Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable

I find Dr. Twisse (ibid. & alibi saepe) charging it on them, as holding that Grace is given according to Works (which is Pelagianism:) For they think that God looketh at some preparation in the Receiver, and giveth it to some because they are prepared for it, and denieth it to others because they are unprepared: whereas it is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth, but in him that (of his mere good pleasure) showeth mercy.

There is enough said of this after, about differencing and effectual Grace. But if we must say more, I ask you,

Quest. 1. Do you by this phrase [according to Works] mean to urge the Scripture that speaketh in that phrase, in its proper sense, or do you only use the phrase in some other sense of your own.

I use Scripture phrase in Scripture sense, because I rest on its Authority.

Quest. 2. Are we not also saved without Works in Scripture sense? And would it be contrary to Paul to say we that we are saved by Works; yea, or according to them in that sense that he speaketh of them. See James 2. 14, &c. Tit. 3. 5. Ephes. 2. 5, 8, 9. Gal. 3. 2. 5. 10. Acts 15. 11. &c. and 16. 31. Rom. 5. 10, And yet saved according to Works in another sense, James 2. 14, &c. Phil. 2. 12. Gal. 6. 4. Rom. 20. 12, 13. 2 Cor. 5. 10.

In several senses of Works we deny it not.

Quest. 3. At least you will grant that we are not justified by Works, and yet that we are justified by Faith: yea in another sense by Works.

Quest. 4. Is not believing and repenting in order to Justification, and all holy obedience in order to Salvation; as truly op •• a work, and in a far nobler sense than preparation for Faith is?

That cannot be denied.

Then you cannot affirm that the phrase [not according to Work • ] which excludeth not Faith, Repentance, holy Obedience to justification and salvation, doth intend the exclusion of all preparation in order to Conversion or Faith in Christ; when by Works excluded, it meaneth the same thing, or sort, in all.

But saith Dr. Twisse, ibid. page 154. [Pardon and Salvation God doth confirm only on condition of Faith and Repentance: But •• for Faith and Repentance, doth God confer them conditionally also▪ If so, whatsoever be the condition let them look to it how they can avoid the making of Grace, to wit, the Grace of Faith and Repentance, (to be given according to Works.]

I know he frequently saith the same. But 1. I speak now only of the sense of that Scripture, and say, that this goeth upon a most false and dangerous supposition, that Justification, and Salvation are given according to Works, though Faith and Repentance be not: whereas in the sense of Works there meant by Paul, no man can be justified by Works. And though Christ saith, This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom the Father hath sent; yet it is not that which Paul meaneth: Let not therefore Scripture words be abused to mislead men's understandings.

2. But as to the matter of the Controversy, I spoke to it enough before. No man can deny but that God usually prepareth the Soul fer Conversion by a common sort of Grace: And though he may do what he list with his own, and extraordinarily may in an instant convert the most unprepared malignant obdurate person; yet that is not his usual way: (And some that think otherwise are led into the mistake by thinking that a man is converted, when he hath suddenly some terrifying humbling preparation, which endeth in conversion.) Whether he convert all that are brought to the very highest and nearest degree of preparation, I know not, nor perhaps you neither: But that usually he converteth all such we have very great reason to think probable: And that he hath not commanded men to seek his special Grace in vain. So that whether it be a proper promise on God's part, or only an encouragement short of proper promise, I told you before is a hard question. But we maintain that it is not that proper mutual Covenant which maketh a Christian, and is celebrated in Baptism, and giveth Salvation.

If one of old John Rogers 's, Thomas Hooker 's, or Robert Bolton 's hearers, when they were vehemently urging preparatory humiliation, desire, endeavor, &c. should have said to them, Sir, you play the Arminian, and contradict St. Paul, who saith that Grace is not given according to Works: Therefore God will give it me never the more for such preparations: what would you have said to him. The truth is, practical Preachers in these practical cases, are carried with full sail into that truth which Disputers would wrangle out of Doors.

But as for any work • meritorious in point of commutative Justice, y • a, or of any full and proper Covenant of God, giving a proper Right to the Sinner, upon which he may claim special Grace as his due, I know of none such before true Conversion; though God's commands and general promises give men sufficient encouragement.

But what say you to Rom. 9. It is not in him that willeth or runneth, &c.

I do not love to expound hard Texts unsatisfactorily by scraps: I will give you, God willing, a Paraphrase of the Chapter together by itself. I suppose you have read John Goodwin 's and Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase. At present it may suffice to say, 1. That the meaning is not, that he that would have Christ, and Grace, and Holiness is no fitter for it▪ than he that would not have them: nor that he that seeketh them is no fitter for them than he that rejecteth them • nor that he that believeth is no fitter for Justification than • n I • fidel; nor he that is holy any fitter for Heaven than the unholy: nor yet that he that heareth, meditateth, prayeth, a • he can, and attaineth the highest degree of common Grace, is no fitter or likelier for Faith or special Grace than he that despiseth it and the means of it. 2. But the meaning is, that God of his free mercy c • lled the Gentiles that were further from him than the Jews, and may give (both) the Gospel, (and the Grace of the Gospel) to one, and take it from, or not give it to another, when both of them are equally unworthy of it by their sin. So that the first and principal cause that difference • ha Jacob from an Esau, is not that Jacob before God's Grace did will and r • n, de • ire and seek Grace; but that Mercy begun with him, and gave him, though as unworthy as Esau, both commonner and special Grace, which caused him to will and run. And yet for all that both are supposed to have forfeited mercy by sinning against it; and it is in him that willeth not, and runneth not, that the cause of his misery, and privation of mercy is to be found. Yea in many an instance where mercy and helps are given by an equality, a wicked man may make himself to differ by his sin, and willfully become worse than others.

At least you must here confess, that de facto we do really differ from each other in this point.

All they that hold all that Doctrine of Preparation for Conversion, which you find in the suffrages of the British Divines in the Synod of Dort do not (that I know of) differ from many of the Lutherans, and Jesuits, nor from many of the Arminians herein; while by the name of merit of Congruity, used by some, and Preparation by the other, no more is meant than they there assert: And as to the question of a promise or no promise, I showed you before how small the difference is; yea with some it is but de nomine, while one calleth that a Promise, which another calleth but a half promise (with Mr. Cotton) or a precept to use means with sufficient encouragement; when perhaps in the description of the thing they agree: So that among the most and sober practical Preachers, I yet see no real difference in sense at all, about the necessity of preparatory Grace.

For ought I can understand, some of them acknowledge no Corruption nor Grace in the Will, as having no Habits, but mere Indifferency or Liberty; but think that the illuminating of the understanding is enough to change the will.

1. These are a few odd persons, that differ from the generality of your Adversaries: and I am not to justify all that every man writeth.

2. But even of these I suppose the meaning of the most is, but this, that sin began inthe Intellect, and there Grace must begin: and that God worketh on the will but mediante Intellectu. And these Cameron held as well as they; and so do many more. And these seem to differ, not about the necessity of Grace, but the manner of its conveyance to the will; whether it be only by the intellect.

3. And as the wind bloweth where it listeth, and we hear its sound, but know not whence it cometh, or whither it goeth; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit. We know that the will is vitiated as ill as the understanding, and needeth Grace as much as it: and that God is as near to the one in his operations as to the other, and giveth real Grace to both. But because the intellect is in the natural order, the first in acting, and the will but second; and because the act is commonly (and reasonably) supposed to go before the Habit (though not before all Divine Influx ad actum;) therefore men are uncertain whether God who first acteth the Intellect, do not by its act, first operate on the will. But this dependeth much on the Physical Controversy, whether the Intellect determine the will ad speciem actus, or at least really and efficiently move it; or rather only present the object to it, and so work but in subserviency to the material cause, which is constitutive indeed of the act in specie, but not efficient: and the perception of it goeth to the conditio objectiva, without which it is no object to the will. This I incline to with Scotus, and suppose that the Intellect moveth not the will per modum naturae, by necessitation. But while we know not the order and nature of the operations of our own souls, how shall we know the unsearchable way of the operations of the Holy Ghost.

They make God's Grace a resistible thing, which man can frustrate; and so God worketh at uncertainties.

I have said so much of this before, that I need not tire you with much more. Quest. 1. Do you know of no way for God to work with certainty of success, if Grace be resistible.

I will not say so: I know what you have said to this before.

Why then do you speak that which is not valid in your own judgment? Quest. 2. Dare you undertake to justify all the world against the accusation, of having resisted the Grace of God.

No; I dispute not on such hard terms.

Quest. 3. Did you never repent yourself for resisting Grace?

Yes, in some sense; but not as I now mean it.

How is that?

To resist the Gospel and Ministry is a resisting of Grace, and the Holy Ghost, Acts 7. and so I have done. But I speak of immediate resisting God.

1. Remember that here you confess that the Gospel is Grace, even to them that resist it. 2. God himself cannot be resisted immediately, where he worketh not immediately. 3. But where he doth so, he is said to be resisted; 1. Not by any repelling of his strength. 2. Much less by opposing a greater strength. 3. Nor by acting by any strength but what he giveth. 4. Not by causing any difficulty to him. 5. Not by frustrating any absolute will of his: But 1. Passively, by being ill disposed to the reception of that Grace which he offereth, and that operation which else might effect it. 2. And actively, by doing that which rendereth us yet more ill-disposed both naturally and morally by commerit. 3. As also in that we do that which is contrary to God's actions in their tendency to the effect. When he moveth us to hear, read, meditate, pray, love, trust, &c. and we do the contrary; this may be called a resistance.

If God intend the effect, it will be done: but if he intend it not, how is he resisted in that which he never intended to do?

You know the Scripture speaketh not at these rates; but when men will set their silly wits against God's Word, thus they will seem subtiler than he: But it's but a dream. 1. God may be resisted when he intendeth not the effect: in that his Law is resisted, and with it that necessary measure of Grace, by which the effect might have been wrought. Though his Decree be not resisted, yet his Law and his Grace and help (which had a tendency to the effect, and a sufficiency on its part) may be resisted. 2. And he is ordinarily resisted in that which he doth both intend and do: For he seldom doth us any good without resistance, though he overcome. But he that overcometh resistance is resisted.

But I mean by Resisting, Overcoming.

Why then did you not speak as you meant. None dreameth that Omnipotence is overcome by a greater strength; much less by the derived power of us worms. But the Case is weighty which you and others perilously overlook.

Let me hear your explication of it.

God doth not work like necessary agents to the utmost that he is able. His Wisdom hath diversified Creatures; and his Wisdom hath appointed (even in the works of Grace) a stablished order of second causes and means which he will use for the effect. And his Wisdom and Free will hath fixed a certain degree or proportion of his concourse, suitable, 1. To the nature of man; 2. And to the nature and use of all those means; 3. And to the effect as it is to be ordinarily accomplished: Even as in nature, he concurreth with all causes agreeably to their stablished nature and use. Now though Omnipotency cannot be overcome, yet the same creature that hath a certain stated proportion of natural activity, and God's suitable concourse (e. g. to a healthful body which hath strong appetites), and also a congruous proportion of Gracious means, and concourse and helps of Grace, by which he can rule the foresaid appetite, may yet by neglect of that help, and by willful indulging of that appetite, make the appetite stronger than his ordinary degree of help, and so overcome the Grace of God, though he overcome not God's Omnipotence or Decrees. But there is yet another thing of great moment commonly overlooked.

What is that?

The great importance of that common saying Recipitur ad modum recipientis; on which, had I time, I would write a Book of Instances. Causa Receptiva is not well understood. Aristotle maketh Privatio to be one of his three Principles in Physicks. By Privation must be meant, not Absentia formae, sed Dispositio materiae: And whether you will call it a third Principle, or only the due qualification of the first (Matter) to make it immediately Receptive of the form, the matter being de nomine & • umero is small. But it is most certain, that the wonderful diversity of alterations, or effects of motion in the world, is very much to be ascribed to the diversity of Receptive Dispositions. And accordingly as in Physicks the three Active Natures (Intellective, Sensitive, and Veg • tative, (which its like is Ignis) are to be defined per virtutes suas Activas; so the Passive Elements (Earth, Water, and Air) are to be defined by their several contextures or constitutions, which make up Dispositionem Receptivam Influxus Activorum, unicuique propriam; which is their very form.

In Physical cases, God doth first as Creator make all things in wonderful variety of natures, quantities, figures, and contextures. And secondly, he causeth an Universal Cause to Influence them generally; such as is the Sun for one (what other we know not well); whose • r • ple influx Motion, Light, and Heat, affecteth all things according to their several Natures and Receptivities. The special Active principle in every living thing, is both cherished, and suscitated by this universal solar influx. But the diversity of effects is not from the Sun, but from the diversity of Recipients. The Sun by its influx is the cause that all things live, and move▪ But that one thing hath a life and motion Intellective, and another Nonsttive, and another Vegetative, that by the Suns influx an A • orn bring • forth an Oak, and every Seed its own kind of Plant; that a Horse •••• as a Horse, a Dog as a Dog, a Sheep as a Sheep, &c. that the • osa hath one smell, color, shape; the Carna • ion another; the Tulip another, & • . that the Dung •• l s •• keth, that the Clay is hardened, the Wa • softened, &c. the innumerable different effects in the inferior creatures, are all caused by the Sun, as to their general nature (the received Influx of a 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Motive, Illuminative and Calefactive Virtue) but they are none of them in specie vel gradu unde differentia qua talis oritur caused by the Sun alone, but also by the variety of the suscitated vital forms in animals: And in things inanimate though not the Recipient, but the solar Influx be the efficient cause of the variety of alterations and effects, yet the Ratio diversitatis is more in the Disposition of the Recipient: The Suns Influx is the same in itself without any difference, on the clay and wax, on the dunghill and the rose: Let the question then be what causeth the different effects? Answ. 1. The Suns influx causeth all the Motion, Light, and Heat (which they all receive) as the Efficient cause. 2. The Material Recipients are the several things named, as Material. 3. The said Recipients being of divers Natures and Shapes, &c. have their variety of Receptive Dispositions. 4. The forma Recepta a sole, is nothing but its triplex influxus, Motus, Lux, Calor. 5. These are variously Received according to the various Dispositions of the Recipients. 6. Hence follow the Variety of the second effects; By the motive Influx some things are moved, when stones and houses stir not. By the Lucide Influx the eye seeth, when the hand doth not: the flowers appear in various colors according to their various Receptivities; and some things give little reflective appearance of their Reception of it. The Calid Influx cherisheth the living, and burneth by a burning-glass, when the dead stir not by it, and some unapt recipients are little altered by it. I call these the second effects which are thus various; For the first effects are still the same, viz. the Motive, Illuminative, and Calefactive efflux of the Sun is still sent forth, and some how or other reacheth every capable recipient in general: But the Alterations which are thereby made are diversified according to the diversity of Receptivities.

But yet these Receptive Dispositions are no efficient Causes of this difference, or of any of the alterations. But they are the Receptive Material Causes, without which the efficient doth not make them, and according to which he doth make them.

So that the Sun, though but Causa Universalis, yet is also the Universal Cause (and sole efficient) of all these Particular motions and alterations; And yet the Ratio differendi is not to be given from it, but from the different Receptivities, according to which it still produceth them.

So the Rain falleth equally on the stones, on the earth, on vessels of various shapes and sizes: The stone retaineth none: The vessels variously retain it: As they are round, square, long, great, or small, so are they variously filled. The efficient cause of the difference, is the descent of the rain. The material constitutive cause, is the different quantities and shapes of the water. But yet the Ratio differendi is to be assigned from the diversity of Receptive dispositions in the vessels.

And that you may see that these Receptivities are no efficients, and yet contain the chief Rationem differendi, note that the Reason to be given from them is, ex alter a differentium parte, still Negative or Privative, as on the other it is Positive: E. g. Why doth the Sun make the Rose smell sweet, and not the stone or dunghill? Because the stone or dunghill have not those odoriferous particles to be suscitated by it as the Rose had. Why doth the Sun move the Flies and not the Stones? Because the Stones had not that vital principle to be suscitated, as the Flies had. Why did not the rain fill the Stones as it did the Cisterns? and this Vessel as that? Because they had not the same Receptive and Retentive shapes.

Well! but what is all this physical Discourse to our present Controversy?

1. The constancy of God in operating according to an established Order in the world, doth show us, that the God of Order delighteth so to do.

2. Therefore we have reason to conceive that he doth some such thing in the methods of Grace, as he doth in nature, viz. That he hath instituted a frame of means, which are the established way in and with which he will convey his Grace: And that he hath decreed to concur with a certain congruous universal influx which shall afford to all such a degree of suscitating, illuminating, and converting attractive force, as his wisdom seeth meet to be the established measure for the redeemed World. And this universal Influx is the sole efficient of all the good that is found in the redeemed: But 1. It is but a certain convenient proportion, and therefore will not do all that God can do; nor do the same on one man as on another; nor at one time as at another, on the same man. 2. And recipitur ad modum recipientis: The diversity of second effects may oft be most assigned to the diversity of receptive Dispositions.

It is a wonder to see how the same causes variously work on men's minds that are dispositively diversified but by some preconceived opinion. You may see two men learned, sober, pious, in doubt whether the Arminians or Calvinists, the Conformists or Non-conformists; yea perhaps the Papists or Protestants, be in the right. One is before hand more inclined one way, and the other the other way; yea perhaps not inclined in will, but have received in judgment a great apprehension that someone Principle is right, which more induceth to one side than the other. They both pray, and meditate, and resolve to read and search the Scripture and Controversal Writings with all possible diligence and impartiality: They set upon it; and one seeth all along as he goeth, the fullest evidence, as he thinketh for the one side and the other, seeth all go on the other side, through the difference of Receptive disposition.

I have had sufficient notice of two Non-Conformist Ministers, that had favored in mind, the late cause of the Parliament in the Civil War, and by the face of the dreadfulness and heinousness of the guilt, if it should prove that their cause was bad, were brought to resolve to do all that possibly they could to be resolved. They both set themselves to Fast and Pray, they searched the whole Scripture, read over the Statute-Book, and all the Common Law-Books and Cases, that they could get, and all the History of our ancient Government, and of our late Transactions; they read what was said on both sides, and one saw all as clear as the light go for the King against the Parliament, wondering that any should make a doubt of it; and the other, though still not fully certain, was more confirmed in his old apprehensions the other way; yet both learned, able, judicious, godly, and truly desirous to know the truth, and many and many years begged it of God, and unweariedly followed on the search; and no carnal interest I am fully persuaded made the difference. And what then, shall we ascribe it all to immediate operations of God, without anymore ado? No; as far as I could perceive the difference arose from hence: One of them was first deeply possessed with the sense of God's late Judgments Spiritual and Corporal on the Religious party which adhered to the Parliament; and thought these Judgments indicated their sin: Their Scandal, Divisions, Confusions, Matual Censures, and Errors were still before his eyes; and the Laws of Order and Government, and Obedience, and Patience, lay in greatest power on his heart. The other looked all abroad the world, to Infidel, Heathen, Mahometan, and Popish Kingdoms, and thought that tyranny was the grand sin on the earth, which kept out the Gospel, and consequently, Godliness and Salvation from the generality of mankind; that kept up Popery, and kept out Reformation; that silenced powerful Preachers, and kept up Ignorance; that most served Satan, and fed the jaws of Hell. He thought of all the inhumane consequents of unrestrained Tyranny: He read Politicks more than the other, and read more of the Greek and Roman History, and regarded more the Judgment of the several Parties and Religions among mankind: and he fell upon Bilson and Hooker the chief Prelatists; and he thought that God's Judgments consequential to those Wars had been incomparably less than the mercies and benefits, and that there were now proportionably multitudes more of Godly Ministers and People than there were before the Wars: And these different pre-conceptions and pre-possessions, made them have quite different Interpretations of all the Scriptures, the Statutes, the Law Books, &c. which they read. And as the Proverb is, As the Fool thinketh, so the Bell tinketh: So it is wonderful to see in all things, how much the divers disposition of the Recipients, doth occasion diversity of effects from the same cause.

But I hope you would not make us believe that all diversification is from man: Though the Sun be but an universal cause, yet God is also a particular cause, and a specifying; and who is it else that caused that diversity in the Creatures, which turneth the Suns universal Influx into various effects. As God created the variety of Recipients, so he doth by Grace diversify man's Receptive dispositions.

These are weighty matters, and deeply to be considered, with many thoughts and cautelous sobriety. We have two questions fallen before us: 1. How far God's Grace is resistible. 2. How God or man do cause diversities. Though I have been drawn on to speak much to the last, it is here but in order to the resolving of the first. The last is to be spoke to by itself anon. Before we come to that, these things I here conclude of.

1. That the Diversity of Nature, or Receptive Dispositions, being presupposed, God hath an established order of means, and a congruous established universal Concurse, which quantum in se, as far as belongeth to it to do, worketh equally on all.

2. That this established measure of aid, or concourse, recipitur ad modum recipientis, and operateth variously as to the effects, according to the various disposition of the Recipients: from whom the ratio diversatis is to be fetched, and not from it.

3. That this established measure of Concurse or aid may by the greatness of the Passive and Active Indisposition and Illdisposition of the Recipient, be both resisted, and overcome or frustrate.

4. That as Adam did resist and overcome such Grace, so do all wicked men in some cases now. And so do all godly men, in most of the sins (if not all) which they commit.

5. As God rarely worketh Miracles, (and we hardly know when he violateth his established course of nature, though we may know when he worketh beyond the power of any second cause known to us, and when he leaveth his ordinary way) but ordinarily keepeth to his established course and use of the second causes (even in his wonders.) So it is very probable, that in the Works of Grace, Recovery and Salvation, he ordinarily keepeth to his established order, his Ordinances, and fixed degree of Concurse.

6. Yet as God is still above all his Works, and a free Agent, and is no further tied to one constant order and measure of Concurse, than he tieth himself by his Wisdom and Free-will; so God is free in the conveyance of his Grace, and can when he please, forsake that order, and work Miracles by Grace, as well as on natural things above nature. He can strike down Saul, and convert him by a voice from Heaven; and in a word, can do what he will.

7. And as in most wonders, its past our power to know whether and when God doth indeed forsake his established order, and work contrary to it, or without such second causes, as are unknown to us; though we can tell when he acteth unusually: So is it in this case, about his works of Grace. A Comet, or Blazing Star is an unusual thing, whose necessary antecedent cause we know not: And yet it is but a natural effect of second causes, operating in their established course; so are ecclipses (better known) and unusual Tempests, and terrible Lightnings, &c. So great and sudden, unusual and wonderful changes may be made by Grace on sinners: and yet all in God's established course of working, and by those second causes which are to us unknown.

But God is not a natural but a voluntary Agent; and Grace is hi • immediate work or offspring.

1. He is a voluntary Agent in Creation, Preservation, and in all the works and changes of nature: and yet he operateth constantly in his appointed course.

2. Its unknown to us, what means he useth, out of our reach, in his operations upon souls, as well as in nature.

3. We find that Grace keepeth a harmony with nature▪ ye • as morality is but the modality of things natural, so we may conceive that God may possibly work it, by the modifying of physical Agents and their actions, and the recipients.

4. Immutability and constancy is one of God's perfections; and the expression of it in the constant order of his Works is part of his glory in the world: Though our mutable Free-wills are better than the fixed or necessitated appetite of Bruits, that is not, as they are mutable, and the acts contingent, but as they have a higher object. But the fixed unchangeable wills of the Glorified (Angels and Saints) are far better than ours. And why should we think unsettled mutability of efficiency, to be the best discovery of God's Immutability.

5. But yet we grant that God is free to do what he please.

But it is by fixed second causes that God keepeth a fixed order of natural productions and alterations in the world. But you can name no such universal second cause of Grace, affording under God a resistible Influx as the Sun doth in Nature.

What will you say, if I name you such a second universal cause; (though if I could not, it followeth not that therefore there is none such.) I think I can name you one that all Christians should know; and yet it seems is not well by Divines themselves considered. JESUS CHRIST as MAN, and MEDIATOR is God's Administrator General of the human world; and is compared to the Rising Sun, which illuminateth all the world, with a light suitable to it and them. So Christ is the light of the world, the Sun of Righteousness, that ariseth with healing Grace, and enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world: (or as Crotius and Hammond render it [which coming into the world enlighteneth every man] supposing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be the Nominative Case and Neuter Gender, and not the Accusative Masculine) In him was Life, and the Life was the light of men (not only to the sanctified who received, but uneffectually though quoad se sufficiently) the light shined in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not: The world that was made by him knew him not: He came to his own, and his own received him not (yet he came to them) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, John 1. 3, 10, 11. It is apparent in Scripture that all power in Heaven and Earth is given to Christ, Matth. 28. 19, 20. that all things are delivered into his hands, John 13. 3. and God hath given him power over all flesh, John 17. 2. and he is head over all things to the Church, Ephes. 1. 22, 23.

We all grant that Christ is an universal light and Savior: 1. Objectively: 2. And as to his Doctrine, Covenant, and Example: But what's that to internal efficient Grace, which is immediately from God?

Great is this mystery of Godliness: there is more in Christ than you take notice of, even the Spirit which must work Grace in men's souls, is two ways given first to Christ: 1. In that as Administrator general, the power of giving out the Spirit to mankind is now given to Him, even in his human Nature. And he giveth it out in manner and measure suitable 1. To himself: 2. To us. 3. To his established means and Ordinances, by which he worketh. So that now the Spirit with its aid (common or special) is not given to any sinner immediately from God, as Creator; and as it was given to Adam before his fall, but by the Mediation of Christ the Redeemer. I mean not only the moritorious and procuring mediation, but also the powerful conveying mediation. Though God the Holy Ghost be still proximately the cause of Grace, yet Christ as Mediator is made by office, the Mediator and authorized giver of that Spirit and all its Grace; and so the measurer and orderer of his helps, and appointer of the conditions.

2. And Christ is first filled with this Spirit personally himself, that he may be a fit Head of vital Influence to all his Members, who by the previous operations of his Spirit are drawn and united to him.

How prove you all this universal power in Christ?

You have heard the express proof: And study further, 1 John 5. 11, 12. And this is the record that God hath given us eternal life; and this life it in his Son: He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life.

Rom. 8, 9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his. Mark that it is, The Spirit of Christ.

John 15. 26. The Comforter (or Advocate) whom I will send to you from the Father.

John 16. 7. If I depart I will send him to you.

John 14. 26. The Comforter whom the Father will send in my name.

Gal. 4. 6. And because ye are Sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father.

Gal. 2. 20. I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the Faith of the Son of God who loved me.

John 5. 21, 22. The Son quickeneth whom he will; for the Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment to the Son.— 26. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given the Son to have life in himself. And that you may see that he giveth the Spirit with and by means, he saith, Verse 24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life.

John 6. 27, 32, 33. Labor for that meat which endureth to everlasting life, which the Son of man will give you: For him hath God the Father seated; that is, openly owned as appointed to this Office.

He giveth life unto the world—Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life—Dwelleth in me and I in him.—My Flesh is meat indeed.—As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.— Verse 63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing.

John 3. 34. God giveth not the Spirit to him by measure.

John 7. 39. This he spake of the Spirit, which they that believe in him should receive.

John 1. 5. 4, 5. Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me (or out of me) ye can do nothing.

Matth. 28. 20. I am with you always to the end.

1 Cor. 6. 17. He that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit.

2 Cor. 3. 17. The Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Phil. 1. 19. Through the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Col. 3. 3, 4. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God: when Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Ephes. 1. 22, 23. And gave him to be head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

Do you need more to prove this great Office of Christ?

Here is more than I have well thought on. But I find more to prove Christ the vital Head to his Church, than to prove him the universal dispenser of all Grace whatever is given to the world.

Read them over again; what would you have more, than all Power, all things, all Judgment given or committed to him: And to be by Office the Redeemer, Savior, and light of the world, coming as such even to them that neither comprehend him, know him, or receive him. I add another Text, Prov. 1. 20. to the end. —Wisdom crieth without, she uttereth her voice.—How long ye simple ones will you love simplicity, and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.—Because I have called and ye refused, (see the rest.) Ver. 32. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them.

And two things more I offer for your conviction. 1. That to show both his Power, and that he will exercise it orderly by means, Christ empowered his Apostles and Ministers under him to give the Spirit. And if the extraordinary Gifts were given by the laying on of their hands, no wonder if the ordinary were given by their Doctrine.

2. That on this ground Christ shall be the universal Judge of all the world, as he was the universal Law-giver and light to all.

But what need I more, when it is his very Office as Christ: as Prophet to be the universal Teacher, by Spirit and Word; and as Priest to sanctify by Spirit and Word; and as King to rule by Spirit and Word.

I am amazed to think how little we well understand of our very Fundamentals and Catechism which we teach the ignorant: Methinks in this universal Light I see more than ever I before observed, that God indeed hath set up a Sun, an universal medium, a Christ, who in our nature is a Creature, to be the Donor and Convey or of all Recovering Grace to man, and to give out the Spirit in that stated order and measure as is suitable to his design and Subjects. And as on earth he gave out much light and help which was resisted and rejected, I now less wonder that it is so now he is in heaven; even as to his Spirit as well as his Word: When I consider, that though God be Infinite, his Grace is given out to mankind finitely, by a finite Creature, Christ as man; even as God shineth to us, not immediately, but by the Sun. I will no more then account it an injury to God, that he should be said to give limited and resistible degrees of Grace by Christ, but repent that I have so much grieved and resisted the Spirit of Christ myself.

Proceed now to your other accusation.

They make man's Free-will, and not God's differencing Grace to be the cause that one man by Faith doth differ from another that hath no Faith. Contrary to Paul 's supposition, who made thee to differ? Tilenus could not answer Cameron to this charge.

I doubt here again is a Controversy about words. I will speak to you as to one that would know the truth. 1. De re, as to the Controversy. 2. As to the meaning of the Text.

I. Let us here consider, 1. What it is to Differ 2. What are the causes of such difference?

I. To DIFFER is nothing but to be dissimile, unlike. Dissimilitude or Difference is a Relation. This Relation (as Ockam truly and largely showeth) is nothing extra intellectum, besides its fundamentum, subjectum & terminus, the Absoluta.

II. Difference then being a Relation is the dissimilitude of divers persons compared. Here the natural numerical difference of persons, and abundance of other differences are presupposed. And it is the Difference between a Believer and an Unbeliever, the Penitent and Impenitent as such, that we have to consider of. Now here are two Subjects differing, and in each one, if not two differences from the other: So that here are two, if not four several Relations of dissimilitude between them. 1. Paul is a Believer; by which he differeth 1. From Nero as a Privative Unbeliever. 2. As a Positive Unbeliever. On the other side Nero 1. as a privative Unbeliever: 2. and a positive, differeth from Paul. Now everyone of these Differences or dissimilitudes have a several cause. 1. The fundamentum of both Paul 's differences from Nero are hi • own Faith; and the Termini are Nero 's Privative and Positive unbelief. 2. The fundamenta of Nero 's difference from Paul are his Privative and Positive unbelief, and the Termini are Paul 's Faith to both.

Now if the question be, what doth Constitutive make Paul differ from Nero, it must be answered Paul 's Faith and Nero 's unbelief. For dissimilitude resulteth from the one compared with the other. And if both had been Believers there had been no difference. And so were this the question, there were no difficulty in it at all.

But the meaning of the question is not of the constitutive cause of the dissimilitude, or the fundamentum, but of the efficient cause of that fundamentum, or else of the diversifying Dispositiv Receptiva. Now supposing that Faith and Unbelief are the constitutive differencing causes; the efficient causes of both must be sought as the Ratio discriminis, and not of one only.

Quest. 1. What is the cause (efficient) of Nero 's unbelief? Ans. His own will or wicked heart.

Quest, 2. What is the efficient cause of Paul 's Faith? Ans. 1. The Principal efficient is God by his Spirit. 2. The meritorious cause is Christ. 3. The chief ministerial efficient is Christ as giving the Spirit to work it. 4. The Instrumental efficient is the Gospel. 5. The Immediate efficient is Paul: For it is he that believeth, and not God. Is there any one that denieth any of this?

I doubt they think that man's will is more the cause than the Spirit; because they suspend the Spirits success upon man's will.

Accuse not men by suspicions and doubts without proof; yea contrary to their own professions. Your crime of uncharitableness is not theirs; nor doth it follow that they are faulty because you are suspicious. You may read Corvinus to Tilenus expressly assigning the efficiency of all that Grace that maketh us to differ, principally unto God. Some of them only say [man cannot effect, (or convert himself) but he can resist: and so require no more of man to his conversion but not to resist: yea not to resist in an obstinacy and high degree. Others of them require of man also an actual concourse of his will by his power received, with the concourse of God: But they make God here incomparably the chief efficient; not only as to Priority of operation, but as to his causation of the effect. And they use to illustrate it some time as Scotus by the similitude of two drawing at a Ship, sometime by a Father, that should bid his Son lift at a heavy weight, and resolveth to put to 900 degrees of the force himself if his Son will but endeavor, and put forth one degree. In this case, if the Son will not put forth that one which he can do, and so the event fail; it is not by the Impotency nor absolute unwillingness of the Father. And if the child do put forth that one degree, will you say that he doth more to the effect than the Father that doth 900 parts; and that only because that the Father would not do all himself? But this carrieth us from the matter in hand, and is after to be spoken to.

But if you make so many things go to make the difference, the question, who made thee to differ? must have a long answer.

Not as Paul meant it, but as our troublesome Contenders use it, in another sense, the answer must be suited to the question. And here note that really it is the state of both parties compared, and not of one of them that constituteth the dissimilitude as is said: And the efficient causes of both states, are the causes of the difference. And so truly the cause of Nero 's unbelief, and the causes of Paul 's Faith (which are many as aforesaid) all set together are the causes of the differences; or rather all make up one cause of it. This no Logician can deny. But yet in vulgar speech we use to say that that person or thing is the cause of the difference, 1. Which is the cause of the singularity. 2. Or which causeth the state of the second person compared, supposing the state of the first person to be already existent. And so you will find yet several senses of the question.

Explain it by some instances.

1. As to the cause of singularity. If one man be born an Ideot or a Monster, when we ask, what made him differ from other men, though really the causes of the dissimilitude be to be assigned on both parts; yet we mean only on his part, why is he not like others. So if one Child be unlike to all his brethren, or one Scholar in the School be much better or much worse than all the rest; or if one in a Family be sick, he that asketh, what maketh him differ? doth mean, what made him sick? &c.

2. And so as to Posteriority of State, if you suppose one of the dissimiliar parts pre-existent, and ask what maketh the other to differ from it? as if you ask why the Scholar writeth not like his Copy? why the Son is so unlike to the Father? why this age is so unlike the last? &c. We mean only what causeth the difference ex parte subsequente.

Apply it to the case in hand.

If you ask, what made the difference between the Devils and the persevering Angels? In the full and proper answer you must assign the reason on both parts: But according to the usual sense of the question, you must say [The willful sin of the Devils made the difference.] For the equal state of uprightness went before the difference.

So if you ask, what made the difference between the world after the fall, and before it? vulgarly, we must say, sin; because that came last.

So if you ask, what made the difference between Noah and the world? between Lot and Sodom? Ans. Indeed, that which made one part sinful and the other righteous. But according to the vulgar sense of the question, it was the Righteousness of Noah and Lot, and the causes of that righteousness.

So what made the difference between Judas and the eleven Apostles? Ans. Judas his willful sin and Wickedness, (though indeed the cause is on both sides.)

So what maketh the difference between Believers and the Unbelieving world? Really, the unbelief of the world, and the Faith of Christians with their causes: But it's like the speaker meaneth only ex parte credentium: And then the cause of their Believing is the cause of their differing.

But now, if it hold true that God giveth a sufficiency of Grace ut causa universalis ex parte donantis (antecedently to men's accepting or rejecting) equally, then if one ask, what maketh the difference? you would understand him (why have not unbelievers Faith, as well as others? And then the answer would be, willful resisting, or refusing Grace, or the moral special indisposition of the Recipients makes the difference; or else all would be alike believers.

But note, that we ask not [What maketh the difference between Believers and unbelievers?] but do particularize the subject, and ask, [what maketh the Believer differ from the Unbeliever?] or what maketh the unbeliever differ from the believer?] It is then supposed that we mean only ex parte nominata. And thus in the vulgar sense the questions, [what maketh the believer differ from the Infidel?] and [what maketh the Infidel differ from the believer] must have various answers.

I understand you thus in brief: 1. You say that constitutively it is Faith that is the difference on Paul 's part, and unbelief on Nero 's. 2. The causes of the said Faith and unbelief, are the causes of the difference: (As the causes of the whiteness of one wall; and of the blackness of the other cause their difference.) 3. That to ask (why the Believer differeth from the Unbeliever?) is but to ask [why he is a Believer when the other is not?] 4. Here you say the two Relations of dissimilitude in two ubbjects make the questions two in one, viz. 1. Why or whence is Paul a Believer?] 2. Whence is it that Nero is an Unbeliever?] 5. You say that Nero is an Unbeliever through his own willfulness, and illdisposition resisting Grace (Satan's temptations concurring.) And that Paul is a Believer from many conjunct causes: 1. God's Grace by his Spirit. 2. Christ's Merits. 3. Christ's donation of that Spirit. 4. The means by which he worketh. 5. The concourse of Paul's will. To which efficients you add in most a competent Receptive disposition in genere caus • materialis, both passive and active. 6. You say that in all this God's Grace is incomparably the greater cause than man's will. 7. But yet not the sole cause, and that some free-not-necessitated concourse of man's will, in the use of such Power as he hath, is a condition sine qua non ut dispositio Gratiae receptiva, ordinarily. 8. But that God is not tied to this, but may extraordinarily do otherwise. 9. But that this pre-requisite disposition, and the concourse of man's will is only the use of a power freely before given of God, with all necessary helps to use it. 10. And therefore that God is from first to last the first cause of all that's good in man, though not the only cause; and that of himself man can do nothing. Have I not taken your meaning right.

Yes, so far as you have recited it?

But methinks yet you answer not the great question, which Cameron baffled Tilenus with. It is not why Paul believeth? Nor why Nero believeth not? as singly considered: But comparatively, why Paul believeth rather than Nero? Speak to that.

Cameron and Tilenus were great and excellent wits. But if you can forgive the Truth, I must add that which they said nothing to, which will prove that a few degrees more of acuteness, might have shortened or better ended their dispute.

It is the Comparatio personarum that is now the subject of that Controversy: why this man rather than that as compared? Here then we are to consider, 1. The Comparabilitas. 2. The Ipsa Comparatio.

1. The question as to the first is, either 1. Whether there was antecedently any such ratio comparandi in them, as might be a reason or motive to God himself, quoad actum ex parte agentis, why he should decree to give, or actually give Faith to one man rather than to another? 2. Or else whether there were any such difference antecedent as might be Ratio discriminis ineffectis, the reason why one received or had Faith, and the other not.

II. And then quoad actum comparandi, the question is, whether God in his Decree or mind did truly compare the persons antecedently, and say (not only [I will cause this man to believe] and say [I will not cause that man to believe] or, not say [I will.]) But also said [I will cause this man to believe rather than that.]

To these several questions then I answer. 1. Negatively to the first: For God's acts ex parte agentis are his essence; and as he hath no cause, but is the cause of all things, so thus far nothing in the world is a causal reason or motive to God. He willeth because he willeth, or rather without cause.

II. To the second, There are in the Creatures different capacities, for terminating God • will and action objectively, and accordingly denominating his Volitions and Actions variously: And so this question must be divided into three. 1. Whether always. 2. Whether ordinarily. 3. Whether sometimes there be an objective ratio comparabilitatis and of preferring one before another, as to the effect of believing? or why God's operation should effect Faith rather in this man than in that? To which I answer.

Ad primum, 1. There are nearest Reasons in the immediate aptitude of the receiver. Such as is the highest degree of preparing Grace in one, which another hath not. And there are remote reasons or aptitudes. As e. g. A man of great learning, wit, and zeal, or some other remote aptitude, will be a fitter person for God's work than another, when he believeth. 2. It is not known to any mortal man, what different aptitudes in both these kinds, God the only heart-searcher seeth, which no man can see: And therefore this question cannot certainly be answered as to both sorts.

3. But as far as our blind eyes can reach, it seemeth most probable to us, that God doth not always effect Faith according to the degrees of receptive aptitude of either sort. Because we see that sometimes he suddenly calleth very great sinners, and also some that are silly and little serviceable in the world. But yet what special aptitudes God may see in them we know not.

Ad secundum, Qu. I answer, That it is God's ordinary way to give Faith according to the first sort of predisposition alone (were there no difference in the last) that is, To those that have the highest degrees of moral preparation, or Common Grace, I take to be a certain truth. 1. Because in all God's Works we see that he operateth by degrees in order, and, on predisposed matter, and that efficit juxta dispositionem recipientis. 2. But specially because he hath himself appointed a course of means for the obtaining of his special Grace, to be used by all men: And he cannot be thought to do all this in vain; nor to set men on doing their part in vain. And all practical Divines who preach so much for the souls preparation, are of this mind, that such preparation is the ordinary predisposition.

Ad Qu. 3. I answer, That at least sometimes it is so, is past question with any sober man. For it is a contradiction, to call it preparing Grace, or Disposition; and yet to say that by it no man is made ever the more receptive or nearlier capable of Faith or special Grace. So much to the two questions de Comparabilitate.

III. But as to the third question, Whether God Actually in his mind thus Compare men, and prefer one before another, and say, I will cause this man to believe rather than that? I answer, 1. There is no Act in God but his Essence, which is invariable, and indivisible. 2. But because his operations as terminated and productive ad extra are various, and have objective material causes of their diversity in the recipients; therefore we usually thence denominate God's volitions as various. And so when we see that one man hath Grace given him to believe, when another hath not, we hence say that God mentally and by Decree preferreth one before the other: when the difference is not at all in God, not his Act ex parte agentis, but only of and by God in the Recipients.

But come yet nearer the heart of the case, and tell me plainly, 1. Whether the difference of Effects be more from the will and action of God, or from men's different Receptive dispositions. And 2. Whether all these different Receptivities be not of God.

Order bids me begin with the latter. 1. The different Dispositions are of two sorts, Good and Bad. God is not the cause of the Indisposition or illdisposition of any. And as to the good disposition or Preparation of Souls, no doubt but he is the principal Cause of it all: but not the sole Cause, nor (always at least) the necessitating Cause; but oft giveth men that necessary help by which they might have been prepared for more, when yet they are not through their willful resistance or neglect. For few men will deny that men have sufficient ineffectual Grace for some preparatory acts, though not for faith.

Ad. Q. 2. I told you that the difference in the effects, resulteth from the Causes in both Subjects, and not in one only: That which maketh one a believer, and the other an unbeliever, maketh them differ. And I have told you what these Causes are. But further; I suppose as aforesaid, a certain established order and degree of universal help, external and internal, by Christ to the Soul, as the Sun affordeth to inferior Bodies: This stablished order of Grace, universally affordeth such a degree of Divine Influx and help, as will cause faith in a prepared Soul, and will not cause it in some much unprepared Souls: (For if as little help would serve the unprepared as the prepared, to what use is preparation, & quomodo recipitur ad modum recipientis;) In this case now the efficient of Grace is God, and not Man; but the Ratio proxima of the difference in the event and effects is the Diverse disposition of the Recipients. But here, mark well, that it is not the good disposition or preparation of one party, that is, the only, and I think, not the chief reason of the difference; but the Privative and Positive indisposition of the other party, is as much, if not, the chiefest reason. If one man shut his eyes against the light, when another doth not, the Ratio discriminis why one man differeth from another in seeing and not seeing, is on both parts, but principally on his part that shutteth his eyes; because the other doth but what he was made to do, and all living creatures should do: But the other absurdly crosseth nature. So that under an universal Influx and help, the said Influx is the efficient of the action or effect; but the disposition of the Recipients are the Occasions and Reasons to be assigned of the various effects; but especially the incapacity of the defective party. As the reason why the Sun doth make a Tree bear fruit, and not a dead stock, is because the Tree is an apt recipient of its influx, but the stock or stone is not.

2. But, (Note) that in case that God operate not by such an universal Influx only, but also by superadded special or extraordinary degrees of particular Grace, which by a difference from the universal Influx or degree, is peculiarly apt to procure the effects, here the ratio discriminis is principally to be ascribed to that special Grace, and not to the preparations on the Soul.

Tell me then, what you think, whether God works by such an universal Grace, or by such a special Grace. 1. How far doth he work by universal Grace? 2. Is that universal Grace ever effectual of itself, on prepared Souls? 3. How far doth he also use the special particular Grace which you mentioned?

I. To your first Qu. I answer, 1. God in the beginning made mankind upright in Adam and Eve, and made no difference as to the present case.

2. Eve having first sinned, did make a difference between herself and Adam, which God made not, nor altered first his universal Grace.

3. Adam next (without God's alteration) by Sin did difference himself from himself (as he was before).

4. God then set up a new universal Grace; even Christ with the new Covenant, and Recovering means, to give out universal help suited to his Covenant and means; to be the Giver of the Spirit, and the Light of the world (we cannot have time now to open the difference, between Christ's administrations before and after his Incarnation). There was at first an universal sufficiency in this Recovering help of Grace.

5. Cain (that could have done otherwise) willfully sinned against this universal Grace and Covenant: and so made a difference between him and the rest of mankind, when God made none.

6. Whether Abel did offer his acceptable Sacrifice by this same universal Help alone, or by any special extraordinary Grace ex parte mediorum vel Influxus primi recepti, is a thing unknown to us, because unrevealed.

7. The Posterity of Cain (as of Adam at first) because Seminally in him, and personally from his very guilty essence, were justly deprived of some of that Grace, both Subjective and Objective which Cain had deprived himself of. Their natures were more vitiated, and so they were made less Receptive and more disposed as to the universal means and Influx. And by his secession from the holy seed, he was deprived of much outward means: And having forfeited the Spirit, he had less also of its helping Influx: And thus he and his posterity made themselves to differ, as if a Generation of Sinners should be born bl • nd, while the Sun shineth as it did before.

8. The Holy seed that's not yet Apostate, have great subjective and objective Grace.

9. The seed of Cain are still under the same Law of Grace, and universal conditional promise, that If they will believe and repent, they shall be saved: And they have some Means and some Help of Grace yet left them, which have an aptitude by degrees to bring them back again to God: And if they will not use that lower degree of Grace, by returning as they can, they forfeit that and further help.

10. But yet God hath besides this Universal Grace, some special and extraordinary ways and degrees of Grace for some, according to his Good pleasure. But this with the answer to your other two questions, will come in better anon, under the next head.

Having spoke to the matter, now speak of the sense of the Text, 1 Cor. 4. 7. and Rom. 12. 6. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it.

It is most evident, that Paul speaketh of the Gifts or Excellencies themselves primarily and of Differing from others, but as a resultancy from those Gifts: And he meddleth not here with the question, why others have not those Gifts as well as they? and so why others differ from them. q. d. Are not all those things of which you glory, the free gifts of God? And is it not by those free gifts that you differ as more excellent than others? And should you boast of that which is God's free Gift, of which you are but Receivers? To pass by the common answer that Paul speaketh of Ministerial Gifts, and not of special Grace, what Arminian can deny any of this, about the Grace of faith itself. 1. He must confess that we have no Grace to cause faith, but what we have received; (For the Act which we performed is no otherwise to be said to be received, but as we receive the gracious operation which causeth it). 2. He cannot deny that by this Received Grace and Faith, the believer in excellency differeth from unbelievers. 3. Nor that such a Receiver hath no cause of boasting, as if he had not received it. Who will deny this?

But they leave him to boast, that by his better preparation and disposition, he was a fitter Recipient than another. And so all boasting is not excluded.

1. In Paul 's Case (of extraordinary Ministerial gifts) there is less room for that much; because they are not given so much according to preparations, as saving Grace is: For even ungodly men may have them.

2. The boasting which is excluded, is a boasting of ourselves as against or without the glory of Grace, as if we had some excellency which we had not received. But our very Receptive disposition was received by God's Grace, even from his common preparing Grace: And that common Grace was freely given.

3. If by boasting, you would mean, an acknowledgment of God's grace, then all thanksgiving is boasting. Or if a Rejoicing in the effects of that Grace as Received and improved by us, then Paul so boasted often, yea and to the death rejoiced in this testimony of his Conscience, that in simplicity and Godly sincerity, and not in fleshly wisdom he had had his conversation in the world, 2 Cor. 1. 12. And that he tamed his body, and that he suffered for Christ, and that he had fought a good fight, 2 Tim. 4. 7, 8. If praising God's grace in his Servants, and that holy use of it, in wisdom, faith, love, obedience and patience, be boasting, God so boasteth of them and praiseth them, even at judgment, Math. 25. Well done good and faithful Servant. And Scripture throughout so boasteth of them. And we that must honor those that fear the Lord, Psal. 15. 4. must so boast of them also. But this is not the forbidden boasting.

And as to Rom. 12. 6. 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 1. 6, 7, 8. and such like its past question that God freely diversifyeth Offices and such Gifts as he pleaseth; and we know of no praedisposition to which, even ordinarily, he tieth himself, as to many of them. But saving Grace is given more under a Law, and stablished course of means, in the use of which we must be fit Recipients.

They make the Grace of God to be Effectual, not from the Will of the Giver, nor from the proper force of the Grace itself, so much as from the will of man concurring: For they think that God's Grace is but universal and indifferent, and leaveth it to man's will whether it shall produce the act of faith or not: so that the posse Credere & velle is of God, but the actu credere & velle is of ourselves. This is the grand difference which I have reserved to the last; and as Dr. Twisse oft no • eth the question, Unde Gratia fit Efficax? is it which they are loath to be brought to answer.

I know that this is cried up as the great difference; And where ever things are mysterious and hard, there will be variety of Conceptions and words; from whence it will be easy to pretend real differences, and make them seem great▪ But because order befriendeth Truth, we must be agreed first of the subject of the question, what Grace is it whose Efficacy you dispute of? I take it for granted, that it is such as is to work, in genere Causae Efficientis. But tell me first, whether you confess or not, that there is such a thing as Universal Grace, or Help of the Spirit, fixedly or ordinarily accompanying or working by the means of Grace, which operateth as the Sun, ad modum recipientis, and will not produce the same effect on one receiver as on another.

I cannot answer what you have said for it: And when I read Dallaeus Apolog. and in him almost all ancient Writers, and late Churches for it, I dare not be so singular as Spanhemius and a few more of late in denying this Grace of God. Though I once thought that it had been Objective only, and with Amyrald I noted little more in the Controversy, than between the Objective and Subjective grace, as if there had been no other Efficient grace to come in question. But I am convinced, 1. that de facto there is a degree of Grace ad posse that leaveth men inexcusable, which is not effectual in the event: For I dare not say that I could never have sinned less, or done better than I did. 2. And that the same degree of the Spirits help is not sufficient to an utterly unprepared Soul, as to the prepared; or to cause a man to believe and love God above all, as may cause him to forbear some sin, or to use some means for further Grace: Therefore such a thing as is called sufficient and universal Grace or help I do confess. But (by the way) if Christ be the universal Dispenser of this Grace, how reacheth it to those that know not Christ.

1. I have shown you in Cain 's instance and his posterity, that it reacheth not Equally to all, no more than the Sun to the Southern and the Northern Nations.

2. I have proved to you that Christ was after the fall made the Head of the new Covenant, and that this Covenant was made with all Mankind. And that he is the Administrator General to all Mankind, and all things, Power and Judgment is committed to him: that he is now the Owner, Ruler, and Judge of all.

3. Therefore all the Light, Means and Mercies that are in any parts of the world, are as truly from Christ as the universal Mediator, as all light is from the Sun. (Even in Dungeons and Caverns, and where there is least) And as the Sun sends forth some light before it ariseth, and some after it is set, and some in the night, even by the Moon, &c. so doth Christ enlighten all the world, so far as they have light though in very various degrees.

4. You will not say that Christ by his Incarnation, did put all the rest of the world into a worse condition than they were in before his coming; and to take away from them any of the mercies of the Law of Grace, which God had made with them in Adam and Noah.

I am afraid you go about to confound the world and the Church, while you make all to be the Kingdom of Christ; and to be under the Law and Covenant of Grace.

I must still call you to difference the question de re from that de nomine. Whether all should be called the Church is one question? And how really they stand related to Christ, is another. To that de re I say, 1. It is past doubt that Christ the Mediator, is the Owner and Ruler of all the world de jure, even jure Redemptionis, as all are given to him of the Father.

2. It is doubtless that all are under his foresaid Law of Grace, as that which is in force to oblige them, and to punish them if they break it, and to reward them if they keep it. For they are not Lawless nor hopeless.

3. It is doubtless that all are possessed of many and great Mercies, as well as obliged to many duties, as tending to their recovery and salvation. And thus they are so far the Kingdoms of Christ. But yet de nomine they are not to be called the Church; because the Church is Regnum peculiaritatis. As the Israelites had the foedus peculiaritatis, and were Regnum peculiare before Christ's coming, and yet not the only people in the world that were under a Law of Grace (for that was universal). So is it now with the Christian Churches and much more.

Briefly, Christ hath three sorts of Subjects in the world; 1. Subjects quoad obligationem; and so all the world are his Subjects (because first his beneficiaries). 2. Subjects by professed Consent, which is, 1. A half consent, as many without the Church. 2. A full consent by Baptism: and these are the Church visible. 3. By sincere Heart-consent; and this is the Church mystical or regenerate that shall be saved. In this I think we are agreed.

Well; Supposing an universal help of Grace, how answer you the question? Under fit Efficax?

Do you grant me then that this universal Grace is ever effectual?

Stay there. You told me that's the turning point where Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Hammond came to a ne plus. But, 1. As to preparatory Acts we shall not deny it. I find not that our Divines do assert the necessity of a special Grace for every preparatory Act. But of the rest I doubt.

And then, 2. Sure you cannot deny it as to well prepared Souls. 1. Because you granted that the same degree of help may be effectual to a disposed Soul. 2. And so the Help though universal, will to a prepared Soul be proportionable to the desired effect; and is nevertheless Grace or powerful to such, for being universal, or ineffectual to others. 3. And it seems that such a kind of degree of Grace was effectual on Adam before his fall, and ineffectual in his fall. 4. And it seemeth congruous to God's other works, that he give Grace suitable to his Law and Promise, which shall not be always ineffectual.

So that it is most probable that to prepared Souls, that ordinary established degree of the Spirits Influx from Christ, which is universal, but ineffectual to the unprepared, is not only sometimes, but ordinarily effectual. I think none can prove the contrary. And the same Grace you confess to be effectual to preparation.

But to unprepared Souls whom God will suddenly convert out of the ordinary way, a special extraordinary operation seemeth necessary. But wherein the extraordinariness of it consisteth, antecedent to faith the second effect (besides the extraordinary means) I think it past man's reach to know.

Well, now tell us, Unde Gratia fit Efficax.

Any ordinary Logician will tell you, that the effect is from all the causes, and not from any one alone. It is effectual in that it produceth the effect: To which each cause doth its proper part; and one is not all▪ The effect in question now is Faith. Faith is caused as is said, 1. By God's will as the Original. 2. By Christ as sending the Spirit (and meriting Grace first). 3. By the Spirit as the Operator. 4. By the Gospel as the Instrument. 5. By the Preacher as a Sub-Instrument. 6. But all this effecteth ordinarily in materia disposita, and no other. (Having before wrought that preparation). 7. But extraordinarily in materia indisposita, working disposition and all at once.

Now here, 1. God's Will doth its part without any cause; Velle ex parte Dei (sicu • & agere) is his essence; and the termination of it in rem Volitatam hath no efficient, but only an Objective Cause. 2. This prime Cause is the prime reason of all the efficacy of Inferior Causes: Not qua voluntas simply moving them, but qua voluntas cum potentia executiva moving them; and qua volitio inferreth the necessitatem consequentiae of the effect. So that plainly, I think that no Good cometh to pass in the world, but what God forewilled, and nothing which he absolutely willeth, cometh not to pass; what he fore-knoweth is necessary, necessitate Infallibilitatis, and what he absolutely willeth, necessitate Imutabilitatis; and what he worketh from such a will is necessary necessitate invincibilitatis. 3. Though all the other Causes are the reason of the effect, and not only the first, yet none of them operate on the first Cause, and put any force into it for the act. So that its force is from itself, but theirs from it.

And having said this much preparatorily, I thus resolve your great question.

Here are three things before us, whose cause may be inquired of; 1. The necessitas Logica consequentiae, ex quo in ordine probandi necessario sequitur eventum futurum esse: And this is the Decree or Will of God, (yea, and his fore knowledge) This is presupposed.

2. The prime effect of God's Will and Active power operating: And this prime effect is not our Faith, or Act, but the Impression or Received Influx of God on the Soul. For the Soul receiveth (its like) some Impression by the Divine Influx by which it believeth or acteth itself: It doth not Receive its own Act, as if that act had been first preexistent in the Donor; but it performeth that Act because it is premoved to it. Now if the question be of this first effect, Unde operatio Gratiosa sit efficax, I answer, 1. The whole efficient reason is in the operator and operation itself. It is effectual ad impressionem ex natura rei, because it is an Act: If it did nothing, it were no Act transient. 2. And the specification and individuation is from the terminating object. It is denominatively and Relatively, one Act which is on a Stone, and another on a Soul, de specie: And it is numerically one which is on Peter, and another on John. If the Sun did shine in vacuo, there being no other creature to be objective or passive, it would still agere, but it would nihil efficere: quia nihil afficere; So God is one Infinite act, and ex parte sui never begineth to act, nor ever ceaseth, nor is divided; But transiently he doth nihil afficere vel efficere, but first by making objects, and then acting on them. So that were there no mobile God's act would not movere. This first effect then of Impress hath an Effective and an Objective Cause, The Effective Cause is God's Essence; that is, his Active Power, Intellect and Will, and nothing else: (Supposing now that it be not God's operation on the Instrument or medium that we speak of, but immediately on the Soul itself). But Man's Soul is the Objective Recipient Cause of this first effect, which is, the Impress, or Influx received.

3. The Secondary effect is, Mans Act, Faith and Repentance itself. If the question, Unde Gratia sit efficax, mean this, (as with most it doth) then it is all one as to ask, Unde hic Effectus? For that God's Influx on the Soul immediately, is the sole Cause is false. Therefore the answer is, that this effect is from all the Causes conjunct: From God's Will, or Law, and Power and Wisdom; from Christ's mission of the Spirit (before merited); from the Spirits Impress or Influx; from the Gospel; from the Ministry (usually) and from the Agent Believer; all these as the efficient Causes. And it is from or on the prepared Soul (ordinarily) as the Materia disposita, vel Causa Receptiva, Objectiva of the Divine operation: And from or on God Christ, the promise, Glory, as the materia objectiva actus humani; where I conclude the Causa finalis as the chief object.

Thus I have shown you truly and plainly unde fit fides, as that is all one as unde hic effectus; and that is all one, as unde Gratia fit efficax, as to this secondary effect.

But I conceive that the sense of the question rather i • , which of all these is the chief cause or reason of the existence of the effect?

Pardon my impatience of Confusion. The chief cause, and the chief reason are not always the same. There is no question but God is the only and total Causa prima, from whom all the rest have all their power and force. But by the Reason of the existence is often meant, that which in discourse must be assigned proportionately in answer to the question, Why is one converted rather than another? supposing God's Influx on them both: And this is oft the Receptive disposition as is said; for Reciptur ad modum recipientes.

Well; But the question recurreth what is the chief Cause and Reason that one, not another, hath that preparatory Receptivity.

The chief Cause is God why one hath it: The chief Cause why another hath it not, is himself, that is, the Moral deficient cause. The Ratio differendi I opened to you before. The most notable, if we suppose God's Influx to be of itself universal and equal, is the Indisposition of the Sinner, whence he doth difference himself from those that God causeth to receive even preparing Grace. But the true Ratio effectus is from all the Causes conjunct.

But you must come at last, to some prime difference. And if you will say that the reason of our Preparatory effect or degree of Grace, is, because I used a former well, or did not refuse it, or was prepared for it, what will you say of the first degree.

I say that the first preparatory Grace or help was given to Adam, and all in him: as the first natural goodness was.

But where came in the first difference?

By Cain 's willful Sin, against God and his Grace.

But though you do with Augustine hold a communicated guilt of the sins of other Parents than our first, and so a difference between persons (yea and Kingdoms) thence arising, yet some Children as Esau and Jacob, born of the same Parents, must have in them some other cause of difference, even as to preparatory Grace.

Suppose God's fixed equal Influx universal, there are two Causes of difference herein. 1. One is the mere sinful willfulness of one party, that doth not do what that Grace enabled him to do, by which a difference is made.

You mean that Jacob better used his help than Esau.

Not so: but that Esau more abused it than Jacob. Suppose Jacob had slept out his youth, or done no good, and Esau had rebelled against God also, and done much mischief, Esau had hereby made a difference, which is assignable without commending Jacob.

Well, what is the other Cause?

2. God's own free differencing Will and Grace, who is a free Benefactor, and may do with his own as he list: and therefore freely loveth Jacob with the electing special love and decree which he hath not to Esau. For though I have all this while discoursed with you of the Ratio Efficaciae of an Universal Grace, I say not that there is no other.

O: Now you come to the matter indeed.

II. The Question Unde fit Gratia efficax, being put of God's special Grace, by which he arbitrarily maketh a difference, and is more than his Universal Grace, must be thus resolved, That though other Causes concur to the effect, the Great, over-ruling, differencing, and ascertaining Cause, is the very quality and aptitude of God's operation itself, as proceeding from an absolute volition of the effect, and in the Means and Influx fitted to ascertain the effect.

Wherein consisteth this differencing special Grace?

Deceive not yourself: No mortal man can know in what it ordinarily, constantly, or chiefly consisteth. We know, 1. That though God as Rector per Leges, keeps one even and constant course, yet as Proprietor and Benefactor he may vary as he please: And that a Benefactor may give unequally to men of equal merits: And that God really doth so de facto: And that his Will hath no Cause. 2. We know that God hath innumerable ways to fulfil his Will, and make a difference between man and man, which are beyond the search of Mortals. 3. And though we can name divers which he can take, we know not de facto, which he doth take, hic & nunc.

What differencing free acts of Grace do you observe.

None which violate God's established order, or diminish his universal Grace. But such as are superadded specially to some. As, 1. To Children of the same Parents, he giveth to divers a temperament of Body, as in one much more conduceth to thoughtfulness, tenderness, meekness, sobriety, chastity, zeal, honesty, &c. than in the other. He is a stranger to man that knoweth not this.

2. He sometime giveth them various Education: One is piously educated. Another is snatched away and made a Janizary. A third the Parents dying, leave to such as educate them viciously. And some the Parents apostatizing educate in Heresy or unpiety themselves.

3. He oft casteth their lot under different means for their Edification. One is set Apprentice to a Godly Master, and another to an ungodly one. One is cast under a Holy able Minister, and another under an ignorant Seducer: One is cast among Godly Companions, and another among lewd Seducers, idle, wanton, voluptuous, unclean, malignant, scornful, or other such tempting persons, as that a great deal more grace or help is necessary to their preservation.

4. One (for ought we see of equal commerit) is impelled or occasioned to go to Church, just when an apt Sermon is prepared for him: and another occasioned to be absent. A Minister or Friend is sent (as Philip to the Eunuch, though by ordinary means) to meet with one, and speak suitably to his case; and not to the other.

5. One falleth under some great affliction, which taketh him down, and awakeneth him to seriousness; and another swimmeth down the violent and dangerous stream of prosperity and constant health.

6. One seeth some notable Judgments on others, or some convincing Providences, or hath some strange deliverance himself; which another never hath.

7. One Nation or Kingdom of equal ill desert, hath the Gospel and powerful Preachers sent to them; while others are left as the most of the world without it; yea, as the poor Islanders, Laplanders, Brazilians, Soldanians, and Cannibals.

A thousand ways God hath to fulfil his Will which we know not of. But besides all these in point of Means, we see that under the same Means, or Sermon, or Family helps, there is not the same success: Not only because the unbelievers make the difference by sinning against sufficient universal Grace; but because God doth especially touch the hearts of some, by such Grace as he giveth not to others. Thus did he open the heart of Lidia, Act. 16.

Methinks you should lay all on this Internal changing Grace, and not on the difference of means.

Certain Experience telleth us, that most usually God giveth extraordinary differing means where his Grace shall work different effects.

Christ himself who was to bestow extraordinary Grace after his Incarnation, was himself to be an extraordinary means: He must work Miracles, raise the Dead, rise from the Dead, &c. as the Means.

The Apostles that were to do extraordinary things, in calling the unbelieving world to Christ, were to do it by miracles and extraordinary▪ means. The 3000 Act. 2. must have the Apostles miraculous gift of tongues to be the means of their Conversion. Cornelius must have both an Angel and Peter. Paul must be stricken down and blind, and hear Christ speak from Heaven, and after have Ananias 's Ministry. The Eunuch must have Philip. The Jailor, Act. 16. must have an Earthquake; and so of others.

And to this day we see how little God doth where there is no Ministry or Means. And how much the success of able, holy, skillful Ministers, doth differ from that of wicked, or Ignorant sots: And how usually in all the world, the success goeth according to the means; and that the instances of contrary are unusual rarities: Therefore separate not what the wisdom of God hath conjoined.

But do you think that God ever ascertaineth the Effect, merely by such Moral Differencing helps or means, annexed to his universal Gracious Efflux or aid, without a special degree of that Immediate Efflux itself on the Soul.

1. We little know when God worketh Immediately, and how far His Efflux or Action ex parte agentis I oft tell you hath no degrees being himself: The degrees are in the Received Impress on the Soul. And it's like this special differencing Grace consisteth in a special degree of Impress: But when that Impress is made by the Spirit without the Instrumentality of Means, we know not. God can make our own Imagination, and spirit,, and inward temperament a means undiscernably to us.

2. If I have proved to you that even the universal Grace itself with common means, may attain the effect, and doth in many, who dare question, whether All, yea One extraordinary or special Means added by God to that Common Influx, (with a will of success) may ascertain the effect. It were Blasphemy to say that God hath not Wisdom enough thus to attain his ends, by a series of adapted means, in conjunction with that Grace.

But methinks you spin too fine a thread, when you talk of an Impress of the Spirit on the Soul, as the first Effect, (of God alone, or God and the Means) antecedent to faith or the Act of man as the second effect (of God and Man together). I find not that our Curiousest School Wits do talk much of such an Impress.

1. You will find the same sense in the Thomists and many of the Schoolmen: And methinks it is clear in itself. The Act of Faith is done by us: Our Souls have need of some Grace to be the Cause or it. The Cause goeth before the Effect. This Cause must not be out of us, but within us: Grace therefore must be first within us as a Cause, before it is within us as the effect of it. Yea, Action being nothing but Modus Agentis, is not a fit recipient itself immediately of a vis impressa: It is the Soul or faculty that must Act; and to say that God's Influx is not on the Soul or faculty as the recipient, but on the Act of that faculty aloue, seemeth to be unintelligible, if not absurd. It is our Act, or our Soul that needeth help or Grace? If not the Soul, but the Act, then we have need of none at all: For the Act is yet future, that is, is no act, and nothing, and so hath no need.

2. But if really you will hold to the opinion that our Act itself is the first Effect of God's Influx or Will, then take notice, that all our controversy here between you and the Arminians, what Grace is sufficient, and what effectual, is at an end; And it is on your part, and for the truth that I spin that thread which you account too fine.

How do you manifest that?

Most plainly: For if we have nothing to inquire after between God's agency ex parte sui and the Act of Faith, it is a ridiculous question to ask, what Grace is sufficient, and what effectual? and what difference between the one and the other? and what is that which maketh efficiently the difference? For either your Question is of the Cause or the Effect: If of the Cause, it is (besides the second Causes) nothing but God's Essence, even his essential Activity, Wisdom, and Will: And do you think that God's essence is diversifyed, as little and great, more or less, sufficient and effectual? Do you inquire for Diversity in simple unity? That which worketh all effects in the world, is one Cause, that hath in itself no real difference of parts, kinds or degrees.

II. But if your question be of the Effect, it is ridiculous or past question. Do you ask what Grace in us it is that maketh the Difference, between a Believer and an Infidel? Why, your question answereth itself. It is Faith, and that maketh the difference in one, as Infidelity doth in the other. Do you ask what is sufficient? To what? If to Salvation it is perseverance in Faith and Holiness: If to Justification, it is Faith; if to Faith and Conversion; nothing pre-existent in us. Do you ask what maketh Grace effectual? what Grace mean you? If Faith, it's none of the doubt or Controversy: It is (improperly) effectual to Justification (being no efficient of it, but a Condition, which is a Receptive dispo • ition) ex ordination divina, & virtute foederis. You must recur then and ask, what maketh God's Essence or Spirit effectual? As if God's essence had a Cause, or suffered from the Creature. But if you mean no more but what are the Causes of Faith? that's another question oft answered.

Choose now whether you will lay all our Controversies on that fine thread, of God's various Impress on the faculties in order of Nature antecedent to Faith (in act or true habit); or else confess that we have no difference, nor show of any, but have many ages abominably abused the world.

But seeing you maintain that God as a free Lord and Benefactor doth vary his gifts of Grace as he doth of Nature, though we know not when he doth it Morally, and by means, and when by Immediate differing Impress; yet methinks you should hold that by one of the two he always doth it: And that equal Grace hath never unequal effects by the unequal free reception, rejection, or other difference made by man.

To conclude this whole dispute, 1. That equal universal Grace can end in different effects, in the same Man, and in divers men, by man's own free various concourse or neglect, I have fully proved to you.

2. And when we have proved that such a Grace there is, and so it can do, we have great reason to think that sometimes it doth so: And no man can prove that it never doth so.

3. And de facto I have proved, that sometimes it doth so: in Adam 's case, and in Cain 's making a difference, before God denied him sufficient Grace. And in all bad men and good men in the world, who sometimes sinfully omit to do that which by the same Grace they could have done and did another time.

4. But de facto: How oft, and when, and in how many, God converteth men by the one way or the other, no Mortal man can tell.

And therefore forget not that when I call universal Grace, ordinary, and the special different Grace extraordinary; I intend not to tell you which God most usually doth the work by as distinct from the other. But I call one Ordinary because it is common to all, or more, in itself, and also concurreth always with the other in its work, and so is never left out: And I call the other Extraordinary, because it is above the universal degree and way, and proper to some, as superadded.

You did well to remember that: For I was offended that you called that Different Grace, Extraordinary.

I say again, to conclude, I will earnestly entreat you to take heed of these few errors in your foundation here, that they mislead not your understanding in all the controversy.

I. Do not think that God must needs act ad ultimum posse in all his operations: It's certain that as to many possible effects, he doth omnino non agere (as to make more Suns, more Men, more Worlds) And if he can therein totally not act, he can act limitedly or in tantum only as he freely will.

II. Do not think these degrees of Operation as various ex parte Dei, for they are but his most simple essence. Nor do not Imagine that there is a certain Vis media called Grace, which is somewhat Causal between the Creator and the Creature. I doubt such a wrong conceit lieth at the bottom of all these disputes; and men think that besides God's essence, and the effects on the Soul, there is some middle force or cause called Grace, which is neither God, nor a Creature; whose kind and degree they inquire after.

III. Do not overlook the Glory that God designeth to himself in his SAPIENTIAL Kingdom, Government, and operations, I doubt some think so much of Strength and Power alone, as if they thought God were Glorified by nothing else, or more in an Ox, or Horse than in a Man. And whatever is ascribed to God's Sapiential operation, they contemptuously call, A Moral Causing, and not a Physical: As if God must move men as he doth the air, the water, or a stone. Remember that though God's Omnipotent Activity, his Wisdom and his Will, do still inseparably co-operate, yet they have each its eminent Impress, Effect and Glory. And so the frame of Nature is the Glorious Impress of Omnipotency, with Wisdom and Love: The Kingdom of God on earth, especially of Grace, is the Glorious work of the Wisdom of God, directly governing Man as a Moral agent by Moral means: And the Kingdom of Glory, as foretasted on Earth, and perfect in Heaven, is the glorious work of Divine Love. Separate not these, nor undervalue or dishonor any one of them; But study the Glory of God's Sapiential Kingdom and works. And remember that Moral Means, and Moral Operations of God, are not unsuitable to the Government of Moral Agents, in Moral works.

IV. Forget not the great difference between the way of operation suitable to such a Moral Rector as such, and to a mere Proprietor or Actor, and Benefactor. And then you will see, that standing Laws are the Rectors Instruments; and Judgments, and Executions equal according to those Laws. And that Life Eternal and God's Glory and pleasure being the ends of Government, it cannot be doubted but God's Laws to all the world, have some aptitude and suitableness on their part to that end. And therefore that the frame of Moral means and annexed help hath a certain universal equality, antecedent to man's sinful will, which by forfeiture and rejection maketh an inequality: And therefore it is one of the noblest parts of your study here, to find out what Acts God doth as Legislator, (for those are first and equal) and as Judge (which man maketh unequal) and what he doth as Owner and free-Benefactor; For so he may make what difference he pleases: And the wonderful varieties through all the world tell us, that he pleaseth to make very much.

V. Forget not that the Human Nature of Christ Glorified is made of God, the Universal Sun, or Cistern of all Grace, by whom it is to be given out to all mankind; to draw them to God, and to rule and Sanctify them further when converted. And do not think of any Recovering Influx of God but by the Holy Ghost; nor of the Spirit given any way but by and from Christ, who first draweth men to him, by the same Spirit which dwelleth in them as a Divine Nature when they are united to him.

VI. And as Christ is the Healing Sun of righteousness, and the universal Medium or Mediator and Administrator both of Rule and Influx, so forget not that he giveth out this Spirit and Recovering Grace, much by a Law or Conditional promise, which hath its terms which must be observed. And as the measures of Christ's Influx are oft resistible, so it is specially, by all wise Christians to be noted, that the Giving or Denying of the Grace or operations of the Spirit, are the grand Rewards and Punishments in this world, above all Corporal ones, and those which all Christians should daily and principally respect in their Hopes and Fears; Marking when the Spirits operations are denied them, that they may find out the Cause, and with David cry (betimes) Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me, Ps. 51.

VII. Lastly, forget not, that as man is not moved as a stone but governed as a Moral agent, and as the wonderful changes by motion in the world, are made recipiendo ad modum recipientium, by the diversity of Receptive dispositions, which are no efficient causes of what they receive; so Man can and must do somewhat, yea much under God to the due Receptivity of Divine Influx; not without God, nor by any Power which is not freely given him of God; But by a Power which he may or may not use. And that the neglect of what we can do, and doing the evil which we could avoid, is much at least of the daily sin of good and bad in all the world. And that though the faithful Servant be laudable, he is yet unprofitable, and hath nothing to boast of. And even the young Birds must open their mouths if they will be fed: which man must do freely, as they do necessarily. And when God giveth Man not only the Gold if he will open his hand, and the Meat if he will open his mouth, or not turn away and spit it out, and also giveth him all his Vital power by which he can do this if he will, and also can will it, and giveth him both Freedom to use this power, and manifold persuasions and helps to use it, All this must not be reproached as no Grace, nor the world instructed in Ingratitude, by them that should Preach that Gospel of Christ, which maketh Gratitude he universal complexion of all our duties, which must give life and beauty to them all.

And to take off your prejudice against Dissenters, remember that I have after told you, and oft in the Margin, that even many Jesuits, and Monks, and Friars profess, that the Efficacy of Grace is in and from the Nature or Power of it, and the Will of God, and not from the free will and co-operation of man. See Bellarm. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 12. Vasquez oft cited. Pet. a Sancto Joseph. in Suat. Concord. elsewhere cited, and Idea Specul. Theol. l. 4. c. 7. Ruiz elsewhere cited, and abundance of Schoolmen. And what say any Calvinists herein more?

By making it impossible to fall from Grace, they make fear, and care, and endeavor to be folly; or unnecessary at least: For what use is there of fearing an impossible hurt? or of care and endeavor to prevent it? And so all religious Duties and diligence, as means, are made to be but vain.

1. You wrong them in your supposition: Except a few ignorant men that understand not the state of the Controversy, I meet with few or none that say, It is impossible to sin or fall away; but only de eventu that it will never come to pass. For they say (as I remember I heard Mr. Vines once preach) that our falling away is not only possible, but too easy in respect to us, and the habits of Grace which we have received: But they lay the certainty of our perseverance on God's Decree and Promise. Now, say they, God did not decree that it should be non-possibile, but only that it should be non-futurum. And so that he hath promised the non-futurity, but not an impossibility of falling away.

3. And yet they sometimes use the term impossible here: But how? 1. Say they, There is a logical impossibilitas consequentiae; And so there is on supposition of mere prescience and prediction. For do but make this one of the premises [God fore-knoweth that Paul will persevere] and it is impossible this conclusion should be true: [Paul will not persevere.] But yet this may be nevertheless true, [It is possible for Paul to fall away.] But this impossibility of consequence in order of arguing, is nothing to the impossibilitas rei, in respect to the Causes.

2. And also they say, that there is impossibilitas hypothetica; supposing that man willfully reject not Grace, God's Power itself is so engaged to defend him against Satan and all Enemies, that it is impossible for them to overcome God, and destroy him: But here impossible is related to the power of Enemies only: It is a thing that Satan hath not Power to do, to conquer Grace.

3. But when the question is of the Power of the Person himself, they say, It is unfit to say that he is unable to fall away, or that it is impossible in respect to his own Power. 1. Because that to fall away is an effect of Impotency and not of Power. 2. Because God will not so operate by his Grace, as to make a man unable to sin, but unwilling, and actually to keep him from it. So that Grace doth not make us impotent to resist it, and make it really impossible to us to fall away; but maketh us able and willing to stand, and causeth us freely de facto to persevere.

3. And I must tell you, that your Crimination is grounded on a lame and faulty recitation of their Opinion; you name but half of it, instead of the whole: which is, [That the sanctified never fall away from the due fear, and care, and endeavor of persevering, and consequently not from Sanctification or Justification]. And will you infer that [a man needeth not fear, care or live holily, if certainly he shall do so?]

Yes! what need I take care of that which I shall certainly do?

That is, what need you take care if you certainly shall take care!

What need I trouble my own head about that which God will do, whatever I do? If he undertake to ascertain it, I may leave it to him.

You talk contradictions! God doth not undertake to secure your Salvation whether you will or not, or care or not, or labor or not: But to cause you to will, to care and labor. And you say, If God will make me willing I need not be willing: If God will make me think of it, and care and labor for it, I need not think of it, or care or labor for it. The Sun need not shine if God will make it shine! You need not eat if God decree that you shall eat. Are not these weak Contradictions?

But as weak as you make it, the Contradiction is their own: For they first make God to make their falling away to be impossible or certainly non-futurum, and yet say, that he will make them fear it: that is, to perform an Act without the proper Object: As if God decreed that they should fear Good as Good, or love Evil as Evil: No man can fear that which neither is, nor is taken to be fearful: An impossible (or certainty non-future) hurt is not fearful, or an Object of fear, unless to a mad man.

There were much weight in what you say, but for that which you leave out: 1. That objective certainty may be separated from subjective certainty: that is, men may be uncertain of that which is certain in itself. 2. Yea few of the Godly have a strong assurance of their sincerity and Justification. 3. And no man in this life hath a perfect assurance, no more than other perfect Graces. 4. And every man's faith itself in God's Promises and fidelity is imperfect. Therefore while all these are imperfect, and not only so, but liable to sad assaults, and interruptions, and decays. 5. Yea and the person liable to such heinous sins, as look terribly towards Apostasy, you cannot say that fear is needless. For though God decree the certainty of their perseverance, that proveth not that they are perfectly certain of it.

But God will not found our Duty on our Sin, nor command men to fear, because through sinful weakness they do fear.

God will not make our Sin to be our Duty, (in sensu conjuncto). 1. But God will make Duty on supposition that Sin maketh it necessary. If you sin, God will make sorrow and confession your Duty, which would else be none. 2. Yea more, the same Act may be a Duty and a Sin in several respects. And so may fear of Hell be.

Stay there! Do you not then make God the Author of Sin? For if he cause the Act as a Duty, when it is caused it will prove a Sin too.

You mistake: Two Causes may cause two Modes and Relations of the same Act, and one not at all cause that which the other causeth. God causeth every Act in genere act us which is sinful, and yet causeth not the deficiency or exorbitancy of it: As the Rider maketh the Horse go, but not to go lamely. God knowing our uncertainty of our own Election and Sincerity▪ may make it our Duty, by a wise and careful fear to avoid our own danger: And yet that fear may not only come also from some ignorance and unbelief in ourselves, but have sinful degrees, and so have that in it which God is not the cause of.

Their Doctrine tendeth to the indulgence of all sin: For if a man cannot fall away however he live, he may give up himself to lewd carnality, and say, I cannot fall away.

This is the same shameless self-contradicting Accusation, and needs no other Answer. As if you said, [If a man cannot fall away, he may fall away.] To give up himself to carnality is to fall away; And you say that he may do this, because he cannot. The Doctrine of your Adversaries is, That God will certainly keep the godly from turning from him to an ungodly fleshly life: And how doth this conduce to ungodliness?

The conceit of safety will make them careless.

Not if they conceive that their safety and their carefulness are equally decreed. The bad and ignorant will abuse anything. But I am persuaded that very many live the more holily for this belief: 1. Because as Prophecies conduce to their own accomplishment, in that what men believe will certainly come to pass, they all promote, and will not oppose: So it is in part in this case. 2. And when they believe that God will have it be, it greatly animateth their endeavors by hope, and taketh off their discouragements. 3. And when they find that God hath in his Decree conjoined their care and labor to the end, and hath no more decreed their perseverance, than that they shall carefully avoid sin and temptations, it maketh them fear that they are not Elect, when they find these signs of Election to be doubtful, and so preserveth them from presumption and security.

Their Doctrine is uncomfortable; in two respects, 1. In that it alloweth no man to be sure of his present Justification, Pardon and Adoption, who is not sure that he goeth further, yea that he is not quite in another stat • than any man that ever fell away: which it is not possible that many, if any one at all should be. 2. In that it alloweth no man to be sure of his Justification and Adoption, till he have so much Grace, as that no Temptation, how great soever, would turn him from Christ if he were tried by it.

Wherein is the uncomfortableness of these?

I. I have known myself some fall to Socinianism, Arianism, yea Infidelity, denying Christ, or his Godhead, (which is his chief Essence) and the Scriptures, (and therefore sure had no saving Grace then, and died so) who had forty years lived in as eminent Piety, Humility, diligence in all religious Duties, charity to others, neglect of the World, and patient suffering for their Religion oft times, as almost any men that ever I knew. And that they did not dissemble, not only their constancy, suffering and whole Conversation shown, but my own intimacy with them assured me, by which I knew the very thoughts of their hearts. Some of them were not of judgments clear and strong enough to discern the fallacies of Deceivers: Others of them were naturally too hasty in judging; And some were carried away by the advantages of the constant company of extraordinary able and insinuating Seducers. But divers of them, even after they apostatized, did continue so much strictness of life and charity to all men, and religiousness in their Theism, and Infidel way, and neglect of the World, as convinced me, that it was more the insufficiency of their judgments, than the hypocrisy of their hearts, which was the cause of their Apostasy. Now by the Calvinists Doctrine, none of these men were ever in a state of Grace: And of the strictest Professors round about us, there is not one of many hundreds that goeth so far as they did. And all these must be left uncertain of their Justification, till they are certain that they went beyond them all? yea and certain that they are unjustified, while they are certain that they came short of any one of them.

The case that you describe I have known, and it is sad: But we know not the hearts of other men: There might be more sin and hypocrisy in them than we know of.

Though God only be the searcher of hearts, yet long intimacy and near experience may make us so confident of some men's thoughts, as that I confess to you, you will never change my mind, if you plead against so great experience. I know their judgments were insufficient. But I will never believe that their hearts were false, as to what they knew.

God hath made his Word, and not other men's hearts, the rule for us to judge ourselves by.

But if you think that his Word tells us that we are the Children of the Devil, till we go beyond any that ever fell away, we must look both to that Word, and to such Apostates.

The truth is, assurance of Justification and Salvation is not easily nor commonly attained: And it is not Opinions alone that will procure it: And while we have that sin and weakness, which is the cause of doubts, which Opinion soever we hold, we shall find occasion for our doubtings: But let us hear your second part of the Accusation.

II. They hold that if any man fall away, by what temptation soever, it is because he was never sincere: And consequently that he is not sin • ers, that would fall away by the strongest temptation that possibly may assault him. So that every poor weak Christian, whose Infant-strength is not proportioned to the greatest temptations, must needs take himself to be still but an Hypocrite.

We stand not by our own strength of habitual Grace, but by the upholding Love and Will of God.

1. When we dispute against their Doctrine, it is from the immortal quality of the seed of God abiding in them, that they plead for certainty of perseverance. 2. Who findeth not by constant experience, that God worketh on all things according to their Natures: And so on man as man, and so on Saints as Saints, and on the weak as weak, and on the strong as strong. Do we not see that he giveth men wisdom and all Intellectual abilities, before they speak and do as such abilities must fit them to do: When did you see God's Grace make ignorant, injudicious, fools, or weak persons, judge, speak and live, in equality with the wise? Do we not see that as man is, so is his strength and work, operari sequitur esse: The strong do as the strong, and the weak judge and do as the weak. Why else doth God give men strength of Grace? sure they that think the habit of Grace must needs be before any act, will not hold that all our lives after, the Acts (from immediate divine production) go beyond the degree of the habits. We know that God is the chief cause of our perseverance, and all our works that are good: But he causeth them by disposing and quickening, strengthening, illuminating and sanctifying our faculties to do them; which is habitual Grace.

What is your own judgment in this point?

Our judgment is, 1. That he that truly at the present preferreth the pleasing of God, and his Salvation, before all this World, is sincere, and justified. 2. That of these some have well settled apprehensions and resolutions; but others have such shallow Conceptions, and weak Resolutions, as that a very strong Temptation would change their minds, and overcome them. 3. But if they escape such Temptation and be not overcome, they shall be saved: For God will not damn men for possible Sin and Apostasy, which they were never guilty of, but only for that which they did commit. 4. And that it is no certain sign of hypocrisy, that they would have fallen away, had their Temptations been great, but only a proof that they were weak: 5. Else to pray [Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,] should be rather [discover not our sincerity or hypocrisy by temptation]. 6. Therefore God useth to proportion men's trials to their strength: And that young and weak Believers may persevere, he exposeth them not (antecedently to their provocation) to great Temptations as he doth the strong. Even as while a young Tree hath little rooting, it hath also but a little top: else had it the top of a great Tree, and but the roots of a Plant, the first great Wind would overturn it. 7. Even strong Christians might possibly have some Temptations, which would overmatch their strength, and turn them from Christ, if God should not keep them from such Temptations. 8. Therefore there are some Temptations so far above the very nature of man, by such Grace as is not a mere Miracle, to be overcome, as that God doth not suffer Mankind to be tried with them: As to be most exquisitely tormented many months, or a longer time. And in that unusual trial of the poor Christians in Japon, though many endured those torments many weeks, yet nature could not sustain them to the last; but when they had suffered as much as many Smithfield burnings to death, at last almost all denied Christ, so that Christianity is now there extirpated. Now if Rogers, Bradford, Hooper, shown sincerity by suffering death, why should we not think that these did so that suffered far more than they, though afterward the degree was greater than their strength. 9. We hold that God's Punishments and Mercies to men in this World, are very much exercised in either permitting or not permitting great Temptations. And that for great sin, he oft delivereth men up to Satan, and giveth him the greater power over them. Yea that the nature of sin itself is such as giveth greater advantage to the Tempter: As he that will with Achan look on the wedge of Gold; or that will please his taste with delicious Drinks and Meats▪ or that will permit his eyes immodest Spectacles, hath thereby let in the Devil into his Imagination, and will not easily thence cast him out: And on the other side, he that pleaseth God, and conquereth one Temptation, obtaineth that Grace by which he is much saved from the next, and the Tempter is the more disadvantaged and restrained. 10. Lastly, We therefore hold, That seeing Temptations do not only try our sincerity or hypocrisy, (else we should desire them, for selfexamination) but also tend to change men's minds, and make them worse, the way to persevere is to pray against and avoid Temptations, and resist those that cannot be avoided.

This is our judgment: In which you see that we hold that all weak Christians that are sincere, may have assurance of their present Justification, though they are not strong enough to stand the greatest trials. And that they may well hope that God will save them from over strong Temptations, while they sincerely do his Will.

But Christ saith, That he that forsaketh not all that he hath, and hateth not his own life, cannot be his Disciple. And what greater trial can there be, than the loss of life itself?

Though some taking it to be hard that none are true Christians, that would not be Martyrs were they tried, have said that this Text speaketh de necessitate praecepti, non medii, [You must grow up to this at last, if you will be my Disciples]; yet I will not so force the Text, but say as you do. But 1. There are far stronger Temptations than the love of Life: Though not from Interest, yet from false reasonings, which may deceive the judgment: And one that would die for Christ while he believeth in him, may possibly have so strong Temptations to unbelief as shall exceed in danger, his fear of death. 2. And all men that at the present would forsake Life and all for Christ, yet have not the same fixedness of Resolution, nor the same degree of Faith and Love. No doubt but the Martyrs in the same flames had various degrees of Grace. Now a less firm and fixed measure may be loosened by degrees, or shaken by Seducers, and mutable man may after be overcome by that same Temptation which once he could have overcome.

So that I accuse their Doctrine, as utterly inconsistent with true Christian Comfort, on both these account. And such is the success of those men that will overdo, and devise means of their own, for extraordinary comforts, which God never gave them.

The comfort of poor Christians it seems standeth but on slippery terms in the Opinion of both sides, while each Party thinks that there is no true comfort in the others way. But doth not experience confute you? Do you not see that many have true Christian comfort that are not of your mind?

That is because of some better Principles which they hold, and because they see not the contradiction and inconsistence.

You come near to this truth; Indeed there are Principles better than either of your controverted Opinions, common to both sides, which may afford us great Consolation, and which sound Christians live upon. And I doubt your Disputes on both sides do more disturb than comfort most. But this must be granted, that Opinions are not true, because they are comfortable, nor all false that have anything in them apt to trouble men, who have the sinful matter of trouble in themselves: no more than Physic is naught that maketh men sick. We must take our Comforts on God's terms. The truth is, your Doctrine seemeth more comfortable in the respects which you have named, as to the assurance of present Justification, and theirs more comfortable in another respect; viz. as to the continuance of it when they have it. But if this Doctrine were to be chosen by the comfortableness, yea and usefulness of it, there is a middle way (of some Schoolmen) which would be preferred before both. That is, that neither any of the Elect, nor any that have attained to confirmation • r a fixed degree of Grace, do ever fall away: But that there are some not-Elect, who are sincere and justified, but weak and mutable (as Adam in Innocency) and not confirmed, who fall away and perish: And this Vossius thinketh was Augustine 's Opinion. And Grotius in his excellent Epistle against Molin: lately translated into English by Mr. Barksdale, affirmeth it to be the common judgment of the Fathers: which will be no small advantage to it with me. And 1. This avoideth the uncomfortable Doctrine which you charge on them; For this holdeth that a weak Christian may have the comfort of present Justification, that is not certain to persevere, nor that he is any better than some that fall away. 2. And it avoideth the uncomfortableness which they charge on you, viz. that no man can be assured of his Perseverance and Salvation: For these hold that all the cons • med may be assured of it; And that all weak Christians may possibly attain to confirmation. 3. And it only leaveth weak unconfirmed Christian • uncertain of Salvation, which both sides are agreed in. For they confess that weak Christians are seldom if ever sure of their present sincerity and Justification: And you hold that they are uncertain to persevere: And so both of you hold them to be uncertain of Salvation. But proceed.

They do reproach the Holiness of God's people, and his • mage, and encourage most horrid wickedness, while they make all the s •• that ever was committed by any man after his Regeneration, to be consistent with Holiness and Justification: not only Noah 's Drunkenness, Lot 's being Drunk and Incestuous two nights together, David's h • rrid Murder and Adultery, Peter 's denying and forswearing his Lord; but (for instance) Solomon they say was a Saint, and justified, when he gave up himself to all manner of pleasure, and denied himself nothing, (and Paul saith, The carnal mind is enmity to God, and if ye live after the flesh ye shall die,) when he clave in love to many Idolatrous women; having seven hundred Wives, and three hundred Co • cubins, and his Wives turned away his Heart after other gods, and his Heart was not perfect with the Lord—but he went after Ashtoreth, the Goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom, the abomination of the Amorites, and built an High Place for Chemoth, the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of Ammon; and likewise did he for all his strange Wives, which burnt Incense and sacrificed to their gods: his Heart was turned from the Lord that appeared to him twice, 1 King. 11. 1, to 12. All this say the Calvinists you may do, and yet be Saints, and justified and saved. All this may stand with God's Image, and true Holiness.

As to all the rest, except Solomon, the sin being one or two particular Acts contrary to the main bent and scope of their lives (which were holy) you seem, 1. To deny an evident truth, viz. that the habitual love of God was not extirpated by those Sins: Can you think that habitually (though the act was hindered) Noah, Lot, David, Peter, did not then love God and Holiness better than sinful Pleasures? And the Papists confess, that Sin is not mortal (that is, an evidence of spiritual death) till it conquer the habit of the love of God.

2. You seem to take your offense at the Mercy of God himself, because he will not disown men for such a particular sin, contrary to their general will and life. As if you provoked him to deal hardlier also with yourself, lest he deal too easily or mercifully with others.

3. But they are in these resolved that no man hath true Grace, that loveth not God and Holiness above the World and sinful Pleasure: And they and you are agreed in this: And in the hypothesis, if you can make them believe that any of these lost that predominant habitual love, they would grant that they fell from saving Grace. So that thus far you agree.

4. And as for Solomon 's case, it is too hard for us all: Some think that he had but common Grace, till that Repentance which he published in Eccles. And that so much might produce his Proverbs, which say they were but spoken by him, and written long after by others (as some by Hezekiah 's men). Others think that he did but tolerate his Wives Idolatry, and that he aggravated his own sensuality in hyperbolical words, and so that his sin did stand with true Grace: Others think that he fell into a state of damnation (in which had he died he had been damned) but yet neither totally (from all feminal Grace) nor finally; and that others may do the like. In a word, the case is too hard for us: But our comfort lieth not in being sure what condition Solomon was in, either first or last.

And also, as Means and Grace are greater under the Gospel than they were to Solomon, and Life and Immortality more brought to light, so more spirituality and heavenliness is now required of us than was then of them. As long as Christ hath fullier described to us the title-conditions of Salvation, we have better means to judge of our states, than the deciding of these Difficulties about Solomon would be.

This is true, but nothing to the purpose: we prove by Solomon that a man may fall from Grace.

How will you prove it against them that think Solomon had but common Grace, till he wrote Ecclesiastes, or repented of his Fall?

He was a pen-man of the Scripture (the Proverbs) before; And he was beloved of God, and excelled all others in Wisdom.

1. Whether he wrote, or only spake the Proverbs, you prove not? 2. You cannot prove that writing part of the Scripture, is a more certain sign of a Saint, than speaking part of it. And Balaam spake part of it (what Job 's Friends were, I know not.) And if many Workers of Iniquity did by the Spirit prophesy and cast out Devils, in Christ's Name, how prove you that they may not write part of the Scriptures? (To pass by that, Pilate, Festus, Cla • dius, Lysta • , and other such, wrote part of it.) And an ungodly Preacher may now speak and write excellent things. 3. His Wisdom which he begged, and is magnified for, is described objectively to be political, physical and ethical; but how far spiritual the Text doth not speak. 4. God might be said to love him, as Christ did that man that was not far from the Kingdom of God: Complacencially, according to the good that was in him; And benevolently, as he purposed his future Sanctification and Salvation.

I write not this as my own Opinion, but to tell you that you cannot prove so much as you think you can.

They show exceeding much immodesty, 1. In holding an Opinion which is contrary to the Doctrine of the universal Church, from the Apostles till of late times: neither Orthodox nor Heretic, being ever known to hold it, unless perhaps Jovinian alone, till above a thousand years after Christ. No not Augustine and his Disciples, who were thought by many to run towards an extreme in over-pleading for Grace; so that they were called by some Predestinarian Heretics. 2. And yet they have the face (instead of being ashamed of their own singularity) to revile others as heterodox, if not heretical, who will not be as singular as they, and set as light by the judgment of Christ's Church.

I am not one of them that will cite any scraps of the Fathers, contrary to their current expressions, to contradict you: Vossius hath copiously related their judgments in his Pelagian History, and that as favourably for perseverance as there was cause; And Dr. Twisse, who frequently speaketh his distaste of him, saith nothing to prove his History false. Which in this, he that readeth the Fathers must confess to be true. But this should somewhat moderate you in your censure, 1. That the Writers of the first three hundred years are few, and their Writings (except Tertullian's, Origin and Cyprian) very short; (even Clements, Alexand. and Justins not long). And few of them very learned and accurate Writers; who are the common Managers of Controversies: nor was this Controversy started in their times, and therefore not accurately searched into. 2. And if you say that this is the more for your cause, if it were not so much as made a Controversy; I add that the Platonic Philosophy which then most prevailed, might do somewhat to dispose them that way: For as Grotius de fato hath copiously proved (out of above thirty Philosophers and philosophical Christians) most of all the Philosophers, especially Platonists were for Free-will, and most learned Christian Doctors came out of Plato 's School, (and most of the learned Heretics too). 3. And yet Laertius in Zenone tells us, That the Stoics were against falling away, and taught that no truly virtuous man did ever cease to be such.

2. But above all, I would have you consider, 1. That this Point was not held by these consenting Doctors for an Article of Faith, and necessary to Church-Concord and Salvation; but as one of those many Opinions which were left free. 2. And that many or most of these Fathers did agree in some Opinions that are not true. 3. Yea that the greater part of them are by the Papists themselves charged with several Errors, and some and not a few with Heresies. 4. And that therefore the holy Scriptures being the only and sufficient Rule of Faith, we need not be so much ashamed as you intimate, in some things to differ from the generality of those Fathers, if the Scripture be more for us than them. There is many a Text of Scripture which Papists themselves interpret contrary to most of the Fathers, notwithstanding their Trent Oath to the contrary. Therefore your heavy Accusation of immodest singularity is too keen. But as for their Cross-Accusation of you as heterodox, I now meddle not with the truth, nor excuse any uncharitableness therein.

They contradict abundance of express Scripture, which asserteth that the godly may fall finally from true Grace.

And they think that you rather contradict abundance of Texts that speak expressly for the contrary: It is none of my work now to defend either them or you: I have long ago written a peculiar Tractate of my own Opinion herein: Who is in the right I am not now determining: But that you over-magnify the difference on both sides usually, I shall show you in the end. No doubt but the Scripture is of itself sufficient to decide all Controversies, as a Rule of sound Doctrine, so far as God would have them clearly decided. But yet he that denieth that some things in Scripture are hard to be understood, will contradict not only Peter 's words, but his own and all men's experience. For as it pleased God to make up the World of variety of Creatures, so also to make up the Scripture of Truths of various degrees of necessity and evidence. And in this Point there are so many Texts, that both Sides think do favor their Opinions, that we have not the same certainty as in many other Points, and therefore not the same consent and concord among the learnedest Divines, and the godliest Christians: And in my Observations most on each side are more moved to their Opinion in this, from the congruity that they think it hath with other Verities or the Analogy of Faith, than from the proper plain sense of the Texts which they themselves allege. So that though no doubt the Truth is to be found in the Scriptures, yet not with such ease and certainty as will allow us to make the decision of this Point, any part of the terms of our necessary Concord.

Their Crime is that they overthrow the comfort of Believers, by denying them any certainty of Salvation.

To be absolutely certain of Salvation, no doubt would be a very great comfort. But let us inquire, I. What number will be by this Doctrine hindered from this certainty. II. In what degree this tendeth to their discomfort.

1. And by the first enquiry, I doubt we shall find that you also hold Doctrines that hinder most men from concluding themselves certain of Salvation: and yet perhaps be very true.

These Questions therefore, I crave your answer to.

Q. 1. Do not you grant that we must take no comfort but what God giveth us, and on his terms; and that the false comforts of presumption are worse than none, or not desirable? And that all Doctrine is not true that were it true were comfortable?

Yes, none will deny it you.

Q. 2. Do you not find by experience (being a Pastor who hath discoursed with your Flock man by man about their state) that of those that you account truly Godly persons, there is not one of fifty, yea of an hundred, yea of many hundreds, that will say that they are certain of their Salvation; properly and fully certain.

I suppose your question implieth your own observation, which I contradict not.

Q. 3. And as for the multitude of more careless and loose Christians, do not you think that (whatever they say) their certainty is less than these Godly persons?

Yes, no doubt: for their evidence is less or none.

Q. 4. Do you not think that it must needs be so (that certainty of Salvation must be exceeding rare) considering that all these things must go to it?

1. There must be a certainty that God's promises are true: whereas the faith of most is weak.

2. There must be a certain understanding both of the meaning of the promise, and what are the true Conditions of it, and the difference between true saving Grace, and all that is but counterfeit or common. Whereas most are uncertain and dark herein, if not mistaken.

3. There must be these Evidences in the person himself; not only in reality, but in ascertaining-discernableness: which cannot be unless it be 1. Much and strong: for that which is small, is so like to the common and counterfeit, that it is seldom certainly discerned. 2. It must be in Activity: For Grace out of Act is not discernible. 3. It must be powerfully operative without, and in the life, to conquer temptation, and keep us in clear and sure obedience, in a Holy fruitful life: or else it will not be certainly discerned from dead opinion. 4. It must not be clouded and blotted by great and powerful habits of sin within, or acts of sin without. For these will many ways hinder assurance: And how few have all these Necessaries to make up an ascertaining evidence.

4. And it must be one that knoweth how by self examination to discern all this, to be certainly in themselves: That frequently and skillfully thinketh on the matter.

5. And it must be one that is not under the power either of Melancholy, or other distracting passions, or Temptations.

6. And one that knoweth the true difference between a Mortal sin (inconsistent with Justification) and a mere infirmity.

7. And one that knoweth the true nature of that Repentance which is necessary after sinning. And alas! how few be they that have all these qualifications.

The Spirit of God can give them certainty without all this ado.

What he can do is little to our case, but what he will do. If you once take that course, to teach men to look for assurance of their Salvation or Sanctification, without certain finding that Sanctification in themselves, you will make sad work in the Church of God. For nothing is more certain, than that without Regeneration, Conversion and Holiness, none shall see God. And that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, which must be known by his fruits, he is none of his, Joh. 3. 3. 5. Math. 18. 3. Heb. 12. 14. Rom. 8. 9, 13. Gal. 5. 21. And that it is he that repenteth and believeth that shall be saved. And to be sure that a man is sanctified, and not to be sure that he hath the Graces of Sanctification, is a contradiction; to be sure and not sure of the same thing. And to say you are sure of Heaven without Holiness, is to say that you are sure that God's Word is false.

But the witness of the Spirit certifieth us of all.

True: And what is that? As your Reason witnesseth or evidenceth that you are a man, and your Life witnesseth that you are an Animal, so the Spirit witnesseth that you are one of Christ's; that is, the sanctifying, illuminating, quickening work of the Spirit: For the Having of the Spirit is your witness: And to have the Spirit is to have Holiness, which is his work; which also the Spirit, to complete his witness, helpeth us both to Act, increase, discern, and take comfort in.

Q. 5. And I next then ask you, whether he that will have certainty of Salvation, must not also have (beyond a strong opinion) a certainty that this Doctrine of certain perseverance is true?

Yes: No doubt of it.

And are the generality of Professors certain of it, when not only the Greeks and Romans, but also all the Lutherans and Arminians, and most Anabaptists utterly deny it? I grant that men may be confident in the opinion which they are educated or fallen into. But are the unlearned certain, when most of the Learned are confident of the contrary? Following our Leaders eagerly is not certainty.

It's granted you.

Q. 6. I ask then, seeing so exceeding few of your own side are truly certain of their Salvation, who never receive the Arminians opinion, whether that be it that hindereth their certainty?

II. And now let us try in what Measure their Doctrine hindereth comfort?

Q. 1. Do you not think that many of those of your own side have much comfort though they attain not to assurance.

Yes: Experience tells it us.

Q. 2. Do you not think that some, yea many of the old Christians for a thousand years after Christ, had comfort, who yet were not of your opinion of Perseverance? All the Martyrs and great Sufferers for Christ, and the excellent Pastors, were not comfortless.

That cannot be denied.

Q. 3. Do you think that none of the Nations of Greeks, Armineans, Lutherans, nor any of the Anabaptists of their mind, do live in the comfortable hopes of Heaven?

Yes, No doubt but many do.

Why then you see that comfort may be had without certainty of Salvation. But I proceed to the Nature of the Case itself.

Q. 4. Would not your life be uncomfortable if you fore-knew that you should commit Murder, Adultery, Incest, deny Christ, &c. kill your own Father, Mother, Wife or Child; and lie as long as David did in your Sin; (much more to sin as Solomon did)?

Yes; I must needs be less comfortable in such a prospect.

Q. 5. Would it not much grieve you if you knew that you should fall from the Degree of Grace received, to the very least that is consistent with sincerity.

It must needs be my grief; but yet such as would consist with greater comfort, because it consisteth with Salvation.

Q. 6. Are you certain that these two last Cases to commit such heinous sins, and to fall so far from Grace, may not be your Case?

No: I cannot be sure of it; because it may stand with Grace.

Q. 7. Tell me then, what is it that now keepeth you from those sorrows which would befall you, if such a thing should be?

The great hope that I have that it will never be.

What are the Reasons of those your hopes?

1. Because I know that God is Good and merciful in himself. 2. And he dealeth with man upon terms of Grace. 3. And he hath given me experience of his mercy to myself. 4. And I have his general promises that He will not fail me nor forsake me: which though they assure me not that I shall not so fall, yet they assure me that • e will not so far forsake me, without some heinous neglect of his Grace. 5. And I feel in myself a present detestation of such heinous sins, and a fixed Judgment and Resolution against them: And though I have not power of myself to avoid mutation, and backsliding, yet I have reason to trust him for the keeping of this Grace, who freely gave it me. And the truth is, though man be mutable, he is not apt to fear the change of his own mind, when he is conscious that it is resolved on sound and unquestionable reason. 6. And it is not nothing, that I have been kept from all such sin till now. 7. And that it is a rare thing for any faithful person, so to fall: And why should I fear that which not one of a multitude ever falleth into.

And why may not all these reasons comfort others, that are uncertain of their Perseverance in a state of Grace (Allowing but the difference of the degrees of the dangers.)

Q. 8. Do you think that your Wife or Children are certain that you will not Murder them.

No: they cannot be certain.

Q. 9. Would it not make their lives sorrowful if they knew that you would do it?

Yes, no doubt.

Q. 10. What keepeth them from ever tasting of such sorrows at all?

Such reasons as I before named to you. They know that I am a Husband and father, and have natural affections, not mad, nor wicked, but abhor such a thing, and they know that my love daily causeth me to do them all the good I can; and they see nothing to make them fear the contrary; and such a Villany is not heard of in many Kingdoms in an Age.

But they are as uncertain that they shall not by some heinous crime (even the seeking of your death) provoke you.

Men fear not that which their Judgments and Wills are so averse to and resolved against, as that there is no probability of a Change.

You see then upon what terms the ancient Fathers, (even Augustine himself that denied certainly of Salvation) and the Martyrs and other Christians of their times, and the most of the Christians now in the world, do hold their comforts: And that uncertainty of Perseverance overthroweth not all solid peace.

Q. 11. But doth not the exclusion of Certainty of present sincerity and Justification, much more exclude Comfort, than doth the exclusion of Perseverance alone.

Yes, no doubt: For to be sure that I am at present in a state of life, and to have very strong probabilities that I shall so live and die, must be much more comfortable than to be uncertain whether I now am or ever was in a state of life.

If therefore not one of many score or hundreds have a certain knowledge of their sincerity and Justification, who are of your own opinions, are you fit to cry out of others as the destroyers of Christian comfort, on the foresaid account?

They destroy it by their Doctrine, and so do not we: It is with us, but men's own sin and infirmity that hindereth it.

Q. 12. What say you to your Doctrines before objected against you? 1. That no man can be certain of Salvation, who is not certain that if he had the strongest Temptations in the world, he should not be overcome by them to fall away. Do not these put the comforts of the weak as hard to it, as their Doctrine doth?

These are True Doctrines, but Theirs are false.

That is the controversy, which I am not determining: I only answer your aggravation of uncomfortableness of their Doctrine.

Their Doctrine maketh God to be Mutable, and his gifts and calling to be liable to repentance; and that one day he loveth a man, and the next day hateth him, one day Justifieth and another condemneth him.

This charge is injurious, upon gross mistake; and on the like grounds may be laid against yourselves. For,

1. Do you not hold that God hateth all the workers of iniquity?

Yes: as such.

Q. 2. And that he that believeth not is condemned already, and that all Infidels and Heathens are unjustified?

Yes; though God may decree to justify them hereafter.

Q. 3. But doth not God after Love and Justify such as are converted?

Yes; none doth deny it.

Q. 4. If then this prove not God to be mutable, to Justify and Love such as he condemned and hated, why should it prove him mutable to condemn and hate such as he Justified and Loved? I do not say that he doth so; but if he did, or do, it will not prove any change in God. For as he that is One causeth all Diversity and Multiplicity of Beings; so he that is Immutable, causeth innumerable Mutations: The change is in the Creature, and not in God.

Is it not a change to Hate where he Loved? These are immanent acts.

No more than to Love where he Hated; In Man such words signify a change, but not in God: For it is not God's Immanent acts as Immanent that are changed, viz. His Activity, understanding or Will in itself: But only that Immanent Act as Objectively Transient