Reason 1. The First Reason is, God's Inter­nal and Imminent Acts are the same with his Essence, such an Act is the Divine De­cree; and therefore as God's Essence is Eternal, so his Decree must be Eternal also: Quicquid est in Deo, est Deus. Now the Decree is God's decreeing, because whatsoever is in God is God; it is God himself by one Eternal Act, decreeing and deter­mining whatsoever should come, unto the Praise of his own Glory.

Reason 2. The Second Reason is taken from the Simplicity of God, which is God considered as one meer and perfect Act, without any Composition or Succession; there cannot be in God Aliud et aliud; there can be no more a New Thought, a New Intent, or a New Prupose in God, then there can be a New God. Whatever God think: Whatever God purposes, he always purposed, and ever doth and ill purpose; as he cannot know any thing de [Page 9] Novo, neither can he intend any thing de Novo; for his Name is [I Am]Exod. 3.14. and takes not New Counsels, as Man doth; and so draws up (pro re natâ) New Deter­minations.

Reason 3. The Third Reason is taken from Christ. If Christ was the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World (as he is called, Rev. 13.8.) then Predestination to Life must needs be before Time, because Christ is the Foundation of Election, we are Elected in him, Eph. 1.4,5. and predestinated v. 5. by him. Christ is the Means. Now the End cannot be of a latter Date and Determination, than the Means to that End: They have Relation each to other. And if Christ be the Eternal Purpose of the Father, then the Act of Electing in Christ must needs be his Eternal Purpose.

Reason 4. The Fourth Reason. The Scrip­ture expresly proves it, saying, It was before the World, 2 Tim. 1.9. Tit. 1.2. and before the Foundation of the World, Eph. 1.4. and it was an Eternal Purpose which he purposed in Christ, Eph. 3.11. so that we lay from all Eternity in the Womb of our Father, before the time we came into our Mother's Womb.

Reason 5. The Fifth Reason. It is the Royal Prerogative of the great Jehovah, to order as well as appoint, things that are coming and that shall come, which the Va­nities (or Idols) of the Gentiles cannot doe, Isa. 44.7. and none can appoint God the Time, Jer. 50.44. Hence Time is said to Travel with those Eternal Decrees of God, and brings forth the Ac­complishent [Page 10] of them in their proper Season: The Decree will bring forth, Zeph. 2.2. and it is big-belly'd till then: Every Thing hath its Accomplishment in Time, which was decreed to fall out from all Eternity.

Reason 6. The Sixth Reason. If Humane Concernments have this Encomium, that these are Antient Things, as 1 Chron. 4.22. How much more the Divine De­cree, which is not the Work of Yesterday, [ [...]] of old ordained, Jude 4. If the Negative Part of Predestination, then much more the positive part: God's purpose of loving Jacob, as well as hating Esau; was before they had done either Good or Evil.

Reason 1. The Divine Decree hath an Un­changeable Fountain, to wit, the Unchangeable­ness [Page 13] of God, Job 23.13. He is in one mind, and who can turn him? [ [...]. Vehi beachad] Et ipse in uno. He desires and he doth it, there is no Created Being can interpose 'twixt the Desire and the Doing, to hinder their Meeting together; Numb. 23.19. God is not a Man that he should lye, or the Son of Man that he should repent: Mal. 3.6. I am God, I change not. Jam. 1.17. No shadow of changing in him. The Counsel of the Lord shall stand, and the Thought of his Heart to a Thou­sand Generations. Psal. 33.11. Many Devices are in the Hearts of Men, but the Counsel of the Lord shall stand. Prov. 19.21. Man is a poor change­able Creature, and changes his Mind oftner than his Garment, both from the Darkness of his Un­derstanding and Perversness of his Will; he sees something that he saw not before; but there is no such Imperfection in God, All things are maked before him, [ [...]] dissected, or with their Faces upward, Heb. 4.13. He knows (quasi uno intuitu) all his Works (their Na­tures and Circumstances) as perfectly in the Be­ginning of the World, as he will do at the End of it; and he abides still in one Mind when his Dispensations are changed, for he decreed the Change of them from all Eternity.

Reason 2. It stands upon an Unchangeable Foundation, to wit, that Rock of Ages, Jesus Christ, the same Yesterday, to Day, and for Ever, Heb. 13.8. As the first Adam was the Founda­tion stone in the Decree of Creation; so the Se­cond Adam was the Foundation stone in the De­cree of Election: God hath blessed us in him, [Page 14] Eph. 1.3. [and we shall be blessed] he hath chosen us in him, v. 4. pardon'd us in him, v. 7. feal'd us in him, v. 13. built us in up him, Col. 2.7. and compleated us in him, v. 10. according to his Purpose and Grace which was given us IN Christ Jesus before the World began; 2 Tim. 1.9. All those Acts of Grace are said to be [In] Christ, and Christ himself was under Divine Ordination, 1 Pet. 1.20. and is called the Elect Stone, 1 Pet. 2.4. Christ is the first Person Elected, (Isa. 42.1. & Mat. 12.18. Behold my Servant whom I have chosen) as Adam was the first Person created, Christ was chosen as the Head, and we as his Members; therefore are we said to be gi­ven to Christ: John 17.2. Now so long as this Foundation standeth sure, so long doth the Super­structure remain unchangeable; the Temple stood firmly upon those Two Pillars [Jachin and Boaz, i. e. Stability and Strength] so the De­cree of Election standeth sure upon Christ the Foundation, and none can pluck an Elect Soul from off this Foundation; None can pluck any of [His] out of his Hands, John 10.28. Christ will lose none that are given to him, John 6.39.

Reason 3. 'Tis Unchangeable, because it is a Decree written in Heaven; and so above the Reach of either Angry Men, or Enraged De­vils to cancel: God knoweth who are his, 2 Tim. 2.19. the Assembly of the First-born written in Heaven, Heb. 12.23. Thence is it called the Lamb's Book of Life, which contains a Catalogue of the Elect, determined by the Unalterable Counsel of God, which Number hath a fulfilling [Page 15] Time, Rev. 6.11. and can neither be increased nor diminished. This is to be rejoiced in above Dominion over Devils, Luke 10.20. which (if our Names may be written in Heaven to Day, and blotted out to Morrow) would be no such Ground of Joy: If the Decrees of the Medes and Persians (which were but Writings on Earth) were unalterable, Dan. 6.8. how much more the Decrees of the great God written in Heaven must be Unchangeable? Must Pilate say, Quod scripsi, scripsi; that is, my Writing shall not be altered; and shall not God say so much more? I know (saith Solomon) that what God doth, it shall be for ever; Eccles. 3.14. Nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it, his Coun­sel shall stand, Prov. 19.21. and the Sun may sooner be stop'd in his Course, than God hin­dered of his Work or in his Will: Nature, An­gels, Devils, Men, may all be resisted, and so miss of their Design; not so God, for who hath resisted his Will? All those Chariots of Humane Occurrences and Dispensations, come forth from between those Mountains of Brass, the Unalte­rable Decrees of God, Zech. 6.1. And should it be granted, that one Soul may be blotted out of this Book of Life (this Writing in Heaven) then is it possible that all may be so, and by con­sequence it may be supposed, that that Book may become Empty and Useless as waste Paper, and that Christ may be an Head without a Body.

Reason 4. 'Tis Unchangeable, for the Decree concerning the End includes the Means to that End, and binds them all together with an Irre­fragable [Page 16] Chain which can never be broken, Rom. 8.30. Therefore the Purpose of God concerning Election must stand, Rom. 9.11. God doth not decree the End without the Means, nor the Means without the End; but both together. As a Purpose for Building includes the Hewing of Stone, and Squaring of Timber, and all other Materials for Building­work: And as a Decree for War im­plies Arms, Horses, Ammunition, and all War­like Provisions: So here, all that are Elected to Salvation, are Elected to Sanctification too; God ordains to the Means, as well as to the End. A [...]ts 13.48. As many as were ordained un­to Life believed: God hath before ordained that we should walk in Good Works, Eph. 2.10. We are Elected unto Obedience, through the San­ctification of the Spirit; 1 Pet. 1.2,4. and un­to Faith, Tit. 1.1. and God hath appointed Theo­logical Vertue to be the Way to Glory, 2 Pet. 1.3. therefore God hath promised to sanctifie whom he hath purposed to save: We teach with Augustine, that Election is Preaeparatio et Gratiaeet Gloriae, 'tis an Ordaining to Grace as well as to Glory; and if Grace and Glory meet not both together [aut vinceretur aut falleretur Deus] ei­ther God must be conquered or deceived: In Predestination therefore, the Means of Salvation are no less absolutely decreed then Salvation it self: We may not conceive, that God's Decree runs after this Form, I will predestinate Peter to Salvation, if it should happen so, that he doth believe and persevere: But rather thus, I do predestinate Peter to Salvation, which that he may infallibly obtain, I will give him both Faith and Perseverance; [Page 17] otherwise God's Decree would not be [...], and the Foundation would not stand sure, 2 Tim. 2.19. yea, and God's Gifts would not be [...], without Repentance, Rom. 18.29. and Men would not be beloved according to the Election, v. 28. if God did not absolutely purpose to give those Means that are conditional in the Execution of the Decree (to wit, Faith and Perseverance) to his Elected Ones, and if he should not bestow on them a Power and a Will to perform those Conditions, hereupon the Co­venant of Grace runs in this Tenure, I will be a God to you, and ye shall be a People unto me; that is, I will make you so.

Reason 1. If the Divine Decree be Eternal, it must be Absolute, for nothing can be assigned before Eternal, to go before it as the Efficient Cause of it. There can be no Cause of Pre­destination assigned Quoad actum praedestinantis, for there cannot be a Cause of the Will of God Quoad actum volentis, because it is actus prime primus, it is an Immanent Act of the Divine Will, and so not only the Cause, but also the first Cause of all Created Beings; and therefore can­not (in any good Sense) be said to depend up­on fore-seen Transient Acts in the Creature, so by Consequence must be an Absolute Act, un­less we will make Volitiones Dei, &c. the Voli­tions of God to come behind the Created and Temporary Volitions of Man; which is grosly absurd: And if those Contingent Acts (of the Creatures believing and persevering) have a Futurition before God's Decree, it does not only deny God to be the first Cause of all Things, but it also quite disanuls the Eternity of God's Decree, which was proved to be Eternal in Chap. the 3d.

Reason 2. If God be God, if he be an Al­nighty, All­wise, All-free and an All-disposing God, then his Decree of Election must be Ab­solute; for a conditional Decree makes a condi­tional God, and plainly ungods him, y ascribing such Imperfections to him as are unworthy of his Majesty, and below his Divine Being. As,

It opposes 1st. his Omnipoten­cy. First, It opposes his Omnipo­tency: If some Conditions be Antecedaneous to the Will of God, then the same are Ante­cedent also to the Power of God. This must be true, for his Power (as determi­ned by his Will) is the Cause of all things; then it was not in God's Power to save more than are to be saved, or to damn sewer than are to be damned; if the Decree of God be praedetermi­ned by contingent Acts in Men. If the Actings of Divine Omnipotency depend upon the con­tingent Actings in the Creature, then God must say, I will elect all if they will believe; then must God think, they can believe without him, and so he is not Omnipotent. Is it not safer to say, that God will give us this Faith, that brings us from the Conditional to the Absolute Decree? Besides, the former Hypothesis puts a Lye upon Christ (who was Truth it self) both in saying, that he could of very Stones raise up Children unto Abraham, and that he could send for Legions of Angels to deliver him from his Enemies.

2dly. It opposes his Wisdom. Secondly, It takes away the Glory of Divine Wisdom, in or­dering all Occurrences of things, [Page 20] for if Peter must be willing to believe before God's Decree concerning Peter, then Divine Wis­dom doth not (at all) determine about the Or­der of things, but Order is abs (que) primo ordi­nante, and that which happens to Day might have happened Yesterday: And the Master of the Asse might not have sent his Asse to Christ upon that same Day, when that Prophecy of Christ's riding on an Asse to Jerusalem (Zech. 9.9.) was to be fulfilled: Yea, and Man might have fall'n before the Angels, and many such Oc­currences might have happen'd otherwise in the World, whatever the Wisdom of God hath de­termin'd to the contrary.

3dly. It oppo­ses his Freedom. Thirdly, It takes away the Glory of God's Absolute Liberty, of his Arbitariness and Inde­pendency: For if Peter's Believ­ing and Judas's not Believing, must be antece­dent to the Decree of God concerning them, then God hath not an Absolute Dominion over his own Creatures; but Peter and Judas make themselves the formal Object of Election and Non-Election, and the Rotter hath not an Arbi­trary Freedom, to make this Lump of Clay a Vessel of Honour, and that a Vessel of Dishonour according to his Pleasure; but this Difference arises more from the Quality of the Clay, then from the Will of the Potter; and God's Will (herein) must have Dependency on the Will of Man for its Determinations, which plainly overthrows the Independency of God.

[Page 21] 4ly. It opposes his Providence. Fourthly, It takes away the Glory of his All-disposing Pro­vidence: If his Decree be not Absolute, how can God (other­wise) be said wholly to dispose of Lots, Prov. 16.38. that are cast into the Lap? Shall we say, that the Lot of the Apostleship fell to Mat­thias by chance, and that it was not absolutely ordained and ordered by the Lord, Acts 1.26. to whom the Apostles prayed, v. 24. and not to Dame Fortune? Thus the Lord found out Acban to be Israel's Curse, and Saul to be Israel's King, by his whole Disposing of Lots in the Lap: Thus God is said to deliver the Man into the Hands of the Hewer of Wood, to be slain by the Head flying from the Helve upon his Head, Deut. 19.5. with Exod. 21.13. Homo proponit & Deus disponit, Man purposeth but God disposeth; be­cause God by an Absolute Decree hath fore-or­dained all things that do come to pass: They do not fall out casually, and beyond God's In­tention; thus it is said, It behooved Christ to suffer, Luke 24.44,46. and to those things we are ap­pointed, 1 Thes. 3.3. and Goddess Fortune cannot make void the Counsel of God, Isa. 14.27. & 46.10,11.

Reason 3. If the Will of the Potter be an Absolute Will over his Pots, then much more, is the Will of God an Absolute Will over Man­kind. It is God's own Comparison, Rom. 9.20. God doth not compare himself in his Di­vine Decree to a Goldsmith. For, 1. A Gold­smith hath costly Materials, such as Silver and Gold, which lays some Obligations upon him to [Page 22] make Honourable Vessels. 2. The Goldsmith makes curious Vessels oft-times for the Pride and Luxury of Men, yea, sometimes such as are re­dundant and superfluous; and Mens adoring the Gods of Silver and of Gold in those Honoured Vessels, doth truly change them into Vessels of Dishonour; but God is compared (by himself) to a Potter, for, 1. The Materials of a Potter are Vile and Sordid, to wit, Clay. So more an­swering fallen Mankind, out of which God ma­keth his choice: We are not only Clay, Job 4.19. but sinful Clay, thro' the Fall. 2. The very Vessels of Dishonour which the Potter makes, are for the Necessities and Conveniencies of the Houshold, 2 Tim. 2.20. the great Housholder must have Vessels of all sorts, some for Inferiour Uses, as well as others for Honourable Service. 3. The Potter doth not make this Difference among his Pots, from any foreseen inherent Goodness in his Clay (for the whole Lump before him is of an Equal Temper and Quality) but from the pleasure of his own Will: Thus the Potter's Power over his Materials is clearer from Excep­tion than that of the Goldsmith, so more illu­strates the Absoluteness of God's will in this choice both of Vessels of Honour and Vessels of Dishonour.

Reason 1. The First Argument to prove the Freeness of the Divine Decree is, Such a De­cree as passeth without any Obligation to Neces­sitate the passing of it, must needs have the Pro­perty of Freeness; but thus it was with the Di­vine Decree: Therefore, &c. If thore be any Obligation, it must be either in respect of Ob­jects, or of Acts, or of Motives; but God was not obliged in any of those Respects. There­fore, &c.

Reason 2. The Second Argument to prove the Freeness of the Divine Decree is, that which the Word of God affirms to be a Free Act, an Act of Grace and not of Debt, an Act of Love and Special Favour founded upon the meer good Pleasure of God, must be accordingly believed to be so by us, but the Word of God doth all this Ergo, Mat. 11.26. Even so, O Father, it pleased thee, Luke 12.32. It pleaseth your Father to give you the Kingdom. 2 Tim. 1.9. It was a Gracious Purpose in God from. all Eternity. Eph. 1.5,9,11. Paul's re­peated Epiphonema is, the Pleasure of his own Will, the Pleasure of his own Will, the Counsel of his own Will, but more fully in that Rom. 9.13,15. ex­emplifying [Page 28] this Truth in Jacob and Esau: Both the Prophet and the Apostle makes this Instance the fullest Exemplification of Free Election, Mal. 1.3. Rom. 9.11. They do not bring in for an Instance, that of Cain and Abol in the beginning of the Old World; or that of Shem and Ham in the beginning of the New World; but this of Jacob and Esau. For, (1.) These two were Fratres Utero (yet not Animo) at one and the same time, they laid together in the same Womb, and were born at the same time (for Jacob took hold of Esau's Heel) so the contrary Disposal of these two doth more illustrate the free Predestination of God, than of any other two whatsoever. (2.) In Jacob there began to be a distinguished People from all the World, even a Church unto God; as of Esau sprang also a persecuting Seed, yet before they had done either Good or Evil, Jacob was loved and Esau hated: God had no regard to Faith in the one, or Infidelity in the other, whereby they might be differenced the One from the Other; they were at that time (when God's Oracle pass'd upon them) already conceiv'd in Sin in their Mother's Womb, and if there were any Preheminence, Esau had it, as being the First­born. What then did cast the Ballance? No­thing else, but the good Pleasure of God: Thus the Apostle determines it (according to that Wisdom given to him, 2 Pet. 3.15.) God will have Mercy on whom be will have Mercy, and whom he will be hardeneth: Indeed Carnal Reason says, It was because God foresaw what they both would be. But if that had been the Cause, the Apostle (Divinely Inspired) would have an­swered [Page 29] this Objection, v. 16. (Is there then Un­righteousne's with God?) according to that Hypo­thesis, which would not have been [...] (as 2 Pet. 3.16.) but easie to be understood, and would not have resolved all (as he doth) into the Unsearchable Will of God: And as Jacob's Per­son was thus loved freely, so was his Posterity, not because they were ex xnmeliori luto; but God loved them because he loved them; Deut. 7.7,8. It was choosing Love that he bare to them, and that is the best of the Kind; that is the Fa­vour which God bears to his People: As a Man loves his Goods and his Servants with a common Love, but his Wife and Children with a Special Love; and though Malachy instances only the Defolation of Esau's Country as the Evidences of God's Hatred to Esau; yet the Apostle saw more in it than the spoiling of his Earthly In­heritance, for in that very Desolation (as an Outward Pledge) he reads God's Eternal Ha­tred towards him in the Decree of Reproba­tion.

Reason 3. The Third Argument to prove the Freeness of the Divine Decree is, If God in all Ages hath given us Examples of his free Re­ceiving or Rejecting some out of Mankind, then the Divine Decree must needs be free, but the Antecedent is true, Ergo, the Consequent. This Assumption is plain in Scripture History, for of Adam's three Sons, Cain, Abel, Seth; the [Eldest] was rejected: Of Noah's three, Japhet, Shem and Ham; the [Youngest] was rejected: It ap­pears that Ham was the Youngest, Gen. 9.24 [Page 30] and Japhet the Eldest, Gen. 10.21. but of Terah's three Sons, Abraham, Nahor and Haran, the [Middlemost] was rejected; for Nahor was an Idolater, and Laban sware by his Idol, Gen. 31.53. Not by the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, but by the other Gods which Nahor served, Josh. 24.2. Now why is this Picking and Choo­sing, this Receiving and Rejecting, Eldest at one time, Youngest at another time, the Middlemost at a Third Time; but to shew, that neither Birth, nor Age, nor any Thing (either fore­seen or existing in the Creature) can make any Claim, but all lies in the Free Election of God. We cannot give a Reason, why Pharaoh and Mebuchadnezzar (both being engag'd in the same Cause of Warring against Israel, the Church of God) had differing Dispensations of Heaven up­on them; forasmuch as the One was hardened, and the other was humbled under the Mighty Hand of God: Nor why Pharaoh's Baker was hang'd, and yet his Butler restored to his Of­fice again; Why two Men shall be in one Bed, the One taken, and the Other left: Why two Women shall be grinding at one Mill, the One taken, and the Other left: Why Aaron's Rod (of all the Twelve) only blossomed. These and many more Instances, do sufficiently demon­strate the Reason of all those Differences, is not any thing that can be found in the Creature; but 'tis only the Free Election of God.

Reason 4. The Fourth Argument is, If the Fruits of the Divine Decree be freely given, then the Decree it self must be a Free Decree; but the [Page 31] Antecedent is true, Ergo, the Consequent is true also: The Proposition is Evident, for if I give a Book or a Piece of Money freely, then I must needs purpose to give them freely. The As­sumption is as clear, For, 1. Our Vocation is from Free-Love, Christ called the Sons, and leaves the Father with the Hired Servants, Mar. 1.20. and Called to him whom he would, Mar. 3.13. It is [given] to you to know the Myste­ries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but it is not [given] to them, Mat. 13.11. 1 John 5.20. & Mat. 11.26. 2. Our Justification is from free grace, We are justified freely by his Grace. Rom. 3.24. (3.) So is our Sanctification, Of his own Will begot he us, Jam. 1.18. This Sanctifying Spirit breathes where it listeth, and the Wind at Sea is as much at our Command as the fresh gales of this Renewing Spirit. (4.) Our Glorifica­tion. Eternal Life is the Gift of God, Rom. 6.23. he doth not sell it for foreseen Faith or Works, but he freely gives it. Now if all those Fruits of Ele­ction be free, then Election it self to those Fruits, must needs be free also; If God call such as have no Money to buy withal, Isa. 55.1. and blds them drink of the Water of Life free­ly, Rev. 21.6. If Faith be the free Gift of God, Eph. 2.8. and it is [given] to us not only to be­lieve, but to suffer for his Name, Phil. 1.29. then Predestination to Faith, must of Necessity be free also; for God worketh [all things] according to the Counsel of his own Will, Eph. 1.11.

Reason 1. The First Argument is, The Nota­tion of the Word (Election) confutes the Uni­versality of it: There can be no choice made, where all are taken and nothing is left; that cannot in any good Sense be called Election, [Page 33] which is equally Extended unto all Individuals. He doth not elect, that doth not prefer some before others: God did not choose all the Thirty two Thousand Israelites (that were with Gideon) but only the Three Hundred that lapped, to save Israel by out of the Hands of Midian, Judg. 7.3,7. and God did not chuse all the Nations, but only Israel to be a special People to himself, above all People that were upon the Earth, Deut. 7.6. It must therefore be Discriminating, and a making of some to differ from others, He cannot be said to choose, that takes all.

Reason 2. The Second Argument. The Scripture speaks expresly that only few are chosen, Mat. 20.16. though many be called. It is only a little Flock, Luke 12.32. and but one of a Tribe and two of a Family, Jer. 3.14. Have not I (saith Christ) chosen you out of the World, John 15.19. and the Lord calls Paul a chosen Vessel unto him, Acts 9.15. & 22.14. as a special (not common) Favour vouchsased to him, and how ill it sounds in the Ears of a Gospel spirit to say, that Pharaoh and Judas were Elected, as well as Paul and Barnabas; and that Simon Ma­gus was elected as well as Simon Peter; all which a General Election (the Arminian Hypothesis) most Necessarily asserteth. How can those Re­probate Silver pieces be (in any good Sense) termed chosen Vessels (as Paul was) to know God's Will, and see the Just One.

Reason 3. The Third Argument. If Elections be general under a Condition of believing, than [Page 34] Pilate, Caiaphas and Judas were elected under that Condition, and so God is brought in to speak after this Manner; I have appointed to save Pilate, Caiaphas and Judas, if they will believe in the Death of Christ; but if they shall believe, Christ shall not be crucified, for those are the very Men appointed by my determinate Counsel to put Christ to Death, Acts 2.23. and 4.28. Before that was done (according to this Hypothesis) those Men might have believed, and so God's Decree about Christ's Death, should not have been absolute, but depending upon a Condition which those Men might have fulfilled, to wit, Believing in Christ's Death; which had they done, they had believed in something, that would not have been at all: Thus Carnal Reason bespatters Divine Wisdom.

Reason 4. The Fourth Argument. How can it be safely said, that God ever intended the Sal­vation of any others, but of those who are or shall be effectually saved? Otherwise God's Will would be frustrate, to wit, his Will of Inten­tion, and the Will of Man would anticipate the Will of God; contrary to these Scriptures, God doth in Heaven and on Earth whatsoever pleas­eth him, Psal. 115.3. and Job knew that God could do every thing that he willeth, Job 42.2. and no Man can resist the Will of God, Rom. 9.19.

Reason 5. The Fifth Argument. The Apostle (that was singularly taught of God) sheweth, that there is this Difference betwixt Man and [Page 35] Man founded in the Breast of God, that some are chosen to Life, and therefore shall most cer­tainly obtain it; others are refused, and left in a perishing Condition, which they shall as cer­tainly not escape, Rom. 11.7. The Election ob­taineth it, but the rest are blinded: The Diffe­rence is of God, according to the purpose of Election, not as of him that foresees Faith or Works, but as of him that gives both: Thus were Jacob and Esau discriminated the One from the Other, Rom. 9.11.

Argument 1. OPera Trinitatis ad extrasunt oequa­lia: God (the Father's) Election; God (the Son's) Redemption; and God (the Holy Ghost's) Sanctification; must be all of equal Extent and Latitude: But Univer­sal Redemption in the Arminian Sense makes these unequal; therefore, &c. The Proposition is clear, for the Father, Word and Spirit are one, as in Essence, so in Willing, Working and Witnessing the Redemption of Sinners: Upon Earth Blood is not alone, nor Witnesses alone, but where Water and Spirit are also: So in Heaven the Word witnesses not alone, but the Father and Holy Ghost also, these three agree in one, 1 John 5.6,7,8. Whom the Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Holy Ghost sanctifies: If then there be an Universal Redemp­tion, then there must be an Universal Election, and an Universal Sanctification, and so (by con­sequence) an Universal Salvation too. That the Son redeems no more than the Father elects, is evident from two Scriptures, the first is John 5.23. the Son must be honoured as the Father, [Page 68] but to say [that the Son redeemed all, and the Father elected but few] is to give greater Ho­nour to the Second Person than to the first, and to make an Inequality in their Operations; the Second Scripture is John 17.9,10. All thine are mine, and all mine are thine, &c. They were the Father's by Election, before they be the Son's by Redemption; Thine they were, and thou gavest them me, v. 6, 8. Christ redeems only those whom God gave him to redeem. Hence God's Book of Life (wherein the Number of the Elect is recorded) is call'd also the Lamb's Book of Life, to intimate that the Number of those Elected by the Father, is commensurate with those redeemed by the Son. And that Christ redeems no more but whom the Spirit sanctifies, appears likewise from 1 John 5.6,7. there must be Water to san­ctifie, where there is Blood to redeem: Christ's Oblation is not of a larger Extent than the Spi­rit's Operation. Thus it is made apparent, that all the Three Persons in the Trinity have all one Object and Design of Love; the Son's design for Redemption hath not a greater Latitude then the Father's for Election, and the Spirit's for Sanctification; all equal in Essence, Honour and Operation.

Argument 2. The Benefits of Christ's Death and Resurrection are of equal Extent in their Objects, but the Benefit of Christ's Resurrection is not ex­tended to all; Ergo: Nor the Benefit of his Death. The Assumption [to wit, that the Benefit of Christ's Resurrection is not extended to all and every one alike, but is peculiar to Believers] is acknow­ledg'd by the Arminians. The Proposition there­fore [Page 69] is only to be proved. That the Benefits of both the Death and Resurrection of Christ are of equal Extent in their Objects, is evident from Rom. 8.34. if we partake of Christ's Death, we must of his Resurrection too, Rom. 6 5. they are both put together, and a [rather] added to the latter, Who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect (for whom Christ died?) Who can condemn those for whom Christ was rais'd? There is an equal Extent both of the one and of the other. Those whom Christ died and rose again for, cannot be condemned; but this cannot be said of all, for the Wrath of God [ [...]] abides on many, John 3 last, and from Rom. 4. last; He dyed for our sins, and was raised again for our ju­stification. They are both so joyn'd together, that they cannot be severed either in Act, Ob­ject, or Effecr; for no Man is made Partaker of the Death of Christ but by his Resurrection, 2 Cor. 5.14. 1 Cor. 15.17. Those that have the Fruit of the Battel, in this have the fruit of the Victory, too which cannot be all; for the Wrath of God abides on some, which the Death of Christ never took away from them. Christ did not dye for some Men, for whom he did not overcome Death.

Argument 3. The Benefits of Christ's Death and Intercession are of equal Extent in their Objects; but the Benefit of Christ's Intercession is not to all; Ergo. The Assumption is express Scripture, John 17.9. his Intercession is only for those that the Father hath given him, not for the World; and Reason confirms it, for if Christ interceded for Judas, Pilate, &c. then had he a Repulse, and was not always heard [Page 70] of the Father, contrary to John 11.42. The Proposition is true, for Christ is an High Priest, and the two parts of his Sacerdotal Office (to wit, Oblation and Presentation) cannot be separated one from another, and they have a part in the Latter, that have a part in the For­mer; for Presentation doth necessarily imply the Oblation, and gives a perpetual Force and Vigor to it in the sight of God, Heb. 9.12. It is not enough to prepare the Price of Redemp­tion, but it must be presented also to the Fa­ther, Heb. 9.24. Yea, Disput. Publ. 14. Thes. 14. Ar­minius (himself) grants, that Pre­sentation is a part of the Obla­tion; Christ must be an Inter­cessor for those to whom he is a Reconciler, and his Intercession in Heaven is not a Vocal Praying, but a personal Presenting of himself and his five Wounds to the Father, in the behalf of those whom he personated on the Cross; as the High Priest of Israel in slaying the Sa­crifice, put not the Sins of the Gentiles upon the Head of the Beast, but the Sins of Israel only; and in his going into the Sanctum Sancto­rum, he did not represent the Gentiles to God, but the Twelve Tribes of Israel written upon his Breast-plate. Thus Christ is only a Priest to satisfie (both in his Oblation and Presentation) for [...] only to whom he is a Prophet to teach, and a King to rule; otherwise we shall make an Inequality in [his] Offices, as well as in the Per­sons of the Trinity: We cannot say, there be some Men for whom Christ offered himself up­on Earth, but doth not offer himself for them [Page 71] in Heaven; this is to make Christ but an half Priest to some, and so is not a faithful High-Priest, contrary to sundry Scriptures, Isa. 53. 11,12. 1 John 2.1,2. Heb. 9.11,12. & 10.19,20,21.

Argument 4. Those for whom Christ dyed, have Christ for their Surety; but all have not Christ for a Surety; Ergo. He dyed not for all. The Proposition is evident; for every Sinner must dye for eating forbidden fruit, either in himself, or in his Sponsor and Surety, the Wages of Sin is Death: Herein consists the Suretiship of Christ, that he dyeth for us, 2 Sam. 18.33. Rom. 5.7. & 9.3 the very Phrase of dying for one, de­monstrates it. The Word [ [...]] Thacath, vice, loco, in the place and stead. So the Septuagint, Syriack Version, and Chaldee Paraphrase, reads Da­vid's Desire, I would I had dyed in thy stead, and thou remain'd alive; otherwise Christ's Death had not been a counter Ransom [ [...]] Mark 1 [...] 45. Mat. 20.28. which the Syriack reads [...], vice multorium: Thus Christ is made a Curse for us, i. e. in our stead. The [ [...] & [...]] in the Greek Testament are frequently used in this Sense: Thus Judah was Surety for Benjamin's Sasety, Gen. 44.32. and Christ is the [ [...]] Surety of the New Covenant, Heb. 7.22. taking upon him our Sins in his Death, Isa. 53.5,6,7. 1 Pet. 2.24. and was made Sin for us, 2 Cor. 5.21. which intimates a Commutation of Per­sons, the one being accepted in the room of ano­ther: The Assumption is as plain, for were he a Surety for all, then had he satisfied for all, in becoming Sin, and bearing the Curse and Wrath [Page 72] of God in their stead. This is not done for all: For, 1. God will require of some the utmost Far­thing, Mat. 5.26. unless his Satisfaction was re­jected as insufficient. 2. Many were in Hell at that time (when Christ dyed) actually tormented. 3. Christ knows not Workers of Iniquity, Mat. 7.23. so as he knows his Sheep, to lay down his Life for them, John 10.11,14,15. the latter is the Evidence of the former. 4. Christ could not intend to waste the Blood of his Covenant (whereof he was the Surety) upon Cain and Pharaoh (damned long before his Death) in di­rect Opposition to the Eternal Decree of his own Deity: There cannot be a Surrogation of Christ's Person in the room of the damned.

Argument 5. If the Covenant of Grace be not to all, then Christ dyed not for all; but the Anrecedent is true; therefore, &c. the Conse­quence is prov'd thus, Christ's Blood is called the Blood of the Covenant, Heb. 9.20. with 8.13. and Exod. 24.8. and the Blood of the New Testament, Mat. 26.28. the Covenant and the Seal of the Covenant have a necessary Con­nexion together, and Mens Covenants are Insig­nificant without a Seal: Moreover, where a Te­stament is, there must also be the Death of the Testator; otherwise 'tis of no force while the Testator liveth, Heb. 9.16,17. The New Testa­ment and New Covenant are undoubted Syno­nima's, and are in Scripture of the same sense and signification: The Assumption (to wit, the Covenant of Grace is not to all) is true, some are without the Covenant, Eph. 2.12. Ex­tra Ecclesiam nulla salus, and Salvation is of the [Page 73] Jews, John 4 22. for 'tis made with the House of Israel only, Jer. 31.31,32. 'tis only with those in whom the Condition (not only required, as in that of Works, but absolutely promis'd) is effectually wrought, to wit, a putting his fear in their Hearts, and writing his Law in their Minds, which the Election only obtains: And if we en­quire after the first giving of this Covenant in Paradice, Gen. 3.15. None dare say, that God enter'd into a Covenant of Grace with the Seed of the Serpent, but only with those whose Heel the Serpent hurteth; and it would seem a Mock­ing of Mankind to make a Covenant with all, and not to make it known to the greatest part of them; the word of Reconciliation is not preach'd to all, Psal. 147.19,20. Acts 14.16. & 16.6. None can be Partaker of the Covenant without Faith, and Faith comes by Hearing, which the greatest part of the World have not, Rom. 10.14,17.

Argument 6. If Christ died for his Sheep, for his Friends, and for his Church only, then he dyed not for all; but the Antecedent is true, there­fore the Consequent is true also: The Assump­tion is plain in several Scriptures, John 10.11,15. & 15.13 Acts 20.28. Eth. 5.25. Tit. 2.14. such as were Paul and Titus, not such as were Pharaoh and Judas who were Goats and not Sheep, Mat. 25.33. Psal. 33.12. & 144.15. Hosea 2.23. Mat. 1.21. [his People from their sins] John 11.51,52. for the Children of God, called Psal. 107.2. The redeemed of the Lord. Now seeing those (for whom Christ dyed) are such as Hear his Voice and follow him, to whom He [Page 74] gives Eternal Life, John 10.27,28 Such as He sanctifies and cleanses, and presents them to himself without spot or wrinkle, Eph. 5.23. Such as are Redeemed from all Iniquity to purifie them to him­self a peculiar People, Titus 2.14. such as are his People, his Chosen, his Children, &c. It cannot be intended for all, unless we will say, either that Pharaoh, Judas, &c. were of the Sheep, Friends, and Church of Christ, or that Christ miss'd of his End intended in his Death; Re­demption and Remission of Sins are the Inhe­ritance of the Saints, and of such as are made Heirs of the Kingdom of Christ, Col. 1.12,13,14. 'Tis true, he dyed for Enemies, Rom. 5.10. but it was to reconcile them to God; such as Paul (who had been an Enemy to Christ) and the Believing Romans, which Christ (before that) had called Sheep, John 10.16. (though then not actually converted) because in his Eter­nal Decree he purposed to give them Faith, by which they might be gathered to his Fold; so that condition (to come) was already present in the Eternal Purpose, for the Father had given them to Christ from all Eternity; but Pharoah, Judas, &c. can in, no such sense be called the Saints of Christ, or Friends of God, as Abraham and the Disciples were.

Argument 7. Quibus intenditur mors Christi, ijs applicatur, Those for whom Christ's Death was intended to them it must be applied; but it is not applied to all, therefore it is not intended for all: The Proposition is thus proved, If the Application of Christ's Death be according to the Intention of God, concerning the Latitude and Extent of it, [Page 75] then it is applied to all for whom it is intended; but the Antecedent is true, Ergo, &c. The Truth of the Antecedent appears thus, That which is according to the Will and Purpose of God, is according to his Intention, but the Application of the Death of Christ, is according to the Will and Purpose of God concerning the latitude of it, Ergo. The Application of Christ's Death is according to God's Intention as to the Lati­tude of it. The Assumption is proved, if the Efficacy of the Means of Grace be according to the Will and Purpose of God concerning the Latitude of it, then is also the Application of the Death of Christ, &c. but the former is true; for the good Pleasure and Purpose of God is the Cause ruling and measuring this Efficacy, so this Efficacy must be according to God's good Pleasure and Purpose in the Extent of it, Mat. 11.26. Rom. 9.15,18. Eph. 1.5,11. proves it sufficiently, Ergo, the latter must be granted as true also.

Argument 8. If Christ dyed for all, then must all be actually reconciled to God; but all are not so, Ergo, &c. The Proposition is proved, no­thing but sin hinders Reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5.19. Rom. 5.19. & 11.15. Christ's Death me­rits Reconciliation with God as it is [ [...]] a Ransom and [ [...]] a Propitiation, so that all for whom Christ died must be recon­ciled to God, for Positâ causâ, ponitur et Effectus, the Death of Christ is the Cause, and Reconci­liation (the Effect) must follow it. The As­sumption is Evident, for then (if all be recon­ciled) all must be saved, Remissa culpâ, remitti­tur [Page 76] et poena, and nothing can be laid to the charge of any; take away the Sin, and you acquit the Sinner; and to grant such an Acquittance and Reconciliation to all, brings in many Absurdities; Paul rejoyc'd in his Reconciliation by Christ, Rom. 5.11. which he would not have done, had it been a common Benefit to Herod and Pilate, as well as to himself: For upon this Hypothesis it follows, 1. That Cain, Pharaoh, &c. were re­conciled to God by Christ's Death, when they were (at the time of Christ's dying) in the Torments of Hell, and never to be delivered from them. 2. That God damns reconciled Persons. 3. That God takes double Pay for one Fault, in punishing both the Surety and the Debtor, whereas Nemo bis tenetur pro uno delicto. 4. That Christ's reconciling of some is ineffectual, &c. But those whom Christ dyes for, he gives to them Repentance and Remission of Sins, Acts 5.31. Freedom from the slavery of Sin, and Re­generation to Newness of Life, Rom. 6.5,6. 2 Cor. 5.15. Heb. 2.14,15. Jer. 31.33,34. Purifying Grace, Acts 15.9. Heb. 9.13,14. and Eternal Life, John 10.15,28. those Fruits evi­dence our Reconciling by Christ's Death.

Argument 9. Those whom Christ dyed for, have the greatest Love of Christ; but all have not the greatest Love of Christ, Ergo, &c. The Propo­sition is clear from John 15.13. and 1 John 3.16. Friends cannot be more loved, than by dy­ing for them: Herein is the Love of Redemp­tion advanced above the Love of Creation; in the latter, God gave the Creature to Man; but in the former, Himself; than which no greater [Page 77] Love can be shown. The Assumption is clear also, for Pilate, Judas, yea, Cain and Pharaoh, (then in Hell) could not have the greatest Love of Christ in his Death, seeing the chief Evi­dence hereof is, to give Men Grace here, and Glory hereafter; Praying for them, and Together with himself freely gives us all things, Rom. 8.32. all spiritual Blessings, Eph. 1.3. Love (especially, greatest Love) is a willing to one the greatest Good, which cannot be a common Kindness, but special and peculiar Favour, Psal. 106.4. and 119.132. If Christ willed the greatest Good to Esau, how can it be said, Esau have I hated? yet under this greatest Love of Christ dying for him, according to this Hypothesis.

Argument 10. If Christ dyed for all Mankind and obtained Reconciliation for them, then all Infants are reconciled, their Sin is forgiven them, and so by Consequence are saved dying in their Infancy; but this cannot be affirmed of all In­fants, Ergo, &c. The Assumption is proved, It is the Judgment of the Catholick Church, that the Infants of Pagans (God's Secrets being still reserved to himself) are destitute of Superna­tural and Saving Grace, and they are not only born Children of Wrath, Eph. 2.3. but are alto­gether Strangers to the Covenant of Grace, and upon this account are esteemed unclean, 1 Cor. 7.14. so dying are bound under the damnable guilt of Original Sin. This is acknowledged by the Romanists (themselves) say­ing,Bannez. in 1. Quest. 23. Parvulos Paganorum filios ni­hil auxilij supernaturalis recepisse in seipsis; but if all were reconciled [Page 78] by Christ's Death, then none of them could be born Children of Wrath, and subject to the Curse, and it would be a Priviledge to them to be kill'd in their Cradles, rather than to be kept alive, and brought up in Paganism, whereby they must undoubtedly perish to all Eternity: Besides, if all be reconciled, then none can be born [with­out the Covenant] contrary to Eph. 2.3,12.

Argument 11. That cannot be a Truth which the Scripture of Truth no where affirms; but it no where asserts, that Christ dyed for all Men, much less for all and every Man individually, (between which two there is a vast difference) therefore it is not a Truth. To explain the As­sumption: It is true, Christ is said to give his Life a Ransom for all; but not for all Men, or for every Man individually: The Scripture is the best Expounder of it self, and that [All] is interpreted to be [Many] Mat. 20.28. and 26.28. Mark 10.45. and it is so frequently re­strained to his Sheep, Friends, Church, Believ­ers, Chosen; and such as are given to Christ, that it must be meant [some of all sorts] which in equivalent Terms is express'd clearly Rev. 5.9,10. Thou hast redeemed us out of every Kindred, and Tongue, and People, and Nation: And I can­not see how the Arminians can have any part in that New Song there mentioned, which say they are no more beholden to Christ for their Re­demption than Cain and Judas was. The Word [All] therefore, must be taken for all the Elect, all his Church, all his Children that the Father hath given him, &c. not all Men universally, and every Man individually: Those places [1 Tim. 2.4,6. [Page 79] Tit. 2.11,14. plainly shew, that it is some of all sorts, Princes and Peasants, Kings and Ser­vants, and of such only as he brings to the know­ledge of the Truth (whereby the Universality of the Expression is plainly restrained in the Con­nexion of that Clause) for God gives not, nor (so much as) offers the Knowledge of Truth to all.

Argument 12. That which opposes the At­tributes of God, ought not to be received; but the Universal Point doth so, Ergo, &c. The Assumption appears, as, 1. His Justice: Nume­rari pretium & captivum non redimi adversatur Ju­stitiae: If Christ paid the Price for Pharaoh and Judas, &c. then reconciled Souls are unjustly damned, ut supra. This Hypothesis sets the Death of Christ in a direct Opposition to God's Ju­stice, and how could Christ dye for Judas's Sin, when Christ's Death was his very Sin; as if Christ should say, Father, receive into thy Favour those whom I know thou wilt never do so (being before of old ordained to destruction, Jude 4.) This is to make Religion a Laughing­stock. 2. His Wisdom: As if God should love and hate the same Person at the same Time; Esau must be loved, in giving Christ to dye for him, yet hated, as being ordain'd to Death from all Eternity; and what is this but Childrens play, in giving Judas a Ransom with one Hand, and sending him to his place for his (satisfied­for, and remitted) Sin, with the other Hand? 3. His Power: If Christ died intentionally (as to God) for all, then God's Intentions are fru­strate, (seeing all are not saved) and then he [Page 80] is not Omnipotent, if cross'd in his Designs by the Work of his own Hands; and to say, that Freedom was obtain'd by Christ's Death for one, but not that he should be freed, is ridicu­lous.

Argument 1. To prove that there is no Free­will to Good in the fallen Estate, is taken from the Fall it self: If Man in the Fall lost his Free-will to Good, then it cannot be found in the fallen Estate, but the Antecedent is true, Ergo, &c. to prove the Antecedent, were it not so, it could not properly be called a Fall; it [Page 93] implies a Loss of that Original Righteousness and Perfection wherein he was created: And if the Fall did deprave the other Faculties of the Soul, and deprive them of their Primitive Lustre, then must the Will be a Sharer also in that Depra­vation: Now the Depravation of the Will (it self) by the Fall doth further appear, by the Good it hath lost, and by the Evil it hath got, thro' Adam's Sin. The Good it hath lost, is sixtold: Power, Order, Stability, Prudence, Obedience, Liberty. The Evil it hath got, is threefold (in Opposition to the Obedience it lost) a threefold Rebellion, 1. Against the Counsel of the Mind. 2. Against the Controuls of, Conscience. 3. Against the Commands of God: Besides all the other Vices wherein Original Sin consisteth. This King of the Isle of Man, when he came first out of God's Mint, was a curious Silver-piece, and shone most gloriously (being cloathed with Excellent Jewels and Pro­perties) but now being fallen among Thieves, is robb'd of all, hath Ashes for Beauty, &c. and is a Tyrant upon a Dung-hill, yea, is free from Righteousness, and a very Slave to Sin, Rom. 6.17,18,20. before the Fall, the Will had Liberty both [Contrarietatis & Contradicti­onis] to Good or Evil; to do or not to do: But since the Fall, the Will is evil, only evil, and continually evil, Gen. 6. 5. the whole Heart is evil Extensively, only evil Intensively, and cor­tinually evil Protensively.

Argument 2. If Conversion be a New Crea­tion, then fallen Man hath not a Free-will to Good, [Page 94] but the Antecedent is true, Ergo, &c. that the Antecedent is true, appears; a Convert is call'd [...], Gal. 6.15. 2 Cor 5.17. a New Creature, or a New Creation: Now Creatio est ex Nihilo, Creation is a Production of something out of nothing, but if there be a Free-will to Good in Man before Conversion, then there is something (that is of its own Nature spiritually good) in Man unconverted towards the Work of Con­version, so can it not be called a New Crea­tion: Sure I am, every Experienced Soul finds the contrary in that Work: The whole Frame is out of Frame in the Unconverted Estate, and Man is (Tohu va pohu) a confused Chaos, and a vast Emptiness, when this Creating Power comes upon him: Yea, a greater Power is required to re-create this little World, than was first to create the greater; for in this though there be no pre-existing (yet there is resisting) Matter: The Creation of the great World was the Work of God's Word, Psal. 33.6. of his Fingers, Psal. 8.3. or of his Hands, Psal. 102.25. but to restore (the little World) MAN requires God's Arm, Luke 1.51. Nay, Christ set his sides to it (in his sweating Drops or Clods of Blood, Grumos sanguinis) Luke 22.44. It cost Christ both Tears and Blood, and Blood often, at his Circumcision, in his Agony, and at his Passion: This is Creatio continuans (as the first was Creatio transiens) The Father worketh hitherto, and I work) John 5.17. New Qualities and Ope­rations are created in us (though the Substance and Faculties of the Soul remain) both the Will to will well, and the Power to do well, [Page 95] are ascribed to this Creating Almighty Power, Phil. 2.13.

Argument 3. If Conversion be a New beget­ting or Generation, then fallen Man hath no Free­will to Good, but the Antecedent is true, Ergo, &c. To give Light and Proof to this Argument, we must know, that Generatio est motus ad Es­sentiam et processus in esse, Generation is the Motion to a Being, and a proceeding into a Being; this pre­supposes, that there is no Being before, for we are not, we are nothing, before we be begotten; as it holds true in Generation, so likewise in Regenera­tion; Of his own Will begat he us, Jam. 1.18. 'Tis not said that God begat us of our Wills (yet this should be said were there in us a Free-will to Good) but of God's Will, and 'till then we are not, 1 Cor. 1.28. Unconverted Men are things that are not, Nothing-Creatures. Fall'n Man is, 1. A Natural-Nothing: We are all [Nihili Ne­potes] as Austin faith; what is the great Womb whence all things come, but Nothing? 2. A Moral Nothing, [Abel] Vanity and Nothing is writ upon us by Sin Naturally, but we are Morally worse than Nothing; that is [Enosh] miserable: As Nothing at the first was the Mother of all things, so Sin is now the Mother of Nothing: Man is Vanity (or as in the He­brew, Adam is Abel) Psal. 39.5. and a Lye, Psal. 62.9. and but (as it were) Something, as in Rev. 9.7,8. not in respect of his Substance and Faculties, but in respect of the Purity of them; The Heart of the Wicked is little Worth, Prov. 10.20. 1. Usu, for Use and Service; as a [Page 96] Shadow is not useful for War, nor a Statue for Prayer, so nor fallen Man for the Service of God: Quod nulli usui prodest, nihil est, saith the Philosopher; his best Actions are Sin. 2. Ef­fectu, Vanum est, quod frustrà est, Sinners toil for Va­nity, Hab. 2.13. they dream of catching Golden Fishes, as the Man in Theocritus did; Sin dis­appoints us of our End, to wit, Happiness; Man labours for the Wind, Eccles. 5.16. and is but in a Dream, Isa. 29.7,8. this shews we are no­thing, and have not Free-will to Good, till be­gotten of God.

Argument 4. If Conversion be a New-birth, than fallen Man hath not a Free-will to Good; but the Antecedent is true, Ergo, &c. The Truth of this appears, for Non a nobis orimur, we cannot have our Birth of our selves, a Babe cannot be born of it self, Quicquid paritur (saith Philosophy) non a se, sed ab alio oritur, Nothing can have its Original from its self, Nihil ampli­us potest esse et causa, et effectum, ità seipso esset prius, et posterius, It would then be before and after it self, Simul sit et non sit, it would be and not be at the same time. Thus we are taught to look up (above, our selves) for our New Birth, John 3.3. Except a Man be born again [ [...]] or from above; we are born, Not of the Flesh, but of the Spirit; v. 6. Our First Birth is of the Earth, Earthy; our Second Birth is from the Lord, Heavenly; 1 John 3. 9. Born of God: We may give Semen Carnis et San­guinis to the first Birth, but not Semen Spiritus to the Second: There be Children potentially [Page 97] in the Loins of many Men that never beget Children; yet in this there is a Disparity, for though as Men we be possible Members of Christ, yet are we not actual, nor ever shall be, unless begotten and born of God wholly.

Argument 5. If Conversion be a quickening one that is dead in Sin, then fallen Man hath no Free-will to Good; but the former is true, Ergo, the latter. This is prov'd from Eph. 2.1. You hath he quickened, who were dead, &c. he doth not say, half dead, as the Man was that fell among Thieves, Luke 10.30. but he means, stark dead, as to Spiritual Life: There is no manner of good thing in us, Rom. 7.18. And we are not suf­ficient of our selves to think a good thought, 2 Cor. 3.5. till Christ (who is Life and a Quickning Spirit) come to quicken us; Without him we can do nothing, John 15.5. he doth not say, many things or few things, but nothing; From him is our Fruit found, Hos. 14.8. both the Bud of good Desires, the Blossom of good Purposes, and the Fruit of good Actions. Aaron's Rod (a dry stick without a Root) is a fit Emblem; it budded, blossom'd and brought forth Almonds; this was not done by any Inward Principle or Power of Nature, but it was solely and wholly the Work of God: So Ezekiel's dry Bones were made to live; nothing of that Life was from themselves, but all from God. Thus it is in this Spiritual Vivification, we cannot contribute any thing (no not the hundred Part that, is ejusdem naturae, of the same Nature with the 99.) to this Glorious Work; we have no In­ternum [Page 98] Principium, whereby to dispose our selves to will that which is truly good; we cannot so much as call Christ Lord, but by the Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.3. If there be no Life, but through Union with Christ, then till we be engrafted into that blessed and bleeding Vine, we cannot bring sorth any fruit unto God; and 'tis not any Natural Power or Principle in us that can Engraft us into Christ, for Faith is the Engrafting Grace, and that is the Gift of God, Eph. 2.8. the Grace whereby the Just live, Hab. 2.5. and where­by Christ dwells in our Hearts, Eph. 3.17. till then we are dead, and have no Free-will to Good. 'Tis indeed sometimes call'd a Sleep, but 'tis the Sleep of Death, Psal. 13.3.

Argument 6. If Regeneration, or Recovery from the State of Degeneration, be a Resurre­ction, then fallen Man hath no Free-will to Good; but the former is true, Ergo, the latter. The Antecedent is manifest, from John 5.25. Eph. 2.5. & 5.14. Rev. 20.5. It requires as much Power as to raise Christ from the dead, Eph. 1.19. 2 Thes. 1.11. Col. 2.12,13. 2 Pet. 1.3. Such an Energetical Power as cannot be resisted; to raise up Christ and to work Faith in us requires [ [...]] the super-excellent Greatness of his Power, Eph. 1.19. Here are three Grada­tions, Power, Greatness of Power, and super­excellent Greatness of Power; and, as if that were too little, the Apostle addeth other three, [ [...]] [Page 99] According to the working of his mighty Power; here is [...], which signifies, not only a Working, but an effectual force in Working, this is the fourth Gradation; then [...] (of [...], which signifies such strength as is in the Arms of Valiant Men that can do great Exploits) is the fifth; Lastly, [...] (a Power that can do all things) his Power, an Omnipotent Power; and surely had there been an Internum Principium in us to­wards this great Work, or any Free-will to Good, Paul would not have used all those Gradations, nor such a lofty Emphatical Heap of most Divine and Significant Expressions: This Work of Regeneration would not then have required, the effectual forcible Power of the Valiant Arm of God, even such a Power as raised up Christ from the dead, whereby he was declared to be the Son of God, Acts 2.24. Rom. 1.4. Cadaver frica­tione nudâ seipsum nòn resuscitat. I need say no­thing of the raising up of Ezekiel's dry Bones wherein the Spirit was the Favonian Wind, that wholly and solely caused new Life in them: Nor of the raising of Lazarus out of the Grave, which cost Christ a Prayer above all his other Miracles working, and Lazarus contributed no thing to the Work.

Argument 7. If Moral Perswasion be alto­gether insufficient (of it self) to recover Man from his fallen Estate, then fallen Man hath no Free-will to good; but the Antecedent is true, Ergo, The Consequent: This appears [Page 100] because then God would be only a Moral Cause of Man's Conversion, but Man needs more from God, and God therein is more to Man; therefore, &c. Then Faith would be [...], an Easie Work, and not require such Mighty Power, as Eph. 1.19, &c. Causes are of three Sorts, 1. A Moral Cause, which is Improperly and Metaphorically (only) a Cause, because it produceth not properly an Effect, only it proposeth Arguments to induce and perswade. 2. A Physical Cause, which really and truly produceth and Ef­fect; this the Schools call an Effectual-Cause. 3. A Miraculous Cause, is that which worketh above the Course of Nature in pro­ducing Effects. God in Man's Conversion can­not be only a Moral Cause, for these Rea­sons.

• Reason 1. Then the Working of Faith in us needs not the putting forth of any such Ener­getical Power, as was in raising of Christ from the dead. God did more to Christ, than Morally perswade him to come out of the Grave; and Christ did more to the raising of Lazarus: Be­sides, as such like Swasions are (alone) Inef­fectual, so dead Carcasses are incapable of them alone; in Christ's saying [Lazarus come forth] there was a mighty Power went along with the Command: Dixit & sactum est, God doth not Verba dare sed rem.
• Reason 2. Moral Perswasions cannot be suf­ficient to bring sorth super-natural Effects, Qua­lis causa, tale causatum; as when a Child hath an Apple held out by its Father to come to [Page 101] him, the Child is only allured, but not enabl'd thereby to come; 'tis not enough to perswade a Prisoner to come forth, but his Chains must be struck off, and the Prison Doors must be opened, Acts 12.6,7,10. so must have a Phy­sical Cause also, Phil. 2.13.
• Reason 3. Yet Man is more than a Pri­soner, and stands therefore in need of a bet­ter Plaister for his Sore than a Moral Swa­sion; which is not so much as a Removens prohibens (which is only a Causa sine quâ non, and so no proper Cause at all) for he is dead in sin, so must not have only Gra­tiam excitantem et moraliter suadentem, but also Gratiam sanantem et vivificantem, an healing and quickening Grace, which this can never do. Nemo fortunoe suae faber est nifi subordi­nate.
• Reason 4. Then God hath no greater Influ­ence in converting Man than Satan hath in per­verting him to his Destruction; he hath a per­swading Slight, but no Enforcing Might; he may sollicit, but he cannot compel; Infirmus hostis est, qui non potest vincere, nifi volentem, saith Hierom, hence we are bid to resist him with peremp­tory Negatives, and then he cannot touch us [tactu qualitativo] with his deadly touches: Now to ascribe no more Power to the Creator, than to his Creature (Satan) is to narrow it below Divine Majesty, and to derogate exceed­ingly from Omnipotency.

Argument 8. The Eighth Argument further il­lustrates this Truth, that more than a Moral [Page 102] Swasion is necessary to recover fallen Man: if Christ be All in All [in Matters of Sal­vation] to us, then Man is nothing in himself, as to that Work and hath not a Free­will to Good, so must stand in need of more than moral Swasions; but the Antecedent is true, Col. 3.11. Christ is [...], Ergo, the Consequent. This is manifest for these Reasons following.

• Reason 1. Christ's first Work (in order to Salvation) is to bore the Ear, which is stopped (like the Adders) to the Charms of the Char­mer, Psal. 58.4,5. Christ gives the Understand­ing Ear, Deut. 29.4. Psalm 40.6. Job 36.10. Is [...] 50.4. This moral Perswasion cannot (alone) remove, we naturally reject the Counsel of God, Luke 7.30.
• Reason 2. Christ opens not only the Ear, but also the Heart, Acts 16.14. The Lord open'd the Heart of Lydia, not she her own Heart, which she might have done if she had a Free­will to Good; the Key of the Heart (as doth the Keys of the Heavens, of Hell, and of the Womb) hangs at Christ's Girdle, He soutteth, and no Man can open; no, not our selves our own Hearts: Much less will moral Swasion be effectual.
• Reason 3. Besides Christ there is no Saviour, but this Hypothesis makes Man a Co-Saviour with Christ; as if there were an halfing of it 'twixt the Grace of Christ and the Will of Man, and the latter dividing the Spoil with the former; yea, deserving the greater share; for if Christ be only a Monitor, and perswade to Good, [Page 103] then Man's own Will is the principal Author of its own Goodness, and he makes himself to differ from others, hath something that he receiv'd not at Conversion, 1 Cor. 4.7. and whereof to boast of before God, Rom. 11.18. Swasion leaves the admonish'd Will to its own Indifferency (not changing it at all) so Man becomes his own Saviour, not Christ; or however, not Christ only; how then is Christ All in All? Then Christ is not our Creditor, but we are Debtors to Free­will.

Argument 9. The Ninth Argument (still adding more Lustre and Light to the for­mer) is, If fallen Man must be drawn to Goodness, then hath he no Free-will to Good, and moral Swasion cannot be sufficient alone; but the former is true, John 6.44. & 12.32. Cant. 1.3. Ergo, the latter. The An­tecedent is prov'd, Drawing is a Bringing of any thing out of its proper Course and Channel, by a Violent and Over-pouring In­fluence from without, and not from an Innate Power or Principle from within: Jet draws Straw, the Load-stone Iron, and the North­pole the Sea-man's Compass, so the Sun the Heliotrope. It is not said [Lead] but [Draw] in Drawing there is less Will, and more Violence, than in Leading; and though God draws us [fortiter] strongly, yet he doth it [suaviter] sweetly: [...], saith Chrysostom: As we are drawn, we have not a Freewill to [Page 104] Gond, for then Adam had lost in his Un­derstanding only, and not in his Will: Yet are we Voluntiers, Psal. 110.3. not that Christ finds us so, but makes us so, in the Day of his Power, and when he speaks to us with a strong Hand, as Isa. 8.11. We are Natu­rally Haters of God, and at Enmity with him, Rom. 1.30. & 8.7. but Divine Grace doth Violence to the Corrupt Qualities of the Soul, and puts the Will on moving when its Corruptions are removed; the Spirit gives a New Power, and then acts that Power to Good, so draws (as it were, a Camel thro the Eye of a Needle, Luke 18.25.) a God­hater to love him; this is more then a bare Perswasion to a Stone to be warm, and to go out of its place, for God takes away the Heart of Stone and gives an Heart of Flesh, Ezek. 36.26. which cannot hang on a meer En­treaty: Sccrater. said, He was but as a Midwife to his Schollars (she helps forth the Birth al­ready conceived) so he drew forth that which was Naturally in them; but this is a begetting us anew in Christ Jesus through the Gospel, 1 Cor. 4.15. and Christ finds nothing that is Good in us, Rom. 7.18 Quis trabi­tur (saith Austin)August. cont 2 Ep. Pelag. lib. 1. c. 19. si iam vole­bat, et tamen venit nisi qui ve­lit, &c. Non ut Homines (quod fieri non potest) nolentes credant, sed ut ex no­lentibus volentes fiant. God gives the very Power of Coming to Christ. Man's Will is made pedissequa, but not praevia; attending Grace, but not going before it, Co-operando [Page 105] persuit Deus quod operando incepit, Austin. Grace is Dux & Comes, and the Will a Subordinate Agent under Grace; and it being moved, after­wards does move it self.

Argument 10. If the Soul of Man be passive in Effectual Vocation, then there is in fallen Man no Free-will to good; but the former is true, Ergo, the latter. The Truth of the An­tecedent appears, The Spirit of Grace is com­pared to a precious Liquor that is infused; and the called and chosen of God are stiled Vessels of Mercy, now a Vessel is a Passive Re­ceiver of this precious Liquor poured into it, Zach. 12.10. Rom. 5.5. [ [...]] poured out and infused into God's Vessels, Rom. 9.21,23. 2 Tim. 2.20,21. The Will of Man (in respect of this first Reception of Grace, hath neither Concourse nor Co-operation active, but is actuated to an Obediential Subjection, and is made capable and apt to receive Impres­sion; as the Air is passive when it receives an Enlightning, as Adam's Body was a passive Receiver of Life, when God inspired it there­into, Gen. 2.17. Though it was formed and Organiz'd, yet was it lifeless and breathless: And as the Soul of Nebuchadnczzir (when deprived of Reason) receiv'd the Impression of the Agent (God Almighty) in causing his Reason to return to him again; so in this Case, Christ infuses Grace into us against our Wills, and 'tis an Hell to us to be brought from Hell, though it be an Hell to us to stay, after God hath open'd our Eyes [Page 106] and touch'd our Hears: Corrupt Nature can­not contribute any thing to destroy it self in its own Corruptions: We are without Abi­lity (in our selves) to put forth any Causal Vertue in Order to such an Effect, and ac­cordingly we have no Power to resist the Impression and Effect which proceedeth from a super-natural Cause: In the first Work the Will moveth not it self, but is only moved by God. The Will as a Creature must obey its Crea­tor; yet as a sinful, deprayed Will, it obeys not God willingly till made willing; so 'tis not a Collateral Agent: The Water descends Natu­rally, yet Ne detur vacuum it ascends. Man's Will is the Untamed Heiser, or Wild Asses Colt; Christ the Rider tames it, and brings it to his Yoke. Nolie est a Carne, vells a Spiritu. Luther.

Argument 11. To deny Grace, special Grace, and gracious Dispensations, is abominable; but the Doctrine of Free will denies these, for they say, If a Man improves his Naturals, God is bound to give him Spirituals; what is this bat a turning Grace Non est gratia ullo modo, si non sit gratuita omni modo. into Debt, and a Symbolizing with the Jesuites, Meritum de congruo, if not condigno: And to say, That the Reason why one be­lieves, and another does not believe, is from the Co-operation of the Free­will of him that believeth, is quite to destroy special Grace peculiar to the Elect,Special Grace is irresistible, for 'tis not two of equal force, but as Mi­chael too hard for Satan; so the stronger Man Christ too hard for the strong Man our own Will. contrary to these Scrip­tures, John 6.37,45. & 12.39,40. [Page 107] & 14.17,22. Rom. 8.14. 1 Cor. 1.23,24. 1 John 4.13. and many others: Nei­ther can there be (if this Hy­pothefis be granted) any gra­cious Dispensation, either in Respect of Person, Place, Time, or Means; all which God free­ly makes choice of. As,

• 1. Of Person: He quickens whom he will, John 5.21. Rom. 9.18.
  Then Wise Men would be Evange­liz'd, nor the Poor and Foolish, for they have the best understandings to guide their Free­wilts.
  The Heart of one Sin­ner melts like Wax before the Fire, and receives God's Seal, while the Heart of ano­ther remains as unmovable as Marble, and as the Rock that cannot be shaken, this is the work of Gracious Dispensation.
• 2. Of the Place: No Child can choose the Place where to be begot or born in, nor We for our Conversion; The Spirit blows where it listeth, John 3.8.
• 3. Of the Time: A Child cannot choose the Time of its Begetting or Birth, no more than of the Place; so nor We of our New Birth: God may drop in Grace with Life, and rege­nerate a Babe before it be brought forth, Luke 1.15. and yet that Saying hold true, Christi­ani non nascuntur sed fiunt; and others may be cast into the Womb of the New Birth when dropping out of the World, even at the Ele­venth Hour of the Day, as the Penitent Thief, Oh! who can order the Ways of Grace, and [Page 108] set Bounds to the Spirit of God, in its Breath­ings on Man!
• 4. And of Means: Out of the mouths of Babes God ordains Strength, Psal. 8.2. The Iberians were converted by a Woman, the likeliest Per­sons have not always Children, a Child cannot choose its own Father, nor We who shall beget us to God: All these are special Dispensations of God's Good Will to Men, and so depends not on the Free-will of Man: Ergo,

Argument 12. The Twelsth Argument ab In­commodo, That which brings along with it many Absurdities, may not be received, but the Do­ctrine of Free-will to Good doth so. Man's Will is the Principium quod, not the Principi­um quo; that is, Grace. We must be renewed in the Spirit of our Minds, Eph. 4.23.

• Absurd. 1. It makes Man the Proximate and Immedi­ate Cause of his own Salva­tion.
• 2. It puts Grace into Man's Power, not Man's Will under the Power of Grace.
• 3. It robs God of that Ho­nour, in making one to differ from another, and ascribes it to Man.
• 4. It allows Man a Liberty of Boasting to God, saying, God, I thank thee, that thou gavest me Power to will (but that thou gavest to Judas as well as to me) but I thank my self for the Act of Willingness, yet I receiv'd from God no more than Judas did.
• 5. It [tantamount] exempts the Creature from the Power of God, as if Man (like the Spider) [Page 109] could spin a Thread out of his own Bowels, whereon to climbe to Heaven, saying, Mihi soli debeo, and as if he were bidden to do as he will.
• 6. It maketh Man the Cause why God will­eth this or that, so God must attend on the Will of Man, and not be infallible in his De­crees, nor working all things according to the Counsel of his own Will, Eph. 1.11. Psalm 115.3. & 135.6.
• 7. It supposes a Power of Believing (in all the Blind Nations of the World) on Jesus Christ, of whom they have not heard, Rom. 10.14. but especially in those under the Gos­pel, contrary to Deut. 20.4. & Mat. 13.11.
• 8. Then James lyed in saying, [...], &c. Every good Gift is from God, Jam. 1.17. If there be something in Man already before Conversion, v. 18.
• 9. Then Paul was mistaken also, Rom. 9.18, &c. who should have said, It is of Man that willeth and runneth, and not of God that sheweth mercy: They dare not give Potentiam credendi to Man, the Posse velle et ipsum velle convertere est a Deo.