OF Election, or Predestination.

THe designe of these Papers is to offer to such as will con­sider, and can tend to receive, or cultivate what is offered, some Notices of truth which lye upon my mind about severall matters, that, by the Communication of the little light I have, I may fetch in more to my own understanding from others: and also by the Partiality that appeares so often in the doctrine of the Orthodox, I may promote some generall kind of condescension in all persons to a more favourable opinion of one another: the proper consciousness of our own most miserable palpable blindness in most things, and several points of Religion, (wherein many times we are indeed but the more blind, because wee think we see), being enough methinks to make every mor­tall, even with shame and confusion, to be ready either to have a little higher estimation of his Brother that differ from him, or a little less indignation at any such difference, or distance in his way and judgment.

I will begin with these heads. Of Election, and of Redemp­tion.

It is the generall opinion of Divines, that God from all eternity fore knows all things, and, That, there are a certain number [Page 2]of persons determined by Him that shall be infallibly brought to glory. For declaring this Decree, they do go severall wayes. In the generall, they may be reduced to two: the way of Absolute; and the way of Conditionall Election. Of either way there are two sorts. In the Conditional way; The first sort do conceive, that God foresees who they be that will live godlily and keep his com­mandements, and them he chooses to salvation; while those he foresees will be wicked, he decrees to damnation. Ʋnde A­postolus (say they). Quos praescivit, hos & praedestinavit. From whence the Apostle Whom he did foreknow, them he also did praedestinate. The second sort, perceiving this to be contrary to Scripture, with makes Election to be of grace & not of works, do say thus: That God foresees who they be will beleeve, and so choosing them as being in Christ through faith, decrees to give them grace, which will lead them to salvation: and those that he foresees will not believe, he decrees to leave them, as out of Christ, to Condemnation. Non elegit Deus opera cujusque in praescientia quoe ipse daturus est; sed fidem elegit in praescientia, ut, quem sibi crediturum praescivit, Ipsum elegerit ut Spiritum sanctum daret, ut bona operando etiam vitam aeternam consequerentur. God did not choose the works of any in his foresight which himself was to give, but he chose faith in his foresight, that, whom he foreknew would beleeve, he might choose them, to give the holy Spirit unto; that by doing good works they might obtain eternall salvation. Augustine, in libro expositionis quarundum propositionum ex epistola ad Ro­manos. Again, Quos Deus suos fidei opere futuros esse praenovit, hos praedestin̄avit ad gloriam. Those who God foreknew would be­come his through their beleeving, he elected unto glory. De prae­destinatione Dei. c. 5. The former opinion, is the way of the Pe­lagian; the latter, of the Arminian. Which yet I set not down af­ter the more subtle times of Arminius himself, but those of Au­gustine according to these cited passages; the one of which he af­terwards expresly retracted; and the book it self out of which I fetch the other, I beleeve either to be spurious, or to have got abroad from him unawares, before he had reveiwed it. The Or­thodox therefore, such as we account the Synod of Dort, do declare for the Absolute way, in opposition to both these. To wit, that God without consideration either of mans faith, or good works, but [Page 3]meerly according to the counsell of his own will, not rendring his reason to us, hath determined to give that grace to some persons whereby they shall effectually be saved: and to leave others to the freedome of their own wills, that they may be judged at the last Day according to their deserts. In this way, there are like­wise two sorts of Doctors. The one teach, that God looks on men without any consideration of sin at all, in their state before the Fall, in this decree of his grace to some, and not to others: The other teach, that God looks indeed on men all alike without considera­tion of desert, but not without consideration of sin, to wit in their faln estate; and so decrees his mercy to some, and justice to o­thers. Note here, that our Divines of the former sort do not say, that, God decrees damnation to any without consideration of sin (nor salvation indeed without consideration of faith and repen­tance): but, Decree's the giving or not giving saving grace to keep them from sin and damnation, to whom he pleases, without any consideration in man whatsoever. For, Predestination, say they, being an immanent and eternall act of the Divine under­standing & will, cannot be conceived as dependent upon any fore­seen temporall acts of mans free-will. Note also, that St. Augustine who was the first set up for the Absolute way, and yet not till his latter writings, doth declare for the second sort of this way. Cae­teri autem ubi nisi in massa perditionis justo divino judicio relin­quantur? The rest that are not elect, are left according to Gods just judgment, in the masse of those that are faln, unto perdition. De bono perseverantiae. c. 14. The one of these opinions is called the Supralapsarian doctrine: the other, the Sublapsarian. Which are names indeed may make a rumbling to many that know not what they signify, but so long as they come into one and the same Consequent, which alone is to be regarded, the difference is not of moment to disturb any.

And what is the Consequent then of these Doctrines, which is fit to be enquired? The Consequent of the first doctrine, that Election is ex praevisis operibus, of works foreseen, must be this, that the good life or good works of men therefore do arise from their own free wills, and that the grace of God is given according to their merits. This was the main opinion doubtless which the Church condemned in Pelagius. From whence indeed those two [Page 4]other followed, that, Man may therefore choose whether he will ever commit any sin; and, That he must be free from original cor­ruption. Tria sunt quae maxime adversus eos catholica defendit ecclesia, Ʋnum est, Gratiam Dei non secundum merita dari, quoniam Dei dona sunt. Alterum est, in quantacunque justitia sine qualibuscun (que) peccatis neminem vivere. Tertium est, nasci homines peccato primi homnis obnoxios. There are three things especially which the Catholick Church defends against the Pelagians: One is, that the Grace of God is not given according to mans merit: Ano­ther is, that there is no man, how great soever his righteousness be, that lives without some sins. The third is, that men are born liable to the guilt of Adams first transgression. De bon. persev. c. 2. The consequent of the second opinion, that Election is ex praevisa fide of fore-seen faith, is, That although our good works are indeed the fruit onely o [...] Gods Spirit, and to be ascribed to Gods grace; yet must our frith, upon which the Spirit or this grace is given, or by which it is impetrated, as that Father speaks, be both in our own power and from our own will; as being that, and that alone in man, that makes the difference between one and another; or the reason why God should choose such a one to give him his grace, and pass by the other. And this doctrine, with the Consequent of it, must be acknowledged to be St. Augustine's in his first writings, which he chose no doubt as the most moderate then in the Church, which (as we may judg by Prosper, and Hilary's Epistles to him) was never used to define election otherwise than secundum praescientiam, according to foreknowledg, till his dayes. And this was the reason that those of Marsilia (ad quorum authoritatem non sumus pares, sayes one of those Epistles, quia multum nos et vitae meritis an­tecellunt & sacerdotis honore) were so offended at that Father for his change. And from hence does Arminius professe some-where, Non stamus Augustino, We stand not with Augustine: for which this also, as I remember, is his reason. Quia sibi ipse non stetit, because he stood not to himself. The Consequent of the other two doctrines which belong to Absolute election, and come in this re­pect, I have said, bat to the same, is, on the contrary hand, That neither our good works, nor our faith it self, nor indeed any good that is in man, is of our selves but of the operation of God, or of his Spirit, who does at first excite our wills to Faith and a holy [Page 5]life, & by his continual assistance carry us on in perseverance unto the end, that we may be saved; so that, the whole business: of our salvation first and last must be ascribed to Him alone. And if any ask the reason then why he gives not the same grace to others as to his Elect, he shall find these words still in St. Augustine's mouth. And who art thou that repliest aga [...]nst God? May he not do what he will with his owne? Hath not the Potter power over his clay. O the depth of the knowledge and wisdome of God, how unsearchable are his judgments, and his wayes past finding out! It were but jniury to quote a sentence or two out of the Father for this, which is the designed contents of severall of his last books. See de Praedestinatione & gratia. De correptione & gratia. De praedestinatione sanctoram. De bono perseverantiae, to name no more.

The great difficulty now in this Consequent of Election which appears, does undoubtedly lye here: If neither the faith nor good works of man do spring from his own free will, but from the grace of God and Election, then may the unbeliever and wicked excuse themselves, and say, It is not long of themselves that they believe not, nor obey, but the cause is in God who gives them not faith and obedi­ence, and they cannot help their own reprobation. They will not say that, Reprobation is any other than a negative decree, which infuses no malice in them, but it denyes them that grace which Election gives others: and, if it be not in their power to beleeve and repent without that grace, How can they be condemned for their not beleeving and repenting? This difficulty I am assured did stick so fast upon this Father in his first writings, that I do hardly think him quite out of the gravell in any of his last. Let us turn to his book De spiritu & littera. In his one and thirtieth Chapter, he offers the question, Whether faith be in mans power, and determines that it is, and must be so? Upon this in his thirty third chapter he comes to another question which is put to the quick, Whether the will whereby he believes, be therefore of himself, or of God? If it be not of our selves (sayes he) but of Gods gift, then may man say (according to the objection proposed) that he beleeved not, be­cause God gave him not the will. If it be of our selves, How can that text of the Apostle, what hast thou, O man, thou didst not re­ceive, be true; seeing this will to beleeve he hath of himself? [Page 6]For the extricating us out of this distresse, he yields to the first, and seems convinced, that faith must be both in our own power, and of our selves, for that reason. Dicit Apostolus, Idem Deus qui operatur omnia in omnibus: nusquam autem dictum est, Deus credit omnia in omnibus. Quod ergo credimus, nostrum est: quod autem bonum operamur, illius est qui credentibus dat Spiritum san­ctum. In his Exposition upon the Romans. The Apostle sayes that God works all in all, but never that he beleeves all in all. That We beleeve therefore, it is of our selves: but that we do good works it is of him who gives his holy Spirit to them that beleeve. To the last therefore he chooses to answer: Liberum arbitrium naturaliter attributum a Creatore animae rationali, illa media vis est, quae vel intendi ad fidem, vel inclinari ad infidelita­tem potest. Et idco, nec istam voluntatem qua credit Deo, dici potest homo habere quam non acceperit, quandoquidem vocante Deo surgit de libero arbitrio quod naturaliter cum vocaretur accepit: Vult autem omnes homines salvos fore & in agnitionem veritatis venire, non sic tamen ut eis adimat liberum arbitrium, quo vel bene vel male utentes justissime judicentur. The substance is, that, The will whereby we beleeve may be said to be received of God, although it proceed from our selves, because the faculty from whence it arises, is received from him; that is, Because the nature we have, is of our Creator, the will which is of nature, is of Him.

This does not satisfy me, for these reasons.

• 1. That which the Father sayes as to the voluntas qua credimus, The will whereby we beleeve, I take to be the same which Pelagius said as to the volun­tas qua bene operamur, The will whereby we doe good works. But if this text, and such as this, be good against Pelagius, they must be good against Augustine here, that neither is our faith of our selves, upon the same account. The truth is, The judgment of this Father while he wrot this book, is this. The Spirit is given to a man upon his beleeving. This Spirit infuses grace, charity, or ju­stification. This charity is that which disposes to good works. Good works therefore (he counts) must be of grace and Gods spirit, and to follow justification which is with him this infused grace: But as for beleeving which is the first thing upon which the Spirit it self is given to infuse this grace, from whence our good works doe spring; this must arise, he accounts, from mans free will, or [Page 7]else the fault will not be in himself (which is the argument convin­ces him), but it must lye on the will of God onely, that he hath not the spirit, and so no grace, and so does not well, and is not saved. Whether this argument be irrefragable or no, we shall see by what will follow.
• 2. There are two questions raised toge­ther by the Apostle, Who maketh thee to differ from another? and, What hast thou, O man, that thou didst not receive? The chief dif­ficulty lyes in answering the former question; for, by that is the second to be regulated. Now if that we have from God is onely this middle faculty, which we may use to beleeve, or not, Who is it makes the difference in one mans using it to faith, and another's to infidelity! That which is the less, the Posse velle, The power to will shall be of God (that is, of Nature, and so of God): but the Ipsum velle, The will or willing it self, which is the greater, and which in­deed saves us, shall be of our selves.
• 3. The Scripture is express concerning faith. — and that not of our selves, it is the gift of God. If the word [...], there, referrs to the whole sentence, we have o­ther texts. No man cometh to me, that is, beleeveth in me unless the Father draw him. To you it is given not only to believe, but to suf­ther for his name. This is the work of God that you beleeve. Who hath first given to him? Of him and to him are all things. I obtained mercy That I should be faithfull, not Because I was faithfull. But ye beleeve not, because ye are not of my sheep. Again, As many as were ordained to salvation, beleeved. It seems here that the cause why some beleeve and some beleeve not, is their being, or not be­ing of the number of those who are ordained to be of his flock. The like text in reference to works, as these to faith, is that to the Ephesians, He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy. It is not therefore mans faith or holiness is the cause of Gods Election, but it is Gods election is the cause of mans holiness and faith. A prime and eternal cause (say our Divines) cannot depend upon the self same temporal effects which are thereby caused. If therefore the Ordination of God be the cause from whence mans faith and holiness are derived; his foreseen-faith, or foreseen-works are not to be imagined antece­dent causes, merits, conditions, or motives unto the Divine Pre­destination.
• 4. We have St. Augustine acknowledging himself to have bin herein in an errour: So that these arguments must be [Page 8]no longer against Augustine, but against those who have taken up that opinion he forsook. In nullo gloriandum est, dixit Cy­prianus, quoniam, nostrum nihil sit. Quod ut ostenderet adhibuit A­postolum, Quid autem habes, quod non accepisti? Quo praecipue testimonio convict us sum cum errarem, putans fidem qua in Deum exedimus, non esse donum Dei, sed a nobis esse in nobis: & per illam nos impetrare Dei dona, quibus temperanter, & juste, & pie viva­mus in hoc seculo. Quem errorem nonnulla opuscula mea satis indi­cant. It was the saying of blessed Cyprian, that we may glory in no­thing, because that which is ours is nothing. This he proved by the words of the Apostle. By which testimony I was first convinced when I erred, thinking that faith was of our selves, and then good works obtained by it. Which errour several of my former pieces do sufficiently shew. De praedestinatione sanctor. c. 3. I wish he had mentioned the book here which I am citing, as he does one or two other, that I might have known his solution to the difficul­ty which himself hath urged, but left unanswered upon our hands.

To return then to the Father's question, Whether the Voluntas qua credimus, The will whereby we beleeve, be of our selves, or God's gift? I must not choose the first with him in that book, but the last according to other of his works. Nevertheless, we must care­fully distinguish the two things whereof he hath made two quest­ions, Ʋtrum fides in nostra constituta sit potestate, Whether faith be in our power, in one chapter: and, Ʋtrum voluntas qua credimus donum sit Dei, an ex libertate arbitrii, Whether the will whereby we do beleeve, be the gift of God, or the effect of our own liberty, in another. I do apprehend here, that both these two things are to be held, That faith is in our power, and That the will whereby we beleeve is not of our selves, but of Gods grace or gift. The holding both these is that which cuts the thread of all difficulties in this matter. For the one, That faith is in mans power, we are be­holding verily to that Father. A thing is in a mans power, which he may do if he will. Hane dicimus potestatem, ubi voluntati ad­iacet facultas faciendi. When he accounts Faith then to be in mans power, he understands this, That he may beleeve if he will. And this is a truth of great necessity, yet hath difficulty: But when he proceeds hereupon so farre, as to make the will therefore where­by [Page 9]we beleeve to be of our selves, it was a step which himself saw need, to draw back. There are many things that are possible, which yet never shall be, as this Father himself gives instances of, upon another occasion, in the first chapter of this book. There are likewise many things which a man can do, that yet he never will, or is like to do without some speciall cause moving him to it. Such is the business of mans Conversion. There is no man (we are to hold with him) but he may beleeve, I will adde, repent, and be saved, if he will: yet is this to be known and held also, That there is no man for certain ever will, unless it be from that one special cause which is Gods grace, or the Spirit's motion that works his heart thereunto. Now then, Shall a man remain an unbeleever, and impenitent and perish, the fault shall lye upon himself, and God shall be just, because we place faith in his own power. He may believe, and repent, and be saved, if he will. If God would and he will not, he may thank himself. Again, if he do believe, and repent, and is saved, he shall have no cause to boast or glory in himself, because that though he might believe and repent if he would, yet would he never have repented while the world lasted, he would have bin damn'd first, if it had not bin for the grace of God that wrought him over, after he had stood so long out. And this is a sad truth I grant, which needs not the proof of one or two single texts, when the scope of the whole Scripture which at­tributes our destructon to our selves, and our life and help unto God, does seal to it. Who is it hath made thee to differ? Of him we have the will and the deed. By grace, ye are saved.

You may say, If the will then be of God, why does he not give the will, as well as the power to all, seeing he would have all men to be saved? I answer in the first place what Augustine hath be­fore, that God will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth; but yet so as the free will of man be not destroyed. My meaning though, is not as I take the Father's to be there, as if the will in believeing could not be of God (of unwilling making man willing) but this freedome were lost; when I doubt not but the case is the same in believeing as in well-doing, where mans free will, and Gods grace would stand together alwayes in his account. I say farther, God will have all to be saved in vouchsafing the means to all, to be saved if they will. This ap­peares [Page 10]in these three particulars.

• 1. That he hath given his Son to dye for all the world.
• 2. The Lord Jesus hath by his death procured the New Covenant, or such termes upon which Salvation may be had, as are possible to all the World. This is a point to be known, that there is this difference between the Covenant of Works, un­der which we are by Nature, and the Covenant of Grace, unto which we are Redeemed; that, The condition of the one, as to our falne Estate is Impossible, and the condition of the other is Possible. If it be not possible, or in Mans Power to perform if he will, then hath Christ done nothing for the World, but died onely for his Elect. For, To procure a Benefit on a Condition that is im­possible, is all one, as to procure no Benefit at all.
• 3. There is sufficient light by the Gospel, or by other means from within and without, to instruct all men, so that if they be not wanting to that Light, they may be saved: And thus are we to make good this Truth, God will have all to be saved, if they will of themselves; which yet doth not hinder, but he may will the Salvation of some more than so, that is, not only if they Will of themselves; but if they Will by his Grace, which he gives, or refuses to whom he pleases.

Cur autem illum adjuvet Deus, illum non adjuvet: Illum tantum, illum non tantum; istum illo, illum isto modo, penes ipsum est, & aequitatis tam secreta ratio, & excellentia potestatis. But why He helps this man, and not that? this man so much, and that man not so much; this man one way, that man another; we must leave it to Him, whose Power and Wisdom is above our reach. De peccatorum meritis & remissione, l. 2. c. 5.

I know indeed, The Scripture speaks ordinarily of a Cannot; but there is a Cannot which denotes an Impossibility, and a Cannot which denotes an Indisposition onely. In the Parables, the Steward says be cannot digg; and the Man in Bed, he cannot rise. In the same sense the Scripture says, We cannot come to Christ, unless we be Drawen: and we cannot learn to do well, that are accustomed to do evil. When a man is so disposed against any thing, as that he certainly never will do it under that disposition, it is common for us to say he cannot; as of the Idle person, we say, he cannot work; of the Abstemious, he cannot drink. The Scripture accom­modates it self to our Language: He that is born of God, cannot sin, sayes the Apostle: That is, he is under that disposition [Page 11]through the New Nature, that he can no more find in his heart to live in any deliberate course of sin, than the Wicked can endure to come up to an Universal unreserved Resignation of himself un­to God. Thus are we to understand such Texts. St. Augustine, I remember, in the book last quoted, which he persues, De spiritu & litera, is very wary of denying a Possibility to a man, even of living without sin, when he is industriously proving that none in Earth but do sin; and there are some learned Divines stand much on this, that we have our faculties, and the object suffici­ly proposed; and therefore a Natural Power to every thing which is our duty. But the Father is more cautious, who distinguishes between what we can do by Nature, and what by Grace: With­out me, sayes Christ, ye can do nothing; and through Him, sayes the Apostle, I am able to do all things. By Grace he thinks it safest to hold that Possible, which by Nature, or to our bare na­tural strength and faculties, he doubts-not to count Impossible. There is a medium therefore between both. They that dare say, If it be the duty of a man that is without Grace, to live perfectly, it is possible; or, That it is in the power of man, in the state of Na­ture, without Grace, to keep all Gods Commandements, and live without sin, because it is his Duty, are too boysterous on the one hand; for, Augustine does manifestly account this to be the ex­treamest Pelagianism; and the Father, I count, in framing this di­stinction for this purpose, is too tender on the other. It is true, a man hath his Natural Faculties, and the Object may be revealed, but these faculties are corrupt and unsutable to the object. There is Nature then, and corrupt Nature. The Scripture speaks of Man as he is; and that is impossible to Falne Nature, which to Original Nature was possible. The Law it self nevertheless, being founded in Gods Nature, and Man as Created after his Image; is unchangable, and cannot cease to require of all men, what it did at first of Adam, when given in Innocency. It is the duty conse­quently of every body, whether he hath Grace, or hath not, To keep this perfect Law of our Maker entire; but we are not to af­firm it to be Possible, or within the power of any whatsoever. No certainly, seeing the Scripture tells us so often, and so flatly, that, By the deeds of the Law, no flesh living shall be justified: See­ing there is no man but is born in original sin, which he cannot [Page 12]help; and the Apostle calls Concupiscence, sin; and seeing the Grace of God, or the Spirit, is not given to any for their fulfilling the Law ef Works, but the Law of Grace (which is a point not considered on by Augustine, I take it, and most others), we must choose rather to say that the whole duty indeed of man, according to the Law of Works, (take it together) is Impossible; for, so does the Apostle, I account, intend in that expression, [...]. That is as much as to say, The Law in that, through the weakness of the flesh, none is able to per­form it, cannot possibly justifie any. The impossibility lying on us in regard to the performance, not in it. True, it were possible through such an extraordinary measure of the Spirit as the Man-Christ had (not to leave Augustine quite), but that measure be­ing not to be given to any body else, it is best said, to be Impossible, even by the strength of Nature, & by Grace (according to its ordi­nary measure on Earth) Impossible; when yet, as for the terms of the Law of Faith, I hold it fit still, to say, they are Possible to all; though there is none do perform them, but by Grace.

Upon this, there is one thing needs must yet be spoken to, for it hath stuck some time upon my self. It is this; when Augustine is telling us that Faith is in our power, he offers us this Reason, Because a man may believe, or not believe, he accounts what he will. Hoc quisque in potestate habere dicitur, quod, si vult, facit; si non vult, non facit. Vide nunc utrum quisquam credat si noluerit, aut non credat si voluerit. That every man is said to have in his power, which, if he will, he does; and, if he will not, he does not. Consider now, whether there be any that believe if they will not, or do not believe if they will. The contrary to this I judg is certain, that there are some things I cannot believe though I would, and some things that I cannot but believe, though I would not never so fain. From whence I should oppose therefore that Faith then, whatsoever else is, cannot be in mans Power, no more than it is of his own Will. For satisfaction to which, I acknowledg that there are Doctrines or Propositions which are true, that many a man cannot believe if he will; nay perhaps some Articles that the Ancients have imposed as necessary to Salvation. I say, I acknowledg that a man cannot make himself to believe what he will, nor otherwise than he does believe; nevertheless, I do apprehend that that-Faith, [Page 13]which is the condition of the covenant of grace is indeed in mans power. I apprehend that whereas the conditions of the Covenant of grace are, and must be, such as are possible, there is no man who believes as much as he can; but his will shall be accepted for whatsoever is required more, which he cannot, and which is not given. Or else we had a good have bin left still to the covenant of works. The condition then of the Covenant of grace, or those [...]erms which remain of necessity of salvation, does not lye in an assent to every doctrine and article which is true in the Christian religion, but to so much as serves to bring a man unto Christ, or unto God, Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he that comes unto him must beleeve that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. And such a faith as this, will the light of Nature instruct every man to. Though where the Gospel is preached, the beliefe of Christ also, in his person, offices, word, and works, will and must necessarily follow, seeing, To whom much is given, of him shall much be required. Ye beleeve in God, beleeve also in mee. Ʋnless ye beleeve I am he, ye shall dye in your sins. Now, let us bring that faith a man has to the test. If my beleeving of God, or Christ, that he will be good to me if I repent, does produce this repentance, then is my faith saving and ef­fectual: if it do not, then is the fault in my will. When it lyes on my will then, it is in my power: yet if I will I must hold it to be still of the grace of God. Huc valere debet tota Dei notitia (sayes Calvin), ut omne bonum ab illo petere, & illi acceptum ferre discamus. To this purpose does the whole knowledge of God which is taught us in Scripture conduce, that we should learne to seek all our good at his hands, and live in the return of our thank-fulness to him.

When God made man, he must know the end of his work He must foresee what man will do, what his posterity will do, all that they will do, the end of all. When God foresees the actions of man, it must be conceived in the order of nature that they will be, before he foresees them: and, if they will be, they must have some cause, and that cause must depend on the first Cause, and so all be resolved into God's will. It is true, that he foresees also what is possible as well as future: but a thing is possible only, because he will it not; & future because he wills it. I say not, that this inferrs a Physical de­terminate influx into every act of man, which, proceeding from his [Page 14]free will is sometimes good and sometimes evill: it is sufficient that there is such a complexion of circumstances provided, as that a vaga moralis infallibilitas, a morall indetermined certainty as to the event, shall arise out of the whole together, according to his eternal coun­sel. As for sin or evill; it is a defect of Entity or good, a priva­tive no positive thing, and so is of our selves, and not of Him, as Augustine against the Manichees, and the Schools after him have it. What followes now upon this, but that there is not an act of a mans whole life, or will, so farre as either sub genere Entis, or sub ge­nere Morum it is good, but it must be of God.

And what then is there to mate that Father's doctrine of Electi­on, as it is laid on this fonndation? Let us give the mind its greatest liberty. One may think. As there are some things which are not pos­sible, & it is no derogation to Gods power to say he cannot do them: so may there be some things non scibilia, not knowable, & it shall not derogate from his Omnisciency to say he foreknows not them. Such things as are left altogether to the will of a free agent, may be thought such. There are some things depend on mans will, which God determines; and here hee foreknows mens wills, because he knowes as well as does, whatsoever he will: and there are some things depend on mans will which we are to conceive that he de­termines not, but will have contingent; and here to make God such a one as that he must foresee every thing whether he will or no, and that a contingent to him shall be impossible though he would have a contingent, does seem to be an affront to his Majestie, ra­ther than a perfection. To this purpose we read that when God saw that the thoughts of mans heart were evill continually, it is said it repented him that he made man. And we have many expressions of the like import. O that my people had bin thus and thus, or would be thus and thus! Thou art a gracious God, and mercifull, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evill. And why may we not frame our notion of God from such texts of Scripture as these, as well as from others, and rather than from the definition of the Schools? Especially if we can make God more lovely to our selves & more adorable, than by their concep­tions. There is nothing that God does will now, but what he did decree always. And why so? Because, the Schools say, there will else be composition in God, the composition of an essence and acci­dent, [Page 15]and God is a pure act, & ens simplicissimum. But what if the Conceptions of those holy men, who would have God like to man in regard of the Scripture expressions (wherein they were so zealous, as we have a famous Ecclesiastical story about it), should not be so injurious on one hand to the Almighty, as such Concepti­ons as these on the other, which do quite puzzle our Intellectuals, and leave us without any quick sense at all of him? It is certain that God is Good, Righteous, Ʋnchangeable: but we must have a Concep­tion of goodness, righteousness and unchangeableness, and that which is agreeable to that herein, which we esteem perfections in our selves, before we attribute them to him. When we make God then to be always gracious to those that do well, and dis­pleased with evil, and so brings, or determines to bring a Judg­ment on one, and bestows a Blessing on another, according as he sees at the present the Provocation of the one, and Obedience of the other, without any other determination before, besides that of his Law; why is not this an Ʋnchangeableness, more worthy the Divine Excellence, than that, by which he being conceived a pure act, must be made never to will any thing else, than what he wills at once from all Eternity?

Upon the like Hypothesis as this, one may also propose a suta­ble notion of Praedestination. To wit, that the Scripture being skanned to the bottom, Election perhaps may be found indeed no­thing else but Gods determination to save Men and Women by the Covenant of Grace, and not by the Covenant of our Greati­on, or by the Righteousness of God declared in the Gospel, and not by the Righteousness of Works. This definition should be founded on such Texts, where the purpose of God, according to E­lection, is said to be not of Works, but of him that calleth. And He hath called us not according to our works, but according to his purpose and Grace. It should be founded also on the instances of Isaack and Jacob, in whom the Children of the Promise are Elected, in opposition to the Children of the flesh; that is, those that look for Justification by the deeds of the Law. And thus have we the example of the Jews rejection upon that account. And thus when a Pharisee hath lived so Righteously, that as to the whole Law he is blameless, and so trusts to his Righteousness, shall say, And why am I rejected for all this, and such a Publican onely for his re­penting and trusting on the mercy of God, through Christ is ac­cepted? [Page 16]it may be answered, the reason is plain, because it is God that makes the difference, by decreeing and appointing what terms he pleases, upon which one shall be saved, and not another. Hath not the Potter power over his Clay, of what sort he will, to make Vessels of honour and dishonour? so that it is not of him that Will­eth, or Runneth; it is not upon such terms as a man himself sets, or would set, of works; but it is of Grace, of him that sheweth mercy. Well! But what would be the Consequent of such Doctrine as this? Why the Consequent, no doubt, must be the same in effect with the Pelagian, which is Ʋniversal Grace, and Free will to purpose. But I confess my self to have imbibed the Doctrine of St Augustine from my younger years, that I am convinced by it, believing that nothing can be set up against it with any strength, which is short of Vorstius; while Pelagius and Vorstius both, are names we know that do so male audire, Are of such ill report in the Church, as the Arminians themselves will not bear. For our apprehensions then of God, according to the Schools, it must be acknowledged, that he is said in holy Scripture, to dwell in the Clouds and thick darkness; and into such darkness, or those Clouds, will I account indeed that he is put, while he is made to be actus purus, and wrapt in their notions, which if they served no other, they do yet serve this end; even most reverendly and exceedingly to hide him from us, and render him thereby, but as he is, very truly incomprehensible to us.

To reflect then back on the difficulty before, as to the Consequent of Election our way, if any say they are not satisfied with what I have said, because a power ne­ver produced into act, is as good as none. I answer, if I propose that which they would have, and it be all can be had, there is a measure in things, which when we have set in any point so, as the Determination cannot be passed, but we shall run into the extreams on one side, or the other, which we seek to avoid, we ought to be satisfied. Especially when such a power alone as this, which in the effect, without Grace, is none, will do our work. If we allow not a power to man, how shall God be just, how shall God condemn any (which is that lyes at bottome still of of what is said) for not doing that which was not in his power, or which was not possible? If when a man hath Power, he does also exert that power, and wills of himself; how shall such Scrip­tures [Page 17]be true which have been urged? It is God that makes us to differ. Of him we have the Will and the Deed: Nay, such Texts more especially, as speak expresly of a Cannot, when the true in­tent and meaning of them is this, that we do not, and never will (as I have had it before) till God prevents us by his effectual Grace. Without Christ we can do nothing. All our sufficiency is of God: No man can come to him unless he be drawen. Si non est liberum arbitrium quomodo Deus judicabit mundum? Si est liberum arbitrium, quomodo salvabit mundum? If man have not Free-will, how shall God judg him? If he have, how shall he save him? This is the difficulty of the Father. If then there be such a liberum arbitrium to be found out, which quodam modo is sine libe­ro arbitrio, such a power, as in the effect is no power; that is, such as without Grace (which also is efficacious) comes to no­thing, then can we decide this business for him. Suppose a Magi­strate for some fault shall cut off a Malefactors hands, and then command him to write, and promise him great things if he will, and threaten him if he do not write, can we think this Magistrate serious? Is this becoming a righteous and good man? If you grant not man to have power, why do you Preach? why do you Exhort? If you will give him more than this (I must persist), why do you Pray? why do you ask Grace of God? what is it to ask his Grace, but that God would incline the will? Alunt quor­sum vocare hominem ad praestandam conditionem quam implere neque­at? It is objected, why are men called to that condition they cannot perform? Respondeo, posse, & non posse eam implere. Non possunt nisi datur posse possunt tamen quia quod non possunt, pravitati eorum debetur. I answer (sayes Conyer), They cannot, if it were not given (that which is onely of Nature is given), but they can, be­cause it is to be attributed to their wickedness alone, that they cannot. They can, and they cannot, Thus others say: They can, and they wont I say. Onely in regard this wont is never changed in any, but by special Grace; the Scripture (I have said) calls it a can't. That is, it is a can in it self, but a can't in the effect; it being in effect all one when you never will, as if you could not. What? when the Scripture sayes, they can't, do I then say, they can? yes, because my can, and never will (I affirm) is the Scrip­tures can't. But there are some of you believe not. Therefore I [Page 18]said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given him. Some of you, notwithstanding all my Preaching and Miracles, be­lieve not; therefore I said unto you, you can't. And this inter­pretation (I must adde) accords with the Ancients. Non potue­runt, hoc est noluerunt. It a nonnunquam potestate pro voluntate utitur. Chrysostome on Jo. 12.39. So Augustine. Non pote­rant quia nolebant, quippe eorum voluntatem praevidit Deus. Hoc autem quod dicit, non potuerunt credere, significat, noluerunt. Nam malus & improbus homo non potest credere quam diu talis fuerit, ma­la scilicet eligent & volens Thophylact. Mundus odisse vos non po­test, & Quomodo potestis bona loqui cum sitis mali? Quo pacto quidquam horum impossibile est, nisi quod voluntas repugnat? Nazi­enzen. Impossibile dicitur quod, rarissime contingit, according to one, quod difficilime per ficitur according to another. See Ruiz on that head, Impossibilitatem bene operandi Patres abhorrent, eti­am quamdiu illam sonat expresse cortex Scripturae. Ad quest 23, & 24. Ex parte prima S. Thomae. Disp. 39. Sec. 8.

And here I cannot but insert the mention of a late Discourse a­bout Natural and Moral Impotency, or Natural and Ethical po­wer, which terms do express this can and cannot with so much dex­terity, though my self use them not, because my Papers were on the Anvil before that book came out. And there is somthing therefore, I find, I have already, and after, puts me in mind of two things I want in that singular pretty Tract. One is, a little more tenderness in that inculcated assertion. The more moral Impotency, the more inexcusable. I believe the Author was himself of a healthfull mind, and not sensible of those imbred inclinations, and sickliness which some soul are born with, & no strivings against it will utterly subdue, till death. There are besides certain impres­sions and wounds sometimes on the imagination that are incurable. I do not doubt now, but God, who is most wise and good, who knoweth our frame (as the Psalmist speaks), and remembreth we are but Dust, will consider the several Conditions, Complexions, and Temptations that every man is obnoxious to in this life; and that there will be grains of allowance for some moral Impotency at the last day. Non sine magna nostra utilitate relinquitur nobis materia cer­taminum ut humilietur sanctitas dum pulsatur insirmitas. It is not without our great benefit, that God does leave in his Children, mat­ter [Page 19]for their spiritual Combat, that they may be humbled in their Pi­ety, while they are assaulted with their infirmity. Ambrose. De vocatione gentium. The other thing I want, is, a distinction in regard to that principle of his, and indeed foundation, which he insists so much upon throughout the book. That which is our du­ty must be possible. It is certain that perfection is still our duty; and it is enough for us onely to make whatsoever is necessary to our Salvation to be in our power. Distinguish we must there­fore between the Law of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. We are indeed to maintain the condition of the one to be possible for good reason; but as for what is required in the other, though it be still our duty, and must remain so eternally (for Good and E­vil according to Nature, can never be changed), we are not to deny in our falne state, to be impossible. Which hath been before Noted.

To return, There is a point near a kinn to the matter in hand, of great difficulty, what part the will of man does bear in our good acts. That the beginning of all that is good, comes from God, who by his preventing Graee, works in us at first (as the Schools speak) without us; and, That when the will is excited, he does work also with us, by his operating, or co-operating Grace, as the principal cause still, and consequently, That the whole good which is done, upon that account, is to be attributed to him, we shall find yeilded by the School men, as well as tendred by St. Augustine, Prosper, Fulgentius, and the like Fathers. Totum bonum est Deo tribuendum, quia totum Dens operatur. See Ruiz. De Deo operante; & libero arbitrio, Sec. 1. On the other hand, That being acted, we act, and so concur with Gods Grace; That it is we Believe, Repent, and not God: We that work out our Salvation, though he gives the will and the deed: We who walk in his Statutes, though he puts his fear in our hearts to do it: and so We accordingly, who are bid to make our selves new hearts, which is his work out of question; this is also undeniable in Scrip­ture. Deus est qui operatur—cum procul dubio, si homo ratione utatur, non possit credere, sperare, diligere, nisi velit: nec pervenire ad palmam, nisi voluntate cucurrerit. It is God works in us, when beyond doubt, there is no man uses his Reason, but it is himself also that wills. Aug. Enchir. c. 32. Ʋt velimus, & suum esse voluit & nostrum, suum vocando, nostrum sequendo, in another book. It [Page 20]is God then according to the determination of the schools, that is the principal cause, and the will of man the less principal, parti­all, secundary cause, of our good actions. His part indeed is such to which all the glory is due, and yet ours such as the good works are reckoned ours, and we shall be rewarded for them at the last day. When Calvin therefore seems here to oppose, I find him thus treated. Supponebat haereticus hominis arbitrium itae divina praedestinatione regi, ut quamvis operetur spontanee, nihil tamen agat ciun potestate non agendi, sed agatur Dei operatione, That heritick Calvin (saies the now named learned Jesuit out of Sta­pleton) supposed the free will of man to be so governed by praedestina­tion, that though it does act spontaneousty, yet it acts not with a power of not acting, but it is acted by the operation of God. Well! what is the difference between them? Does Calvin indeed go to evacuate that free-will man hath by nature? no such matter. Does he make the will to act so by Gods operation, as to have no operation of its own? I think not so. But I will tell you where the water sticks. It sticks between the Schools and Calvin, where it does between the Arminians and Calvinists, and that is upon the point altogether of resistibility or irresistibility. The work of grace is understood by Calvin and the Calvinists to be such, as leaves not any power in the will to resist, or of not acting. They doe stand so much on the bare term of Gods drawing us, as it leads them to speak with excess. The truth therefore is to be thus decided. We are to hold with the Schools and Arminians, that the will hath still power to resist, or not to act, for mans nature is destroyed else: but we are to hold with the Calvinist, that though it hath power, it never will, or does resist, but will most certainly act, when it is acted by Gods electing grace. As in the case before of the Reprobate (I have said), a man hath Power to beleeve, and repent, so that it is his fault, and he is justly condemned, if he do not, when yet he never will, for want of this grace: So in the case of the Elect, a man hath power to resist, and not to act, but he will beleeve and repent infallibly, and never resist, when he is wrought upon by it. The reason is, because God by his prae­destination of such a person to life, does prepare a Vocation so Fit, and suited to his temper, condition, and the circumstances he is in, as it shall inevitably carry the will (which by the way does recon­cile [Page 21]the Certainty of the one, with the Liberty of the other, accor­ding to St. Augustine's intention), when the same means shall be used to a person not elect, but being not suited to his state, they have no such event: Even as the same physick given to two bodys diversly disposed, hath an operation upon one, and does the other no good. In short, the grace of God is resistible with the Armini­ans, in regard of power: it is irresistible with the Calvinists, in re­gard of the effect. The will does ever retain its Physical power to act, or not act; when yet it is made Ethically impotent (to use once the Authour before) to resist. Quisquis andet dicere, habeo ex me ipso fidem, non ergo accepi, profecto contradicit apertissimae veritati: non quia credere vel non credere non est in arbitrio voluntatis, sed in electis praeparatur voluntas a domino. If any dare say I have faith of my self, and therefore did not receive it, he does for certain contradict the truth. Not because that to believe or not beleeve is not in the power of the will, but in the Elect the will is prepared of God. Aug. De Praedes. Sanc. c. 5. We may add St. Ambross (or Prosper rather). Qui ad obediendum sibi ipsum velle sic donat, ut etiam a persevera­turis illam mutabilitatem, quae potest nolle, non auferat. In one of his two books, De vocatione gentium.

The summ is, where a man beleeves, repents, and is converted, the difference is made between him and the reprobate. This is act­tuall, or created praedestination. Man concurrs in this work: nevertheless, in regard that it is not through his own strength, or through that grace which is universal, or common to the Reprobate with the Elect, but through that grace which is peculiar and pre­pared by increated predestination for him, it is not of himself, but of God, that he is made to differ. And if it be granted, that it is in his power to hinder the difference, while grace is making of it, seeing it is in his power still not to act: but yet be asserted also, that the decree working infallibly, carrys the will, that it never is, or shall be hindered when that works: I do not see but this controversie about Gods operation, and mans free will, may be a­greed. How is it said (sayes Augustine), it is not of him that willeth or runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy? If it were to be understood onely because it is of both, then might we say it is not of God likewise that sheweth mercy, but of him that willeth and runs. But when no Christian dare say so, it remains (sayes he) to be so [Page 22]understood, Ʋt totum Deo detar, qui homini voluntatem bonam & praeparat adjuvandam, & adjuvat praeparatam; That the whole be given to God, who both fits the will for his help, & then helps it, being made fit. Enchiridion ad Laurentium, c. 32.

As for the way of the Papists, that is, which the Trent Councel does tread, it seems to me verily an invented, forced way. They would avoid the censure of Augustine, and former Councels which condemned Pelagius, yet in effect do entend but the same thing. They say, therefore, that God does vouchsafe his grace to all; with this grace some co operate, and some do not. Those that will co-operate with it God fore-sees, and praedestinates them: those that co-operate not, he rejects and condemns. By this means they will avoid making their own works to be the cause of their Election, seeing they can attribute all to this sufficient assistance; when yet the consequent of their opinion comes to one, that it must lye in the will of man which co operates, or co-operates not with this assistance, to make the difference, why one is chosen and saved, and not the other. That which is said by the Pelagian, placing Grace only in Doctrine, or the Gospel, is more single I take it than this. It is true, there are some others besides the Papists, are willing to hold Election to be of Works, or of Faith foreseen, who will yet deny the Consequent, that our Faith, and and good Works therefore must arise from our own free wills, and be meritorious; because they will suppose them so foreseen, (which the Papist I suppose say too) as to be wrought in us, or performed by Gods grace. But let me ask then, what they mean by this Grace? If they mean such as in effectual, and determins the will, and so is peculiar to the Elect, Lo here the Doctrine of absolute Election: If, they mean such only as leaves the will in aequilibrio, to be determined still of it self, then the matter returns to the former issue. I will therefore close up this point of Electi­on with the observation of that very judicious person that wrote the Councel of Trent. who having set down the debate of the Doctors about it, and divided them into two opinions, which comes in effect (without reciting the whole) to the tenents of ab­solute and conditional Election, he gives us his judgment. The first Opinion (sayes he) which is Augustines, as it is mystical and hid­den, keeping the mind humble, and relying on God without any con­fidence [Page 23]in it self; knowing the deformity of Sin, and excellency of Divine Grace: So was the second plausible, and popular, cherish­ing Humane Presumption, and making a great shew; and it pleased more the Preaching Fryers, than the Ʋnderstanding Divines. The Defenders of this, using Humane reasons, prevailed against the others: But coming to the Testimonies of Scripture, they were manifestly e­vercom. I descend not to the more minute Disputations, De praedeterminatione physica, between the Dominicans, and Francis­cans; or De scentia media, among the Jesuits, which are of lo­wer date (I count) in the World, and ought not to make us trou­ble. I leave also the Jansenist and Molinist to that Bone; Haec praedestinatio Sanctorum nihil aliud est quam praescientia scilicet, & praeparatio beneficiorum Dei, quibus certissime liberantur quicunque liberantur. This Predestination of the Saints, is nothing else but the Fore-knowledge, and Preparation of those Benefits of God, whereby they are most certainly saved, that are saved. Aug. De bono, pers. c. 14.

There are two Opinions yet I shall mention, which are sin­gular; I do not think them true, yet am I pleased with any in­tent for composing the Scripture. The one is that, ascribed to Catarinus at Trent, to Occam, and others; That there are in­deed some few Persons, who are Elected Absolutely; of these God takes a special care that they never fail; as we read of Peter: But that the rest of Mankind are left to universal Grace, and the liberty of their wills, under a Conditional Election, and Reprobation. The other is an Opinion of a Learned Doctor of another Profession, very Studious of the Holy Writings; who is often telling me when I see him, That, Election is only to a Church-State, and peculiar Priviledges: But that we read of a Common Salvation.

Of Redemption.

I Do not remember any thing in St. Augustin that is peculiar about this Doctrine: Only I take notice from several passa­ges, that he goes still the Narrow Way: That the Elect only are redeemed: That none but those who are brought into the Church, by receiving all her Articles, and being Bap­tized, can be of that Number. That no Heathen, no Here­tick, no Separatist from the Church, no Donatist, no Infant, though of Believing Parents, that dies unbaptized, can be sa­ved. I must confess here I am not of the mind with this Father. And, as I apprehend, that Justine Martyr, and some such Anci­ents, who were Philosophers as well as Christians, have spoken more nobly than thus: So do I think that he goes not here the way of the Scriptures. There is the universal Grace of God; and special Grace of God, I count, held forth therein: and both consistent with one another. When Christ sayes, He came to save the World, that The Father so loved the World, as to give his Son, That he tasted Death for every Man, and the like; let not any think, but the Grace of Redemption doth concern all the World: And when we yet maintain special Grace with this, let not any confine the same to this or that Sort or Sect of Reli­gion, but let him judge rather, that the Elect are scattered throughout the Earth; and it is God alone knows who are his. There is the universal Grace of Origen, that all at last shall be saved, of Pelagius, of Arminius. There is also gratia univer­salis aqualis & praecedanea, of John Camero; we are not bound to maintain either of these: but there is Gratia universalis sim­pliciter, which if we maintain not, we must leave our Preaching, and the Gospel. The Followers of Truth and Mediocrity will be afraid to hold any other universal Grace, but such as I sup­pose St. Ambrose holds in his Books, De vocatione Gentium; that will agree well with the special Grace also and Election of St. Augustine; that is, such only, I count, as may justly lay the [Page 25]blame of mans Sin and his Destruction, altogether on him­self, when it gives the whole Glory of his Salvation unto God. They that observe lying vanityes, for sake their own mercy.

For my proceeding on this point, it is not sutable to my pur­pose to be critical upon any words in the original Languages that Redemption is expressed by: or, to pretend to curiosity in the Laws and Customs of the Jews or other nations about Redemp­tion at large, which might be alluded to: I will rather leave this Note in my way, that, as the curious oftentimes are least apt for plain things, so must I say, that whatsoever notion is offered upon this or any other head of Divinity by any, who perhaps are of more exquisite learning and search in some things than others are, if when they are sufficiently declared, they are not apprehensible by common and ordinary people as well as them­selves, I do account them little worth in the Christina Religi­on. They were plain men who at first Preached the Gospel, and they were plain men for whose sake it was Preached, and is Written. When I see evidently that there must goe more skill to the finding such or such things out, more learning, subtil distinction, and wit, that, I beleeve, any of the Apostles if they were living ever had, I cannot but think presently, There is none of Christs disciples would have delivered this, and it matters not my salvation whether it be so or not.

Neither do I entend a Common place upon this, or other of the Heads which I treat on, but an Exercitation onely, in order to my particular design: you must not expect any more. There is one thing then I account here to be mainly of necessity or moment; and that is, the understanding our Redemption by Jesus Christ but so, as that we may be solidly able to fix upon what that is which indeed accrewes to man from it, or which we may avouch for the immediate and uncontrolable fruit, or benefit, to us by it. I will not therefore make many words. The Redemption of man by Christ, I humbly conceive, does lye chiefly in this, The deli­very of him from the Law as it was a Covenant of works, that is requiring of him such conditions as he is not now in his faln es­tate ever able to perform; and so must inevitably perish, if he were not delivered from it. When the fulness of time was come (sayes the Apostle) God sent his Son, made under the Law. &c. The [Page 26] Law as given to the Jews was a representative of the Law of Na­ture or Covenant of Works: and in Christs redeeming the Jewes from it as given by Moses, he does redeem the World from that covenant which it represented, and there, I say, does lye the cheif point of our Redemption. That very thing then, or that great immediate effect or benefit which accrewes to man from Christs dying for him, is his having other terms procured upon which he may be justified and saved, than those which by the Covenant of nature were due from him to obtain that end. For, God so loved the World that he gave his onely begotten son that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. What is the immediate end here of God's giving his Son, That must be the Immediate fruit of Christs coming, dying, and redeeming the World. And what is that, but that Whosoever beleeveth in him, may not perish? That is, The delivery of him from the law of Works, and bringing him under the Covenant or law of Faith, that, upon the performance only hereof (who could not have it else without perfect doing) he may obtain everlasting life. And whether this favour of Christs procuring new terms upon which man may be saved does belong to the Elect only, or to all the world, there will need no more but to ask, To whom the Gospel is to be preached, to decide that question.

It is true, that the freedom of the Jewes from the Mosaical law; the breaking down the partition-wall thereby for the Gentiles to be incorporated into one Church visible; and a power in Christ himself to dispense all assistances necessary to both for their obedience to the Gospel; as also a discharge of mankind from damnation for Adams sin onely, are fruits of Christs death, which may be said too, immediate and universal: but the great benefit which indeed comprehends these and the like in it, and appeares so notorious in the whole New Testament, is, The re­conciliation of the world unto God by his death or Redemption. And what else such a reconciliation can eminently consistin, but that I have named, I leave to the understanding to give judgment.

Neither are we to forget that our Redemption in Scripture is said to be from Sin, and the Devil, as well as from the Law; for the one is the Foundation of the other. When man fell from God, the Devil obtained a right and dominion over him. [Page 27]This was not a right as Lord, and Proprietour, but as Goaler and Executioner; that is, by vertue of that sentence which the Law as the Covenant of works passed on him. When Christ then by his Satisfaction to the Justice of God, did put an end to that Covenant; this Right which the Devil held thereby, must cease with it. In the Cessation of this Right; As the Slave who is redeemed from his slavery, is redeemed also from the work which he lives in as a Slave: So must all Mankind be redeemed from sin; only this Redemption must be distinguished, in re­gard of Title, and in regard of Possession. It follows not be­cause the World lies in Wickedness, and the Prince of the Air still rules in the Children of Disobedience; that Christ hath not done His part in their Redemption: No, while the Law which held them under an impossible Duty (that is, the Law of Sin and Condemnation) is taken off, and the New Law is such, as e­very one is capable to perform the Terms of it, if he will: It is not for want of Right to come out of this slavery; it is not for want of Power; but it is because they are not willing to come out of it, because they love their sins; that the Devil keeps them still in Possession. Even as the Hebrew Servant, when the Jubile came; if he said, he loved his Master, and would not go out free, he was to have his Ears boared to the Door-posts of the House, and remain his Slave for ever. There is a double work, therefore, Christ has to do as our Lord-Redeemer. The one is to procure Deliverance if we are willing; that is, our Redemption in regard of Title: And the other is, To make us Willing, which is, to put us also in Possession. The one of these is that which is properly the work of our Redemption, and Universal: The other is peculiar to the Elect, and hath another name in Scripture; that is, our Vocation, Effectual Calling, or Conversion. Unless when this Possession comes to be perfectly compleat, that is, at Death; and then it is again called the Day of Redemption. Whom he did predestinate (saith the Apostle) them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified: And whom he justified, them he also glorified. If Redemption were not of a larger extent than Election, Vocation, Justifica­tion, and Glory, then would the Apostle have said; Whom he did predestinate, he redeemed: And whom he redeemed, he called. [Page 28]But when we find no such Link in this Chain, it is a convincing Argument to my understanding, for the Ʋniversalitie of Re­demption.

It is said of Christ, that he is the Saviour of the world; espe­cially of his own body. In that Sentence we have both universal and special Grace together; and the one is Applicatory, not Destructive to the other. The Redemption of Christ is univer­sal: The Grace whereby a Man savingly believes, and repents, and so becomes one of his Body, is special, and belongs to E­lection. The Death of Christ may be considered, as it redounds to the purchasing Remission of Sin and Salvation upon conditi­on; or, as it redounds to the purchasing the Condition for Re­mission and Salvation. In the first sense, Christs Redemption and Grace of the Gospel is universal; Doctor Twisse, and the like Divines, will say twenty times over: In the second sense, they will have it for his Elect only. For my own part, I must go from them here, and account, That the work of Christs Re­demption and whole Mediation upon Earth, does terminate in the former consideration. The business of a Mediatour be­tween parties, does lie in this, To bring them to some New terms, wherein they may be agreed when they were at odds before. The business of Christs Mediation, Redemption, Re­conciliation, Propitiation, Satisfaction; or whatsoever word out of Scripture, or Orthodox Writers is used, does lie, I ac­count, in this altogether, That he hath taken that course with the Father, that he shall not deal with the world according to the Covenant of our Creation; which requires such terms, as no Man now thereby can be justified or saved; but according to the Covenant of Grace, which is such, that whosoever he be, that trusting in his Mercy and Goodness through Christ, does re­pent, and walk sincerely before him; though imperfectly, shall be Pardoned, Accepted, and Saved, and yet he be Righteous in so doing. This I say, is the res ipsa, (as I take it) the thing it self, intended in all these sorts of words, with the connotati­ons only of the modus also, the mode or qualification thereof, ac­cording to such several Expressions.

Here then appears a Truth (as it seems at least) very agree­able to my Reason; and will be found as Consonant perhaps to [Page 29]the Judicious, with the Scripture; that the Merit, or Purchase of Christ's Death, or the Price he laid down for our Redemp­tion, was not offered to the Father, to procure of Him, that he should give Faith and Repentance to any; but that he should give Remission to those that Repent, and Salvation to those that believe on him. I humbly offer you these Reasons:

• 1. The holding otherwise than thus, does make Christ's Re­demption a double thing; one thing for one man, and another thing for another: If shall be procuring Salvation for Judas, if he repent; and it shall be the procuring Repentance for Peter, that he may be saved.
• 2. It goes quite against the hair to reason, that Christ should procure the Benefit upon Condi­tion, and only on Condition, and not otherwise; and yet that he should procure also the Performance. To what purpose do we make such a Labour about as this? Why do you not say, He purchased the Benefit rather free altogether without condition?
• 3. If our Believing, and Repenting, be also purchased, then is there nothing in Man's Salvation but of Purchase; and we shall be beholding to Christ for all, and to God for nothing. But if we are beholding to Christ for his Purchase, that Salvation may be had if we repent, and to God for this Repenting; then do we see, how highly Both are to be magnified for the Contri­vance.
• 4. The Death and Redemption of Christ is for All, for every man; for our sins, for the world's. Distinctions to answer this, are but Evasions. But if Faith and Repentance be the pur­chase of Christs Death or Redemption, then cannot his Death and Redemption be universal, according to so many Scriptures. Let me double this, and add also, that the Purchase, or Redemp­tion of Christ being universal certainly, as it is in Scripture, if by his Death he had procured the Condition, as well as the Covenant, and abatement of Terms, then must all Men Actu­ally have been saved. I have one Reason yet more to offer; which is. That the want of knowing this, is I take it, the great Stumbling-block, or Temptation to our Divines, in the recei­ving universal Grace, to cast special Grace quite off; when they should learn the true Mediocrity of reconciling both these toge­ther, according to the Scriptures.

When the Arminian then argues here, Christ hath died for [Page 30]All and Every man and that is not to be put off with the genera singulorum, or, the Gentiles as well as the Jewes: therefore the grace of God is universal for all and every one to repent and be­leeve that they may be saved. I answer, this is manifestly inconsequent, because it is true that what Christ hath done by way of Redemption is universal, and belongs to all the World, and every man alike, which is terminated in procuring these terms to be offered to the World for salvation. But as for mans belief, repentance, sincere obedience, which are the terms, they come directly and immediately otherwise, not from the grace of Redemption, nor from the fountain of mans free will with them, but from the grace of Election. God gives us his Son, and he gives us his Spirit. His sending his Son is one thing, and his sending his Spirit another. The work of drawing persons to Christ, I do observe, is attributed to the Father and the Spirit, because this is Peculiar: when the work which is attributed to Christ in distinction to them, is Generall to all mankind. He sent his Son to purchase salvation, if we Beleeve: he sends his Spirit to work that faith and repentance in us that we may be saved. In the one does lye the mystery of our Redemption, in the other, I say, the mystery of Election. Let it be true on one hand that Christ by his Redemption hath indeed procured no more for Paul and Peter, than for Judas and the reprobate, and so the honour of his Redemption be kept up with the Arminian to the height they con­tend for it: Yet may it be true, I hope likewise, on the other hand, that the grace of God towards Peter and Paul was more in giving them saving faith and repentance, than to Judas or the reprobate, and so the doctrine of Speciall Grace and Election need not neither be discarded.

For caution, There is the Direct, and Collateral issue (if I may so speak) of Christs merit, purchase or death. It is certain that the Lord Jesus may be said by his death and merit to have pro­cured his own exaltation, and as he is become thereby the Dis­pensatour of those treasures that are in his Fathers Eection, so repentance or faith in a collateral way may be accounted to issue from thence. Whom God hath exalted to be a Prince to give re­pentance, as well as be a Saviour, to procure remission to Israel. But repentance, faith perseverance, or the condition which God [Page 31]requires of us, and not of Christ, in the business of our salvati­on, does not flow to us directly from, or is no direct and imme­diate fruit of, his Death or Redemption. I know moreover the Scripture tells us that we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in him: But that may be true I hope, though some of those blessings only are the purchase of his death, and others the effect of his Intercession: or some the fruit of his Purchasing, others the effect of his Administring of the new Covenant.

This is certain, the Spirit is the Authour of our faith, repen­tance, all grace: but the Spirit is obtained by vertue of Christs intercession. I will pray the Father, and he will send the Comfor­ter. I offer you one argument. The Spirit proceeds not from the Son alone but from the Father and Son. The mission or giv­ing of the Spirit therefore cannot be the effect of our Redemption which is peculiar to the Son, and belongs to all the World: but is the fruit or off spring of our Election. It is true, we come in the name of Christ to ask his Spirit, and grace, that is, we ask it through Christs merits: but there is the merits of his Person, as well as the merits of his Death; & it is one thing to be the Propi­tiation for our sins, and another to be also our Advocate with the Father. This is that I will pitch upon, that we are not so to at­tribute all things to his Oblation, as to make any other part, or parts of his Mediator-ship, more then needs.

There is a distinction the Scripture makes of Christ in the Flesh and in the Spirit. He was of the seed of David according to the the flesh, and declared to be the son of God according to the Spirit, in his Resurrection from the dead, and in his living ever to make intercession for us. What he did for man in the flesh I account he did for all mankind, for he took not on him the flesh of David onely and the elect, but of all man-kind, or of human nature: but what he does in the Spirit, that may be peculiar (in some points at least) onely to his elect. Hence it is, that when he tells us he Laid down his life for the World, yet I pray sayes he not for the World, but for those thou hast given me out of the World. The prayer of Christ is a part of his intercession, which is Distinct from his oblation, and it is no argument from his not Praying for the World, that therefore he Died not for it. If ye being e­vil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more [Page 32]shall your heavenly Father give his holy Spirit to them that ask him. God hath given his Son to those that never ask him, even to the whole World: but he gives the Spirit of the Son only to his Children, even to such as can cry Abba Father, when they have received it. I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth, whom the World cannot receive. When he prayes not for the world, that he prayes for is the Spirit, and the Spirit which works grace in the heart whereby we are sanctified, and perseverance to bring us to glory, is pe­culiar to those whom God does give to Christ, and of whom Christ can say, For they are thine, and all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.

You may say, on the one hand, If it be no more which Christ hath purchased for Peter then for all, then Peter might perish for all Christs Purhcase. I answer, you may say so, and without ignominy to his Redemption, provided you know also that the E­lection of God and Christs Prayer will provided for Peter that further which it provides not for all, and Jesus Christ when he hath made his purchase, is the Executor of Gods Election. On the other hand it may be said, But to what purpose is this Re­demption universal when none but those that perform the conditi­on are saved? I answer, it is therefore universal, that none of those who performe the condition may misse of Salvation. As also, that though it be all one to him that does not perform the same, in regard of the event, as if he was not all Redeemed: Yet it is not all one as to God, and the Verity of Scripture, and his Judgment according to it. The Scripture sayes often, Christ Dyed for All; and that God will Judge the World according to this Gospel. He that belives, shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be damned; the Foundation whereof is Christs Death, which must reach so far, as to make this good. And who knows not, that the very business of our whole Religion, does depend upon the Establishment of the Verity of the Holy Scriptures?

I must confess, I should most willingly hearken to any, that could make Christs Death more Advantagious; and when his purchase hath procured Faith and Repentance to no body, but Remission and Salvation to All, upon their Faith and Repen­tance, [Page 33]if they are willing to say, that there is sufficient Grace also purchased for the World, that all, and every one should Repent and Believe, and apply that Redemption; I am indif­ferent to the use of their Thoughts: But if when I rather grant a universal Power, arising from Christs purchase, not as a di­rect fruite of his Death, but as a consequential Event (N.B.) from the Abatement only of the terms; that God is not want­ing to any in necessariis, and consequently, that all men have sufficient Light, Spirit, Grace, or Power, to be saved, if they will: Yet so long as we cannot deny him, but he may abound in gratuitis, and to give the Will and Deed it self, is more than to give Power, (as to have given to Adam the Ipsum velle, had been more, and a gratuitum wherein he might have abound­ed, if he had pleased, than in giving him only Posse velle) I can­not see by any means, but when Christs Death is made univer­sal, the Fathers Election must be left still, Per modum decreti ef­ficaciter operantis, By way of a decree effectually operating, free and absoute, in regard to the condition of it's Application. If all men have alike the Posse velle, The Power to will, and no more, then must the reason, Why one man Repents, and is Saved, and not another, be resolved into his own self only, and so may and must he say, it is I, I my self have made the difference, when the Scripture does say, Who is it, O man, that hath made thee to differ? But if we allow (as Redemption to be universal so) a Posse velle from general: (I say, not a Posse velle as to the Cove­nant of our Creation, but as to the Terms of the Gospel:) And to the Elect, the Ipsum velle from special Grace, we shall neither have any thing to charge God, nor give occasion to Mans boast­ing. Neither shall the condition be held impossible; nor when we have performed it, shall we rob God of his Glory.

It is pleaded, That unless Faith and Repentance does lie in every Man's own Breast, Christ's purchase of Pardon upon that Condition, is but a Mock. I answer, To deny that to Believe, and to Repent, does lye in our Power, were indeed, to evacu­ate Christ's Death to All, besides the Elect: But to say, that Faith and Repentance therefore does flow from our own Wills, is another matter. I must offer moreover; If Christ had pur­chased Faith and Repentance for some which All have not, the [Page 34]Reprobate might here have something to say, That the Reason why he Repented not, as the Elect did, was, because Christ purchased Repentance for the One, and not for the Other: But if Christ hath purchased nothing for One, but what he hath pur­chased for All (which directly is true,) then cannot the purchase of Christ be a Mock to any, seeing some do reap a real Benefit by it, and if others do not, it must be their Own fault. Indeed those Divines, who confound the Blessings we have in Christ, so as to make them All alike the direct Fruits of his Death with no difference, must be under some manifest Prejudice here against St. Augushine, and his Doctrine. It stands not with reason, that any thing which is part of Christ's Purchase, should be peculiar, for how then hath Christ dyed for All? That which is of meer Favour, is fit for the Elect; that which is of Purchase, should be universal, or for All Mankind. If that Grace then, whereby we Believe and Repent, is a Fruit flowing from Christ's Death, no otherwise than the Covenant it self does, these Di­vines alone must speak agreeably, who will allow no other, but that which they call sufficient, putting all men into an aequi libri­um, or equal Ballance, between Choosing and Refusing, and so leaving it upon their own Wills, to make the Difference, Who are saved, and who are not saved? But to what little purpose such Grace as this, is distinguished at all from Nature, and into what inconveniences, especially in reference to our Prayers, they must be lead that maintain it, I shall not be able to say presently. Cur admonemur orare pro inimicis nostris vtique no­lentibus pie vivere, nisi ut Deus in illis operetur & velle? Item cur admonemur petere ut accipiamus, nisi & ab illo fiat quod volumus, a quo factum est ut velimus. Again, Cur petitur quod ad nostram pertinet potestatem, si Deus non adjuvat veluntatem? Why are we bid to Pray for our Enemies, whose Hearts we know are Averse? Why are we bid to ask any thing which is in our own Power, but that it is God who turns the Will? Augustine. Enchir: ad Laur. c. 31. Item De Gra. & alibi passim.

It is certain, that St. Austine, speaking of what Grace Adam had, and what We have (De correptione & Gratia. c. 11.) does ascribe the Posse permanere si vellet, The power of standing if he would unto Grace. Prima gratia quae d [...]a est Adam, est qua fit [Page 35]ut habeat homo justitiam si velit: Secunda ergo plus potest, qua etiam fit, ut velit. Again, Posse permanere si vellet, quia dederat adjutorium per quod posset. He could have stood if he would, be­cause God vouchsafed help whereby he could. I must confess, I should have judged it not to be of Grace, that Adam had his Posse perseverare, his strength to persenere, but of Nature, or his Original Righteousness: And that Grace (which he calls Adju­torium) is proper to our falne Estate, for the relieving of Na­ture. But if it were of Grace, that Adam had the posse only, when he had not the velle, then may we assert universal Grace with the more Authority; while we say, that there is a posse now in Man falne, as to the performance of the Covenant of Grace, no less than in Adam at first, as to his keeping the Cove­nant of Works: when yet the velle, which is of special Grace, is not vouchsafed.

There may be here indeed, a most difficult Demand, and that must not be baulked; Whether the Power, which is uni­versal, be of Nature or Grace? And I must profess, it is an En­tanglement to my Thoughts, to distinguish Nature at all, from that Grace which is universal. Although for the sake I suppose of some Texts, which attribute our sufficiency, our can, our power, as well as our will and deed to God, when they say too it is not of our selves, Divines do it. There is that Concourse, or Operation of God with Us, as reaches to the Endowing us with Power: or that which reaches to the Endowing us with the Will. The last of these only, if I might choose, I would have called Grace: Yet seeing Divines speak otherwise, whether the former also, be called Grace or Nature, so long as it be held universal, I desire to move no Contention. And you see me speak as one indifferent in it.

If we consult the Schools, we shall find them giving as little to the strengh of nature as any others can doe. Nullum initium jus­tificationis potest fieri sine gratia, Sive lllud initium sit causa, sive meritum, condigni aut congrui, sive impetratio, dispositio, condi­tio ad quodlibet aliquid, quocun (que) modo per se & ratione sui, con­ducens ad justificationem. There is nothing that we can doe of our own strengh without grace that is any cause, merit, disposition, con­dition, or occasion of our justification, or the beginning of it. Ruiz. [Page 36] De praedestinationis exordio. Trac. 3. Disp. 17. By justification they understand in effect regeneration, and they distinguish of an occasion which is active or given of men, and passive or taken of God. They will allow indeed that what we doe may be a Passive oc­casion or opportunity to God for the infusing his grace, which is with them to justify us, but no Active. Illae occasiones perse, & ratione sui, nullam Physican, nec moralem causalitatem exercent, ad ob­tinendam miscriocordiam Dei, sed Deus pro sua intriuscca bonitate & Sapientia, ex illis occasionem accipit. Jb. Dist. 16 Sec. 2. The sum is, that whatsoever man does by the strengh of nature, con­duces to his effectuall conversion onely (as a removens prohibens) by removing the hindrance which otherwise we might put, if we with drew from the means that God hath appointed to obtain his grace. Licet cuim aliquis per motum liberi arbitris divinam gratiam nec promercri nec acquirere possit: potest tamen seipsum im­pedire ne eam recipiat, sayes Aquinas. Though a man by the mo­tion of his freewill cannot merit or procure the divine grace: yet can he hinder himself from receiving it. They said unto God, Depart from us we desire not the knowledg of thy ways. Quilibet ac­ius qui a nobis eliciatur per vires naturae sine anxilio gratiae nihil ad gratiam justificantem, nee ad auxiliatricem gratiam insluit: nihilue conducit aut confert perse ratione sui, sed soluwnmodo quasi causa per accidens remonendo prohibens, aut tanquam occasio & opportunitas passiua & a Deo accepta, non ab hominibus data. Jb. Dist. 20.

Having gon thus far in abasing the strengh of nature, we shall find how they make it up again, with advancing an universall. Sufficient grace, by the help of which lever the free will of man shall be lifted into the same throne, from whence before they threw it down. For when that grace which they set up, must be such only as gives a next power to beleeve and repent if we will, but leaves the will undetermined and uninclined, and this being Supposed to be vouchsafed to all according to the condi­tion they are in, whether Elect or Reprobate alike, it is apparent that mans free will by the cooperation with this grace, or refusal, is that which begins, or puts by his own justification, and cau­sequently makes the differenee (in the upshot) between him that is saved, and him that is damned. Supponimus omnibus adultis, [Page 37]nullo excepto, dari auxilia sufficientia ad salutem, & non impe­dita, sed ita expedita, ut in potestate cujusque sit, illis cooperan­do, ulteriora auxilia obtinere, quanrvis per vires naturae non pos­sint obtinere auxilia gratiae. Again, Barbari ignorantissimi per interiorem gratiam moventur ad cognoseendum (non explicite sed implicite & virtualiter, non certo sed subdubio, non in particu­lari sed in universali) aliquid supernaturale, atque ad illud de­siderandum: Idque sufficit ut illustrationes & inspirationes siut quidditative supernaturales & sufficientes ad justificationis initi­um. Idem ib Disp. 25. Now what my thoughts are of this, I have offered as I pass; and more particularly, at the end, upon the first Head, of Election. There is universal Grace con­sistent with the Special Grace of Gods Elect: Or inconsisient with it. The former, I shall like to have well explained. The latter, I take to be against St. Augustine, and the Scriptures. The Grace of God is without, or within us. There is the Love, or Good-will of God to Mankind, who would have All to be sa­ved: Our Redemption by Christ; The remedyicg Covenant; The Gospel. This is Grace without, and that some Grace there is then sufficient, and universal, that yet hath no Effect on the most, is out of doubt. There is moreover, that Grace which lies in the Help, or Assistance of the Spirit within, and the Fruit of it (Gratia Auxiliatrix, & Infusa) and this our Di­vines doe distinguish into Common and Saving. By Common, they understand not the universal sufficient Assistance of the Schools before, but some particular Operation of the Spirit, Effecting so much as it is given for, only because those Effects reach no farther than what is Common to the Elect and Repro­bate, they call such Help or Grace only Common Grace. Thus far we are safe; As for any Grace besides all this, if there be a­ny, not opposing Electing Grace, I shall be glad to hear it; but my own mind, I perceive, hangs thus. There is a Power to will or nill, to act or not to act, which is the power of Nature: And there is a Disposition on the Will, being touched by the Ho­ly Spirit, to the doing what is good. Between these two, Na­ture, and Grace, to advance a middle Power, arising from an Assistance sufficient, preceding Effectual, that is to say, To make God by a supernatural Help, to produce a New Power, [Page 38]which they call, a next Power, in every man, over and above that Power which we have by Nature (which is the Remote Power, though the Schools mean it not so, and which alone will render the Sinner inexcusable without any other) antece­dent to the giving the Will and the Deed, wherein effectual Grace does lie: Even a New Power, I say, Supernatural, of Believing, Repenting, or Willing, besides the Natural, antecedent to Faith, Repentance, or the Will it self: I do not see to what pur­pose else, if it be not a Device under the Cover of that Name, to advance Free-will, and flap off St. Augustine (as I take it to be in the Schooles) it can be made to serve. What need is there of Grace, to put the Will only in aequilibrio, which it is in by Nature? If it encines not the Will, and carries the Heart and Life: What shall I say of it, but as of the Wood of the Vine? Is it meet for any Work? Yet if it be, I refuse not to hang my Vessel on it.

Auxilium, aliud est proxime & immediate sufficiens, quod vide­licet formaliter & actualiter continet omnes causas, & conditiones, ex parte principii requisitas ad eliciendum actum quo immediate dis­po [...]umur ad justificationem: Aliud vero non sufficit ad salutem nisi mediate atque remote, quatenus immediate sufficiens est ad eliciend­um aliquem actum supernaturalem minus perfectum & remote di­stantem a justificatione; quem actum si peccator eliciat, de con­gruo merebitur, & impetrabit vlteriora auxilia supernaturalia, quibus possit elicere Perfectiores actus, proximius disponentes ad justificationem, quousque ipsam obtineat. Ruiz. De praecip. effec. benevol. Dei erga reprob. Sec. 2. Auxilium vel immediate vel mediate sufficiens, omnibus adultis, quamdiu sunt viatores, tri­buitur ad omnes actiones quae sunt ad salutem simpliciter necessariae. Ib. Sec. 3. Auxilium remotum simpliciter necessarium cujus vir­tute fit absolute possibile proximum Auxilium obtinere, nunquam subtrahitur, etiam, propter gravissimas culpas. De prin. imped. justif. Sec. 5. I present this to the Reader only for Light, out of courtesie, that he who would without more pains, may yet see, how the Schools order their Matters. And the truth is, if they would order it but a little otherwise, without it's Ante­cedency and Equality, This sufficient universal Grace of theirs might do well. There is an Equality in regard of Quantity, [Page 39]which no body will contend for: Or in regard of Principle, Ratione principii in actu primo causantis Operationem. The con­course of God, as the first cause, with Nature in all her Acts, and so with Mans Free-will, is one principle of Operation: And that Assistance which we call Grace, is another. Of Grace likewise, the Assistance which is Common, and which is Effectu­al, are two Principles according to us. If we shall therefore make the Assistance of God, which belongs to all, to be equal, we destroy special Grace: But if we seperate this Equality from the Ʋniversality, and tye not an Antecedency to the sufficiency (for what hinders, but God may work effectually on some Persons altogether graceless at once?) I see no hurt in the Maintenance of it, if I were first convinced of a necessity for it.

From hence there is a Point of another sort, that is, of Practical Divinity comes in upon us: To wit, How far a Natural Man may go, and yet fall short of True Grace, and Salvation? To answer which, we are to know, that it is one thing to ask what a Natural man can do? And another, What he may do, and yet be an Unre­generate Man? The first Question, is the Controversal Point in hand, between Us and the Arminians: And I say, it is agree­able to that Righteousness of God, which is Revealed in the Gos­pel, and to Common Reason, that when Christ dyed to Re­deem the World from the Law of Works, because through the Weakness of the Flesh, it was impossible for us to perform the same; the New Terms which he hath procured for us in the Remedying Law, should be so Adapted to our Falne E­state, as to be made no less possible to us, or within our Power now, than the Terms of the Covenant of Nature, was to Adam in the state of Innocency. There is no Interpretation of any Scripture, must be admitted against universal Reason, and the goodness of God. For the second Question: Take a Drunkard, or the like Sinner, I say, this man can, and may presently re­solve to keep his ill Company no more; he may command his outward Man, and so his leggs to carry him from the Ale-house, if he will. If he does thus, he leaves that sin, so may he o­thers. He may Hear, Pray, set up Duty in his Family: He may Receive the Word, which is more, and bring forth Fruit, [Page 40]with this difference only, that the Regenerate man, does it with an honest Heart, which he hath not. There is the matter of our Duty, and the manner of Performance. This Question which seems so difficult, perhaps to many, is easily determined. The Unregenerate man can do if he will, and may will, and do, that, and all that which the Regenerate man does, in the mat­ter: but as for the manner, this is certain, that the Regenerate man, only does act out of that Principle, and to that End, and with those Circumstances (particularly, in regard to the Predo­minancy of Gods Interest, over the Flesh and we World) as brings up what he does, to answer the Covenant Terms, and so alone is entituled to the promised Reward, which is to be justified and saved. In conclusion, we see how the Mistery of Election shews it self; when there is no man but can, if he will, and yet there is no man ever will, as he ought, without this special Grace of the Elect; What shall we say, but, Great is the mystery of Godliness! It is he hath wrought us for this self same thing; Blessed be the God of Grace!

And here are there some Socinian, as well as Arminian Disputes might be Touched, under this Head of Christ's Redemption, e­specially in relation to his Satisfaction. For it may be, that such a less intricate Conception only of what we are to under­stand by Christ's Satisfaction, might bring the most of several Parties of Agreement. It is a Question, Whether God could pardon a Sinner without Satisfaction? And consequently, Whe­ther there be any necessity of Christ's Dying to that purpose? I answer, There is no Mortal, upon the Terms of the Cove­nant of our Creation, can be justified. (Hence is it (N. B.) that by Nature, we are all said to be the Children of Wrath,) It is necessary therefore, these Terms be altered. This is that which Jesus Christ hath procured for Us by His Redemption, by the Merits of his Life and Death, by his Satisfaction; that is, such a well-pleasing of the Father, in the whole course of his Life and Death, that for his sake, he might (without any Dis­honour to him, or to his Law, as Rector) and does condescend to do it: And there should be an end, if I might over-rule the more Intelligent, of such, and the like kind of Questi­ons.