Sound Doctrine: OR, The Doctrine of the Goſpel about the extent of the Death of Chriſt.

DEar friend, I received your book, in which you prerend to anſwer my fourteen Queries and ten Abſurdities: which how well you have done, let the Godly wiſe judge that have read it.

I am amazed to take notice how conſident you ſeem to be, in ſo bottomleſs a buſineſs as you maintain; and with what ſubtilty (not to ſay fraud) you paſs over the energie and force of my Arguments, without notice; and how you pretend that 'tis an opinion very dangerous, to hold that Chriſt died for all alike; and yet you your ſelf maintaining he died for all: as if he died more for one then another; and as if he died to ſave onely ſome, and dyed for the reſt to damne them. I pray where do you learn that diſtinction of dying for all but not all alike? was ever ſuch a thing heard of among any that had the uſe of their reaſon? I deſire no greater advantage againſt you, then that you are conſtrained (and ſo are all of your opinion) to ſpeak without Art, without Scripture, without Reaſon, and againſt all the beſt of Antiquities.

The holy Scriptures do indeed moſt plainly tell us, that Chriſt died for all, as you have alſo quoted, Joh. 3.16. & 16.33. 2 Cor. 5.19.1 Jo. 2.2.1. Joh. 4.14. Heb. 2.9. but do any or all of theſe, or any other, ſay that he died not for them alike, or that he died for ſome more then other?

I ſhall not take upon me to write an anſwer to all your impertinent allegations, and particulars in your book, becauſe I judge 'twill be a miſ-pence of time, and blotting of paper to no purpoſe. And were it not that I feared my ſilence would occaſion you to be wiſe in your own conceit, I would not have troubled my ſelf to make any Reply unto your feigned doctrine: for I do not much fear that many conſiderate, good and ſober men, will be miſled by ſuch groundleſs conceits: But being perſwaded that poſſibly ſome weak perſons may be miſled by the pretended holyneſs of your ſelf and Doctrine, therefore I did reſolve to write an Anſwer to your book: which if you will weigh ſeriouſly in the balance of truth, I hope it may put a ſtop to the exorbitancy of your Judgment; it being the moſt fit way (yea the way of our bleſſed Lord Jeſus) to reduce mens vile converſations, by firſt purifying their hearts by faith: and he who is not firſt cleanſed in the inſide of his heart, no marvel if his actions be unclean; he that judgeth not rightly of Gods wayes, no marvel if he order not his own aright: if I judge that God may pretend the grace of the Goſpel (i.e. remiſſion of ſins and Salvation upon amendment of life) unto all; proteſting to them all, that he deſires their weal, and yet intends it onely to a few of them: I ſay, If I judge God may do thus, and yet be juſt, no marvel then if I do alſo deal ſo with men my ſelf; this opinion altogether indulging ſuch a practiſe: for we are to follow the example of God, both in Juſtice and holyneſs, and all other perfection: and 'tis notoriouſly known to all conſiderate men, that the Doctrine of the Goſpel in every part of it, is calculated for the Meridian of Godlineſs; that being the great deſign of God in the world, by all the Doctrines and preceps of the Goſpel, to lay obligations upon men to be holy in their converſations: now by this you may know Truth from Errour; for that Doctrine whoſe natural tendencie is to excite and provoke men to good and godly life, is moſt aſſuredly from heaven; but that teaching, or thoſe opinions, that ſo much as but incline men to, or allow them in, any unclean or unrighteous pathes (as your Doctrine doth) is certainly not from heaven, but earthly, ſenſual, and deviliſh, as will afterward more fully appear.

I ſhall now begin with your firſt thing. You ſay, page a that I did not propound my queſtions to be informed: and therein you were very right; for indeed I thank my God, I was not diffident of, but believing in them, when I put them to you; but I did it, to inform you, and to rectifie your and others Judgements, that judge not aright of God.

You ſay, That my Queries are founded upon a groundleſs ſuppoſition, to wit, that you do not hold that Chriſt died for all; which you ſay you do, but not all alike. I anſwer; My Queries have a good foundation: for if you maintain Chriſts dying for all in no other way then your nonſenſical way, 'tis all one as if you had ſaid in terminis he had not died for all: for if he did not die effectually for all, at leaſt ſo far as to open a door of ſalvation for one as freely as another, to what purpoſe was his death, and what benefit have moſt men by his death? you ſay, They are freed from the curſe of Adam: but is that all? are you ſo carnal? have you ſuch ignoble thoughts of the ever-bleſſed God? and have you forgotten Joh. 3.17. Joh. 1.7. That all men might be ſaved, and the many other places might be named, wherein the Lord declares his deſire to have all ſaved; b • ing grieved and troubled in ſpirit when they will periſh? according to theſe Scriptures; Ezek. 18.32. Chap. 33.11. Jer. 4.19. Judg. 10.16. Luke 19.41.

You make ſuch a confuſed work in your proofs for Chriſts dying for all as I never heard.

Firſt, you will not have it proved from theſe places, Joh. 3.16. 2 Cor. 25.19 &c. becauſe you ſay the word World is taken diverſly in Scripture: Sometimes for the whole, ſometimes for a part; ſometimes for the wicked, and ſometimes (you ſay alſo) for believers alſo: but that's falſe: that the word World is taken many times for leſs then the whole, I know, and you needed not ſo have belabored your ſelf to prove it. What if it be meant for leſs then all ſometimes? yet ſometimes it doth include all, as you alſo confeſs; and whenſoever the death of Chriſt for all, or his deſire to ſave all, is ſpoken of, in this caſe it muſt be meant all, for ſeveral good Reaſons and Conſiderations, as you ſhall hear afterwards: onely take this one to chew upon in the mean time.

'Tis taken from Joh. 12.47. where our bleſſed Saviour ſaith, If any man hear his words and believe not, he will not judge him (that is, now) rendring this reaſon: For I came not to judge the world, but to ſave the world.

By the word World here, which Chriſt came to ſave, and not to judge, cannot be meant onely believers, if at all; but ſuch as hearing do not believe; or elſe the text will not be ſenſe, nor will the latter part be a reaſon to prove the affirmation in the fore part of the verſe: but the ſenſe would then be this (nonſence) If any man hear and believe not, I judge him not: for I cauſe not to judge believers, but to ſave believers. I trow this reaſon may ſatisfie a man of reaſon.

And whereas you ſay that the word World is ſometimes taken for the believers: that's moſt untrue; it being never taken for the better part, though many times for the worſe or greater parts Your three proofes for it are ſo weak, that I think you might as fairly and to as much purpoſe have cited Matth. 1. to 17. the former of your three being grounded upon nothing but the malitious and lying opinion of the Phariſees: what if the Phariſees did ſay (thinking a few too many to follow Chriſt) That the world was gone after him; was it therefore true, that they were a world, or might properly be called the world? ſee your ſelf now in this glaſs.

Your ſecond place, Rom. 11.12. doth prove no more to a man that hath any brains, but that the Gentiles are there called the World; not the Elect onely among the Gentiles, but the Nations of Gentiles, who uſually were called the World in oppoſition to that one Nation of the Jews.

Your third place, Joh. 17.21, 23. is meant of the world, not of believers; our Saviour being there praying for his own diſciples, that they might be ſo united to the Father, and made one with him, that they might the better be enabled in their great work of preaching the Goſpel to all the world, that the world might thereby be convinced to know that thou haſt ſent me, and I ſent them: for he ſaith, verſ. 18. As thou haſt ſent me into the world, ſo have I ſent them into the world (that is, into believers, quoth Mr. Hobſon) Alſo he prayeth that they may be kept from the evil of the world, verſ. 15. (is that from the evil of believers?)

Truely I have wondred that your underſtanding ſhould be ſo infatuated as to ſummon Scriptures together ſo unduly: but I remember 'tis ſaid, The Lord catches the wiſe in their own craft. God is juſt therein.

I pray God you ſeriouſly lay it to heart, for what cauſe the Lord hath thus blinded, or ſuffered your minde to be blinded, ſo as you are not able to diſcern a Truth from an Errour, nay to love Errour rather then Truth, and would bring Scriptures to prove it too; and for want of them, you bring them that rather diſprove it.

Next your come, (you ſay) to your affirmation, viz. that Chriſt died for all, but not all alike, pag. 6.

Firſt, you prove that he died for all, out of Tim. 4.10. Heb. 2.9. who denies it? you might have as well proved it from thoſe forementioned places which you excepted againſt; the word every man, Heb. 2.9. being taken as diverſly as the word World; but that you thought you would have ſome new-ſangled way (forſooth) by your ſelf to prove it: for I think truely we may give you the honour (or rather diſhonour) of inventing it; never any before having ſo much boldneſs, or ſo little wit, as to maintain Chriſts dying for all from thoſe places, and not from the other: or that held he died for all, but not all alike.

In the next place you beſtir you moſt monſtrouſly, and lay about you to prove that which ſcarce any will deny, ſ • il. that Chriſt by his death hath taken off the curſe due to Adam from all men, and freed all men from the killing power of that ſtate. And not contented with your Scripture-proofs, you ſtill huddle in more then a good many of a kinde of Scholaſtical Arguments to back that which will eaſily be granted: but this peradventure was to ſhew your Scholarſhip, and it may be your manlineſs, how couragiouſly you can fight when none oppoſeth you; But what of this? what if Chriſt did do all this for all men? doth that prove he did no more for them? if not, you have laboured in vain.

But it may be that ſhall be proved in the ſecond part of your affirmation; therefore I haſten to it, i.e. that Chriſt died not for all alike.

And this you ſay you will prove in eight particulars; ſome of which are ſo notoriouſly untrue, and others ſo impertinently alleged, that they are ſcarce worthy of an anſwer. Yet leſt you ſhould triumph, and crie Vicimus, I ſhall give a brief reply to each of them in their order.

Firſt, That there is a people, which God hath choſen and Elected [in his Son] (mark that) before the world was;

Who denies it? and yet what a quoil the man makes to prove it? do I deny Election or chuſing out of the world? no, I believe it, That God chuſeth (as the Prophet very fitly ſaith) the godly man to himſelf, Pſa. 4.3. and alſo that before the world was, he determined ſo to do; and that is as much of Election as can be proved in Scripture that God doth uſe.

And whereas you ſay, That Faith was an effect of ordination; and you bring Act. 13.48. to prove: it I ſay, as 'tis moſt untrue, and againſt the current of Scripture, and Reaſon; ſo particularly that of Act. 13.48. is directly and plainly againſt you; and I ſhall retort it unavoidably upon you: The Evangeliſt Luke there being about to let Theophilus know who, or what perſons were ordained to life, he doth moſt plainly ſay they were believers; yea he reſtrains it from any others but believers, in ſaying (As many as were ordained to eternal life [believed]) not a man more was ordained but ſuch as [believed.] Let any man now ask his Reaſon which of theſe is firſt, Ordination or Believing; and certainly Reaſon will tell him that Believing muſt be firſt, eſpecially if he conſult with Joh. 1.12. Even to ſo many as believed on his name, to them he gave power to become the Sons of God. But perhaps you may fancie that Ordination muſt there be firſt, becauſe the order of the words is firſt. If you ſhould be ſo ſenceleſs, then conſider, would it not be a ridiculous conceit, to think that a Bullock hath horns, before he hath hoofs becauſe 'tis ſaid, Pſal. 69.31 This ſhall pleaſe thee better then a Bullock which hath horns and hoofs? and would it not be as ridiculous, to think that men are ſaved before called, becauſe 'tis ſaid, 2 Tim. 1.9. Who hath ſaved us, and called us? If yet ye ſhould be ſo dull as not to underſtand that Luke here intends Believing was before Ordination, becauſe he names Ordination firſt, I ſhall give you a Similitude. Suppoſe the King of a Nation, having many Captives at his will and mercy, do make Proclamation unto them all, that whoever humble himſelf ſhall be ordained to life, they that refuſe ſhall be purſued with fire and ſword unto death: now ſuppoſe that I being in that country, ſee divers of them humbling themſelves, and ſo finde acceptance with the King, and are ordained to life; and I come over to you and tell you the ſtory; I ſay thus, And as many as were ordained to life (or had acceptance with the King) humbled themſelves; will you be ſo weak as to judge that their humbling was not before their choice, though mentioned laſt in words, when as 'tis made a condition of their acceptance?

1 Reaſ. Next you come to your Reaſons, in which you moſt unreaſonably ſay, That whatſoever comes to paſs, was before determined of God. Oh impudence! the height of blaſphemie.: what every thing determined of God? what if a man lieth with another mans wife? or be drunk? was that determined of God? every thing was, then theſe things were; Oh! bluſh and be aſhamed in maintaining ſuch ſordid opinions as theſe are.

2. Reaſ. Secondly you ſay, Whatſoever God doth for us, in relation to heaven, before Grace was wrought in us, is done beforetime. But Election, or chuſing of us, is done for us before Grace is wrought in us, Ergo.

The bold aſſumption of this fooliſh Syllogiſme, is moſt notoriouſly falſe, being againſt the current of Scripture; and thoſe places you alledge for probation thereof, do prove no more, but that God loves us, and hath given his Son to die for us, even before we loved him, and ſo he hath done for all. But this is no chuſing or Election ſuch as you ſpeak of from the reſt, but onely a general loving of all, ſo as to endeavour their ſalvation by his Son Jeſus Chriſt. This ſhall be more fully cleered when I have done anſwering to your particulars, when I come to ſpeak of conditional Election made in intuition of our being in Chriſt, and againſt irreſpective decrees.

2. Your ſecond particular, That God hath a ſpecial deſigne for the advancement of his grace and love to carry on by Chriſt for them, and them onely; is directly falſe, and diametrally oppoſite to theſe Scriptures, Mat. 9.13. Rom. 5.6, 18, 19. 2 Pet. 3.9. Ezek. 18.30, 31, 32. Chap. 33.11. and therefore I ſhall return no more anſwer to it; his deſign being to work grace in all, that he might ſave all; though moſt will not receive grace, and ſome receive it in vain.

3. Your third particular being grounded upon the former falſe ones, muſt of courſe be alſo falſe it ſelf: and ſo much for it.

4. Your fourth particular, That Gods deſigne was ſatisfaction for all ſin, and the purchaſe of eternal life, &c.

If you mean he have purchaſed theſe things conditionally, I aſſent to it, and ſo he hath done for all. But if you mean he hath done it for any, other wayes then upon conditions performable by them, then I deny it, as moſt untrue; according to the ſpeech of our Saviour to his Diſciples, Matth. 6.14. If ye forgive not men, neither will your heavenly father forgive you: So that 'tis to be noted that forgiveneſs is upon condition: and alſo 'tis to be noted, that forgiveneſs and blotting out of ſin, is not properly in this life, no other wayes then in a promiſe; we may be ſaid to be forgiven, even as we may be ſaid to be now ſaved, ſee Act. 3.9. Sin being properly blotted out when there can be no more remembrance of it; But now yet ſin may be remembred againſt thoſe righteous men that turn from their righteouſneſs, and all their righteouſneſs ſhall be forgotten.

That which cauſeth you ſo plentifully to erre in your next particulars, is your not underſtanding what Chriſt came to do: you take it for granted, I ſee, that Chriſt came to do all the work for the Elect, ſo that their ſins are pardoned, and they ſaved, ipſo facto, and without any condition in them: if that were true indeed, that thoſe he died for, he had done ſo for them, then his death indeed could not have been for all, unleſs all ſhould have been ſaved. But 'tis moſt evidently true, That he hath not ſo died for any: What the Father intended he ſhould do by death, that indeed he did finiſh and compleat, viz. offer up himſelf a propitiatory ſacrifice to God, that he might open a way unto remiſſion of ſins, and ſalvation for all; but did effect it fully for none without themſelves.

And becauſe the greateſt part of the errours of your book are founded upon this groſs miſtake, I ſhall ſpeak a few things more to it, before I leave it, although I have ſaid enough already in a manner to a conſidering perſon: firſt I will note wherein we differ in this point.

You hold, that when Chriſt was offered upon the croſs, he took away, put an end, blotted out, and utterly deſtroyed all his peoples ſins for ever, and preſented them juſt, righteous, and holy, before God; now I for my part, do diſtinguiſh between the cauſe and the effect, between the time of the one and the time of the other; but you jumble both together. Theſe things were done, ſays your opinion, whilſt Chriſt was on the croſs; but I ſay they are indeed doing, but are not compleatly finiſhed till his ſecond comming.

And now I will proceed to prove it: which if I do not, by plain and unwreſted Scriptures, then believe me not. The firſt place is 1 Cor. 5.21. He hath made him that knew no Sin, to be Sin for us, that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him. This Scripture was wrritten by Paul after Chriſts death: now note here, he hath made him ſin, that we might be made righteous; he hath been, that we might be; paſt in him, and to come in us; he is ſin in us firſt, we are righteouſneſs of God in him afterwards; his being ſin for us is the cauſe, our being righteouſneſs is the effect.

A ſecond proofe is Tit. 2.14. He gave himſelf for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purifie, &c. Note here alſo that Chriſts end in giving himſelf was, that he might purifie and cleanſe, &c. and we are cleanſed but in part, then his end is acompliſhed in part; but when we are cleanſed throughly, then his end is wholly acompliſhed: he ſhall firſt travel, and afterwards ſhall ſee of the travel of his Soul, Iſa. 35.11.

A third proofe, is Col. 1.12, 21. You that were enemies he hath reconciled in the Body of his fleſh through death, to make you holy, unblameable, and without fault in his ſight: from whence doth appear plainly, 1 that Chriſts death was then paſt. 2 that their ſpirits were in part reconciled then. 3 that their being without ſpot was yet to come.

A fourth proofe, Eph. 5.25, 26.27. where note, he gave himſelf for his Church, that he might cleanſe it with the waſhing of water by the word, and that he might preſent it not having ſpot or wrinkle &c. Minde it: he gave himſelf, that he might cleanſe, 2. cleanſeth that he might preſent ſpotleſs, &c. Firſt, he in love gives himſelf; ſecond, he cleanſeth by his word; third, after clenſing he preſents it without ſpot or blemiſh; but ſpotleſneſs is not before, but at the appearing of Jeſus Chriſt, as you may ſee yet further in 1 Cor. 1.7 8. That ye may be blameleſs in the day of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. See alſo 1 Theſſ. 2.19. Act. 3.19.

But unto all this 'tis very like you will reply, He hath taken Sin away already for the Elect, and wholly blotted it out, for theſe Reaſons (as ſome of you call them.)

1. Becauſe he was ordained to take away ſin. 2. Becauſe he is mighty to ſave. 3. Becauſe he took fleſh upon him for this purpoſe. 4. Becauſe 'tis Gods will that by blood-ſhedding he ſhould ſanctifie his.

I anſwer, that though theſe are all truths, yet they are not Reaſons to the matter in hand; for with what Reaſon will it appear that we are ſaved already, becauſe he is mighty to ſave; or that ſin is already done away, becauſe he came to take it away; or that his people were perfectly ſanctified, as ſoon as ever his blood was ſpilt, becauſe that 'twas Gods will his blood ſhould ſanctifie; or that his people were ſpotleſs, juſt when he died, becauſe he died that he might do it? Reaſon tells me, that things are not done, while they are in doing. Do you not know that preſenting is after waſhing, and waſhing after blood ſpilling, Eph. 5.25? and is not his blood (after 'tis ſpilt) ſprinkled in our hearts to cleanſe? Heb. 10.22.1 Pet. 1.2. The blood of Chriſt which through the eternal Spirit hath been offered, ſhall purge your conſciences from dead works, Heb. 9.14. his blood that is already ſpilt, is ſtill the blood of ſprinkling which doth ſpeak for us better things then the blood of Abel, Heb. 12.24.

I would fain know what Goſpel your principle will admit to be preach'd to unbelievers ſince the death of Chriſt? with what Reaſon can you ſay, Believe on the Lord Jeſus Chriſt and ye ſhall be ſaved to ſuch as ſaved are already? or to ſay, Repent that your ſins may be blotted out, Act. 3.19. to ſuch whoſe ſins are already blotted out, or never ſhall be? for ſay you, The ſins of the reprobate never ſhall; but the ſins of the Elect are already.

Alſo what reproof or dehortation againſt ſin, can you (ſince the death of Chriſt) give to thoſe whoſe ſins were utterly deſtroyed and done away at Chriſts death? can they be took away and remain too? no, no, this is againſt Reaſon: when God hath compleatly cleanſed his people they ſhall defile themſelves no more at all: See Ezek. 37.23.

If yet any ſhould ſtumble at this place, We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveneſs of Sins; I anſwer, I have already ſhowen that we have it already in a promiſe, and ſo we have it by faith: but we have it not in accompliſhment yet; we yet walk by faith and not by ſight, 2 Cor. 5.7.

But ſome of you yet further object, That God hath promiſed his work ſhould proſper, Iſa. 42.1 • 4. & 55.11.

I anſwer, his work ſhall certainly proſper, he hath purchaſed what he was to purchaſe, and will accompliſh what he is to accompliſh: but if the time when he died, were the time not onely to purchaſe, but alſo to effect an utter deſtruction to ſin, as you hold; then his work hath not proſpered: for neither my ſins nor yours, are utterly deſtroyed as yet: and truly if our ſins ſhould not be otherwiſe waſht away then yet they are, we ſhould be in a ſad condition; and if Chriſt hath preſented us before God already, then hath he preſented us faulty, not faultleſs: for if we ſay, (as yet) That we have no ſin, we lie, and truth is not in us, 1 Joh. 1.8.

There are Objections yet innumerable, which I let paſs, onely anſwering one more ſomewhat material.

Object. Chriſt would not anſwer the type, if he did not quite take away ſin, For as Adam brought all in him under ſin and condemnation: So Chriſt hath made all in him righteous, Rom. 5.12. So the prieſts are ſaid, To make atonement for the people, and to cleanſe them from all their ſins before the Lord, Levit. 16.30. So Chriſt hath preſented all his without ſpot alſo. So the peoples tranſgreſſions were lay'd on the Scape-goats head; who carried them away.

Anſw. Firſt, as none finned in Adam before they were in Adam, ſo none are righteous before they are in Chriſt. Likewiſe as we are in Adam by the firſt, ſo are we in Chriſt by the ſecond birth; our firſt being in Chriſt is by faith, See Phil. 3.8, 9.

Secondly, we are in Adam before we are in Chriſt, and ſo are ſinners before we are righteous: we cannot be cleanſed, till we are firſt unclean, That is not firſt which is Spiritual, but that which is Natural, and afterwards that which is Spiritual. 1 Cor. 15. But if men ſhould be in Chriſt by Election before time, as you weakly (that I ſay not wickedly) affirm, then St. Paul had been in Chriſt as ſoon as any other: but he directly ſaith that Andronicus and Junia his kinſmen were in Chriſt before him, Rom. 16.7.

To the ſecond Type I Reply, that the atonement was before cleanſing: for ſaith the place plainly, The Prieſt ſhall make atonement for you, to cleanſe you, that you may be clean from all your ſins before the Lord, Levit. 16.30. And not onely here, but everywhere in the Law, it will appear, that firſt ſin was committed.

Secondly, Blood was ſpilt.

Thirdly, ſprinkled on the Sinner.

Fourthly, after all this, with other circumſtances, the parties were clean.

So likewiſe, 1. We are ſinners. 2. Chriſts blood is ſpilt for an atonement. 3. By faith 'tis ſprinkled on our hearts, 4. After all this, we are cleanſed.

To the third Type I Reply, That the peoples ſins were lay'd on the ſcape-goats head after the ſlain-goat was ſlain, and he carried them away after they were layed on his head: apply this.

But I fear I have made too long digreſſion, and yet I thought it needful; and ſo much ſhall ſerve for your four particulars; now to the fifth.

5. That faith which is required of all them that enjoy him, is not a cauſe but an effect of Election.

This you ſay you will prove three wayes; 1. from Scripture. 2. From the nature of cauſes. 3. From the nature of the thing.

Firſt, for your Argument Act. 13.48. I have already turned the point of it againſt your own breſt. And for the other places, they prove no more, but that God loves man before he loves God; but they do not prove that God doth not love him more after he loves God, then before. I grant, he loves all men firſt, before they love him; but when they love him again, then he loves them with a greater love, with a love of Election, as ſhall be more fully manifeſted afterwards.

Secondly, from the nature of cauſes, your Argument is ſuch a medly-meſs of nonſence, that I know not what to make on't, which you begin with a direct untruth, in ſaying, That you ſee I have drawn my Abſurdities out of Hen. Haggars book; when, as I never ſaw it, ſo I never heard of it till I read yours.

Thirdly from the nature of the thing (Election) you would prove Election to be the cauſe of Faith: unto all which I ſhall ſpeak joyntly, and make the ſhame of them appear to all men that read them: And herein I muſt be diametrially oppoſed againſt you, becauſe you bring in ſuch a Hyſteron Proteron. the Cart before the Horſe, that I muſt of neceſſity invert your order, or rather diſorder.

And therefore I do affirm, that Election is not the cauſe of faith and good works; but faith and good works the cauſe of our Election or Gods chuſing of us.

1. I prove it by Scripture. 2. I prove it from the nature of cauſes. 3. From the Nature of Election.

1. From Scripture, I will onely refer you to conſult theſe places hereafter named, Act. 13.48. Joh. 1.12. Pſa. 4.3. Joh. 16.27. Rev. 3.10.

2. From the Nature of cauſes, I will obſerve this rule: if Election 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 on ſhould be a cauſe of faith, and ſuch a cauſe as cannot be reſiſted, (as you hold) then Reprobation muſt be a cauſe of ſin and damnation; and ſo God, bleſſed for ever, will be made, not onely a tempter to, but a cauſe, yea, the cauſe, of all ſin and wickedneſs in the world.

But let no man ſay when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; (as our Modern Ranters are wont to do) for every man when he is tempted is drawn away of his own luſts, and inticed. I dare not ſay as one did that had been a great ſinner, Quid ſi haec quiſpiam voluit Deus? What if ſome God hath ſo decreed it? For St. James makes me believe, that ſin is both ingendered and conceived within me: when my luſt hath conceived, it bringeth forth ſin; and if my luſt be the mother of it, ſure the father is my own will.

It was Davids ſaying of wicked Iſrael, That they provoked God to anger (not with his will, but) with their own inventions: There are contrivers of miſchief, Pſal. 58.2. Deviſers of lyes, Eccleſ. 7.13. which cannot be imputed unto any abſolute decree in God. O how many Volumes have been written concerning irreſpective decrees, in the Latin tongue, which might even bluſh to be named in Engliſh; and ſhall we yet in theſe daies of light aſcribe ſin and wickedneſs to God (as your opinion doth?)

I am in ſuch diſorder and diſcompoſedneſs of ſpirit, while I only but name theſe bold expreſſions, that were it not for a good purpoſe (as I conjecture and intend) I durſt not venture to repeat them. O Lord righteouſneſs belongeth unto thee; but unto us, confuſion of face: for thou haſt made man upright; but we have found out many inventions, Eccleſs. 7.29.

Next I will come to Reaſon, by which I hope to make it appear, that the Almighty is ſo far from being acceſſary to ſin, and does ſo many things to hinder it, that he doth not ſo much as permit it but in a equitable ſence: and amongſt many Reaſons that may be given, I will content my ſelf with this one, which ſeems to me the beſt.

That which aſſigns to every thing the kinde; that which moderates the power, and appoints the form and meaſure of working; that we properly call a Law. Hence the being of God is a kinde of Law to his working, becauſe that perfection which God is, giveth perfection to that he doth: So that he being nothing but what is good, he can work nothing that is otherwiſe. It is therefore an errour (ſaith judicious Mr. Hooker) to think that there is no reaſon for the works of God, beſides his abſolute will; (though no reaſon is known to us) for the Apoſtle tells he worketh all things (not ſimply and meerly according to his will, but) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to the counſel of his will.

And becauſe he doth voluntarily ſet himſelf a Law whereby to work; it followes, that that Law is no abatement to his freedome; if therefore he be pleaſed to ſet himſelf a Law or Rule, not to reprobate any but upon pre-ſcience or fore-knowledge of ſin (becauſe that is moſt conformable to the nature of his goodneſs) can this be any prejudice to the perfection of his being? is his nature the leſs abſolute, becauſe it pleaſes him that his will be conditional in ſome things, as it is abſolute in others? does he loſe any prerogative, by being unable to be the Author of ſin?

We are Gods creatures, but ſin is ours. God ſaw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good. We ſee the things that are made by the fiat of our will, and behold they are very evil.

This creative power of ours, we juſtly reckon as the ſequel of humane weakneſs; and ſhall we heedleſly affirme it to be a jewel in the glorious diadem of Gods Almightineſs? Let this be ſeriouſly conſidered.

Thirdly, I ſhall prove it from the Nature of the thing, that Election is not the cauſe of faith and good works, &c. but contrary, faith and good works of Election.

This ſhall be proved and illuſtrated by theſe five conſiderations.

Firſt of all, I conſider, that there is no ſalvation but onely to ſuch as are found to be in Chriſt Jeſus in the day of death and of Judgement; which no man living can be, unleſs he be qualified with ſuch conditions, as without which it is impoſſible to be ſo found (ſuch as are faith, repentance, obedience, and perſeverance in well doing unto the end) that God will ſave none but ſuch, is all mens confeſſion: and that he ſaves none but ſuch as he decrees to ſave, is as plain: therefore none but ſuch are the objects of ſuch decrees. For if he decreed to ſave any without reſpect to their being ſuch, he might actually ſave them, without regard to their being ſuch: Becauſe whatſoever is juſtly decreed, may be juſtly executed as 'tis decreed. But 'tis granted by all good men on all ſides, that God will ſave none but ſuch as are found to be in Chriſt with the aforeſaid qualifications, and therefore it ſhould be granted on all ſides alſo, that he decreed to ſave none but ſuch perſons as they: And what is that but a reſpective, conditional decree? made in intuition of our being in Chriſt, and ſo qualified, &c.

Secondly, I conſider, that the decree of the Father to ſend his Son to be a ſecond Adam, was in reſpect and regard to the back-ſliding of the firſt Adam; and the decree of God to ſave the firſt Adam, was in reſpect to the merits of the ſecond Adam; for God chuſeth never a child ſo as to give him eternal life, unleſs it be for the ſake of his onely begotten Son.

1. God pitied a woful world. 2. He loved what he pitied. 3. He gave his own Son to ſave what he loved: and upon the condition of believing in his Son, he gave them a promiſe of eternal life: For ſo believing is interpoſed betwixt love and life, in Joh. 3.16.

Thirdly, I conſider, There muſt be a difference before there can be an Election: LOVE indeed is an act of favour, but ELECTION properly is an act of judgement, a preferring of the better before the worſe. They that ſay God elected ſuch a number of men without the leaſt intuition of their qualifications, by which they are differenced from the Reprobate crew, do ſpeak illogically (to ſay no worſe) how much ſafer is it to ſay, that becauſe ſuch men as are in Chriſt by faith, are better then ſuch as are out of Chriſt by infidelity; therefore thoſe are taken, and theſe are left?

And it ſeems this very Argument, from the nature and uſe of the word Election, did prevail with St. Auſtin, who ſaith expreſly, That Juſtification precedeth Election: and his Reaſon is, Becauſe no man is elected unleſs he differ from him that is rejected.

Fourthly, I conſider, That the whole tenure of Scripture (and that in the judgement of all the Ancients) teacheth no other predeſtination then in and through Chriſt, which is reſpective and conditional.

Firſt, the Scripture gives us none but conditional promiſes, ſuch as, If any man keep my ſaying, he ſhall not taſt death: Whatſoever a man ſoweth, that ſhall he reap. And we ſhall reap if we faint not. If any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come into him, &c. If ye be willing and obedient, &c. If ye continue rooted and grounded, and be not moved away from the hope of the Goſpel, &c.

Nay, even the very texts which are wont to be urged for irreſpective Election, do ſeem very preciſely to evince the contrary. For when God is ſaid to predeſtinate according to his good pleaſure which he purpoſed in himſelf, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is rendered good pleaſure, doth not ſignifie the abſoluteneſs, but the reſpectiveneſs of his will; for it relateth to ſomething in which God is well pleaſed, and that is Chriſt; it being impoſſible for God to pleaſe himſelf with Mankinde, any other wayes then in him of whom it was ſaid, [This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed.]

Beſides, all thoſe Scriptures that do teach univerſal grace and redemption (of which there is a multitude) do ſeem to me moſt clearly to infer a conditional Election: For if it be true that Chriſt did die really for all; if he did earneſtly deſire that every one would come in upon the preaching of his word, and receive the benefit of his death and paſſion; if his warning were not in jeſt, and his invitation were ſerious; if [depart from me ye curſed] was therefore foretold, that every one might beware, and not obtrude himſelf upon that ſentence; if he is unwilling that any ſhould be caught in the Serpents ſnare, who ſhews to all (without exception) a certain way to eſcape; if he is not deſirous to ſtrike, who bids us look to our poſture, and ſtand upon our guard; if he ſhews his power to puniſh none but onely thoſe that refuſe his mercy: Then his refuſing of the Goats in reſpect of that which makes them differ from Sheep, inferreth his Election of the Sheep, in reſpect of that which makes them differ from Goats.

Unto this fourth thing let me adde but this one thing more; viz. That ſince our Saviour upon the croſs did very heartily pray even for thoſe Menſlayers. Homicides that put him to death, we have no reaſon but to believe that he layd down his life for thoſe that took it away, and that he died for all, for whom he prayed. And yet we reading of their murders, but not of their repentance; I ſhould be loath to ſay that thoſe crucifying wretches were precious veſſels of Election (in compliance with your wicked opinion, that ſay, Chriſt died onely for Elect) and yet to him that hath but a ſhallow judgement, he muſt needs die for thoſe he prayed for; and 'tis as plain that he died for thoſe that curſed themſelves [his blood be upon us (ſaid they) and on our children,] and yet (ſaid he) Father forgive them; he made his murderers execration become his prayer; he wiſhed as well as they, that his blood might be both upon them and their children; but in his moſt merciful, not in their barbarous and cruel ſenſe: for they meant the guilt, he the benefit of his blood: and yet I dare not affirme that they were all a portion of Gods elect.

Fifthly and laſtly, I conſider, (which to me is an Argument of ſome weight) That the main ſtream of thoſe ancient learned men that are uſually called the Fathers, doth run this way, as it is notoriouſly known to any man that is acquainted with Hiſtory: and becauſe I would not overburthen my ſelf in writing, nor my Reader in reading, I ſhall not recite the innumerable quotations that might be; I ſhall onely refer you to the Paraphraſes of Eraſmus, and the Confeſſions of Beza and Dr. Twiſs. Firſt, Beza in his Comment upon Rom. 11.2. rejects the Judgement of the Fathers, becauſe they were not (as he would have them) for the abſolute & unconditional way. Secondly, D. Twiſs confeſſeth, That all the Ancients before St. Auſtin, did place the Object of God's Election in Fore-ſight of Faith. fide praviſa: at which Auſtin was ſo far from being diſpleaſed, as that (with great Reverence to their Authority) he made it appear to be an innocent and harmleſs Opinion: he affirmed, That all the Fathers, who lived before himſelf, agreed in this. And becauſe Dr. Twiſs ſo readily ſubſcribeth to it alſo, I ought in reaſon to be ſecured from being guilty of novelty or ſingularity herein; for truely, I am loath to forſake the Ancients, until I plainly ſee them ſhaking hands to part from Truth. And ſo I will conclude theſe five Conſiderations, onely with deſiring the Liberty of Conſcience, to believe (from what hath been ſpoken) with St. Paul. That God is a Reſpecter not of perſons, but of works: That my ſins are perfectly and intirely my own: and; That if I do any thing that is Good, it is the Grace of God in me, yet ſo, as that I may do all things through him that ſtrengthens me; and who doth ſo ſtrengthen me that I may do them, but not ſo force me as that I muſt.

If all this doth not yet ſatisfie and convince you, I have ſmall hope that any thing will that is behinde; yet becauſe it may do much good to others, (as I am confident it will to conſidering people) I will proceed to what doth follow.

In the next place, you pretend to anſwer to ſome Objections which are made by ſome of my Judgement. The firſt Objection made againſt Eph. 1.4. and ſuch other places, where 'tis ſaid. That God ha • h choſen us in Chriſt before the world was, you ſay, is this:

Object. 1. That God is pleaſed many times to caſt things that are not as if they were, Rom. 4.17. as he did to Abraham. And ſo Chriſt is ſaid to be a Lamb ſlain from the beginning of the world, Rev. 13.8. So muſt Election be underſtood, in poſſe, but not in eſſe.

The force of this Objection you think to take away with your threefold diſtinction of Acts: 1. The life or vertue of the Act. 2. The fruit of the Act. 3. The form of the Act.

Whether or no you do underſtand theſe, or out of whoſe Book you • ad them, doth not concern me much to examine.

But this I am ſure of, That as 'tis moſt ridiculouſly alleadged for this thing, ſo your inference from it, is falſe: for you ſay, (by the help of your fooliſh diſtinction) That Abraham was really a Father of many Nations, when the promiſe was firſt propounded; and Chriſt really ſlain, when he was firſt promiſed; which is moſt untrue, and it doth deſtroy the life and vertue of the actual crucifixion of Chriſt, and the life and power of our Goſpel: for our Chriſt, crucified ſixteen hundred and odd yeers ago, is, by your ſilly diſtinction, made to be a thing of little or no value; the life and vertue of it, having been before, you ſay: and Election alſo done, and made ſure before time. Oh impudence in a ſuperlative degree!

I fear you are a man that loves novel (that I ſay not, frivolous) diſtinctions: why cannot you content your ſelf with our ancient and known diſtinctions, when they are good? why cannot we ſay, That Abraham was a Father of Nations; and Chriſt was ſlain (as ſoon as the promiſe was made) in poſſe, but not in eſſe; or in a promiſe, but not in performance; and, That perſons are elected before the world was in purpoſe; but yet with reſpect to their being in Chriſt, and perſeverance in good ways unto the end, as hath been already declared more fully?

A ſecond Objection, 1 Pet. 1.2. Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God, through ſanctification of the Spirit unto obedience. Ʋnto which is joyned, 2 Theſſ. 2.13. which place ſaith, That we are elected through (or by the means of) ſanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the Truth, &c.

In your anſwering and oppoſing of this you do grant the thing you plead againſt: for you ſay, pagine 45. That Sanctification, and belief of the Truth, or Obedience, is the way or means to accompliſh that end unto which Election deth intend. And unto this I agree, That Faith and Obedience is the way and means unto the End, that is, eternal Life: Let me therefore ask you, whenſoever means is appointed unto an end, if the means be not uſed, can the end be accompliſhed? •… if perſeverance in holineſs be the way and means unto life, that without it no man can attain thereto, what doth your unconditional (that I ſay not, nonſenſical) Election avail or amount to. So that I may ſay with Eſdras, 2 Eſdras 7.5 6, 7. A city being built, and ſet upon a broad field full of all good things, and the entrance to it narrow and very dangerous, &c. If (ſaith 〈◊〉 ) now this city were given to a man for an inheritance, if he never paſs the danger ſet before it, how ſhall he receive this inheritance? Read alſo unto the 26 verſe of that Chapter.

If againſt this ſome captious Critick ſhould ſay, This is not canonical Scripture:

I anſwer, I do not ſay 'tis: onely then let it paſs as the ſayings of good Men: for its greateſt oppoſers do confeſs, That the Books called Apocrypha are to be preferred before any other humane writings whatſoever yet truely I muſt ſay I do not yet ſee the Reaſon why they are rejected, ſince that the Ancients have had them in equal eſteem with other Scriptures; and in the old Engliſh Bible the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah being called by the ſame name, as if one man had wrote them all four. But this by the by.

The third Objection: No men can be elected in Chriſt, till they be in Chriſt; but no men are in Chriſt, till they believe or truſt in Chriſt: For the elect Epheſians were once out of Chriſt, Eph. 2.11, 12.

Your Anſwer to this is, Men are ſaid to be truely and really in Chriſt two wayes: (but you do not tell where 'tis ſaid ſo unleſs in your Book.) Firſt, by Election; and ſo we are all (you ſay) in Chriſt. What! hath the man forgot himſelf? are all in Chriſt by Election? I do not know where to finde you: even now you were for Election of a few, and now you ſay pag 47. By Election we are [all] in Chriſt, he being the publick perſon in whom all elections were comprehended: and then in the next word you ſeem to be againſt it again; for there you ſay, All the Elect are really in him, before they are brought forth. Unto all which I ſhall make no Reply, there being in your words nothing of ſenſe at all. But in the 48 page, you ſay, You agree with us, That men before they are called, are without God, without hope, and by nature the children of wrath as well as others, Eph. 2.3. and yet for all this you ſay, They were in Chriſt by election before.

O wonder of wonders! what, a man really in Chriſt, and yet at the ſame time a childe of wrath? yea, as much a childe of wrath, as others too: (for ſo ſaith the Text.)

To countenance this, you ſay, Chriſt would not elſe have ſaid, Joh. 10.16. Other ſheep I have which are not of this fold; them will I bring in. But what is this to your purpoſe? All this doth not prove, nor will you, nor any other man be able unto the dayes of eternity, to prove that theſe or any others are really Sheep or elect ones before converſion, though in Scripture fore-called; ſo for the Scripture fore-ſeeing their Faith and Obedience which they will have towards God, doth fore-tell alſo of their election and good acceptance with God at that day; and that is as much as can reaſonably be inferred from thence. But you ſay, There is alſo an outward being in Chriſt, that men may be in, and fall; according to theſe Scriptures, Joh. 15.2, 6. 1 Joh. 2.10. 1 Tim. 1.19.20.

But you will not ſpeak to that, you ſay: if you will not, I purpoſe to ſpeak to it in due time; and ſhall make it appear, That there may be a falling from true Grace, and from Chriſt, after true ingrafting into him: and that falling away you mention, John 15. is ſo too: for Chriſt there ſpeaks to his own Diſciples, who you will confeſs were truely in Chriſt, yet if they did not abide in him, ſhould be caſt forth as a branch, and withered, and burnt, &c.

In the next place you ſay, We have ſome other Objections about truſting in Chriſt, and believing in Chriſt. But you ſay, You have ſaid enough to it already: I think ſo too, and too much, unleſs 'twere truer.

Next you come to the ſixth thing, i. e. That the publiſhing of the forementioned priviledges of the Goſpel, is God's way or means to produce Faith, and other Goſpel-Obedience in the hearts of his own: But in this there is (you ſay) little difference between you and I. I think ſo too, unleſs herein you ſay, 'Tis God's way to produce Faith in his own; and I and the Scripture ſay, 'Tis God's way to produce Faith in all men, as ſhall afterward be more fully declared.

Next you come to the ſeventh particular, i. e. That Faith which is produced in obedience to T • ut • by the diſcoveries of the Goſpel of Chriſt, is not the b • i • ging up of ſomething that is in men before converſion; but it is a peculiar work of God, which Nature in the higheſt improvement is not capable of, till converſion or the new work of Grace be wrought, which is God's; not upon a common, but ſpecial and Goſpel-account wrought by him.

This particular conſiſteth of very ſtrange uncouth phraſes, ſuch as I have not met with: ſo truely I do not well underſtand them: you ſay, [That Faith is not the bringing up of ſomething that is in men before converſion.] Was ever ſuch a ſentence uttered? what occaſioned you to utter this? did you ever hear me ſay, That Faith was brought up in men before converſion? can Faith be before converſion? Do you not fully know, That I hold that Repentance is firſt, and then Faith? and, That both theſe are done by the help of the grace of God in men, by which a man is (as I have already proved) excited and gently inclined, not forced, to believe and obey?

For my part, I am ſo far from making Faith to be before Repentance, that I judge Repentance to be a means unto Faith; and therefore our bleſſed Saviour ſaith unto the Elders of the Jews, Mat. 21.32. That they when they had ſeen, repented them not, that they MIGHT believe. Mark that word, [repented them not that they might believe.]

But yet I would have you know, That I am far from thinking, That either Repentance or Faith, (though it be not attained onely by Nature) yet it is not wrought ſo irreſiſtably as you judge; but ſo as may prove ineffectual, if the creature doth not well improve the means: for proof hereof, minde theſe Scriptures, Mat. 25. about the unprofitable ſervant. Jer. 2.30. chap. 6.29. chap. 8.8. 2 Cor. 6.1.

But before you come to your proof of this ſeventh particular, you ſeem to be much afflicted and troubled at the abuſe that is put upon theſe two Truths you mention, page 51. For, ſay you, if we come to exhort thoſe that profeſs the Lord to activeneſs in duty, or reprove them for neglect in duty; they will reply, We can do no more then we have power to do: which (you ſay) is a Truth, but ſadly applied: For (ſay you) when God hath begun to work Grace in us, the way to encreaſe in ſtrength, is to improve what we have, by careful watching and waiting hourly and dayly before the Lord, &c.

Now let the Reader judge whether all this do not hold forth as much free-will and power in the creature as I do. You ſay, They muſt watch and wait, &c. and get power againſt ſin. This I like well, for 'tis according to the Apoſtle, Let us get grace, whereby we may ſerve God, &c. Heb. 12.28. But when you come to the proving of your ſeventh particular in your four things, you utterly overthrow this again: for you do ſo egregiouſly jumble Truth and Error together, that 'tis fit to amaze the Reader.

Firſt, you ſay. page 55. That the work of Faith is not gained by improving Nature before converſion: and this you have ſaid over and over, and I grant it. But then page 59. you preſent the work of converſion and new birth in a ſtrange dreſs; you make it ſuch an almighty thing, ſeizing upon, conquering and killing the Soul, and that 'tis a ſupernatural light and life ſet up in the Soul, by God's cauſing the creature to aſſent, &c. Now all theſe expreſſions I can well enough ſwallow down provided you will let me take them with a grain of Salt, that is, that God doth all this that you ſay; but he doth not do it irreſiſtably: I ſay, doth it very powerfully and prevailingly, but not ſo as cannot be reſiſted.

Say not, That then man is ſtronger then God, if he can reſiſt the workings of God's grace: for I would have you note this: If God's power herein be reſiſted or fruſtrated, it yieldeth not out of weakneſs, but out of will; God not pleaſing to put forth his power where he feels himſelf reſiſted or neglected.

Now becauſe I have taken notice of many others beſides your ſelf, that run much upon this ſtrain, making converſion ſuch an irreſiſtable thing, I thought fit to ſpeak a few words to it, to rectifie your Judgement herein, if it may be, and all thoſe that ſhall read it, if they be alſo out of the way. I perceive there be of your judgement, many that delight in Metaphors, much rather then in the ſimple term of converſion: and ſo they infer, that a man doth no more to his new Creation, then he did to his firſt; nor to his Regeneration, then he did to his Generation; nor to his Reſurrection from ſin, then Lazarus did to the raiſing of his dead Body.

From hence have iſſued ſuch Doctrines as theſe, i.e. That the Seed of the ſpiritual life, and the habits of Faith and Grace, (like a new Soul) are infuſed into men, before they be ſo much as illuminated. Again, others upon 2 Cor. 5.17. Whoſoever is in Chriſt is a new Creature, infer, that Grace cannot be reſiſted, becauſe no creature can reſiſt his Creator in the creation thereof, &c.

But all theſe novelliſts, together with your ſelf, may be pleaſed to be adviſed,

1. That this leaneth too much to an Enthuſiaſmus, ſuch as all the judicious learned in their ſuffrage do diſclaim.

2. That Arguments taken from Allegories and Metaphors are weak and deceitful, if they be extended beyond that to which the Scripture intendeth them.

3. That the new Creation extendeth not to the ſubſtance, but to the qualities of a man: elſe if we preſſe the letter, we may better defend a Tranſubſtantiation in a mans converſion, then the Romaniſts can do in the Sacrament of Chriſts body: or we may maintain the abſurd opinion of thoſe that ſay original ſin is the very ſubſtance of man. But I hope we have learned better.

4. That this new Creation reſpecteth, 1. the univerſality of the change in qualities to be diffuſed over the whole man. 2. it reſpecteth the neceſſity of this change, Joh. 3. 3. it reſpecteth Divinum & Supernaturale principium; a Divine and Supernatural principle, from whence this change muſt flowe, elſe there is no hope for us ever to be converted. This I grant: But

5. Now as to the manner and many circumſtances; each Creation and generation hath its proper and peculiar manner: for he that made us without us, will not ſave us without us. There the change is à non ente ad ens; Here, à non tali ad tale: from no being, to a being, from not ſuch, to ſuch: There is a rude maſſe; Here, in a creature already living, reaſonable and moving: There, God wrought immediately; Here, by means: There was never creature heard ſay, Create me, renew me O Lord; Here, one is heard crave, Pſal. 51. Create in me a clean heart O God, and renew a right Spirit within me. There it was never ſaid to the Creature, Make thy ſelf; Here 'tis ſaid, Make you a new heart and a new ſpirit; for why will you die? Ezek. 18.31. Jer.4.4.Epheſ.5.14.

There was never any Creature blamed for not being made, nor reproved for being as it is; but Here, to keep on the old man, and not to put on the new, is counted a notorious fault in them that profeſs Chriſt Jeſus and the Goſpel.

Do but conſider theſe things, and ſee if it be ſafe to compare the firſt Creation with the ſecond: for I conceive the miſtaking of theſe things doth occaſion many other abſurdities in your ſelf and others.

I finde nothing more until I come to your eighth particular (page 74.) but what hath been already anſwered enough. You have indeed many particulars to prove that which I do not deny, i.e. that the higheſt improvements of Nature, without the help of Grace, will not enable a man to convert or become a new creature: what need all this? do I ſay a man may convert without the help of grace? But this indeed I ſay, With the help of Grace men may; but moſt do not: Some refuſing it, others receiving it in vain.

Now I come to your eighth Poſition.

8. That it is Gods minde and way; and then of neceſſity in muſt be ſo, for the advancement of his grace, and the accompliſhment of faith in the hearts of his own, that this Goſpel is to be preſented or diſcovered unto all without exemption, as to the declaration it ſelf, unto which (you ſay) you will ſay little, the thing being ſo clear.)

How now! what a bold attempt do you make upon the wiſdom and holineſs of God? what muſt the death of Chriſt and remiſſion of ſins (for that's the Goſpel) be preacht unto all, for the ſake onely of ſome? If there be not really remiſſion of ſins for all men to be had in Chriſt, then they which preach remiſſion unto all, (as Chriſt commands his Apoſtles to do, Luke 24.47.) will be found to preach an untruth to moſt, for the ſake of ſome: Alas for you, theſe are low and baſe thoughts of God: what do you judge the Almighty to have no better way to bring about his deſigns but by lies, or by unreaſonableneſs? what if Gods deſign had been, as you ſay 'tis, to work faith onely in ſome few, and in them to work it certainly and unavoydably; could not he (thinke you) have provided a better way to work this faith, then by telling all men he would have them all repent, believe, and be ſaved, &c. telling them that he gave his Son to die for them all, and is unwilling that any of them ſhould periſh?

Surely it would be a wilde trick (and hypocritical) if Mr. Hobſon ſhould ſend his ſervants to all the inhabitants in the Parts where he lives, to invite them with great earneſtneſs unto his feaſt, and when they come there to put moſt of them back, ſaying, That he invited all, onely for the ſake of ſome; and this he did for the magnifying of his grace? would not any man think that either Mr. Hobſon was diſtracted, or elſe he was deſperately full of guile and hypocriſie? and ſuch actions would magnifie his folly and wickedneſs, not his grace. Might not Mr. Hobſon with leſs deceit, and more honeſtie, have ſent ſome private and particular invitations to thoſe particular perſons he intended? yea, certainly he would, if he were to make ſuch invitations; and I think he would ſcorne to invite all, and intend onely ſome: with what face then can he affirm that of the ever-bleſſed God, which he hateth in man?

Surely God will not do that himſelf, which he cannot indure, and hath forbidden in man.

And whatever Mr. Hobſon, or any others ſay, the Almighty will be found at the great day of account to have invited none but ſuch as he heartily and really intended ſalvation unto, had they been pleaſed to accept, and not made light of it, Matth. 22.5.

In the next place you pretend to anſwer to this Objection:

Object. If the power of believing be ſolely of God, how can he juſtly condemn man for not believing, ſeeing the power is not in them, but in God?

I muſt needs tell you in plain Engliſh, that your anſwer to this Objection is not onely impertinent, but vile. And while you deviſe new tricks and ſhifts to clear up the juſtice of God (as you ſay) you do abſolutely deny the plain Scripture: for (ſay you, page 77.) God doth condemn no man for not expreſſing of a power to believe, but for exerciſing a power to reject Chriſt: when the Scripture ſaith, He that believeth not is damned, becauſe he believeth not, &c. Joh. 3.18. and Chriſt ſaith, unleſſe ye believe that I am he, ye ſhall dye in your ſins.

But you ſay, this is the declarative cauſe, not the meritorious cauſe: what a ſordid ſaying is this? what will God declare one cauſe and proceed by another?

Their not believing you ſay is the declarative cauſe; but that is not the cauſe that God will go upon, you ſay.

This is indeed according to what you have already ſaid of him, that he declares and proclaims one thing, and means another. I grant that God condemns men for rejecting grace, ſo doth he alſo for not improving of that which they are poſſeſt withal, Matth. 25.29, 30.

And he ſhall render vengeance not onely to thoſe that rejected and did deſpite unto the Spirit of grace, but alſo unto thoſe that know not God, and that have not obeyed the Goſpel of Jeſus Chriſt, 2 Theſſ. 1.8.

In the next place (page 79) you pretend to diſcover my miſtakes (as you ſay) which is the cauſe of my ſtumbling. My firſt miſtake, you ſay, is my meaſuring mans ability by Gods power or authority: as when God ſaith, Do this and you ſhall live. &c. this ſay you doth only imply Gods authority, not mans ability. I will ſhew you your weakneſs herein, if you will but grant me that God doth all things wiſely, ſoberly, and diſcreetly. Judge now: would it be ſoberly and wiſely done, for a King to ſay to an impotent man, Do this impoſſible thing, and I will reward you richly; and if you do not, I'll hang you. If no earthly King will command, but where there is power to obey; much more will not the King of heaven. And if this were a way for a King to manifeſt his power by over his impotent Subjects, yet would it be no way to magnifie his grace and favour towards them; and that ſeems rather to be Gods deſign in the Goſpel.

You muſt know and underſtand, that God will and doth ſet forth his power and his juſtice in no other way then may well ſtand with the glory of his grace and mercy alſo:

2. My ſecond miſtake (you ſay) is my not diſtinguiſhing of cauſes ▪ and I ſay your miſtake is the not underſtanding of cauſes. I do allow of as many diſtinctions of cauſes as the Scripture doth; but I am not ſo ſimple, as to make ſeveral cauſes of one thing to be diametrially oppoſed againſt each other, as ye do; but conſentaneous to one another: ſo that Gods declared cauſe is adequate to his eſſential, meritorious or final cauſes.

My third mſtake (as you ſay) is my not underſtanding the extent of the word [all] and the word [world] and in this you make a great puther and a ſtir to prove that the word World is taken many times for leſſe then all: Who knows not that? but 'tis ſometimes taken for all, as you, and all men confeſs: and in this caſe touching the death of Chriſt, I am certainly aſſured 'tis meant all, as I have already evinced from John 12.47.

Nay moreover, you grant it: for you alſo affirm that he dyed for all: and therefore when you except againſt my large extending the word [world] it may be conceived you are a little out of your ſelf; if not, I am ſure ye are out of the truth. For what man that is compos mentis, would firſt aſſert that Chriſt died for all, and for the world, and then except againſt the places that prove it as not extending unto all, becauſe ſometimes thoſe terms in other caſes extend not to all? I hope you will ſee your folly, and be aſhamed.

4. My fourth miſtake (you ſay) is my not underſtanding Ezek. 33.11. where the Lord ſaith, As I live, I delight not in the death of a ſinner, For from this place I conclude (you ſay) all ſinners; and ſo indeed I do; yea, the worſt, and periſhing ſinners; and ſo the text ſaith expreſly, Ezek. 18.ult. I have no pleaſure in the death of him that dieth. Who told you that God makes three ſorts of ſinners, and one of them he calls ſinners in a Goſpel-ſence? have you eaten of the forbidden fruit? if not, how come you to know more then is written, and more then is true? that ſome ſins and ſinners are greater then others, I do not deny; but to divide ſinners into ſo many ſorts, that exclude the greateſt part of them, from Gods deſire of ſalvation to them, I allow not, but deteſt it as abominable.

I am ſure God tells us no ſuch thing in his word, as that he would ſave onely ſinners in a Goſpel-ſence: But he either ſaith Sinners indefinitely, or elſe particuliarly of ſuch ſinners as Mr. Hobſons wiſdom excludeth, as theſe Scriptures will abundantly teſtifie, Jer. 25.3. unto 8. Jer. 35.12. unto 17. Chap. 29.19. Chap. 18.11, 12, Chap. 6.16, 17. Chap. 13.11. Iſa. 48. 17, 18, 19.

Where you may ſee he endeavoured with all earneſtneſs (even unto admiration) to ſave not onely thoſe that did accept, but thoſe alſo that refuſed Salvation and periſhed. That all this was done out of true compaſſion to them, doth appear, 2 Chro. 36.14, 15, 16.

That all this alſo was not a bare outward and helpleſs means which God uſed by his Prophets, but a moſt efficacious, powerful and prevailing means, the Spirit of God going with the word of the Prophet, and yet not received, doth moſt manifeſtly appear in that remarkable place of Zechariah 7.11. 12, 13. as alſo Act. 7.51.

This is yet farther confirmed and illuſtrated by the ever bleſſed Son of God, in his moſt pathetical expreſſions of ſorrow and grieffor, and the ſhedding of tears over, the miſerable ſons and daughters of Jeruſalem, who had unavoidably, (and full ſore againſt his bleſſed will) brought themſelves into an irrecoverable eſtate, by not knowing the time of their viſitation, when they were moſt gently allured and earneſtly called upon it being now too late to reverſe the Decree that was gone out againſt them; I ſay, yet did our Saviour weep for them, Luke 19.41. and weeping he moſt affectionately breatheth forth this moſt bleſſed wiſh and deſire for them [O that thou hadſt known in this thy day, the things that belong to thy peace, &c.] in which deſire he is like unto God his father: See Deut. 5.29. Chap. 32.29. Pſal. 81.13. Iſa. 48.18.

Let all this be well weighed without prejudice, and ſee then if you you cannot underſtand our Saviour as he ſpeaks; that is, That he came not to call the righteous (that is, righteous indeed) but ſinners to repentance (that is, ſinners indeed) his deſigne into the world being more to amend that which was amiſs, to ſeek that that was loſt, and heal that that was ſick; then to thoſe that were already in a good way, and in a ſaveable condition, that had not need of a Phyſitian, Mat. 9.12. Mark. 2.17. Whoever do but mark upon what occaſion our Lord here ſpeaketh theſe words, they may with eaſe underſtand that he means worſe ſinners then Mr. Hobſons Goſpel-ſinners: for our Saviour being at meat with Publicans and ſinners in Levi's houſe, the Scribes and Phariſees complain of it (thinking 'tis like, as Mr. Hobſon doth, that he was ſent onely to the preciſe and Goſpel-ſinners; which when our Lord perceived, he ſaid unto them, They that are whole have not need of the Phyſitian, but they that are ſick: I came not to call the righteous, but ſinners to repentance.

Next you ſay, I miſtake in putting one perſon for another, as in Heb. 10.29. where the text ſaith, Of how much ſorer puniſhment, ſuppoſe ye, ſhall he be thought worthy, who hath troden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was ſanctified, an unholy thing, &c. Now you ſay, my miſtake is; That I take the word [he] for the party that treads the blood of Chriſt under foot, whenas 'tis meant, (if all were true as you ſay) of Chriſt himſelf, that was ſanctified.

This fond (and I think your own) interpretation of this place is not onely againſt all the judicious learned, but againſt the ſcope of the Apoſtle, which is both to aggravate the puniſhment and the ſin of the perſon here ſpoken of who trampled under his foot the blood of Chriſt; which he aggravates by rehearſing the vertue of it, and what it had done for him; to wit, ſanctified him from his ſins, which the party wickedly how ſlighted and rejected, though formerly had imbraced it, and been ſanctified by it: and this right well agreeth with Saint Peter, 2 Pet. 1.9. & 2.20, 21, 22.

I am ſtill filled with amazement, that you ſhould be ſo void of reaſon, as to interperet Scripture after ſuch a heedleſs manner, as to confront all wiſe and learned men, yea, and the truth alſo: Do you think it would aggravate the ſin of the ſinner, to tell him that he hath trampled under his foot that blood which he had no benefit nor ſanctification by, but that blood by which Chriſt was ſanctified? or do you think that Chriſt needed to be ſanctified by his own blood himſelf? I am well aware that ſanctification is ſometimes taken for ſetting apart; but ſanctification by Chriſts blood; is never ſo taken, but for cleanſing: and therefore you cannot maintain that Chriſt ſanctified and cleanſed himſelf by his blood, unleſs you hold that he did as the Prieſts under the Law, who offered firſt for themſelves, and then for the people; and then you muſt hold alſo that he (as they) had ſin of his own, and then you will be found directly againſt Gods word, Heb. 7.27. for he was without ſin.

Fifthly, my fifth miſtake (you ſay) is, That I am not converted, nor acquainted with the power of God in Scripture: but what if it ſhall appear at the laſt day, that I am converted, and do know the power of God in the Scriptures aright? then Mr. Hobſon will be miſtaken: and ſo much (until then) for that miſtake.

My Sixth miſtake (you ſay) is my confining my judgment of Gods eſſential will, to his revealed will in his word and actions (for that's your meaning in fewer words.)

But I do not ſee how you can make it appear to be a miſtake, but a ſound truth; for if I muſt not judge that God is grieved and troubled, and angry, when he ſaith he is, how then ſhall I know and be aſſured he loves me, when he ſaith he doth? If I muſt not believe his meaning to be according to his ſaying, how then ſhall I know that he means believers ſhall be ſaved, ſince he doth but ſay ſo? And though his general declaration in his word be, that good and holy men ſhall be ſaved, and wicked damned, yet (according to your fond conceits) he means to ſave the wicked, and condemn the juſt.

In the next place (page 89) you come you ſay to anſwer briefly to my queries and abſurdities; and ſo I think you do briefly anſwer them indeed, and ſo brief, as that 'tis next unto none, if not worſe then none, for you refer me unto your falſe poſitions formerly laid down by you; and therefore I will make no reply to you in this at all, as deſerving none: my 14 Queries and 10 Abſurdities ſtanding yet in full force, I ſhall therefore here ſet them down again in the concluſion of this work, partly that the Reader may judge how well you have quitted your ſelf in your anſwer, and partly, becauſe you have fraudulently recited them, preſenting them to the Reader in as ugly a dreſs as you could.

There remains yet onely one thing more to be done, that is, to anſwer to your Abſurdities, which you ſay, will neceſſarily flow from my judgement.

1. Abſur. The firſt is: you ſay I deny the prerogative of God▪ as if he had not power to do with his own as ſeemeth good to him.

I Anſwer, it is falſe, I deny him not any prerogative over his creature which he doth challenge, for he may do with us as the potter with the clay, i.e. advance ſome to places of honour in the houſe, and daſh otherſome in pieces, or make them veſſels of diſhonour; but that is if they be marred in his hands, and will not make veſſels of honour, not elſe: he were an unwiſe potter that would challenge that priviledge over his clay, for to daſh it in pieces when 'tis made as he would have it: ſee Jer. 18.

2. Abſur. Secondly you ſay, I do as much as give Chriſt the lie becauſe he ſaith, He had finiſhed the work that the Father gave him to do.

I Anſwer, in this you ſhew much ignorance, for men are not ſaved by Chriſts death onely, but by faith therein, and obedience thereunto; but this hath been more fully handled already by me, to which I refer you.

3. Abſur. Thirdly you ſay, I do exceedingly undervalue God and the riches of his grace and love, &c.

I Anſwer, you miſtake now one perſon for another, for this is to be meant of your ſelf, that pinfold the grace of God into a narrow compaſs, whenas I extend it unto all the world, and all generations.

4. Abſur. Fourthly you ſay, I lay injuſtice upon God, becauſe I ſay he condemns ſome for whom Chriſt died.

I Anſwer, It were injuſtice to condemn them, if Chriſt did not die for them, for not believing on Chriſt; there is great reaſon to condemn them, if Chriſt died for them, and yet they refuſe him, and their own ſalvation notwithſtanding.

5. Abſur. Fifthly you ſay, I change the nature of cauſes, putting the effect before the cauſe.

I Anſwer, Here again you miſtake me for your ſelf, for I have already proved 'tis you put the effect before the cauſe.

6. Abſur. Sixthly you ſay, I ſtrike down the great deſign of God, &c.

I Anſwer, I maintain his deſign, I hope, in his ſaving of good: and Godly men, and reprobating obſtinate and wilfull ſinners other Election and Reprobation I know none from the holy Scriptures; if you do, it may look grim upon you perhaps in the day of account.

7. Abſur. Seventhly you ſay, My opinion deſtroyes it ſelf, &c.

I Anſwer, See what confidence will do: poor man! becauſe you have not truth on your ſide, you are fain to make up your arguments with confidence and repetitions: how often have we had this, that Chriſt hath ſatisfied for the ſins of the Elect? when as he hath (in your ſence) ſatisfied for no mans ſins; that is, ſo as that they are pardoned without any condition in them: ſee Matth. 6.14.

You make a ſtir about the ſin of unbelief, that Chriſt hath ſatisfied for that. I deny not but that he hath ſatisfied for that as much as for any other, that is (to ſpeak plainly) he hath done ſo much for all ſins, and for all mens ſins, that if they continue not in unbelief and hardneſs of heart, they may have remiſſion of ſins, one as freely as another: other ſatisfaction hath he made none, for any perſons whatſoever, as hath been already proved.

Now dear friend, I beſeech you, for Chriſt Jeſus ſake read my Book without prejudice and be not wedded to your own opinion: for it is moſt certainly a rotten foundation, and will deceive you at laſt.

I beſeech you ſearch the Scriptures, and beg of God to give you light, that your poor ſoul may not be deceived, nor God ſo ſadly diſhonoured, or abuſed, by bringing him and his eminent acts of love, grace, power and juſtice, under the controwle of your low and Novel opinions: For the prevention of which, it ſhall be the dayly prayer of him, who in ſincerity can ſay, He is a real lover of your ſoul.

William Pedelſden. FINIS.

FOraſmmuch as there be many perſons that reading Mr. Hobſons Book, and my ſhort Anſwer to it, may yet remaine unſatisfied, and be in doubt which of us is in the truth, in the points now in controverſie; I thought it expedient for the benefit of all (as well as of Mr. Hobſon) to take ſome pains about the clearing up of the riches of Gods love to all mankind, his deſires to ſave them, that yet wilfully periſh; the way and manner of ſaving them, and how Election and Reprobation ſtandeth, and on what they do depend, and how the moſt conſiderable Objections againſt the truth hereof may be anſwered.

In the proſecution whereof, I ſhall endeavour as much as I can, to uſe ſo convenient a method, and plainneſs, and brevity alſo, as may neither burthen your underſtandings, nor your memory. Be it therefore preſented unto you in this Order.

CHAP I. And firſt of the Creation.

THE Creation of the world was the firſt Act of Gods power, we know of; beginning then to execute in time, his counſel and decrees that were from everlaſting.

The world is that whole frame of Gods building, conſiſting both of heaven and earth, with all things thereunto appertaining; according to the plat or model in the mind and purpoſe of God, who hath built all things, Heb. 3.4. in which he hath manifeſted the inviſible things of his wiſdom and goodneſs, to his own glory, Rom. 1.20.

Therein he made creatures of ſundry natures, motions, and perfections, to ſundry ends.

Above others, he made Man, in more excellent perfections, to a more excellent end.

For he created Man in the Image and form of God, as far as was meet for a creature to partake of the Divine Nature; that was, to be good, but mutable.

He may be ſaid to be in the Image of God in other three things, 1. Underſtanding and Will, 2. in Holyneſs and Righteouſneſs, 3. in Immortality and Bleſſedneſs. Theſe three were ſubalternate one to the other: Underſtanding and Will to Righteouſneſs, Righteouſneſs to Bleſſedneſs; Bleſſedneſs to be the reward of Righteouſneſs, and Righteouſneſs to be the work of willingneſs; for Vertue is not neceſſitatis, ſed voluntatis.

CHAP. II. Of Gods governing Man.

AFTER Man was thus Created, Gods next Act according to his eternal counſel, was, to govern Man thus created, as he might uſe his Perfections, and attain his End.

In this Government, God as the Supream Lord was to command, and Man as his creature and vaſſal was to obey: yet God being a free and gratious Lord, and Man not a brute, but a reaſonable and free ſervant, it pleaſed his Lord to deſcend and come into a Covenant with him, as is uſed between party and party. The Summe of this Covanant was, Do this (viz. what I command you) and you ſhall live; if not, you ſhall die.

The Law Natural, or Moral, written in the heart of man, comprehended all the works that were to be done by him.

The Law Poſitive, namely, that one of abſtaining from the fruit of the tree in the midſt of the garden Eden, was a tryal and experiment of his obedience, and the exerciſe of the duties of the Law Moral, in a particular: to man appertained the obſerving of theſe Laws; to God appertained the performance of the promiſe of life to man obſerving them, as being faithful in the Covenant.

CHAP. III. Of the fall of Man, and its effects.

ADAM being tempted by Satan, I did tranſgreſs that one eaſie Commandment, and ſo became guilty of all; and looſing his Righteouſneſs, he forfeited his happyneſs by ſin, the breach of Gods Commandment and Covenant.

This ſin of his was voluntary, not neceſſary, (though he ſinned being tempted by another) for he had ſtrength enough given him of God, and more was ready to have been ſupplied unto him, if he had craved it: whereby he might have vanquiſhed the tempter, and have ſtood firm in his obedience: but he willingly conſented and yielded to the deceiver.

This fall was not cauſed by God (though foreknown) but onely permitted, when God if he would could have hindred it.

But God permitted it,

Firſt, becauſe he would not impeach the freedom of will that he had given unto man.

Secondly, becauſe he ſaw it would offer him a fair occaſion to manifeſt his wiſdom and goodneſs yet more graciouſly then he had done in the Creation, which alſo he had forethought on, namely by his Son Jeſus Chriſt his ſuffering; intending by the obedience of that one man to make many righteous, as by the diſobedience of one man, many were made Sinners.

Thirdly, becauſe God knew it would offer unto man a juſt occaſion (if he were dealt withal again in a ſecond Covenant) both to be more thankful, & more wary & careful & ſo many more likely to be ſaved by a ſecond Covenant, made with man fallen, then would have been by the firſt, if Adam had ſtood: for natural perfections eaſily beget pride and confidence in our ſelves, which is the firſt degree of averſion from God, and the beginning of ruine; but wants and weakneſſes do humble us, and make us fly to God, and cleave more cloſe to him.

That the fall of man was known to God, before the decree of Creation, I deny not; for the Creation it ſelf doth declare no leſs, where there are infinite things prepared for mans uſe, onely as fallen; as all Medicinal herbs prepared for Pyſick: Phyſick preſumeth ſickneſs, and ſickneſs preſumeth ſin.

The effects of this fall of man are twofold: within him, and without him.

Within him, that which is called original ſin, comprehending both the loſs of his original righteouſneſs, and of his ſupernatural perfections, and alſo the decay of his very natural faculties, from whence floweth a continual luſting after that which is evil, and a repugnance to that which is good; which loſs is repaired again by the grace of God, in the Goſpel of Jeſus Chriſt.

The effects of the fall without man, are compriſed under the curſe of the ground, the ſubject of mans labour, comprehending all the miſeries of this life; and under the ſentence of death comprehending both death, and all the miſeries that belong unto it. I mean the firſt death.

Theſe effects of the fall of Adam, took place not onely upon himſelf, but on all his poſterity, becauſe God held him as the whole nature of Mankinde.

CHAP. IV. Of the Covenant of Grace

THe next Act of Gods eternal Counſel, was the reſtauration of man fallen; for the moſt wiſe and mighty God having created the world for man, and man for happyneſs in the fruition of himſelf, would not ſuffer either the whole deſtruction of his creatures or the fruſtrating of his end, though he pleaſed to permit the depraving of his creatures, and to forſake one ill ſucceeding way, to take a better for the attainment of his end.

Now what by the remaines of Gods Image left in man, and what by the ſupply that God would make by his gracious help, miſerable Man was reputed by God a fit perſon once again to be a party in a Covenant, a Covenant of new conditions ſuiting to the ſtate of a ſinner, but tending to the ſame ends, righteouſneſs, and life.

This Covenant is called the Covenant of Grace: 1. Firſt, becauſe it was freely made with man, a ſinner, utterly unworthy to have any more communion God. 2. Becauſe in this the righteouſneſs and ſalvation of man, is wrought rather by God then by himſelf; man being more in receiving then in giving, in believing then in doing; yet hath it the nature of a true Covenant, both parties having ſomething for either to perform.

God to ſend his Son and his Spirit to relieve the miſeries and wants of man to forgive ſins, to impute righteouſneſs, and to give life to ſuch as obey his Son and his Spirit.

And Man, to humble himſelf for his ſins to God his Creator, to believe in Chriſt his Redeemer, and to yield himſelf to be led by the word of God and Spirit.

But here are two things affirmed, which may ſeem to require proof. Firſt, that the Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankinde. Secondly, that he ſupplieth by his Spirit whatſoever is needful to the keeping of this Covenant, on the behalf of man, who is confeſt impotent in himſelf through his former fall.

Theſe two ſhall by Gods aſſiſtance be ſufficiently proved afterward, when I come to ſpeak of calling and free will. In the mean time, let this ſuffice:

Firſt, that we finde here in the day of the firſt publiſhing of the Covenant, all Mankinde in Adam and Eve, receiving the promiſe of the Goſpel at the ſame time that they received their penances, which we ſee to be univerſal to all their ſeed: it is therefore more then probable, that promiſes ſhould be taken as univerſal, ſince the wiſe do ſay, Ampliandi favores.

Secondly, that we finde left after the fall, remains of ſome part of the Image of God; as life, underſtanding of good and evil, liberty of will in natural and civil things, conſcience accuſing or excuſing, &c. Which though they were given at firſt by Creation, and ſo belong to nature, yet the ſtaying of them to remain in man after his fall, was of Grace, both to make him capable to contract and Covenant withal, and alſo to be ſome beginnings and principles in order to his reſtauration: but ſince theſe alone are not ſufficient to make him able to riſe again, or recover righteouſneſs, it is decent to think of God who doth nothing imperfectly, and who in Covenanting is no hard Maſter, that he would ſupply by his Spirit, whatſoever was needful more to the keeping of that New Covenant: upon which dependeth the eternal woe, or the eternal happineſs of the party Covenanted with.

CHAP. V. Of Calling by the Word and Spirit.

CALLING is the Revelation and Proclamation of the riches of Gods Grace in the Goſpel to all ſinners, commanding repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jeſus Chriſt (Act. 20.21.) and promiſing of forgiveneſſe of ſins and life everlaſting to all that obey, Act. 2.38, 39.

Calling conſiſteth of two eſſential parts, both which are requiſite to make up one whole and perfect work of calling i.e. the outward preaching of the word, and the inward operation of the Spirit accompanying the word.

There are many, and too many, that diſtinguiſh calling into two kindes, one outward of the word onely, another inward of the Spirit joyned with the word: That they ſay is ineffectual, This effectual: That, common to the Reprobate, This, ſpecial and peculiar to the Elect; That, never obeyed with truth of heart, This never diſobeyed.

This Doctrine is to be examined before we give it a let-paſſe. For my part, I diſtinguiſh not two callings, but compound one calling of the word and Spirit, as it were of a body and Soul, ſuppoſing it to have in it ſelf power to bring forth effect in all that are under it: and if it do not ſo, the cauſe not to ariſe from the Calling, but from the called that obey not.

1. For declaring of this point, we are to conſider, that the Spirit doth not go with the word, to make the hearer perform that which he can do already by natural ſtrength (for the Spirit is given to help where nature faileth) as to keep waking, and to be attentive: for that which men can bring of their own ſtrength, God expecteth to finde and to meet: one cauſe therefore why to many the Spirit is not preſent to the word, is when they are not preſent to the word through their ſottiſh careleſneſs.

Secondly, it muſt not be thought that the concurrence of the word and ſpirit, is as it were natural, neceſſary and inſeparable, but voluntary and arbitrary in the will and good pleaſure of God, to ſuch as heartily pray for it, for themſelves and others: hence the Church of Chriſt prayeth before Sermons for the illuminations and power of the Spirit to come with the word: Another caſe then where the Spirit is not co-working with the word many times, is when it was not duly and diligently asked.

Thirdly, there are men that are paſt grace, to whom the Spirit is not preſent with the word, ſuch as for their former neglect and contempt of the time of their viſitation, when God did call them, are now given up to blindneſs and hardneſs, and have the light of the Spirit, and the dew of grace, held back from that word which is preached in their hearing by accident.

Fourthly, it muſt not be thought that the Spirit goes with the word, to work any grace in any perſon whatſoever, but according to the order of divine providence, who diſpenſeth his grace wiſely, which is thus to be declared: we are to diſtinguiſh the word that calleth, the perſons that are called, and the operation of the Spirit by the word: the word is either the Law or the Goſpel: The Law hath two parts, and ſo alſo hath the Goſpel: a Commandment and a Promiſe. 2. The perſons called by God in the Goſpel, are all manner of ſinners, but convicted, terrified, wounded, full of compunction and ſelf-condemnation, wrought in them by the Spirit in the preaching of the Law, Matth. 11.28.3. The operations of the Spirit upon theſe men by the miniſtry of the Goſpel, are

Firſt, to open their eyes, to ſee the marvelous light of Gods mercy to ſinners: of the infinite love of Chriſt in dying for ſinners: of the powerful gifts and graces, and aids of the holy ſpirit to help and relieve the impotency and miſery of ſinners; to the end, that by this light, this opinion may be begotten in them, that it is poſſible for them to be recovered.

Secondly, to pour into their hearts hope, or to ſtay them from deſperate ſinning or ſorrowing.

Thirdly, to inſpire the grace of prayer, at leaſt to wiſh or deſire, Oh that they might be ſo happy as to eſcape the wrath to come, and recover the love and favour of God!

Fourthly, to give them repentance, that is, to ſorrow for ſin paſt with a godly ſorrow, and to purpoſe to break off ſin, and to ceaſe from further offending God.

Fifthly, to work in them faith, that is, to run to Chriſt, and to caſt themſelves into the arms of his goodneſs and power to be ſaved by him.

Theſe graces, in this order, the holy ſpirit is preſent and ready to work by the Goſpel, upon a ſinner convicted, humbled, and prepared by the Law. And look what portion of power the Spirit had in the Law upon an unregenerate man to humble him, the ſame hath it in the Goſpel upon the humbled, to work in him hope; and him hoping, to win to wiſh and pray; and to him praying, to give repentance; to him repenting, to inſtill faith, and ſo to juſtifie him, being juſtified by faith.

Now think not that the Spirit is preſent in the preaching of the Law to an unregenerate man, to give him ſtrength to new obedience preſently, becauſe it is preſent then to convince and condemn his wickedneſs. The ſpirit is not preſent in the preaching of the Goſpel, to a man yet not penitent, to work in him peace, joy, love, though it be preſent to work theſe in the believer: for if it ſhould work theſe in him before faith, it ſhould work contrary to the word.

The Summe of all is this, The Spirit of God is annexed to his word for ſuch gifts and operations, as to which the hearer is a fit diſpoſed ſubject: there is an order in the divine working: wherein there are things antecedent, preparatives to things ſubſequent; which antecedents if they found no place, and were not admitted, the ſubſequent are then ſuſpended. Hence is there ſo frequent and juſt ſeparation of the Spirit from the word by the great Paſtor of our ſouls, who walketh in the midſt of the Churches.

Thus much for the declaration of this point: for confirmation of it, I alledge all the Elogia of the word of God, as Pſal. 19. The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the ſoul, &c. Heb. 4.12. The Word of God is quick and powerful, Joh. 17.17. Sanctifie them by thy truth: thy word is the truth, &c.

But that calling is the ſame, to them that obey not, as to them that obey, I ſhall urge theſe two places more, Mat. 22.14. [Many are called, but few are choſen] here many are diſtributed into two ſorts; ſome that are called and not choſen, ſome that are called and alſo choſen: for theſe few choſen are a part of thoſe many [called] ſo that the whole many are put under one and the ſame calling, which calling is not by the outward word alone, for from that calling ariſe none choſen, therefore the calling was by the word and ſpirit common to both: and the few choſen excelled not in calling, but in ſomething elſe to wit, in obeying the calling, to come when others refuſed, or in coming worthily in a wedding garment, according to the parable.

The other place is, Matth. 12.41. [The men of Nineveh ſhall riſe up in judgement with this Generation, and ſhall condemn it, &c.] from whence I reaſon thus if Jonas preacht to the Ninivites without the ſpirit, how did they repent? if Jeſus preacht without the ſame ſpirit, how is he greater then Jonas? nay how is he equal in the power of preaching? and if they that diſobey be not equally called with them that obey, how can theſe riſe up in judgment againſt them? when their anſwer is ready, We had not the ſame calling with you; ours differed tote genere; you were partakers of an heavenly calling, we but of an earthly; you were called by the voice of God ſpeaking to your hearts, we but by the bare voyce of men ſpeaking to the ear: If God had moved and excited us, as much as he did you, we would have done as well as you. But God will not give occaſion for them thus to ſpeak, for he will ſo effectually provide for all them that periſh, that they ſhall have no excuſe, Rom. 1.20. & 2.1.

Therefore I conclude that the diſtinction of outward and inward, of effectual and ineffectual calling are vain, for theſe reaſons alſo.

Firſt, becauſe it giveth unworthily the name of calling to the bare outward preaching of the word, which may be a commanding, but not a [calling] a commanding as of the Law, but not a calling as of the Goſpel; ſeeing that the word of the New Covenant comes to call men to repentance and faith, for their recovery, after notice taken of their impotency to riſe again of themſelves. It ſeems an inſulting mock, and not a call, to ſay to ſinners, Turne, repent, believe and live, unleſs there be ſome grace prepared for them, whereby they may be able to repent and believe.

Secondly, becauſe it attributeth the effect of obeying the calling to the kinde of calling it ſelf; as onely to one cauſe, to wit, the operation of the Spirit, as if many cauſes did not concur to produce one effect, and as if obedience to the calling of God were not an act of the will of man, under the ayd of the Spirit of God; as if the aid of the Spirit were never refuſed, nor the grace of God never received in vain. For though God be Almighty, and able to draw all ſecond cauſes unto his part and ſide, yet he doth not uſe to diſturbe or croſs the nature of cauſes, nor the order of things, which himſelf hath eſtabliſhed.

Thirdly, becauſe this diſtinction makes Gods Covenant to differ from all Covenants in humane affaires; I mean, even that which is eſſential to a Covenant: for in a Covenant each party hath ſomething to perform; but by this diſtinction, God is ſuppoſed both to provide infallibly to have the conditions fulfilled, and alſo to fulfil his own promiſes: whereas all that he undertakes for us, is to make the conditions poſſible, and not to be wanting in his help, ſo far as is needful for us.

CHAP. VI. Concerning the queſtion of two equally called.

VVHen two perſons are equally called, and one converteth, and the other no: (theſe both being ſuppoſed poſſible) who is it that puts the difference, God or man?

I anſwer, that 'tis man that puts the difference, and not God. I ground this anſwer, firſt, upon the righteous judgement of God, Becauſe God judgeth not his own acts, but the acts of men: ſecondly, becauſe every righteous judge findes a difference, and doth not make any between party and party.

Who put the difference between the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel but themſelves? both alike inſtituted in religion by their father; God a true witneſs, teſtified of Abels gift, as better then Cains. Heb. 11.4.

Who put the difference between Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar? as to their nature both were men, as to their dignity both were Kings; as to their cauſe, both held the people of God in captivity; as to their puniſhment, both were mildly admoniſhed by chaſtiſements: what then occaſioned their different ends? nothing elſe, but that one of them ſenſible of Gods hand, groaned under the memory of his own iniquity; the other by his own free will fought againſt the moſt merciful verity of God.

Suppoſe two perſons be equally tempted by the beauty of one-fair body, whereof one yields to the temptation, the other perſeveres what he was before; what elſe appears in theſe, but that onely, that one would, and the other would not looſe his chaſtity.

The difference between the Ninevites repenting at the preaching of Jonas, and of the Jews not repenting at the preaching of a greater then Jonas, if God put it, how ſhall they riſe up in judgement and condemn theſe?

But that which makes it ſo horrible to pious ears, to ſay a man makes himſelf to differ from another, is the miſunderſtanding of that place 1 Cor. 1.7. Who made thee to differ? as alſo they ſay, that many Abſurdities will follow upon this aſſertion.

Let us firſt examine this notable place of Saint Paul, and next thoſe Abſurdities ſo much urged.

1. We are here to note, that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh here of Eloquence, Knowledge, Tongues, and the like gifts; not of faith, charity, repentance, converſion, and the like; we muſt not think, that becauſe in immediate gifts man doth not put a difference, that therefore he in nothing makes himſelf to differ.

I will demonſtrate this by a Reaſon, why this text cannot be applyed to gifts neceſſary to Salvation.

Becauſe in them God wills not that difference that is between believers and unbelievers, under the word of faith; but would have all believe and obey the Goſpel: this difference offendeth and diſpleaſeth God, and it proceedeth as much from the diſobedience of him that believeth nor, as from the obedience of him that believeth.

But of that part of the difference which is by diſobeying, God I trow is not the Author: For it is ſin and ſhame to him that wanteth faith, after the meane of faith afforded him, but no blame to him that ſpeaketh not with tongues, or propheſieth not; theſe were given ſuddenly and immediately, without labour or means, but faith and the reſt needful to ſalvation, had meanes by which God gave them: about which means men might uſe different diligence.

Being ſecure of this place of Saint Paul, I come to the Abſurdities which ſome ſay will follow, if man make himſelf to differ: they are theſe, 1. That the ſaints have no more to thank God for then the wicked. 2. That one man may glory againſt another, for that he hath done ſomething more then another did.

To the firſt I anſwer, For matter of thankfulneſs, that as grace is not therefore grace, becauſe it is given to one and denyed to another, but becauſe it is given to the unworthy (for grace were not the leſs but the greater, if it were given unto all) ſo my thanks are not therefore given to God becauſe he hath been merciful unto me more then to others, but becauſe he hath been merciful unto me unworthy; and my thanks are not diminiſhed becauſe many more are partakers with me in the ſame benefits, but greater, and ſhould have been yet greater, had more ſtill been partakers than are. This is a good rule for thankfulneſs: But take heed of Phariſees forme of thanks for graces, with compariſon to other folks, "Lord I thank thee, I am not like other men, or as this publican, &c. Indeed as ſome put the caſe of mankind like a company of Rebels, out of which the King chuſeth whom he pleaſeth to pardon, and executes the reſt with the ſword. Thoſe pardoned owe thankes for their pardon, more thanks for culling them out, that were like to the reſt in rebellion. But the Scripture puts not the caſe of mankinde ſo; but rather thus: God by the Goſpel as a King, mercifully proclaims a general pardon to all the Rebels in ſuch a County, upon condition that he that comes in and yields his ſword, and takes at the Kings Pavilion a ticket of his pardon, ſhall be free to go home and injoy the ſtate of a good Subject; but they that ſtand out and refuſe this grace, be after ſuch a day, purſued with fire and ſword. They that ſubmit, magnifie the amplitude of the Kings mercy, ſorrow for ſuch as ſtand out, and juſtifie his execution done upon ſtubborn and ungrateful Rebels. Mr. Hobſon (and others) think to win greater thanks to God, by amplifying his grace upon one conſideration of ſparing ſome ſimply, but with prejudice to his truth proclaimed to all. I think to win greater thanks to God by amplifying his grace upon another conſideration of ſparing all upon favourable conditions according to the Goſpel, the moſt wiſe comprehenſion of the grace, mercy, juſtice, and truth of the Almighty.

To the ſecond abſurditie I anſwer, For matter of glorying let this Rule ſtand firm, Qui glorietur, in Domino glorietur, Let him that glorieth glory in the Lord, or let him not glory at all. Remember again that the gifts of God are either immediate proceeding from himſelf alone, as prophecy, tongues, &c. or mediate, ſuch as proceed from Gods grace, and mans will together; of the immediate there is no glorying, I have already proved.

But for gifts mediate, as faith, repentance, and obedience, in any particular duty, they muſt be conſidered as dona Dei, and as Debita à nobis, as the gifts of God, and as our duties; as the gifts of God wrought in us by his grace, preventing helping and ſtrengthning us, there is no glorying of them neither but in the Lord: ſo St. Paul glorieth, 1 Cor. 15.10. Plus omnibus laboravi, I have laboured more then they all; yet not I, but the grace of God with me, which grace was not in vain, Phil. 4.13. I have the Art both to abound and to want &c. I am able to do all things, through Chriſt that ſtrengthens me: here glorying is excluded alſo, becauſe I do not do, without being helped by grace: though I preach the Goſpel (ſaith Paul) I have nothing to glory of: for neceſſity is laid upon me, and words me of I preach not the Goſpel: So wo is me if I believe not the Goſpel (may the hearer ſay) what matter of boaſting is it, for a man to have kept himſelf from ſome deteſtable crime, whereinto another ruſheth himſelf to hell? Yet I pray do not exclude all kinde of glorying, not that which Saint Paul names in 2 Cor. 1.12. The teſtimony of a good Conſcience, is ſome comfort and joy; he that wanteth that, hath an evil conſcience: let Innocency waſh her hands without a check of vain glory, let Samuel call witneſs of his integrity, and Nehemiah record his own good deeds, Neh. 5.15. The former Governors before me had been chargeable to the people; even their ſervants bare rule over them, but ſo did not I, becauſe of the fear of the Lord.

I anſwer yet further, whatſoever have been our endeavours and labours more then others, who is ſo voyd of piety and underſtanding, that doth not aſcribe his good ſucceſs unto God the fountain of all good, and the univerſal and principal cauſe of all happy events? the form of the Saints rejoycing therefore is thus conceived: — Not unto us O Lord, not unto us but to thy name be the glory, this [not unto us] implies that ſomething hath been done by us, and that mans corrupt heart is too ready to claim ſome glory to it ſelf for it: but true wiſdom and piety ſoon removeth it, and ſaith, Not unto us O Lord, but unto thy name be glory.

Neither truly ſhould theſe poor things of the will of man whether endeavour or labour, yielding or obeying have been once named, the ſame day that Gods grace and works are named, had there not been a neceſſity compelling thereunto. They have compelled me, who under a colour of magnifying the grace of God, and of juſtly reproving thoſe that have been adulatores Naturae, are turned themſelves adulatores Gratiae. So far forth, that by them Satan ſeeketh to ſubvert the truth and righteouſneſs of God, and to extinguiſh and deſtroy all piety and religion in men, bringing into the world a ſtupid ſloth for ſome, a remorſleſs infidelity and impenitency for others; and an invincible deſperation and hardneſs for otherſome, being the natural off-ſpring of that Doctrine, that takes away all manner of will from men in matters of Salvation, that turns the general promiſes of the Goſpel into particular and private, that limits an eſpecial kinde of grace, which is onely effectual to a few ſecret ones by a direct decree, the reſt being left deſtitute of true grace, though they be called by the word of the Goſpel.

CHAP. VII. Of Free will.

COncerning free will, I thought good to ſpeak a few words, and no more then I have great Antiquity for, beſides the word of God. The commands and threatnings of Almighty God in Scripture, whereby man is called upon and put in mind what God will have him do, moſt evidently doth declare that man hath free will, ſtill after the fall, as appears in ſuch places as theſe, Be not overcome of evil, Rom. 12. Neglect not the grace that is in thee, 1 Tim. 4. Love not the World, 1 Joh. 2. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, Matth. 19. Which undoubtedly ſhould be ſaid in vain, if there were no facultie or power left in man whereby he may (by the help of grace (if he will receive it when 'tis offered him) underſtand and obey Gods commandments.

This free will we may conveniently deſcribe thus, to be a certain power of the will, joyned with reaſon, whereby a reaſonable creature without conſtraint diſcerneth and willeth good and evil: but it willeth not acceptable good, except it be holpen by grace; but that which is evil it willeth of it ſelf.

CHAP. III. Concerning falling from Grace.

THat a man who is really and truly in the ſtate of grace and ſalvation may fall, I will prove firſt by theſe two texts, Matth. 24.13. and Ezek. 18.22. the firſt hath the promiſe of ſalvation to him that continueth to the end: out of which I collect two things. Firſt, that he to whom ſalvation is promiſed if he continue, is in the right in which he ſhould continue, and is ſo ripe and fit for ſalvation, that if he but continue ſuch, he ſhall be ſaved. 2. That he who is thus excited to continue, is preſuppoſed poſſible to fall away, deny the ſaith, and imbrace this preſent world: the anſwer that ſome reſt in is to no purpoſe, i.e. that means muſt be uſed in regard of our weakneſs; but in regard of Gods Election, and Chriſts interceſſion we cannot but ſtand; for if two pillars be ſtrong enough to bear up ſuch a houſe as Sampſon was in with the Philiſtines, what need other ſupporter beſides?

The ſecond text, is that of Ezek. 18.21, 26, 27. Which by no evaſion can be avoided, if the compariſon there between a righteous man and a wicked be well obſerved: for deny you in any wiſe that a righteous man can turne from his righteouſneſs and die, and I will with the like reaſon deny that a wicked man may turne from his wickedneſs and live; and ſo we ſhall ſolvere Scripturas, make void the holy word of God: if a ſuppoſition putteth nothing in the one, it putteth nothing in the other; if it be ever ſeen that a wicked man turns from his wickedneſs and lives, then it may as well be ſeen that a righteous man turns from his righteouſneſs and dies.

Let me adde this one Argument more, that the regenerate fallen into mortal ſin is not then filius Dei. It is taken out of 1 Joh. 3.9. He that is born of God, doth not commit ſin, for his ſeed remains within him, and he cannot ſin, becauſe he is born of God.

I ſhall here do two things at once, overthrow the ſtrongeſt Arguments of my Opponents, and I ſhall retort the text unavoydably upon themſelves, that is, by giving the true ſence of that place. The ſcope of Saint John is not to prove that they that are born of God, cannot depart or change, from righteouſneſs to ſin, or that there cannot be a ſucceſſion of theſe two; for this in the Apoſtles time was out of queſtion: But his ſcope is to prove that theſe two cannot conſiſt or ſtand together, (which the will of the fleſh would fain have) to be born of God, and to commit (deadly) ſin. They did admit for true, that he that had been the member of an Harlot, might by repentance become the member of Chriſt; and that the member of Chriſt might become the member of an Harlot, by falling into adultery: But that a man might be at once a member of an Harlot, and a member of Chriſt, that they denyed, theſe expelling one the other. If we have entertained Chriſt in the Inne of our hearts, we put the Devil to flight preſently: if we ſin, and by the gate of ſin give entrance to the Devil, forthwith Chriſt departs; let them conſider this, who defend David to be ſtill born of God, when he ſtood guilty of Adultery and murther; But they count it ridiculous to ſay we be ſo often born of God, as we repent of ſin: it is more lamentable to fall oft into ſuch ſins, then ridiculous to be often renewed by repentance; becauſe in our natural birth we are born but once, therefore they will have it that in our Spiritual we are born but once: There is no neceſſity in this conſequence: it ſhould ſeem then that Saint Paul was not aware of this Argument, when he ſaid, Gal. 4.19. My little Children, of whom I travel in birth again, untill Chriſt be formed in you.

This text of Saint John, may be underſtood with much eaſe, if we do but conſider the acceptation of the word [cannot] there, He that is born of God [cannot] ſin, rendring this Reaſon, becauſe he is born of God; that is, He cannot lawfully, becauſe in his new birth he had ſo ſolemnly engaged himſelf to Jeſus Chriſt in Baptiſme, that if he ſhould now return to ſin, he would be perjured and forſworn.

Like this is that of Saint Paul, Rom. 6.2, 3. How ſhall we that are dead to ſin, (that is, by Baptiſme) live any longer therein? not, how ſhall we [poſſibly] for 'twas poſſible, for he exhorts them verſe 12. not to let ſin reign in their mortal bodies. But how ſhall we [lawfully] ſince that you have covenanted againſt it, giving your ſelves up in Baptiſme to be dead to ſin, and to riſe out from thence unto newneſs of life? you ſhould do well to read this Chapter ſeriouſly, as to this point.

It is ordinary in our common locution, if we ſee a man doing that which is both unlawful, and which he hath vowed againſt, to ſay to him, it is more then you can do, meaning, with a good conſcience. Like this Saint Paul hath a ſaying, in 2 Cor. 13.8. We can do nothing againſt the truth, but for the truth. But for further ſatisfaction to my ingenuous Reader, I refer him to that famous and worthy work of Mr. John Goodwin of London, intituled Redemption Redeemed, in which not onely theſe Scriptures, but alſo all others that are uſually brought againſt the points now in controverſie, are moſt amply handled, and the truth evinced beyond all exception.

CHAP. IX. Concerning Foreknowledge in God.

THere be many that by fore-knowledge will needs underſtand approbation and love, rather then knowledge properly taken: but that cannot be, becauſe then the Apoſtle Paul and Peters difference between fore-knowledge, and to predeſtinate, to fore-know, and to Elect, would be quite taken away. But if any ſhould contend to have it ſo notwithſtanding, I will fetch a poor Almanack, to wipe away this gloſs by the common uſe of the word Prognoſtication.

Therefore though God approveth not, yet he fore-ſees all things, or rather ſees them as preſent to him.

Which fore-knowledge, or knowledge, doth not lay a neceſſity upon the things ſo to be: for the very nature of knowledge doth not imply a neceſſity that the thing muſt, but a certainty that it will be: as for example: When I ſee a man walk, and at the ſame time ſee the ſun ſhine, I ſee the firſt as voluntary, and the ſecond as natural: and though at the inſtant that I ſee both done, there is a neceſſity that they be done, (or elſe I could not ſee them when I do) yet before they were done, there was a neceſſity but of onely one (i.e. the ſun ſhining) but none at all of the other (i. e. of the mans walking) the ſun could not but ſhine, being a natural agent; the man might not have walked, being a voluntary one: upon which it followes, There is a twofold neceſſity, one abſolute, the other on ſuppoſition: the abſolute is that by which a thing moves when 'tis forced, the Suppoſitive is that by which a man ſhall be damned, if he die impenitent: the latter of theſe (though not the firſt) doth mighty well conſiſt with the liberty of mans will, and Gods conditional decrees.

I am now writing, and God foreſaw that I am writing; yet it followes not that I muſt needs write, for I can chuſe. What God fore-ſees will be, will certainly come to paſſe; but it will come to paſs ſo as he foreſaw it, that is, I will do it of choiſe.

If all things are preſent to God (as indeed they are) his foreſight muſt needs be all one with our ſight. As therefore when I ſee a man dance as he pleaſes, it is neceſſary that he doth what I ſee he doth: but yet my looking on doth not make it neceſſary; for, that a thing may be certain in reſpect of its event, and yet not neceſſary in reſpect of its cauſe, is no news at all to a conſidering perſon, who will but duly diſtinguiſh Gods Omniſcience from his Omnipotence.

They that make the fore-knowledge of God to be the cauſe of all future events, muſt needs father all the wickedneſs in the world upon him, for he fore-knowes the evil as well as the good, he fore-knew that Adam would fall, that the Jews would crucifie Chriſt, that Judas would betray him, with all other wickedneſs in other men: but his fore-knowledge did not cauſe them to do it, for they were voluntary agents, or elſe could not be ſaid wickedly to have done what they did do.

Queries on the univerſal love of God to all mankinde. 1. IF Chriſt died not for all, what ground hath any man to believe he dyed for him? 2. How can God be ſaid to be juſt, in caſe he condemns thoſe perſons for whom Chriſt never died? 3. How can remiſſion of ſins be preached to thoſe for whom Chriſt never died? 4. Whether do men periſh becauſe Chriſt died not, or becauſe they believed not? if becauſe Chriſt died not, it is not their unbelief which deſtroyes them: but they periſh becauſe Chriſt never died for them, or becauſe there is no Chriſt for them to believe in. 5. If Chriſt did not die for all, wherefore do they exhort all to repentance, and call upon all men to believe? or would you make ſome men believe and ſo be ſaved, which Chriſt never died for? 6. Whether hath not Chriſt given out a power or ability to all men, to believe on him? 7. Whether the fault be in Chriſt or in the Creature, that the Creature is not ſaved? if the fault be not in Chriſt that the Creature is not ſaved, then, whether hath not Chriſt given out a power or ability to believe? 8. Whether unbelief be the condemning ſin? if unbelief be the condemning ſin, and ſinners be condemned for not believing which never had a power to believe, where then is the fault? 9. whether God hath not appointed all to be ſaved, with this proviſo or condition, if they believe? 10. Whether was not Adam in a ſtate of grace before his fall? which if ſo, whether did not Adam fall from grace, and we in him? 11. What is the ſtate of infants by generation from Adam? whether are they in a ſtate of ſalvation, or in a ſtate of damnation? 12. If infants are in a ſtate of ſalvation, whether do they fall from that ſtate when they come to act? 13. If the elect can never fall from their election by diſobeying the Scripture, no more then the reprobate can be ſaved by obeying them, to what purpoſe is the Scripture ſet forth? 14. Whoſe names they are that are written in the book of life, whether be they the Elect's or the reprobate's? if the elect's, whether they ſhall not be blotted out, if they adde or diminiſh from the word of God?

Theſe Abſurdities will unavoydably fall on thoſe which deny Chriſts death for all. 1. IF Chriſt died but for ſome of the ſons of men, then the divel deſtroyes not thoſe men for whom Chriſt died not, but they periſh for want of Chriſt, and ſhould ſo periſh if there were no devil to devour them: contrary to this Scripture, 1 Pet. 1.8. 2. If Chriſt died not for all men, then deſpaire is no ſin in them who periſh through it, ſeeing there is nothing for them to believe in unto ſalvation for whom Chriſt died not. 3. If Chriſt died not for all men, then I think it were a ſin for ſome men to believe he died for them, becauſe they ſhould believe a lie, if they ſhould believe that Chriſt dyed for them; ſeeing he did not, if they ſpeak true which ſay he died not for all. 4. If there were ſome perſons for whom Chriſt died not, ſuch perſons ſhould be exempted or freed from the condemnation of unbelief, or treading underfoot the blood of the Covenant by which they were ſanctified, if it were true that Chriſt had not once died for them: for how can that man crucifie Chriſt afreſh, or tread underfoot the blood by which he was ſanctified, for whom no Chriſt died, or no blood was ſhed, if they ſay true that ſay, Chriſt died not for all? 5. If Chriſt died not for all, Satan in perſwading people that Chriſt died not for them, doth not evil, if that be true that Chriſt died not for them, and therein he were no deceiver, but rather perſwades them to that which is truth, if Chriſt died not for all, as they ſay. 6. If Chriſt died not for all men, then it were no hereſie for to teach ſome men to deny that Chriſt bought them, contrary to that Scripture 2 Pet. 2.1. who ſaid, Some men bring in damnable hereſies, even denying the Lord that bought them bringing on themſelves ſwift deſtruction: But it is impoſſible for him who Chriſt died not for, to deny the Lord that bought him, or to be a heretick in ſo doing, if Chriſt bought him not. 7. If there be ſome whom Chriſt died not for, it is an error for them to believe that Chriſt died for them, which ſay they he died not for. 8. If Chriſt died not for all men, then ſome men for whom Chriſt died not do believe a truth, in believing that Chriſt died not for them, which were a blaſphemy to ſay. 9. If Chriſt died not for all men, then ſome men ſhall be damned in hell for not believing that which is not truth, becauſe ſome men ſhall be damned in hell for not believing that Chriſt dyed for them: yet ſome ſay that it is not truth that Chriſt died for them, and ſo ſhall be damned in hell for not believing a lie. 10. If Chriſt died not for all men, then their damnation is not to be aſcribed to their not believing, but to Chriſt not dying for them: which is contrary to theſe Scriptures, Joh. 3.18, 36.