will of God, that all that hear the Gospel should be saved: Then is not salvation limited to some onely, called the Elect.

To this I answer, by putting them in minde, of what I suppose they have often heard. Gods will is twofold: 1. Revealed, and Conditional; thus he willeth all men to be saved. 2. Secret and absolute; so he willeth onely a few to be saved. If they can­not understand how he should will things thus con­trary one to the other, let them help themselves with this similitude. A Nobleman, Landlord to many decayed tenants deeply endebted to him, wil­leth them to pay what they ow him, otherwise to be ejected. To some few of them, formerly his menial servants, he sendeth secretly supplies, and enableth them to discharge their arrears: against the rest the law passeth. The Landlords will now is, that all his [Page 152] tenants should pay their rents, enjoy their houses and lands as formerly, and that none of them should be dispossessed, or emprisoned. And it is his will also, that a few of his tenants should certainly hold pos­session, though most of them be cast out: of these two, the first will is conditional, upon their perfor­mance, and payment: the second is absolute, be­cause accompanied with his power and purse, and grounded upon his own performance. If this be right, and reason, and plain to be understood; then let them not say, that we denie the Scripture-say­ing, God willeth all men to be saved: and let them give us leave to say withall, that he doth not absolutely will all men to be saved, because he doth not by his Al­mighty arm, rescue all men out of the bands of infidelity, in which by their own fault they are fast held.

Qu. and Answ. 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300.

It is observed of some men, that in disputation; and of many men, that in discourse, they will be sure soon to winde themselves into that point where their skill lyes. Our Authour in his fix last Questi­ons and Answers, returns thither where his zeal lyes, and where he is never found long time non-re­sident. This zeal he sheweth, not in giving his ad­versaries a parting blow, but, as I may say, in storming them, having before given them onely some easier [Page 153] assaults. And, as in a fray is usual, he taketh up that which cometh next to hand, to strike, and to lay on withall; though no way fitted, though never in­tended for any such purpose. And rather then he will suspect his own confidence, he will censure wel­nigh all Christians (the generality almost, so he saith Qu. 297.) as if they were false worshippers, unbeleevers, and void of true religion, because they refuse what he tenders them, that may presently turn their dross to silver, and their shadows to soli­dity and substance. Among other things, he saith, they give God the lie] words with which it plea­seth the holy Ghost to aggravate the hainous and sacrilegious sin of wilfull infidelity, of denying Christ made known, to whom God the Father gave so manifold testimony; but are not lightly to be ta­ken up against every false opinion, much less in de­fence of any errour. He saith, They make void Gods grace, and Christs death.] This is truly said of such as persist in their unbelief, rejecting the Gospel being offered, and refusing to be baptized. He needed not to have spoken more hardly of them, had they re­nounced their Saviour, and turned to Mahomets belief.

They are very zealous, (he saith) but their Religion and Devotion, are abominable in Gods sight, and most horrible impieties.] He hath left nothing wherewithall to express the worst that is in them, when their best is thus bad.

They multiply services without knowledge, [Page 154] and offer the sacrifice of fools, they miss of Gods promises, and seek after him, but finde him not, because they seek him by the works of the Law, endeavouring to establish their own righteousness.] As if it were all one to him, to speak what is true, and to speak what he knoweth to be false, when he is in hot pursuit of his adversaries.

But I have now paid that small debt, which I might seem to ow, as vvell to them that desire to learn, and not to be abused; as to others, vvho love to be deceived rather than be taught. The vvords of Salvian, though touching another subject, shall serve me for my Caution, and for my Conclusion. De Gubern. Dei, lib. 1. Sed de his dicendum amplius non est: tanta quippe est majestatis sacrae & tam tre­menda reverentia, ut non solùm eaquae ab illis contra religionem dicuntur horrere; sed etiam quae pro religione nos ipsi dicimus, cum grandi metu ac disciplina dicere debeamus: that is, It is best to say no more concern­ing these matters; because so great and so dreadfull is the sacred Majestie of God, that vve must not onely detest vvhat others do utter against our reli­gion; but vvhen vve speak in defence of our religi­on, vve must be very vvary that it be done vvith greatest avvfulness and fear, vvith all the reverence and regard that may be.