There is a third Interpretation therefore, that by the Natural man and Spiritual man we are to underſtand the Ʋnregenerate and Regenerate man, that is, one that hath not, and one that hath received the Spirit to the ordinary effects of it, which is illumination and ſanctification. And this is the moſt general Opinion and Interpretation which is received by our Divines, and ſo taken up by Dr. Owen, however elaborately he hath improved it: ſo little reaſon hath this Gentleman, or any others, to make any aſſault on him for that matter. When the unre •••• rate man then in the Text is ſaid not 〈…〉 things of the Spirit, or Doctrines of Chriſt, 〈…〉 he cannot (that is, morally cannot) receive 〈…〉 meaning of our Divines in general is this, that 〈◊〉 does not, or cannot receive or diſcern them ſo as to ſavour them, or reliſh them; he does not, or cannot embrace them in his heart, as good to him, or ſo, as to lead his life according to them. In ſhort, he cannot receive them ſo as to apply them. And this is a Truth never to be gainſaid by this man; though which of the three Interpretations is to be preferr'd, I paſs not my own judgment.

Let us hear this Authour's Objections. The Doctor (ſaies he) does grant that an unregenerate man may aſſent to the truth of the things of God; and if he can aſſent to them, he can ſee a conformity in them to God's Attributes, and a ſuitableneſs to the ends of the Goſpel; and if he can ſee this, then will they not appear fooliſhneſs to him; and conſequently he can know them. Every one will anſwer to this. There is a Speculative and a Practical knowledge. When our Divines ſay, the unregenerate man cannot know theſe things, they underſtand it of a Practical knowledge; he does know them ſpecial lively, but he hath no vital, experimental knowledge of them: And when the reaſon is given in the Text, becauſe they are ſpiritually diſcerned, we muſt expound ſpiritually, i. e. by the aſſiſtance of God's Spirit, according to this third Interpretation. The Natural man does not receive, know, or diſcern theſe things of God, as able (I account) to apply them, becauſe they are diſcerned onely by a ſupernatural aſſistance of the Holy Ghost; which they, having not, cannot do it. I will anſwer farther. The Spirit may be given and received to divers effects: on her for illumination and conviction, or for converſion and ſanctification. If the Natural man, who is one without the Spirit, hath not the Spirit at all to illuminate and convince him, he believes not the Doctrines of Chriſt, though he hears them. There is no man can ſay that Jeſus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost; and while he in his heart believes them not, they are indeed to him but fooliſhneſs; when if he hath the Spirit but to enlighten and to convince him, he may dogmatically receive them, going ſo far; and yet until he hath the Spirit alſo to convert him and ſanctifie him, he cannot diſcern them (I muſt ſtill ſay) ſo, as to apply them to his ſalvation.

Here are three Interpretations then propoſed to them who pleaſe to ſtrive for maſtery: I have but one Note more to add out of this Authour. By being ſpiritually diſcerned (ſaies he, ſpeaking of theſe things in the Text) is meant their being known, understood, and judged of by the revelation and testimony of the Spirit. Thus much is right, and muſt be agreed upon by all three Interpretations; onely their difference then alſo muſt be laid down. This revelation or testimony of the Spirit therefore, is either external, or internal. The firſt Opinion (which is this Author's) will have this revelation external, and ſo ſhall he that hath the Scriptures onely, be accounted to have the Spirit, and to diſcern theſe ſpiritual things. The other two Opinions will have this teſtimony or revelation internal; ſo that without the Spirit's operation within, the man is to be held a Natural man, and not to underſtand theſe things. This internal revelation of the Spirit then, is either extraordinary in the miraculous gifts and diſcernment of the Primitive times; and the ſecond Opinion is, that the place is to be underſtood of theſe gifts, and ſuch workings of the Spirit as do not belong now to ours: or it is ordinary in the work of illumination and converſion, which ſtill continue in the world: and the third Opinion (which is the Drs.) reſts in this, as of moſt concern to us, and moſt eaſie of admiſſion.

There is a fourth Interpretation. By the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be underſtood the Senſual man; and by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the intellectual contemplative man. The Platoniſts do diſtinguiſh their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and ſome of our Platonical Divines do favour this Expoſition. To confirm it, there is that Text in Jude may be produced, where the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are ſo tranſlated, ſenſual, not having the Spirit, with other places where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are oppoſed. This Note by the way I take up however, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are indeed the ſame: But this interpretation I think too extreamly oppoſite to the firſt, which is our Authors; for theſe mens ſpiritual man is no more than his natural man; and I am ſatisfied with him, that no man of the higheſt attainment by contemplation can be able to find out any of theſe things in the text which depend on Gods Soveraign Will, and can be diſcovered only by his Spirit. For, As no man knoweth the things of a man (ſaies the text) ſave the ſpirit of a man which is in him; even ſo the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God. Theſe things of God are (I ſay) the arbitrary councils of God's will for the ſaving man by his grace in and through Jeſus Chriſt, which lies not within the ſcheam of Nature, and come not therefore within the ken of humane underſtanding; unleſs they be made known to us either by inſpiration of them into our ſelves, or by the Revelation of them, through the Spirit, by others.

There may be haply more Interpretations than theſe (for I conſult not Commentators): but if any be apt to mingle the two former into one, for confutation of the third, becauſe it is Dr. Owens, I do apprehend ſuch, to betray a precipitate diſaffection, rather than a ponderous judgement. I know that the firſt and ſecond (this Authors, and the Friendly Debaters) may be made uſe of to confute the third, which is the received interpretation, and the Doctors: but ſo may the third and ſecond be uſed to confute this Authors: and yet that will neither make the firſt and ſecond, nor the ſecond and third to be the ſame. That interpretation which gives ſuch a ſenſe of the Chapter as makes the receiving the Spirit there applicable only to the Chriſtians in the Primitive times, cannot be the ſame with that which gives ſuch a ſenſe of it as makes it applicable to Chriſtians now, whether all of them, regenerate and unregenerate who have but their Bibles, as this man will have it, or thoſe only who are partakers of it to the effect of Regeneration, according to Dr. Owen.

Let us look the Gentlemans Introduction now again over, and we ſhall find that the braggery of that Interpretation which he hath advanced to confute Dr. Owen, does lye herein, that every one who hath the Scriptures, and does not reject them, muſt have the Spirit in the Text to diſcern the things of God, and the Doctor muſt be a very proud man who does number himſelf among ſuch, and will allow the Regenerate only to know them. This muſt be ſhewn by all means, what an abſurd perſon the Doctor is, who will have an almighty, irreſiſtible, new light brought into the ſoul by the Holy Ghoſt (that is, a work of illumination on the mind, and converſion on the heart) to enable a man to diſcern theſe things, when by the Spirit according to him we are to underſtand the outward revelation of the Word only, which all have, to enable them to diſcern the ſame.

There is one notion for all this, which is much inculcated by him, that ſeems to verge upon a mixture of the two firſt Interpretations, by ſetching in ſomething from the ſecond into his, which upon the account of corroborating, is but ſome confounding himſelf firſt, for confutation of the Doctor. The Apoſtle (ſaies he) propoſes the demonſtration of the Spirit, and of power to judge of the truth of the Goſpel; and he alſo propoſeth the comparing ſpiritual things with ſpiritual to judge of the ſenſe of the Doctrines of it. Again, Things that are ſpiritually diſcerned are thoſe which be diſcernable only by the revelation of the Spirit. That is, by the teſtimony of the Spirit in miracles as to the truth of them, and by comparing one divine revelation with another, as to the meaning of them. I love the Author for this, becauſe, I muſt confeſs, it ſeems to me to be very neatly ſpoken; and yet it is but a tale when he hath ſaid it. The Apoſtle diſtinguiſhes not the truth of the things of God in the Text and the meaning of them. 'Tis he makes the diſtinction, and puts it on the Apoſtle, as if he intended that which came not once into his mind: Nor does the Apoſtle propoſe theſe two ways of diſcerning things ſpiritually, but himſelf propoſes them. I do not think the Apoſtle to be ſo double minded as to underſtand two things by this one expreſſion, ſpiritually diſcerned. If he intended by it that the truth of the things revealed was diſcerned by the teſtimony of the Spirit given thereunto by miracles, he intended not by it that the meaning of them is diſcerned by the teſtimony of Scripture. And e contra, if he intended the later, he meant not the former. The Apoſtle, I believe, had but one meaning, though theſe two things be true aſunder. There is no man can be ſure that by the demonſtration of the Spirit in this Chapter, and the comparing ſpiritual things with ſpiritual, the Apoſtle intended two things, or two wayes of that Spirits teſtimony: it is more likely that the later expreſſion does de induſtria expound the former. To wit, that when we find out any truth or doctrine by comparing one Scripture with another, this is the demonſtration of the Spirit intended in the place; which I ſhall have occaſion to ſuppoſe again by and by, in regard to another Writer. If they are two ſorts of teſtimony, no man can be ſure that he intended them both (I ſay ſtill) by that one explanation. And who can tell moreover whether the Apoſtle meant, by his comparing ſpiritual things with ſpiritual, the comparing one inſpiration with another (which belongs to the ſecond): or one Scripture with another, that is the revelations of the New with thoſe of the Old Teſtament (which is proper to the firſt interpretation). The man who had a Revelation within muſt have the truth of it and meaning both confirmed to him by that inſpiration, ſo that to diſtinguiſh of the truth and meaning of a doctrine inſpired (that is as to ſuch) is certainly of no ſignification: And as for thoſe who judge of any doctrine by the Scriptures, they are but rightly to underſtand the meaning, and they have the truth by that underſtanding. Where the Revelation or Doctrine is divine, the truth and meaning are one another. As for the confirmation of Chriſtianity by miracles, and more particularly by the effuſion of Gifts in the Primitive times, it does not belong to this Author's, but the ſecond interpretation.

And from hence ariſes another objection againſt the Doctor, It is from the demonſtration of the Spirit we read of in the fourth verſe, by which, this quick Divine (I ſuppoſe) after the famous Author of that book entituled the Friendly Debate, does underſtand the miraculous operation of the Spirit in thoſe times. When the Apoſtle preached the Goſpel at firſt, the Holy Ghoſt fell on the hearers, and they ſpake with tongues, underhood myſteries, and could do miracles. This was an undenyable teſtimony to the divinity of their Doctrine, ſo that no man can Preach (out of doubt) with ſuch demonſtration now in our dayes. If this then be the meaning of the Spirit in that verſe, it muſt be the meaning of it in the verſes following (that is to judge tightly, and the defect of this ready man is here, that he hit not on our intimation before). Conſequently, as this demonſtration of the Spirit (if it be ſo) is by thoſe miraculous gifts: the receiving the Spirit there muſt be in thoſe gifts, and particularly the gift of diſcerning, ſo the ſpiritual man muſt be him that had that gift, the Natural man him that had it not, whereby the one could judge of all things (that is, thoſe things in the Text), the other could not know them, upon that account. And this is both againſt the Authors, and the Doctors interpretation. The Doctor underſtands the Text ſo as no man can diſcern the things of God ſpiritually, unleſs he be regenerate: this Gentleman to oppoſe this, will have all underſtanding Chriſtians be able to underſtand them ſpiritually, becauſe they have the revelation of the ſpirit in the Scriptures (and why not demonſtrate them ſo by the Spirit likewiſe); And yet is he unhappily lead (I apprehend by the Friendly Debater) to give ſuch an expoſition of one of the verſes of this Chapter, as the reſt being carried on accordingly, his own interpretation and the Doctors both are quite gone: That is, when this ingenious man hath offered ſo handſom a ſenſe of this Text as to render the place gratefully applicable to all Chriſtians, and in ſo much larger a capacity than the Doctor (as the unregenerate are more than the regenerate) he does by one inadvertant leading conceſſion fall into theirs, as does make this place proper only to the primitive times. Such need have they who are too forward in charging others with inconſiſtencies, to look to themſelves, that their own writings be conſiſtent, with a mature judgement, and the fear of God, in doing to others as they would be done to by others.

I will therefore now turn to ſome words of the Friendly Debater himſelf, and in the mean time make this ſtand. The revelation which a man hath from without, and the underſtanding accordingly this receiving the Spirit by having the Scriptures, and judging all things by them, is one thing: and the revelation which he hath from within, and underſtanding the receiving the Spirit by the miraculous gift of diſcernment, by which he judges of theſe things, ſo as indeed he can be judged of none, is another. Either let this Author cleave to his own Expoſition, and forſake the other; or let him forſake his own, and cleave to the other. And hereby ſhall all arguments gathered from this place of Scripture, about any point in diſpute in our dayes (ſuch as are the doctrines of free grace, and free will, and of the ſubject of this Authors Book, (the operations of the holy Spirit) be laid to ſleep, and give us no trouble.

The words I mean of the Friendly Debate, are theſe, becauſe they afford us ſome farther neceſſary matter.

I Return to the Doctors Oppoſer, and I come now from his Introduction to his Book. Of this Book there are two parts. The firſt is to ſhew us what the Scriptures hold forth concerning the Spirits operations. The ſecond is to confute many pernicious Doctrines of Dr. Owen. The firſt and ſecond both is indeed to do this: but the ſecond ſhall do it all together. And this part he hath reſerved, I ſuppoſe, to come out hereafter.

The firſt part then having this ſubject, The Spirits Operations, does contain ſeven Chapters.

In his firſt Chapter he explains to us what he means by the Spirit, and by its Operations. The word Spirit (ſaies he) ſignifies three things. The Mind, the Temper of the mind, the Holy Ghoſt, and he underſtands it of the laſt. I have two things to ſay here. The one is, as to his ſecond ſignification: The temper or diſpoſition of the Mind, is either of Nature only, and belongs to the Spirit of man within him; or of Grace, and belongs to the Spirit of God, that works it. Of this Temper, the Author muſt be underſtood to ſpeak, when he ſpeaks of the Spirit of Faith, Fear and Love. The other is, that there are more ſignifications of the word Spirit than theſe, which himſelf knows. Every ſpirit which confeſſeth ſeth Chriſt, in John, is (I think) as much as every Doctrine. Which by the way does put me in mind to ſay thus much, that when this Author comes to ſpeak of things which are common heads, and only require a grave and comprehenſive Divine to marſhal them, he does methinks appear to me ſo lank, as I cannot tell well whether that which he ſaies be ſolid or no, becauſe I am ſure it is not full: though when he falls upon ſeveral particular things, he ſeems to look through them well. By the operations of the Spirit he underſtands (and defines them) thoſe which are on the mind, to cauſe certain qualities, promiſed in the Goſpel, and continued in all ages. I have two things therefore to ſay here likewiſe. One is, that though this were never ſo much too ſhort, there is no body in the main of what is ſaid, is like to contradict him. Dr. Owen by the Spirit underſtands the Holy Ghoſt, as he does; and by the Operations of it, what he does. And why then will he fall foul on the Dr.? When he agrees with him in the ſubſtance, what need is there he ſhould purſue a flea in the circumſtances of words only, or variety of expreſſion? Another is, that where he excepts at the Doctor for alluding in his words to ſome Texts that ſpeak of miraculous gifts, and ſo cannot be applied to us, and alſo for a critical note (he had before) on the Hebrew word [put on him] Iſa. 42.1. from whence he collects that in Gods giving us the effects of his Spirit, the Spirit it ſelf is alſo given, I will compound with this Author. The Doctor ſhall ſubmit his critical note to the Spirit of the Prophets, and this man ſhall let the Doctor ſpeak but the ſame things by way of alluſion to Scripture (whether they be proved thereby or not), which other Divines do ſpeak and affirm ordinarily without that alluſion.

In his ſecond Chapter he ſhews us what theſe effects are, for the producing of which, the holy Spirit is given; which he undertakes to do here from that Text, Luke 11.13. where, After two parables of the man asking three Loaves for his Friend, and of a Son asking Bread of a Father, our Saviour tells us, that God will give his holy Spirit to thoſe that ask him. From hence he gathers that the effects for which God gives his Spirit are ſuch as are needful, becauſe it is Bread the Son and the Friend asks: and profitable, becauſe a Fiſh and Egg alſo is given. Here he tells, that our need is to be meaſured by the end; That the end is our ſalvation. Conſequently, the Spirits operations on the mind are to produce all thoſe effects as are neceſſary to eternal life. Theſe are Faith, Knowledge; All Vertue or graces which make us practical Chriſtians; and Perſeverance. Here are his needful effects: then his profitable, and not neceſſary, are degrees of Goodneſs, which are more highly ſo; or degrees of Knowledge, that are leſs profitable. Here he diſcourſes whether God does give the Spirit for theſe things profitable upon our asking; and tells us, God may give us things better or more ſutable, and ſo deny them. Then he ſhews us how the Spirit is prayed for in the Lords prayer, becauſe when we ask for any grace or vertue, we ask for him to work it. In the whole then of this Chapter we have nothing againſt the Doctor, or the Doctor againſt him, but a good Sermon I ſuppoſe we have, which he might have preached ſomewhere, and adapts it to this occaſion; which makes it look (though well, yet) feat, and unlike a beaten Divine; who in ſhewing what the effects of Gods Spirit are, would have caſt them into ſome proper and fuller order, and then proved them by Scripture, and quite let alone this Sermon.

His third Chapter is about Regeneration, which he makes room for by an Objection, that this will be thought but a lame account of thoſe qualifications that are needful to ſalvation▪ ſeeing one thing moſt neceſſary thereunto is omitted, and that is Regeneration. And here then muſt Regeneration be brought in and ſhewn us, that it is not ſuch a thing as Dr. Owen makes it, but is comprized in his Moral graces and vertues. Regeneration then as a ſtate (he defines it) is to become a ſincere Diſciple of Jeſus Chriſt. And here, though one might well require a little more accuracy in a definition, there is no body like to differ with him upon the matter. The Doctor may uſe other terms and expreſſions, and he uſes theſe, but they both intend the ſame thing. This is certain, He that doth righteouſneſs is born of God. The Doctor belike hath ſaid, that Regeneration is a proper Term, and he will prove it to be metaphorical. Be it ſo. The Doctor muſt be candidly underſtood then, that he means, it is a proper metaphor. To wit, that there is ſuch a ſecret and powerful work of the ſoul ſignified thereby, as does bring in a new diſpoſion into the inner man, as well as reforms the outward life, which is, that only in effect he contends for. Let them grant (ſaies the Doctor) that their Moral reformation of life does proceed from a Spiritual reformation of our nature, the difference will be at an end. And what ſaies this Author? He anſwers. This difference is at an end before it began, for we have alwaies granted it. And why is the difference up then, that hath no beginning or cauſe for it? The Doctor is perhaps too warm in the alluſion, but the meaning is acknowledged the ſame with his, who is as it were quite cool and off from it. There is indeed one point as to the manner of the Spirits operation, wherein theſe two Champions will differ, but that belongs to another Chapter. Here he ſpeaks of Regeneration only as a ſtate, and therefore I pray let him be quiet yet a while, till he comes thither.

In his fourth Chapter he laies down the ſeveral graces of the holy Spirit; which having done once before, I cannot apprehend it to be momentous in his making two Chapters of it. Theſe graces then again are Faith, Teachableneſs in order to it, All Chriſtian vertues, The improvement of them, Progreſs in them, Perſeverance to the end. To this we oppoſe nothing, and there is no diſſention with the Doctor. The Doctor (or another) perhaps would have marſhalled theſe things otherwiſe: but that all theſe are the operations of Gods Spirit, or ſuch effects for which the Holy Ghoſt is to be implored, is beyond diſpute amongſt us. What he hath thruſt in here upon that ſubject of Gods dwelling in good men, I take to be another excellent good Sermon.

There is another interpretation then of theſe words, and of the matter intended in them, that will carry it, I think from the former. The word Likewiſe which uſhers in the Text will carry it. When I conſider the Context, the words in Verſe 28. following the Text does almoſt perſuade me that the matter this Author hath propoſed, may be intended; and I am pleaſed that it is likely; but the word Likewiſe doth import plainly, that the matter intended muſt relate to the words before, and not to thoſe that follow; and they carry it (I ſay) otherwiſe. The Apoſtle therefore in this Chapter ſpeaking of Gods Children, and thinking preſently of the evils they endure, does, for our ſupport upon that account, fall to telling us of the freedom we ſhall have in another ſtate; in compariſon whereof, theſe things deſerve not any reckoning. This is in Verſe 11. Of this ſtate then in the verſes following he treats, as that which is expected of all the Creatures, and by Ʋs, a ſtate of liberty and glory, which we hope for, though we ſee it not, and with patience wait for it, in the Verſes immediately foregoing. And then in this Text it follows, that likewiſe we alſo through the Spirit pray for it. Likewiſe the Spirit alſo helpeth our infirmities: Mark it, likewiſe, and alſo. This muſt hold the ſame matter together in this, and the former Verſes. For we know not what we ſhould pray for as we ought. What is that then, but we are not able in this life to comprehend any thing to purpoſe of that ſtate of glorious liberty whereof he was ſpeaking. We know not what we ſhall be, ſays St. John, but we ſhall be like him. Things there be that are prepared for us, but what they are, neither hath the eye ſeen, nor ear heard, nor can the heart conceive truly of theſe things, which yet we hope for, and ſo pray for, the Spirit exciting theſe deſires in us who knows them, & makes interceſſion by theſe groans or deſires which are unutterable, both in regard to our ſelves in that we know not the things of Heaven, and cannot utter them; and in regard to the nature of the things which are expreſly called by the Apoſtle when he was raviſhed in his Spirit up thither to ſee them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , things not poſſible to be uttered: And yet are they prepared for us, though above our comprehenſion; and God who does above what we are able to ask or think, and knows what is the mind of his own Spirit, will grant them; becauſe this Interceſſion is by his appointment, and we are to ſupport our hearts, that this time is coming, when not only all theſe miſeries ſhall have an end, but we ſhall ſee Gods end in them all, in making them work for us, a far more exceeding weight of Glory.

Here are two interpretations then which I leave to the Reader; and he perhaps may chooſe neither of them: but in both of them that objection which is obvious from the Lord's Prayer is prevented. Chriſt hath taught us what we are to pray for, and yet does the Text tell us that we know not what we ſhould pray for as we ought. There are things in the Lord's Prayer which we are to pray for, and know that we ought to pray for them, and do pray for them; yet do we know them but in part; and we are more ſhort in our knowing how to pray for them, as beſt for us. When we pray for deliverance from evil, and temptation, that includes our preſent troubles; and theſe are the things we know not, according to the firſt Interpretation. When we pray that God's Kingdom may come, that includes the things of heaven; and theſe are the things we know not, according to the ſecond Interpretation. That which cannot be denied in regard to theſe two Petitions, muſt be acknowledged in all others under a like condition. There is little reaſon for this Author then to pick a quarrel with Doctor Owen for attributing too much to the aſſiſtance of God's Spirit, in the making our Prayers (who is ſo very cautious to allow any thing but in regard to the matter of them) when there is ſo much more included here in the Spirits praying for us, and that for the things we know not; as it may make any man at a ſtand who goes about to limit the Holy One almoſt at all, for fear of preſuming on the Ark of his imperceptible operations.

Having ſaid this, I have but three or four notes more upon this Text, which muſt not be waved. It is to be conſidered firſt, we have the Spirit put here into the Office of Interceſſor, and there is a practical caſe requires ſatisfaction. Chriſt hath promiſed again and again, that whatſoever we ask by Faith in his name, according to his will, we ſhall have it. There is many a good man now troubled at this, that he hath prayed often, and not been heard. It muſt be anſwered therefore upon this account, that whatſoever requeſt we make, or any one makes, with the qualifications expreſt, it is, and muſt be put up to God by the Holy Spirit; and though it be not anſwered according to our mind, it is according to his, who maketh interceſſion for us. A ſecond note is this, that though the Apoſtle be ſuppoſed to bring in theſe words, [We know not what we ſhould pray for as we ought] with regard to the Context, it will not follow from the inſtance of one or other of theſe particular matters to be intended, that all others muſt be excluded; but rather, that the univerſal matters of Prayer, ſo far as they are ſubject to the like condition, muſt be certainly alſo concluded. Note in the third place, that though there does appear ſome reaſon from the objection mentioned, for limiting theſe words, [We know not what to pray for] there is no reaſon for limitation of the firſt part of the Text [The Spirit helpeth our infirmities.] For when it is affirmed that it is by reaſon of our infirmity that we know not what to pray for, it does not follow that therefore that is all our infirmity. We have many more infirmities to be helpt than this, in making our Prayers. Note in the laſt place, that though the groans unutterable in the Text be expounded in both theſe interpretations, with regard to the matter prayed for, they may very likely be better expounded with regard to theſe infirmities, to be helped: that is, though we are ſuch (many of us) as are ſo weak that we cannot utter our requeſts, or frame our deſires into petitions; yet by the Spirit we are aſſiſted ſome way, to put theſe ſmall unutterable groans with his good motions together, ſo as they are accepted in Heaven, It is not by reaſon of the intenſiveneſs or greatneſs, but becauſe of their ſmallneſs (ſaid Maſter Perkins) that theſe groans are unutterable.

In the firſt place I do apprehend that theſe things have lien in the mind of this Gentleman, not yet ſeven years; and I think that a man had need to take no leſs time than Jacob ſerved for Rachel, to conſider well before he wed himſelf to a Party in the controverſie of the Five points, eſpecially if he take to that ſide which ſtands condemned by the Synod of Dort, with our Britiſh Divines in it; who being ſent thither by Authority, were to determine nothing we may be ſure, but what was agreeable to the Doctrine of our Church; and alſo when the Father who firſt ſprang that notion which this Author is in queſt of, did upon moſt mature deliberation himſelf forſake it, and that only (as I believe) upon a full conviction from the Scripture, which led him into the Doctrine of Abſolute Election, which this man as ſuddenly rejects, as he maturely embraced, ſhewing himſelf even fond of it in all his latter Writings, even to the death. Which makes me add this moreover, that foraſmuch as I ſee ſeveral of our younger Divines, being of more quick parts, ſo forward upon theſe points, I will paſs my conjecture, that by that time they have well bred their teeth, they will not perhaps be ſo much in pain (as they ſeem now to be) to run into diſputation (as they do) either with Calvin, or Doctor Owen.

In the ſecond place I cannot lightly give the Gentleman my approbation to his new coin. I am ſenſible of ſo much hurt and ill conſequence that may come of this boldneſs to go about to alter terms that have gotten into our Divinity, when it is not that of the Schools only, but of our Sermons and practical Books, that this Author is not aware of what he does. It is the raw Divine will take up theſe terms, and when he comes to uſe them, he will be ſo confounded himſelf, and confound the people that hear him, that they will be as thoſe that ſpeak in a ſtrange tongue, one to another. For inſtance, what if a green Preacher comes and tells his Congregation after this Author, that all that hear him are in a ſtate of Grace? What if he comes, and preaches on, that the Goſpel gives no ground for us to expect any ſpecial Grace till we perform the condition of the Goſpel? How odd muſt this appear to the hearers in any judicious Congregation, when we know the firſt Grace (we mean effectual) is given without condition? Yet let this Author explain theſe words for him; that by ſpecial Grace we muſt always underſtand Grace promiſed to qualified perſons; ſo that all he means muſt be, that that Grace which is promiſed on condition, is not given till we perform the condition, the matter admits of no contradiction. Beſides this evil, the new forming of terms which are received to other ſignifications in the Church, is methinks but like a man who hath ſome very curious work to engrave, and when he has all thoſe tools in his ſhop that are made on purpoſe for the doing that work, he will uſe his knife only. This may indeed commend the rarity and induſtry, but not the wiſdom of that workman, who could have done his buſineſs better, if he had uſed thoſe Inſtruments which were ready by him, and proper for it.

In the third place there is one thing I muſt needs obſerve, wherein I think this Gentleman in his Hetorodoxy to be a little too Orthodox; and that is in his ordering the ſcheme of his notion ſo, as that the homo Evangelizatus only ſhall be the ſubject of God's Grace: that is, when he does hold forth a common Grace vouchſaſed to all who are under the Goſpel, enabling them to believe, if they will, upon which the promiſe of the Spirit belongs to them, and ſo the ſpecial Grace of it upon Goſpel conditions unto everlaſting life; he does leave all the world beſides in ſuch a ſtate, as is without all Grace, and conſequently in a remedileſs condition. Whereas he may find in the Schools, that there is an univerſal Grace maintained by many, which they call ſufficient (and which indeed is that which this Author means by his common Grace), as no man is without, whether Heathen or Chriſtian; in the improvement whereof, farther degrees are attainable upon the Habenti dabitur, till it comes to be effectual; ſo that it ſhall lie upon the liberty of the will in every body, whether they be ſaved or damned. I know the Author may deſert theſe, and not be ſingular in this point of his opinion, ſo long as he hath the Fathers generally, St. Cyprian and St. Auguſtine more particularly, the Papiſt and Proteſtant Churches, with the eighteenth Article of our own on his ſide: and that which may pleaſe this Author ſomething more. I remember Arminius in ſome place of his works, does expreſly exclude all Heathens from ſalvation; though many that have tread in his ſteps otherwiſe, have been more kind to the Nations. I have ſome little light therefore here (or I believe it to be ſo) to offer to this very ſuſceptible perſon. There is a three-fold Government (in one, to ſpeak accurately) that God hath had in the world over man in reference to his chief end, the ſalvation of his ſoul. The firſt was by the Law of Nature, the ſecond, by the Law of Moſes, and the third by the Law of Chriſt. Before God gave his Law unto Iſrael, the whole world was under that Law, which is written in the heart. God muſt govern man by that only, when there was no other. This Law now, writ in mans heart (we are to know) is two-fold; for Nature coming under a double conſideration, as entire, and as fallen, the Law muſt be double; the Law of innocent nature (or Law of Innocency), and the Law of lapſed nature, which is the Law of Grace or mercy toward man in regard to that condition. To expreſs it more fully, there is Lex Naturae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and Lex connaturalis gratiae; The Law of Nature, and the connatural Law of Grace, as Suarez has it in his Book De Legibus. I am pleaſed much with the terms, though I found not that he did well underſtand them, or explain them himſelf. Only thus much he ſays, that the Ancients before Moſes, who were governed by the Law of Nature only, muſt have this Lex connaturalis gratiae together with it, or comprehended under it; or elſe no man then upon earth could be ſaved: which is a truth ſo evident, as makes the proof of that Law, by that reaſon alone, to be good. When he terms this Law then a Law connatural, I underſtand by it, that this Law of lapſed Nature, this Law of Grace, or remedying Law is written in the heart of man, in regard to his fallen nature, no leſs than the Law of pure nature it ſelf was. The Law of Nature, as I take it, is the dictates of right reaſon, declaring to us our duty to God, to our ſelves, and to our neighbours; and the light of the ſame reaſon will dictate to us, when we have failed in that duty, to repent and turn to God with truſting to his mercy and pardon if we do ſo, and not elſe. We do find it legible in our hearts that God is good and wiſely gratious to pity our infirmities, and conſider our loſt eſtate, and neceſſary frailty, as that there is a God, and any worſhip that is at all due to him. There is mercy with thee that thou ſhouldſt be feared. And theſe Characters thus engraven in the heart of man, is the ſame law of Grace in the practical contents, as is more largely paraphraſed upon, by the Prophets in the Old, and the Apoſtles in the New-Teſtament. There is no difference at all in the Subſtance (as Divines ſpeak) but in the Adminiſtration. It is as one lately hath expreſſed it lively) no otherwiſe than as a Book thrice Printed; the ſecond Edition is larger than the firſt, and the third moſt compleat and perfect. This I will ſay, the Covenant was ſtill on foot; the Condition ſincerity according to their light; men were judged by it, and many ſaved. Here only is the difference, that the foundation on which all this is laid, the Mediation, Righteouſneſs and Sacrifice of Chriſt, comes not to be revealed but in Types, and darker promiſes, till the promulgation of the Goſpel. Now, I ſay, that though the Heathen be not under (or have not) this Law of Grace, in the third and laſt ſetting our, or in the ſtate under the Goſpel; yet they are under it (or have it) in the ſtate of the Ancients, or as they had it in the firſt promulgation; and upon ſuppoſition that any of them do according to the light they have, live up in ſincerity to this Law; I dare not be the man that ſhall deny but through the grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt (procuring this Law or Covenant for them, as for us, and all the world) they ſhall be ſaved even as we, and we ſhall be ſaved even as they. Not to leave this yet. I have learned from Cicero, that all Laws muſt be derived from the Divine Reaſon and Will. I have learned from others, that this Reaſon of God in his Government of all things agreeably to his own nature and the nature of his Creatures is the Eternal Law. I have learned from the Scripture, that there is a Law of Works, and a Law of Grace. I do learn by conſequence that theſe Laws (as frames of Gods Government over man) muſt be reconcileable with the Eternal Law, or the reaſon of his Wiſdom, and Juſtice, and Goodneſs; the one of them being fit for the eſtate of man in Innocency, the other for his Lapſed condition. How theſe Laws do now conſiſt, and not conſiſt with one another, while the Scripture ſaies ſometimes we are freed from the Law, and ſometimes that it is eſtabliſhed, That not a tittle of it ſhall paſs, and that we are not under the Law, but under Grace, I do not intend here any full deciſion. I will draw only one chief ſtroke towards it. The Law may be conſidered as the Rule of man's duty, or Meaſure of Good and Evil according to his own nature, and Gods: Or as the Inſtrument of God's Government over man, or Meaſure of his dealing with us, or judging of us, according to our diſcernings. It cannot be conceived but ſo long as the Nature of God and Man is the ſame, and Good and Evil (which conſiſts in an agreeableneſs to them both) is the ſame, the Law of Nature muſt remain unchangeable as the meaſure of our moral actions: But as it is the inſtrument of Gods Government in the world, it is as certain that through the Mediation of Chriſt (who hath ſatisfied his Father for our breach of it) it is relaxed ſo as we are not dealt withal according to the tenour of the Law, in the matters of this life, or of that which is to come. I diſtinguiſh theſe two things, a Rule of Life, and a Rule for Life. A Rule for Life is expreſſed in theſe words, He that doeth them ſhall live in them. We are freed from the Law upon the later account: we are made free to it in regard to the former. That is, we are under the Law ſo as we are ſtill bound to live according to it: but we are delivered from it ſo as (through mercy, and the merits of Chriſt) we ſhall not be judged by it. There is Norma vitae: and Norma judicii. The Law is of force as a rule of Life, or Duty: but we are not under it as a rule of Judgement. We ſhall be judged ſaies St. James by the Law of Liberty; and Paul ſaies, according to my Goſpel. Bleſſed be God for this truth. Now that the Government of God over the whole world is by the Law of Grace, and not of Works (thus much being ſaid imperfectly only for light in the way), does appear as the Sun or Moon in the Heavens. For God hath not left himſelf without witneſs, in that he does good, and gives us fruitful ſeaſons. Theſe are effects of his mercy, which he could not ſhew to the world as he does, if he dealt with it according to the Law of Works. When Abraham pleads with God for Sodom that he would ſpare it if there were ten righteous perſons in it, it is manifeſt that he muſt account of Gods Government over the earth to be a Government of Grace. That the righteous be as the wicked, that be far from thee (ſaies he) ſhall not the judge of all the earth do right? If God ſhould do but right to the beſt of men according to the righteouſneſs of the Law of Works, there could be no ſuch pleading as this. Neither is there any righteous, no not one, ſaies the Scripture, nor could God have accepted of Abraham himſelf for one, had there been nine beſides, but upon the account of the Law of Grace. It is a righteouſneſs conſiſting in a condecency of his Goodneſs and Mercy, and not in the Rule of his diſtrict Holineſs that Abraham intends. When the Prophets call upon Iſrael to repent and to do righteouſneſs that they may live, it is a perpetual diſcovery that God dealt not with them according to the Covenant of Works. The Law admits no repentance, and there is no righteouſneſs that a man can live by according to the Law. It is ſuch a righteouſneſs then they muſt mean ſtill, which is the ſame with the juſt mans faith, whereby it is ſaid he ſhall live; and that is the righteouſneſs of faith in the Goſpel, or righteouſneſs of God, which lies in a conformity to the law of Grace (See Mediocria, about the beginning of my Paper of the Covenants). We are righteous according to this Law, when we perform the condition: God is righteous according to it, when he accepts us thereupon, unto Pardon and Life. We have a moſt ſignal inſtance in the Ninevites, of theſe two things I do here ſtand upon. If Gods government over the Heathen was not by the Law of Grace, how could the Ninevites by their repentance have diverted his judgments? And if this Law had not been connatural with faln man, ſo as to be written in their hearts, how could they truſt in God, that upon their forſaking ſin, and their turning to him, they ſhould find mercy, and be ſaved from deſtruction? Both theſe things (I ſay) have in this one inſtance their full evidence. And what think we of Cornelius the Centurion and Roman, how could his Prayers and Almes be accepted with God, if Cornelius as well as Paul, a Roman as well as Jew, were not under the ſame Government of Grace, when there is nothing we do but is imperfect, and lyable to a curſe by the Law of Works? And what ſhall we conclude then from both inſtances, but that which Peter upon conviction himſelf concludes? Of a truth I perceive that God is no reſpecter of perſons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteouſneſs is accepted of him. There are three things go to a Law. That it be for the publick good, That it be the will of the Lawgiver, That it be promulgated to the ſubject. That the Law of Grace is good for the world there can be no queſtion; That it is Gods will the world ſhould be governed by it, appears by what is ſpoken, and that this Law hath been promulgated to mankind, appears both in the general notice of it in mens hearts (I will write my Law in their hearts ſaies God in the New Covenant, as diſtinguiſhed from that of the Jews), and in the expreſs declaration of God to our firſt Parents, that the ſeed of the Woman ſhould break the Serpents head, and in his Covenanting with Noah, which muſt be underſtood without diſpute in regard to them, and their poſterity. Now when ſuch a Law hath been promulgated to Adam and Noah as belonging to all the world, being to come of them, it muſt be proved that this Law is, or hath been ſomewhere, or at ſome time, again repealed by God, or elſe muſt every man and woman in the world be under this government of God according to it, and conſequently be in a capacity of Salvation. I will to theſe Reaſonings, add one ſyllogiſm. It is not the hearers of the Law, but doers ſhall be juſtified. This is expreſs in one Verſe of the ſecond to the Romons. But ſame Heathen are doers of the Law, though not hearers of it. This is affirmed in the next Verſe. For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, with the reſt following. Ergo, ſome Heathen are juſtified and ſaved. If any cavil and ſay that no man is a doer of the Law, he muſt be anſwered that the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of ſuch a doing only as is ſuppoſed to be among the Jews that were godly, or Jews inwardly in the Verſes after. And I renew my argument. They that are doers of the Law according to the ſenſe of ſuch Texts as make the keeping the Commandments of God neceſſary to Salvation, ſuch as when Chriſt ſaies, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments; and ſuch as when the Apoſtle ſaies, They that by patient continuance in well-doing ſeek for glory, ſhall have eternal life, that is, They who are doers of it, as all that are Jews inwardly and in the Spirit do keep it, and no otherwiſe, to wit, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not according to the rigour of the Law, but according to acceptation by the equity of the Goſpel, They, I ſay, ſhall be juſtified and ſaved. But ſome Heathen are doers of the Law in this ſenſe, which is the ſenſe of the Apoſtle. Ergo, ſome Heathen are juſtified and ſaved. I confirm the Minor by the words enſuing, that we may be ſure we have the mind of the Apoſtle. Therefore if the uncircumciſion keep the righteouſneſs of the Law, ſhall not his uncircumciſion be counted for circumciſion? And ſhall not uncircumciſion which is by nature if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumciſion doeſt break the Law? It follows that ſuch as theſe therefore are Jews inwardly, and in the Spirit, though they were not outward Jews, or in the fleſh, or of the Circumciſion, as is apparent in the words already, and the laſt Verſes. They that are Jews inwardly and in the Spirit then (I follow my argument), though not outwardly ſo and in the fleſh, do fulfill the Law in the ſenſe of this place and are juſtified. But ſuch are ſome of the Heathen here according to the Apoſtle. Ergo, ſome Heathen are juſtified and ſaved. And what could be deſired more full and convincing, if it were not for the firſt Verſe which follows in the next Chapter, which does yet add ſuch abounding confirmation to it, as I muſt profeſs my ſelf perfectly ſtriken with the evidence, as with a Beam of light never to be withſtood, or any more to be doubted. What advantage then hath the Jew above the Gentile? Theſe are the words. It cannot be imagined by me now, that this queſtion could be offered after he had ſaid thus much, if there were ſuch a difference between theſe two, as that one of them only was under a poſſibility of Salvation. It is brought in as an objection to his foregoing aſſertion in this ſenſe, that if this be true, there appears no difference in the matter, whether a man be Jew or Gentile, ſeeing he that hath the Law only written in his heart, and keeps it (that is in ſincerity), ſhall have the benefit and be ſaved, as well as he that hath it written in the Bible. The Apoſtle does as good as anſwer, This is true, yet is there a difference, Chiefly becauſe that unto the Jew were committed the Oracles of God. I interpret not theſe words, but give this paraphraſe. The Heathen were under the ſame law of Grace for life, as the Jews, but the Jews advantage was, that they had it in the ſecond promulgation with this priviledge of Ordinances: and our advantage is the like over them, that we have it in the third and laſt promulgation, by the Goſpel. I argue then once more. If this was the chief advantage the Jew had over the Gentile, that one had the Oracles of God and the other had not, then was there not this difference between them, as my Gentleman does make, that one is only in a ſtate of Nature, and the other in a ſtate of Grace; or that one was in a capacity, and the other under an impoſſibility of Salvation; for this were an advantage of a far greater nature. But this was the chief advantage. Chiefly becauſe—Ergo. The Objections againſt this Doctrine are two. The one is from the Scriptures, which in many places in the New-Teſtament do require quire faith in Chriſt, or believing the Goſpel, as the condition of Salvation. He that believeth not ſhall be damned. I anſwer, As the Apoſtle ſaies of the Law, Now we know that whatſoever things the Law ſaith, it ſaith to them that are under the Law: So ſay I of the Goſpel, whatſoever things of this kind the Goſpel ſaith, it ſaith to thoſe that are under the Goſpel. Where the Goſpel is Preached, and the Revelation is ſufficient, ſo that men wilfully reject it, ſuch are left without excuſe. The caſe of ſuch is dangerous indeed, and theſe Texts applicable to them. If ye believe not that I am he ye ſhall die in your ſins. But as for thoſe who never heard the Goſpel, or when the Revelation hath been inſufficient for ſuch conviction, the caſe (I hope) is otherwife, The caſe is (I think) as I have ſaid; and our good God will not require of any, more than he hath given. The other objection is from the authority of men, or of the Church more generally, that condemns this opion: But I count the teſtimony of Chriſtians in this point is for themſelves, and ſo partial; I ſuppoſe it taken again upon truſt, and followed by the moſt for want of light; I believe alſo that if they had had but this light only that I offer, they would have determined as I do. It is true, I grant, as our Church thinks, that there is no Religion by which a man can be ſayed, but one only, that is the true Religion; but this is a great truth here to be received, that Chriſtianity in the root, according to what is ſaid, is indeed the univerſal Religion of mankind (whom therefore ye ignorantly worſhip, him declare I unto you): So that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thoſe that live according to Reaſon, ſuch as Socrates, Heraclitus, and the like men, were Chriſtans, though they were not ſo called, according to Juſtin the holy Martyr in his Apology, whatſoever Ancients beſides we have for us. Which doctrine nevertheleſs (to ſalve moſt fully the eighteenth Article of our Church at firſt mentioned) is not once to be thought on, or harboured, but as it is compatible with this certain Poſition, that there is no way (for all that) under Heaven whereby a man or woman is, or was, or can be ſaved, but in and through the only Name and mediation of our Saviour. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Chriſt Jeſus.

In the fourth place, I muſt require a better explanation from this Author, how every man and woman that hath the Goſpel preached to them, are brought into ſuch a ſtate of grace, as to have that aſſiſtance from the Spirit of God which enables them to believe, and many of them effectually unto Salvation: and yet that it is the Believer only is the Object of that promiſe that God will give his Spirit to them that ask him. There are two of his Chapters where he enumerates the effects of the Spirit, and he does in both make faith to be one and the chief of thoſe effects (that he may not find here any evaſion): yet does he make faith the condition of that promiſe. How will he come off here? Untill a man be a Believer, or have faith, the promiſe of Gods giving his Spirit belongs not to him, and yet is faith (and teachableneſs in order to it) an effect of the Spirit. That which is promiſed on a condition, is not obtained but by our performance of the condition, himſelf argues ſomewhere. If Faith then be the thing promiſed, how can it be the condition of the Promiſe? If the Spirit that works Faith, or the Spirit in regard to this effect is promiſed to the Believer, then is Faith made a condition for obtaining it ſelf, when it is made ſo, for obtaining the Spirit that gives it. If we muſt believe that we may have the Spirit, how comes Faith to be the effect of having it? To be the condition which is antecedent to it, and to be the effect alſo which follows it, is methinks incompoſſible. He may ſhiſt perhaps, and diſtinguiſh. There is a Faith that makes a man a Chriſtian or his Believer: and a faith that makes a man holy and is ſaving. The one may be the condition of the other. Well, I will ask him then of the former, Is that faith I pray, the effect of a mans own ſtrength or freewill: or of the Spirit? If he ſay the firſt, what thinks he of that ſaying of our Lord, Without me ye can do nothing, that is, nothing to any ſaving purpoſe (to uſe the apt words of this Author otherwhere) when it is ſomething I think to purpoſe to do that as ſhall qualifie a man to be the Object of this promiſe, that God will give him his Spirit upon his asking, and the promiſe otherwiſe did not belong to him: Eſpecially ſeeing this Gentleman thinks it Pelagianiſm to allow ſo much without grace, and therefore does he ſet up his common grace to avoid that danger. If it be not of our ſelves, but of the Spirit, then have we here one of his Operations, (though the Spirit is promiſed in Luke in regard to all its effects and operations, if that which the Author ſaies in two Chapters about it, be valid) and ſo the difficulty returns. How ſhall a man have the Spirit for this operation or effect before faith, and yet faith be the condition of the Spirit and its operations? If he ſay that the grace which he calls common, or the Spirit as not promiſed, does work in a man truly one ſort of faith, or ſo much of a ſaving faith, as goes to the condition of the promiſe: and that another ſort of faith then, or ſo much more as is lacking to our faith, does flow (as the effect only thereof) from the promiſe after, when we perform this condition, he will be put very hard to it in ſuch a work as was that of Pauls converſion, and be forced to more curioſity than enough, in ſo critical a determination.

In the fifth place, I have one argument to advance againſt this Doctrine of his, which is known Arminian. I will urge but one, becauſe it is the common cauſe, and he may find out as many more as he will in others. It is this. If there be that grace which he calls common vouchſafed to all under the Goſpel without any difference of election, ſo that there is the ſame and no other prepared for him that believes, and for him that believes not, which common grace then is left to the liberty of the will of every individual perſon to co-operate with it or not; and as a man does ſo, or does not, he brings himſelf into a ſtate of Salvation, or remains in a ſtate of wrath (this is the opinion), then muſt Man himſelf, or then muſt the Will of every man for himſelf, make the difference between him and another. But this, according to the judgement of moſt after Auſtin, is flat againſt the Scripture, Who hath made thee to daffer from another, and what is there, O man, that thou haſt not received? I muſt add by way of ſtrength to the Argument, that upon this Hypotheſis it follows, that, that which is the leſs only, or leaſt conducing to mans Salvation is attributed to God, and that which is the greater and moſt conducive thereunto is aſcribed to man himſelf. It is more to believe and repent, than it is to have power to believe and repent. The promiſe of Life and Salvation is not made to him that is enabled to believe, but to him that does believe, and obey the Goſpel. Now by the Arminian doctrine there is this grace carefully provided, which ſhall enable every man to believe and repent, ſo that the fault ſhall not lye on God if they do not, but on a mans own will: but the will or willing it ſelf muſt ariſe from that liberty which they are as careful to reſerve unto man. That which is the leſſer thing then (I ſay) the ability (through divine Help, Aſſiſtance or Grace which is ſufficient for the impowring every one) to believe and be ſaved, is aſcribed to God, and acknowledged from him: but that which is the greater, which is the chief, that which does the work, the act it ſelf of willing, of believing and performing the terms of the Goſpel, is made the effect of mans own free-will. And yet farther to confirm the ſame argument. The power to do is one thing, and the will and doing another; The grace one thing, and the co-operating with it another. If we have power now or aſſiſtance only from God, and the will be of our ſelves, then is there ſomething, even this willing it ſelf, this believing it ſelf, this will to believe (or co-operating with this common grace) that is the greateſt thing, which we have not received, but is of our ſelves, or from our own ſtrength. I do not doubt but I may preſs this yet more cloſely if this Author ſhould give the occaſion; and I muſt adviſe him heartily to be very conſiderate, what he anſwers to this argument; becauſe I have pickt it out as that which I take to be the moſt momentous of any which are ordinarily urged by the Orthodox in this matter. I will cloſe it up with that Text, Work out your ſalvation with fear and trembling, ſaies the Apoſtle. This implies that a man hath power, or that if he will work he can. It is in vain to exhort any to do that which is not in their power. That which is leſs than [the power to do if we will] is I count in man: but that which is the greater [the willing and doing] is aliunde, of God, as it appears in the words following. For it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleaſure. So contrary are my apprehenſions here to this Gentlemans. A man muſt have power (he thinks) by all means from God (to this end he brings in his common grace), but the will muſt be of himſelf. I think now quite otherwiſe that power is of nature, for that is the leſs: and to reduce that power unto act, to will and to do, that is of grace, for that is the greater, or that which is moſt. It is not of him that willeth and runneth (to wit, that he wills and and runs, ſaies the Father) but of God that ſheweth mercy.

In the ſixth place then, I have a mind to tell him ſome little of what I think of this grace he calls common. The term Grace (we muſt know) which is all one with Favour, does import a reſpect ſhewn to ſome which is not to others, and does horein differ from Juſtice, which reſpects no perſon above another, but does diſtribute that which is due to every one without partiality. It is otherwiſe in Grace, for there are two things quite contrary muſt go to the making any thing a matter of Favour; it muſt be a thing not due, or of right, for then there is place to exerciſe Juſtice, but not Grace, and it muſt be given out of Choice, it muſt be vouchſafed to one and not another, when it is due to neither. When this Author then, and the Schools do ſpeak of a Grace that is Common and Univerſal, they ſeem to be teachers of ſomething wherein they underſtand not what they ſpeak, or whereof they affirm. There is the grace of the Goſpel, or that Grace which the Goſpel publiſhes, which brings Salvation to all men, the Objective grace of it, conſiſting in that faithful ſaying worthy of all acceptation, that Chriſt died for ſinners, or that thoſe that believe and repent ſhall be ſaved, or that God is Good, and thoſe who turn to him, though they have ſinned, ſhall find merey, which is the ſubſtance of the whole two Teſtaments, and that indeed is. Univerſal, and belongs alike to all the world. There is no man or woman, or no people but they are under the Law of Grace (purchaſed by Chriſt) for life and ſalvation, I have ſaid; and ſay, that the Goſpel of this Grace, or the diſcovery of it, is ſo far univerſal alſo, as there are none but by tradition from their Parents, or by ſome Teachers, as Noah was to the old world, teaching this Law (for there never was any other righteouſneſs ſince Adam fell, but of this Law only to ſave any), or by the dictates of their own hearts, did, or do underſtand it in ſome meaſure, ſo that if they live up to this Law according to the light only which they have, they are not only under the poſſibility, but in a ſtate of Salvation. This is a noble truth and worthy of God and his goodneſs, and I cannot part with it. But for that Grace which is the ſubjective grace of God, conſiſting in thoſe operations of his Spirit that bring over the hearts of men to perform thoſe terms which this law of grace requires of us, To ſpeak of that as common and belonging to all, is (I ſay) to ſpeak of what this Author knowes not, becauſe theſe Operations are for certain ſecret and indiſcernible; and to affirm of that which he knows not, what is inconſiſtent with the nature of what he ſpeaks. For if thoſe operations belong to all, and are not vouchſafed to ſome peculiar perſons only with diſcrimination from others, they are not Grace. This is ſo true, that when I ſay, the grace of the Goſpel which is Objective is univerſal to all mankind, if there were not other creatures beſides men, to whom Redemption and Reconciliation is not vouchſafed as to us, it could not be called Grace. It were a Benefit, and infinitely great, but not properly Grace. There is a world of fallen Spirits, as well as men, and there was nothing due to the one or the other but puniſhment: yet when no kindneſs was due, the Son of God came from Heaven, and took on him our nature to redeem us and not them, this makes the Redemption of Chriſt to be grace to us. And now when the benefit, or benefits purchaſed by Chriſt are applied to particular perſons by the operations of the Spirit working Faith and Repentance (which are the conditions upon which they are applied) in ſome perſons and not in others, if theſe operations were indeed common and vouchaſafed to thoſe that believe and repent not, as well as thoſe that do, this Application were not of Grace. Where there is none refuſed, there is no election. If one be not preferred, and not another, or before another, there is no Grace. The ground of this opinion of ſufficient grace common to all, hath aroſe as I conjecture, from an apprehenſion that the help or aſſiſtance of God (which we call grace) is converſant about the Power which is in man, ſo that a man is enabled thereby only to act, but the Will or actual willing is of himſelf. St. Auſtine, I remember, does tell us, that this was the conceit of Pelagius, and he ſets himſelf therefore to prove, that Grace is converſant about the will; it is Grace (ſaies he) that inclines the will, it is of God to work in us to Will and to Do of his own good pleaſure. And indeed I do not ſee how it can conſiſt with the nature of the Spirit of God, who is God, that is, with the ſimplicity of the Divine Nature, which is devoid of all compoſition, Subject and Accident, Power and Act, how any operation can be attributed to him, but in regard of ſome effect. If there be ſuch an operation then imagined, which is ſufficient only to produce ſuch an effect on man, but it is hindred by the reſiſtance of his will, here being no effect, there is no operation can be aſcribed to God, in whom there is but one eternal ſtanding Will, the Will being not taken for the Faculty neither, but Act. Beſides this determination of the Schools that God is a Pure Act, and can be capable of no new operations, but only as he is denominated an Agent from ſuch continued new effects (wherein my own underſtanding, I confeſs, muſt be ever at a loſs); there is this plain thing to be thought on by every body, that no wiſe perſon who is not deſtitute of power, does operate without Effect. 'Tis true, that the Scripture ſomewhere ſpeaks of reſiſting the Spirit, and receiving his grace in vain: but this is not to be underſtood (I ſuppoſe) ſo, as if there were no effects wrought on ſuch ſouls, but that there are farther effects, ſaving effects, and it is to be attributed to the obſtinacy or wickedneſs of their Wills, that thoſe effects are not wrought alſo. I muſt therefore deliver here my opinion of this univerſal ſufficient Grace which I find in the Schools, and in the Arminians, but confined to thoſe under the Goſpel by this Author; and I do think really it is an invention only to put off St. Auguſtine, and to eſcape the condemnation of Pelagius, in a point, which in the ſubſtance of it, they judge fit to be maintained. The point is this, that if man does doe what lies in his power, God in his juſtice will give him his grace, Facienti quod in ſe eſt Deus non poteſt, nec debet denegare gratiam, which I mention the rather, becauſe I ſee this Doctrine laid down in ſome good Books of late without ſuſpicion of Pelagianiſm in it. Well! If any ſay now, that man by doing what he can of his own ſtrength does obtain Gods grace, this ſhall be Pelagianiſm, and be anathamatized by the Schools themſelves: but if he ſay, that by doing through Gods grace what he can, he ſhall obtain (or merit) more grace, and ſo juſtification and life, it ſhall be the doctrine of the Church. Let it here be but ſuppoſed then, that God gives his Grace or aſſiſtance to All that they may act, and that which Pelagius would have, is brought in for good Doctrine without any hereſie at all in it; and this is the device of the Arminian from the Schools, which if it were in rerum naturae, as in mens Books, I do apprehend that Pelagius or Auſtine would have light upon it; and then would the one have received Pelagius opinion with more candor, and the other would have defended it ſo cleverly, as never to have been condemned. But if this univerſal ſufficient grace was indeed never thought upon till after their time, I wonder not that Pelagius and Auſtine could not be agreed, but I do wonder that any who believe this knack ſhould make ſo much matter of it whether they agreed or no. I think it really but much at one to hold that every one hath power by Nature, as to affirm that all have Grace. If Grace be as common as Nature, why is it called Grace? Not that I ſee any hurt in holding Sufficient grace, provided that Effectual be held alſo. If univerſal grace be brought in for excluſion of ſpecial grace, I can by no means admit of it, for that ſome perſons have that grace from God whereby they are effectually wrought upon and ſaved, and not others, is beyond diſputation. If ſufficient grace common to all, and ſpecial too, be held ſo, as it be conceived that no man for all the one, does ever ſavingly believe and repent, or is truly converted, till he have the other alſo, there is no hurt in it, but I ſee no need of it. What need is there of Grace only to bring us power, which we have already? There is no man ſhall be condemned for his cannot, but his will not. Every man then muſt have power. A man hath his faculties, his Underſtanding, his Will and his Executive power. the object is propoſed, His duty known; There is nothing to hinder, He may act if he will. The Scripture indeed ſpeaks of a Cannot, that we can do nothing, that we are dead in treſpaſſes and the like: but all theſe expreſſions put together comes to this, to wit, ſuch an indiſpoſition on the ſoul, as that a man certainly never will of himſelf. This is the Scriptures cannot truly defined. (See Mediocria, in the Paper of Election), which otherwhere therefore is ordinarily called a will not. You will not come to me that you may have life. There is Natural power ſtill, where yet there is Moral impotency, as others have it. And it is no abſurd thing (I hope) to ſay a man can do what he can; that is, he can do, what he hath natural power to do. Here then I will ſtick, Power is of Nature (I ſaid it before), but to exert that power into act, is of Grace. Power is of Nature, but to Will and to Do, is of God. There is no people but have the Object (I count) and ſome light of it (in their meaſure) ſo that every body may live according to what he hath, and be accepted if he will. I grant this to the Pelagian, to the Schools, to the Arminian, that every one may, if they will: The Spirit ſaies come, and the Bride ſaies come, and whoſoever will let him come. What 〈◊〉 I ſay more? Whoſoever will believe and repent, may believe and repent; whoſoever will be ſaved. may be ſaved. This I ſay with them, but I muſt then ſay again with the Orthodox, that if any will, it is of the grace of God. If he will, it is of Gods grace againſt Pelagius. No man cometh to me unleſs the Father draw him. If he will, it is of Gods ſpecial grace againſt the Arminian. But ye believe not, becauſe ye are not of my ſheep. As many as were ordained to ſalvation believed. In ſhort then, whoſoever will, may (or can): but no man will (though he can) without grace, and this grace. Here is the deciſion of this great controverſie. And as for the Arminian grace, what good of that, which if one had it not, he ſhould have pleaded a Cannot, and been excuſed: but by having it he muſt be condemned?

In the laſt place, ſeeing I perceive this Gentleman is liſted for Arminianiſm, I care not if I tell him yet ſome more of my heart about it. I am pretty ſenſible how things hang together. If God intend to give grace and ſalvation to a few particular perſons, it is ſuitable that ſuch only ſhould be redeemed; and if this grace be free as decreed abſolutely to theſe, it is ſuitable the will be not free, ſo as to be able to chooſe or refuſe it; It is then agreeable that thoſe be kept by the ſame almighty power to ſalvation. Here are the five points on one ſide. On the other hand, If a man that hath grace, is to take heed leſt he fall, it is ſuitable that grace be ſuch as might be refuſed at firſt, as well as it may (after) be loſt; That the will conſequently is free, ſo as to co-operate with it or not; That Chriſt therefore hath purchaſed but the ſame grace for one as well as another; That Election then be of ſuch perſons as uſe their own liberty, and Gods grace, as they ought, when thoſe that do not, are juſtly rejected and condemned. I muſt declare now, I find here no averſion in my mind againſt the laſt ſet of opinions, but rather ſome diſinclination to the former. I feel my genius more afraid of a captivity by that we call Orthodoxiſm, than by any thing elſe; which makes me come with leſs prejudice to read Vorſtius, than Rutherford, or Twiſſe. I have no preocupation, therefore I am ſure on my affections, whatſoever I have on my judgement in theſe points. Nevertheleſs there is a chain laid on my ſoul from the holy Scriptures, which holds it faſt. The chain conſiſts of theſe links, Perſonal Election, Regeneration, and that, Few ſhall be ſaved. Theſe three Doctrines I muſt ſay, are ſo concatenated (in my mind) one with another, that ſo long as any one of them will hold, it is in vain to make any attempt to get looſe from either of the other. I cannot but confeſs many times they are grievous to my mind, and I could wiſh they were otherwiſe, but if they are the dictates of holy writ, I muſt pray to God to forgive my reluctancy, and ſubmit to them. I have had indeed ſometimes in my ſoul ſome other notion of Election than is expreſſed ordinarily by others. I have lookt methinks on the deliberations of the Almighty with his Son from eternity (to ſpeak after the manner of men), to be how they ſhould be glorified moſt in the Salvation of man: and there are two waies to that end, the way of Works, and the way of Grace. If man being made after Gods image, does live according to the law of his Creation, and ſtand in that eſtate he muſt be happy and glorifie his Maker in a method of works: but if he be left to himſelf, and fall, and be recovered by the rdemption of the Son, and then have a new Law for his faln condition, and continued help, to live according to it, then ſhall God glorifie himſelf in mans ſalvation, by the methods of his moſt wonderful grace. Now what if Gods election from eternity be nothing elſe but this deſign, that mans ſalvation ſhall be in a way of Grace, and not of Works? He hath choſen us in him (ſaies the Text) that we ſhould be holy. I put the Emphaſis on the words, in him. It is Chriſt hath procured the new Law, according to which we may be holy and accepted, when elſe we could not be holy by the Law of our Nature; and ſo it is not by the works of righteouſneſs which we have done, or works by that Law, but by the renewing of the Holy Ghoſt, or his aſſiſtance to perform the Law of Grace; ſo that when it is ſaid other-where, Not of works leſt any ſhould boaſt, it is added, For we are his workmanſhip created in Chriſt Jeſus to good works. We were created at firſt to a law of righteouſneſs, but this being once broken, unleſs we had had a new Law purchaſed by Chriſt, and a new Creation through him, we could not have been righteous any more; ſo that it is not of works, which are properly mans own, according to the Law of his Nature, but of thoſe which we are created to in Chriſt Jeſus; to wit, thoſe which are called the righteouſneſs of God (as being of his invention or appointment) in oppoſition to the Law, that we are ſaved. This is typed in the children of the Fleſh, and the children of the Promiſe; and this may be the meaning of theſe words, It is not of him that willeth and runneth (that is, it is not in the way of works) but of God that ſheweth mercy (that is, but of Grace). This is delivered here, I know, roughly and darkly: yet may it ſerve another man to think upon, when I my ſelf do not purſue it. There is in the Papers called the Middle way, ſomething of this in that of Election p. 15, 16. and ſomething more accurately in that of the Covenants p. 6, ad 13. There is another notion of Election; To wit, the chooſing of perſons or a people to a Church-ſtate, or the priviledge of Ordinances, and ſo unto the peculiar government of God or Chriſt over them upon that account. He hath given his Statutes to Iſrael, he hath not done ſo to other Nations. Thus Abraham is the firſt Elect we read of. Thou didſt chooſe Abraham, and broughtſt him out of Ur, and madeſt a Covenant with him, in Nehemiah. That was by way of preamble to Gods gathering a Church out of his ſeed, who was to be his people. Hence is he ſaid in ſeveral places to have choſen them, not for their deſerts, or their number, but becauſe he loved thy Fathers, therefore he choſe their ſeed after them; and hence have they the titles of a peculiar people, and a choſen generation, with many the like expreſſions. In the New-Teſtament likewiſe we find thoſe who receive the Goſpel have the ſame titles, They are ſaid to be engrafted into the Jews Olive, that is, into their external Covenant and Church-ſtate, and to be a choſen generation (as the Jews were) a royal Prieſthood, and a peculiar people, inſomuch as when the Apoſtle writes to a whole Church, he calls them Elect, as well as Saints and ſanctified in Chriſt Jeſus; And the faith of Gods elect may perhaps be thus interpreted the Chriſtian faith. Bleſſed is the Nation whoſe God is the Lord, and the people whom he hath choſen for his own inheritance. Theſe notions I mention, but muſt travail no further in the ſearch of them, becauſe I am held by the other doctrines I have named, Regeneration, and That few ſhall be ſaved. For if theſe two Doctrines be not capable of ſome other notion alſo than what is commonly underſtood by them, they muſt fix me in the like received notion of Election. If there is ſuch a thing then (in the firſt place) as Regeneration, that is a work of grace on the ſouls of ſome perſons whereby they are begotten again to a holy life, as well as to the relation of the children of God, then is Election, I muſt ſay, actuated in ſuch perſons. The Schools diſtinguiſh between Eternal and Actual Election, and this work of ſaving converſion or effectual vocation they call Actual election. Election is the preparation of effectual grace for ſome perſons that they may be ſaved, and not for others. This effectual grace then vouchſafed to any particular perſon in, or for his regeneration, is the execution of Election. Such dependance have theſe doctrines upon one another, that we ſhall not need to enquire farther what is Election, which we underſtand, and prove by this effect Regeneration, better than by any mans definition, or arguments. If we cannot come off therefore about Regeneration, as well as Election, we muſt be determined by the one, in our judgement concerning the other. For the helping us out here, this Author hath ſaid ſomething; That to be regenerate is to become the Diſciple of Chriſt, and that is to be brought into the Church or Church-ſtate, which agrees with the ſecond Notion before of Election. He that is a Diſciple muſt be baptized, and to be baptized is to be both again by water, and incorporated into Chriſt, and he that is but externally in Chriſt is a new creature, as one of that world to come in the ſecond to the Hebrews, which is ſaid to be put in ſubjection to Chriſt, that is the Chriſtian Church under the Goſpel. Agreeably hereunto this Author tells us out of Dr. Hammond, that the proſelytes of the very Jewiſh Church were called recensnati upon this ſame account. Regeneration then may be a Relative term only, or but Relative grace, whether in regard to a Spiritual, or External relation. What this may do now with others, I know not. This Author does make Regeneration to conſiſt in a Real work on the ſoul as well as others, while he defines the regenerate man to be one that does not only become a Diſciple, but a ſincere Diſciple of Chriſt; for this includes that effectual grace which proceeds from Election. And yet if we could get off from both theſe Doctrines, Election and Regeneration, there remains farther the third Doctrine, That few ſhall be ſaved, from which there is no man I ever yet read, Arminian or Antiarminian that ſought an eſcape. They are words out of our Lords own mouth [Few there be that find it], and the Evangeliſt that ſet them down could not be miſtaken in Chriſts meaning; There is no mans heart can ſerve him to think ſo, becauſe they were inſpired in what they writ, If this be a truth then, that few ſhall be ſaved, it is a truth that it is Gods will that few ſhall be ſaved; and conſequently if his will, his decree. If it be Gods decree then, that few ſhall be ſaved, I cannot be ſolicitous any farther about Perſonal or Abſolute Election, There appears to me really to be a greater diſhonour put upon Gods goodneſs and infinite mercy to make him decree ſalvation to all, on ſuch conditions, as a few perſons only (left to their liberty) ſhall thereupon be able to be ſaved, than can be caſt meerly on his juſtice or righteouſneſs, to decree that grace, or ſuch grace to theſe few perſons, that ſhall effectually bring them to that end. And what though, Salvation ſometimes be taken alſo as Election in Scripture, in reference to a mans being brought into the Ark, that is, into the Church, and ſo we are ſaid to be ſaved by baptiſm, as it is ſaid, Save your ſelves from this untoward generation, and as they which were added to the Church are ſaid to be ſaved, and as ſalvation is ſaid to be of the Jews? What mans reaſon can ſerve him to believe that Chriſt ſpeaks of this ſalvation? If it could, Are there not more that come into the Church, than are eternally ſaved? There is doubtleſs a double Election and Salvation in Scripture, Temporal in this ſenſe before ſpoken, in relation to a Church-ſtate, and Chriſts government of us by the Goſpel: and Eternal in this ſenſe of Salvation whereof Chriſt is ſpeaking, when he ſaies, And few there be that find it. Such is our Election, and ſuch is this Salvation; Election from Eternity, and ſalvation to eternity, and both meet in Regeneration. For regeneration, is Actual Election, and Inchoate Salvation. There are three that bear record in Heaven, and three in Earth, ſaies St. John. Theſe three agree in one, and thoſe three are one. I will ſay ſo here, There are three things that bear record in Scripture, Election, Regeneration, and That few ſhall be ſaved. Theſe three agree in one, that is, in their teſtimony for the Orthodox againſt the Arminian, and ſo for St. Auſtine, the Synod of Dort, and Dr. Owen, againſt this Author. And theſe three are one, in their concatenation one with another. Election is the preparation of that ſpecial effectual grace which works our regeneration, and our regeneration is the begetting in us that life, that ſpiritual life which runs on to eternity. Effectual grace is the Execution of Election, and entrance of Salvation. Grace is glory in the infancy, and Glory is grace in full age, at maturity, or in conſummation. Theſe things are thus linked, and this is the Chain that holds me. I do endeavour to make the chain as caſie as I can, and get as much room in it as I can by going the middle way, but I am held under it. If you cannot break every link, you ſhall never break any one of them; or if you could, it were in vain to do it. And now would I look into this Gentlemans heart how it can ſerve him to meditate a reply to theſe things. I will tell him in his own words the iſſue it muſt come to. But what if the Scriptures teach, that the promiſe of Regenerating grace are made only to thoſe that are abſolutely elected to glory (This hereby, I count, is proved in the very root of it)? I anſwer (ſaies he) If this can be once ſhewn, I have done; or if it can be made to appear but probable by the Scriptures, I ſhall begin to ſuſpect all my reaſoning againſt it. For I heartily believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, and all my Reaſonings ſhall ſubmit to this one Propoſition, Whatſoever God hath ſaid that is true. This is ſaid well, and ſo well ſaid as I will end this Chapter with it, and I think we muſt both end the Controverſie with it. They ſhall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb ſhall overcome them: for he is the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings; and thoſe that are with him, are called, and faithful, and choſen.

Having thus done with the Book, there are ſome paſſages require my reflection upon them, for the Doctors vindication. The Doctor is accuſed of Nonſenſe, of Contradiction, of Error. It is fit that ſome thing ſhould be ſaid in reference to the two latter, though it be but a rudeneſs to go about to anſwer any thing to the former.

For the firſt therefore I will ſay this only. If the Doctor hath expreſſed any thing darkly, that this Author cannot make ſenſe of it: ſuch a place, or paſſage as to him, is to go for nothing. That is all in civility to be ſaid of it.

For the ſecond, There is one inſtance I will mention about Election. The Doctor in one place of his Book, ſpeaking (I ſuppoſe) to a prophane perſon, yet preſuming on his Election, tells him, He cannot believe his Election any otherwiſe, but as God reveals it by the effects, that is, untill he believe, and repents he cannot conclude he is Elected. In another place ſpeaking (I ſuppoſe) to the tender ſerious Chriſtian, who is yet in trouble about his Election, he ſaies, He cannot juſtly doubt of his Election, until he be in ſuch a condition, as wherein it is impoſſible that the effects of Election ſhould be wrought in him. This the Author makes a contradiction: but it is only the diſtinguiſhing between theſe two things, A not concluding, and A concluding not, and the Doctor is cleared. The man who ſees not the effects of Election on his heart, and in his life, cannot conclude that he is elected (here is the not concluding, which ought to be): And the man that ſees them not, cannot conclude for all that, that he is not Elected, becauſe they may be wrought in him before he dies, (here is the concluding not, which muſt be avoided). So the one is rebuked, and the other ſupported (as they ſhould both be). Such are the Doctors contradictions.

For the third, which is the Doctors Errors, I muſt diſtinguiſh of Error. There is Human Error, Error common to man, It is the nature of man to be ſubject to mulake, to be deceived, to err, ſaies the Orator: and there are Pernicious Errors. This Gentlemans accuſations are of both ſorts.

For the former ſort, There is two or three places where this Author is very confident upon the Doctor for his ſaying that the Spirit is given to us in his Perſon as well as in his Effects, which methinks I cannot paſs, becauſe I do not know well whether the Error be in the Doctor, or in this Author, or in my ſelf. I am apt to think, that it is too much to ſay that the Spirit dwelleth perſonally in any man, though we are ſaid to be the Temples of the Holy Ghoſt: and that it is too little to ſay he is given only in his giſts, graces, or effects. I would ſay rather, that the Spirit is given it ſelf for theſe Effects. I look upon the Spirit of Chriſt to be given to us for a principle of life and union with our Head, from whom we have (through this Spirit) the communication of all ſaving influence unto a holy life. It is the received opinion that there is an habitual righteouſneſs infuſed by God in the ſoul for our juſtification according to the Schools, or according to our Divines, for our Regeneration; and that this is the principle of life and power in the ſoul unto holy operations. I muſt confeſs here I do not receive this Doctrine, I have it ſomewhere in my Mediocria, I think more cautiouſly, but I do really believe no infuſion of habits. I count that the Spirit by a motion on the Will, exciting it to act, does incline it to farther acts by the impreſſion which is made, and that the habit then is acquired by the iteration of thoſe acts and delight in them, or love to them, ſhed abroad in our hearts by the ſame Holy Ghoſt given to us. I do believe conſequently, that it is the Spirit it ſelf dwelling in us (as the Scripture underſtands its own expreſſion) which is that principle of life from whoſe conſtant ſecret and unperceptable aid, does proceed all thoſe actions which are holy and good, and acceptable to God. I do believe there is a time when Chriſt gives his Spirit to every one of his Elect, for uniting him to himſelf as his head, and that this union is effected immediately by that communication, and that through this Spirit all vital influence muſt be derived to us. I cannot frame my ſelf to ſay the Spirit is perſonally in us, but he is in Chriſts members as a principle of life and ſpiritual action, and as the formal band of that union which we have with him. Now ye are the body of Chriſt, and members in particular. As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that body are one body; ſo alſo is Chriſt. I cannot tell well therefore how to brook ſome expreſſions as I find ſomewhere in this Author, and in another before him, that when the Scripture ſpeaks of our having the Spirit of Chriſt, and having it ſo as to be led by him, and if we have not the Spirit of Chriſt, we are none of his, they are willing to interpret the having Chriſts Spirit, to be only the being of his temper and and diſpoſition, which is the bringing down the Scripture to our ordinary converſe, and ſeems to me unholy. I hope theſe men do believe the Chriſtian faith, and do reverence his myſteries. And there are theſe three of them, The myſterie of the Trinity, The myſterie of the Incarnation, and the Myſtical Union between Chriſt and his Church. It is true that Chriſt is not a Natural head but a Political, as oppoſed to natural, but not as oppoſed to myſtical. He is a Political head as he governs us, and as we are in ſubjection to him: but he is alſo a Myſtical head, vouchſafing to us that ſpiritual influence which enables us to obey him. He governs us, and ſo is our head: but he governs us by his Spirit which is infuſed (though I think no habit be); and when we are lead by this Spirit, as there is Rule, there is Influence, and this Union muſt be Real and Myſtical, and not that which is Political only. Suppoſe a man wh • ſe head was high as the Heavens, yet ſo long as the ſame ſoul animates all the members, the feet as in the head, it is one man: Chriſt our head is in Heaven, and we on earth; yet as the ſame Spirit is in us which is in him, the head and members make one dy, nay in the words of the Scripture, one Chriſt. O Agrippa believeſt thou the Prophets? O thou Author of this Book againſt Dr. Owen, Believeſt thou theſe myſteries of the Chriſtian Religion? I know that thou believeſt.

For the later ſort, There is one place in his Book, where we have two of his pernicious errors together. The Doctor belike hath ſaid, that though a man ſhould reform his life, and be changed from vice to vertue, and that by hearing the word preached (This is the moſt I count he ſaies, and which may be exemplified in Herod, who heard John, and did many things), yet if there be not an habitual righteouſneſs infufed, it ſignifies nothing to regeneration. To this purpoſe is it only and altogether the Doctor ſpeaks. Hereupon this Gentleman breaks out and challenges him before his own party (as he ſpeaks) and before the world, for contradicting the Scripture [He that doeth Righteouſneſs is born of God], and then charges him with Pelagianiſm. He profeſſes he is in earneſt, and that this is rank Pelagianiſm, that the Doctor allows ſo much to be done without ſaving grace. I have the more reaſon to be moved at this, becauſe a certain perſon of quality, and of a ready judgement having this Author by him, turned me to this place, as if the Doctor was much to be blamed; when I muſt needs ſay, that this Gentleman hath no where expoſed himſelf ſo much in his Book as here, where he endeavours to expoſe the Doctor. There is no man that reads practical Divines, that lay down characters of the truly godly man, the ſound Believer, and how far the Hypocrite may go, but does know they ſpeak commonly as the Doctor does, and there are few, one would think, ſo inconſiderate or raw, but ſhould alſo know here how to diſtinguiſh ſo eaſily, as between the matter of what is done, and the manner of the performance. Good works may be conſidered quoad operis ſubſtamtiam, or quoad modum quo ordinaniur id vuam aevernam. There is no good act (no not the leaſt that can be done) is performed in that manner as it ought, or as it is required to be accepted in order to ſalvation, but a man muſt be born of God according to his text, and have the aſſiſtance of the Spirit: But for the matter of the work (or of our duty) this Author muſt conſider better, that the Regenerate and Unrepenerate are alike as to that. One can hear, and pray, and give alms, and abſtain from evil as well as the Other; and many times the veryeſt Hippocrite pretends moſt. Nay, what ſaies this Gentleman to Socrates, Ariſtides, Epimomdas, Plato, Plutark, Cato? What ſaies he to Almanzor that Mahomet in Einperor, whoſe life is ſet out by Sir Walter Rayleigh in a little Book for ſuch ſingular vertues, eſpecially as to his goodneſs and righteouſneſs, that I find him not paralleld by any Chriſtian. Will this Author cenſure Sir Walter for a Pelagian, for ſuch a narration? or will he make me one, if I believe it? Or will he come over here, and when he hath placed ſuch in a ſtate of Nature, and ſo out of a ſtate of Grace, will he allow an Heathen or Mahometan to be a regeherate perſon? Hath the Gentleman read Ruiz, or one ſuch a kind of Schoolman as he, all over? Let him ſee when they have denied againſt pelagius all ability in man to do any thing, even but to give an occaſion (which is active and not paſſive only) to infuſe in us their juſtifying grace, whether they are alſo ignorant of ſome ſuch diſtinction. It is no Pelagianiſm in the Schools, to ſay a man can do many things civily, morally good, through the power of nature, education, cuſtome, for company ſake, for glory: but it is ſo, to ſay he can do any thing without preventing grace, in order to his juſtification. There is no need therefore of ſuch vehemence, nor of any ſuch expreſſions he uſes otherwhere [I will deſire the Doctor to conſider whether the Father of lies be not the repreſentative of ſuch ſhameful Writers, as he is the example of]. Theſe kind of words are not well. There is a great deal of acrimony, I ſee, with a little truth mixt methinks, like the fire and hail that ran together in one of the Egyptian Plagues, in the Books of many late riſing adverſaries to this learned pious and reverend perſon. It were happy if the opprobrious words of the prejudicate, would make thewiſe mend their faults. It were well alſo if ſuch an inconſiderate confident piece of elation of mind (as here indeed is) be but repreſſed with the ſhame and bluſhes of another. Let the righteous ſmite me, it ſhall be a kindneſs, and let him reprove me, it ſhall be an oyle, and not break my head.

HAving ſaid this for the Doctor, I have a little now alſo to ſay to him. I was reading his later Book of Juſtification, when this Author came to my hands, and I had thought of making ſome remarks upon it. I am not ſatisfied with what he hath offered for the reconciliation of St. James and Paul on that ſubject. This is the reaſon I ſuppoſe (that is the moſt ſolid) why ſo many do chooſe here of late to go with the mediocrian, or ſteer the middle way, in that point. I perceive that Dr. Tully with our firſt Reformed Divines, and this excellent Doctor, are for diſtinguiſhing of Faith, and Juſtification, but will not let us, by no means, diſtinguiſh of Works for the reconciliation of the Apoſtles. I do wonder at this. The Apoſtle James and the Apoſtle Paul do both agree, that we are juſtified by Faith. The one ſaies, we conclude that a man is juſtified by Faith; and the other ſaies alſo, it is by Faith: Their ſeeming difference is only about works, when one ſaies by Faith without Works, and the other, by Faith and Works alſo. And how then comes it to paſs that we muſt not diſtinguiſh of Works, but of Juſtification and Faith, to compoſe the difficulty? I will offer the Doctor therefore here one Argument, under his favour, which ſhall be but one, and that not as others have, (ſo far as I know) for then it were like he had already weighed it. It is this. That Juſtification which St. Paul ſpeaks of, is that Juſtification which we have in that Text of Geneſis, where it is ſaid, And Abraham believed, and it was accounted to him for Righteouſneſs. Or, That Juſlification Paul ſpeaks of, is that Imputation of Faith for righteouſneſs which is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis. That Juſtification which St. James ſpeaks of, is that Juſtification which we have in that Text in Geneſis, Or, is that Imputation of Faith for Righteouſneſs, as is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis. Therefore St. Pauls juſtification, and St. James juſtification are the ſame Juſtification. Again, That Faith which St. Paul ſpeaks of, is the Faith that is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis, or the ſame Faith as was imputed to Abraham for righteouſneſs in that place. That Faith which St. James ſpeaks of is the ſame Faith which is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis, Or the ſame Faith that was imputed to Abraham for righteouſneſs in that place. Therefore the faith that St. Paul ſpeaks of, and the faith which St. James ſpeaks of, is the ſame faith alſo. And when the Faith is the ſame, and the Juſtification the ſame, we muſt diſtinguiſh of Works then out of queſtion, to reconcile theſe Scriptures. Of Works then let us diſtinguiſh; and the diſtinction is this. There are Works which are inconſiſtent with Grace and Pardon, ſo that if we had them, we ſhould have no need of Chriſt's righteouſneſs or ſacrifice, but the doing of them would make the reward to be of debt, or make life to be due out of diſtrict juſtice, (He that doeth them ſhall live in them), That is, Works which the Law requires unto Juſtification. And theſe are the Works St. Paul ſpeaks of, and the reaſons which he alleadges why we are not juſtified by theſe Works is, becauſe no man hath them. This is that which he apparently urges (for he aſcends in his diſpute from the Law of Moſes, to the Law of Nature, which concerns both Jew and Gentile) in his three firſt Chapters to the Romans, ſo that if any man be juſtified, it muſt be without them. Therefore we conclude (ſaies he) that by faith without them (that is without having them) a man is juſtified. There are then Works alſo which are conſiſtent with Pardon and Mercy though we have them, ſo that when we have done theſe, we do need the righteouſneſs and ſatisfaction of our Redeemer to cover their imperfection, and for acceptation of our perſons, no leſs than if we had Faith alone without any, and theſe are Works of ſincerity required of us in the Goſpel. It is no wayes derogatory, I ſay, to Gods Grace and Chriſts Merits, for a man to be juſtified by theſe works, any more than to be juſtified by Faith alone, in regard to Debt or Merit, upon which account St. Paul excludes works in his Diſputation. It is of theſe Works I muſt ſay, (as the Apoſtle ſaies it is of Faith) that it may be of Grace. And theſe are the Works St. James ſpeaks of, when he ſaies, By Faith and Works alſo; that is all one as by a Faith working by Love in Pauls words otherwhere. And the being juſtified by Faith working by Love, or by a Faith productive of Works, or by theſe Works and Faith alſo (which being ſuch Works as fall ſhort of the Law, and do need grace and forgiveneſs for their acceptation with God) is all one with St Pauls by Faith without works of the Law, or without ſuch as the Law requires unto juſtification. Thus are Paul and James reconciled. I will advance hence then my former argument. That juſtification by Faith without works which St. Paul ſpeaks of, is that Juſtification, or that Imputation of Abrahams Faith for righteouſneſs, which is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis. That juſtification by Works and Faith alſo, which St. James ſpeaks of, is that Juſtification or that Imputation of Abrahams faith for righteouſneſs, which is ſpoken of in that Text in Geneſis. Therefore St. Pauls juſtification by faith without works, and St. James juſtification by faith and works alſo, or by works and not by faith only, is the ſame in the two Apoſtles. The medium upon which all three Syllogiſms depend, is the Apoſtles citing the ſame Text, both of them, for that which either of them aſſert, while one ſaies by faith without works, and the other by works and not by faith only. The major and minor therefore in all three are undeniable; and in the concluſion of the laſt, I am ſure the Doctor and I ſhall agree together.

I have another thing to offer to the thoughts of the Dr. that whereas he tells us of a Commutation between Chriſt and us in his taking upon him our ſins, and our partaking of his righteouſneſs, I do apprehend this expreſſion and doctrine to be Chriſtian, holy and good, according to the ſenſe of that Text, He was made ſin for us, that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him; and the like places: But only there is a difference to be put between the uſe of the notion againſt the Socinians in the point of Satisfaction, and the uſe of it againſt the Mediocreans in the point of Juſtification. I do believe ſuch a Commutation as the Dr. ſpeaks of, is neceſſary to that great work which Chriſt undertook for Mankind, as it concerns the whole world in the procuring Reconciliation and Life for all upon the terms of the Redeemer; for if he had not taken on him our ſins, to ſuffer in our behalf (which is his being made ſin for us) and fulfilled the whole Law alſo for us, that God might without diſhonour to him as Rector, diſpenſe with it, ſo as to impute to us our faith and imperfect obedience for righteouſneſs (which is our being made the righteouſneſs of God in him) there would have been no ſatisfaction offered, and conſequently no Reconciliation or Redemption: But as for ſuch a Commutation in the point of Juſtification, which concerns particular Believers, I am yet to learn what to make of it from this Reverend perſon. To enquire then to the bottom, the foundation of this Commutation, is laid (I ſee) by him in the Myſtical Union between Chriſt and his Members, which muſt pertain therefore only to ſuch, and that as a fruit or effect of the Spirit of Chriſt given to them (if it be ſo) to that end: When this indeed is a thing that does not belong at all to the operation of the Third perſon of the Trinity, but to the work of the Son, and the arbitrary ordination of the Father. Whatſoever influence Chriſt hath upon the ſoul as our Head by the operation of the Holy Ghoſt; or whatſoever is an effect of the Spirit when once given for uniting us to him, it muſt have this Union for its ground or foundation: But whatſoever ariſes to us from Chriſt another way, and is no effect of the Spirit, it may not be aſcribed without contradiction to that ſpring from whence it comes not. The Dr. judges right, that ſuch a Communication with Chriſt cannot indeed be rationally thought on, but we muſt conceive of ſome Ʋnion preſently which is the ground of it: But there is a double Union between Chriſt and us. The one is by taking upon him our Nature, and the other by giving us his Spirit. The bleſſed Commutation the Dr. ſpeaks of, does not depend upon that Union which we have with him by the Communication of his Spirit; for this indeed is no waies any effect thereof: But it does depend on the Union which he hath with us in taking upon him our Fleſh. Foraſmuch then as the children are partakers of fleſh and blood, he alſo took part of the ſame. Again, He took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the ſeed of Abraham, and in that ſeed our Nature; and as he took our nature, he took on him our ſins; for he took our nature only to this end, that he might redeem Man, when the Angels whoſe nature he took not, were not redeemed. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he ſaith, ſacrifice and offering thou wouldſt not, but a body haſt thou prepared me. A body is prepar'd for Chriſt, that he may be a ſacrifice to anſwer thoſe Types under the Law, which without him could ſignifie nothing, The Beaſt for the Propitiatory Sacrifice had the ſins of Iſrael laid on him; and this is exhibited in that ſaying of John, Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the ſins of the world: And of that in Peter, Who his own ſelf bare our ſins in his own body on the Tree. It is manifeſt then that this Commutation which conſiſts in Chriſt's taking upon him our ſins, that he might be a ſacrifice for them, and fulfilling the duty of the whole Law (which we were bound unto, but broke) to procure new terms, in the performance whereof we might be righteous, and ſo accepted upon the account of his merits (which is his becoming ſin for us, that we might become the righteouſneſs of God in him, as I have ſaid before, and have need to ſay again) does belong to that Union which Chriſt hath with Mankind, according to that Text in the Hebrews, He that ſanctifieth, and they that are ſanctified are of one; that is, of one fleſh, as appears by what follows; and not to that Union which he hath with his Members only, according to that Text in the Corinths, He that is joyned to the Lord is one ſpirit; that is, it belongs to that Union which is Hypoſtatical in Chriſt's taking our nature with the Divine Nature into one perſon, and not to that Union which is Myſtical, according to the ſuppoſition of the Dr. There is a diſtinction then to be remembred, which we have often in Scripture, and that is of Chriſt in the Fleſh, and Chriſt in the Spirit. We muſt make a difference accordingly between what he did for us, as he was in the fleſh, and what he does for us in the Spirit, or by it. That which he did for us in the Fleſh (I ſpeak it indefinitely) muſt belong to All, for the fleſh he took, was the fleſh of All; and hence is he ſaid to die for All, to taſte Death for every man, to be a propitiation, not for our ſins only, but for the ſins of the world. That which he does for us in the Spirit, is peculiar to his Members, and the Elect to whom he gives it. I ſpeak of the Spirit as a principle of Union and Life in Chriſt, and not as Author of common giſts. I argue now. It is certain that the Righteouſneſs Chriſt performed, and the Sacrifice he made for us, was performed and made in the Fleſh. It is certain that in this Righteouſneſs and Sacrifice is contained all that he undertook in our behalf, as he ſuſtained our part in the work of his Mediation for Man's Redemption. It is certain that the Commutation the Dr. ſpeaks of, muſt be ſuppoſed unto Chriſt's ſuſtaining our part in this work. It is certain conſequently that this Commutation, and the part Chriſt ſuſtained in the performing this Righteouſneſs, and offering this Sacrifice, does belong to Chriſt in the Fleſh, and ſo muſt be univerſal for all the world, and does not belong to Chriſt in the Spirit, to be appropriated to his Church or Members only, which is this Learned Drs. apprehenſion throughout his Book. Let us diſtinguiſh then now at laſt between the Impetration of our Redemption, and all thoſe benefits we have by Chriſt, and the Application of them. The Impetration belongs to Chriſt in the Fleſh, and the Application to Chriſt in the Spirit. (I mean by Impetration, obtaining by Sacrifice and Merit, and diſtinguiſh it from Interceſſion). Chriſt took our Fleſh to procure our Redemption; he gives us his Spirit to apply it. Now I have this notion to offer the Dr. under his correction if I be out, and under his candour to receive it, if it be light; that this bleſſed Commutation he ſpeaks of, and rightly magnifies, does go to the Impetration of our Redemption, and the benefits we have by Chriſt, and not to the Application. If this Commutation between Chriſt and us, of his Righteouſneſs for our ſins, did go to (or was made in) the Application, I ſee not how any more than one man could have it. If Chriſt makes the Commutation with Peter, and ſo takes his ſins, and gives him his Righteouſneſs in exchange, this Righteouſneſs of Chriſt muſt now be Peter's, and ſo Paul and James and John cannot have it. It muſt not be therefore conceived ſure, that this Commutation is made with particular perſons, or that it does go into the Application, but that it goes into the Impetration of thoſe benefits we have by Chriſt, which being procured for all upon condition, there is no particular perſon but by the performing that condition alike may (and by that means only can) enjoy them, one with another. To make this quite clear, there is but one cloud to be removed, which does (as I ſuppoſe) hang on the mind of moſt, in thinking ſomething more of the Spirit's Application of what Chriſt hath done for us, or of his Merits and Righteouſneſs to the ſoul, than there is. But this is all that I am able to underſtand of this Application; to wit, that the Spirit by his grace enables us to perform the conditions upon which theſe benefits are procured for us; and ſo they become ours, and the Merits and Righteouſneſs of Chriſt are ſaid to be ſo in regard to thoſe effects. They are ours for the Impetration of theſe benefits, but they cannot be ours in themſelves, that is, not ours in regard to the Application. What. Chriſt did for us in the Fleſh, was to reconcile our ſalvation to God's glory, and the ends of Government: What Chriſt does in the Spirit is to reconcile our ſpirits to what God requires of us, and ſo to qualifie us for our poſſeſſion of the benefits which he hath purchaſed in the fleſh. The benefits are ours, and we enjoy them as being impetrated for us upon that condition, which through the Spirit (given for the Application) we perform, and Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Merits being ours in regard to theſe effects it may be ſaid to be imputed to us if our Divines pleaſe. If there be conceived any Commutation with Chriſt of his Righteouſneſs for our ſins, or any imputation of it unto us any otherwiſe than thus in regard to the effects, I underſtand it not. The principal effect of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Sacrifice (which both together making up ſatisfaction to God for man's ſin, God is reconciled, and comes to new terms) is the obtaining the Law of Grace for us, according to which we may be righteous, or made the Righteouſneſs of God in Chriſt, in the Scripture phraſe (See my Middle Paper of the Covenants in the ſix firſt leaves), and upon this Righteouſneſs, as the condition performed, all other of the effects or benefits depend. In the Application it is true, that we have the benefits, but from whence do they come? It is not from any act of ours, we are not our own Benefactors; nor from any work of the Spirit. That we do, is the performing the condition, and that the Spirit does, is the ſupplying us with grace to do it: But the condition is not the cauſe of the benefits, only cauſa ſine qua non, which being put, the benefits flow to us by vertue of the Impetration, from the merit of what Chriſt hath done. Many (ſaies Mr. Truman) make this their ſtrong hold, that faith alone is the receptive grace, and not repentance and ſincere obedience: but there is no ſuch thing as receiving Righteouſneſs, Juſtification, Pardon. Juſtification, right to Heaven, Righteouſneſs, cometh on men. The free gift came upon all to Juſtification. By the offence of one, judgment came upon all to condemnation. As condemnation cometh upon men without any act of receiving it, it is a reſultancy from the Law upon diſobedience: So Juſtification, right to Heaven, is a reſultancy from a Law-promiſe, the condition being performed. This I look on not only as pretty, but in regard to what I apply it very ſolid. It is from the Covenant-promiſe, or through the Law of grace immediately, and ſo from the Impetration of Chriſt and his Merits at laſt (or ultimately) that the benefits come on us, and all that we do towards it, is only our performing the condition. Cometh this bleſſedneſs then on the Circumciſion only, or on the Ʋncircumciſion alſo? It is to be obſerved a little farther, that when the Scripture ſpeaks any thing of this Commutation, we find it attributed only to God and Chriſt, and that as a thing paſt and done, and never to the work of the Spirit, which is ſtill a doing. It is ſaid therefore that the Lord hath laid the iniquities of us all, or made all our ſins to meet on Chriſt, in the perſon of the Father, and that Chriſt took them, bare our ſins, with the like expreſſions: But I read nor a word of ſuch a work as is ſtill to be done, which the Holy Ghoſt's were, if it belonged to him. It muſt be conceived therefore that God and Chriſt in their everlaſting tranſactions between them, about the redemption of Man, agreed upon this matter of Commutation, which (however the Dr. expreſſes it) in the root, is Chriſt's undertaking to ſtand in our ſtead according to the Law of his Mediation; which Law he performing, this buſineſs actually was accompliſhed, and we have the It is finiſhed, declared on the Croſs: So that be it whatſoever it will, it does go, or did go into the Impetration, it cannot go into the Application of our Repemplion. To come home then quite to the Dr. How Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us in regard to the Impetration of the benefits we have from him, or how it is made ours in regard to the Effects impetrated, as thoſe effects are purchaſed by it upon condition, I underſtand; but how it is imputed to us, or made ours in the Application by the Spirit in any effect, or in the effect of Juſtification, any otherwiſe than other effects, I have had my eyes opened ſo long about this point, as I begin to ſee at laſt with much adoe, nothing of it. Adoption, Salvation, and other benefits, as well as Juſtification, are effects of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, or of Chriſt's purchaſe, and when we believe and perform the condition, we receive Adoption, and have a right to Salvation as well as to be Juſtified. Adoption is by faith, Salvation by faith, Juſtification by faith. As faith concurs to the one, it does to the other. Here only is the deceit. Juſtification is Gods accounting a perſon righteous, and this being upon the account of Chriſts righteouſneſs, the underſtanding is entangled, as if we were made righteous by his righteouſneſs in ſome way, as muſt render us to be juſtified otherwiſe by it, than ſaved. There never was any diſpute about the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſs to our Adoption and Salvation, and yet it is a certain truth, that it is imputed to us in regard to theſe effects, as in regard to Juſtification. The righteouſneſs of Chriſt then does concur to our Adoption, Salvation, ſub genere cauſae efficientis, as the meritorious procuring cauſe of them: if it concur any otherwiſe unto Juſtification, that is ſub genere cauſae formalis alſo, as the formal reaſon no leſs than the procuring cauſe of it, it is a matter (I muſt confeſs) of my Admiration; and I muſt crave of the Doctor farther inſtruction, or the ingenuity to accept this ſlender endeavour of mine for his own ſatisfaction. And the third Captain of fifty went up, and came and bowed before Elijah and beſought him, and ſaid unto him, O man of God, I pray thee — And he aroſe and went down with him.

I have many other thoughts in my mind to offer the Doctor, or this Author, which I will forbear, for I remember that the Gentleman hath a ſecond part to come out, that he intends more particularly againſt the Doctor. I will therefore ſtay a while upon ſuch matters that are already propoſed, and ſee if he performs his intention; and it will be then time enough (if it be like alſo to do good, and be fit) to confer a few more notions with him. For I like my man much for his Natural parts, and Free-Divinity: as I muſt note him a little for deficient in his Ethicks and Civility, ſo long as he hath to do with ſuch an Adverſary. I cannot commend him for this uſage of the Doctor; who is one I muſt confeſs for my own part, that I value for his Worth, I love for his Courteſie, I am pleaſed with for his Candour, and I think my ſelf happy, if at any time I get but a little of his Company.